Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > It's official! Criticism of 1st black president = racism

It's official! Criticism of 1st black president = racism (Page 3)
Thread Tools
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2009, 09:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Perhaps you didn't know about it. But I told you. And you tried to dismiss it and focus on me saying he was a Southern white conservative as if that was the only reason I found him to be "suspect".
No... I clearly said "among other things" acknowledging that you had mentioned other things while remaining consistent with having told you already that I'm not familiar with the story. You started off your rap-sheet of racism with white, male, conservative... of course, you know exactly what you're doing OAW. You can BS yourself, I'm not buyin'.

Brush up about Essie Mae Washington-Williams. You'll see she is the good Sen. Thurmond's eldest child. Conceived when he was 22 years old with a 16 year old black household servant. And yes, Rep. Wilson did say that "it's a smear" on Sen. Thurmond's image and an attempt to "diminish" his legacy when she publicly revealed that Sen. Thurmond was her father. So in the good Rep. Wilson's mind .... Sen. Thurmond at a minimum committing statutory rape and impregnating a 16 year old girl wasn't a "smear" on his image. He only considered it a "smear" when the public officially found out that Sen. Thurmond had a black daughter out of wedlock. Especially given his segregationist and anti-civil rights history. So yeah ... your boy Rep. Wilson attacked Ms. Washington, by then an elderly lady of 78, for telling the truth about Sen. Thurmond. Just a little uh ... "background" on the man who got out of pocket with President Obama.
Wilson's point of contention in defending Thurmond was that the affair was out of wedlock. Now, I'm not going to pretend the fact that the girl was born of a black woman would've been accepted with open arms at the time, but egadz man none of it would've been. He knocked up a 16 YR OLD OUT OF WEDLOCK for crying out loud. Forget her lineage man, out of wedlock sex with a minor would be enough to likely lose anyone their career today. I don't know Wilson, I don't know him to be racist. I can tell you that the President disagreed that race "played a role" and per your article Maryland representative Donna Edwards, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus didn't either. You claim you don't either, but you seem to be trying to convince yourself that you're wrong. Apparently, the charge of racism isn't easily substantiated. If you could measure it, you likely wouldn't have this much disagreement.

Who said anything about an "attempt"? But clearly some nut-job holding a sign saying that says President Obama is giving "our tax dollars to Hamas" and that the Constitution says that the penalty for treason is death is an expression that the President should be killed. No he wasn't "attempting" to do it, but he was damned sure "calling" for it to be done. It contributes to a very dangerous and explosive atmosphere. And again, it's a sentiment that appears to be very much tolerated at Tea Party events.
Racism is not tolerated at Tea Party events, it has occurred at Tea Party events. You don't know if someone approached them. You don't know if someone alienated them or separated from them, or moved elsewhere away from them. You don't know if someone told their friend about "those racists over there". You don't know any of this. I think racists are being opportunist however because the Tea Party events are garnering attention. They are also as peaceful if not more peaceful than the wealth of protests against Presidents prior. This sign came up in a discussion earlier and I don't like them. I don't like the mashed-up baby signs used at pro-life rallies either. I think they're tacky and in the example you present above, destructive. I don't know how long they felt comfortable sitting there holding that sign. What I can tell you is that we are pledging to funnel over $900 million dollars to Hamas-run Gaza aide and the Constitution does say what it says. Do you suppose the person holding the sign is also trying to indicate how far from that original document we've come? Do you suppose that Bush was accused of war crimes against humanity, also punishable up to death? This is nothing new and there's certainly nothing blatantly racist in there.

I'm going to have to ask you to lay off the drugs now.
Hit on some of this...




I wonder what role racism played in the opposition to the Bush Administration.

Take a moment and think about how illogical this statement is. If it's "Health care reform? Hell YES!" ... then President Carter had all summer to make that kind of charge. But he didn't. He made his charge after Rep. Wilson made his little outburst. After watching blatantly racist signs and rhetoric coming from the Tea Party crowd all summer.
The health care reform proposal had majority public support throughout much of the summer because it was viewed as insurance reform. Polls showed people very angry with insurers and this Administration mistook that to mean happy with government. Particularly when these Tea Parties began. Obama lost control of the message and then started simply talking too danged much. The Tea Parties began garnering a lot more attention and for a wealth of various reasons, public sentiment has now turned significantly against current reform proposals. I think the left is getting desperate quite frankly. 99.9% of the folks showing up at these events are peaceful, productive people who happen to disagree with the current activities coming out of Washington. The "racist" element is not a story, the fact that over a million of them collected peacefully on the Mall of course is, but that got no coverage at all.

The racists merely put their Condi signs away and replaced them with Obama. Seems the only thing consistent about racists is their racism.

Furthermore, if President Carter is "a white, southern racist who is projecting his fear of blacks" then please cite some evidence to support that claim. I mean after all ... you are the one who keeps saying that such unsubstantiated claims are "destructive".
I did so because he fits the first three aspects of "OAW's potentially racist profile". I merely asked if he was projecting. I then became sarcastic.

No, but it was the predominant issue. Make not mistake about it.
I certainly don't, but this was in context of a great many issues where the South was opposed to Federal intrusion. This had been their point of contention on a wealth of issues, slavery among them. Ultimately OAW, I think the entire issue doesn't even rate on the scale of important shxx going on right now.

Again you make that statement when I've already said that I didn't think the "Obama as Hitler" signs were "racist". You really don't listen do you?
I'm trying to I really am, but it's getting increasingly difficult.

Again. I'd suggest you brush up on the history of racist media depictions before you are so quick to dismiss this image. You will see that it is quite prevalent.

Yes. In fact they do. Europeans have been making racist images of Africans and people of African descent since the colonial era. Read a book sometime and you might learn something.
Like I said, we can go all the way back to the birth of the slave trade if you want. I'm not interested in where we've been as anything more than a fascinating read. I'm interested in where we're going. If we're going back and forth on unsubstantiated accusations of racism, we're going nowhere since the 60s. I don't know that the sign is racist in trying to depict a jungle bunny savage coming to a clinic near you. I don't like it. I've expressed I don't like it. I don't know that I'm the only one who says I don't like it. I don't know who created the poster (for all I know it was some disgruntled Hillary supporter), but the sign does seem to suggest more than simply a jungle bunny savage. Otherwise, why have any words on it at all? It seems to be suggesting that some form of voodoo economics is at play in paying for the damned proposal. I don't see things through the racist prism however, I could be mistaken.

You defend a poster of Obama as a witch doctor, but I'm the one "letting the stereotypes fly"? Wooooooooooooowwwwww!!!!!
Well... you did. Do you get a pass on being potentially racist because white racism exists too? I'm not defending the poster. I've told you a billion times I don't like it, but if the only intention were to slander a black President by equating him with a jungle bunny savage, no words were necessary on the poster at all.

Anyone with at least 2 cents worth of intelligence can see that what I said was to point out the absolute absurdity of your "the witch doctor poster is suggesting that Obama's healthcare plan is like magic" defense. But go ahead. Keep on defending the indefensible.
I'm not trying to defend it. I'm trying to suggest that there are other potential meanings behind the sign. I've told you on several occasions now that I don't appreciate the image. I think it detracts from honest, well-founded dissent on the lack of merits to current health care reform proposals.

You know what? Here's a thought. Since you think that the witch doctor poster was just "questionable" ... and not because of the poster itself but because of how the "hypersensitive" among us might take it .... then please give an example of something that could be said or displayed in reference to Obama that you actually would consider to be "racist". You see that's the funny thing about conservatives. They are quick to dismiss or minimize behavior that many other people consider to be racist. It's like they set the bar so high that it can never be reached. So what would it take? Short of a poster that says "Obama is a n*gger!!!" that is. Or would that even do it for you? And do trust and believe many of your conservative compatriots would try to argue that that wouldn't be "racist" either. But would be quick to level the charge at those who said that it was.
I think depictions of Obama as a witch doctor are unnecessary. I don't know who created it and I don't know who is carrying it to know if they are racists or not. I don't know them. I don't like the images because I think it sends the wrong message. I think any posters of Obama as an ape, black-face, monkey, nooses, burning crosses, food stamps with water melons and fried chicken... African-tribal, jungle bunnies, etc... are all reprehensible images and many if not most with blatantly racist undertones. I don't like them. They are not illegal, but I don't like them. They do not play a role however in debating a health care measure (and the wealth of fruitless spending already thrust on us from this Administration) that worsens with every passing day.

It could only EASILY be taken that way by the willfully obtuse and the woefully uneducated. Take your pick.
I am neither and this is the second time you've tried to imply that I'm uneducated. I wish you wouldn't as it really doesn't become you or your arguments.

And for the record ....
By your own word's, you did NOT take issue with the Obama's Plan is WHITE SLAVERY poster.
Accusing someone of racism is not always in and of itself racist, (though if it relies on the race of the perpetrator I think it is) doing so in a way that is unsubstantiated is destructive. Always. That sign is destructive, but I don't know that it's racist.

So something tells me you won't have a problem with these either ...
The "monkey" one? Hate it. The lion one... mmm... not sure. Don't like it, but not sure. It should be noted however that I think Obama is lying. Whether or not he's African is of no consequence or concern to me and it shouldn't be to them either. Prior to supporting Obama, was Colin Powell an Uncle Tom? How about after? Is he magically a strong black man now? Was he a house slave then, but now he's enlightened? Was Condi "brown sugar"? Did these bother you? Were you as vocal then or were you turning the other cheek because they were on the "good guys" side?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2009, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW
Might I suggest a brief vocabulary lesson?
No. Frankly, you suck at vocabulary lessons.

role: the function assumed or part played by a person or thing in a particular situation. Now where does that denote "commissioned in some official capacity"? Hmmm?
See "function" from your definition above.

function: the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.

