Race, Lies, and Health Scares

It'd be nice to think that the recent surge in overtly racist rhetoric on the right has been a case of random opportunism, provoked by the coincidence of a wealthy black Harvard professor yelling at a white cop who arrested him in his own home. Like, who could've predicted that the professor would be a friend of the Harvard law school graduate who is president, or that president would then say on camera that the cops acted "stupidly"? Or that the incident would happen just as Congress was going into a clinch over health care reform?

The Henry Louis Gates imbroglio did come out of nowhere, and it did give President Obama's opponents a chance to howl about the onerous burdens "reverse racism" puts on the fading white majority in this country. You may not see how that justifies the big-time bigotry that took over the discourse last week, but hey, it's a white thang: There were Birthers insisting that Obama's presidency is illegitimate because he was "born in Kenya"; CNN's Lou Dobbs trying to legitimize the Birthers, and of course, an angry Rush Limbaugh fuming that Obama "is an angry black man." None of them, however, could hold a fuse next to Glenn Beck, who asserted that the biracial POTUS is a "racist" who has "a deep-seated hatred of white people," something so unhinged that even the Brown-Haired-Guy-Who's-Not-Steve-Doocy (the Fox & Friends cohost who had to apologize a couple weeks ago for blurting that Swedes and "other ethnics" are different "species") called him on it.

It's not only angry white male pundits who are waving the white victimhood flag. It's also the chair of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who last Thursday called the kettle dusky by excoriating Democrats who've defended Sonia Sotomayor for "giving cover to groups and individuals to nurture racial grievances for political advantage."

With every passing day it gets harder to think of this sudden dialing-up of whiny hate speech as sheer coincidence. Instead, it's beginning to look inevitable--so much so that maybe the real question is, What is it about health care that brings out the latent racism in the GOP?

The answer is simple: For two or three generations, Republicans have defeated progressive reform of the health care system by hinting that it would mean redistributing wealth from whites to blacks. As Beck himself said, practically redefining "welfare queen" as "healthcare queen": "Everything that is getting pushed through Congress, including this health care bill, are transforming America, and they're all driven by President Obama's thinking on one idea: reparations."

Nevertheless, when we see that Obama's poll numbers have dropped back to the margin of victory he had in the election and have even gone underwater on his handling of health care, it really shouldn't make us give up on the prospect of reform.

Sure, Professor Gates's run-in with Cambridge's Finest wasn't planned, any more than the rump rebellion at GOP Rep. Mike Castle's townhall meeting about health care by a Delaware chapter of the Birthers (video of which catapulted the loonies to national prominence) was. There was no "conspiracy" linking those two events, but the mainstream media quite predictably chose to make them headliners, all but obliterating detailed discussion of health care reform for more than two weeks (and this just when the subject was beginning to resurface after the blanket coverage of Michael Jackson's and Sarah Palin's exits).

The news media could have instead been running, say, commentary about Michael Moore's Sicko, like the interview Bill Moyers did with CIGNA's former PR chief just two weeks ago; or they could have aired footage of the uninsured being wheeled out onto the sidewalk outside hospitals to "walk it off." That they didn't isn't a conspiracy, either--I mean, those endless ads for "purple pills" and aphrodisiacs on the evening news are just the way capitalism works, and don't necessarily mean that Big Pharma has already paid for that microphone. Right?

The Obama people are always talking about how they don't want the perfect to become the enemy of the good, and that often seems to suggest that they have no notion of the bad and the ugly. In fact, they were exquisitely attuned to the American racial divide, at least during the campaign. Obama's nomination was a way of calling the bluff behind the GOP's Southern Strategy--it forced this sort of overt racism out into the open, where before it was always cloaked behind anti-tax or anti-welfare rhetoric, and that exposure helped split the Republican coalition. The Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll showing that 58 percent of Republicans either don't believe Obama was born in the U.S. or aren't sure (compared to 7 percent for Dems and 17 for independents), confirms Bill Maher's formulation: Not all Republicans are racist, but if you are a racist these days, you're probably a Republican.

Who knows where it will end up, but the not-terrible news right now is that there seems to have been just enough of a demographic shift toward racial equality in America to pass Obama's own middling approach to health care reform, as furthered watered down as it will likely be. After all, the Medicare bill passed by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 is not the program we have today; there have been 44 years of amendments, fill-ins, and gap coverages that have created the best-loved insurance program in America. The kinds of arguments Obama has to sell are hard to make: his health care plan is by definition a Trojan horse, a gradual glide toward guaranteed care that will take several more years (at least) of handing out emergency room addresses to the poor, unemployed, and unlucky before it really kicks in. Arguing that we have to settle for something less than a single-payer system like those in every other advanced industrial country can seem rhetorically dishonest, or at least lame--and people are starting to distrust Obama's ability to discipline the Dems and get it done.

But watching the Republican Party morph into the National Association for the Advancement of White People should give us all hope, not despair: Anything that brings 'em out of the closet and gets 'em running naked through the streets shouting, "I'm the victim here, dammit!" will only ensure their minority status over the long run.

Comments (170)

1. Bobblespeak Translations What They're Really Saying When They're Saying What They're Saying President Obama Healthcare Press Conference - July 22, 2009 Obama: hello American people you all know if we don't enact health care reform we are totally fucked in a major way - now I'll take questions from the idiots called the white house press corps

   AP: How do you plan to pay for this and what's your dealbreaker?

   Obama: hey dude right now we're all paying for it - at this rate we won't be able to afford to iPhones, cable tv, or to invade every tiny little country that pisses off

   AP: oh no

   Obama: yeah! so that's 2/3 of the cost right there

   AP: and the rest?

   Obama: remove tax deductionsbut I don't foreclose other options

   AP: oh no don't say foreclose

   Obama: hey we could raise taxes on millionaires

   White House Press corps: oh shit

   Obama: or eliminate waste

   White House Press corps: oh yeah much better

   Obama: I'm am the motherfucking president and let me tell you - just like the economy - the health care system I inherited from George W. Bush really fucking sucks

   White House Press corps: oh poo

   Obama: we can do this but we've got to make some major fucking changes - we need new computers, fewer tests and better goddamm lollipops!

   White House Press corps: he's good

   Obama: people hate Washington DC but I'm telling you people the cost of doing nothing is worse - yo Two First Names David Alexander!

   Reuters: what's the rush Bammy

   Obama: people are fucking dyin on me!

   Reuters: then you bite the bullet and take them to a fucking hospital

   Obama: you have set deadlines in this town or nothing ever fucking happens - at this rate I'm going to have promise a mushroom cloud over Arlington to wake you fuckers up! http://tiny

   Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:04pm

2. SINGLE PAYER (ALREADY) WORKS IN USA

   "Half the elderly in America had no health insurance when Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law on July 30, 1965. One third lived in poverty. Medicare helped alleviate both those problems.

   Now the elderly are among the best-insured Americans, with upward of 95 percent covered by Medicare. The rate of poverty among those 65 and older is under 10 percent. The decline in elderly poverty began with the creation of Social Security -- but it accelerated, according to Census Bureau data, only after Medicare coverage began...

   Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicare's cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicare's cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per-capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.

   So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesn't have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?

   Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance "cooperative" that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate."

   http://tinyurl.com/lrxakv

   Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:05pm

3. Why do we need health-care reform? Everything is just fine the way it is.

   "Go ahead, shoot me. I like the status quo on health care in the United States. I've got health insurance and I don't give a damn about the 47 million suckers who don't. Obama and Congress must be stopped. No bill! I'm better off the way things are.

   I'm with that woman who wrote the president complaining about "socialized medicine" and added: "Now keep your hands off my Medicare." That's the spirit!

   Why should I be entitled to the same insurance that members of Congress get? Blue Dogs need a lot of medical attention to treat their blueness. I'm just a regular guy and definitely deserve less.

   I had cancer a few years ago. I like the fact that if I lose my job, I won't be able to get any insurance because of my illness. It reminds me of my homeowners' insurance, which gets canceled after a break-in. I like the choice I'd face if, God forbid, the cancer recurs--sell my house to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment, or die. That's what you call a "post-existing condition."

   I like the absence of catastrophic insurance today. It meant that my health-insurance plan (one of the better ones, by the way) only covered about 75 percent of the cost of my cutting-edge treatment. That's as it should be--face cancer and shell out huge amounts of money at the same time. Nice.

   I like the "lifetime limits" that many policies have today. Missed the fine print on that one, did you? It means that after you exceed a certain amount of reimbursement, you don't get anything more from the insurance company. That's fair."

   MORE: http://www.newsweek.com/id/209817

   Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:06pm

4. Profits Before People

   Birther Roy Blunt has been on a rampage against Medicare, saying the other day the patent lie that "Medicare has never done anything to make people more healthy," despite the millions of healthy seniors on Medicare.

   The anti-Medicare argument has been taking hold in other corners, with Rep. Tom Price, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, authoring an op-ed that mostly attacks Medicare as a reason the new Republican tax health care plan is a good idea:

   Going down the path of more government will only compound the problem. While the stated goal remains noble, as a physician, I can attest that nothing has had a greater negative effect on the delivery of health care than the federal government's intrusion into medicine through Medicare. Because of Washington's one-size-fits-all approach, its flawed coverage rules and broken financing mechanisms, seniors are increasingly having care rationed while federal health spending spirals out of control.

   This is, as we say in Washington, bull. Medicare covers virtually the entirety of our senior population, and does it at lower cost and higher quality.

   And, that bull is just about the entirety of the Republican argument against health reform it seems: No health reform, because Medicare is awful.

   Of course, the plan Price is pushing isn't so much of a plan and more of a John McCain retread, with lots of talk about taxes and no new ideas for how to lower our health care costs or provide more coverage at an affordable price.

   But it's good to know Price hates Medicare. That puts him at odds with 86% of seniors, people who are actually on Medicare.

   http://tinyurl.com/lflmbr

   Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:08pm

5. Jon Stewart Gets Kristol To Concede Government Can Provide ‘First-Class Health Care'

   On The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart peppered right-wing pundit Bill Kristol with questions about why he is opposed to health care reform that includes a public health insurance option. Why is government-run health care "good enough for the military," but "not good enough for the people of America?" Stewart asked.

   Kristol -- who has urged conservative activists and Republicans to "resist the temptation" to work with Democrats in crafting health reform and instead "go for the kill" -- responded that the military "deserves it," but the American people do not:

   STEWART: Are you saying the American public shouldn't have access to the same quality health care that we give to our better citizens?

   KRISTOL: To our soldiers? Absolutely. [Crowd boos]

   Kristol explained that soldiers get paid less, but "one way we make it up to" them is by giving them "first-class health care." "I feel like you've trapped me somehow," Kristol observed. Indeed, Stewart explained the flaw in Kristol's logic:

   STEWART: I just want to get this on record -- Bill Kristol just said that the government can run a first-class health care system.

   KRISTOL: Sure it can. [Crowd applauds]

   STEWART: And a government-run system is better than a private health care system.

   Kristol tried to backtrack, saying he wasn't sure the military system is "better," and later argued that other government-run systems aren't providing the best health care.

   Stewart wrapped up Kristol's argument by stating, "So what you are suggesting is that the government could run the best health care system for Americans, but it's a little too costly, so we should have the shitty insurance company health care."

   Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:09pm

6. Want real healthcare?

   Take action: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicoption

   Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:10pm

7. Want real healthcare?

   Take action: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicoption

   Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:10pm

8. SOUTH CAROLINA - A stunning new poll by William K. Wolfrum & Associates shows that nearly 80 percent of all Americans would stop breathing right now if a major corporation gave that order.

   The poll - which was based on looking into how Americans will gladly vote against their own self interests - made several other discoveries, including:

   •78 percent of Americans would rather die a terrible death that leaves their families bankrupt than have the elite pay higher taxes for government health care.

   •67 percent of Americans would saw off their left foot to have a Wal-Mart built next door to them;

   •62 percent of Americans would shoot themselves in the head if it meant the richest Americans would receive a tax break, and;

   •59 percent of Americans would rather see tax money given to banks, or used to kill Middle Easterners than have the same money used on health care in the U.S.

   Noted sociologist Tim Johnson of Tupelo, Miss., said that the poll is in line with how many Americans feel.

   "In the U.S., it's all about striving to be rich," said Johnson. "And if you fail, you're out. So better let the successful amongst us thrive than worry about the vast majority of Americans, who are abject failures at getting rich."

   Republicans were quick to jump on the poll numbers.

   "Americans are selfless people. So selfless, they'll always vote against their own interests," said Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. "At the GOP, we're aware of that and confident it will again lead us to power. The people have spoken, and they've told us they don't want to be heard anymore. We can do that."

   More than 1,000 people took the poll, though many refused to accept the free pencils given out to fill out the poll, claiming it was a "socialist act." http://tinyurl.com/n

   Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:15pm

9. Republican Health Bill Would Jeopardize Coverage for Many, While Failing To Reduce the Number of Uninsured Significantly

   •From The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, evaluating a GOP health care alternative:

   The Patients' Choice Act, introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), would likely fail to make major progress in reducing the number of uninsured Americans. It also would make affordable, comprehensive coverage less available for many who currently have coverage.

   http://tinyurl.com/mk6y22

   Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:17pm

10. The GOP's new "Empower Patients First Act," sponsored by Republican House Study Committee Chairman Tom Price, is a $700 billion giveaway to the health insurance industry and its introduction creates a huge opening for the White House and congressional Democrats in the health reform debate. It has three main elements:

    1.Health insurance deregulation, dismantling state-level consumer protections and allowing insurance giants to sell their plans nationwide without fear of oversight. (Edit, 9:41AM: The problem here is that the GOP plan creates an unregulated national market, unlike the Democratic proposal for a national insurance exchange, which would create a national market, but with consumer protections.)

    2.Subsidizing private health insurance, for lower-income individuals and families. This sounds good at first, but subsidies in the absence of other reforms will simply increase the cost of health insurance for everybody else, leading to another inflationary spiral in health care.

    3.No comprehensive plan to pay for plan. In order to fund subsidies, the bill calls for a 1% annual cut in Federal discretionary spending each year for the next decade, yielding about $120 billion. Although this would result in major across-the-board cuts in federal spending, it still leaves nearly $600 billion unfunded.

