patrick.net

Teddy says "Shame on Rush Limbaugh for spreading hatred."

rileybryan says

I say shame on Left-Wingers in denial for pulling the race card every chance they get. This guys policy sucks. period.

This guy is cleaning up your guys mess....LMAO. WTF you gonna say now, huh?

Socialist is code for Black/African-American? LOL!!!!!!! How desperate you must be! Leftists today look for a racist under every bed. I take it that you believe Chavez is referring to himself as an African in a derogatory manner when he claims to be a Socialist? Castro the same? What about Bernie Sanders from Vermont? Is he calling referring to himself as Black but in code?

"Racism claims from either side is a diversion."

So you agree with the conservatives on this one?

The most telling thing about how people feel about Obama is that they always refer to him as "Mr. Obama", rarely "President Obama". Previous presidents were always "President xxx" or "Mr. President".

It's subtle, but effective.

Kevin says

The most telling thing about how people feel about Obama is that they always refer to him as “Mr. Obama”, rarely “President Obama”. Previous presidents were always “President xxx” or “Mr. President”.
It’s subtle, but effective.

I agree, that is the point of the post....not that everyone is a racist but that the right-wing media uses slick language to influence perception of his presidency. Its partly why everyone continues to believe the Senate Health care bill will add to the deficit even after the senate budget committee stated it would not.

Here is the truth in images as to what Republicans believe:

"Its partly why everyone continues to believe the Senate Health care bill will add to the deficit even after the senate budget committee stated it would not."

Wow, they believe that because they are racist, or the media is racist? Because clearly, given the government's track record with managing social entitlement programs on time, on budget, and according to original specification, it would be unreasonable to distrust the government to manage things well? Because people believing that scoring a bill on 10 years, based on 10 years worth of tax but only 6 or less years of actual benefit/service from that tax, might be playing with numbers, is not a valid concern? To question these things is racist? You are desperate!

A lot of the fear mongering you hear is because there is an audience for that. From personal experience I know several older white people that are actually afraid of Obama. They legitimately think he wants to destroy this country. I don't think you can accurately quantify how much of that is because he is black. If Hillary had become president you would still hear Beck, Rush going on about how Liberals are trying to impose a socialist/communist state.

But lets be clear, Beck, Rush, Hannity, Olberman are in it for the money, fame, power. They do not give a shit about the "disadvantaged" or the "future of this great country" or "republican or democratic values" If tomorrow all the talk radio listeners dropped Rush/Hanity and listened to a new libertarian talk radio host what would you expect to hear from Rush the next day:

A.) Republican values are what makes this country great, I will never become a libertarian.

B.) I have always agreed with almost all of the libertarian values. It is really just minor differences of wording between the Republicans and Libertarians.

"If Hillary had become president you would still hear Beck, Rush going on about how Liberals are trying to impose a socialist/communist state. "
Yes, for many of the same policy reasons, including a desire for the government to take over health care - this is undeniable! Why not just make the simple argument that those who are against socialist policies are only out there for themselves?

Paralithodes says

Yes, for many of the same policy reasons, including a desire for the government to take over health care - this is undeniable! Why not just make the simple argument that those who are against socialist policies are only out there for themselves?

Is that how you really see things? That Obama or Hillary wants to "take over" healthcare? Do you entertain the slightest possibility that they want to improve healthcare in the US? Seeing as the US spends BY FAR the most per person (almost double the next country) and gets at best average service. Most independent studies rate us somewhere below Cuba and above Haiti. You don't think we can do better than that??

Yes, of couse I see people who have essentially said they want to "take over" health care via "single-payer," "public option" and other buzzwords meaning the same end game, and who have publicly stated that the plan with the "public option" was a first step to the goal of "single payer," as wanting to "take over" health care.