I appreciate your attempt at patronizing me, but... it's not working. Racism is not a function of Tea Parties, it is not a part of Tea Parties any more than it is a part of the left in this country. I understand why you have to slander those who oppose this President as you've made your allegiance well known. I just don't think you have much of a leg to stand on. Wait until Obama gets in the way of a Democratic shill my friend.

So when someone says that "racism is playing a role in some of the opposition to Obama", that is no different than saying "racism is playing a part in some of the opposition to Obama". That is, it is a part of the equation. Not the entire equation, but clearly it is a part for some people.
What part? What function have they been playing? They've been playing racists. Racists have been playing this role for centuries. They've played a role in all kinds of public events. They appeared at my daughter's graduation to hold their signs (Damned Westboro baptists, hate those bastards), but this doesn't mean they played a "role" or "function" in that ceremony.

The "ideology" is the mindset that takes issue with an African-American being the President. And do trust and believe that there are plenty of people out there who subscribe to it. Clearly not the majority otherwise Obama wouldn't have been elected. But they exist nevertheless. But go ahead and pretend that the only "organized element of this ideology" are Klan members.
That's the only formal organization of racism that I know of in this day and age. I just can't go about accusing this one of racism and that one of racism without knowing. This cheapens the true calls of racism. I think it's destructive. You're welcome to do it of course, but I disagree with this method of arguing policy. The Tea Parties are displaying opposition to policy.


Glenn Beck? Glenn Beck? This is the same individual who called President Obama a racist on national TV! And did you have anything to say about that? Did you say that it was "destructive" as you did of President Carter's comments? Or did you give him a pass? Did Mr. Beck provide any sort of substantiation to this charge whatsoever? Or was that simply beside the point since this was on Fox News after all?
  • Maybe it's because he took 11 days to comment on riots in Iran, but was able to claim that Crowley acted stupidly within 24 hours? Just assume the white cop was unjustified? Nobody knew anything that damned fast.
  • Maybe it's because he sat in the pews of a Church that spewed racist sentiment against whites for 20 years?
  • Maybe it's because he's made reference to "typical white people"?
  • The wealth of racists he's surrounded himself by both inside and outside his cabinet?
  • small town people "clinging to guns and religion"? This refers to a highly diverse group of Americans I'm sure.
  • "White folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That's the world! On which hope sits!"
  • "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."
  • "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."
  • "There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white."
  • "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

I didn't find any of the above on Fox News. In fact, the latter half were pulled from his own words in Dreams from My Father.

You've said this before. And I already told you that I didn't know what you were referring to. But instead of providing a little thing we call an example, you just repeat yourself. Whatever.
I'm sorry, maybe you could point to where you asked for an example??? Anyway, they've been given in the post before this one.

Booing and cheering has occurred from both sides of the aisle for decades. This is nothing new. Yelling "You lie!" at the President during a speech to Congress is unprecedented. Verbally interrupting a speech by the President during a speech to Congress is unprecedented. But go ahead. Act like you don't know.
Oh I know, but acts of incivility in the chamber are not unprecedented. He should be calling Obama a liar outside the chamber like the civil Democrats do.

Kind of like Bush's 700 billion bailout of the financial sector and the bailout of the auto industry? Oh yeah I forgot. The thing to do now is pretend that Obama put that ball in motion! That's certainly the way the Tea Baggers play it.
So... Obama is a student of Bush?!? ... and this whole time I thought it was Saul Alinsky.

Who's pretending? I don't recall very many people in favor of those moves at all? Hell, I was complaining about stimulus checks in our mailboxes and that was small time compared to what has happened since. Do you now support all this stimuli and bailouts?

Change you can invest another four years in.

So again, surely you concede that Glenn Beck was "destructive" when he said Obama had a "deep seated hatred for white people or white culture."?
Hmm. Maybe not as destructive. I'm afraid Obama's got more than a few more things going against him than Wilson.

Surely you concede he was "destructive" when he said "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."?
He seems to have a measure of contempt for white people OAW. I'm just sayin'. I mean I'm going by his own words here. It's certainly no battle of mine though as I don't think overtly racist policy would ever go anywhere. It's just rhetoric to gain favor with one group or another, but ya gotta take him at his word. Don't bother explaining the President's context in any of this OAW because I've not only seen them all; none of them come close to acknowledging how similar remarks from the right (and white) would be regarded. I didn't catch what Glenn Beck said, but I can tell you from the rants I've caught- he'll generally barrage his viewers with video of them saying and/or doing the contentious deeds. People hate it of course, but that's pretty predictable. His gaining in popularity is not due exclusively to skilled preying on the feeble-minded as of course only a blatant elitist would stoop this low, it is about the fact that Glenn Beck makes a compelling case.

Surely you concede that Rush Limbaugh was "destructive" when he said "You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering."?
I'm guessing you listen to his show; was this in reference to a news article or something or did he just blurt it out?

Since neither of them even bothered to attempt to substantiate their claims.
So... Glenn Beck didn't give any examples of Obama's racism?

Or does their blatant race-baiting get a pass because they are on the conservative side of the fence?
I don't know yet, but I'm willing to listen to a good argument. The charge of racism is productive because it's often effective. Whites are whiners and crazy and racist for pointing out racism, but whites just have to kind of sit back and take it because some old guy he's not related to with a similar shade of skin treated blacks like property and subhumans a long a$$ time ago. Of course; being of Irish descent, I'm very doubtful any of my family "played a role". We weren't exactly high-rollers around here back in the day.

At the end of the day; I think the whole "racist" thing is tired, old hat, ancient, antiquated and antagonist.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Sep 25, 2009 at 10:22 PM. )
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2009, 06:27 PM
 
ebuddy,

I'll tackle your statements of note ....


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What I can tell you is that we are pledging to funnel over $900 million dollars to Hamas-run Gaza aide and the Constitution does say what it says.
From the article YOU cited ...

The United States plans to pledge more than $900 million to help rebuild Gaza after Israel's offensive against Hamas and strengthen the Palestinian Authority, a U.S. official said on Monday.

The money will be channeled through UN and other bodies and will not be distributed via the militant group Hamas, which rules Gaza, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to make the announcement next week at a Gaza donors conference in Egypt.
So the guy holding the poster saying that Obama was giving tax dollars to Hamas doesn't have his facts straight. But go ahead and continue to try to act like the guy has a point.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The health care reform proposal had majority public support throughout much of the summer because it was viewed as insurance reform. Polls showed people very angry with insurers and this Administration mistook that to mean happy with government. Particularly when these Tea Parties began. Obama lost control of the message and then started simply talking too danged much.
Ok. Let's roll with that for a second ....

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The Tea Parties began garnering a lot more attention and for a wealth of various reasons, public sentiment has now turned significantly against current reform proposals.
Perhaps because of downright lies about "death panels" coming from Sarah Palin et al? Perhaps because Congress was out of session and there was no news about Healthcare Reform coming out of Washington, so the media was focused on a bunch of right-wing nut jobs spouting all kinds of bogus crap all summer? Maybe because the RNC started to target seniors with ads and flyers claiming that Obama was looking to "cut their Medicare"? Maybe because the "public option" was incessantly referred to as a "government takeover of healthcare" .... a bogus charge that started to stick in the minds of the uninformed because it was stated over and over again? The list goes on and on. But you are right. The Obama Administration did lose control of the message. They left it up to Congress to craft out the details (and I can understand why) but they didn't anticipate the level of opposition from private insurers looking to protect their hefty profit margins who would bankroll Republicans and Conservative Democrats to misrepresent Healthcare Reform at all costs. I'll give you that.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think the left is getting desperate quite frankly. 99.9% of the folks showing up at these events are peaceful, productive people who happen to disagree with the current activities coming out of Washington. The "racist" element is not a story, the fact that over a million of them collected peacefully on the Mall of course is, but that got no coverage at all.
Perhaps. But it's also filled with the "Say NO to government run healthcare. But you better not touch my Medicare!!!" crowd. It's also filled with the "We are taxed too much!!! :::: but somehow it doesn't dawn upon us that the Obama Administration put in place the largest middle class tax cut in US History ::::" crowd. Bush pushes a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited the very wealthy. Bush bails out the banks to the tune of 700 billion dollars. NO TEA PARTIES. Obama pushes a 787 billion dollar stimulus program 1/3 of which was middle class tax relief ... and now all of a sudden the sky is falling. Never mind that the actions taken by the government has stopped the bleeding and stabilized the economy. Oh no .. that'll never do. A Republican can give tax cuts to the wealthy, start an unnecessary war that costs hundreds of billions and that's cool. A Democrat gives a tax cut to the middle class, extends unemployment benefits for people being laid off in droves due to the recession caused in large part by the previous Administration's policies, and does what is necessary to keep the entire economy from falling into the abyss ... and now all of a sudden these same people want to be deficit hawks.

My attitude toward that crowd is simple. If you didn't have sh*t to say about deficits under the Bush Administration then STFU about it now. Plain and simple.

