Opposition to Obama is not based on racism, it is based on Obama's ideology and his associations.

Yep.

Where do either of you get racism out of it? Obama doesn't associate with the common ordinary black person, it's only the ones in the higher hiarchy.

racism pure and simple.

We oppose obama because of his far left ideology.

Far left. I am far left and Obama is no where near where I am

We oppose obama because he tripled the debt Bush left.

We oppose obama because he continued and expanded the unconstitutional bank and auto companies bailouts

So you advocate doing nothing to fix the mess bush left? You cannot make the claim that spending those funds in an attempt to make things better wouldn't have been the right thing to do. Think about this. Die hard Communist look at the .com bubble, the housing bubble, the financial institution meltdown as vindication of every thing they claim. That Capitalism is corrupt and will fall under its own weight.

The problem Obama/Bush were trying to fix are a Communist and Socialist leaders dream.

So let it all go to hell. You choose a depression over an attempt to save your job and your home.

We oppose obama because he will ration healthcare to the seniors, the disabled, and the very young. All you need to do is read what his health, and science advisors are telling him, these are the so called death panels.

Who wrote this for you, Joseph Goebbels? If this country ever got to the point of having death panels we will be much further down the road to ruin than we are now. Sheesh, get that ring out of your nose because you are being led like cattle.

We oppose obama because ofhis fascist takeover of GM and Chrylser.

Again, you advocate the failure of GM and Chrysler. All those jobs disappearing overnight? All that shareholders value going up in a puff of smoke.

Are you so blinded that you would choose a long lasting depression over trying to manage a losing proposition?

Remember, the failure of GM and Chrysler are a Communist and Socialist dream.

We oppose obama because he engaged in a racist attack against that cop in Cambridge.

Thank god you have never driven while black. There was nothing racist nor was there an attack on the cop in Cambridge. Based on his life experience he had an opinion, just as you have an opinion no matter how stupid it is. I know you can cite SPECIFIC examples of these attacks. I look forward to them.

We oppose obama because he engaged in personal attacks against private citizens like Rush, and joe the plumber

Personal attack on bush and joe the plumber? I guess free speech is dead and that is not an admission that any attacks happened.

I know you can cite SPECIFIC examples of these attacks. I look forward to them.

We oppose obama because of his attacks on the Constitution and Americans.

I know you can cite SPECIFIC examples of these attacks. I look forward to them.

We oppose obama for having secret meetings with the drug companies, letting them charge high prices for 4 more years on drugs, before they go generic.

As if he invented meetings, open and secret. As if drug companies don't charge high prices already and you want them to have the right to charge high prices forever. The free market economy in action. Why do you hate America? How dare you question the right for drug companies to charge what the market will bear!

And by the way, could you send me a list of the people in cheneys energy panel and the report on what was produced. What, you can't because cheney will not release the information?

Why I am shocked. How dare cheny not let me know the true rationale for that Illegal War in Iraq.

We oppose obama because he is the most secretive president ever.

LOL. There are secrets they don't even let the President know. By the way, bush was the most secretive President ever. By far

We oppose obama because he is the most divisive president since lincoln.

Yep, he's black and had the nerve to take office. Uppity ni**er.

So as you see it is nothing about race, and all about his ideology and associations.

Get a life.

For the past 8 years we had to deal with the lefts attack on Bush, and recently on people like Palin, Joe the Plumber, Rush, and now Beck, so it is time for those on the left to be honest, opposition to Obama did not spring up over night, it is part of the political landscape.

The way I remember it, things were pretty quiet about bush until 9/11. Most people had resigned themselves to 4 years of a mediocre President. We had even put aside the TERRORISM and Judicial coup that put him in office. (Specifically the Brooks Brothers Riot in Miami and the supreme court decision appointing him to the office of President.)

Then 9/11 happened and even I, in my most Liberal jaded mindset gave him the benefit of the doubt. (Reading My Pet Goat while people WERE FLINGING THEMSELVES OUT OF WINDOWS 100 STORIES ABOVE THE GROUND)

I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

But then came color codes, phone tapping, torture, an illegal war in Iraq, to name a few things that changed my mind.

bush deserves EVERYTHING he gets. He earned it.

Obama has been in office a little over 7 months, after inheriting a colossal mess. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt that somehow we will be able to SAVE YOUR PRECIOUS CAPTIALIST SYSTEM.

So it's racism

Duh! That's ALL it is!

Well the truth is, that the opposition to Obama, has very little to do with his race (he is half white and half black), but all to do about his associations and his ideology.

HA! That's funny. Is that what you tell yourself to justify blind hatred for someone who hasn't done anything?!
In order for the hatred spewed at President Obama day and night, to be about his "associations" and his "ideology," he'd have to be the first liberal president in history, instead of the first black president!
Seeing as how Obama isn't the first liberal president in American history, it's not a streatch to assume that people know how liberals operate(i.e. their ideology). So save the BS! I don't recall people hoping for Clinton to fail, or die, or the rest of the nonsense Obama has to put up with from a bunch of nuts.

I know its hard for some to comprehend, but yes President Obama has associates. I'm positive that through out his life, he's meet people. I don't know them all, nor would I want to. I'm sure he'll continue to meet people, until he leaves this earth, like everyone else in the world. Shocking I know!
What I don't know is why it matters. If someone lived next door to Obama 20yrs ago, and they committed a crime, you people can and definitely will find a way to make it Obama's fault. Pathetic!
I worry about "associations" that hurt America. Like being buddies with Saddam!! That ended well didn't it?!

Thumbs up to you Gapeach. Well said.

I've met hippies, Communist, Black Panthers, Black Muslims, krackers, members of militias, members of the Aryan Nation, bikers and on and on,

Different thoughts didn't hurt me. They didn't make me into something evil, but their exposure made me who I am.

I'd distrust a President that didn't meet people with diametrically opposed viewpoints.

I have a question: Why is it that so many of your Right Wingers are so creepy? I mean, look at Limbaugh and Beck: They both BOUNCE for goodness sake. And that pale, watery eyed, wet-lipped look: Not only do Limbaugh and Beck have it, ROVE has it, for goodness sake. And Cheney has a face like a snapping turtle. (Watch your fingers!!) And that New York guy -- the cross-dresser -- I can't remember who he is.

You get one decent-looking candidate with half a brain, who even knows that Spain is in Europe, and you spit him out with nary a chew. (Romney, in case you've forgotten.

I don't think you people are racist at all. I think this is all about "Revenge of the Nerds.) It's too bad this isn't a movie.

Okay. I'll admit it. I'm a creepist from way back. I feel another attack coming now...

I must ask those on the left:

"In your minds, is it possible for a white person to be opposed to Obama for reasons other than racism?"

Just Neli ...

" ... you people"

a prejudice remark?

Sassy, seriously,

You have to forgive them, they only know one song. It is the only thing they have left to stand on. They point their snotty little fingers and shout "Racist". It is the only card in the deck. They can no longer come up with reasonable defences for Obama's policies.

So they try to place the scarlet R upon your forehead. Hoping at long last to shame you into silence. But we will not be silent. We will be heard. And we will pick up momentum. People are waking up and they are seeing what they bought. There is real regret. There is buyers remorse. "I didn't know" is no longer an excuse. Some see and are repelled by what they see. Some see and deny what they see. Let them defend the indefensible with the only tool they have......."Racist". A pitiful arsenal for an irrepressible foe. But still they stand on their silly little soapboxes and yell "Racist". Like it was the magic flashlight to scare away the bogeyman.

They cannot hide the truth behind "Racist". "Racist" wont cover up the holes in his policies. "Racist" isn't the blank check to fund his fiscal irresponsibility. "Racist" isn't the eraser to wipe the slate clean of his latest gaff. It is all they have so please do not take that away from them for without it they will have to think for themselves. They would have to find logical ways to defend senseless policies.

CitizenX,

So you advocate doing nothing to fix the mess bush left?

The mess Bush left got Obama elected. That doesn't mean he gets a pass to do anything he wants. "Well, he did all kinds of S**T, so I should be able to do any S**T I want to, also." We're not tradin' licks here. This is OUR Constitution and OUR Economy he's messing with.

If you are left of him, you must be a Communist because he is at least a Socialist.

I missed it, did he mention how many black friends he has?

RNoel-525230

So it's racism. Got it.

You can tell one of fox listener they know how to spin everything, everything he wrote describe president Bush, Dana R. say it's not racism, what a joke, every since the president was elected racism have come out in full, Dana r. must have forgotten that Bush left 5 trillion dollars of debt when he left office, but Mr Bush ideology was good for the country, and when Mr Bush spied on all Americans and did not tell us and the congress (secrets you say) when Mr Bush sent Mr Paulson to congress asking for 789 billion dollars with know question asked, when Mr Bush sent our young people to war on a lie what kind of ideology was that, but he was a white man so what ever he did was all right with Dana R. she is not a racist it's just president Obama's ideology, what a bunch of bull, and who was the one who threw the constitution out the door when he did thing with out going to congress and those executive privilege and those signing statement, and Dana R. said president Obama threw the constitution out the window, everything she said fit the last president to a tee, bu that is what the republicans and fox do, spin, spin and spin the truth.

I must ask those on the left:

"In your minds, is it possible for a white person to be opposed to Obama for reasons other than racism?"

Simple answer, RonBlack66 is no. However (there is always a however), when you notice a level of disrespect coming from elected Republicans, then one has to wonder. The Obama detractors are probably made up of those with legitimate gripes and then there are those that are absolutely racist but are piggy-backing on the legit opposition.

The problem is that when we try to put the label on those that deserve it, it hits those legit opposers. So, I guess that as long as the legit oppostion is in bed with these racists, they will have to bear that weight.

Simple answer, RonBlack66 is no. However (there is always a however), when you notice a level of disrespect coming from elected Republicans, then one has to wonder

And you know what they say about assumptions!! Claiming someone or people are racist without proof is wrong. Assumptions. Bitching about Obama's policies and not supporting him and making a big hubbub about it IS NOT RACISM. Reality check! Unless these people / Republicans (as you all love to claim) are calling him the N-word, talking about his skin color, etc, etc, or calling him publicly a porch monkey.. then you would be correct in calling them racists. If they are not doing those things... then calling them a racist is disingenuous. You don't know there minds or hearts. Unless they are being openly racist.. its wrong to ASSUME. Period. The only people I'm hearing all the time bring up his race.. his skin color.. the N word.. and all kinds of racist things are you guys on the Left liking to seed articles and throw claims about the right being the racist ones. In actuality.. your the problem and keeping it all going with hyperbole false claims.

You fail to mention Rush playing on his radio show the song about our President being a magic negro,or that this song was distributed by some leaders and thought it was not taken like it should have been it was just a joke please---,or that Glen Beck shows the marching Nazis and compares the symbol of Obama's campaign to the Nazi symbol,than says he never called the president a Nazi.

