Since this week's talking point is "Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/cnn-its-best-395416-2.html#post1977671)," let's address that shall we? It's not just Dowd and it isn't new, Politico delved into the issue quoting several Democrats including Gwen Dawkins, Democratic activist from Michigan who thinks all conservative anger toward Obama is about race (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27120.html#ixzz0R73LGauP).


“Black people have lived under white presidents since day one,” Dawkins observed, “So would you give him a chance?”

Do those who think it's all about race want us to give him a chance - or do they expect us to just roll over and let him do what he wants?

I think for a very small percentage of people it is about race. Another percentage of people don't like him simply because he is a democrat. But if you really get down to it people don't like their tax dollars going to pay for other peoples health care, Social security etc... I have friends who are not racist and they don't want their money paying for leeches. And I get that.

The race card is just so easy to play I mean no thought needs to go into it and if you disagree with them then you are a racist it's a catch 22.

I've said elsewhere:

Obama ain't black, he's red.

That's why I don't want him as president. My estimate of him probably falls right in the middle of conservatism.

Whether it does or not makes no matter to me.

Maybe Dowd is projecting her own subconscious racism onto Wilson, because Wilson never said "boy," but Dowd had to put in print the word.

It is Obama's Ivy League know it all attitude, when he clearly doesn't, that turns me off.


G&P

Since this week's talking point is some people just can’t believe a black man is president Hello Steve:

It would be a LOT easier to believe that your party is NOT racist if you had a few more black faces in your delegation.. But, you don't... So, cracks from a rightwing redneck, who think the Confederate flag should STILL fly over South Carolina, are HIGHLY suspect for racist content..

It's still MORE damning when you consider this guy also thought Strom Thurmonds' BLACK daughter was SMEARING him when she came forward...

So, you can protest all you want. Joe Wilson is a racist bastard.

excon

Hello Steve:

It would be a LOT easier to believe that your party is NOT racist if you had a few more black faces in your delegation.. But, you don't... So, cracks from a rightwing redneck, who think the Confederate flag should STILL fly over South Carolina, are HIGHLY suspect for racist content..

It's still MORE damning when you consider this guy also thought Strom Thurmonds' BLACK daughter was SMEARING him when she came forward....

So, you can protest all you want. Joe Wilson is a racist bastard.

excon

Who just happened to tell the truth. Amazing!!

Hello Steve:

It would be a LOT easier to believe that your party is NOT racist if you had a few more black faces in your delegation.. But, you don't... So, cracks from a rightwing redneck, who think the Confederate flag should STILL fly over South Carolina, are HIGHLY suspect for racist content..

It's still MORE damning when you consider this guy also thought Strom Thurmonds' BLACK daughter was SMEARING him when she came forward....

So, you can protest all you want. Joe Wilson is a racist bastard.

excon

So now the entire GOP is racist... because we don't have enough blacks in the party... like Michael Steele, Lloyd Marcus, Frances Rice, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Alan Keyes, Richard Parsons (Time Warner CEO), Joseph C. Philips (actor from The Cosby Show), Angela McGlowen (Former Miss District of Colombia), Lynn Swann (former Pittsburg Steelers wide receiver), JC Watts, Don King, Karl Malone, Armstrong Williams, actor Denzel Washington, Thomas Sowell, Sammy Davis Jr. Jackie Robinson, Keith Butler, Clyde Drexler, Alveda King (neice of MLK Jr. and member of the House of Reps), Yaphett Koto, and many more.

The GOP is racist, despite the fact that it was the Lincoln and the Republicans who freed slaves, while Democrats were puching to keep slavery a national insititution.

The GOP is racist, despite the fact that it was Republicans who voted for civil rights while Southern Democrats were fighting tooth and nail for segregation.

Fact is that the Dems have the history of being racists AS A PARTY, while Republicans have been the party of racial equality as an institution. But nobody will recognize that fact... it's too inconvenient.

I find it interesting that the word "liar" is now being equated to the word "n-gger" by leftist anti-white racists.

President Obama is a liar. His statements in his address to Congress last week regarding the health bill not applying to illegal immigrants are demonstrably FALSE. And when Republicans tried to block illegals from being subject to the bill, he and the Dems ACTIVELY BLOCKED THE AMENDMENTS. He LIED and he was called on it. Wilson was right... and therein lies the rub.