And as for a "million" of them gathering on the Mall? All the major news outlets (except for the "sponsor" Fox News of course) say you are being dramatically "optimistic" about that figure.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I am neither and this is the second time you've tried to imply that I'm uneducated. I wish you wouldn't as it really doesn't become you or your arguments.
Actually I'm not. Which is why I said "willfully obtuse OR woefully uneducated". Personally, I think you fall into the former category about this topic.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Prior to supporting Obama, was Colin Powell an Uncle Tom? How about after? Is he magically a strong black man now? Was he a house slave then, but now he's enlightened?
No. And you've never seen me refer to him as such. I had great respect for Colin Powell prior to his endorsement of Obama. The same goes for Condi Rice. Now Clarence Thomas? Alan Keyes? Not so much.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I appreciate your attempt at patronizing me, but... it's not working. Racism is not a function of Tea Parties, it is not a part of Tea Parties any more than it is a part of the left in this country. I understand why you have to slander those who oppose this President as you've made your allegiance well known. I just don't think you have much of a leg to stand on. Wait until Obama gets in the way of a Democratic shill my friend.
You know as wise man once said ....

If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs the only one that hollers is the one that got hit.

Keep that in mind as I address your next few statements.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What part? What function have they been playing? They've been playing racists. Racists have been playing this role for centuries. They've played a role in all kinds of public events. They appeared at my daughter's graduation to hold their signs (Damned Westboro baptists, hate those bastards), but this doesn't mean they played a "role" or "function" in that ceremony.
Clearly you aren't grasping this concept. Or perhaps you are just pretending not to. In any event, I'll try to break this down for you one more time. Please focus on the NOUN. You keep saying "They" (in reference to "people") are playing a role. What I said was .... follow me now .... RACISM was playing a role. IOW, if there is a group of people who oppose the policies of the Obama administration the next question might be "WHY?". What motivates that opposition? What I actually said was that RACISM was PART (not necessarily all) of the "why" for SOME of the people who fall into that category. There are signs and posters at Tea Party events that make this absolutely clear. There are posts on newspaper message boards and blogs all over the internet that make this clear. The rhetoric speaks for itself. Now again. I said it was a PART of the motivation for SOME. I can't make it any more clearer than that.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
[LIST][*] Maybe it's because he took 11 days to comment on riots in Iran, but was able to claim that Crowley acted stupidly within 24 hours? Just assume the white cop was unjustified? Nobody knew anything that damned fast.
Two completely unrelated topics. The former because he knew that the Iranian government would claim that the US was interfering in their internal affairs if he said anything. Which they did. So clearly he was trying to avoid all that. Especially since the Iranian opposition would have been undoubtedly undermined if it was seen as having the US on its side.

As for the latter topic, you know my position on that. See the Sgt. Crowley vs. Prof. Gates thread for details. The cop was unjustified. And the professor should have kept his cool and handled the situation smarter. It was a classic case of contempt of cop. The thing is ... just because you CAN arrest somebody, that doesn't mean you SHOULD. And a man shouldn't be arrested in his own home, after proving he was in his own home, simply because he mouthed off to a cop. And IIRC, you changed your position on the topic and the behavior of the good sergeant yourself. Have you forgotten?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
[*] Maybe it's because he sat in the pews of a Church that spewed racist sentiment against whites for 20 years?
So now a handful of quotes run over and over again on Fox News constitutes "20 years of racist sentiment". I suppose Oprah and the thousands of other people (many of whom are very prominent) who've attended that church are all "racists" too.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
[*] Maybe it's because he's made reference to "typical white people"?
[*] The wealth of racists he's surrounded himself by both inside and outside his cabinet? [/quote]

Such as?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
[*] small town people "clinging to guns and religion"? This refers to a highly diverse group of Americans I'm sure.
A very "impolitic" statement indeed. Can't say that I disagree entirely because the mentality certainly exists. But definitely not something he should have said.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
[*] "White folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That's the world! On which hope sits!"
And this is an inaccurate statement how?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
[*] "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."
I can see him coming to that realization. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of whites who find a black male of "direct" mixed heritage more "palatable" than one who is not. Studies after study has shown this. The same why that lighter skinned blacks are more "accepted" than darker skinned blacks. Again, brush up on the topic and you will see why and gain a greater appreciation for the racial dynamics in America.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
[*] "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."
[*] "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."
Indeed. Dreams of My Father was a book about Obama's coming of age and his struggles with identity being a bi-racial African-American. And that was a reflection of a period and his thinking during that struggle. The part you conveniently leave out in the book is how moved passed all that. It's much too easy to toss that out there and make it seem like that's his CURRENT thinking.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Who's pretending? I don't recall very many people in favor of those moves at all? Hell, I was complaining about stimulus checks in our mailboxes and that was small time compared to what has happened since. Do you now support all this stimuli and bailouts?
Lots of people are. See my comments about "Bush deficits = cool, Obama deficits to cleanup Bush's mess = The sky is falling" above. As for what I support personally, it's really quite simple. The economy needs a certain amount of DEMAND to sustain itself. When DEMAND falls below the the required level, especially in the private sector, then the government must create the necessary demand to keep the economy from COLLAPSING. The stimulus program was designed to do that. And it's working. There are some on the right who would have preferred to see the entire economy collapse and unemployment double what it is now (or more) just to preserve their so-called "ideological purity". They would have preferred to see the US auto industry LIQUIDATED just to make a point. Forget the tens of thousands of jobs and livelihoods and families that would be devastated. And how that would have contributed to a downward spiral in the economy. No. Just do NOTHING. And let the chips fall where they may. Until my job gets affected that is.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So... Glenn Beck didn't give any examples of Obama's racism?
No. He didn't. I provided the link. See for yourself.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm guessing you listen to his show; was this in reference to a news article or something or did he just blurt it out?
I provided the link to Rush Limbaugh's comments earlier along with the news article that outlined the situation. Brush up on it and come back and say whether or not you think Rush Limbaugh (and Matt Drudge for that matter) was race-baiting in his commentary.

OAW
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2009, 08:54 PM
 
Actually, the Irish are known to be extremely racist. South Boston busing, Bill Russell almost run out of Boston (before he was a legend), there are many instances of the Irish being ruthlessly racist. And, as someone who is Irish, I've see it firsthand. I'm quite sure you have as well, buddy. While not actually being slave owners, you cannot possibly argue that the Irish are tolerant of people of color. EVERYONE knows that isn't true!!! You're not really Irish, are you? Say it ain't so.....
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2009, 12:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
ebuddy, I'll tackle your statements of note ....
From the article YOU cited ... So the guy holding the poster saying that Obama was giving tax dollars to Hamas doesn't have his facts straight. But go ahead and continue to try to act like the guy has a point.
Of course he has a point. Hamas runs Gaza. You can't help them rebuild without funneling money through Hamas. This is political-speak and I think you know it.

Ok. Let's roll with that for a second ....
Perhaps because of downright lies about "death panels" coming from Sarah Palin et al?
You mean the lies that resulted in the removal of the verbiage that constituted the "alleged death panels"? I know where this notion originated, but Palin has made part of her career also challenging Republicans. Funny how this Democratic Congress is reacting to her. (don't mistake this as an endorsement, I wish she'd stay as far away from the spotlight as possible) Regardless, just about any expert you'll find on the matter will be quick to cite the need to ration care for cost containment. Don't bother claiming private insurance does too unless you'd like to address the numerous arguments I've made in the healthcare discussions around here. If we didn't have a wealth of models abroad to show us this necessity in practice, it'd probably be easier to argue the public option. Read up on QALYs.

Perhaps because Congress was out of session and there was no news about Healthcare Reform coming out of Washington, so the media was focused on a bunch of right-wing nut jobs spouting all kinds of bogus crap all summer? Maybe because the RNC started to target seniors with ads and flyers claiming that Obama was looking to "cut their Medicare"? Maybe because the "public option" was incessantly referred to as a "government takeover of healthcare" .... a bogus charge that started to stick in the minds of the uninformed because it was stated over and over again? The list goes on and on. But you are right. The Obama Administration did lose control of the message. They left it up to Congress to craft out the details (and I can understand why) but they didn't anticipate the level of opposition from private insurers looking to protect their hefty profit margins who would bankroll Republicans and Conservative Democrats to misrepresent Healthcare Reform at all costs. I'll give you that.
Congress went into recess regardless of the fact that they had this health care "crisis" looming over their heads. They decided to host townhall meetings where the weaknesses in their proposals were made most evident. Support began to plummet. The more they spoke, the worse it got. How uninformed can the populace be when our own representatives couldn't hold 'em? They couldn't address the absolute most fundamental questions like; how are we going to pay for this? How can private insurers compete in such a tilted environment? If they can't compete in such a tilted environment and this plan is not designed to cover all of them, what will they have available to them? (careful, there's a trap-door in there. I don't give hints often. )

Perhaps. But it's also filled with the "Say NO to government run healthcare.
Yes. Without a doubt the most contentious piece of any healthcare reform proposal, yes.

But you better not touch my Medicare!!!" crowd.
We can't because we've set up a system that people have become entirely too dependent on. This is why programs like Medicare are opposed to begin with. They don't address viruses, they address symptoms and shift the viruses elsewhere.

It's also filled with the "We are taxed too much!!! :::: but somehow it doesn't dawn upon us that the Obama Administration put in place the largest middle class tax cut in US History ::::" crowd.
You're not following closely enough or shall I say, near as much as the uninformed bunch that collect at these townhalls across the country.
Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

Bush pushes a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited the very wealthy.
I know. Who would've thought that you'd improve the economy by slightly easing the tax burden on our country's wealth and job creators. Of course, this is a funny accusation given this Administration's marriage to the likes of the UAW et al. Don't think for a minute this Administration isn't entirely beholden to the Corporate interest.