    The Republican health bill would be a disaster for ordinary Americans, but it's the health insurance industry's dream. It slashes consumer-protection regulations, it increases health care costs by subsidizing private insurance while simultaneously deregulating it, and it would create another explosion of federal debt.

    http://tinyurl.com/myznsp

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:17pm

11. •The interesting thing about health care opposition groups is how willing they are to lie. Why anyone therefore treats them as a credible source, only the media can explain:

    One of the several emerging misleading arguments against health insurance reform is that the reform legislation will allow taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. Now, the Family Research Council has released an ad that implies that Planned Parenthood's funding of reproductive services will somehow prevent another individual from undergoing surgery

    http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200907290002

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:18pm

12. It's been a fundraising frenzy for the Blue Dogs

    No wonder Blue Dog Rep. Herseth Sandlin was so ecstatic when the Blue Dogs delayed passage of health insurance reform. The delay bought the Blue Dogs another couple months of obscene fundraising. The Blue Dogs have been sucking up money from the industries impacted by the legislation: The roiling debate about health-care reform has been a boon to the political fortunes of Ross and 51 other members of the Blue Dog Coalition, who have become key brokers in shaping legislation in the House. Objections from the group resulted in a compromise bill announced this week that includes higher payments for rural providers and softens a public insurance option that industry groups object to. The deal also would allow states to set up nonprofit cooperatives to offer coverage, a Republican-generated idea that insurers favor as an alternative to a public insurance option.

    At the same time, the group has set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity.

    A look at career contribution patterns also shows that typical Blue Dogs receive significantly more money -- about 25 percent -- from the health-care and insurance sectors than other Democrats, putting them closer to Republicans in attracting industry support.

    Is anyone surprised? http://tinyurl.com/np7z39

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:20pm

13. Is GOP using race to block Obama agenda? Ya think?

    "There has to be a reason that the US, of all the industrialized nations, the richest country in the world, is so hostile to social welfare programs... one of the fundamental reasons America is so resistant to programs that provide for the common good is that there is a long tradition of rejecting any proposal that taxes white people to pay for programs that benefit non-whites.

    ...the GOP was using race to block Obama's agenda... that's fairly obvious. When you have the fatuous gasbag leadership all calling Obama a reverse racist (the new black in conservative circles) and even questioning his American identity, it's pretty clear that they are yanking the racist American id pretty hard.

    But it really goes to their essential philosophy which says that the government is taking away "what's yours" and giving it to the undeserving (blacks and browns.) The fact that Obama himself is black only adds to the atmospherics, it doesn't create them. This tribalism is so deeply entrenched in American culture that its racial nature has long since been disguised in less obvious terms such as "liberalism." Obama's race simply makes it impossible for the hard core wingnuts to hide their real intent. (And they are in such deep trouble that they can't afford to be subtle anymore.)

    ...when Matthews and other wealthy people obsess over race in the broader sense, and encourage this nonsense about reverse discrimination out of some absurd self-identification as a white working class dude, they do the work of the ruling class as well by reinforcing the All American racial divide --- and its resultant antipathy toward any kind of social welfare....It's a scam. http://tinyurl.com/n2oqfr

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:21pm

14. Awesome judybrowni

    Posted by chawnman at 08/02/2009 @ 2:22pm

15. Thoughts on the Class War

    ....It is obvious in the battle for health care, and obvious in the financial crisis. It is obvious, and they are vulnerable, for one main reason, this time they are not just going after the "Lower" Classes, they have made the critical mistake of "going after" (affecting adversely to a grievous extent) the Middle Class as well.

    Masses of people are now suffering at the hands of the system the Ruling Class has created to give them power and line their pockets. Foreclosure, unemployment, lack of good jobs and benefits for the employed and underemployed....and bill after bill of legislation for the Rich that ignores the plight, the plight that the Ruling Class created, of what they obviously consider to be literally the Lower Classes. The Health Care fight is just the most obvious and egregious battle of the Class War. But it can no longer be honestly denied.

    Class War is now out in the open.

    This dynamic, this willingness of the one or two percent of the wealthiest Americans to screw the rest of America...and the world...merely to line their own pockets and increase their power touches literally every aspect of our lives. From the very personal aspects of getting decent affordable health care and to putting food on our families...to the greater spheres of politics, foreign policy and the survival of the planet itself. The cultural controls and societal memes and conditioning are still effective in 'controlling' most of the GenPop, the "Underclasses"... and keeping them from uniting to even a small extent and rising up against The Ruling Class ....Except, perhaps, to some extent....among a burgeoning, hyper-informed online segment of the GenPop. Teh Bloggers. WE are, in our chaotic fashion, telling the story. Getting the word out, a

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:29pm

16. that peggy noonan lady says obama should just declare medicare for people of any age.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/02/2009 @ 2:33pm

17. 1st...sorry, judybrowni, but that is WAY over abusing your Cut & Paste priveleges...Ignore pile.

    2nd...The SMART Republicans have got to be going crazy...from crazy "RIO"-sounding pundits becoming their "face" to the public.

    3rd...Beck's an act. Strong hints, even from some other right-wing pundits, that he doesn't really mean it and that it's all show to grab ratings. I tend to agree with that assessment.

    Posted by Mask at 08/02/2009 @ 2:58pm

18. The GOP demographic in question supported the Bush/neocon politically unwinnable Iraq War for a two percent ethnic non-Christian American minority. The failure of which catapulted Obama past the pro-war Hillary into the presidency. The majority still defend that economy-depleting war.

    If they have been acting in "Euro-American" interests or out of similar impulses it has been so piecemeal and inwardly contradictory, as to be inconsequential.

    Ron Paul element excepted.

    Posted by zionopp at 08/02/2009 @ 3:05pm

19. 5 Steps to Major Health Care Reform

    ...Obama's much maligned strategy of letting Congress hammer out the details of health care reform is just now starting to look quite sensible...

    Step 1 - Fund Evidence-Based Medical Records Keeping -- DONE: Although most people may not know it, the most important element in the whole package has already been passed into law. The illusive goal of extending coverage to more Americans and lowering the cost of health care is unattainable unless we can find ways to deliver more effective...

    Step 2 - Health Insurance Reform: There is broad support for a package of reforms and regulations for the health insurance industry that would provide real protections for consumers and at the same time level the playing field for health insurance providers. It is quite possible that any deal that emerges from Congress would require health insurance portability eliminating the problem known as "job-lock" and also eliminate coverage exclusions for pre-existing conditions. These changes would go a long way toward addressing the health care anxieties for large numbers of people.

    Step 3 - Give Consumers More Choices: There are several ways to do this. The least controversial idea, included in most reform proposals, is Health Insurance Exchanges. Health Insurance Exchanges are markets where employers and individuals can shop from a wide variety of competing plans to find plans that offer the benefits they want at a price they can afford. This system is already working in some states and for federal employees. Step 4 - Make Health Insurance More Affordable:... Step 5 - Add Government Mandates Only If They Do Not Mandate Bankruptcy:

    MORE:http://tinyurl.com/nymdb7

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 3:15pm

20. Posted by Mask at 08/02/2009 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    well....she's passionate about the topic. as long as there's no bildeburging and reptoids, her only sin thusfar is being a cut-n-paste-a-zilla.

    it IS a lot of cutin'-n-pastin' though...

    JUDY

    like your passion, but that's a lot of cutin'-n-pastin', dear...

    Posted by dexter666 at 08/02/2009 @ 3:52pm

21. Mask... I think you are being intolerant of what it takes to get a tough issue considered by the people who will benefit from it the most... the American people.

    All the vested interests already know where they stand... and aren't going to change their minds without changing careers first...;^)

    Judy is just scratching the surface of what is becoming a very thorough expose of just what all of our 'health dollars' actually buys.

    Keep it up Judy... your service to the American public is immeasurable.

    I thank you.

    Posted by ttr at 08/02/2009 @ 4:06pm

22. Kudos to Leslie Savan for saying the most NOTHING in the greatest amount of thread space!

    The only thing you could get out of this ridiculous screed was "racist in chief" covering his rear, HATE white males, all cops are racist, birther something whatever that means, hate talk radio, hate whites, hate whites, and hate white conservatives or something like that.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 5:01pm

23. "A top White House adviser says he can't rule out a tax on middle-class Americans to pay for President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.

    As a candidate, Obama pledged not to raise taxes for most Americans. But economic adviser Larry Summers says he cannot promise that Obama will stick to that campaign pledge.

    Summers says it's too early to tell what will be needed to pay for a broad restructuring of how people receive healthcare.

    Summers says controlling healthcare costs will be crucial to reducing the deficit. He says the health of the economy is directly tied to how Americans take care of their own health. "

    LIE, LIE, LIE, and that is how the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats got into office, so now they are doing what they lied about not doing!'

    So now thtat 9,000,000 people are without jobs and unemployment is anywhere from 10% to 20% depending on what state you live in they can't even bring back those jobs or support the businesses that could make them available, but they can line their own pockets and give ownership and bailouts to auto unions and bank who supported them in stealing the 2008 elections!

    They promised 3.5 million new jobs, but don't seem to want to do anything about saving the ones lost!

    Who is the crackpot genius that gave GM and Chrysler money to make cars and then PAYS the general public $4,500. to BUY those cars and thinks that is advancing economic recovery with just more of future taxpayers futhur taxes and by creating more individual debt that may or may NOT be paid to those making the loans?? Unfortunately most idiots think that is great!

    Now they want to increas the national debt $1,000,000,000,000. a year MORE with healthcare benefits! Some fools still support them unwaveringly!!!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/02/2009 @ 5:11pm

24. I don't think Glenn Beck is really as crazy as he'd like you to think he is.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 5:12pm

25. judybrowni:

    The 1st ammendment is really cool! So are the owners of The Nation, although I disagree with every thought they have, they are very nice people to let us post almost anything. Wrong but classy people. I don't think talking to you about your cut and paste frenzy will accomplish anything. Please continue to do what gives you pleasure or meaning. But also know that almost everything has consequences. Instead of putting you on ignore, I check every thread and count your posts. Each post results in a $10 donation to the National Rifle Association. They appreciate your contributions!

    Posted by sntauri at 08/02/2009 @ 5:56pm

26. No... Beck is an Idiot...

    Where were his tirades when Bush and the Boys PUSHED thru the prescription drug bill.. Do any of you "Republicans" realize what that did to the deficit ..??? probably not... Bury your heads... Such tools.

    And Big Pasture you fool... Do you have any different catch phrases..?? Your kinda lame, as well as ignorant... No offense.

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 08/02/2009 @ 6:24pm

27. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 5:12pm

    Of course not. All the Mega-Corporate hate radio and hate TV millionaire mouthpieces (Savage, Boortz, Orally, Handily, Limbaugh, Ingrain, Coulter) are contracted and paid the big $ $ $ $ to boil everything don't to the same boilerplate lunacy: fear-coloreds, fear-commies.

    All know what's expected. None is "as crazy as (they)'d like you to think he is."

    This is an excellent article. Fear and negativity and cynicism and pessimism work very well. But are undercut when delivered by lunatics.

    Much of what propelled the Obama victory was not hope, but fear of four more years. These neocon extremists serve daily to remind Americans of the right's core hostility.

    Posted by winyahn at 08/02/2009 @ 6:38pm

28. Go get him Glenn! Is it racist to call someone a racist? Surely a black man can not be a racist?

    Fear and negativity and cynicism and pessimism work very well. But are undercut when delivered by lunatics.

    Posted by winyahn

    Obama uses fear to control the population every day. He is lying about global warming, health care, Afghanistan....

    He is lying to the American people and needs to be impeached.

    Posted by abell12ct at 08/02/2009 @ 6:53pm

29. Each post results in a $10 donation to the National Rifle Association. They appreciate your contributions!

    Posted by sntauri at 08/02/2009 @ 5:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    lol

    Posted by dexter666 at 08/02/2009 @ 6:55pm

30. Where were his tirades when Bush and the Boys PUSHED thru the prescription drug bill.. Do any of you "Republicans" realize what that did to the deficit ..???

    Posted by Vvf1969

    He was there railing against that too.

    Posted by abell12ct at 08/02/2009 @ 7:28pm

31. Leslie Savan, by any chance, are you black? This sounds like an awfully racially charged article.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/02/2009 @ 7:37pm

32. ms judy just REPASTED postings she has made several times on previous threads.

    I agree with Mask, it has gotten old..ignore she is.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/02/2009 @ 7:47pm

33. Copy and Posted by judybrowni

    <Click>

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/02/2009 @ 8:20pm

34. Where were his tirades when Bush and the Boys PUSHED thru the prescription drug bill.. Do any of you "Republicans" realize what that did to the deficit ..???

    Posted by Vvf1969

    He was there railing against that too.

    Posted by abell12ct at 08/02/2009 @ 7:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Puh - Leeze... Will any of you "conservatives" fess up to that legislative nightmare..??? Where were you guys then...??

    get off your high horses... Hipocrites.

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 08/02/2009 @ 9:31pm

35. SAVAN needs to be put on Sunday morning talk shows and make ?her? charge.....as loud and `scholarly' as she can!

    We would appreciate her keeping Asshole Gates in the news longer......that's it, call whiteys `Racists', cops as habitual Racial Profilers!

    Heard some great news BigP covered.....we are likely looking at some kinda of value-added or consumption tax. I say "great" because.....such taxes hit EVERYBODY and broadens the tax base...it's a right step toward dropping income tax rates later one once the GOP takes back the WH and maybe Congress/Senate.

    Now the bad news.....such taxes will retard the economy and slow job gains for years.

    Now the good news.....but then, inflation will be less due to smaller deficits and lower Gubber finaincing needs.

    Now the bad news......as long as the Dems control the Gubbers, there will be pressure to increase the Min. Wage to offset all that regressive taxing.

    Now the really good news.......my townhouse has been leased! that's the one where a young tenant lost his job and decided to move in w/his folks...he left 7/31!

    Posted by Happy at 08/02/2009 @ 9:39pm

36. This is kind of rhetoric that got lots of people killed in the US during the 60's and 70's. Since Beck doesn't care what happens to everyday folks that have to survive with people his words energize, then he's immune. Only when the hate he spews comes back to him directly will he start spewing something different.

    Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Michelle Malin, Laura Ingram, etc. are all paid well to incite. None of them have enough brains to figure out they are only pawns for the money interests that are still stuck in the 1900's.... When the riots start, and they will just like in the 60's, it's going to get real ugly for them because no one will be around to shield them as they do now. Hopefully they all have a good exit strategy - they'll need it.