I do not think all who oppose our President are racists but,I think there are alot who are and it's sad because it makes all who oppose look racists,if the opposition got the nuts under wraps or opposed them,but that wont happen think back to the campaign when crowds at Palins doing shouted out things like kill him,the comments of lynchings coming up at Republican events its all in bad taste and it looks like what it looks like,honestly I feel sad for all who are grouped in with these nut cases cause it makes the whole group look bad.

Simplistic Reality

Simple answer, RonBlack66 is no. However (there is always a however), when you notice a level of disrespect coming from elected Republicans, then one has to wonder

And you know what they say about assumptions!! Claiming someone or people are racist without proof is wrong. Assumptions. @!$%#ing about Obama's policies and not supportinghim and making a big hubbub about it IS NOT RACISM. Reality check! Unless these people / Republicans (as you all love to claim) are calling him the N-word, talking about his skin color, etc, etc, or calling him publicly a porch monkey.. then you would be correct in calling them racists. If they are not doing those things... then calling them a racist is disingenuous. You don't know there minds or hearts. Unless they are being openly racist.. its wrong to ASSUME. Period. The only people I'm hearing all the time bring up his race.. his skin color.. the N word.. and all kinds of racist things are you guys on the Left liking to seed articles and throw claims about the right being the racist ones. In actuality.. your the problem and keeping it all going with hyperbole false claims.

SIMPLISTIC REALITY--- I AM a 63 year old black man and all blacks know all the code words and they have used from the time president Obama took office and what talk radio and fox have done was to inflame those who believe that a black man should not be in the white house, they have called him a racist a socialist and a commiunist code for he is not like us (white), just because they have not called him a @!$%# out right we know what they are saying and you do to, we are not stupid and we understand what is going on in America now, the whites think they are losing their country as if they were the only ones who built this country and blacks had no part in this country's growth, free labor was what made the country.

Wow......just really wow.

So this is what everything has been reduced to, white people constantly have to defend themselves because oh dear they oppose Obama, surely can't be any other reason but race. And black people having to use the race card as their crutch of excuses.

Fine ya know what let's get right down do it, let's really lay it all out since the 60's taught us f-all about civil rights. So come on everyone lets be honest and get it over with (sarcasm to follow)

White people yup are all honky, cracker, whitey, Ofay, Ann, Charlie, peckerwood, redneck, Hitler praising racists.

Black people yup are all n**ger, coon, apes, Jim Crow, spade, tar baby racists.

Good glad we have that all settled and worked out right. Everyone freaking HAPPY NOW

And you are damn right I am being absolutely sarcastic in what I just said, it is called being fed the f__— up with this pure asinine bulls***

For 8 G*d damn years I watched the the majority in the US and around the world SHOW SO MUCH DISRESPECT towards Bush. 8 years that man was turned into the scum of the earth. I didn't like his crap, but that man was hated, he was the MOST HATED man in front of Hitler and Osama for 8 years and is still hated, but he was still the President of the United States, but obviously that didn't matter one bit to anyone and everyone attacking him. So apparently it is all right to show hatred and disrespect to George W. Bush who was the President of the United States, but no no not towards Obama as then you are racist.

So now the shoe is on the other foot people don't like Obama for whatever flipping reason, but no NO NO that isn't acceptable you can't possibly show any disapproval towards Obama the Great, the President of the United States right is that is??? Seriously??? What in the hell makes Obama impervious to dislike? NOTHING . The man is not a freaking god and presidents constantly CONSTANTLY have been hated by someone for whatever reasons, and in some cases they have been killed for it. Is everyone going to then say they were killed because they were white, they were hated because they were white? Is that really the best excuse everyone can come up with, it can ONLY be color?

It is THIS crap that is making people "racist" but not in the real sense, but because they have had to constantly defend themselves against a-holes being so freaking intolerant to the fact that people for THEIR reasons have a problem with Obama. I am sick to death of the accusations that ONLY and ALL white people are racist. I am SICK of the accusations that if you are not in line with Obama, if you don't approve of him for his policies and political stance, or ideologies, you are a racist. I can turn it right around and say those screaming racist ONLY like Obama because he is half black. There how is that I will now use that accusation.

The false accusations, the assumptions are making everyone look beyond stupid.

It is a crock of excrement, and thank you all TRULY those screaming racist and racism THANK YOU for throwing the country right back before the 60's.

IF people are racist, and I can bet it is a SMALL few (at least in the US that don't speak for the majority) BIG DEAL. You will find racism, intolerance, discrimination EVERYWHERE in this world. GET OVER IT!!!!! All colors are racist.

But I am fed the **** up of everyone being so ignorant as to instantly assume and attack people claiming racism if they don't like Obama, when those accusers don't even have the facts, don't even know the truth. They don't know the damn person, but it is clear some don't even care to.

Jerry Coleman--

they have called him a racist a socialist and a commiunist code for he is not like us (white)

Um you do realize that communism and socialism were started up by white people, were carried out by mainly white people.

Can........you explain to me how it is a "not like us (white)" thing.

Michpainter--

I do not think all who oppose our President are racists but,I think there are alot who are and it's sad because it makes all who oppose look racists

Ok But the people that actually listen to them, meaning those who are not opposed to Obama, and if they listen to Rush and Beck and their blabber verbal diarrhea free flowing ignorant mouths, and thinking that speaks for America, that is those peoples' faults meaning the ones that toss out the racism accusation.

Why listen to them, why listen to anything have to say, why give them an audience? You will have the knuckleheads that will listen, thankfully I don't hear any of that crap, but to listen to them instead of others and to take what they say as the voice of the majority is beyond stupid.

Beck and Rush do not speak for the majority they speak for their own narrowminded, little pathetic mindless drone audience, and they people that do believe those two do speak for the majority are idiots.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SpoxLogic--

And there was a MOUNTAIN range of a high levels of disrespect by elected Democrats towards Bush. So what.......are you really trying to get at?

Exactly.

My question:

"In your minds, is it possible for a white person to be opposed to Obama for reasons other than racism?"

SpoxLogic's answer:

"Simple answer, RonBlack66 is no."

That pretty much sums it up, SpoxLogic. There was no need to go any further after that admission.

what talk radio and fox have done was to inflame those who believe that a black man should not be in the white house,

what? you have a shread of proof to that?

You fail to mention Rush playing on his radio show the song about our President being a magic negro

And you fail to mention that the term was originally coined by the very liberal David Ehrenstein in an Op-Ed piece in the LA Times. But then...Liberals tend not to be bothered with facts.

http://www.black-and-right.com/2008/12/28/deflecting-the-magic-negro/

In a March 19, 2007 Los Angeles Times op-ed, liberal David Ehrenstein wrote,

As every carbon-based life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.

But it’s clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the “Magic Negro.”

not based on racism LMAO! ROTFL!!!! ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

with our history?

"he is not one of us" "he is a muslim" "he is a terrorist" "he could be assassinated! ha ha, tee hee, ho ho!!!!"

we remember the kkkampaign! and the nasty, nasty wolves in sheep's cloth oh, I mean "Christians" uh huh!!!! LMAO!

Did somebody forget their psyc. med's today?

Racism in the United States has been a major issue since the colonial era. Historically, the country has been dominated by a settler society of religiously and ethnically diverse Whites. The heaviest burdens of racism in the country have historically fallen upon Native Americans, Asian Americans, African Americans, Latin Americans, American Jews, Irish Americans and some other immigrant groups and their descendants (the definition of "White" has changed over time; many European groups, such as Irish and Italians, were not considered "White" when they first immigrated to the United States, and were victims of racial discrimination at that time). White Americans occasionally do experience racial discrimination; it is disputed whether this is properly termed "racism," and, in general, since other groups have less economic and social power, it is uncommon that such discrimination has the power to seriously harm Whites.

Major racially structured institutions include slavery, Indian reservations, segregation, residential schools (for Native Americans), internment camps, and affirmative action. Racial stratification has occurred in employment, housing, education and government. Formal racial discrimination was largely banned in the mid-20th century, and it came to be perceived as socially unacceptable and/or morally repugnant as well, yet racial politics remain a major phenomenon.

Racist attitudes, or prejudice, are still held by significant portions of the U.S population. Members of every American ethnic group have perceived racism in their dealings with other groups.^[1][2]

CitizenX in 1.4 decisively proves that opposition to Obama is racist. What is this Obama is a Kenyan business? Is 'Kenyan' the new n-word.

This new racism sounds like the old racism. Used to be, if you weren't WASP you weren't American and certainly didn't get to be Pres. Now, if you're 'Kenyan' you couldn't be Pres.

You're either with us or against us. If you're against us you hate America. If you hate America why don't you leave. Love it or leave it! Perfect right-wing logic.

I don't like Michael Vick. I must be racist.

No, when using how he is playing or some of his shenanigans, it make you a realist!

But I do not like how 0bama is playing or his shenanigans I must be a racist! That's funny!

Simple answer, RonBlack66 is no

This must rank as the most illogical and silly assertions on the Vine, ever. Are Dr. Walter Williams and Michael Steele, both conservative blacks, racist as well? Your Vulcan logic is highly illogical.

Did somebody forget their psyc. med's today?

LOL

Your Vulcan logic is highly illogical.

LOL

I am white. I did not vote for the gutless, manchurian apologist-in-chief, hero of cairo, and former community organizer from Chicago, by way of Indonesia, who attended the church of Rev. "God Damn America" wright for 20 years, while associating with the likes of ayers and alinsky. I did not vote for McCain either. I wrote in my vote for Condi Rice. In the past, I also once wrote in my vote for Colin Powell. The chosen one's ideology and anti-American character is why I oppose him.

world knight, why don't you tell us how you really feel?

Ha! Ha! Way to speak the truth, friend.

The color that gets in my way when it comes to Obama is red, not black or white.

well put, Citizen X. Point by point refutation!!

DanaR-

Utter tripe,

Paranoid, delusional tripe.

When will this racist ignorance stop?

Q: What is the definition of a "racist"?

A: Anyone winning an argument against a liberal.

The left seems to feel that ALL disagreement and disrespect for Obama is based upon racial issues. I will concede that some is, much like some for Bush, and other previous white presidents was based on race. "Bush does not like black people." to quote Kanye West on the Katrina televised benefit. The number of times that I have heard the black members of society stating the GW Bush was not "their" President, he was the "white mans" president. But in this instance by and large the disrespect being displayed towards Obama is based upon the disagreement with the presidents policies and tactics.

He should not be offered any more respect for being black than any other president was offered for being white. President Obama's politics, much like President Bush's politics, are what is driving the lack of respect by the opposition, not race. When the left recognizes that those that oppose him are doing so because they disagree with the direction they feel he is taking the country, they will see that he is being opposed based upon his politics and not his color.