Bush bails out the banks to the tune of 700 billion dollars. NO TEA PARTIES.
The Ron Paul campaign threw what would be the first of the contemporary "Tea Parties" in 2007. He was no partisan shill. I loved his politics, but didn't think (and still don't) he can sell his message effectively enough politically.

Obama pushes a 787 billion dollar stimulus program 1/3 of which was middle class tax relief ... and now all of a sudden the sky is falling.
It wasn't "all of a sudden". Have we forgotten what happened in 2006? I think the American people spoke loud and clear. They reduced the Republican presence on the hill to virtually nothing, but this was anger at the Republican Party, not Conservatism. Hence, this Administration's gross misread on the public pulse. The sky was falling in 2006 OAW. How short the ol' memory can be eh?

Never mind that the actions taken by the government has stopped the bleeding and stabilized the economy.
Miracle huh. We've spent what... 12% of it? Tell ya what, let's hold the rest back cool? You're right, Obama did a helluva job.

Oh no .. that'll never do. A Republican can give tax cuts to the wealthy, start an unnecessary war that costs hundreds of billions and that's cool. A Democrat gives a tax cut to the middle class, extends unemployment benefits for people being laid off in droves due to the recession caused in large part by the previous Administration's policies, and does what is necessary to keep the entire economy from falling into the abyss ... and now all of a sudden these same people want to be deficit hawks.
Your entire notion is laughable out of the gate OAW. As if Bush got some "pass" on Iraq. Please. Ironic too since the action enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support including Obama's Secretary of State.

My attitude toward that crowd is simple. If you didn't have sh*t to say about deficits under the Bush Administration then STFU about it now. Plain and simple.
Excellent then, since most opposed what Bush and the Republicans were doing, they're welcome to oppose what Obama is doing. They appreciate your support.

And as for a "million" of them gathering on the Mall? All the major news outlets (except for the "sponsor" Fox News of course) say you are being dramatically "optimistic" about that figure.
I'm open to proof.


You know as wise man once said ....
If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs the only one that hollers is the one that got hit.
Keep that in mind as I address your next few statements.
I can't wait.

Clearly you aren't grasping this concept. Or perhaps you are just pretending not to. In any event, I'll try to break this down for you one more time. Please focus on the NOUN. You keep saying "They" (in reference to "people") are playing a role. What I said was .... follow me now .... RACISM was playing a role. IOW, if there is a group of people who oppose the policies of the Obama administration the next question might be "WHY?". What motivates that opposition? What I actually said was that RACISM was PART (not necessarily all) of the "why" for SOME of the people who fall into that category. There are signs and posters at Tea Party events that make this absolutely clear. There are posts on newspaper message boards and blogs all over the internet that make this clear. The rhetoric speaks for itself. Now again. I said it was a PART of the motivation for SOME. I can't make it any more clearer than that.
No OAW I've understood you all along. I'm telling you it's a non-issue. Now it seems there's a different crowd who didn't say sh*t about racism against those in the Bush Administration who may need to STFU. You're right though, it couldn't get any simpler.

Two completely unrelated topics. The former because he knew that the Iranian government would claim that the US was interfering in their internal affairs if he said anything.
So... we didn't comment for fear we'd be accused of "interfering" by those concerned of getting ousted? This would've been an excellent opportunity to show solidarity with the Iranian people while they were garnering energy and international attention.

Which they did. So clearly he was trying to avoid all that. Especially since the Iranian opposition would have been undoubtedly undermined if it was seen as having the US on its side.
Yeah... instead the opposition was just undermined anyway. nice.

As for the latter topic, you know my position on that. See the Sgt. Crowley vs. Prof. Gates thread for details. The cop was unjustified. And the professor should have kept his cool and handled the situation smarter. It was a classic case of contempt of cop. The thing is ... just because you CAN arrest somebody, that doesn't mean you SHOULD. And a man shouldn't be arrested in his own home, after proving he was in his own home, simply because he mouthed off to a cop. And IIRC, you changed your position on the topic and the behavior of the good sergeant yourself. Have you forgotten?
This still doesn't excuse the President of the US from running off at the mouth without the facts. It smelled bad and made for a pretty rough week for him politically.

So now a handful of quotes run over and over again on Fox News constitutes "20 years of racist sentiment". I suppose Oprah and the thousands of other people (many of whom are very prominent) who've attended that church are all "racists" too.
Certainly not. Marrying into it, through it, living it for 20 years, a movement founded on the exploitation of whites through a transcendent human nature under the guise of social justice. Even Obama had to backpedal on this one. I remember him saying he could no more disown Wright than his own grandmother. I wonder if he's since disowned both or was he just being politically expedient?


[*] The wealth of racists he's surrounded himself by both inside and outside his cabinet? Such as?
I could start with the easy ones that most except you are aware of or I can go to a defendant of the Black Panthers; Jerry Jackson, an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was an important poll watcher for Obama and the Democratic Party. Kind of like how our Attorney General won't address thugs with clubs hanging out a polling place; a blatant violation of Federal law.

And this is an inaccurate statement how?
Inaccurate in how simplistic it is. The human nature you cite among those of one skin color exist among those of all skin colors. The color of their skin is of no more importance than the fact they had stringy hair and long noses, or... arms, legs, feet, and pink toes.

I can see him coming to that realization. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of whites who find a black male of "direct" mixed heritage more "palatable" than one who is not. Studies after study has shown this. The same why that lighter skinned blacks are more "accepted" than darker skinned blacks. Again, brush up on the topic and you will see why and gain a greater appreciation for the racial dynamics in America.
This illustrates my point above perfectly. Lighter skinned blacks likewise take sh*t from darker skinned blacks. All are capable. All exploit.

Indeed. Dreams of My Father was a book about Obama's coming of age and his struggles with identity being a bi-racial African-American. And that was a reflection of a period and his thinking during that struggle. The part you conveniently leave out in the book is how moved passed all that. It's much too easy to toss that out there and make it seem like that's his CURRENT thinking.
I'll be happy to read the part of the book where he "moved passed all that". Got anything?

Lots of people are. See my comments about "Bush deficits = cool, Obama deficits to cleanup Bush's mess = The sky is falling" above.
Again, I've never understood this point. Is Obama trying to one-up Bush on fiscal policy? It's been less than a year you know. Obama's deficits = Bush's deficits (that rendered Republicans a small minority) + Obama's deficits + Obama's proposed deficits + Obama's additional ideas = OMG THERE'S NO WAY TO PAY FOR ALL THIS! That's what you're seeing at the Tea Parties my friend.

As for what I support personally, it's really quite simple. The economy needs a certain amount of DEMAND to sustain itself. When DEMAND falls below the the required level, especially in the private sector, then the government must create the necessary demand to keep the economy from COLLAPSING. The stimulus program was designed to do that. And it's working. There are some on the right who would have preferred to see the entire economy collapse and unemployment double what it is now (or more) just to preserve their so-called "ideological purity". They would have preferred to see the US auto industry LIQUIDATED just to make a point. Forget the tens of thousands of jobs and livelihoods and families that would be devastated. And how that would have contributed to a downward spiral in the economy. No. Just do NOTHING. And let the chips fall where they may. Until my job gets affected that is.
What the market needed was a correction, not a stimulus. All the stimulus does is delay the inevitable. You can't keep the economy on life-support when you've not paid the power company. The US auto industry LIQUIDATED claim is just FUD quite frankly. Notwithstanding, there were and continue to be, a great many Republican/Conservative proposals that haven't seen the light of day in spite of this President's supposed "open door" policy. I've cited Ron Paul who has predicted a great deal of this economic crisis as well as others that are inspiring new threads.

I provided the link to Rush Limbaugh's comments earlier...
No you didn't. I went all the way past your Hooked on Phonics link, through your Huffington Post and Daily Kos links and I saw no link on Rush Limbaugh's comments.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2009, 07:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by stumblinmike View Post
Actually, the Irish are known to be extremely racist... And, as someone who is Irish, I've see it firsthand... you cannot possibly argue that the Irish are tolerant of people of color. EVERYONE knows that isn't true!!! You're not really Irish, are you? Say it ain't so.....


*HINT: You should let your alter-ego (aka stablemike) take entire posts instead of injecting him mid-way through. Otherwise, you appear to be a racist.