Calling George W. Bush a liar is considered an act of Patriotism... but calling Barrack Hussein Obama a liar is an act of racism.

No, excon, Wilson is not a racist bastard. He's a member of Congress who called the President on his BS. But the people who would call him a racist bastard when they can't find a way to defend Obama lies... those people are racists. Anyone who would use the race card to defelect the truth about Obama's lies is, by nature, a racist.

Elliot

Hello Steve:

It would be a LOT easier to believe that your party is NOT racist if you had a few more black faces in your delegation..

Ex, how many blacks, Asians, Latinos were a part of the Bush administration? It's been pointed out to you before but to this day no one gives him any credit for the diversity of his administration.


But, you don't...

So we're racist? If blacks would rather be condescended to as "victims" that can't make it without handouts and preferential treatment instead of being treated as people I can't help that. What does it say about a society that thinks we shouldn't hold Obama accountable just like every other president because he's the first black president? What, he can't handle the job, he needs a pass because he's black?


So, cracks from a rightwing redneck, who think the Confederate flag should STILL fly over South Carolina, are HIGHLY suspect for racist content..

It's still MORE damning when you consider this guy also thought Strom Thurmonds' BLACK daughter was SMEARING him when she came forward...

Unlike a candidate talking about his "typical white" grandmother, being mentored by a race-baiting pastor for 20 years or accusing police of acting "stupidly" without knowing the facts?


So, you can protest all you want. Joe Wilson is a racist bastard.

This OP isn't about Joe Wilson anyway, I asked a specific question, do those who think it's all about race want us to give him a chance - or do they expect us to just roll over and let him do what he wants?

RACIST -n- What a liberal calls a conservative when the conservative has won the argument.

Dowd's North vs South bigotry is the only obvious bias.Must suck for her becoming old and irrelevant.

The rag she works for demands a higher standard of evidence when they publish defamatory rhetoric against a fellow lib. Not surprising that they turned a blind eye to journalism that in other free nations would've gotten her and them sued .

Investor's Business Daily's oped on the subject said it best .

The reaction to the congressman's outburst shows what happens when you judge this president by the content of his character. In a post-racial presidency, charges of racism are the new last refuge of scoundrels.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=337823996867856

I think more people dislike Obama because he is a Liberal, not because he is black, although a small minority of people may be racist. He didn't help himself with his preacher and not wearing the flag pin though, many people thought these were trivial issues but they were still troubling. I personally believe that most if not all of the people who hate Obama would have no problem with Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice being president so I think it's time for Liberals to stop playing the race card.

Maureen Dowd hates white men. I can't prove it .It's not there in her written words .It's just there under the surface... implied you know.

I recall during the Sotomayor nomination she wrote a column 'White Man's Last Stand 'that opponents of Sotomayor were nothing more than "white Republican men afraid of extinction" who traffic in "codes, handshakes and clubs."... "President Obama wants Sotomayor, naturally, to bring a fresh perspective to the court. It was a disgrace that W. appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/opinion/15dowd.html?_r=1

But how does she feel about the courts lone black Justice ? Well I've read much of her work over the years about Justice Thomas.Implied in code beneath the surface of her body of work are the words "UNCLE TOM" and "OREO COOKIE" . No she never actually wrote it . But it's implied nonetheless.
Am I wrong ? Well all I'm doing is applying her journalistic standards of integrity and extrapolating . Just like she did in her column about Joe Wilson.

Americans are losing hope in Obamas leadership because he has shown he's not afraid to stick his nose in any and all business,is it fitting for a PRESIDENT to call a entertainer who makes a fool of himself on national t.v. a "JACKASS" .
I am amazed when members of the media want to call G.W. Bush a moron and yet he wasn't foolish enough to let a opinion based,non-relavent comment like the one Obama made about K.West be recorded.
We really don't need to hear the presidents opinion on everything.

...is it fitting for a PRESIDENT to call a entertainer who makes a fool of himself on national t.v. a "JACKASS" .
.You know what? He sounds like a regular guy; listen to it here: Obama Calls Kanye a 'Jackass' -- The Audio | TMZ.com (http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/15/obama-calls-kanye-a-jackass/)

Better a regular guy then a Bush elite. Bush was called a moron for his actions.