You can try all you wish to hide behind the race card, but when those that oppose Obama do not see his race and only see the make up of his character you will see that he is being treated exactly as MLK wished an African American should be treated. We are paying attention to what he has to say, to what he intends to do, and to the direction he wishes to go; and not his skin color.

Those that are playing the race card so often (the left) only seem to be able to see his skin color and judge him for that. They apparently do not see him as having much substance or leveling much respect to what he has to say.

Fact is, the lefts continuous slinging of the term racists is a bigger insult to the President because they apparently do not believe he is capable of forming an opinion worth debating that is more important than his race. Those that can not debate an Obama opinion or position without using the race cared are in my opinion the same ones that felt it was more important to put an African American in the White House than a person that is qualified to sit there. And that is not to say that McCain/Palin were any more qualified than Obama. What that does say is that because of the person's skin color it does not make them any more qualified to sit in the Oval Office any more than the next person, or any less qualified.

Bottom line, the left is swinging wildly, like a punch drunk boxer, to defend the person they put in the White House. They have run out of excuses for his broken promises and poor choices and have resorted to the race card as their final fall back position. My prediction is that according the lefts standards and definition of a "racist" a majority Americans will be a racist by the end of this administration. The term "racist" will become synonymous with the opposition of President Obama.

When will this racist ignorance stop?

When the media and the race baiters on the left stop bringing up "race this", "racism that", you oppose Obama so "your a racist xyz blah blah". Frankly I'm sick of hearing that claim. My brain is about to meltdown if I keep seeing these articles daily on the Vine. Same goes for some of the stupid crap that comes from the right as well. @!$%# gets old. Its his policies and how he is running our Government that is the issue!!

if you are a true conservative and do not associate with obama because of his left agenda, why did you not distance yourself from bush?

Jerry Coleman,

I AM a 63 year old black man and all blacks know all the code words ...

Let me guess, you know the secret handshake also? Code words? The only thing that comes to mind is the statement "I would not be paranoid if all these people that are trying to get me would just stop!"

Uh oh. Code words? I better break out my Olvaltine de-coder ring!

"Little Orphan Annie says to be sure to drink your Ovaltine!"

Hm..I think that is a racist statement...

Don't forget to cover the "token Black Commentator" who is the expert for the GOP

Yeah I'm sick of hearing that one too. Or calling Rice the same thing.

Just a thunk here, but if Obama has determined that his Presidency was not going to be about race, and that he wanted to move past race, why is he not quieting those on his own side that those on the right are voicing their opinions and that they should be respected and listened to? They may not be accurate, he may not want agree with them, but if he were to make it clear that a disagreement with someone of color may just be nothing more than just a disagreement and that to lay it at the feet of racism all the time does nothing but dismisses the person of color as not being able to make a statement even worth debating, but instead one must focus on their color.

Obama is not above racism, he plays it like a bloody Stradivarius!

renard,

Rather than simply cutting and pasting large passages from Wikipedia as you did in #1.29, you may simply want to include a link next time.

Like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagerism

"In your minds, is it possible for a white person to be opposed to Obama for reasons other than racism?"

Yes. Absolutely.

Have I seen many examples of protest against Obama and his policies that haven't taken a racist turn? No.

And dont forget about the classsic, Harry Belafonte calling Colin Powell "house boy".

But since it is a leftist black person calling someone on the right "house boy" then apparently it can not be racist now can it? Kind of like the N-word being bantered about by so many blacks but when it is used by the right or a "kracker" as Jerry Coleman referred to them as, it becomes racist and hateful.

Racism is just like a quarter, it can show different faces but it does not change what it is.

Of course some people are simply in disagreement with Obama's views. But then there are others....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODaxZSz3Awg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSrY8Uj3yXU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDHnWVPKqSY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0ho6qEhMbs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YIq5Q15L1o

I have watched appalled at what the wingnuts are doing to cover their racism with PC talking points.... I am a 63 old white female professional--who has seen mostly overt racism growing up in the South but this is so vile, venal, and driven as to be horrifying .

.Forget the whackos like limpbow , beck and palin, the media is giving this credence and allowing the lies and distortions from elected officials and those pro-ported to be thinking integrity based Christians! None of my true republican friends think this is how they would want to be represented and are embarrassed.

Please, someone bring back rational truth based discourse...differences of opinion are helpful and can bring real solutions but this is destructive to put it mildly!! Shame on the media and all those lying on both sides! Salacious BS with a very dangerous edge!

STOP THIS NOW>

Thank you Reagan-540838. People like you need to take your party back. And I wish I could vote for your comment more than once.

And dont forget about the classsic, Harry Belafonte calling Colin Powell "house boy".

Ahhh. I almost forgot about that one. If Liberals make comments like that..its not racist though. Kinda like the comments against Clarence Thomas.

"Thank you Reagan-540838. People like you need to take your party back." -- Ellen for Obama

Oh, come on now. Reagan-540838 is a staunch Democrat, evidenced by this comment she made on 12/4/08, as well as other comments she's made in the past.

"I watched him thru the campaign...he is a great kid...but I will read nothing further about clinton in the campaign...I watched and listened to her as well--when she endorsed Mccain over her opponent, Obama---I was done! She disgusts me!" (source: Obama's campaign manager to write book)

Don't let her screen name fool you. She is no Republican. Her party is the Democratic party.

Thank you Reagan-540838. People like you need to take your party back. And I wish I could vote for your comment more than once.

Ellen

Shame on the media and all those lying on both sides!

Reagen

Ellen, please do try to read a bit closer, "lying on BOTH sides includes YOUR side. Who exactly will be taking your party back? More importantly, who the hell would want it?

The left will sling the label of racist at the right, the right will try and defend themselves and agree that certain statements by those on the right were racist. The right will bring to the attention of the left that there are racists amongst them and the left will completely ignore this fact and post YouTube video after YouTube video in an effort to play the "hey look over there" routine instead of addressing the accusation that on the table.

There may be more racists on the right, true. After all, the extreme right shares the borders with hate groups like the KKK and NeoNazis. But the difference is that when a racist is pointed out to someone on the right they will agree that yes a KKK member is racist. When you point out to someone on the left that one of their own is a racist, members of the Black Panthers, Rev. Wright, Rev. Sharpton, Rev. Jackson, (lots of Reverends!), they can not accept that fact and all they do is circle the wagons and defend them by distraction.

So which is worse: those that are racist or those that defend racists?

Dan,

Link to the bill?

No, it's based on racism...and general Republican stupidity.

Who exactly will be taking your party back? More importantly, who the hell would want it?

(First of all, I mistakenly read Reagan-540838 as identifying with the Republicans. Oops.)

As for your question, most of the country wants it. That's how they voted. As for party division, it's mainly focused around one issue: health care reform. There are some cowardly Democrats who've talked the talk, but now that the red carpet has been rolled out, they don't want to walk the walk. They will be remembered. Mark my words.

The OTHER party, in comparison, is disjointed and speckled with incredibly polarizing "leaders," has continuously voted against its own mantra of smaller government and no deficit spending, etc. (without EVER acknowledging the big ol' DUH that their tax cuts were part of the problem), and had to try to distance itself from Obama at the same time it kept arm's length of the former GOP leader, George W Bush. The only thing it has going for it right now is that it is NOT in power. With the power shift, Democrats have the burden of producing good legislation. All the Republicans have to do is sit back and whine (and lie and distort, etc.). Oh, and oppose everything! Absolutely EVERYTHING!

No, it's based on racism...and general Republican stupidity.

Gosh, I feel put in my place.

Thank you Dan.

I am not a republican nor belong to the other party, but have listen to both and believe they are idiots for they will alway believe I am better than the other party. Or if you disagree with me you are a racism or what ever name you can come up with.

I happen to agree with the person who wrote this it has nothing to do with race when we disagree with what Obama is doing, to many Czar doing nothing but costing us money. I do feel he pick people to put in position that are racist, and I am not sure if he even care about this country for he is taking us down by putting us in debt. It appear he want to bankrupt this country, for if he was half as smart as most people believe he wouldn't be pushing anything that we need to spend more money on until our country start to get back on it feet.

He promise Mexico that illegal will get amnesty and a way to citizenship knowing the citizens of this country didn't want that, trying to push health care because there is 40 million without insurance out of almost 400 million, but let go into more debt. What about just giving insurance to the 40 million and only legal citizens.

But if we disagree with something he want we are racist, but it is OK for the other side to say what ever they want and they are not racist.

Go upon the fact and look at what Obama has done up to this point, you will see he isn't helping this country and it doesn't matter what color he is or anything else they are fact. I don't care who he knew as a kid or who he live next to, I am judging him on what he is doing himself and nothing else, granted Bush was bad but Obama is turning out just like Bush himself.

For both of your parties you do not think for yourself instead your party does it for you and now do you understand why this country is going down. Just sit and blame each other for your mistakes, the out come will be the same say good-by to the greatest country in the world. When you are looking in that mirror you will see who help take the country down.

Yes I have to agree Barry is a racist.

I've been hearing about the amesty crap long before Obama took office. I don't at all like the idea that he supports it.

As far as the healthcare we do need to do something. At least he has an idea and is pushing to actually do something. How long have presidents been giving this issue lip service? With the unemployment rate what it is right now, how many kids do you figure are going without the medical care they should have?

brenda, condescending and rude. Dc stone is very well informed as a matter of fact much more informed then you appear to be.

.

The left thinks that we should all be supportive of their messiah Obama. When we for all the reasons stated in the original article choose not to, they use intellectual lazyness, to kindly describe it and rather than debate the issues, use the fact that he's half black to accuse all of us who dare to disagree with the one of being racists. They have nothing else to say.

here we go with another unfortunate brainwash victim^^^^^^^

"THE LEFT" is the reich wing think- tanked propaganda term for any thinking, rational, unbrainwashed American.

Unfortunately, that's just about everyone in the USA but what is left of the the reichwing sheeple, the KKK and some cults.

Interesting........ yawn.

Just two cents from an Independent who grew up near Detroit in the 60's and 70's in a neighborhood ethinically and racially mixed. The Race card has been being played constantly. As I have posted in other Places my Dad was a teacher during those turbulent times. Heard in my ownliving room by ex black student(who were black panthers) of my dad (he was at middle school level) say to him you have nothing to worry it is not about you because you have been an open and FAIR MAN. But we are after the white liberals because if they are willing to turn on their own they are willing to turn on anyone. Heard this repeated more than once growing up than and Yes we are white. I never had or have any problems with anyone because I learned what you see is what you get and I give respect to everyone but as I have said race card always played when you disagree with what they are doing. I have caught folks stealing and heard them say you are picking on me because I am black not because you have a pair of earing that you have stuck in your purse or the shirt you have rolled and stuck under your coat or the leather coat you are trying to take without paying.