I'm Welsh-Irish.
ebuddy
     
stumblinmike
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2009, 07:56 AM
 
They're the WORST!!!
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2009, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Of course he has a point. Hamas runs Gaza. You can't help them rebuild without funneling money through Hamas. This is political-speak and I think you know it.
Again. The proposal is to funnel the money through the United Nations. This is because the US is specifically prohibited from dealing with Hamas (including providing them funds) because they are on the official list of terrorist organizations. It would be illegal for the US government to do what this guy (and you) are saying. Now if your position is that the US government shouldn't help rebuild Gaza b/c Hamas runs the government there ... then say that. But don't just make stuff up and claim that the US government is going to give money to Hamas. If that were the case then the Israeli government would be sh*tting bricks about it and that certainly hasn't happened.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You mean the lies that resulted in the removal of the verbiage that constituted the "alleged death panels"? I know where this notion originated, but Palin has made part of her career also challenging Republicans. Funny how this Democratic Congress is reacting to her. (don't mistake this as an endorsement, I wish she'd stay as far away from the spotlight as possible) Regardless, just about any expert you'll find on the matter will be quick to cite the need to ration care for cost containment. Don't bother claiming private insurance does too unless you'd like to address the numerous arguments I've made in the healthcare discussions around here. If we didn't have a wealth of models abroad to show us this necessity in practice, it'd probably be easier to argue the public option. Read up on QALYs.
Simple logic and common sense should tell anyone that there is "rationing" in any healthcare system. The question is on what basis is the "rationing" done? Presently it's on a combination of ability to pay, what one's insurance will and will not cover, and insurance benefit caps. A government run plan would eliminate 2 out of those 3. In any event, Palin's contention that some government panel was going to decide whether or not grandma lived or died was a complete and utter fabrication. It has been thoroughly debunked. Repeatedly.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We can't because we've set up a system that people have become entirely too dependent on. This is why programs like Medicare are opposed to begin with. They don't address viruses, they address symptoms and shift the viruses elsewhere.
As if what existed before was "better". The reason why programs like Medicare and Social Security are as popular and entrenched as they are is because they were needed. The private market was not serving the needs of the a large enough cross section of the people. It was only serving the needs of those who could afford it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're not following closely enough or shall I say, near as much as the uninformed bunch that collect at these townhalls across the country.
Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.
Again ... from your own link:

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years
So please explain how this in anyway contradicts what I said. As a reminder, I said that the Stimulus Program that President Obama pushed provided the largest middle class tax cut in US history. How does stating that his proposed budget includes nearly a trillion in news taxes over 10 years refute that .... when 2/3 of that figure is for people making over 250K per year .... and the remainder is on businesses? The upper 5% (or less) of income earners .... people who might, I repeat might be a fraction of the people out there at these Tea Parties. The fact of the matter is that you can't. People making 250K or more per year are not middle class. Period. And to getting the deficit under control will take a combination of additional revenue (taxes) and spending cuts. The question is how is that tax burden going to be distributed, and where will cuts be made? As for the former question, I think the stimulus program and Obama's budget answers that question.

The middle class gets a tax cut and the wealthy get a tax increase.

What I have little patience for is some uninformed (or just plain stupid) individual running around at some Tea Party complaining about "1 trillion in new taxes" when he and 99% of the people out there with him are NOT affected by that ... AND when he and 99% of the people out there with them already got a TAX CUT ... waaaaaaay larger than anything the Bush Administration did for them. I'm sorry. But that's just borderline moronic.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I know. Who would've thought that you'd improve the economy by slightly easing the tax burden on our country's wealth and job creators. Of course, this is a funny accusation given this Administration's marriage to the likes of the UAW et al. Don't think for a minute this Administration isn't entirely beholden to the Corporate interest.
Well it didn't. Not under Reagan nor under Bush II. Well, I should be fair. Whether or not the economy "improves" depends on how you measure it. It improved things for the wealthy without question. The stock market did well .... until it crashed. Income for the wealthy skyrocketed. Income for the middle class? Not so much. In fact, the median income for the middle class actually DECREASED during the Bush years. Even though people were working harder and longer hours and businesses were more productive than ever.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The Ron Paul campaign threw what would be the first of the contemporary "Tea Parties" in 2007. He was no partisan shill. I loved his politics, but didn't think (and still don't) he can sell his message effectively enough politically.
Indeed. Ron Paul is libertarian to a fault. He is way outside the mainstream politically for a reason.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It wasn't "all of a sudden". Have we forgotten what happened in 2006? I think the American people spoke loud and clear. They reduced the Republican presence on the hill to virtually nothing, but this was anger at the Republican Party, not Conservatism. Hence, this Administration's gross misread on the public pulse. The sky was falling in 2006 OAW. How short the ol' memory can be eh?
That's the funny thing about our friends on the right. When the standard bearers of "conservatism" are in power they are considered conservatives. When they royally screw up and get tossed out of office then all of a sudden "they weren't really conservatives ... they were just Republicans". It's quite comical.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Miracle huh. We've spent what... 12% of it? Tell ya what, let's hold the rest back cool? You're right, Obama did a helluva job.
You might be surprised to know that I actually agree with you on that in principle. Given the deficit situation and the improvement in the economy perhaps we shouldn't spend all of the rest of the stimulus money. I'm not saying stop it now altogether because even though the hemorrhaging has stopped the bleeding continues. The unemployment picture is still very bleak. So something needs to be done to stimulate demand to get people back to work. But I agree, we may not need to spend all of it to get that ball rolling.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm open to proof.
Sure thing.

Thousands pack D.C. to protest spending - More politics- msnbc.com

Tea Party Protesters March on Washington - ABC News

Tea party activists rally at U.S. Capitol - CNN.com

Tens of thousands rally in D.C. against federal spending - USATODAY.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us...%20mall&st=cse

And then we had conservative bloggers claiming a crowd of a "million" people. They even distributed this picture as "proof" ....



Turns out it was a picture of a Promise Keeper's rally from 1997.

PolitiFact | "Tea party" photo shows huge crowd — at different event


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So... we didn't comment for fear we'd be accused of "interfering" by those concerned of getting ousted? This would've been an excellent opportunity to show solidarity with the Iranian people while they were garnering energy and international attention.

Yeah... instead the opposition was just undermined anyway. nice.
Not just "those concerned of getting ousted". Those looking to do the ousting too. Iran has decades worth of mistrust and enmity towards the US. And for good reason. Don't assume the Iranian opposition would be friendly to the US simply because they oppose the current Iranian government. The prudent approach was to stay out of it when the election results were disputed and the protests began. When the crackdown occurred on the peaceful protests then it was appropriate to speak out. And that's exactly what the Obama administration did.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This still doesn't excuse the President of the US from running off at the mouth without the facts. It smelled bad and made for a pretty rough week for him politically.
The relevant facts were available. Man has to force his way into his home because the door was jammed. Cop responds to reports of a potential break in. Cop questions man. Man questions cop. Tempers flare. Man proves he's in his own home. Cop was never threatened or harmed. Nevertheless, cop arrests man anyway.

So Obama was right. It was pretty stupid to arrest a man in his own home under those circumstances. He wasn't calling the officer stupid. Just saying that was a stupid thing to do. And what gets conveniently left out is he also criticized the professor's behavior in the situation as well. The bottom line in his position was that "cooler heads should have prevailed". Which at the end of the day ... is a true statement.

Was it a rough week for him politically as a result of his comment? Indeed it was. But that was NOT because what he said wasn't true. It was because "race" got injected into the situation and consequently simple logic and common sense went out the window for many who decided to make a big political issue out of it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Certainly not. Marrying into it, through it, living it for 20 years, a movement founded on the exploitation of whites through a transcendent human nature under the guise of social justice. Even Obama had to backpedal on this one.
WTF? I have no idea what you are talking about there. Your second sentence doesn't even make sense.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I could start with the easy ones that most except you are aware of or I can go to a defendant of the Black Panthers; Jerry Jackson, an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was an important poll watcher for Obama and the Democratic Party. Kind of like how our Attorney General won't address thugs with clubs hanging out a polling place; a blatant violation of Federal law.
The Justice Department drops the charges of voter intimidation due to insufficient evidence. That decision is presently under review. Personally I think these knuckleheads should have been tossed in jail. But this guy is a local Democrat in Philly. He's connected to Obama how? Other than he was a Democrat and worked in the Obama campaign? There are MILLIONS of people who are Democrats and worked in the Obama campaign. Is Obama responsible for every boneheaded move that any of them makes? Was McCain responsible for his white female campaign worker who lied and claimed that some black guys tied her up and scratched an "O" on her cheek because she was a McCain supporter? I can understand how our friends on the right want to milk this foolishness for all its worth. But this in no way constitutes a "wealth of racists he's surrounded himself by both inside and outside his cabinet?" Is this really the best you can do?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Again, I've never understood this point. Is Obama trying to one-up Bush on fiscal policy? It's been less than a year you know. Obama's deficits = Bush's deficits (that rendered Republicans a small minority) + Obama's deficits + Obama's proposed deficits + Obama's additional ideas = OMG THERE'S NO WAY TO PAY FOR ALL THIS! That's what you're seeing at the Tea Parties my friend.
Oh jeez. Here we go with this BS again. Obama is "tripling" or "quadrupling" the deficit. OMG this man is INSANE! He's going to destroy the country!!!! How about we actually do the math and then see how much of the projected deficits are the result of "Obama" shall we?



Some relevant points from the article itself:

President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying.
This debt will constrain the country’s choices for years and could end up doing serious economic damage if foreign lenders become unwilling to finance it.

Mr. Obama — responding to recent signs of skittishness among those lenders — met with 40 members of Congress at the White House on Tuesday and called for the re-enactment of pay-as-you-go rules, requiring Congress to pay for any new programs it passes.
E.g. Healthcare Reform

The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.
Bottom line? Obama is only involved in 30% of the projected deficits. And 27% (i.e Iraq & Afghanistan wars, bank and auto bailouts, and the stimulus program) is stuff that Obama had to do to in order to try and clean up Bush's mess. Only 3% is due to the Obama's agenda itself.

So again ... let's do the math. 90% of the projected deficits from 2009 to 2012 are the direct result of Bush Administration policies and the Bush recession. 97% if you count the stimulus program that Bush didn't enact but was made necessary by his clusterf*ck of an administration. At most you can put 10% on Obama policies that don't directly involve Bush. Only 3% if you don't include the stimulus program.

So how about the Tea Party crowd focus their "anger" on where it belongs? Of course, that won't happen. That would be too much like right.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What the market needed was a correction, not a stimulus.
Yeah. The Great Depression was a "correction". How did that work out?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No you didn't. I went all the way past your Hooked on Phonics link, through your Huffington Post and Daily Kos links and I saw no link on Rush Limbaugh's comments.
Here's the post.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...t/#post3884636

But my bad. I intended to put the actual link in that post but I apparently forgot to do so. But surely you didn't I was just making it all up?