As far as your statistics... There are plenty of statistics showing various differences depending upon how things are measured. Do you really trust statistics from Cuba? How "independent" can a study be in a country that is not transparent? Does a premie born in the US before a certain week threshold count as a death in the US, but not as a death in other countries using the same threshold? How much does malpractice insurance cost doctors in Cuba, and how much is the average settlement: Does the medical liability (lawyer) industry exist there? In what countries do people with certain types of cancer live longer after diagnosis? I don't know the answers to all of these questions: I have seen conflicting information. But I do not just simply trust very broad, general statistics by allegedly "indpendent" studies which do not account for all of the factors.

The US certainly spends by far much more, yet every single Republican idea was just referred to as NO idea or as a "talking point" until now, apparently (and good for Obama for that). There are many other reasons as well, and just the mere mention of some of them elicit accusations of not caring or being harsh, etc. despite their validity to the issue.

In addition, I do not believe the government will manage the program well, from either a budget perspective or a service perspective. I do not know how anyone can buy the line that government can provide more service, at higher quality, and at lower cost? It rarely exists in the real world, but especially given the government's track record why would you?

Paralithodes represents a lot of Rush listeners. They can only think simple and absolute terms of Good/BAD:
Liberals=="Elite Socialist and Communists" (BAD)
Conservatives=="Real Americans that stand by the Constitution" (GOOD)

It make thinking much easier for him because he doesn't have to defend George Bush/Sarah Palin or any of the other completely incompetent Republicans. Because every criticism of republicans and be rebutted with "well at least George Bush wasn't trying to turn us into Communist China"

the other side is full of people who don't think for themselves either:

Just ask a hardcore Obama supporter to name an issue where they disagree with the president. You will get some blank looks and probably some comment about George Bush being the worst president ever.

"Paralithodes represents a lot of Rush listeners. They can only think simple and absolute terms of Good/BAD:"

LOL.... Is that the best you can do: throw out generalities and insults, and statements that I never made regarding Bush (and in fact stated some things to the opposite)?

This place is funny. A gaggle of "hate" towards conservatives in general and any people who may lean that way, along with loads of pot-calling-the-kettle-black liberals doing the exact same thing they accuse conservatives of doing, thinking along the exact same lines (liberals good/conservatives bad), etc.

Fred, is the Constitution a "dead letter?" Would you laugh if there were a "true socialist revolution" in the US, knowing the violent history of "true socialist revolutions?" If your answers are Yes and Yes, then I'll step up and proudly think according to the simple and absolute terms (which would be simply opposite your own simple/absolute terms) that you describe above. I must admit that I would listen to Rush if I had the opportunity, yet somehow I seriously doubt that you have listened to him enough to make your judgements: You likely criticize Rush and Rush listeners because someone told you that they (and "Faux" News of course, which should be spelled incorrectly because that shows intelligence and sophistication) should be criticized - just like most other liberals who throw out that canard of an argument.

Your response is particularly funny, given the simplistically asbsurd premise of this thread.

Paralithodes says

In addition, I do not believe the government will manage the program well, from either a budget perspective or a service perspective. I do not know how anyone can buy the line that government can provide more service, at higher quality, and at lower cost? It rarely exists in the real world, but especially given the government’s track record why would you

Again--all other civilized countries seem to be able to accomplish it. I buy it.

Paralithodes says

As far as your statistics… There are plenty of statistics showing various differences depending upon how things are measured

So, basically you are saying you believe statistics that agree with your already formed opinion, but disregard those that dispute it?

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

As far as your statistics… There are plenty of statistics showing various differences depending upon how things are measured

So, basically you are saying you believe statistics that agree with your already formed opinion, but disregard those that dispute it?

Like the vast majority of people, liberal, conservative or otherwise, and likely to include yourself, Yes. Try as I might, I am not above this. Are you?

Nomograph says

Paralithodes says

This place is funny. A gaggle of “hate” towards conservatives in general and any people who may lean that way, along with loads of pot-calling-the-kettle-black liberals doing the exact same thing they accuse conservatives of doing, thinking along the exact same lines (liberals good/conservatives bad), etc.

