Courtesy and Civility

[sherminator505]

"I don't know where you got the idea that I am suggesting there is "absolutely no racism" behind opposition to Obama." - Kahuna

 

"I don't believe I have ever heard a racial epithet directed at him, even by people who detest his policies." - Kahuna

 

That's where. I nearly fell out of my chair the first time I read it.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Sherm, I like the way Kahuna has the cojones to try and blame ACORN or moveon.org for the racial whackos that he has somehow managed to finally notice. Sounds like he's gone from Denial to Blaming Others, what's the next stage?

[GernBlansten]

I think you need to subdivide the anti-Obama movements.

If you take just the Birthers, I think the majority of them are racists. They simply don't like an undocumented, Kenyan born muslim as president.

If you take the Tea Baggers, I think the majority of them are morons. Their cry of no more taxes when none have been proposed is stunningly stupid. And all of them would be uneffected by the rollback of tax cuts to the 1% wealthy.

But the Pice de rsistance is the elderly screamers at town hall meetings shouting for government to keep their hands of Medicare.

 

Overall, I don't think race is the motivator. But for racists, it is the sole motivator. I think in the majority of cases, we are seeing the sore loser reaction.

[vol_scouter]

Gern said:

"I think you need to subdivide the anti-Obama movements.

If you take just the Birthers, I think the majority of them are racists. They simply don't like an undocumented, Kenyan born muslim as president. "

 

So would have no problem with a foreign born undocumented president? I do not think that Obama falls into this camp but your statement makes it seem that having an alien as president is not an issue. I cannot believe that even you can say that! Might as well shred the entire constitution!

 

 

"If you take the Tea Baggers, I think the majority of them are morons. Their cry of no more taxes when none have been proposed is stunningly stupid. And all of them would be uneffected by the rollback of tax cuts to the 1% wealthy."

 

No, the morons are the ones that believe that Obama can add 40,000,000+ people on a government medical care plan, provide all the services available on Medicare, not raise taxes, and be budget neutral. That is moronic. Make it up from fraud and abuse? Ridiculous, the dollars don't add up and there will be a cost in finding the fraud and abuse, prosecuting it, and finally collecting - once again moronic. The services will be cut and the wealthy cannot and will not make up the difference - middle class taxes will rise. In order to ration services, boards (committees or whatever you wish to call them) who will decide who will get what services and who will be denied services. That means some will not be saved. Medicare is planned to be cut whether this plan goes through or not, to believe otherwise is not to believe what your government has publicly stated - it is moronic to believe otherwise. The quality of care will have to go down to meet the demand (the system is currently overloaded). To believe otherwise is moronic.

 

To believe the democrats are telling the truth is moronic. If you want socialized medicine, then just be honest and say so. Say that everyone's quality of care will decrease, the wait time will increase, the costs will skyrocket, the quality of physician will decline in the future (too much work for too little pay), and our taxes will increase. That has happened every where it has been tried. If that is what you want, then just say so and I can respect that. The proposed plan is moronic and that is why it is getting less popular with time.

 

 

"But the Pice de rsistance is the elderly screamers at town hall meetings shouting for government to keep their hands of Medicare."

 

I agree, that is silly.

 

"Overall, I don't think race is the motivator. But for racists, it is the sole motivator. I think in the majority of cases, we are seeing the sore loser reaction. "

 

I am sure that there are some racists just as some denigrate southerners without good reason. The majority do not want socialism and are angry at the arrogant, condescending, from their elected democrat members of congress. To say otherwise is an insult.

 

[GernBlansten]

But Volscouter,

The President has proven his nationality. The birthers don't accept it. They do so because they are racist. If he were of Scandinavian decent, it wouldn't be an issue for them. Its an issue because half of his ancestry came from Africa.

 

The Teabaggers will have a valid issue when and if Obama proposes raising taxes on them. Until then, they are morons.

[Hal_Crawford]

Maybe they're morons, maybe they're not but at some point someone will tell the "Teabaggers" what the slang term "tea bagging" means. It isn't appropriate to post on this site or this thread (it is neither courteous nor civil) so if you don't know it, google it. Lets just say I wouldn't want to walk around with a tee shirt that said "Teabagger" any more than I would want to wear one that said "Moron".