Now stop ducking and dodging the question. Review the article about the situation (link provided in that post). And then review Mr. Limbaugh's comments. The question still remains ....

Do you think Rush Limbaugh was race baiting in his commentary about this situation? If not, why not?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Sep 30, 2009 at 02:00 PM. )
     
ApeInTheShell
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: aurora
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2009, 09:08 PM
 
The tea parties represent an opposition to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Participants support an audit of the privately owned Federal Reserve by the United States Congress. This year they demonstrated across the country their right of "no taxation without representation".
Similarly, colonists in Boston were opposed to the Tea Act passed by the British government because they insisted they should only be taxed by their elected representatives. So they tossed three boatloads of tea into the Boston Harbor and this signaled the beginning of the American Revolution.
Now you can go back to bickering about racism.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2009, 09:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Again. The proposal is to funnel the money through the United Nations. This is because the US is specifically prohibited from dealing with Hamas (including providing them funds) because they are on the official list of terrorist organizations. It would be illegal for the US government to do what this guy (and you) are saying. Now if your position is that the US government shouldn't help rebuild Gaza b/c Hamas runs the government there ... then say that. But don't just make stuff up and claim that the US government is going to give money to Hamas. If that were the case then the Israeli government would be sh*tting bricks about it and that certainly hasn't happened.
I'm not making anything up. You assume anything sour to you must be made up. This is just dogmatic. Would you have been this shocked to hear of a Bush Administration breach of law? Really??? Hmm. (I'm not saying this Administration has broken law as it is only asking to "stretch" it. I'm just saying your use of the 'Johnny law' argument is laughable.)

Yes, the proposal is to funnel money through the United Nations likely via agencies such as UNRWA. United Nations Relief and Works Agency, accused of allowing terrorist propaganda in classrooms it funds and has suffered several high-profile examples of terrorist leaders who were on the agency's payroll.

chicagotribune
The Palestinian group is designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization and under law may not receive federal aid. But the administration has asked Congress for minor changes in U.S. law that would permit aid to continue flowing to Palestinians in the unlikely event that Hamas-backed officials become part of a unified Palestinian government.

Now if your position is that the US government should help rebuild Gaza in spite of the fact that Hamas runs the government there (another continuation of Bush policy)... just say so.

Simple logic and common sense should tell anyone that there is "rationing" in any healthcare system. The question is on what basis is the "rationing" done? Presently it's on a combination of ability to pay (i.e. rationing yourself... okay), what one's insurance will and will not cover (a problem solved in a much less expensive and contentious manner), and insurance benefit caps. (based on how much you can invest in yourself w/ limited options that make it difficult to get what you pay for) A government run plan would eliminate 2 out of those 3.
One more insurer? eesh. That's thinking small IMO. I'd rather we throw in about 1300. There are cheaper ways of having an equal shot at 3 of 3.

In any event, Palin's contention that some government panel was going to decide whether or not grandma lived or died was a complete and utter fabrication. It has been thoroughly debunked. Repeatedly.
You might not like the terms Palin used for the provision of a "council" in the bill or that it originated under the Bush Administration (which I'm not entirely convinced Palin knew), but it's certainly not an utter fabrication. At the end of the day it's just another Bush policy.

As if what existed before was "better". The reason why programs like Medicare and Social Security are as popular and entrenched as they are is because they were needed. The private market was not serving the needs of the a large enough cross section of the people. It was only serving the needs of those who could afford it.
No one is debating the need at this point because it falls on deaf ears frankly. The need existed then and it exists now. The government continues to address symptoms of problems and not root causes. They are pointing to the dirty laundry among private insurers (which may play well to the partisan, handcymbal-clapping monkeys) without bothering to police themselves in their relationship with the big business lobby. Their marriage to one another has created the problem.

So please explain how this in anyway contradicts what I said. As a reminder, I said that the Stimulus Program that President Obama pushed provided the largest middle class tax cut in US history. How does stating that his proposed budget includes nearly a trillion in news taxes over 10 years refute that .... when 2/3 of that figure is for people making over 250K per year .... and the remainder is on businesses? The upper 5% (or less) of income earners .... people who might, I repeat might be a fraction of the people out there at these Tea Parties. The fact of the matter is that you can't.
Of course I can OAW.

Aside from the fact that I'm sure there were more than a few smokers at the Tea Parties, it's a shell game any way you cut it. When you consider the cessation of the Bush tax cuts (= tax hike), it's nothing more than waving a couple hundred billion over your left shoulder while taking over a trillion out of your right hand. The people at the Tea Parties include small business owners making $251k a year. You know what small business owners do with their profits in order to grow their business and employ more people? Roll them back into the business.

People making 250K or more per year are not middle class. Period. And to getting the deficit under control will take a combination of additional revenue (taxes) and spending cuts. The question is how is that tax burden going to be distributed, and where will cuts be made? As for the former question, I think the stimulus program and Obama's budget answers that question.
Cigarette tax hikes went directly to the lower and middle class. @ a pack/day, that's almost $300 of the $400 they supposedly got from the cut. They could quit smoking and go for a drive into the sunset of the Bush tax cuts to alleviate the "jones", but the cars in their price range were all junked. Worse, per the new car sales numbers out; even the rich smokers have gone back to holding onto their old cars and smoking cigars out in their back yard.

The middle class gets a tax cut and the wealthy get a tax increase.
Not really. It's more like giving the middle class $30 dollars and taking $138 from everybody. (including the middle class)

What I have little patience for is some uninformed (or just plain stupid) individual running around at some Tea Party complaining about "1 trillion in new taxes" when he and 99% of the people out there with him are NOT affected by that ... AND when he and 99% of the people out there with them already got a TAX CUT ... waaaaaaay larger than anything the Bush Administration did for them. I'm sorry. But that's just borderline moronic.
Hell, Bush gave 'em checks in the mail man?!? Who are you trying to kid here? That's worth how many years in $400 tax credits? (answer: likely about the same amount in time from the passage of Obama's tax cuts to the cessation of the Bush tax cuts).

Well it didn't. Not under Reagan nor under Bush II. Well, I should be fair. Whether or not the economy "improves" depends on how you measure it.
Bingo. Useless debate.

It improved things for the wealthy without question. The stock market did well .... until it crashed. Income for the wealthy skyrocketed. Income for the middle class? Not so much. In fact, the median income for the middle class actually DECREASED during the Bush years. Even though people were working harder and longer hours and businesses were more productive than ever.
When you say "during the Bush years" don't you really mean at the close of Bush's presidency per Census Bureau figures that otherwise had shown quite a strong economy throughout his term in spite of 9/11, Katrina, and two wars? Woe be the day when another Katrina happens.

That's the funny thing about our friends on the right. When the standard bearers of "conservatism" are in power they are considered conservatives. When they royally screw up and get tossed out of office then all of a sudden "they weren't really conservatives ... they were just Republicans". It's quite comical.
The truth, if not so troubling in reality, should be funny as hell.

You might be surprised to know that I actually agree with you on that in principle. Given the deficit situation and the improvement in the economy perhaps we shouldn't spend all of the rest of the stimulus money. I'm not saying stop it now altogether because even though the hemorrhaging has stopped the bleeding continues. The unemployment picture is still very bleak. So something needs to be done to stimulate demand to get people back to work. But I agree, we may not need to spend all of it to get that ball rolling.
I'm not entirely surprised OAW.

Originally Posted by OAW
Sure thing. *includes a wealth of links and pics arguing the "actual" number that is no longer affirmed in any official capacity since lawsuits over "low" estimates of the Million Man March.
There were estimates of "tens of thousands" to 1.5 million.

And then we had conservative bloggers claiming a crowd of a "million" people. They even distributed this picture as "proof" ....

Turns out it was a picture of a Promise Keeper's rally from 1997.

PolitiFact | "Tea party" photo shows huge crowd — at different event
The entire foundation of your article;
Bloggers said this photo showed a gargantuan crowd at Saturday's "tea party" protest. But it apparently was taken in 1997 at a Promise Keepers rally.
Later they mention "bloggers and Facebook" (que doomsday orchestral score). One picture, one blog. No story as usual. Anyway, these are the pictures I've seen;





The Examiner; The ticketed area of the National Mall alone has a capacity of 240,000 and the crowd clearly filled that area and beyond. The public access area of the Mall holds nearly 950,000 and photographs of that area show it to be at or near capacity, although it has been reported that other groups were holding events in that area.

Like I said, since the official estimates of the Million Man March were much lower than touted resulting in lawsuits, we don't get official estimates any more.

Not just "those concerned of getting ousted". Those looking to do the ousting too. Iran has decades worth of mistrust and enmity towards the US. And for good reason. Don't assume the Iranian opposition would be friendly to the US simply because they oppose the current Iranian government. The prudent approach was to stay out of it when the election results were disputed and the protests began. When the crackdown occurred on the peaceful protests then it was appropriate to speak out. And that's exactly what the Obama administration did.
The Iranian people are exponentially more friendly to the West than their leadership. Of course neither leader is "pro-west", but the supporters of Mousavi want better relations abroad. They are fundamentally opposed to nuclear weapons, they are tired of saber-rattling, and the women are tired of oppression. The people of Iran were making their voices heard. Out of fear of "intrusion" primarily by those concerned of being ousted, the opposition was undermined by this Administration's silence regarding their rights. The "crackdowns" began immediately with the suppression of media, cellular usage, internet...