Now BTW as I have said I am an Independent and unlike those from far left and far right I have meet and associated with many from different walks of life and different opinions I had meet some of my friend for dinner in Waycross Georgia. I hate labels but my two of my female friends happen to be black and are small business owners and we were just talking and they brought up that they thought things were going to change and they did not think that anyone could do any worse than BUSH but that were sad to say it was and they had now wish they had stuck to their original views and Stuck By Hilliary Clinton. But also I continue to hear by other Black Americans that these women being successful they have forgotten who they are because they did make it.

As most of you continue to forget with out real JOBS things are going to continue in a downward spiral. Nothing is free and that is the problem most think they are entitled and do not have to earn. As I said saw the seeds of these Ideas being Planted and take root and this is why things are the way they are.

T.O.C.E.,

Very well said. Thank you. Anyone that assumes that any opposition to anyone solely due to their skin color, be it black, white, mixed and any other color of the rainbow is an idiot. I was willing to give the new President chances to prove himself-he is more of the same as far as I can tell. Failing to live up to campaign promises is de rigeur with politicians-and he's just that, a politician, nothing more, nothing less.

That was a good piece and interesting T.O.C.E

and I liked the last sentence Spikegary

a politician, nothing more, nothing less

And I think some posters have been over the top in their generalizations not only from the right, but the left.

However, here's my viewpoint, an outsider, and I don't know whether you guys would agree or not.

Despite those who unconditionally fawn over the president, there seems to be a certain increasing base that the Republicans are catering to, who are very vocal and active, who are repeating some fallacies and fears that makes one wonder exactly what the logic is.

It seems there's more hyperbole commentating than journalism. There are weird accusations, labels and extremes being mentioned about the president and his actions which are way over the top and lack objectivity. Many are wondering that there seems to be a constant bombardment of knee-jerk reactions, even on non-issues.

Most surprising are some campaigns by protesters seem very suggestive or alluding to race or his Muslim heritage.

There seems that amongst the GOP there has been an infiltration of such views, where surprisingly also backed by people repeating and believing the previous administration's mantra from the likes of Dick Cheney, and sidelining moderates like Colin Powell, which makes you question their ability to be objective.

So my point is, yes, its wrong to label everyone on the right as being racist. That would probably include me since I've got some of my criticisms, though I view the current Prez more positively on the whole and of course way better than the previous admin.

However, will you not concede that there seems to be an increase of many many incidents of extreme paranoia and weird statements and actions that sound extremely hateful and somewhat unjustified during a period of less than a year when really nothing major has actually happened?

A lot of things seem like they're adding up, and one can't help to think towards that direction for at least some of the vocal protesters.

Spikegary

Thank you

Bigsaf

Thank you, All I can say is what I have seen in my lifetime experiences and truly that is all any of us bring to our conversations.

I have a question. why does "playing" the race card bother so many. Try the shoe on the other foot. It may not be that I dislike white racist, I just disagree with their "ideaologies" and "positions". Acussing people of playing the race card for simply defending the obvious is like saying, "everbody knows "those people" ain't human". He's Democrat, he's liberal and so were many before him. So many americans(usually white conservatives) seem to be saying, "we had better watch this one", there is no way a black man can write a simple speech without some ulterior motive.

So I don't feel any quams about "playing" the race card. It would be ideal if I just said OK, there's no more racism. But I can't and there is! Why is everything directed at the president considered racial, well because I for one recall learning how slavery was the accepted norm, how segregationist claim godlyness, how civil rights and human attitude cost thousands of lives. So if I seem to be paranoid when it comes to race, so be it. History has proven that many speak with forked tongues. I know everyone has a right to question the presidetn's agenda and therefore, I the right to approach why!

So if I seem to be paranoid when it comes to race, so be it.

You do. And I have a sneaking suspicion that you're too young to remember when Clinton first got elected. We conservatives were just as watchful and just as critical of him in the beginning...and he's one of the whitest whites I've ever seen. In fact, it was white conservatives that took him to task when he claimed he was the 'first black president'. It was liberals that were making excuses for him when he made that comment. I suspect that if a white Republican POTUS made this comment, he would be called a 'racist', right?

'first black president'.

Toni Morrison was the one who got that claim started. lol.

We opposed Bush because of his far right ideology.

We opposed Bush for giving Tax Cuts to the Rich

We opposed Bush because he doubled the National Debt. that Clinton left.

We opposed Bush because he started the unconstitutional bank and auto companies bailouts

We opposed Bush because he was against Childrens Health Insurance and created the Donut Hole for Senior Citizens and their prescription coverages, All you need to do is read what his health, and science advisors told him, those were the so called death panels.

We opposed Bush for starting a war based upon lies.

We opposed Bush because of his lies about WMD in Iraq.

We opposed Bush for allowing Torture

We opposed Bush for allowing warrantless wire taps

We opposed Bush because he engaged in personal attacks against covert CIA Agents

We opposed Bush because of his attacks on the Constitution and Americans.

We opposed Bush for having secret meetings with the drug companies, letting them charge high prices for 4 more years on drugs, before they go generic. And refusing to let Medicare and Medicaid negotiate for lower prices with the Drug Companies

We opposed Bush because he was the most secretive President ever.

We opposed Bush because he was the most divisive president in our history.

We opposed Bush because he allowed our domestic economy to crash and burn and creating the greatest recession since the Great Depression.

So as you see it is nothing about race, and all about his ideology and associations.

For the past 8 months we have had to deal with the right wing attacks on Obama, and recently on people like Vice President Joe Biden, Timothy Geitner , Keith Olberman , and now Rachel Maddow , so it is time for those on the right to be honest, opposition to President Bush did not spring up over night, it was earned over 8 years as part of the political landscape

Keith, I doubt anyone believes that there is no racism. Most people believe that racism is bad.

The point is that racism is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Star Parker, Mychal Massie, and Thomas Sowell are some black columnists who have brought up many of the same points as DanaR.

It's stimulating to have a lively discussion about politics, but when one side resorts to name calling and personal attacks, it gets old. This is an indication that they have run out of relevant arguments but are unwilling to stop talking.

Vice President Joe Biden himself has said racist remarks that on the record.

renard:

Way to go!!! Thank you!

Only because you do not want to know the truth

SassyTN

Only because you do not want to know the truth

Their are a lot of truth to what DANA R, said but she had the wrong president, all of what she wrote fits president Bush.

okay here's some facts for you SAT:

he did take in fact over GM and Chrysler - and put a person in charge who had zero experience in the auto industry

he has spent money and put us further in debt than ALL the other President's combined - the interest on our debt is now 500 million a day

he did cut a back room deal with the drug companies

he has attacked private citizens - case in point - Joe the plumber trashed, lied about, and excoreated because he exposed the President for being a classic socialist, then the police officer incident with Obama saying he didn't know the facts of the case in Cambridge and then claiming the officer arresting the man was racialy motivated

as far as the whole racial thing look at all the posts on here claiming that people oppose him because of race - it's insane. That is the only card left to play, I guess.

he did take in fact over GM and Chrysler

Did he? Those companies now list their ownership as the US government or Obama? Really?

he has spent money and put us further in debt than ALL the other President's combined

The national debt when Bush left office was $9 trillion. Is the current debt at $18 trillion? Any link to show that?

he did cut a back room deal with the drug companies

He did cut a deal with them. Not very back rrom since everyone has known about it for months. Incidentally, us progressives were never happy about that one, even though he is the messiah and all.

he has attacked private citizens

Come on, really? Joe the Plumber? First, Obama never said anything about him except when he gave a perfectly good answer to the man's loaded, disingenuous question. Second, Sam (Joe) is a phony and an idiot who was never truthful from day one. Furthermore, not one bad thing was done to him. He went on to milk his 15 minutes for all they were worth, despite the "attack" from Obama that you claim he received.

Can you see why we question the motives of Obama's opponents when these are the "facts" that are trotted out as rationale for opposing him?

Sam (Joe) is a phony and an idiot who was never truthful from day one.

and I'll ask you the same - have any facts? BTW , not some fly by night left wing blog.

debt:

http://www.historiccity.com/2009/staugustine/news/florida/editorial-spending-our-way-out-of-debt-1657

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2595.cfm

As far as the GM takeover, the government and yes, Obama, since he ordered it, took it over against the people's wishes

steve rattner has zero experience and had to resign under allegations of kickbacks:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/rasmussen-poll-17-percent-of-americans-support-gm-boycot/

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/17/auto-czar-under-investigation-for-kickbacks/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/14/auto-czar-leaves-washington-cloud-pay-play-investigation/

have any facts?

Do I have facts for what, that Joe the Plumber is a phony and an idiot? Do I need to post videos of his speeches? As for him being a phony, are yo udenying that he did not make over $250K, that he was not in a position to buy his boss's company, that the company did not earn profits of $250k, that he is not a licensed plumber, and that his name is not really Joe?

You originally said that Obama has put us in debt more than all other presidents combined. Your evidence for that is possible deficits, projections, and bills that have not passed Congress. Is the national debt right now $18 trillion, yes or no? We both know the answer is no.

just post your links is all I'm asking.

Did he? Those companies now list their ownership as the US government or Obama? Really?

Really. To be fair, the US Government only holds a 60% majority. Canada owns a tad bit too. Of course, I'm sure you'll find a way to spin this into a 'good thing', right?

http://canadianaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/general_motors_claims_bankruptcy

Governments in both the United States, and Canada have taken an ownership stake in GM. In the United States, the Obama Administration pledged an additional $30 billion to help the automaker through its bankruptcy period. The U.S. government will eventually own 60% of the company.

In remarks published on cbc.ca President Barack Obama said his government was a hesitant shareholder: “We are acting as reluctant shareholders because that is the only way to help GM succeed.” Obama’s comments continued stating General Motors would be independently managed.

Canada, and the Ontario governments followed suit. Governments on this side of the border have contributed a total of $10.6 billion dollars to help Chrysler and General Motors. GM’s final ownership structure will give the federal government 12% ownership of the company, and the right to name one person to the board of directors.

Holding a 60% share means you hold the majority vote of the board of directors, in essence, anything you say as a 60% shareholder, no one else can override, so yes, the government has taken over and runs them-not that they could be that much worse than the previous idiots running the U.S. auto industry.

All they actually needed for that control is to have 51 percent of the shares... but at 60 percent guess they were playing it safe.

So that you know I'm unbiased, the President's speech to the school kids was very good and appropriate.

still nothing from jaywill11. How bout those sources there?

Now that's some hard reporting.

Unfortunately I'm guessing those who disagree would have read your first paragraph and jumped directly to the post below yours.

bigsaf wrote,

Unfortunately I'm guessing those who disagree would have read your first paragraph and jumped directly to the post below yours.

The bigots and the haters don't want to read anything that approaches truth and factual information - they're hopeless. I write to frustrate them, get stuff off my chest and reassure intelligent people that there are some of us left.