Don’t hide behind conservatism. YOU have been making ridiculous and absurd statements on this board, not somebody named conservatism. Every few months a new person appears and begins parroting what they hear on AM talk radio, and now it seems as if its your turn. Generally it doesn’t go over well because they are unable to back up their statements with any facts whatsoever, and in desperation said parrot begins name-calling then disappears back into the ether.
There are plenty of conservatives on this board who are able to back up their positions with facts. You simply haven’t proven yourself to be one of them.

LOL... I am the one who began name calling? What am I hiding behind? I admit to being one of those evil conservatives: probably only get my news from Rush, probably barely got my HS degree, maybe even work a blue collar job, watch NASCAR, and have a red neck. Though I do find it odd that you would say I do not back up my facts whatsoever... It seems that there are no facts that would be accepted in any circumstances... Clearly, for example, when I claimed that there is no "right" to serve in the armed forces, my evidence from the law stating that very thing was not considered strong enough evidence to back up my fact.... I guess that is because the Constitution is a "dead letter."

Paralithodes says

I admit to being one of those evil conservatives: probably only get my news from Rush, probably barely got my HS degree, maybe even work a blue collar job, watch NASCAR, and have a red neck.

Wow--does someone have a chip on their shoulder or what? I don't recall anyone here implying that...

Paralithodes says

Clearly, for example, when I claimed that there is no “right” to serve in the armed forces, my evidence from the law stating that very thing was not considered strong enough evidence to back up my fact

The whole "right" vs. "privilege" discussion is rubbish too. The issue isn't whether you have a "right" to serve in the military. It's whether you can arbitrary prohibit someone from serving solely because of their sex.

I'd like it noted for the record, that 90% of the racial epitaphs I've seen of Obama to date.
Have come from Liberals on this board posting them.

News Flash, just because crap is on the internet, doesn't mean everyone has seen it, or more importantly...
"Have to see it."

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

I admit to being one of those evil conservatives: probably only get my news from Rush, probably barely got my HS degree, maybe even work a blue collar job, watch NASCAR, and have a red neck.

Wow–does someone have a chip on their shoulder or what? I don’t recall anyone here implying that…

Hey, while loads of generalities and assumptions are thrown out regarding how I think, where I get my news, whether I think in black and white, parrotting etc., I thought I'd just help by throwing out some of the others generalities as well. If I'm going to be accused of beginning name calling, I should at least start with myself. I wrote that simply so that I could stop "hid[ing] behind conservatism."

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

Clearly, for example, when I claimed that there is no “right” to serve in the armed forces, my evidence from the law stating that very thing was not considered strong enough evidence to back up my fact

The whole “right” vs. “privilege” discussion is rubbish too. The issue isn’t whether you have a “right” to serve in the military. It’s whether you can arbitrary prohibit someone from serving solely because of their sex.

The description of something as a "right" is a loaded word, which can mean quite a bit in any debate and it should be used correctly. Describe it as a "right" and then you can accuse the other side of "denying rights." Such an accusation should be done correctly. Do you disagree?

Someone else claimed that there was a "right" to serve. All I did was simply clarify the fact on whether it was a "right" or not. (Note that I mentioned nothing about whether I think women should serve and how: my own opinion is somewhat in the middle of the two extremes expressed here). One can argue that it SHOULD be a right: that is a different matter. But to argue that it IS a right, is wrong.

Tenouncetrout says

I’d like it noted for the record, that 90% of the racial epitaphs I’ve seen of Obama to date.
Have come from Liberals on this board posting them.
News Flash, just because crap is on the internet, doesn’t mean everyone has seen it, or more importantly…
“Have to see it.”

dude .. .stop messing up their great attempt at race-baiting with facts!! yer harshin their buzz bro

Paralithodes says

The description of something as a “right” is a loaded word, which can mean quite a bit in any debate and it should be used correctly. Describe it as a “right” and then you can accuse the other side of “denying rights.” Such an accusation should be done correctly. Do you disagree?