    Posted by Winski at 08/02/2009 @ 9:52pm

37. publicoption

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:10pm

    i tried that once.

    nearly got me arrested.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/02/2009 @ 11:18pm

38. Each post results in a $10 donation to the National Rifle Association.

    Posted by sntauri at 08/02/2009 @ 5:56p

    well, that'll bring down healthcare costs.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/02/2009 @ 11:21pm

39. don't think Glenn Beck is really as crazy as he'd like you to think he is.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009

    No he's not. His book was selling at #1.

    But, that Michelle Bachmann, definitely batshit.

    Posted by koroviev at 08/02/2009 @ 11:31pm

40. hooray!

    "Police on Sunday recommended that the state prosecution to indict Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on charges of bribery, fraud, money laundering, witness harassment and obstruction of justice.

    Attorney General Menachem Mazuz must approve the recommendation before Lieberman is formally charged. It could be weeks or months before a decision is made.

    The combined maximum sentence for those crimes would be 31 years in prison, a police officer said. "

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/03/2009 @ 12:07am

41. I for one will never ever vote Republican again. I am so sick and tired of the right-wing in this country acting like they have cornered the market on morality, patriotism, capitolism and the american way of life in general. Since the 80's we have been bombarded with Jerry Fallwell(thankfully now dead), Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart...etc. All telling the rest of us how we should live. The right-wing Republicans jumped on their band wagon and instead of doing something for america when they were in power they only enriched the already rich and powerful. Now we finally have a good president who actually wants to help real americans and the right-wing hope Al qaeda strikes again to prove their point, they hope the ecomony falls even more so they will have ammunation to use against the Dems, and they are sleeping with the energy and insurance companies and following the ins play book on defeating health care reform. And let us not forget that very very few republicans came out and said "YES OBAMA IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN" thus giving credence to the crazy birther movement. It's so plainly obvious they put industry power and profits far above the american people. I personally think senators like Jim Demint, Tom Coburn, John Ensign, orin hatch...etc are, in effect, traitors to the american people. Hopefully the moderate and liberal Democrats will gain even more seats in 2010. But unfortunately I'm afraid there are still enough idiot americans who will believe whatever the repubs put out there.

    Posted by jack007 at 08/03/2009 @ 12:14am

42. Like nearly all republicans, beck is a liar and a coward. He is an American traitor. Simply pathetic, but the people that still listen to him, limbaugh and the rest are the real crazies...

    Posted by Tiger2Lover at 08/03/2009 @ 01:29am

43. Puh - Leeze... Will any of you "conservatives" fess up to that legislative nightmare..??? Where were you guys then...?? get off your high horses... Hipocrites. Posted by Vvf1969

    Puh Leeze Pay Attention. You asked where was Beck. He was railing against that. Not all conservatives were but he was.

    Posted by abell12ct at 08/03/2009 @ 05:39am

44. Posted by ttr at 08/02/2009 @ 4:06pm |

    We're not "computer illiterates", ttr....

    she can post just the links, and I'd have no problem.

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 06:08am

45. Posted by abell12ct at 08/03/2009 @ 05:39am

    No, abell...he SAYS he was. But Beck was a cheerleader for Bush and the GOP right upto 2006, when it was looking like they'd lose the Congress and he didn't want to be linked to that later.

    Then suddenly, he reveals his "disappointment with both Parties" and "opposition to Bush way back to 2004".

    He's an opportunist.

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 06:11am

46. posted by sntauri at 08/02/09 @ 5:56pm

    You know, I had thought of doing something similar about the full-time paid RNC commenters on here - tell them every time they post I'm sending off another missive to my representatives or money to Planned Parenthood (though I certainly couldn't afford $10.00/post). However, I decided that that would be sort of breaking the implicit free-speech blog rules.

    But I guess you decided that you could be the censor. Put Judi on ignore if you don't like her stuff. I don't mind it.

    Oh, the heck with it. I like Frosty Zoom's comment 08/02/2009 11:21 pm.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 08/03/2009 @ 06:33am

47. Let's cut through all the noise and get to the true and ultimate social welfare goal of Conservatives, the bottom line of their decrying any form of government-provided or assisted social welfare: Their goal is to remove any form of social welfare from any government control and put it exclusively in the hands of privately-funded charitable institutions. Their final goal is to effectively repeal, remove, and delete two clauses of the Constitution: (1) One of the six express purposes set forth in the Preamble for which the Constitution was written, one of the six stated reasons for the very existence of the government created by the Constitution: to "promote the general Welfare," and (2) the clause in Section 8 of Article I which gives Congress the power to raise revenue to "provide for the . . . general welfare. . . ." Yes, I am a Populist and a Socialist, and why isn't everyone? I am a Populist in that I believe that the health, safety, and welfare of the many must be protected from the excessive greed of the wealthy few, and that the Blessings of Liberty (also mandated in the Preamble) must be secured against the incontinent lust for power of the wealthy few. Why isn't everyone except the wealthy few a Populist? I am a Socialist in that I believe, based on the above Constitutional provisions, that the government has a duty to provide that protection and that security. Why isn't everyone except the wealthy few a Socialist? After all, the Constitutional duty and power of the government to promote and provide for the General Welfare is a Socialist principle. Ignore the spin that Conservatives merely oppose the method of providing for the general welfare, and be ever aware that what they oppose is the very principle of public welfare.

    Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 06:45am

48. It'd be nice to think that the recent surge in overtly racist rhetoric on the right has been a case of random opportunism, provoked by the coincidence of a wealthy black Harvard professor yelling at a white cop who arrested him in his own home. -- LS

    Wow. It's tough when I can't even make it past the first sentence...

    Point 2 (reverse order here.)

    Gates was NOT arrested IN his home. IF gates had stayed IN his home we wouldn't have been arrested. It is because Gates followed officer Crowley OUTSIDE his home to continue bitch at, and verbally abusing Office Crowley that he was arrested.

    Point 1

    Can the author give us an example of "recent overtly racist language" by the right?

    Better yet, can the author give us an example of any week during the past 150 years that didn't contain a "surge" in overtly racist language on the right?

    It's kind of amazing. In the past 150 years American has past two Constitutional Amendments giving rights to blacks. Passed a civil rights amendment. We've done away with Jim Crow. We've eliminated all institutionalized form of racism in the federal government, and yet there hasn't been a single week when "overtly racist language" hasn't been "surging" on the right.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 08:28am

49. Okay, back to the second sentence.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 08:31am

50. Texas Sen. John Cornyn ... [mentioned individuals who] "nurture racial grievances for political advantage."

    I defy you to come up with any sentence that better describes Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Rev. Wright.

    Any sentence that is a better description of these three individuals.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 08:38am

51. "What is it about health care that brings out the latent racism in the GOP?" -- LS

    Someone once said, "There are no dumb questions."

    That person should be shot for being criminally wrong.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 08:41am

52. The news media could have instead been running, say, commentary about Michael Moore's Sicko, like the interview Bill Moyers did with CIGNA's former PR chief just two weeks ago; or they could have aired footage of the uninsured being wheeled out onto the sidewalk outside hospitals to "walk it off." -- LS

    Alternatively, they could run interviews with people in Canada, England, or France.

    They could interview the person who has to wait four month to get an MRI to determine if the lump is Breast Cancer.

    The could interview the paitents with Staff infection because the Nurse can't be bothered to wash off instruments between paitents.

    They could show pictures of the teeth of Englishmen who get dental coverage from the State.

    The could interview the woman who had all coverage stripped because she chose to pay for a treatment herself that wasn't covered by the government plan.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 08:47am

53. Yeah, fuck this noise. I don't have the strength to finish reading this dreck.

    Right now there are 300 million Americans. Of the 45 million "unisured" you cite, 15 million are illegal aliens meaning 30 million Americans don't have insurance; most by choice (self-insure).

    Anyway, over 90% of Americans have insurance that comes with an unpleasant and irritating bueacracy, but gives them the best healthcare in the world. And 10% recieve substandard care.

    People like me say, "well, find the political will to subsidize the unisured."

    People like you say, "Throw away the current system and replace it with a new system."

    Someone said Capitalism is the unequal distribution of happiness; Socialism is the equal distribution of misery.

    Your plan takes away some helathcare from 40% - 75% of Americans in exchange for better care for 10%. Roughly half of Americans with have marginally worse care under you plan to ensure better care for 10%.

    That's the sale you have to make.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 08:57am

54. You guys need to really think about that.

    Under your tax fantasy (where the Economy is static and no matter what you do the economic output never varies) You impose 90% tax rates on 5% of the people and give that money to "the poor" and create a marginally "richer" existence for 50% of the people.

    Your healthcare "solution" is the exact opposite. The 5% richest are simply unable to "over-consume" healthcare. You need to "pull down" the middle class (50%) in order to elevate "the poor" (10%).

    How are you going to make that sale?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 09:00am

55. "Can the author give us an example of "recent overtly racist language" by the right?"----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 08:28am

    "Had McCain been willing to drape Jeremiah Wright around the neck of Barack Obama, as Lee Atwater draped Willie Horton around the neck of Michael Dukakis, the mainstream media might have howled. And McCain might be president."---Pat Buchanan

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 09:12am

56. "Had McCain been willing to drape Jeremiah Wright around the neck of Barack Obama, as Lee Atwater draped Willie Horton around the neck of Michael Dukakis, the mainstream media might have howled. And McCain might be president."---Pat Buchanan

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 09:12am

    "Overt" 1. open to view or knowledge; not concealed or secret:

    Apparently Buchanan didn't get the memo. Nothing Buchanan said refers to race. He refers to a radical preacher who preaches that America is so vile and corrupt that God should Damn American to Hell. He also refers to a convicted rapist and murder who got out of jail on a publicly unpopular furlough program who raped a woman when he should have been in jail. And Dukakis's response was basically, "Hey, shit happens. But you can't blame me just because I'm the one who let him out of jail."

    So here's a few examples of "overtly racist language":

    "We keep the rents high to keep the eggplants out... You know, the jungle bunnies." (Ironballs McGinty in "The Jerk")

    "If it weren't for you Yankees, I'd have ten of them niggers working for me." (Ted Shulty in a Minnesota bar circa 1989.)

    "Humph! Colored girl. Boy, you put them in a big car and they think they're as good as a white." (My wife's 90-year old Great Aunt Louise on the DC Beltway circa 1993.)

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 09:32am

57. Oh, more importantly, Buchanan is delusional. Every voting American knew who Wright was. Wright wasn't the difference between President McCain and Obamam.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 09:38am

58. bail us out, we've been deluged by BROWNI THE TSUNAMI!

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 09:52am

59. by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 08:41am...

    -"What is it about health care that brings out the latent racism in the GOP?" -- LS

    Someone once said, "There are no dumb questions." That person should be shot for being criminally wrong.-

    So... here we have it that Darin 'believes' that we should shoot people for declaring that people living in a democracy should be asking questions... and he has chosen to post this 'fervent assertion' on a Nation thread devoted to shock jock extremism.

    Though I would agree that the racism card is being played as trump far too often in our political world today...

    ...the violence card trumps your credibility, and places you into the 'questionable' civil responsibility quadrant of quandries...;^)

    Advocating interpersonal corporal violence in a civil society is not smart... or funny... or an effective political tool.

    You ought to take a different approach, Darin... one that has at least a modicum of chance of succeeding...

    Posted by ttr at 08/03/2009 @ 10:16am

60. oops... I meant...

    Advocating interpersonal -corporeal- violence in a civil society is not smart... or funny... or an effective political tool.

    Posted by ttr at 08/03/2009 @ 10:22am

61. Darin wrote: "Someone said Capitalism is the unequal distribution of happiness; Socialism is the equal distribution of misery."

    Uh, Darin, Welfare State Socialism, which is the type of socialism commonly practiced by modern liberal democracies, including the United States, is not (despite your too clever by half epigrammatic glittering generality which "someone said") a distribution of misery, equal or otherwise; it is the principle that the government has a concern and responsibility that the standard of living not fall below a certain level.

    What, if any, is your quarrel with that general principle, which is established in the government of the U.S. by two General Welfare clauses in the Constitution, one imposing it as a duty on the government and the other giving Congress the means to perform that duty? And, if you oppose that principle, do you favor privatizing the Social Security and Medicare systems?

    SIDE NOTE: Privatizing Social Security and investing its Trust Fund in the stock market has been a flag flown by Conservatives for decades as part of their attempt to repeal the New Deal and its progeny, most recently in the George W. Bush administration. But not enough people have saluted it to make it happen. And, of course, since the recent serious nose dive of the stock market demonstrated the danger of that course, they have hauled down that flag and put it away. But, equally of course, they will break it out again when the stock market takes off again because they do not learn from history, they are too obsessed with returning the government to the policies of the late 19th Century to bother with the lessons of history.

    BTW, FYI, the "someone" who authored the epigram you used was Winston Churchill, but he wrote "blessings" rather than "happiness."

    Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 10:37am

62. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 09:32am

    So unless we find somebody using the N-word...and not just code language....there is no racism on the Right, right?

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 10:38am

63. Posted by abell12ct at 08/02/2009 @ 6:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    hahahahahaha.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/03/2009 @ 10:53am

64. Repulsive conservaLosers need to face the music: They are less than maggoty feces.

    They have failed in every regard that it is possible to fail...They believe that Vince Foster was whacked by Hillary...They insist that Obama was born in Kenya, whatever the Hawaii papers said on the day in '61...They swear that climate change science is a complete hoax...and that Saddam was waving WMDs out the ass.

    But maybe it's the biggest lie of all that these owl-shit dumb, selfish primadonnas can govern.

    DAILY BEAST: Since her sudden resignation from the Alaskan governor's office on July 3, Sarah Palin has created a constitutional crisis that could cost state legislators hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers' money to resolve. Palin appointed Lt.Gov. Sean Parnell to succeed her, & tapped Lt. Gen. Craig Campbell, the commissioner of the Alaskan Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, to fill Parnell's post. However, the state legislature had already chosen someone to succeed Parnell in case of an emergency: State Corrections Commissioner Joe Schmidt. To resolve the conflict Palin created, the legislature will almost certainly have to call a special session, an event that could require at least $200k to administer.

    ...The legislators said they would also use the special session to recover $29 million in federal stimulus grants Palin rejected in May...