The relevant facts were available. Man has to force his way into his home because the door was jammed. Cop responds to reports of a potential break in. Cop questions man. Man questions cop. Tempers flare. Man proves he's in his own home. Cop was never threatened or harmed. Nevertheless, cop arrests man anyway.

So Obama was right. It was pretty stupid to arrest a man in his own home under those circumstances. He wasn't calling the officer stupid. Just saying that was a stupid thing to do. And what gets conveniently left out is he also criticized the professor's behavior in the situation as well. The bottom line in his position was that "cooler heads should have prevailed". Which at the end of the day ... is a true statement.
His criticism of Gates came much later than his criticism of the police department and there were few relevant facts at the time of Obama's statement. The fact of the matter is that Obama was right when he claimed he should've been more careful in choosing his words.

Was it a rough week for him politically as a result of his comment? Indeed it was. But that was NOT because what he said wasn't true. It was because "race" got injected into the situation and consequently simple logic and common sense went out the window for many who decided to make a big political issue out of it.
Starting with Gates.

WTF? I have no idea what you are talking about there. Your second sentence doesn't even make sense.
Black Liberation Theology is founded on the freedom from white oppression. Oppression is neither white nor black, it is human nature and is made evident through every culture of mankind. While citing a "common enemy" has been effective for garnering support historically, it disenfranchises another group of people. People like myself that should not have to endure the charge of racism or oppression.


The Justice Department drops the charges of voter intimidation due to insufficient evidence. That decision is presently under review.
Yeah... apparently video is not enough.

Personally I think these knuckleheads should have been tossed in jail. But this guy is a local Democrat in Philly. He's connected to Obama how? Other than he was a Democrat and worked in the Obama campaign? There are MILLIONS of people who are Democrats and worked in the Obama campaign. Is Obama responsible for every boneheaded move that any of them makes? Was McCain responsible for his white female campaign worker who lied and claimed that some black guys tied her up and scratched an "O" on her cheek because she was a McCain supporter? I can understand how our friends on the right want to milk this foolishness for all its worth. But this in no way constitutes a "wealth of racists he's surrounded himself by both inside and outside his cabinet?" Is this really the best you can do?
I'm not out to try and prove Obama is a racist. This is not my battle. I've merely said that his words would spell doom to a white male running for office. His long-term close ties with Wright and Wright's church, the appointment of Van Jones, his own words... etc... There's certainly as much there if not more going against Obama than there was against Wilson. That was my point.

Oh jeez. Here we go with this BS again. Obama is "tripling" or "quadrupling" the deficit. OMG this man is INSANE! He's going to destroy the country!!!! How about we actually do the math and then see how much of the projected deficits are the result of "Obama" shall we?
Yayyy! Graphics! I love them. Let's look at the math shall we?


Some relevant points from the article itself:
  • President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
  • President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
  • President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
  • President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
  • President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.

Bottom line? Obama is only involved in 30% of the projected deficits. And 27% (i.e Iraq & Afghanistan wars, bank and auto bailouts, and the stimulus program) is stuff that Obama had to do to in order to try and clean up Bush's mess. Only 3% is due to the Obama's agenda itself.
In your article it states that Obama has pledged a budge neutral health care reform. Their numbers are a farce based on an outright lie few in Washington (including those who want to keep their seats in 2010) are buying.

So how about the Tea Party crowd focus their "anger" on where it belongs? Of course, that won't happen. That would be too much like right.
They're focusing their attention on their representatives. This is totally appropriate.

But my bad. I intended to put the actual link in that post but I apparently forgot to do so. But surely you didn't I was just making it all up?
Trust, but verify. You provided no initial link when you claimed you had and you didn't ask for proof of racism against Condi and Powell when you claimed you had among other things. Trust, but verify that's all. Let's have a look at what I can only assume you feel is Rush-gate.

Now stop ducking and dodging the question. Review the article about the situation (link provided in that post). And then review Mr. Limbaugh's comments. The question still remains ....
Included in Rush's reaction was the initial claim by the police department that it was potentially racially motivated. Sax rescinded the claim, but certainly you don't expect an entertainer to rescind his shtick do you? Rush included reaction to a Newsweek article about children as early as 6 months learning racism. Why are we even talking about Rush Limbaugh?

Do you think Rush Limbaugh was race baiting in his commentary about this situation? If not, why not?
My initial question was whether or not Bush was reacting to a news article or something, the answer you were looking for was 'yes'. He reacted to the initial opinion of Sax and cited a "born racist" hypothesis proposed by an article in Newsweek. He was likely race-baiting not unlike Carter. Carter was a former President, Rush is an entertainer. Stay on task.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2009, 02:35 PM
 
ebuddy,

Just a few responses to your last post since we strayed off-topic a while ago ....

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Now if your position is that the US government should help rebuild Gaza in spite of the fact that Hamas runs the government there (another continuation of Bush policy)... just say so.
Fundamentally, my position is that if the US is going to promote "democracy" then it needs to do that. Instead, what we have is the US promoting "democracy (as long as our team wins the election)". A very hypocritical foreign policy which contributes heavily to rising anti-American sentiment around the world. But I digress. To answer your question I don't think the US should spend all that money rebuilding Gaza because the US didn't destroy it. Israel OTOH? Now that's a different story.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
One more insurer? eesh. That's thinking small IMO. I'd rather we throw in about 1300. There are cheaper ways of having an equal shot at 3 of 3.
We are probably closer in our thinking on this than you may think. I would PREFER to see Health INSURANCE Reform. Where the government imposes a new regulatory regime on the PRIVATE insurance market. That is, allow and encourage a nationwide insurance market and not this silly state-by-state based system (a very potent argument against the standard conservative "leave it up to the states" mantra) that limits choice and competition. Ban denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Ban dropping people when then get sick. Ban insurance caps. Set minimum standards for what insurance plans must cover. Require individuals to have insurance either on their own or through their employer. Etc.

Where it gets tricky is when you have to deal with the questions of AFFORDABILITY, PORTABILITY, and COST CONTROL.

Affordability: If the government mandates that individuals must have health insurance, what about those that can't afford it? Government subsidies? Price controls?

Portability: If government mandates that individuals must have health insurance, what happens if people lose their jobs in an overwhelmingly "employer based" system? Especially when insurance purchased directly has drastically higher premiums for individuals.

Cost Control: At the end of the day, health care is a HIGHLY INELASTIC commodity/service. That is, it is a NECESSITY and demand is still high even when prices increase. This is the FUNDAMENTAL reason behind rising health care costs. Prices continue to rise at 2 or 3 times the rate of inflation because the health care providers can. So how do you keep costs under control? The employer based system we have severely restricts one's ability to switch insurers, which only gives the insurance industry even more power to raise prices just because ... even if we had "1300" as you suggest. So do we counter this with some sort of not-for-profit "option" (government run or otherwise) that is directly accessible to the individual? Or does the government simply mandate price controls and regulate the health insurance market like it does a utility? Or do we dismantle the employer based system where the company is the "customer" and simply allow companies to subsidize an employee's directly purchased insurance on a tax-deductible basis ... thereby giving the employee the option to shop around?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Aside from the fact that I'm sure there were more than a few smokers at the Tea Parties, it's a shell game any way you cut it. When you consider the cessation of the Bush tax cuts (= tax hike), it's nothing more than waving a couple hundred billion over your left shoulder while taking over a trillion out of your right hand. The people at the Tea Parties include small business owners making $251k a year. You know what small business owners do with their profits in order to grow their business and employ more people? Roll them back into the business.
So let me get this straight. You are claiming that Obama's plan to let the Bush tax cut expire (which overwhelmingly benefited the $250K and up crowd) is going to nullify his already delivered tax cut for the middle class (which overwhelmingly benefited the $250 and under crowd) because there are some SMOKERS who will get hit up by an increase in tobacco taxes? Are you serious?

I'm sorry, but tobacco taxes are a completely different ball of wax because at the end of the day it is a totally VOLUNTARY tax. No one is forced to smoke. And the vast majority of people don't smoke. Tobacco taxes in no way refutes my point. Futhermore, with regard to small businesses ....

Originally Posted by FactCheck.org
The vast majority of individuals who report business income or losses are not making upwards of $200,000 a year. In fact, only 2 percent of all those reporting business income in 2009 will earn enough to fall in the top two brackets. As we explained back when Obama’s tax plan was attacked on the campaign trail, the overwhelming majority of these mom-and-pop shops we hear about would not see their taxes go up under Obama’s proposal.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yayyy! Graphics! I love them. Let's look at the math shall we?
We shall. And if you do so you will see that the graph you posted in no way refutes the graph I posted. Yours simply shows the deficits in Bush years and shows the dramatic jump in the projected deficits for the Obama years. The dramatic jump is real. But again, you are arguing a point that is not in dispute. What my graph did was breakdown this jump based upon the policies that caused it ... and identify who put those policies in place. Your graph is an accurate but rather simplistic graph showing what the projected deficit will be under Obama's watch. My graph is a more detailed analysis of what (and who) caused the projected deficit under Obama's watch. So when you get done talking, the fact still remains. 90 - 97% of that RED you see in the graph you posted is caused by Bush policies. Just because the red ink will be incurred during the Obama years doesn't mean that the Bush policy that got the ball rolling wasn't put in place before Obama was even elected.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
They're focusing their attention on their representatives. This is totally appropriate.
When it comes to the projected deficits their attention seems to be erroneously focused on blaming Obama for it, when it was their boy Bush who was responsible for the overwhelming majority of it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Included in Rush's reaction was the initial claim by the police department that it was potentially racially motivated. Sax rescinded the claim, but certainly you don't expect an entertainer to rescind his shtick do you? Rush included reaction to a Newsweek article about children as early as 6 months learning racism. Why are we even talking about Rush Limbaugh?