I don't know--it depends on what your definition of a "right" is. What do you consider to be ones' "rights"?

Are the only Real Americans that love their country and able to see Marxists the white folks? I suppose it's like those glasses in "They Live" (great John Carpenter flick).

Interviews of Glenn Beck fans might help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

tatupu70 says

The issue isn’t whether you have a “right” to serve in the military. It’s whether you can arbitrary prohibit someone from serving solely because of their sex.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

The description of something as a “right” is a loaded word, which can mean quite a bit in any debate and it should be used correctly. Describe it as a “right” and then you can accuse the other side of “denying rights.” Such an accusation should be done correctly. Do you disagree?

I don’t know–it depends on what your definition of a “right” is. What do you consider to be ones’ “rights”?

It has nothing to do with my definition. It has more to do with the philosophy of the founders and the idea of "natural rights." These were essentially inherent things that the government could not take away. This is what the Declaration of Independence was based on. That is why with one technical exception, all of the first 10 amendments are not written to grant people rights, but written as restrictions on the government from stepping on the rights that the people are assumed to already have. Certainly our country violated some of those very rights right from the beginning, and certainly there are debates about continued violations of natural rights today, based on changes in culture.

Unfortunately, I personally cannot articulate it much better than that, and it seems easier to define what a right is not (unless this is a board of professional historians and/or political scientists, I am an amateur like most of the rest of you). There may be an obligation or responsibility of society to provide health care, but there can not be a "natural right" to receive a product or service from someone else, because to assume so is to assume that someone else's rights can be violated by forcing them to provide it. There may be a natural right to free association, but there is no natural right to join any organization because that violates the former. There may be a right to keep and bear arms, but there is no right to be given an actual weapon. There may be a right to seek employment with the Federal government (whether civilian or military), but there is no natural right to have the Federal government provide you with a job.

As far as the military: All laws and regulations regarding the military are the developed by Congress, per its authority and responsibility in the Constitution. Congress determines who is eligible to join and who is not, and for what jobs. Military officers, in particular, take an oath that underlies the idea that it is a priviledge, not a right, to serve. As far as uniformed members, the laws "violate" numerous other existing social protection laws, such as the ADEA, the ADA, etc. And even in the civilian world (whether government or private sector), each of these laws, including any civil rights law, has exceptions: NONE are universal.

Troy confuses rights with obligations, responsibilities, or privledges. There may be a right to defend your country, but the people have no more "right" to serve in the armed forces as they have a "right" to be provided with any other Federal employment. Furthermore, every Supreme Court, whether conservative "activist" or liberal "activist" has recognized that "rights" can still have reasonable restrictions, e.g., the common example that you don't have a "right" to yell "Fire" in a theater, etc."

Troy, just curious, what is your stance on the 2nd and 10th amendments?

Vicente says

Are the only Real Americans that love their country and able to see Marxists the white folks? I suppose it’s like those glasses in “They Live” (great John Carpenter flick).
Interviews of Glenn Beck fans might help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

LOL... Anyone with three minutes can post links to numerous Tea Party protests that refute what you are showing here - or at least highlight that you are simply picking and choosing...

Given that most of the large anti-war rallies were actually organized by Marxists (International ANSWER, World Workers Party, etc.), and protesters actually carried signs with these organizations' - and others' - names on the bottom, along with plenty of other socialist or communist signs or propaganda, I guess that proves unequivocably that any accusation that protesters were all socialist/communist is true?

Paralithodes says

There may be an obligation or responsibility of society to provide health care, but there can not be a “natural right” to receive a product or service from someone else, because to assume so is to assume that someone else’s rights can be violated by forcing them to provide it.