A. Mac

A Macarthur

keep it up there are more good people in America than the lunatics,racist,and bigots want you to believe.

I write to frustrate them, get stuff off my chest and reassure intelligent people that there are some of us left.

Not to mention making us aware of your humility and sense of modesty too, right Mac?

Pat N,

If it's true it ain't braggin'!

And if that's your best rebuttal, I rest my case.

A. Mac

Brenda thanked me,

Thank you for your in depth analysis but I think that I will do my own research and draw my own conclusions.

Yes, I'm sure you will.

I want to be able to say that I made an informed decision and that I did not follow the leader because everyone said that I should. Geez that would make me a liberal democrat. Whoa!

Actually that makes you quite typical of the low-information right-wing base.

I did the research - rebut what I wrote SPECIFICALLY or, at least don't reveal a fraudulent thirst for knowledge. What you wrote is merely a cop-out and a dodge.

A. Mac

Brenda,

So, with your background, just SPECIFICALLY rebut what I wrote.

Start with my Comment #5 - just specifically explain where I am inaccurate.

Easy, huh?

A. Mac

A. Macarthur #5.0: I noticed you did not quote the bill, merely offered your interpretation.

Allow me to quote page 17 from HR 3200:

"(b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
(1) GRACE PERIOD.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121."

Ok. Grace period, after which my plan that I chose to keep must comform to a government standard. Now take a look at this video, paying close attention to the link shown at :16:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/3

I noticed how Linda Douglass doesn't bother to show us the video pointed to at :16. No worries, I have it here for the convenience of all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

I am offering very little interpretation here. I invite all to come to their own conclusions.

Rickeroo and others,

This is the complete and unabridged verbiage from Sec 102 of HR 3200.

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ''grandfathered health insurance coverage'' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—
The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

(b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT BASED HEALTH PLANS.—

(1) GRACE PERIOD.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

(B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS PLANS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the following:

(i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PL 111–5).

(ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A)of such section.

(iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify. In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this division

(2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—During the grace period specified in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health plan that is described in such paragraph shall be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.

(c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.

HR 3200 says NOTHING about your employer having to switch you out of a plan. What it says in plain language is that after a grace period of five years, an employer provided health benefit plan has to provide at least the same minimum level of service prescribed by the Commissioner.

This is to protect you from your employer saying something like he'll only pay $10, 0000 dollars in benefits for a heart attack when the Commionera government plan will provide $50,000 in benefits.

Your assertion that the Congressman is lying is typical of the hysteria around this bill.

Did you read the bill?

A. Macarthur:

"What it says in plain language is that after a grace period of five years, an employer provided health benefit plan has to provide..."

I read the bill before and after the passage I mention. The passage in 5.12 remains unaffected.

In other words, they are mandating what the plan I chose to keep needs to cover. Before day 1, I liked my plan. Before the "Commissioner" decided whether my plan was "conforming" or not, I liked my plan. I keep my plan. 5 years out is no excuse. It reeks of the phase-out mentioned by both Obama and Frank in the video in 5.12.

This is to protect you from your employer saying something like he'll only pay $10, 0000 dollars in benefits for a heart attack when the Commissioners government plan will provide $50,000 in benefits.

By forcing private, for-profit insurers to compete with non-profit, tax-subsidized government by offering the same benefits, you then force those private insurance companies out of business. A private corporation does not have the power to tax.

Some point to Medicare as a successful program. Sure, as long as you have the luxury of taxing people that don't use the system. Once it becomes available to all, the government no longer has the luxury of taxing those who don't use the system.

People don't like that idea. Wait times in Ontario:

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/providers/wt_pro_mn.html

55 days for cancer surgery. 100 days for an MRI, "improved" from their previous figure of 4 months. They even had to come up with a "Wait Times Reduction Fund":

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index-eng.php

On top of that, Nova Scotia had to come up with some kind of accountability for the wait times:

http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/bills/60th_2nd/1st_read/b219.htm

The intentions of socialized medicine are good. However, the results aren't quite there.

Your assertion that the Congressman is lying is typical of the hysteria around this bill.

Frank wasn't lying. Obama is. They are both for single payer. The bill contains language that moves us in that direction, by the simple act of establishing a public option.

Rickeroo,

Now we are having a useful dialogue! Good.

GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ''grandfathered health insurance coverage'' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

By forcing private, for-profit insurers to compete with non-profit, tax-subsidized government by offering the same benefits, you then force those private insurance companies out of business. A private corporation does not have the power to tax.

Not true - it will "force" private insurance companies to stop spending 31 cents of every premium dollar on CEO pay ($20 million and more/year), to stop arbitrarily denying claims in order to maximize profits (by killing 18,000 Americans per year) and stop denying coverage based on "pre-existing conditions." "

Competitive does not mean "out-of-business" as much as it means "regulated" and "fair."

Sure, as long as you have the luxury of taxing people that don't use the system. Once it becomes available to all, the government no longer has the luxury of taxing those who don't use the system.

If health insurance rates are competitive whether you buy it through taxes or direct premiums, it will cost you less because of the things I explained just above. Why are you taking the position of the Health Insurance companies - seriously.

You are being misled re:Canada

Since you brought up single-payer, here's how it would work:

The right-wing nay-sayers throw around the buzz words socialism, totalitarianism - but I venture to say that most can tell me nothing specific or accurate about single-payer health care; so let me help them.

1. Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.
2. Portability. If you are unemployed, or lose or change jobs, your health coverage stays with you.
3. Uniform Benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Pinto plans for everyone else, with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care for everyone, regardless of the size of your wallet.
4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a universal health system encourages preventive care that lowers an individual's ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are neglected and societal cost in the over-utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of communicable diseases.
5. Choice. Most private insurance restricts your choice of providers and hospitals. Under the U.S. National Health Insurance Act, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured a fair payment.
6. No Interference with Care. Caregivers and patients regain their autonomy to decide what's best for a patient's health, not what's dictated by the billing department. No denial of coverage for preexisting conditions or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems.
7. Reducing Waste. One third of every private health insurance dollar goes for paperwork and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare, the federal government universal system for senior citizen health care.
8. Cost Savings. A guaranteed health care system can produce the cost savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. private health care model, adopted a similar system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little increase in overall health care spending.
9. Common Sense Budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally to all
providers, private and public, while assuring that appropriate health care is delivered, and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.
10. Public Oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced CEOs meeting in private and making decisions based on their company stock performance needs.

A. Macarthur

Rickeroo, it also says that you can keep your existing plan after the "phase out" only if the coverage does not change and the premium doesn't go up too much. I don't think I've ever seen a plan which doesn't have some change in coverage from one year to the next, let alone over 5 years. If a plan changes coverage, then it would no longer be grandfathered, and all the people who "wanted to keep their plan" would have to go elsewhere for coverage.

crispy2000: I agree.

A Macarthur:

I tend to look at results, not intentions. In 5.15, you mention the theoretical benefits of single-payer, Taiwan as an example, which is physically the size of Maryland. The US has 13 times Taiwan's population, and has its population spread out over an exponentially greater surface area. Logistics come into play. I don't just pick on Canada:

http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes/index.htm

If everyone is on board with single payer, you'll need more resources to handle the patient load. It's not a matter of making current resources more efficient. The "Wait Times Reduction Fund" has a provision to try to hire more doctors. With full power of the governments of both Canada and the UK, they can't get those waits under control. This is because the incentive for people to become doctors has been eliminated or reduced by their governments.

I realize that if you have a tiny country, you may be able to pull this off. However, if you look at when a country gets to a certain size, you start to have problems. I'm simply looking at the results.

A. Macarthur:

May God Bless You for taking the time to refute all these lies!! You go, hero!!!

The US has 13 times Taiwan's population, and has its population spread out over an exponentially greater surface area. Logistics come into play. I don't just pick on Canada:

Rickeroo,

That's a naive comparison that doesn't hold up. You can't possibly omit America's Gross National Product - the total value of goods produced and services provided by a country during one year, equal to the gross domestic product plus the net income from foreign investments.

You can't compare logistics merely based on population and geographic area. Your rational is illogical - it's as if you were assuming that "more resources have nothing to do with having...more resources."

You wrote,

If everyone is on board with single payer, you'll need more resources to handle the patient load. It's not a matter of making current resources more efficient.

It's more than that - I wrote

8. Cost Savings. A guaranteed health care system can produce the cost savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. private health care model, adopted a similar system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little increase in overall health care spending.

Currently, 31 cents of every dollar paid to insurance companies goes to CEO salaries, waste, clerical departments paid to deny claims, PROFIT and inefficiency in record/data keeping. Imagine if that was reduced by 15 or 20 cents - that would mean more money going into ACTUAL HEALTH CARE! And that's my point.

Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats and Health Insurers are in this together - as usual, follow the money trail. What pisses me off is the stupidity of the middle class Americans who swallow the lies about reform because they're either too damned lazy to learn, and/or too hateful of Obama and blinded by that hatred to everything he proposes. And in a nutshell, that is why I believe much of the anti-Obama crowd is acting/reacting out of racism - when they argue against something that might help their families and can't really justify their position with FACTUAL INFORMATION - it's not RATIONAL.

RACISM is NOT RATIONAL and, regardless of why anyone else is saying "it's racism," I have before, and, just now given rhyme and reason as to why I take my position. It's not enough to just dismiss me as "accusing anyone who disagrees with Obama of being racist." And I defy those who try and dismiss me in that cop-out manner, to refute my comment - SPECIFICALLY, not off the cuff, not with buzzwords and bull@!$%#, but point-for-point.

Anyway, although we disagree, the way in which we have dialogued has made me respect you.

A. Mac

Germany dosen't seem to have this problem..... or the Swiss :)

So everyone has to accept Obama or else they're racist? That in itself sounds racist.

Ok it's a superset that racism is contained within. Most of it is simple ignorance and fear driven by disinfomation and sensationalism.

It's ok to simple be opposed and point out fallacy in economics and military pursuit. It's quite another to simply make up things and just be limited to thumbsucking modes of behavior.

It's just a work hard speech and no one opposed to that speech has been able to say why. Obama breaths air. Hold long can you hold your breath in protest to that?

So everyone has to accept Obama or else they're racist?

No and I didn't say so. However the author of this "piece" claims that his opposition to Barack is not based on race and then proceeds to post line after line of complete lies and garbage, therefore once you toss all of his BS objections out, the only other possible reason is racism.

I don't think that everyone opposed to Barack is a racist, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of the loonies like the Birthers and deathers and tea baggers and those who whine that he's some kind of socialist or communist or other such crap, certainly are racists.

Looks like racism to me.

Response to Comment #7.1,

You don't get off the hook with that lame-ass assessment of reality.

Here is a compilation of how I've commented across the Vine to those who began with the mindset of Rush Limbaugh's "I hope he fails!"