My initial question was whether or not Bush was reacting to a news article or something, the answer you were looking for was 'yes'. He reacted to the initial opinion of Sax and cited a "born racist" hypothesis proposed by an article in Newsweek. He was likely race-baiting not unlike Carter. Carter was a former President, Rush is an entertainer. Stay on task.
I suppose that's about the most of a concession I can expect out of you.

But entertainer or not, Limbaugh and Beck have huge followings and they are instrumental forces in modern day conservatism. Simply put, they drive much of the political debate and discourse in this country. This is by no means an isolated incident for Limbaugh because has a long history of race baiting commentary on his show. Beck is relatively new to the game but he appears to be following the "playbook" quite well thus far. But if you truly believe that such rhetoric is "destructive" then I don't quite understand why you seem to minimize it simply because they are technically "entertainers". In any event, it's encouraging to see that there are a number of conservatives who see these guys for what they are. Just a couple of examples .....

Originally Posted by Kathleen Park, Washington Post
What Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh did in those two clips is to empower racists and to legitimize them. And so that's -- that's the shame and horror of what they're doing.
Originally Posted by David Brooks, New York Times
What Rush and Glenn Beck are doing, that's just race-baiting -- 100 percent, that's race-baiting.
OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Oct 2, 2009 at 02:47 PM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2009, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Fundamentally, my position is that if the US is going to promote "democracy" then it needs to do that. Instead, what we have is the US promoting "democracy (as long as our team wins the election)". A very hypocritical foreign policy which contributes heavily to rising anti-American sentiment around the world. But I digress. To answer your question I don't think the US should spend all that money rebuilding Gaza because the US didn't destroy it. Israel OTOH? Now that's a different story.
This world is going to come to a head of ideals and it follows that all are trying to spread their own. While the methodology differs from government to government, the "survival" instinct is not exclusive to the US. Our system of government simply affords us infinitely more resources. The good news is democracies are statistically more peaceful, prosperous, and tolerant. Anti-American sentiment is more the product of propaganda that cannot rely on facts. In Iran for example, the more educated you are, the more "friendly" to the US you are. If I were a hopeless romantic, I'd say they see the city upon the hill and believe they can model something similar.

Regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, our views are irreconcilable and inevitable when discussing current policy in the region.

We are probably closer in our thinking on this than you may think. I would PREFER to see Health INSURANCE Reform. Where the government imposes a new regulatory regime on the PRIVATE insurance market. That is, allow and encourage a nationwide insurance market and not this silly state-by-state based system (a very potent argument against the standard conservative "leave it up to the states" mantra) that limits choice and competition. Ban denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Ban dropping people when then get sick. Ban insurance caps. Set minimum standards for what insurance plans must cover. Require individuals to have insurance either on their own or through their employer. Etc.
I've expressed my preferences for reforming the GOVERNMENT's role in health care, but in this I agree. We're fighting for the same things.

Where it gets tricky is when you have to deal with the questions of AFFORDABILITY, PORTABILITY, and COST CONTROL.

Affordability: If the government mandates that individuals must have health insurance, what about those that can't afford it? Government subsidies? Price controls?

Portability: If government mandates that individuals must have health insurance, what happens if people lose their jobs in an overwhelmingly "employer based" system? Especially when insurance purchased directly has drastically higher premiums for individuals.

Cost Control: At the end of the day, health care is a HIGHLY INELASTIC commodity/service. That is, it is a NECESSITY and demand is still high even when prices increase. This is the FUNDAMENTAL reason behind rising health care costs. Prices continue to rise at 2 or 3 times the rate of inflation because the health care providers can. So how do you keep costs under control? The employer based system we have severely restricts one's ability to switch insurers, which only gives the insurance industry even more power to raise prices just because ... even if we had "1300" as you suggest. So do we counter this with some sort of not-for-profit "option" (government run or otherwise) that is directly accessible to the individual? Or does the government simply mandate price controls and regulate the health insurance market like it does a utility? Or do we dismantle the employer based system where the company is the "customer" and simply allow companies to subsidize an employee's directly purchased insurance on a tax-deductible basis ... thereby giving the employee the option to shop around?
The trick is getting people to understand what health care costs and in shopping it more aggressively, create an environment favorable to this patronage. (as you alluded to) For some this may require government subsidies, but there are things that can be done almost immediately, with little cost and contention. For example, any subsidies granted should incentivize personal cost containment by allowing excess funds to roll over. Grant a state-by-state charter system that maintains state's rights while making them competitors against one another, each state full of insurers competing against one another. This national market will open up more opportunities for decoupling insurance and employment, and facilitate an increase in HSAs and HSA-compatible plans. Plans your employer can throw whatever they want into, without having to administer a thing. All consumers should be given a tax break for insuring themselves just like employers get for giving you cadillac plans instead of cadillac pay. This makes health insurance more affordable, portable, and cost effective. These market freedoms come at a cost however; repealing antiquated legislation that hinders accountability for anti-trust violation. I'm not much for the idea of additional Federal mandates out of the gate as I'd like to give this all a chance to work first, but they may certainly need to oversee securities and investment.

So let me get this straight. You are claiming that Obama's plan to let the Bush tax cut expire (which overwhelmingly benefited the $250K and up crowd) is going to nullify his already delivered tax cut for the middle class (which overwhelmingly benefited the $250 and under crowd) because there are some SMOKERS who will get hit up by an increase in tobacco taxes? Are you serious?
You're parsing words here. The Bush tax cuts included Federal Income tax decreases for all. All will see their taxes increase when the Bush tax cuts cease. I'm sorry, there's no way around this. What the big print giveth, the small print taketh away. As you know, I went beyond the cigarette tax increases by including the Bush tax cut sunset, and Obama's budgeted tax increases. I can go into more specifics like the cap on payroll taxes paid for Social Security being lifted increasing taxes on those from $94k to $249k by as much as 12.4% or a capital gains tax increase from 15% to 20%. While 401Ks and IRAs will remain untouched, personal investment does not and is subject to this tax regardless of income.

I'm sorry, but tobacco taxes are a completely different ball of wax because at the end of the day it is a totally VOLUNTARY tax. No one is forced to smoke. And the vast majority of people don't smoke. Tobacco taxes in no way refutes my point. Futhermore, with regard to small businesses ....
Oh I agree, it's nothing more than a sin tax used to fund SCHIP. I wonder what happens when more people quit??? It is a totally STUPID tax creating a dependency that will necessitate taxes on something else. Regarding your factcheck.org data; It wouldn't be the first time they've been sorely unFACTual about this issue.

What my graph did was breakdown this jump based upon the policies that caused it ... and identify who put those policies in place. Your graph is an accurate but rather simplistic graph showing what the projected deficit will be under Obama's watch. My graph is a more detailed analysis of what (and who) caused the projected deficit under Obama's watch. So when you get done talking, the fact still remains. 90 - 97% of that RED you see in the graph you posted is caused by Bush policies. Just because the red ink will be incurred during the Obama years doesn't mean that the Bush policy that got the ball rolling wasn't put in place before Obama was even elected.
Couple of things that have always eluded me about this reasoning;
- You must be insisting that Obama is a student of Bush's. There are graphs from the exact same data that suggest a doubling down on Bush's folly.
- You maintain that the RED I see in the graph spanning to 2019 is caused by Bush policies even though I've established the exact same policies under this Administration. Zoinks man. Really? I mean, there's really no room for discourse in any of that. First of all, you'll notice in your graphs where the projections upon Clinton's exit spanned to 2012, but a crash in 2000 led to recession in 2001. What you're missing here IMO is that the Obama Administration was given a mandate to clean up Bush's mess, but Obama's budget won't even compete with Bush's worst measures. It is in fact, doubling-down on Bush's folly. I say blame Democrats or Republicans.

When it comes to the projected deficits their attention seems to be erroneously focused on blaming Obama for it, when it was their boy Bush who was responsible for the overwhelming majority of it.
When might we blame the current Administration for horrible economic policy OAW? 2032? This is a losing message for anyone supposedly "helping" our President. Far be it for folks to be erroneously focused on the current Administration.

I've always marveled at short-term memory; in this case 3 years.

But entertainer or not, Limbaugh and Beck have huge followings and they are instrumental forces in modern day conservatism. Simply put, they drive much of the political debate and discourse in this country. This is by no means an isolated incident for Limbaugh because has a long history of race baiting commentary on his show. Beck is relatively new to the game but he appears to be following the "playbook" quite well thus far. But if you truly believe that such rhetoric is "destructive" then I don't quite understand why you seem to minimize it simply because they are technically "entertainers". In any event, it's encouraging to see that there are a number of conservatives who see these guys for what they are. Just a couple of examples .....
... just as there are Democratic entertainers, talking heads, journalists, etc. with huge followings serving as instrumental forces in modern day liberalism. They are likewise driving much of the political debate and discourse in this country. This is by no means isolated to "Reverends" and activists that have a long history of race-baiting as of course there is no shortage of race-baiting from all walks of life.

Most ironic to me in all this is you've yet to establish any more willingness to call "your guys" out. I'm sure you understand that I could easily cite Democrat sources who agree with me on distaste for race-baiters of the left, but for fun I'd throw in a little twist by citing the little debate between Albert Gore and Dukakis over handling Jesse Jackson with kid gloves.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:23 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,