Interesting post. I have to disagree with the above portion though. I don't think forcing a Dr. to provide healthcare violates his rights. Does forcing an autoworker to come in on Sat. violate his rights?

The idea is what rights the government can or cannot step on. If the government forced an auto worker to come in on Saturday at the proverbial point of a gun: Certainly - it would be involuntary servitude. What right would the government have to tell private citizens working for private companies when they must show up for work unrelated to the government?

On the other hand, if the autoworker worked specifically for the government, say in a government maintenance fleet, then it is a condition of employment: the employee could be disciplined or fired just like any civilian job...

Right--and if it was a condition of the Drs. employment that he must treat every patient, then it should be OK..

@Paralithodes

I am rarely inclined to agree with a conservative, even tangentially, but I'd agree here:

Health care provision by the government to its citizens isn't a "natural right".

A "natural right" is concept born out of some fictitious Neverwhere, summoned from the mind of some deep-thoughtist in order to gain some perspective in forming a timeline / family tree / conceptual map in regards to the origin of social and ethical norms - and it's somewhere in that family is the concept of rights, both "natural" and otherwise. The skeptic in me says that when thought experiments have to suffice to prove an issue, it's probably the case that no actual evidence could be found.

But let's continue to look at this special family of rights. I mean, really, are they useful, or just fancy-nancy name-tags? Well, natural rights had a point: throughout the course of the Enlightenment, the European intelligentsia found themselves needing to use the big and booming religious language in order to dodge ecclesiastical attacks that sought to snuff out the formative sparks of the cultural revolts against the reigning feudal authorities, since it was esentially religious language which bound them to the service of the feudal state.

More to the point, since religion isn't the core material of society anymore, the need to show the geneological relationship of rights to the divine in order to ground them (and claim them as rights endowed to us from on high) can be tossed out like so many articles of fast food waste and hastily-filled pharmacy receipts are thrown out of Rush's car window.

So, this entire conversation is moot.

Now if we want to call health care provision a "civil" right/duty...

fredMG says

A lot of the fear mongering you hear is because there is an audience for that. From personal experience I know several older white people that are actually afraid of Obama. They legitimately think he wants to destroy this country. I don’t think you can accurately quantify how much of that is because he is black. If Hillary had become president you would still hear Beck, Rush going on about how Liberals are trying to impose a socialist/communist state.
But lets be clear, Beck, Rush, Hannity, Olberman are in it for the money, fame, power. They do not give a shit about the “disadvantaged” or the “future of this great country” or “republican or democratic values” If tomorrow all the talk radio listeners dropped Rush/Hanity and listened to a new libertarian talk radio host what would you expect to hear from Rush the next day:
A.) Republican values are what makes this country great, I will never become a libertarian.
B.) I have always agreed with almost all of the libertarian values. It is really just minor differences of wording between the Republicans and Libertarians.

I totally agree, and regardless of race any democratic president would have faced the same rhetoric.

fredMG says

Paralithodes represents a lot of Rush listeners. They can only think simple and absolute terms of Good/BAD:
Liberals==”Elite Socialist and Communists” (BAD)
Conservatives==”Real Americans that stand by the Constitution” (GOOD)
It make thinking much easier for him because he doesn’t have to defend George Bush/Sarah Palin or any of the other completely incompetent Republicans. Because every criticism of republicans and be rebutted with “well at least George Bush wasn’t trying to turn us into Communist China”
the other side is full of people who don’t think for themselves either:
Just ask a hardcore Obama supporter to name an issue where they disagree with the president. You will get some blank looks and probably some comment about George Bush being the worst president ever.

Finally someone with common sense statements.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

I admit to being one of those evil conservatives: probably only get my news from Rush, probably barely got my HS degree, maybe even work a blue collar job, watch NASCAR, and have a red neck.