Some want Obama to fail for political reasons pure and simple, others because they cannot accept a black man living in their white house. Oh how they scream when called on their bigotry and hatred; they love to say, "You're playing the race card," while THEY LIVE THE RACE CARD!

•

One author wrote;

"As far as I know, intruding into local schools on a nationwide basis is unheard of for a President. Unheard of. This guy must have quite the ego."

He should have quit at "as far as I know."

Friday, October 26, 2001,

Northside Middle School students collect $172.54 for Afghan children

Students lend a helping hand

Two sixth-graders took President Bush's call for help to heart, opening their pockets and minds.

Where were the right-wing ideologues back then?

When ignorance or blind lack of reason are behind the formulation of an opinion, we get the kind of blather the right-wing spews.

• Then I wrote

Functional genitals are for many "parents," their only qualifying attribute.

It's a shame that they're not hermaphrodites because then we could tell them to "go...",

You know.

• And then...

Wonder what would happen if the President asked everyone "not to eat sh--."

Why do I think a number of folks would rush right out and do it ?

• And then...I responded to an accusation that Obama's got a "Communist agenda"

"Communist agenda"?

Great contribution - specific, filled with detailed information on the topic...

Would you know Karl from Groucho?

But otherwise, I just love those buzz word bits of intellectual erudition.

• Then, some education/classroom instruction "expert" wrote,

Let's make sure the kiddies know how to do the important stuff..Like worship at the Altar of the "Chosen one"

To which I replied,

Yes...instead of committing suicide to jump on a comet or watch rapture-room insanity..."Those Left Behind" videos.

Some of you folks OUT THERE are frightening!

• Then, a VINER shared with us the identity of those with the mindset addressed by this seed - those "Right-thinking Americans," as he called them...to which I responded...

"Right-thinking Americans?"

Close, but you mean...

"EXTREME-RIGHT non-thinking, low-information voter Americans."

Real good try though.

• And then there are those right-wing lunatic, self-ascribed experts of history who compare Obama to a Nazi, sooooo...I made my own comparison...

Actually, Hermann Goerring reminds me of a certain Republican or two...here's a clue.

Herman Goerring, Hitler's second in command of the NAZI Party during World War II, said while awaiting his trial at Nuremburg:

"Naturally the common people don't want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

Now you right-wingers and tea-baggers can poll the audience, use the 50-50 or phone a friend to see if you can name the Republicans in question.

***************

The politics of far too many people in this country is driven by hatred and bigotry, which is further driven by politicians who pander to the hatred and bigotry, and that unholy alliance is fueled by money from corporations (Organized Wealth).

It is frightening that people who are blinded by their hatred can be so manipulated that they will attempt to sabotage anything and everything that they see as emanating from the focus of their hatred - in this case a black president. They will find, latch onto and parrot the most contrived and stupid excuses to reject health care reform (even if it is for the good of their own families), environmental clean-up - anything coming from Barack Obama.

Hate starts as an anger that doesn't get resolved. Then it becomes a resentment, and then a true hatred that can go on indefinitely...hatred causes serious damage over time. Haters can't let go or get on with life. They become bitter and frustrated. Their lives become mean, small, and narrow.
Ron Potter-Efron, Pat Potter-Efron

A. Macarthur

Definitely racism !

Outstanding, A. Macarthur!! Some comments on the vine are worthy of multiple votes. I'm keeping this comment and your #5 for my files, if you don't mind.

Love seeing the Potter-Effrons quoted. They are long time friends and colleques of ours. Good people.

Every disagreement looks like racism to this lib crowd. Lazy thinking. Well, scratch that. No thinking.

ElliePhat wrote,

Every disagreement looks like racism to this lib crowd. Lazy thinking. Well, scratch that. No thinking.

I take exception to that; I always provide specifics when I take a position - nothing lazy about my comments.

A. Mac

#7.5 Good response, but as dumb as some of the comments were there wasn't anything "racist" in the comments. So how can you claim it is "racist / racism"? I didn't read anything calling him out becaues he is Black... or calling in a porch monkey... or the N-word.. or hoping he fails because he is Black.. etc etc etc. Because people don't agree with him, hope he fails, calling him "The One" or whatever else dosen't make you a racist. It quite possibly might make you sound dumb, crazy, ignorant, or a sore looser.. but calling them racist is disingenuous IMHO. Until racist comments are actually made about the President.... why call them a racist? You know what they say about assume right? Unless you guys have become mind readers and know their hearts now...I don't think its fair and frankly I'm sick of everyone calling Republicans / GOP racists. If they have in fact said RACIST comments then I'll be happy to call them out on it. There is racists even though a small minority in every party. Where I live the most racist comments come from Democrats who were mad because Hillary didn't win.

"Definitely racism!" -- Ashville Jack

R. Donald Snyder,

Remember a while back you and I had a discussion about the accusations of racism coming from the left? I believe your comment was something along the lines of,

"I've never seen anyone on the left accuse those on the right of being racists here on Newsvine!"

Would you now care to revise your comment?

Brenda #7.9, are you referring to the people around him or the people the media has introduced as being around him? What adult could function for 40 some years and the only people you think he's been "around" are the ones who suit your purpose. Did you consider his classmates as around him? Did you consider friends and family? His barber? His sport buddies? My point if, you are referencing his associates, why stop at the negative ones? or the ones you consider negative?

Dick was never the President.......

No, the previous Executive Branch overall was rather 'secretive' by having the Attorney Generals enforce further restrictions on access to government information.

Most historians are in agreement that the last VP exercised the most power and discretion in office in recent memory. I believe he was also part of the previous President's cabal called the Executive Branch.

Currently there are some transparent measures taken by Obama, with mixed results. He has undone some of the obstacles in the previous administration, added a few transparent measures, but has not lived up to all his transparency promises.

To say he is the MOST secretive is pure hyperbole and definitely not being objective.

Yet he is keeping most of Bush's policies you all whined about in place. Hrm.....

Yet he is keeping most of Bush's policies you all whined about in place. Hrm....

So is this an admittance that Bush had secretive policies?

I believe I mentioned

but has not lived up to all his transparency promises.

Still whining for more transparency and so are some other rights groups who are disappointed...

There are many other criticisms of his policies, domestic and foreign

But the over the top nonsense that seems to be perpetuated by those who are vehemently opposed to him are just incredulous.

Everything should be in perspective...

I agree. Whine about the things that matter the most... instead of whining about everything.

simplistic #9.4, if he is keeping most of Bush's policies in place, where is the support for disagreeing with Obama's "policies" sounds a bit contradictory. Sort of points towards the disagreeing being racist. If he is a liberal and consistant with "ideaologies" of his party, which ideaologies are the wingnuts in such "innocent" disagreement with?

I meant like policies like... Patriot Act and the wiretapping and all the other policies that the Dem's and Left loved to bitch about that Obama has the power to stop and change.. and hasn't.

Maybe if we could think of ANY non-liberal, non-American haters that he hangs around, he could get a pass, BUT THEY ALL ARE AMERICAN HATERS! give me a break.....you need to apply some logic!

Maybe if we could think of ANY non-liberal, non-American haters that he hangs around, he could get a pass, BUT THEY ALL ARE AMERICAN HATERS!

The two of that list that can have any real contact with Obama were Wright and Ayers. What shows that he 'hangs around' with either one, exactly?

I'm curious, what specific things do you disagree with about either individual. Can you specify what's so bad about them?

give me a break.....you need to apply some logic!

Funny you'd bring up logic. One tends not to think a guilt by association situation is very logical.

One tends not to think a guilt by association situation is very logical.

Are you sure you want to go there, lopes? I'd be happy to discuss the 'illogical' nature of Dems when it comes screaming foul re: 'guilt by association'?

Well...right off the top of my thick head....

I have heard Wright say "God damn America" and many other anti-American rants.

Ayres is an admitted "former" anti-American terrorist linked to bombings.

Are you sure you want to go there, lopes? I'd be happy to discuss the 'illogical' nature of Dems when it comes screaming foul re: 'guilt by association'?

So, bringing up other people doing something means it is valid in this case? Comparative arguments 'ever' mean anything?

You're not even saying 'I' ever do guilt by association, but merely other people who may be on the same side of an argument as me. You're claiming I'm guilty by association with other Dems. Really?

Well...right off the top of my thick head....

I have heard Wright say "God damn America" and many other anti-American rants.

Ayres is an admitted "former" anti-American terrorist linked to bombings.

Do you know more of Wright than a snippit of a sermon? The 2003 bit.

God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.

I wonder if adding context changes anything. I read a conditional statement where he's saying America's working against his God's wishes and interests. It isn't a generic "God Damn America!" blindly hating the country or the Constitution - seems more of a piece of religious rhetoric. I can't really imagine much in the way of problems for Obama who has so far distanced himself from religion in government.

And, on Ayers, I'm wondering if you know really anything about him - without looking it up if you can. What was the organization named? What did they bomb? When was this? How many individuals died? What has he done since? Why does an "America Hater" still live in America?

Guilt by association with the people you happen to know, may be questionable.

What about people who you've selected to be part of your team?

• Van Jones,
• Tim Geithner,
• Karl Rove

What about people who you've chosen as your leader or mentor and stayed behind for years?

• Jeremiah Wright,
• Frank Marshall Davis

What about people you've chosen to do business with?

• Antoin "Tony" Rezko,
• Rod Blagojevitch.

And how about people to whom you've pledged your support:

• ACORN,
• Planned Parenthood,
• The New Party.

If you apply for a sensitive government position, questionable associations may not disqualify you, but they certainly lead to further investigation. Why? Not because of racism, but because the employer wants to be sure that your interests are aligned.

So, bringing up other people doing something means it is valid in this case? Comparative arguments 'ever' mean anything?

Lopes, hon. You said using guilt by association wasn't 'logical'. Are you now trying to say it's 'logical' for dems, but it's 'racism' for reps? Interesting.

Lopes, hon. You said using guilt by association wasn't 'logical'. Are you now trying to say it's 'logical' for dems, but it's 'racism' for reps? Interesting.

Where is anything I said implying this conclusion?

Are you sure you want to go there, lopes? I'd be happy to discuss the 'illogical' nature of Dems when it comes screaming foul re: 'guilt by association'?

This is what you said. Now, what would a "Dem" falling into the fallacy of guilt by association mean anything to the discussion here? The only way I could dream of you seeing it have something to do with this discussion is the idea that it is valid here because "Dems" use it. But two wrongs don't make a right. :)

Not because of racism, but because the employer wants to be sure that your interests are aligned.

Great - and if there are things that have some kind of lasting effect on your interests, the arguments should be made against those clashes of interests without having to rely on the people themselves.

So your saying if Bush had hang out with a Grand Wizard of the KKK for years before coming into office.. or during his term... the Left and the Dem's wouldn't be calling him out on that or doing the "guilt by association" on him? Or questioning his ability to lead? Riiiight! Would you be defending Bush like your doing with Obama too? With the same arguments your making? I mean... wouldn't want to be hypocritical or anything right?