    While Palin chases lucrative opportunities, she has apparently left Alaskan taxpayers to pick up her tab. Some of her former Republican allies are not sad to see her go. "Sarah said she can't be out of here fast enough and we agree," said the Republican legislative source. "When you use Alaska to make money for yourself and leave the state, people here don't take that lightly. Honestly, she's hurt us enough."

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/03/2009 @ 10:53am

65. Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 06:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

    nice post. for future posts try to create chapters by hitting return twice, which will make it a lot more readable.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/03/2009 @ 10:58am

66. Posted by ttr at 08/03/2009 @ 10:16am

    My point is not all questions are question. For instance, ttr, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 10:59am

67. I see that you figured this out without my help. sorry

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/03/2009 @ 10:59am

68. What, if any, is your quarrel with that general principle, which is established in the government of the U.S. by two General Welfare clauses in the Constitution, one imposing it as a duty on the government and the other giving Congress the means to perform that duty?

    Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 10:37am

    I think you have me confused with Larry.

    I recognize the Constitutional authority to subsidize healthcare, just like I recognize the Constitutional authority to prohibit the sale of Alchohol. I just don't think it's a wise idea.

    I tried to get the heart of the discussion going last week, but I didn't have any takers.

    Food, clothing, and shelter are primary human needs. In the US they are delivered (almost exclusively) through free market mechanisms with government provided cash or voucher subsidies for the poor.

    Transportation, education, and healthcare are secondary needs in an industrial society.

    Transportation is delivered primarily through private markets, (with large public investment in infrustructure) with sizable public transportation options available.

    Education is delivered primarily through public means, with sizable (but not exclusive) private markets for secondary education. (There are extensive subsidy programs for the poor to get secondary education.)

    In our current system almost all healthcare is delivered through free market mechanisms (VA hospitals are a notable exception). A majority of healthcare services are paid for by private insurance, but the public Medicare program pays for a substantial share of care. Medicaid also pays for a substantial amount of care.

    QUESTION: What make healthcare more like education than like transportation?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 11:13am

69. i wonder if there's any racism in the young republicans.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/03/2009 @ 11:19am

70. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 09:32am

    So unless we find somebody using the N-word...and not just code language....there is no racism on the Right, right?

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 10:38am

    Your attempt to change the subject with this bullshit non-sequitur receives a grade of FAIL!

    Ms. Savan's contention is that there has been a "recent surge in overtly racist rhetoric on the right".

    Ms. Savan's contention is bullshit. A "surge" should require at least one instance.

    The question isn't "are there racists?" The question isn't "is the GOP racist?" The question is, "Can you find one instance of 'overt' racial rhetoric?" It shouldn't be hard. Ms. Savan claims a surge is occurring. Please, find one example.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 11:23am

71. i wonder if there's any racism in the young republicans.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/03/2009 @ 11:19am

    Well of course there is. The Young Republicans are "surging" with racism. Haven't you ever read Steven Glass?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 11:24am

72. America doesn't need Universal coverage. In fact we need to start killing off the old. I mean Humans are causing global warming so we need less humans. We need to have a strict policy for every family to have only .3 children and a top age of 65. We can lead the old into the soylent green factories. We need to do this if we are serious about global warming.

    Posted by abell12ct at 08/03/2009 @ 11:36am

73. A salient example of the inability or unwillingness of Conservatives to learn from history that I posited in a SIDE NOTE to my previous post is the juxtaposition of the so-called War on Drugs beginning in the 1970's and the experiment with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages from 1920-1933.

    National Prohibition unarguably and clearly demonstrated the ineffectualness and unintended negative consequences of attempts to legislate morality. Prohibiting a common human vice that people are going to indulge irrespective of what the law says does not stop or even reduce its practice; what it does is lower the quality and safety of the vice, raise the price of its practice, put the profits from supplying or enabling it in the pockets of organized crime, and waste public money in the futile attempt to enforce the law.

    But the amply demonstrated ineffectiveness and inevitable negative consequences of moral legislation did not deter Conservatives from making the same mistake, with the same result, by trying to wipe out illegal drug use, including a drug (Marijuana) that is less harmful in nearly if not every way than alcohol, and in fact has valuable medicinal uses.

    Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 11:43am

74. Posted by abell12ct at 08/03/2009 @ 11:36am

    Hey, if you are going to do this sort of thing, you need to add these characters:

    ;-)

    The winking emoticon is required to indicate that you are only joking. Too many will think this is simply a good suggestion if you don't.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 11:43am

75. Haven't you ever read Steven Glass?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009

    In a word: No.

    So, which other lawfully elected natural born prez of The USA was accused by a foam-at-the-mouth rump of wild-eyed rightwing freaks of being ineligable for the office for having been born (they insist)(drum roll) ... in Kenya?

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/03/2009 @ 11:44am

76. Prohibiting a common human vice that people are going to indulge irrespective of what the law says does not stop or even reduce its practice;

    Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 11:43am

    This is a common myth. Prohibition does reduce use, but does not eliminate it.

    For instance, our prohibition against murder does reduce murder, but doesn't eliminate it. This is an instance of moral legislation that people support.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 11:49am

77. We need to have a strict policy for every family to have only .3 children and a top age of 65. We can lead the old into the soylent green factories. We need to do this if we are serious about global warming.

    Posted by abell12ct at 08/03/2009 @ 11:36am

    1-JOMAMMA's favorite country, the one party Statist dictatorship of the People's Republic of China, that JOMAAMA thinks the US should strive to be like, has had long-standing one child doctrine.

    Agree with JOMAMMA on this, BELL, about China's social engineering genius? That China is the future?

    2-ANTISOCIAL had a really, umm, startling idea for population control that, in one of his regular crazed and angry fits, he let slip some time back.

    ANTISOCIAL says that the US should have launched nuclear devices against the PRC and smoked about 10,000,000 human beings in doing so. Like the evangelist that he is, ANTISOCIAL said some radiation would have "saved" them ... from communism ... although the PRC seems to be playing the one party slave state capitalist dictatorship game very well.

    Do you agree with your fellow traveller rightwinger ANTISOCIAL in his high-minded remedies?

    ANTISOCIAL also calls himself a "pro lifer", a highly peculiar term in the rightwing version of it.

    Are you pro-life, BELL?

    Or: Are you pro-life...in the very curious way that ANTISOCIAL and other rightwing freaks construe the term?

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/03/2009 @ 11:56am

78. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 11:23am

    I DID cite an example, DTT....which you promptly dismissed as "Pat Buchanan didn't say anything OVERTLY racist"....Okay, so you simply disagree with the charge of "overt", but not the "racist" charge?

    I guess that IS your "out", isn't it?

    Or the phrase "recent surge"....since if I name something OVERTLY racist, that a currently prominent Republican said in, say, the late 1970s...you'd cry "So what? And that's not recent, is it!?!?!?!".....right?

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 12:01pm

79. WINGNUT LIES ABOUT HEALTHCARE REFORM:

    Recently one of the wingnut commenters on these threads, repeatedly posted false claims about the new healthcare bills in the works -- apparently based on a crazy wingnut mass email.

    "An independent health care analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan foundation that studies health care reform ... has read and analyzed all the major health proposals, including those of the Republicans, and the foundation provides point-by-point analyses of the plans on its Web site.

    "It's awful," she said. "It's flat-out, blatant lies. It's unbelievable to me how they can claim to reference the legislation and then make claims that are blatantly false."

    FOR INSTANCE:

    "• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! FALSE! Section 122 outlines broad categories of benefits that must be included in an essential benefits package. It prohibits cost-sharing for preventive care and limits annual out-of-pocket spending to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family, indexed for inflation. It says nothing about rationing or limiting treatment.

    • Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None. FALSE! Section 142 outlines the duties of the Health Choices commissioner, who is charged with regulating insurers. The commissioner should seek insurers to offer different types of insurance, including basic, enhanced and premium. Individuals will be able to choose among competing insurers who are regulated via the exchange. "

    MORE :

    http://tinyurl.com/n7v4jy

    35 MORE WINGNUT LIES ABOUT HEALTHCARE DEBUBUNKED:

    http://tinyurl.com/nxahut

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/03/2009 @ 12:37pm

80. Are you pro-life, BELL?

    Posted by PhilMcCrevic

    No

    Posted by abell12ct at 08/03/2009 @ 12:39pm

81. Posted by PhilMcCrevice

    We live in a Chinese world. America is going down the tubes because we are getting closer and closer to the way the Chinese operate.

    Posted by abell12ct at 08/03/2009 @ 12:43pm

82. The birthers are most likely wrong, but Beck was dead-on when he called Obama a racist. The undeniable fact that Obama is a racist was known to people like myself well before the sheeple elected him. All one has to do is read his books, listen to numerous statements he's made, look at his upbringing and education, and listen to those around him (Michelle Obama, Rev. Wright, Gates etc.). It's very, very sad that a country as great as ours could be so mind-fucked into electing such a bad person to the presidency. It's flat out appalling.

    Posted by barry25 at 08/03/2009 @ 12:51pm

83. Posted by abell12ct at 08/03/2009 @ 12:43pm

    We are? We're massively polluting our countryside to become the world's manufacturing base???

    Why didn't somebody tell me??!?!!?!!!??

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 12:52pm

84. By the way, your healthcare takeover will fail. This admin. is failing, and it's going to get much worse. On the horizon, I can see the term "liberalism" being thrown back into the shameful hole it found itself in shortly after 9/11. I can't wait to see the HUGE American backlash against liberalism that's coming very soon, because Obama cannot hide who he truly is anymore....LOL!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/03/2009 @ 12:54pm

85. WINGNUT "PROTESTS" AGAINST HEALTHCARE REFORM: ORGANIZED BY LOBBYISTS.

    "PR and lobbying firm organized harassment strategy they'll face in townmeetings back home this month:

    This growing phenomenon is often marked by violence and absurdity. Recently, right-wing demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office. Missing from the reporting of these stories is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama's reforms."

    An African-American president backs healthcare reform, and lobbyists arrange a mock lynching. NICE.

    No surprise that they have experience in arranging race-baiting "populist" events:

    "The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress...."

    http://tinyurl.com/n8wp5o

    And their wingnut strategy is familiar -- lie, and disrupt the democratic process:

    "While many Americans actually want to talk to their elected officials about important issues, like health care, during the Congressional recess, that's not the case for the right-wingers. A volunteer for the the right-wing group Freedom Works, who is also a teabaggers, distributed the three-part strategy: 1) Artificially Inflate Your Numbers; 2) Be Disruptive Early And Often; and 3) Try To "Rattle Him," Not Have An Intelligent Debate."

    http://tinyurl.com/n8wp5o

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/03/2009 @ 1:04pm

86. by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 06:08am

    --We're not "computer illiterates", ttr....--

    Speak for yourself...;^)

    --she can post just the links, and I'd have no problem.--

    You'd have no 'problem' if you were more tolerant of the American people's need to get the facts on this issue... either...

    If you don't like it... skip it... but the point needs to be made, and the MSM is noticeably reluctant to truly open this issue up for all to 'understand'. It's highly likely that the more we look at it... the more we will like it!

    And... frankly... it is mostly a combination of confusion and money that keeps the current system seemingly succinct...;^)

    Posted by ttr at 08/03/2009 @ 1:07pm

87. Judybrownie, how do you feel about ACORN bussing people to protests? How do you feel about ACORN bussing people to protest at the homes of private citizens? How do you feel about ACORN getting taxpayer funds? Hypocrite!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/03/2009 @ 1:19pm

88. IT'S THE INSURANCE AGENCIES, STUPID

    "Finally. The Democrats seem to be coalescing around a message for health insurance reform. It's about taking on the insurance industry. It is, indeed: With the House already gone and the Senate set to clear out by Friday, the terms of the recess battle are becoming clear. Republicans will assail the government coverage plan that Democrats and President Obama are advocating as a recklessly expensive federal takeover of health care. And Democrats will counter that GOP opposition represents a de facto endorsement of insurance industry abuses.

    "We know what we're up against," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told reporters on Friday. "Carpet-bombing, slash and burn, shock and awe -- anything you want to say to describe what the insurance companies will do to hold on to their special advantage."

    It always has been about the insurance industry. No one likes dealing with their insurance company. Insurance bureaucrats ration care. They jack up our rates. They deny coverage. They cut off coverage. I'm not exaggerating when I say that almost everyone I know has done some kind of battle with their health insurer."

    http://tinyurl.com/lqqcz6

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/03/2009 @ 1:21pm

89. Uh, Darin, drinking increased and even became quite fashionable during the Prohibition Era, and illegal drug use increased after the declaration of war on drugs.

    BTW, your murder example is a false analogy, murder is not a common human vice like drug abuse, frequenting prostitutes, gambling, and the like. The purpose of homicide laws is not to correct people's personal moral behavior, their purpose is to deter people from harming others. The purpose of vice laws, on the other hand, is to protect people from themselves. The essential problem with using the criminal law to dictate personal morality is that morality is mutable and mobile, it changes from time to time, society to society, and even from person to person.

    You know, Darin, in reviewing your many posts, I find that you have a habit of quote mining, cherry-picking and misrepresenting statements and positions out of context and off point, misrepresenting or just making up facts, and resorting to a variety of logical fallacies and false conclusions to support positions that cannot be supported with logical consistencies.

    There is no arguing with those who debate dishonestly, because they are just looking for a pissing contest rather than a solution to problems and resolution of issues. I have found that the best way to deal with such persons is to stop responding, shrug my shoulders, shake my head, and walk away from such exercises in futility.

    <shrug>

    Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 1:22pm

90. WITH WINGNUT LIES ABOUT "Killing Granny," Conservatives Aim to Kill Health Care

    "Who knew that a living will was but the first step that would set us down the treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia? In a use any angle fear mongering campaign to derail the comprehensive US health care reform legislation now working its way through the Congress, conservatives are now pitching on right wing radio and on their blogs that living wills are the first step towards euthanasia. It is particularly offensive that this campaign is being targeted at seniors.

    The Washington Post provides the background:

    The controversy stems from a proposal to pay physicians who counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical interventions they would prefer near the end of life and how to prepare instructions such as living wills. Under the plan, Medicare would reimburse doctors for one session every five years to confer with a patient about his or her wishes and how to ensure those preferences are followed. The counseling sessions would be voluntary.