Wow–does someone have a chip on their shoulder or what? I don’t recall anyone here implying that…

Teddy Says: "I think NOMO did....paralides just leans arch-conservative along with RAYAMERICA and me....he just doesnt know how to bullet point the facts yet."

Tenouncetrout says

I’d like it noted for the record, that 90% of the racial epitaphs I’ve seen of Obama to date.
Have come from Liberals on this board posting them.
News Flash, just because crap is on the internet, doesn’t mean everyone has seen it, or more importantly…
“Have to see it.”

Your wrongh, we need to make those aware of these statements that are being made about our president. It wasnt acceptable for Bush and its not acceptable for President Obama.

Bap33 says

Tenouncetrout says

I’d like it noted for the record, that 90% of the racial epitaphs I’ve seen of Obama to date.
Have come from Liberals on this board posting them.
News Flash, just because crap is on the internet, doesn’t mean everyone has seen it, or more importantly…
“Have to see it.”

dude .. .stop messing up their great attempt at race-baiting with facts!! yer harshin their buzz bro

Teddy Says: ...just really who is the race baitor BAP33. Read your own words below and I quote:

1. BAP33 Says: “crack addicted single mother of 5 (each with a different daddy) that is a 6th generations-removed slave”

2. BAP33 Says: "I have no remorse for the losers of a war that were made slaves instead of killed in battle. That is where the black slave sellers of Africa got the slaves they sold to slave traders … they gathered them up like bounty. Another silly racist. Blacks made slaves out of blacks. Go get ‘em."

3. BAP33 Says: "So, with the debt being secured by the home, and without all of the free loans pumping money into the hands of landscapers named Pedro to come along and by the house from me for 150% more than I paid, I just don’t see me leveraging up. "

Those statement show you have no empathy towards BLACKS or MEXICANS. Your the race baitor...BILLY BOB

"

oh contre' ...
#1) RE #3: Mexican is not a race, and I did not mention Mexican. You did.
#2) RE #2: what say you? Care to argue fact? No, you do not because you are a race-baitor.
#3) Who is you to demand empathy from anyone towards anyone?

And now, you really must share how you know when a person is to be called "black'. How much "black" is required by you, and can I see the scale/ruler you use? Who picked the shade/DNA mix/features required to qualify to be deemed "black" by you? Mr. Baitor, we are ready for your response. Your answer will help you reflect on the past, and how #1 above already made you look like the silly race-baitor you are.

Are you that suprized that Lord Barry was even worse than expected? Neither are we.

Jrbows: prove it!

Bap33 says

oh contre’ …
#1) RE #3: Mexican is not a race, and I did not mention Mexican. You did.
#2) RE #2: what say you? Care to argue fact? No, you do not because you are a race-baitor.
#3) Who is you to demand empathy from anyone towards anyone?
And now, you really must share how you know when a person is to be called “black’. How much “black” is required by you, and can I see the scale/ruler you use? Who picked the shade/DNA mix/features required to qualify to be deemed “black” by you? Mr. Baitor, we are ready for your response. Your answer will help you reflect on the past, and how #1 above already made you look like the silly race-baitor you are.
Are you that suprized that Lord Barry was even worse than expected? Neither are we.

Stop speakin in CODE:

PEDRO = ?
MEXIFORNIA = ?
GARDNER = ?
crack addicted single mother of 5 (each with a different daddy) that is a 6th generations-removed slave = ?

If that isnt code coming from a redneck then I dont know what is, these are all terms that you have used to refer to people of various cultures. They hold very subtle hints of negative imagery and you always use them interjected into a bunch of arch-conservative rehtoric based on the calls of sending mexicans back to Mexico so that you can free your little piece of Europe in BAKERSFIELD of all immigrant workers. You have explicitly stated that you hate living around the "migrant workers' and "pedros" who hang on the corners in bakersfield.

We should never imply that Mexicans should go back to Mexico since this is really their land...invaded by Spanish conquistadors and USA manifest destiny thrillseekers hunting for gold.