What about people who you've selected to be part of your team?

• Van Jones,
• Tim Geithner,
• Karl Rove

Karl Rove is part of Barack Obama's team? Since when?

Your statement will be ignored at best. To those on the left we have to be racists for opposing the selected one.

The above statement is a lie. Plainly and simply a lie. A blatant lie. A silly lie. A ridiculous lie. A stupid and obvious lie. No matter how else anyone wants to read it, Dana is lying. As in is a liar. As in not telling the truth. A liar.

I hope you see that SR. I really do.

Simplistic,

Your statement will be ignored at best. To those on the left we have to be racists for opposing the selected one.

It seems like my comments were the ones ignored, actually.

So your saying if Bush had hang out with a Grand Wizard of the KKK for years before coming into office.. or during his term... the Left and the Dem's wouldn't be calling him out on that or doing the "guilt by association" on him? Or questioning his ability to lead? Riiiight!

Again, any 'clashes of interest' that could come out from a relationship like that would be able to be judged as the clashes of interest, not merely as a person someone has spent time with.

So, say the association had taken place. If Bush had been invited to/attended a meeting, that'd be about Bush, not about the association. If there's a lasting effect of the relationship, it would be visible, or else it is meaningless - if they went golfing together, but no influence was seen, would a golfing buddy really matter to a politician?

I keep wondering what people think is the result of Wright or Ayers on Obama. Does Obama now wish for God to damn the country he leads? Is he going to bomb places to stop the war? What?

Would you be defending Bush like your doing with Obama too? With the same arguments your making? I mean... wouldn't want to be hypocritical or anything right?

So, wait, you're holding actions that haven't come up against me, because you think I'd act a certain way?

If he were invited and attended KKK meetings, that would be about the person and their actual choices, not about the association.

How is that any difference then Wright inviting Obama to his church and to be his friend of 20 years? Listening to his rants and racist preachings. That was Obama's personal choice to be his friend...to be an active member of his church and his teachings, and his spiritual adviser. Only when the Wright thing blew up on the media and things surfaced did Obama try and defend him.. then got cold feet and cut ties with him to save face politically. That in itself speaks volumes of a man's character (Obama). Obama did the big flip flop back and forth on it. When the heat / pressure is on.. you don't bail on your close friends of 20 years just to save your own ass. Cowardly if you ask me. Would you do the same? Politics is a sleazy business and Obama plays it like a pro imho.

How is that any difference then Wright inviting Obama to his church and to be his friend of 20 years? Listening to his rants and racist preachings

I do wonder what you know of Wright's 'rants and racist preachings.' Even I've only heard a handful or two bits from them, but I realize 20 years of Sundays is 1040 separate Sundays - and those few are supposed to stand up and represent every single day and thing he did? Really? You're comparing this to the KKK where the 'purpose' is overt racism?

Only when the Wright thing blew up on the media and things surfaced did Obama try and defend him..

Here's Obama's "defense." From "A More Perfect Union."

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
...
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong, but divisive — divisive at a time when we need unity, racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems: two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis, and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Great 'defense' - eh?

then got cold feet and cut ties with him to save face politically.

It couldn't have anything to do with later comments made by the man?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/04/29/transcript-obama-press-conference-on-jeremiah-wright/

Yesterday we saw a very different vision of America. I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday. I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I've known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.

They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either.

But, you're right, everything must be looked at without the actual gaps of time being looked at. People never change, ever, and all of this happened to the people involved exactly as it happened to you, over the course of a week or two - perspective be damned.

That in itself speaks volumes of a man's character (Obama).

Saying you disagree with things that have been said... and then saying you disagree with further things being said. Seems pretty consistent to me.

But this is all pretty silly as you compared the Trinity Church in Chicago to the KKK, saying it 'should' have had some kind of effect on Obama, without actually pointing out any lasting effects.

Karl Rove is part of Barack Obama's team? Since when?

Actually, I added Karl Rove, because the Bush-Rove association has been used by leftists for years.

Except of an untruthful remark that Republicans have no health care reform plan, I d believe President Obama has been pretty straight with Americans. But his Administration (czars and some cabinet members) have been duplicitous. I think Americans have nearly reached the boiling point and are about to write the Administration's pronouncements off as either happy talk or just plain B.S..

Actually, yes, it is possible. Just like it's okay for me to say, "I think that woman [Palin] is horrible," and not be thought of as a misogynist.

Maybe a "bigot"?

I just had to say that. That is one of the lefts favorites, right after "racist".

Actually, yes, it is possible. Just like it's okay for me to say, "I think that woman [Palin] is horrible," and not be thought of as a misogynist.

That's an interesting point. Reminds me of the time during the campaigh when McCain was called a 'racist' for saying "that one" and pointing at Obama.

Are you sure saying "that woman" doesn't make you a misogynist? What's the difference?

Sure, if you were protesting Bush's bailout of Wall Street and Detroit as vigourously as you do Obama's. If you flooded a town hall meeting with your buddies carrying pictures of Bush as Hitler and equating his policies as Nazism for wanting to restucture Social Security, if you were against the surge, that wiretapping American citizens with no warrants or cause was a direct violation of the law and letting the telecomms who provided that data off the hook for doing so also a direct violation of the law, if you considered Cheney's secret meeting with oil company executives to formulate energy policy as unconstiutional and took to the streets to protest and so on and so on ad naseuem...

Otherwise nah, your just pissed cause your side lost, more so cause its a black dude that you lost to. Are you an overt racist, I doubt it, not the let's have a public lynching type but I am willing to put a lot of chips on the table your a latent one. You don't like the browning of America one bit and Obama is the quintessential figure of that. You can't accept the changes that have taken place the last twenty or thirty years in society, social and economic and are looking for someone to blame and the other, the Latino, black, Indian, Asian fits the bill.

To you its their fault that the manufacturing and similar jobs that served your families for a few generation are disappearing and you are either undereducated or underskilled to find employment with similar pay in the workplace. Blame the "other" or the West or East coast liberals cause education was never a major factor for your group, those steel mill, coal mine, textile plant and construction jobs were going to be around forever. Now their gone or drying up and its obviosuly someone elses' fault.

You're a dying breed. This country is changing and moving on, with or without you. Its a shame the conservative party has come to this, a bunch of angry White folks with nothing to offer because this country needs a active, responsible conservative party as much as it needs an active and liberal one. They are ying and yang and combined the two move us forward to be better than what we are singularly.

But now the conservatives are nothing more than anger, denial, obstruction and offerng nothing in return. Your less than 30% of the populace and shrinking and since you are not attactive to the majority of the country you leave a great imbalance, a huge liberal shift. It'll be a decade or more before the penduleum shifts in the other direction for better or worse.

Wow! How sad? The white guilt trip they put you on really did a number on you. So tell me, how long have you had this deep seated hatred for your own race? Your own ancestry? Was it immediate or did it take a few sessions to get you to this point? Inquiring minds want to know.

Oh for Pete's sake! It's not about self hatred for being white! It's about wanting to get past the whole thing about race altogether. Unfortunately we are still a long way from that point. The sickest and saddest part is that the real racists, the real pigs, the real haters of anyone who is not white, know this. Still, they use words from great civil rights leaders to try to say that they don't see race or color and that no one else ever should either, as a way of denying their own stupidity, their own hatred and their own ignorance. We are not in a post racial society and the sad fact is that they election of a black American to the Presidency has just drawn the racists together and has given license to those who even deny to themselves that they are racists to hate a black man as President and to hide behind a dozen or more stupid and silly reasons for their own prejudice.

The real racists would have us believe that if anyone brings up the subject of racism, then we are somehow propagating it. That we are somehow extending this problem of racism. As if we all just stopped talking about it then it would go away and there'd never be racism again. What a huge stinking steaming pile of sh*it! The real racists hope that we'll somehow be cowed by them and will stop talking about the rampant racism that still exists in this country, because then they'll be able to still keep practicing it.

Real racism is alive and well in America today, unfortunately, and not talking about that simple truth just plays into the hands of the sick SOB racists that want us to stop. Objecting to right wing racism is NOT racsim in itself, no matter how much those pigs want us to believe it is.

the conservative party has come to this, a bunch of angry White folks

wow. I didn't know we had a conservative party. Second part - well, how racist of you? You do know there are blacks, whites, Asians, Hispanics in the "conservative party", right?

"Oh for Pete's sake!" -- RDS

Who's Pete?

I'm an atheist. Do you think I'm going to say for god's sake?

Lol.

Good one, RDS. I suppose you're right. :-)

So, if you oppose Obama, you are ignorant. And if you support Obama, I guess you are enlightened, knowledgeable? I see......intereseting.....

Greg, you miss the point, obfuscaters are often very educated but they pray on people that aren't.

How do you get to be one of the "125"? That has to be a great gig!

I'll add to Chomsky, Not only if it is said with certainty but if it is said with too many words, "ask if this is true." Probably not!

All that I posted here today it is 100% true. Search the web for Federal Reserve Bank, and watch the documentary "The Obama Deception"

The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created. In fact it is a private CLOSED corporation.

In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central Banking Corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.

Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money.

Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity

Tony, so the jews own the banks and this is all a Jewish conspiracy? Sounds like you took a page out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

"There is no bigger fool than those that when presented with the facts, refuse to acknowledge it"

As Obama's popularity sinks his disciples try ever so hard to paint the GOP as evil, racist, or any other label they think will stick.

It's a gameplan they've been using since the election. And it's the same gameplan that has caused their poll numbers to plummet. You'd think they'd figure it out and change their gameplan. I kind of hope they continue with the 'racist', 'evil' crap. They'll be responsible for their own demise.

Actually, they've used the "gameplan" since the early 70s and Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. yawn.

Actually, they've used the "gameplan" since the early 70s and Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. yawn.

Both 'sides' seem to love those Rules these days, Ellie.

Actually, they've used the "gameplan" since the early 70s and Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. yawn.

That's what I don't get. Usually when a successful 'team' sees that the plays they're running have them squarely in a losing streak, they change things up a little bit. Get more strategic. Not 'Team Obama'. But then, they can blame 'racism' for their loss in the 'big leagues.' Go back to Chicago-style T-Ball, Obama. You're more suited for that.

Oops. I used a baseball analogy. Many baseball players are black. Goodness. I must be a 'racist'!!!

"GOP as evil, racist, or any other label they think will stick."

I think the GOP is doing a swell job of that all on their own..

I just haven't seen his effectiveness.

My cousin says the same thing, and I respect his opinion (btw we're not US citizens and are brown, but are both nuts in world or political news and sometimes just get into some hardcore debates!). I see slightly more positives. We both however find some people who fawn over the POTUS a bit too much.