    But on right-leaning radio programs, religious e-mail lists and Internet blogs, the proposal has been described as "guiding you in how to die," "an ORDER from the Government to end your life," promoting "death care" and, in the words of antiabortion leader Randall Terry, an attempt to "kill Granny."

    Though the counseling provision is a tiny part of a behemoth bill, the skirmish over end-of-life care, like arguments about abortion coverage, has become a distraction and provided an opening for opponents of the president's broader health-care agenda. "

    READ MORE:

    http://tinyurl.com/lju3kg

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/03/2009 @ 1:29pm

91. By the way, your healthcare takeover will fail.---Posted by barry25 at 08/03/2009 @ 12:54pm

    Cool....Barry made a prediction!!!! Stick it with this-

    You see, there are many conservatives, like myself, who are leaving the Republican party because it has moved so far to the left.-----Posted by BARRY25 03/13/2008 @ 1:52pm

    BLOG | Posted 03/12/2008 @ 12:58pm Comments for "David Paterson: Activist, Progressive...Governor"

    Apparently he was right....GOP brand name at lowest point since 1983. Thanks, Bare.

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 1:32pm

92. You're right, I don't like the insurance industry, they are tough do deal with. However, not even close to as hard to deal with as say, ANY gov't run institution. Gov't cannot run anything effectively, it just runs everything into the ground. What baffles me, is that the left hates corporate america, hates the insurance industry, but loves gov't. Yet, although corp. america has immense power and influence in washington, it doesn't have the "absolute power" you idiotic leftists love entrusting gov't officials with. It's mind-boggling. Enron, B of A, ATT etc. can't force me to use thier services as long as there are competitors, but the gov't has no competitors and is the only "corp." that MAKES rules/laws. So if you idiots fear corp. America's power, why wouldn't you fear "big gov't" power more? This country has prospered because of the freedoms and liberties it gave to man, all of which is being systematically taken away from us by liberals who've infected gov't. Fools!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/03/2009 @ 1:33pm

93. Posted by ttr at 08/03/2009 @ 1:07pm

    ttr, honestly....if not for sympathetic political ideology, would you be mounting this defense?

    If it was a right-winger posting from something even slightly-right-of-center ...and spamming up the thread with a dozen threads and paragraph upon paragraph of stuff...even mild, tame, William F. Buckley "Crossfire" debate material and conservative wonk techno-babble...

    would you tolerate it?

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 1:34pm

94. Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 12:01pm

    Mask, suppose Rush mentioned the "recent surge in overt anti-Americanism" on the left.

    Suppose further that you declared bullshit and asked for an example.

    If I cited Nichols' support for single payer, does that qualify as recent anti-Americanism? It's recent! Isn't that enough?

    Would Julius and Ethel qualify? How about Izzy Stone? Hell, they were Soviet spys! How much more anti-American can you get?!?!?!?

    (I am about to use the word, "bigot". Some people reflexively equate "bigot" with "racial bigot". Don't do that. I am using the word correctly to denote a person who harbors an irrational prejudice toward certain groups of people. You can be a racial bigot, a religious bigot, a classist bigot, an economic bigot, etc.)

    America is home to a number of different pockets of political bigots. There are many Rush followers who believe the Left is littered with America-hating Marxist Feminazi college professors who spend all their time trying to figure out how to punish the successful.

    There is also a pocket of Liberals who think almost every Republican is an anti-woman racist trying to control the reins of government so that they can rig the system to keep white men on top.

    Nonetheless, Ms Savan is guilty of playing on the worst prejudices of here readers. She simple states that there has been a "surge in overt racist rhetoric" and since this jive with her readers bigotries they require no evidence that this is the case.

    I'm simply asking for one example of "recent" statement with "overt" racial "rhetoric". In the absence of such, I'm charging Ms. Savan with playing on her supporters political bigotries.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 1:36pm

95. Uh, Darin, drinking increased and even became quite fashionable during the Prohibition Era, and illegal drug use increased after the declaration of war on drugs.

    Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 1:22pm

    You are quite simply wrong. It is a commonly held misconception that prohibition does not reduce consumption, but it does.

    Alternatively, you could cite statistics backing up your contentions.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 1:41pm

96. Oh ya, I'm a conservative, but no longer a Republican. They moved way too far left, along with allowing themselves to be corrupted. If the dem. party were not so inherently evil, I'd focus all criticism at the GOP. The GOP, when compared to the Dem's in terms of corruption and flat out evil deeds, isn't sooo bad. It's like comparing the likes of a shoplifter to that of a serial killer. If we can ever totally destroy and dismantel the Dem. party, the GOP will find itself directly in my sights, but for now, the dem's/libs are an evil that must be eradicated from gov't, academia, and media if this nation has a prayer of survival.

    Posted by barry25 at 08/03/2009 @ 1:45pm

97. "Where were his tirades when Bush and the Boys PUSHED thru the prescription drug bill"

    Beck was still working in the mail room & delivering the bosses' lunches.

    The US is so blessed with Brownshirt performers these days, thanks to Murdoch, Anschutz et al.

    It is a wonder to behold, the collapse of empire.

    Posted by sloper at 08/03/2009 @ 1:47pm

98. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 1:36pm

    So again...your "outs" are "overt" and "recent". If not both...proves the Right isn't racist.

    What if it's one of them? Overt but not recent? And it's a prominent current conservative leader?

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 1:51pm

99. Posted by barry25 at 08/03/2009 @ 1:45pm

    So, basically you don't vote or vote 3rd party...

    or are just blowing smoke and vote a straight GOP ticket regardless of "leaving the Republican Party"???

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 1:52pm

100. It's soooo typical of loser libs like sloper, who claim to have compassion for the "little-guy" and those less fortunate, yet they will try to criticize Glenn Beck by implying that he was a low-level lackey back in the day. Kinda like Alec Baldwin making fun of Hannity for being a "CONSTRUCTION WORKER". Hypocites of the LOWEST order. Scum!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/03/2009 @ 1:53pm

101. You know, Darin, in reviewing your many posts, I find that you have a habit of quote mining, cherry-picking and misrepresenting statements and positions out of context and off point, misrepresenting or just making up facts, and resorting to a variety of logical fallacies and false conclusions to support positions that cannot be supported with logical consistencies.

     Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 1:22pm

     Okay, today is the first day I recall seeing you post here. So far, I'm intriged. I'll try to address some of your particulars:

     On the making stuff up. I'll find sources on the prohibition stuff, but it will take me a little while.

     On the quote mining/cherry picking, I've been debating Mask for several years. He has a tendency to employ sophistry when losing a debate. I've laid out the claim as clearly as I can. Ms. Savan contents a surge in overt racist rhetoric. I say she's making it up. Mask doesn't have to defend her, but he offered the Buchanan quote, which is neither recent nor overt. He can try to change the subject into are Republicans racist, but I'm not taking the bait. I say Savan made it up to play on the bigotries of her supporters. Her supporters might not care that they are being bigots (political bigots, not racial bigots) but I wish to force them to make a conscious decision to accept their bigotry, rather than an unconscious one.

     Finally, as to the charge that I am debating in a dishonest fashion. I will invite you to review my 11:13 post and submit a response.

     It seems our three primary needs are delivered by almost completely free markets. One of our secondary needs is by mostly free with strong government support and one is mostly government with strong free market support. Healthcare is the closest to 50/50.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 1:59pm

102. What if it's one of them? Overt but not recent? And it's a prominent current conservative leader?

     Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 1:51pm

     Ms. Savan states a surge in recent overt racist rhetoric. I say she's full of shit.

     Even if half of all Republicans are hood-wearing KKK members, that does not mean there has been a surge in overt racist rhetoric.

     Please find the rhetoric she's refering too.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 2:04pm

103. I wrote in Condi cause McCain's a lib. Can you believe that a conservative would not only vote for a woman, but a black woman at that? I know, I know...she's not really "black" because she's got that "R" next to her name which disqualifies her from being considered authentically "black". I like Palin, but experience is an issue with her. I believe she's a better human being than 99% of ALL politicians in washington. I like Ron Paul, only because he's the anti- Dem/GOP candidate. I'd like to see someone fresh come in and break up the oligarchy. Wishful thinking.

     Posted by barry25 at 08/03/2009 @ 2:04pm

104. " I've laid out the claim as clearly as I can. Ms. Savan contents a surge in overt racist rhetoric. I say she's making it up."

     If you think that 'Ms Savan is making it up', then you must believe what Mr. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Dobbs (LHBD) have said about our President. So, in essence for you they have said the truth...And they have said basically that because he is Black, "he hates white culture", "he is a man full of rage", "he is supporting a Black Agenda through his office"....and so, so.

     If you suscribe those, if this is what you think, then you are an overt racist too. It is so much more easy to think of for ex. Bush as a racist because he did not do anything for "those black people in New Orleans..." Or Cheney when asked for an interview with his famous: "What is the journalist's race?"

     Those 'LHBD' pseudo-journalists know that this overtly racist assessments can get them votes with your Rep audience - which is no doubt at least half of the population racist- so they do it for that. As when 'L" said that Colin Powell supported Obama because of the race. Its all about creating tension, negative responses, so that finally when an important issue such as a Health Care bill comes it gets discredit because it is the "Black Agenda", it does not concern us which are mainstream.

     This is pure racism...and you are a racist.

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/03/2009 @ 2:24pm

105. Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     GOTCHA!

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/03/2009 @ 2:37pm

106. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 2:04pm

     Not my question, Darin.....third time-

     If it was overt, but not recent (30 years ago say)...but a CURRENT figure in conservative politics....any significance to the idea of "racism on the Right" or not?

     Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 3:00pm

107. Posted by Frank42 at 08/03/2009 @ 2:24pm

     As long as Rush or Sean or Glenn or Lou don't "overtly" use the N-word....all the code language in the world gives Darin his CYA.

     Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 3:03pm

108. This is pure racism...and you are a racist.

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/03/2009 @ 2:24pm

     Do you remember when Maxine Waters (I think it was her) famously declared that logic was racist?

     You, sir, are no racist!

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 3:10pm

109. If it was overt, but not recent (30 years ago say)...but a CURRENT figure in conservative politics....any significance to the idea of "racism on the Right" or not?

     Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 3:00pm

     Help me out Mask. Did Ms. Savan say Republicans are racist? No, I don't think she did.

     Did Ms. Savan say Republican leaders employ racist code words to energize their base? No, I don't think she did.

     Do writers at The Nation employ general, but baseless accusations of overt racist rhetoric to energize their base? Yes, as a matter of fact, I think they do.

     Unless, that is, unless you can find even one example of recent overt racist rhetoric.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 3:17pm

110. DARIN WROTE at 01/03/09 @ 1:43 pm:

     "You are quite simply wrong. It is a commonly held misconception that prohibition does not reduce consumption, but it does. Alternatively, you could cite statistics backing up your contentions." __________________

     OK, Darin, I'll give you one more chance to be reasonable before I give up on you on this particular issue, close the book on this question, and walk away from you on this subject.

     I choose the alternative you so officiously challenge me with, just to see if you have the intellectual honesty to admit that I am right and you are wrong on this question, or if you will resort to your usual attempts to spin away the facts you cannot honestly deny.

     Start here for a very comprehensive, rigorous, and abundantly-referenced guide which examines a number of common assertions regarding the various effects and results of the prohibition of alcohol (and drugs):

     http://www.druglibrary.org/Prohibitionresults.htm

     If that fails to enlighten you, here's another scholarly rigorous treatment of the question in a Policy Analysis on the subject by the Cato Institute:

     http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017&full=1

     These two and their numerous cited sources ought to keep you busy for awhile, but if want more, remember: Google is your friend.

     I hope that this exposure of your insistent ignorance on this particular subject will lead you to examine other subjects on which you may have formed strong and definite opinions on the basis of incorrect information, insufficient information, or agenda-driven false information.

     Good luck.

     Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 4:01pm

111. Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 4:01pm

     I've read this one:

     http://www.druglibrary.org/Prohibitionresults.htm

     Let me start by saying that I think Prohibition (1919 - 1933) was a tragic mistake. I do not believe the benefits outweighed the costs. I am ambivilent regarding marijuana decriminalization. I certainly understand why Wm. F. Buckley supported decriminlization of drugs. However, I did not comment on the wisdom of prohibition; I commented only on the effects on consumption.

     Further, let me state that I did not make any assertions regarding criminality. Let me repeat what I said: ************************************************************ It is a commonly held misconception that prohibition does not reduce consumption, but it does.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 1:41pm ************************************************************

     In the first article you linked to, there are a number of anecdotal testimonies regarding personal witness to drinking under prohibition, but almost no statistics regarding actual consumption.

     Here are selected numbers from one of the charts regarding alcohol related arrests in Philly:

     Year Total Arrests

     1916 50,318

     1917 43,602

     1918 34,858

     1919 23,740

     1920 20,443

     1921 27,609

     1922 44,746

     1925 58,617

     Note that the 18th Amendment was ratified on Jan 16, 1919 but states: "After one year from the ratification..." so Jan 16, 1920 is the first day alchol was illegal.

     It looks pretty obvious that during at least the first year of prohibition, consumption of alcohol was reducded.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 5:14pm

112. Further, the statistics contained in the first article concern mostly alcohol problems, which aren't a reliable indicator of consumption. (Basically, this is the crux of the argument against prohibition.)

     Imagine the following population:

     10% have 0 drinks per week (teetotalers)

     80% have 5 - 10 drinks per week (social drinkers)

     10% have 40 - 60 drinks per week (problem drinkers)

     Then imagine that because of all the social chaos caused by the problem drinkers, prohibition is enacted. Imagine that after prohibition is enacted, an accurate census of drinking is conducted and the following data is observed:

     79% have 0 drinks per week (teetotalers)

     10% have 5 - 10 drinks per week (social drinkers)

     11% have 40 - 60 drinks per week (problem drinkers)

     Clearly, the consumption of alcohol has been greatly reduced, even though, there has been a small uptick in the incidence of problem drinking.

     Again, that is the crux of the prohibition dilemma: Curtailing the alcohol consumption of the majority of the population that doesn't cause problems (social drinkers) does not lead to a reduction of chaos caused by problem drinkers.

     Now I'm off to read the second link.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 5:24pm

113. Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 4:01pm

     Here's the second link:

     http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017&full=1

     Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure by Mark Thornton

     As of right now I've only read the title but I couldn't agree more. Alcohol prohibition was a massive policy failure. The intended policy goals of prohibition was a reduction in the criminality of problem drinkers and by this measure prohibition was a collossal failure. In fact it resulted in the marked increase in criminality due to the black market in alcohol that developed during Prohibition. This occurred even though it dramatically reduced the consumption of alcohol among social drinkers.