 

 

Hal

[vol_scouter]

Gern,

 

 

Your prejudice is incredible. You are simply not correct. The Tea Baggers are correct. What is being proposed makes no sense financially - that is why in today's Rasmussen poll 56% OPPOSE the democrat plan with 44% strongly opposing while only 43% favor with just 24% strongly favor the democrat plan. The American public realizes that this is a pig in a poke. To say otherwise is to be a moron. Socialized medicine has been an economic hardship to an economic disaster everywhere it has been tried. Our citizens are more independent and demanding than the citizens of most countries which means the dissatisfaction will be higher as well as the economic failure. The democrats look silly trying to sell this plan as budget neutral while saying that it is $1,000,000,000 in new spending and that the spending will be covered by cutting medicare without a change in services. That is moronic. It is laughable. The democrats obviously believe that the citizens are fools (which may be borne out by the citizens having elected the democrats who make such silly claims).

 

I think that if Obama or any president were proven to be born a citizen of any other country, the same people would be upset - it is not a racist stance but a belief in the rule of law which you appear not to care about. They are believe that the Constitution defines our system and should be followed. If being a natural born citizen can be thrown out for any president (once again, I am NOT agreeing with the so called 'birthers'), then the Constitution has no meaning. We can not pick and choose what to enforce and what not to enforce and have a rule of laws. The left says that it believes in the rule of law - is that incorrect?

[skeptic]

How ironic, or maybe simply sad, that the majority of this thread tends to reflect exactly the problem the title is about.

[Lisabob]

vol, if there were credibility to the birthers' claims that would be one thing, but there is none and yet they continue. Why on earth are you attempting to equate their stance with defending the constitution? That's the thinnest of veils for other agendas, since no one (except the birthers and even you have said you think they're off base) is suggesting that the constitution should be, or has been, disregarded in this matter.

[vol_scouter]

Lisabob,

 

Gern made the statement: "If you take just the Birthers, I think the majority of them are racists. They simply don't like an undocumented, Kenyan born muslim as president."

 

The second statement implies that it should be just fine that the president (no just this one) could be undocumented as long as it was from a country with a different racial composition. My point is, the so called 'birthers' would be equally outraged with anyone that they do not believe meets the natural born clause of the constitution that appiles to the president but not to congress.

 

Since you teach political science maybe you can shed light on this aspect of the discussion. To my knowledge, a court has never clarified what natural born actually means. I have read that some of the founding fathers wrote that it meant that the person had to be born on US soil to citizens but I have never bothered to investigate for myself. Do you have any knowledge about the meaning of natural born and what the founding fathers actually said about the meaning of the term? There must be a difference or they would have used the same term.

[packsaddle]

Hal, you MUST have known that someone with my almost irresistable curiosity would HAVE to look that up. I can only say: gee, thanks a WHOLE lot.

 

Vol, (edited: we were typing at the same time)(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[GernBlansten]

Another point on why Teabaggers are morons, besides the urban slang thing. They call themselves such because they align themselves with the Boston Tea Party. That was a protest against taxation without representation. Do these morons think they fall into that category? When they have a legitimate issue and a legitimate protest, I'll listen. Until then, they are just a bunch of noisy morons.

[vol_scouter]

Gern,

 

The relationship is obvious, the democrats are moving forward with a plan that 50% or more of the American people are against by polls. If this was still a functioning representative democracy, the democrats would back off on the madical care proposals. If the elected representatives are no longer representative of the views of their constituents, then the people are longerbeing represented. Thus, they are correct in their analogy.

 

You have presented no cogent arguments to support your case and call people names that are rather degrading. Too many on the left call people names when faced with evidence contrary to what they want to believe. I can respect those who say "I want socialized medicine because I think that it is better for the US in the long run even though it will lead to higher costs to the taxpayers and less good service, more are served so that it is worth the costs." However, to act as if the Obama plan will do as advertised is absurd.

[Lisabob]

Absurdity abounds.

 

Vol, you can be angry with your representative for not promoting your viewpoint, but the fact remains that you do have representation in the US Congress (unless, of course, you live in Washington, D.C., and then forget it).

 

Regarding the birther argument, I don't see how you could come to the conclusion you reached, based on what Gern wrote. If we were discussing a situation where it was clear that the person running for president really might not have been eligible, that's one thing. But these birthers, they just won't settle for any sort of standard of evidence. They're off the deep end. Either they're crazy, or they're blinded by their other agenda(s), or maybe both. Even Obama's opponent, John McCain, disavowed their particular brand of idiocy. Trying to make what they are doing into a serious constitutional debate is like building a castle on a foundation of sand. Forget it.

[Kahuna]

Sherminator writes "That's where. I nearly fell out of my chair the first time I read it."

 

You should be more careful when you read this forum there are a lot of very strange things said here.

 

Now, Merlyn is trying to deny that ACORN and moveon.org have been known to do things to sabotage people who don't like Obama's policies.

 

So this is where I step off the bus. When Merlyn is involved, the discussion goes beyond my ability to tolerate. Feel free to carry on without me.