But if the fawning is bad, we find it worse with the fear mongering buzz words and the environment of hysteria that seems to have increased in the criticisms against Obama. There are some things he deserves to be criticized for, but we've seen more BS than actual logical criticisms either from the media or those who oppose him (rather vehemently).

Even he, himself an Obama critic, can't help but conclude that there are a good number of people who are basing their thoughts on race (he thinks maybe his Muslim heritage may have a larger role that everyone's discounting) rather than logic.

bigsaf ... I hear ya.

I've been a woman all my life, a southerner, a "mountaineer" a.k.a. hillybilly ... and called a few other names not appropriate to publish here ... the list goes on and on ... and all of it used at one time or another against me. It teaches one that the label of being called some thing is not grounded, even if we are forced to hear it. Truth will prevail ... we cannot let ourselves be held back because of what some people wish to call us and we certainly cannot use it as an excuse not to carry on with our dreams, our plans, or our destiny.

Nope...most don't like him because he is a Marxist far-leftwing Liberal. I am sure there are some who don't like him beacause he is black. Just like there are those who don't like Bush because he is white.

ARoseS,

If political ideology has nothing to do with opposing political figures of a different race and that it all boils down to racism, does this mean that the 95% of black people that opposed John McCain were racists and that they were just using the fact that they are Democrats as a cover to hide their personal racism?

Just a thought.

I personally opposed McCain because of his extremely poor decision in picking a running mate, Palin.

I also opposed him because of his personal choices in life...affairs and how he treated his first wife and some staff. He also had some shady business dealings.

These reasons had nothing to do with his color and I am sure I was not alone as to why I made the choice not to vote for this man.

"I personally opposed McCain because of his extremely poor decision in picking a running mate, Palin." -- Vooda

Conservatives personally oppose Obama because of his extremely poor decisions in picking "running mates" also. "Running mates" such as Tony Rezco, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright. Since becoming president, conservative continue to oppose Obama due to his new "running mates", such as Van Jones, John Holdren, Sonia Sotomayor, Ezekiel Emmanuel, Rahm Emmanuel, Robert Reich, Eric Holder, Carol Browner, Henry Gates, ACORN, SEIU, etc....

yes. Oh ... and I rest my case.

MoonCrow, you make a good point defending many people's integrity who choose to oppose Obama's actions here and there, but I couldn't help but notice the irony in Greg's sarcastic comment after your suggestion.

I am surprised that you knew the words "sarcastic" and "ironic".

I am surprised that you knew the words "sarcastic" and "ironic".

Ok.

I never thought that I would see some one show up at a Presidential event with an assault rifle and hear some of my fellow Americans defend this type of idiocy

We never though we would see a non-citizen far-left wing Marxist as President!

You probably meant thought. No I don't think we will ever see a Marxist as President and you do know that you must be a natural born citizen to even run for President so again ,no, You can become a Governor and not be a Natural born citizen such as is the case in Calif. but no sir you can not be Prez without the Paper. Hope this helps you

you must be a natural born citizen to even run for President

Sorry Spike, that's not correct. Look up Róger Calero, who was on the ballot in 5 states, even though he was a green-card holder, born in Nicaragua. He obviously would not have been eligible to hold the office, but he was allowed to run.

Some of the "natural born citizen" lawsuits are based on the fact that the Secretaries of State in those states did not verify Constitutional eligibility of someone who is provably not a "natural born citizen", even under the 14th Amendment.

(I'll through in 'fear and paranoia' as an out)

I meant 'throw'...

Ever consider that we don't like his policies? You know, that is a possibility....right?

Greg wrote,

Ever consider that we don't like his policies?

Ever consider that you don't discuss his policies or intelligently dissect and evaluate them...that you just throw (mis)labels at his policies, not to mention lie about them (as in the myths about health care reform which I have debunked, myth by myth SPECIFICALLY)?

You toss out one-liners and buzz words that the ill-informed and/or haters feed upon and never offer any substance.

I challenge you to go back to comment #5 and instead of some empty, rhetorical nothing of a rebuttal, tell me what you think about the lies and liars I debunked with SPECIFIC INFORMATION. You won't because you can't, neither will you admit that maybe Obama's policies and initiatives are under attack because HE IS UNDER ATTACK.

"I hope he fails!" That is the mantra of Rush Limbaugh and the Corporations and the haters - a most unsavory alliance.

I challenge you - no buzz words - just SPECIFIC rebuttal!

A. Macarthur

• Porkulas package
• GM take over
• Lending intitution take over
• Chrysler take over
• World apology tour
• Obamacare

Should I go on? There are a few for you.

• Porkulas package
• GM take over
• Lending intitution take over
• Chrysler take over
• World apology tour
• Obamacare

Should I go on? There are a few for you.

Pretty sure A. Mac asked you to intelligently and specifically dissect Obama's policies WITHOUT throwing around empty and meaningless buzz words.

Ever consider that we don't like his policies? You know, that is a possibility....right?

Yes Greg, I did consider that possibility.

To be honest, not all Obama opposers are racists...some maybe just over reactionary, or some just genuine critics using proper logic without believing in any of these ridiculous fallacies or bogeyman buzzwords (seem to be very few of them, though)

But I also recognized some type of criticisms from some opposers don't match up to logic and speculate on the possible reasons why they choose to believe some fallacies.

Accordingly, A MacArthur is smart enough to know what Greg is talking about.

Greg,

You not only gave us a list without any explanation, you even used the contrived terminology of the saboteurs of Obama and his initiatives.

• Porkulas package - You mean "Stimulus Package." And do you suppose that an economy that has been deregulated (read about Phil Gramm, 1999) and abused for years, responds to any stimulus overnight? There are indications that the economy has begun to recover - which, without some sort of aggressive infusion of money, jobs, regulation and restriction, would have put many more Middle Class Americans out of work and possibly led to a depression
• GM take over - It wasn't just about GM - all of the companies that manufacture parts, provide vehicle maintenance, finance auto purchases - it's about JOBS. The more people lose their jobs, the less money is spent, the more people consequently laid off - the downward spiral. And the Southern Republicans who fought against saving GM all have foreign car manufacturing interests in their states! (Vitter, McConnell, Corker, and others). And American Tax Payers subsidized their operations - as profits leave the country. Wake up Greg!
• Lending intitution take over - Do you know the word "dilemma?" Some situations offer multiple poor options but "doing nothing" would have destroyed the economy as we have known it.
• Chrysler take over - JOBS!
• World apology tour - Diplomacy. Do you think the arrogance of the Bush Administration did anything to prevent more wars. You can always shoot but intelligent human beings and good leaders try and resolve situations. IT SAVES LIVES.
• Obamacare - a contrived name to denigrate Health Care Reform subsidized by the racketeer Insurance industry, bought off legislators and supported by Obama-haters whu stupidly cut off their noses to spite their faces.

So Greg, and others - I have answered your one-liners and one-worders. You want to be ill-informed sycophants, that's on you.

A. Mac

Claiming that anyone who disagrees with Obama must be a racist is the same as claiming that anyone who disagreed with Bush must be a racist

Actually that does makes it racist because I don't like the moron race, and I disagreed with Bush because he was a moron. .

He was busy swallowing racist myth and propaganda.

Actually that does makes it racist because I don't like the moron race,

Hey rocket scientist, "moron" is not a race.

Hey rocket scientist, "moron" is not a race.

Oh my God, thank you so much for pointing that out to me. I am just so grateful for you to enlighten me. You are so smart. That's what I really like about the "Vine", people like you that are so helpful to poor ignorant mother@!$%#ers like myself. Thank you so much!!

Bless you

greg, LMFO!

Well done...

Even tho I still think we need health care reform.

I prefer soon since every day which passes I chance life more. I can't afford the grand a month for coverage.

Bravo.

Great post, Luminator.

Luminator

I don't agree with Obama's policies because I don't like the idea of handouts, a free lunch, or anything you receive without working for it. He's black. White mother. Black father. Right there, for some monsters, that's enough to beat and lynch Obama and his mother and father. But not me. Inter-racial marriage. Wow. Congratulations. Uh... Next? Okay so now he's half-and-half. Shocker. No big deal right? Ok. Cool. So he's president now. The first black president. Finally somebodies policies we can agree with! Wait, I didn't mention that I was happy that he was elected because he was black? That's right. I didn't really care that much. Yes it's a big step for Civil Rights, yes M.L.K. is smiling down from heaven. But he's just another man to me. He's the President of the United States. I don't care if he's green, yellow, orange, or purple... but if he was magenta... well... that's pushing it. Neon is out of the question.

You sound as if you are an intelligent person but you are off the mark, before you say anything get the facts, somethings the president have done i did not like but i am waiting for the outcome before i make a decision on those things he have done, when he continue to bail out wall street i did not like that i thought he should have started from the bottom but now that i see that it was for the whole i realize that might have been a good thing, when the last president left he left a 5 trillion dollar debt in his lap and that came from the republicans congress not speaking up for the people and now they are trying to count every penny, i call that hypocritical and atrocious,the republicans are trying to destroy the president and the country.

Were they the same people that predicted the out cme of the invasion of Iraq?

Very well put, but you know you are still a racist to some, they will never give up.

Stop blaming Bush Jerry, you sound like a broken record, well like Obama. He already has made bad decisions, and they had nothing to do with Bush, but yet it's Bush's fault.

People are tired of hearing that, at what point is it O's fault? If he can't do the job and take criticism and responsibility, then he needs to step down now.

Disblamers like you Jerry and O, are not manly.

and they had nothing to do with Bush, but yet it's Bush's fault.

!!!!!!NEWS FLASH!!!!!-99.9% of the $h1t we are dealing with today are reverberations of something that the previous administration did., YOU CAN'T UNDO 8 YEARS OF MESS IN A FEW SHORT MONTHS. If it looks like Bu$h $h1t & smells like Bu$h $h1t it IS.

YOU CAN'T UNDO 8 YEARS OF MESS IN A FEW SHORT MONTHS

You need to tell that to Obama and the administration!

They're doing their best to solve the problem this year.

To bad, he forgets, he has three more years to try to get things done. Patience is a virtue, unless your worried about poll numbers.

After this year, what does he have left to go for when he fails?

There's a war out there and he seems to be forgetting that, as more die.

greg - Ahhhhh so much work so little time.........Energy, environment, Medicare, SS, taxes, and on and on......yep Obama has a bit more work to do.

Isn't he half white?

Why does it matter?

He's half Muslim...what?

LOL.

Well....how can you be racist if he is the same race?

Is that a serious question????

Well....how can you be racist if he is the same race?

Greg, you've been here long enough to have read many racist comments & you know it.

I'm tired of hearing that Obama is black. Obama is 50% black, raised by a white mother in a white enviroment. Went to white people schools, lived in white neirborhoods, made white friends.

He is white for all practical reasons.

He is white for all practical reasons.

Yes, until you come here and read the rasicist comments.