     Now that I've read the title, I'm off to read the article.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 5:39pm

114. Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 4:01pm

     Okay, your second article concedes my point in the third paragraph: ************************************************************ Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. ************************************************************

     Suppose the pre-prohibition level of alcohol consumption was 100 drinks and in the first year of prohibition fell 71% (just for illustrative purposes) and then increased 10% every year thereafter. If you do the math, you will find that in 1933 the level of alcohol consumption is 100 drinks. This means consumption was reduced 71 drinks in 1920, 68 drinks in 1921, 65 drinks in 1922, ..., and 9 drinks in 1932.

     Long story short... Prohibition reduced consumption. Just like I said.

     Furthermore in paragraph ... Hold on. I need a new window:

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 5:54pm

115. Okay, I'm not sure you're getting this whole debate thingy. Let's review. You said: ************************

     Prohibiting a common human vice that people are going to indulge irrespective of what the law says does not stop or even reduce its practice;

     Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 11:43am

     Then I said **********************

     This is a common myth. Prohibition does reduce use, but does not eliminate it.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 11:49am

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

     So I'm looking for evidence that prohibition reduces use and you are looking for evidence that prohibition does not reduce use. Here are quotes from the article you linked to:

     "...consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition"

     "...the evidence seems to suggest that the quantity consumed did indeed decrease"

     "Evidence of decreased consumption is provided by two important American economists, Irving Fisher and Clark Warburton"

     "Warburton found that the quantity of alcohol purchased may have fallen 20 percent between the prewar years 1911-14 and 1927-30."

     "Annual per capita consumption ... reached an all-time low during ... 1921 [the second year of Prohibition], and then began to increase in 1922. Consumption would probably have surpassed pre-Prohibition levels even if Prohibition had not been repealed in 1933."

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

     So, consumption declined and never returned to pre-prohibition levels during prohibition. Call me crazy, but that sounds to me like a reduction in consumption during prohibition.

     Um are you willing to concede that I am right and you are wrong? Or were you hoping that, like you, I would find evidence to support your contention instead of mine?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 6:21pm

116. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 08:28am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Darin, would you agree that Gates was arrested "on his property" if not "in his home?"

     Same deal, BTW.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/03/2009 @ 6:27pm

117. Dear Darin, Nice spin. see you around.<shrug>

     Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 6:33pm

118. Posted by abell12ct at 08/03/2009 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Funny....the Chinese adopt capitalism (even if on a limited governmental controlled scale, and suddently, WE'RE becoming more LIKE THEM!

     HAHAHAHAHAHA!

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/03/2009 @ 6:42pm

119. I guess I shouldn't be lazy and let you do all of my work for me so as my evidence that prohibition reduces consumption I will submit Saudi Arabia. In this Muslim Kingdom the consumption of Alcohol is prohibited. The virtue police still catch people drinking alcohol, but consumption there is probably not one-tenth what it is here. Of course the penalty for getting caught includes lengthy jail terms, having your teeth broken with a hammer and nails, electric shock torture, and other unpleasent things.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 6:44pm

120. OK, Darin, I'll give you one more chance to be reasonable before I give up on you on this particular issue...

     I choose the alternative ... just to see if you have the intellectual honesty to admit that I am right and you are wrong on this question, or if you will resort to your usual attempts to spin away the facts you cannot honestly deny...

     I hope that this exposure of your insistent ignorance on this particular subject will lead you to examine other subjects on which you may have formed strong and definite opinions on the basis of incorrect information, insufficient information, or agenda-driven false information.

     Good luck.

     Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 4:01pm

     But also,

     Nice spin. see you around.

     Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 6:33pm

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

     How's your intellectual honesty doing?

     Are you ready to admit that I am right (that prohibition reduces consumptions) and the you are wrong?

     I'm working on my post as to why this was important to me. Should be done in a few minutes.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 6:47pm

121. Apterix

     Let me start by saying I enjoyed getting to know you. I think you conducted yourself admirably in that you were civil, made cogent points, and obviously, thought for yourself rather than reguritating pre-packaged talking points provided by someone else.

     I think your "misteps" today resulted from jumping to conclusions. You saw the word "troll" in the moniker, expressing a conservative POV, I was being "legalistic" in my wording with Mask due to a several years history of debate that you were not privy to...

     Anyway, I made a simple claim regarding prohibition's effects on consumption and you presumed I supported prohibition and that I subscribed to the prohibitionist's thinking that reducing consumption (irrespective of whether it is a social user or problem user) reduces social ills... all of which were incorrect assumptions. Had you not reflexively adopted a defensive posture, I think you might have seen that conceding the point about consumption did not have any impact on the wisdom of prohibition.

     The reason I thought this an important point is related to healthcare. I think it was during the 1993 round of reform that someone said, "There are no healthcare solutions; only tradeoffs." That is the crux of the political compromise: there are always tradeoff.

     By denying that prohibition impacts consumption, one is being intellectually dishonest and lazy. Of course prohibition impacts consumption. Individuals' liberty is being diminished in the hopes that doing so will reduce social ills. If prohibition doesn't reduce consumption who cares whether there is prohibition or not? The only thing that changes is price not who or how much people use.

     But by being intellectually honest, we see the argument against prohibition more clearly.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 7:12pm

122. Funny....the Chinese adopt capitalism (even if on a limited governmental controlled scale, and suddently, WE'RE becoming more LIKE THEM! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Posted by Stephen_Carver

     Do you read what you write? The Chinese adopt Capitalism even if on a limited government controlled scale....

     We are transforming our capitalism using their system as a model.

     Stand up and revolt!

     Posted by abell12ct at 08/03/2009 @ 7:16pm

123. Why didn't somebody tell me??!?!!?!!!?? Posted by Mask

     Go back to sleep. It will all be over soon.

     Posted by abell12ct at 08/03/2009 @ 7:17pm

124. Darin, would you agree that Gates was arrested "on his property" if not "in his home?"

     Same deal, BTW.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/03/2009 @ 6:27pm

     Yes, Prof Gate's porch is on his property.

     No, it is not the same deal.

     Sgt. Crowley asked Prof Gates to join him on the porch so he could conduct his investigation of a reported potential break-in. Prof Gates refused so Sgt. Crowley entered the home to investigate. (Both sides agree that these are the facts.)

     Sgt. Crowley determined Prof Gates was the owner and left the home. Prof. Gates pursued Sgt. Crowley outside the home onto the porch. (Both sides agree that these are the facts.)

     Prof Gates pursued Sgt. Crowley so he could continue to insult him and hurl baseless charges of racism against him. If Prof Gates had exhibited the self-control to stay inside his home after Sgt. Crowley left, Gates wouldn't have been arrested.

     So, to sum up:

     inside his own home (plus verbally abusive) = not arrested

     outside his home (plus verbally abusive) = arrested

     BIG DIFFERENCE.

     By continuing to insist that Prof. Gate was "arrested in his own home" people are (intentionally?) obscuring the very important distinction that Prof. Gates decision to pursue Sgt. Crowley outside of his home is the real reason he was arrested. They are obscuring the very important fact that Prof Gates had a choice: to stay in the home and let it go and not be arrested or to pursue Sgt. Crowley outside so that he would continue to verbally abuse the officer and get arrested.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 7:31pm

125. I wish that they had posted Glen Beck's complete statement on the video above.

     Near the beginning of his rant he says that the president has something against white people, then, 76 seconds later, he says that he doesn't. And that type of vacillation is typical of those who refuse to commit to their racism.

     Posted by ficheye at 08/03/2009 @ 7:32pm

126. Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you seem to be new here and yes you already figured it out, Darin is an idiot. there is really no other way I can put it.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/03/2009 @ 8:28pm

127. Posted by Apterix at 08/03/2009 @ 11:43am | ignore this person | warn this person

     a good parallel example is gambling. It was strictly a nono. police spent countless man hours either knocking over bookie joints, or taking their bribes.

     then gov't looking for cash got into the act. now it's called gaming and the states run lotteries and other con games. so it will be with pot. they will come around, 'cause they need the money.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/03/2009 @ 8:32pm

128. 1) Do you remember when Maxine Waters (I think it was her) famously declared that logic was racist?

     You, sir, are no racist!

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 3:10p

     2) defy you to come up with any sentence that better describes Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Rev. Wright. ---------------------- 1) And you sir are not what you claim you are, a logical and clear thinker. Sometimes pure and crystalline logic serves way to fools because issues in real life are richer than syllogisms. You just try to defend what is plain and clear for anyone that can read beyond the letters. In a word: You think you are the king of the logic based on your sticking to words and not the context in which they are said.

     Let me teach you something:

     When someone says: "he hates white culture.." , he is acknowledging the 3rd person is alienated "from us" it is not in "our group" , "he hates us"....therefore we should take note and hate him back, we are the victims of his hatred, we, the people. He is wrong, he hates us because of our race.... when the other says: "I believe he is an angry man", he is saying he is angry at us, he is dangerous, you all guys know that he is a N, that is the reason for his anger....we must stop him! None of them needed to say N, the public takes care of that part of the syllogism.

     etc,etc, How about some English literature courses to take the sense of a paragraph behind the words?

     2) I accept the challenge. Those guys are watchdogs, leaders of their race, because if they weren't there who is going to defend small people? You? At least their usefulness is as for a 1st barrier of defense against provocateurs....as maybe you??

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/03/2009 @ 8:37pm

129. "Leslie Savan, by any chance, are you black? This sounds like an awfully racially charged article."

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/02/2009 @ 7:37pm

     Uh, Gun? Are you suggesting that only a black person would author a "racially charged article?"

     Posted by FLaim at 08/03/2009 @ 9:41pm

130. "Sen. Arlen Specter, who faced an antagonistic crowd at a weekend healthcare town hall, says the experience could be a sign of the tough road for overhauling the nation's system.

     The crowd booed, jeered and sometimes cheered Specter and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a packed meeting with hundreds of people at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

     Specter says he thinks political organizations orchestrated some of the commotion, but that individuals with serious concerns were also there.

     He says August is shaping up to be a battleground month for healthcare, and it's likely other members could face similar crowds as they travel over the monthlong congressional recess."

     The Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats better bend over and kiss themselves goodbye for 2010 and 2012! People have had enough of the LIEING ,self dealings to supporters only ,and their doing NOTHING about the economy and jobs. Much less spending another trillion dollars a year on the healthcare POWER grabfest!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/03/2009 @ 9:59pm

131. Would the NYT ever tell us this?

     From The Telegraph (of U.K.)

     http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews /5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after- NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html

     Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections

     Tens of thousands with chronic back pain will be forced to live in agony after a decision to slash the number of painkilling injections issued on the NHS, doctors have warned.

     By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent

     Published: 7:45AM BST 02 Aug 2009

     The Government's drug rationing watchdog says "therapeutic" injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known.

     Instead the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is ordering doctors to offer patients remedies like acupuncture and osteopathy.

     Specialists fear tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 each for private treatment.

     The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year. NICE said in its guidance it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million....

     Related Articles

     * Cancer doctors do not tell patients about drugs which could prolong lives * How to avoid the NHS 'top-up' payment trap * Tens of thousands of cancer victims denied drugs which could extend their lives

     Posted by Happy at 08/03/2009 @ 11:32pm

132. Intresting how the Obamanation and the Demoncrats WANT our healthcare to look just like Brittons! Shouldn't that give someone a clue?

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/04/2009 @ 12:01am

133. "look at his upbringing and education, and listen to those around him (Michelle Obama, Rev. Wright, Gates etc.). It's very, very sad that a country as great as ours could be so mind-fucked into electing such a bad person to the presidency. It's flat out appalling."

     --barry25, 08/03@12:51pm

     Got that? Looks very much like BARRY has some fanatical "Euskadi Ta Askatasuna" in the blood & the genes.

     "look at his (OBAMA's) upbringing and education"

     Does BAR'boy mean Columbia and Harvard...

     ...Or the bad-ass madrass in Jakarta?

     "listen to those around him...Gates etc.)."

     Skip?...Or Bob?

     Which one is in the cabinet again?

     "...electing such a bad person to the presidency."

     He was selected the first time around by 5 Repugnant party apppointees who could not keep their fat asses out of the State of Florida's business. But, as we're talking about "bad people" in that office, let's ask this about George W Loser.

     BARRY, when he was a young man of prime fighting age, George W Loser eschewed combat in the rightwing cause to defend America against the tentacles of communism as they extended outward from client states of 'Nam.

     However, during this signature battle for America, what did George W Loser do with his one life on this earthly plane at that historical juncture? Answer: George W Loser defecated on the American flag, right square on the part with the 50 stars on a field of blue. Then he wiped his ass on the stripes, leaving behind streaks & smudges of tarry feces, looking upon his disgusting creation & smirking, "Hell no! I won't go". Going to Nam? That was for working saps like Max Clelland, not metrosexual scions of megawealth like W Loser who had other wartime priorities: Drinking. Disco dancing.

     So, BAR', do you approve of Loser?

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/04/2009 @ 07:01am

134. [Point 1] You just try to defend what is plain and clear for anyone that can read beyond the letters. In a word: You think you are the king of the logic based on your sticking to words and not the context in which they are said...

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/03/2009 @ 8:37pm

     You make a fair point that deserves an honest response.

     Regarding your charge, I plead guilty with an explaination. I was being very legalistic in my debate with Mask because Mask and I have a history that goes back several years. I've spilled barrles of ink (or electrons) accusing Mask of twisting my words.

     Shit, I've only got a few minutes left here's a paraphrased example that Mask brings up every few months: ***********************************************************

     Mask: Reps are more selfish than Dems because Dems try to help the poor.

     Darin: I disagree. I think being generous with other peoples' money isn't selfless. I think Reps are more selfless because they have larger families.

     Mask: Oh, so you are saying Dems are evil.

     Darin: I'm saying chidren require sacrifice and having more children is more selfless.

     Mask: Oh so you are saying Reps love their children more than Dems.

     Darin [exasperated]: Yeah! That's exactly what I said. I said Reps love their children and Dems hate their children.

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

     On several occations, Mask has brought this up asking if the Octomom is the most selfless person in the world and Rush (no children) the most selfish.

     I've tried, but failed to explain the concept of correlation to Mask on several occations.

     So yes, I employ a specific tactic of legalistic sophistry with Mask because you have to fight fire with fire.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 07:05am

135. CONSERVATIVES <HEART> TERRORISM!

     ESPECIALLY BARRY WHO HAS EUSKADI TA ASKATASUNA (FUCKED-UP BASQUE TERROR FIENDS E.T.A.) AT THE BASE OF HIS GENETIC COMPOSITION.

     The cat is out of the bag:

     "On the horizon, I can see the term "liberalism" being thrown back into the shameful hole it found itself in shortly after 9/11. I can't wait to see the HUGE American backlash against liberalism that's coming very soon, because Obama cannot hide who he truly is anymore....LOL!"

     --barry25 at 08/03/2009 @ 12:54pm

     We know what Cofer Black said about ghoulishly hoping to spin a terror attack for McCain in '08.

     We have watched in horror as SJ-ASSCLOWN has, in jihadi style, celebrated Tony Blair's performance on security for his constituents, even after SJ's nose was pushed into the sick and heinous 7-7 attacks.

     We have been able to infer where ANTISOCIAL stands on this one given his rimming of Dick "Don't bother me, gotta' direct this war games simulation on 9-11" Cheney as the "greatest veep in history".

     But let's put the question to BARRY.

     BAR'boy, what were your thougths on the morn of 9-11 while America bleed?

     A. "New Yorkers and North Virginians don't listen to Glenn Beck anyway."

     B. "Hmmm, Rove might be able to play this very, very well for the midterm election, and expand the majority in the House and take the Senate".

     C. "Grrrr! The war that I would never think of serving in myself -- too, umm, busy -- is now gloriously underway! Gotta write some heroic blog entries now..."

     D. All of the Above.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/04/2009 @ 07:16am

136. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 07:05am

     Actually, Darin...you're dishonest.

     In this thread, you demand that a Republican use the N-word ...or else you can discount racism.

     It's typical of you. So is pure denial...until caught....such as-

     "Like when you said my original point was dems are worse than Reps when obviouly that was your original point stuffed into my mouth because my original point was Bush was called worse names than Hillary."----Posted by marybretbrad at 06/4/2008

     "Democrats are far worse when it comes to personally attacking candidates than Republicans are."---Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/2008

     ((Note the time stamps))

     or

     "No wonder Obama called her a pig."------Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/11/2008 @ 4:10pm

     "I'll admit he wasn't calling Palin a pig....."-----Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/11/2008 @ 4:46pm

     Oh and this is his comment on the relation between children numbers and selfishness-

     "No, I'm saying the parent of ONE child love themselves much more than the parents of 5 children. The parents of 5 children are more selfless than the parents of one child"--Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008

     Posted by Mask at 08/04/2009 @ 08:39am

137. BTW, Darin, you can't really comment on Limbaugh....unless you listen to him, can you?

     Posted by Mask at 08/04/2009 @ 08:41am

138. Now who's being dishonest?

     Look what I posted today:

     ***** Darin [exasperated]: Yeah! That's exactly what I said. I said Reps love their children and Dems hate their children. *****

     Did they teach you the meaning of the word "exasperated" in law school?

     On 6/3/2008 "exasperated" is exactly what I was. You'd been twisting my words all day and I was exasperated when I wrote, "Democrats are far worse when it comes to personally attacking candidates than Republicans are."---Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/2008

     I said, what I thought was such a blindingly obvious statement, no person with an IQ higher than 5 could possible disagree with it. I said, [George W.] Bush was called worse names than Hillary [Clinton]. Are you going to shred your credibility and claim that my statement is untrue? No, you're not stupid. So you twisted my words (for the billionth time) and claimed I said Dems are worse the Reps. (As I indicated with, "Like when you said my original point was dems are worse than Reps when obviouly that was your original point stuffed into my mouth because my original point was Bush was called worse names than Hillary."

     Unfortunately, we can't go back and verify because my "marybretbrad" handle was banned which means Google won't produce it. If one were to read the dozen or so posts that preceded my exasperated concession, "Yeah, okay, you're right Mask, I said Reps are angels and Dems are demons. That is my exact quote." (that's also know as sarcasm."

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 09:38am

139. Continued

     This Pig comment is the best. This is the forth or fifth time that you brought it up and this is the fourth or fifth time that I have accused you of being dishonest by taking it out of context.

     The entire quote was, "No wonder [candidate] Obama called her [Palin] a pig. I'm suprised he didn't call her a fucking pig."

     It should be obvious that I understand that a candidate for President isn't going to call his opponent a "fucking pig". By claiming I was "surprised" he didn't call Palin a "fucking pig" it should be obvious that I was being "facitous".

     Did they teach you the meaning of the word "facitious" in law school? (That is a "rhetorical" question. Did they teach you the meaning of the term "rhetorical question" in law school?)

     Candidate Obama's comments about a "pig in lipstick" was an allusion to Palin's claim that the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick. (Did they teach you meaning of the word "allusion" in law school?) That is very different from calling Palin a pig.

     The Conservative commentators were getting milage out of claiming Obama called Palin a pig because the people who listen to conservative commentators were eager to belive the worst about Obama. By facitiously claiming I was "surprised he didn't call her a fucking pig" I was jerking your chain because it was obvious that the commentators' success was upsetting you.

     Then, in my next post (I think it was within 30 minutes or so) I said, "I'll concede that he wasn't calling her a pig." He was alluding to her statements, but he wasn't calling her a pig.

     I was being honest by acknowledging the commentator's dishonst tactics, and you've used it almost half-a-dozen times to try to convince people that I am dishonest.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 09:55am

140. So, Frank42,

     At a minimum, this exchange should confirm my defense that there are several years of history between Mask and I that explains, in not justifies, my use of an overly legalistic approach to debating Mask.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 09:57am

141. "No, I'm saying ..."--Posted by marybretbrad at 05/30/2008

     Posted by Mask at 08/04/2009 @ 08:39am

     This is classic Mask. Whenever I make a statement you twist it. Notice my response:

     Darin: "The Sun rises in the East."

     Mask: "Oh, you're saying Republicans are so greath they cause the Sun to rise?"

     Darin; "No! I'm saying..."

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 10:10am

142. Darin....

     all I did was QUOTE you.

     YOU had to make up your hypothetical of what "classic Mask" is, didn't you?

     Posted by Mask at 08/04/2009 @ 10:52am

143. We live in a Chinese world. America is going down the tubes because we are getting closer and closer to the way the Chinese operate.

     Posted by abell12ct at 08/03/2009 @ 12:43pm

     and vice versus.

     remember,

     capitalism becomes communism

     and

     communism becomes capitalism.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 08/04/2009 @ 11:41am

144. "Obama: we can do this but we've got to make some major fucking changes - we need new computers, fewer tests and better goddamm lollipops! " Posted by judybrowni at 08/02/2009 @ 2:04pm

     Would the lollipops fall under a high option plan? What flavors would be covered? Will generic lollipops be available at a reduced cost?

     Bunch o' damn socialists a takin' my hard earned cash to pay for lollipops for these layabouts and jackoffs, get a job!

     Posted by mishelley at 08/04/2009 @ 1:25pm

145. Darin....

     all I did was QUOTE you.

     YOU had to make up your hypothetical of what "classic Mask" is, didn't you?

     Posted by Mask at 08/04/2009 @ 10:52am

     No, you SELECTIVELY QUOTED me.

     I mentioned exasperation, facitiousness, rhetorical questions, and jerking your chain. All of these characterization provide context to the words. To a person, such as yourself, who is unusually skilled in the practice of sophistry, one can create a radically different meaning by presenting the words devoid of this all important context.

     But you know that.

     For some reason, you derive some sick form of pleasure twisting my words and disingenously presenting them out of context to create the maximum distortion possible. It's like a game with you.

     I know you are spectacularly guarded with your identity. (I am the polor opposite.) But I'm going to venture a guess that you are a staff memeber on the Hill for a Democrat Rep or Sen. You know what it like, and how frustrating it is to have people disingenously twist your words in order to paint a picture 180 degrees from reality.

     Hell, the fact that you're sood at it may be the reason you got your job in the first place.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 2:22pm

146. you seem to be new here and yes you already figured it out, Darin is an idiot. there is really no other way I can put it. Posted by emile duBois

     And Emile attacks people he doesn't agree with. Shame shame shame

     Posted by abell12ct at 08/04/2009 @ 6:38pm

147. Mask, you are a dishonest, despicable piece of shit. You claim I said: *************************************************************

     "Democrats are far worse when it comes to personally attacking candidates than Republicans are."---Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/2008

     Posted by Mask at 08/04/2009 @ 08:39am *************************************************************

     And then you say: *************************************************************

     Darin....

     all I did was QUOTE you.

     YOU had to make up your hypothetical of what "classic Mask" is, didn't you?

     Posted by Mask at 08/04/2009 @ 10:52am

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

     Let's go back and review the transcript. Not leaving any context out.

     This is from Hillary's Exit Strategy

     http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/326069/ hillary_s_exit_strategy

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 9:31pm

148. I have never heard a candidate for president called names, belittled or insulted so personally.

     Posted by kmadson at 06/3/2008

     Unless this is your first election, you must mean that you've never heard a DEMOCRAT candidate called names, belittled or insulted so personally.

     What did they say about Bush? Idiot, stupid, coke-head, racist,

     It is impossible for any objective observer to conclude that Clinton was treated worse than Bush.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/03/2008 @ 4:00pm

     *****

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/2008

     Yeah, good thing Republicans and conservatives never call anybody on the other side names, huh, Darin? As an "objective observer" of course?

     (BTW, here's where you start to backpedal and say "Sure, they BOTH do it"...failing to note that you overlooked "both" in your original post.)

     Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 4:13pm

     *****

     Yeah, good thing Republicans and conservatives never call anybody on the other side names,huh, Darin? As an "objective observer" of course?

     (BTW, here's where you start to backpedal and say "Sure, they BOTH do it"...failing to note that you overlooked "both" in your original post.)

     Posted by Mask at 06/3/2008

     No, no back pedaling. Democrats are far worse when it comes to personally attacking candidates than Republicans are.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/03/2008 @ 4:25pm

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

     Editorial comment from today. You obviously need to selectively edit the entire quote because the addition of "No, no back pedaling." makes it clear I am responding to your baiting attempts to twist my words.

     Where did things go from there?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 9:31pm

149. Mask just has a way of sucking me in. I make the obvious statement that Bush was treated worse than Clinton, and since he can't agree with me even though it is an indisputable point, he changes the subject and I fall for it every time.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/03/2008 @ 4:33pm

     *****

     I originally responded to the ludicrous statement that no other politician has been attacked as personally as Hillary Clinton has. I mentioned Bush as an obvious counter example and Mask immediately changed the subject to Reps vs. Dems and baited me with talk of backpedaling. Unfortunately, I took the bait.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/03/2008 @ 5:41pm

     *****

     ...Unfortunately, I took the bait.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/2008

     Yeah I saw the first part. Mask does have a certain eloquence about his baiting techniques.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 6:12pm

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 9:31pm

150. Again, more MBB/Darin duplicity....

     Evidence that BUSH...

     all the while his ORIGINAL "point" that "Dems are worse mud-slingers than Repubs could EVER be" collapses....

     Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 09:13am

     *****

     Posted by Mask at 06/4/2008

     Speaking of duplicity…

     ...

     MY ORIGINAL point was that it was ludicrous to say no politician has been attack as badly as Hillary Clinton has. I proved my point by providing the invective ...

     Then you twisted my words and said, "your saying Dems are worse the Repbs. Watch for Darin to start back pedaling." So I (ill advisedly) took the bait and said, "No back pedaling, dems are worse than Repubs" even though I never said that in the first place and only said it because I was pissed that you were twisting my words.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/04/2008 @ 11:01am

     *****

     But the dispute was that you said dems were worse at slinging the proverbial mud than republicans.

     ...

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/4/2008

     Yes, I ill advisedly said that out of anger and regret it...

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/04/2008 @ 11:15am

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 9:31pm

151. Yes, I ill advisedly said that out of anger and regret it. … Posted by marybretbrad at 06/4/2008

     "So I (ill advisedly) took the bait and said, "No back pedaling, dems are worse than Repubs" even though I never said that in the first place and only said it because I was pissed that you were twisting my words."----Posted by marybretbrad at 06/4/2008

     Right on time.......

     "then "Well, okay, BOTH sides do it" (after being shown some study showing it's mostly Republicans)...

     then "You guys are putting words in my mouth....I never said it was a fact, just that I believed it was true. I'm such a victim of people twisting my words and making me SEEM unreasonable!!!!"

     and then it starts all over again the next day!"----Posted by Mask at 06/4/2008

     Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 12:15pm

     *****

     So then, Mask, you plead guilty to duplicitously twisting peoples' words? Like when you said my original point was dems are worse than Reps when obviouly that was your original point stuffed into my mouth because my original point was Bush was called worse names than Hillary.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/04/2008 @ 12:22pm

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 9:31pm

152. See when you isolate that part you are saying it never happens to Demo's only Republicans. Which implies that only Demo's insult. Again I know this was not your point but I would back down from this one with a simple I misstated my point.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/4/2008

     Well, I appreciate the advice, but I respectfully disagree. Hillary just competed in a Democratic primary campaign. Republicans pretty much stayed out of it. All of the mudslinging was Democrat on Democrat. So this contest isn't really a good example of Dems vs. Reps.

     Furthermore, it isn't just Dems and Reps doing the name calling. There are people in the media, bloggers, hell, there was that government official in Canada that called Bush a bastard or something and the Canaidan Professor that called him an idiot.

     Didn't the Nation [sell] posters with Bush as Alfred E Neuman?

     It seems like it's a fairly obvious point: Bush was "called names, belittled [and] insulted" much worse than Hillary was during this campaign. If you don't want to concede the obvious, don't say anything.

     But there's no reason to falsely accuse me of saying things I didn't, accuse me of back pedaling, accuse me of being disingenuous, etc.

     Posted by marybretbrad at 06/04/2008 @ 12:44pm

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 9:31pm

153. "Like when you said my original point was dems are worse than Reps when obviouly that was your original point stuffed into my mouth because my original point was Bush was called worse names than Hillary."----Posted by marybretbrad at 06/4/2008

     "Democrats are far worse when it comes to personally attacking candidates than Republicans are."---Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/2008

     Now why would I get the idea that you are calling "Dems worse than Republicans"!?!??!?!? Dang, I MUST be "twisting your words", huh?

     Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 4:18pm

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

     Yes you are twisting my words. It is abundantly clear that I only said it because I was exasperated. I didn't mean it. "No, no backpedaling. Dems are worse than Reps." Yet you continue to disingenuously claim that I said because I meant, not because I was fed up with your asshole tactics. You are a fucking liar to continue to claim that I "said" when your implication is that I came up with it on my own and just stated it because that is exactly what I believe and it wasn't an exasperated response to you.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 9:31pm

154. So I guess we'll continue to play your game.

     So it is clear I never said those words that you claim.

     I *typed* them, but I never said them so that make you a liar for claiming that I said them.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/04/2009 @ 9:32pm

155. One component of some of the health care reform proposals include provisions for OPTIONAL living will and DNR consultations.   It makes perfect sense for people to consider such matters, but contrary to what has been disingenuously disseminated by reform opponents, they are not mandatory and are certainly not some malevolent plot to kill off the elderly.

     The whole notion that the health care reform proposals will lead to "Soylent Green-style" euthanasia of the elderly is a part of a coordinated campaign by the health insurance industry to use fear-mongering and misinformation to sway public opinion.  The Congressional GOP has shown itself to be a puppet of this industry and their lobbyists with their desire to perpetuate these myths.  

     Posted by labman57 at 08/04/2009 @ 11:26pm

156. Every time a birther is shown a web link to, or hard copy of Obama's official birth certificate (you know, the one that is recognized by the federal government when applying for a passport), they pull the equivalent of a 9-year old covering his ears and shouting "nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear you!"

     You can lead right wingers to the truth, but you cannot make them embrace it.

     Each state has its own standard for an official record of birth.

     You have to look at the motivations of the majority of the birthers to understand why they simply cannot "let go". Fundamentally, it comes down to the following mindset: "I cannot accept THAT man in the White House because.... (fill in the blank)."

     Just about ANY reason will do -- any excuse that will legitimize their race-based outrage. If it wasn't about a birth certificate, it would be about his middle name. (He's a closet Muslim, you know.)

     In addition, there are a handful of unscrupulous politicians and pundits who, although not necessarily racist themselves, have no problem capitalizing on the bigotry of others by fueling their fear and hatred of Obama in order to score political points or further a personal agenda.

     The birther phenomenon is intended to damage the validity of the Obama Administration, but it will instead diminish the credibility of the conservative base so long as its members continue to give credence to the deluded fantasy that the POTUS was not born in Hawaii.

     Posted by labman57 at 08/04/2009 @ 11:29pm

157. Obama's comments were not about the 911 call, nor about the police responding to the scene and questioning Gates. Obama was specifically addressing the legal basis for the actual arrest when he correctly said that the police acted stupidly. I have no doubt that Officer Crowley is not a racist, however he did show extremely poor judgement for arresting Gates at his own home.

     Gates' reaction to Crowley was a spontaneous emotional response to a perceived injustice. Sure he over-reacted, but that is not sufficient grounds for an arrest. Even the legal analyst on FOX News who researched the relevant laws of MA confirmed that the arrest was unwarranted.

     Charges were dropped. Enough said.

     Posted by labman57 at 08/04/2009 @ 11:30pm

158. Well, one of the reasons I want a public option in health care is that the 'products' that private insurers offer are so bad. If their products were cars we would be faced with buying a piece of crap that is unreliable, missing a wheel, needs a paint job and backfires incessantly. We'd be charged thousands for this piece of crap and the owner's manuel would be hundreds of pages long and indecipherable. The really nice cars would be beyond the average person's means so we'd often watch them move on by us while we're sitting on the side of the road waiting for a tow-truck that isn't coming because the breakdown of this auto was due to a pre-existing condition. You wouldn't be able to buy a better car because there's no real competition, you're stuck with the piece of crap, though you can choose the color (Blue Cross is blue, Aetna red, etc.). At this point I'll take a Government car, let's just see what that baby can do.

     Posted by DavidDurham at 08/05/2009 @ 09:06am

159. Well, one of the reasons I want a public option in health care is that the 'products' that private insurers offer are so bad. If their products were cars we would be faced with buying a piece of crap that is unreliable, missing a wheel, needs a paint job and backfires incessantly.

     Posted by DavidDurham at 08/05/2009 @ 09:06am

     So the "public option" means you get a Lambroghini for the price of a Yugo. Do you see any problems with this?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/06/2009 @ 07:08am

160. Don't need a Lambroghini. A Taurus would do. Something simple that runs reliably which insurers today don't seem to be able to deliver.

     Posted by DavidDurham at 08/06/2009 @ 07:43am

161. No, don't need a Lambroghini, maybe a Taurus. Just something simple and reliable that insurers don't seem able to deliver.

     Posted by DavidDurham at 08/06/2009 @ 07:46am

162. Don't need a Lamborghini.

     Posted by DavidDurham at 08/06/2009 @ 07:43am

     I agree. I don't need a Lamborghini either. But the biggest problem America faces regarding healthcare reform is that 95% of Americans feel/believe they are entitled to a Lamborghini.

     "If a treatment exists, then I am entitled to receive it irrespective of its price or effectiveness. Nobody has any right to perform a cost/benefit analysis where my health is concerned!" -- Anonymous/Ubiquitous American Healthcare Consumer

     Further, I don't personally believe any particular person *needs* a Lamborghini. (But then again, my opinions about other peoples needs and desires aren't worth a bucket of warm piss.) I do believe, however, that it is vitally important that Lamborghinis are available to the affluent.

     Lamborghini pioneered anti-lock brakes. Lamborghini pioneered variable valve timing (which increased horsepower for Lamborghini, but lead to 10% improved fuel economy in Taurus.) Lamborghini pioneered air bags.

     (Okay, obviously Lamborghini didn't invent air bags. "Lamborghini" symbolizes technological improvements that started out as "luxury" items but eventually improved safety and economy among the middle class.)

     I don't want nor need a Lamborghini, but the future of auto technology needs some people to buy/piss their own money away Lamborghinis.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/06/2009 @ 09:06am

163. Let me try this as a shoe on the other foot analogy. Since my goal is to expose unexamined bigotry, I have chosen as my example a hypothetical regarding the ugliest bigotry I can think of. Imagine this scene: Darin_the_Voice_of_Reason (DTVOR) crosses the street to his neighbor's driveway. There is a crowd of about 20 people there. His neighbor begins to speak.

     BIGOT#1: Neighbors, we simply have to do something. The recent surge in neighborhood burglaries should make it obvious that our neighborhood is being overrun by blacks. We've got to figure out a way to evict all the blacks from our neighborhood because you know theft is only a gateway crime. It won't be long before they are raping our daughters.

     DTVOR: Hold on there, let's slow down. What are you talking about? I've lived here for five years and can't recall a single theft in the neighborhood. Can you tell me which of our neighbors has been the victim of a burglary?

     MASK: Five years ago, Pat Buchanan had his car stolen from work.

     DTVOR: Well, that doesn't count. It is neither "recent" nor in the "neighborhood."

     MASK: At the time, everyone knew a black guy did it.

     DTVOR: I don't care who stole Buchanan's car. I'm asking which of our neighbors "recently" experienced a theft "in the neighborhood".

     MASK: Oh, so you're saying black people are incapable of stealing cars?

     DTVOR: What? No, I'm saying whatever happened to Buchanan 5 years ago is completely irrelevant and useless for evaluating the truthfulness of BIGOT#1's claim that there has been a "recent surge of burglaries in the neighborhood."

     MASK: Oh, so your saying there are no black people in our neighborhood.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/07/2009 @ 07:34am

164. DTVOR: No, I'm definitely not saying that. I am saying the opposite of that. Last year there was one black family in our neighborhood of 20 homes. Six months ago, the Franklins moved in bringing the number of black families in our neighborhood to two. I can count to two. I don't need to look at burglary statistics and couple those statistics with ignorant, bigoted beliefs about blacks' criminality to *infer* an increase in the number of black families. I can just count them. The increase is visually obvious to everyone. What I'm questing is BIGOT#1's claim that there has been a surge in crime. I can't recall a single theft. I'm asking you to provide me with one example to substantiate BIGOT#1's claim regarding the recent crime wave.

     MASK: I did. Pat Buchanan's car was stolen.

     DTVOR: That is NOT an example of "RECENT" "NEIGHBORHOOD" theft.

     MASK: Oh, so you're saying Buchanan stole his own car for the insurance money.

     DTVOR: What?!?!?! NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT! Why do you keep changing the subject? Give me an example of a recent neighborhood theft.

     MASK: Everyone knows we're in the midst of a crime wave. Crime is up 200%.

     DTVOR: Then it should be very easy to give me one name of a neighbor who had his house broken into.

     MASK: I never said a burglar had to break into a house. What if the front door was left open. Are you saying it's not theft if the victim accidentally left the door unlocked?

     DTVOR: No! Stop changing the subject! Give me one God damned name!

     MASK: Well you believe that there were zero thefts last year and zero thefts this year. 200% of zero is zero. Are you trying to tell us that zero doesn't equal zero in "nigger lover" math?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/07/2009 @ 07:36am

165. DTVOR: You are such a liar. Yes, technically zero would be a 200% increase of zero, but you know God damn well that when you tell people there's been an increase in crime they assume you are talking about non-zero numbers. You are using lawyerly lies to intentionally mislead people. Now give me a name.

     MASK: I did. Buchanan had his car...

     DTVOR: Stop it! You know that isn't relevant to BIGOT#1's claim regarding recent neighborhood thefts.

     MASK: Why do you care?

     DTVOR: Here's why I care. I think BIGOT#1 is full of shit. He is playing on people's bigoted fears in order to whip up some hysteria to support his political agenda of running all the blacks out of our neighborhood in violation of their Constitutionally protected rights. Like me, he witnessed an increase in the number of black families in the neighborhood. Unlike me, his bigoted beliefs lead him to conclude more black families must mean more crime. So, to whip up that hysteria he revered the order to create a self-validating prophecy. He made a baseless claim of increased crime (that nobody was supposed to examine) and claimed this proved there are more black people in the neighborhood. Since everyone can obviously see there are more black people in the neighborhood, stating this illogical conclusion reinforces the bigoted belief that all blacks steal from their neighbors. And it all rests on the premise that there has been an increase in crime. If I can get people out of the herd mentality of simply accepting the premise of more crime to reinforce bigoted beliefs about blacks' criminality, maybe I can get them to examine their prejudices.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/07/2009 @ 07:37am

166. MASK: Oh, so you're saying blacks have a Constitutionally protected right to steal from their neighbors.

     DTVOR: Why do you keep doing that? What can't we have an honest, rational discussion?

     MASK: Because I support BIGOT#1's political agenda and I personally benefit from all this bigoted hysteria. If we have a rational discussion, it becomes glaringly obvious that you are correct: BIGOT#1 is lying about a recent crime wave. If we have a rational discussion, people will see through my paper-thin deceptions. If we have a rational discussion, I will lose my ability to manipulate the emotions of anyone who witnesses that discussion, which will jeopardize my political agenda. So obviously, we cannot have an honest, rational discussion. All we can do is continue this childish game of "Oh, so you're saying..." in hopes that you will become so frustrated that you will make a mistake that I an exploit to my advantage.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/07/2009 @ 07:37am

167. Here's a fun game. The dialogue from this scenario is taken from the posts above. See if you can find the real quotes. I'll get you started: When you see "blacks" look for "Republicans/Conservative" when you see "steal/theft" look for "racism".

     SAVAN: It'd be nice to think that the recent surge in overtly racist rhetoric on the right has been a case of random opportunism, ... With every passing day it gets harder to think of this sudden dialing-up of whiny hate speech as sheer coincidence. ... What is it about health care that brings out the latent racism in the GOP?

     Darin: Can the author give us an example of "recent overtly racist language" by the right? Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 08:28am

     Mask: "Had McCain been willing to drape Jeremiah Wright ...."---Pat Buchanan Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 09:12am

     Darin: Nothing Buchanan said refers to race. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 09:32am

     Mask: So unless we find somebody using the N-word...and not just code language....there is no racism on the Right, right? Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 10:38am

     Darin: Your attempt to change the subject with this bullshit non-sequitur receives a grade of FAIL! ... "Can you find one instance of 'overt' racial rhetoric?" It shouldn't be hard. Ms. Savan claims a surge is occurring. Please, find one example. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 11:23am

     Mask: I DID cite an example ... which you promptly dismissed... Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 12:01pm

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/07/2009 @ 07:39am

168. Darin: Ms Savan is guilty of playing on the worst prejudices of here readers. She simply states that there has been a "surge in overt racist rhetoric" and since this [coincides] with her readers bigotries they require no evidence that this is the case.

     I'm simply asking for one example of "recent" statement with "overt" racial "rhetoric". In the absence of such, I'm charging Ms. Savan with playing on her supporters political bigotries. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 1:36pm

     Mask: So again...your "outs" are "overt" and "recent". If not both...proves the Right isn't racist. Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 1:51pm

     Darin : Ms. Savan states a surge in recent overt racist rhetoric. I say she's full of shit... Please find the rhetoric she's referring too. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 2:04pm

     Mask: As long as Rush or Sean or Glenn or Lou don't "overtly" use the N-word....all the code language in the world gives Darin his CYA. Posted by Mask at 08/03/2009 @ 3:03pm

     Darin: Do writers at The Nation employ general, but baseless accusations of overt racist rhetoric to energize their base? Yes, as a matter of fact, I think they do. Unless, that is, unless you can find even one example of recent overt racist rhetoric. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/03/2009 @ 3:17pm

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/07/2009 @ 07:39am

169. If you don't want the government involved in your health care, don't apply for medicare or medicaid, and don't get your H1N1 flu shot. Show some real protest, guys.

     Posted by jobrien1950 at 08/07/2009 @ 11:37am

170. If you don't want the government involved in your health care, don't apply for medicare or medicaid, and don't get your H1N1 flu shot. Show some real protest, guys.

     Posted by jobrien1950 at 08/07/2009 @ 11:37am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Hell, I'll go even further than that....if your house catches fire, don't call the fire department; if you are mugged in a park, don't call the police.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/07/2009 @ 2:59pm