That is my exact point I don't want a regular guy running my country
The comment was very inappropriate for a president.
I have a feeling there will be more to follow

He's certainly better educated than you or I. I wouldn't want some rich elite running a country, they just care about their rich friends and lifestyle, out-of-touch with those who don't live the lavish lifestyle. What kind of person do you want running the country?

Talking about elected officials wasting their time... Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina (with a probable hattip from Rhambo) convinced Madame Mimi that the House needed to waste their time yesterday to vote on a resolution to "disapprove " of Joe Wilson's outburst.



RESOLUTION


Raising a question of the privileges of the House. Whereas on September 9, 2009, during the joint session of Congress convened pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 179, the President of the United States, speaking at the invitation of the House and Senate, had his remarks interrupted by the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson; and Whereas the conduct of the Representative from South Carolina was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the behavior of the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, during the joint session of Congress held on September 9, 2009.


Honestly I thought that the constant interuption of the address by the mindless drones standing and applauding throughout the address degraded the proceedings much worse than Wilson's single expression .

Both Madame Mimi and Steny Hoyer's instincts were to let the whole incident go away but as the Politico article points out ,the Dems will use the race boogyman whenever they can.
Clearly Jim Clyburn hates white guys. Do I have any evidence of that ? No... Just applying the Dowd standard.
Recently Andrew Napolitano asked Clyburn where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care.

Clyburn replied ...."There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"
Andrew Napolitano: Health-Care Reform and the Constitution - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html)
But I can extrapolate using the Dowd standard that Clyburn hates Italian Americans and that he meant to throw in a Guido ,Wop or Guinny into his outburst somewhere. Clearly Dowd would believe Napolitano had an implied "boy " in his question to the Congressman.

He's certainly better educated than you or I.

Speak for yourself. You have no idea what level of education Zippit has... or anyone else on this board, for that matter.


I wouldn't want some rich elite running a country, they just care about their rich friends and lifestyle, out-of-touch with those who don't live the lavish lifestyle. What kind of person do you want running the country?

I guess you want a guy who has no experience with handling money, investing money, running a business or managing a group of people to run the country instead... someone with NO EXPERIENCE in the tasks necessary to run a large organization.

Personally, I prefer a President with management experience, an understanding of finance and economics, and a history of being able to use limited resources to their maximum.

Instead we have a President who has never managed anything in his life, has no understanding of how the economy works, and assumes that the resources of government are unlimmited because he can simply raise taxes or print more money.

The "rich elite" became rich because they were better at leading teams of people, running a business, managing money and creating efficiencies of scale than anyone else. The very thing that makes them the "rich elite" is what makes them the most qualified people to lead a nation.

There are others who are similarly qualified and not are rich... but they are fewer and far between. Becoming and staying rich requires a certain skill set. That skill set is similar to the skill set needed to be an effective President.

Zippit is right. We don't need "regular people" running our country... especially not in these rough economic times. What we need are the best qualified people... the ELITE... the best of the best.

But what we've got is the picture of mediocrity... a self-claimed former druggie and "solid C student" who spent more time on the basketball courts than in the classroom, with no management experience, barely 2 years of experience as an elected official in the Federal government --- most of which was spent on the campaign trail, not doing his job --- who has never authored a single piece of meaningful legislation (including his own stimulus bill, his own cap & trade bill, and his own health care bill), who knows nothing about international relations, economics, or fighting wars, and who can't take five minutes to stop campaigning for 2012.

Forget the fact that he's black. I dislike Obama because his skills are mediocre and his policies are throwbacks to Soviet-style communism.

Elliot

He's certainly better educated than you or I. I wouldn't want some rich elite running a country, they just care about their rich friends and lifestyle, out-of-touch with those who don't live the lavish lifestyle. What kind of person do you want running the country?

I have no problem with him calling Kanye a jackass because he is. However, who do you think is running the country now? Obama sends his kids to a private school that runs $28,000 a year per child. He spent $20,000 a year each in Chicago. That's a regular guy?

Honestly I thought that the constant interuption of the address by the mindless drones standing and applauding throughout the address degraded the proceedings much worse than Wilson's single expression . Hello tom:

Didn't your momma teach you manners?? I guess not. Here's what you don't understand... When, for example, you're at your aunts house for dinner, and you spy an old relative that you don't much get along with. He yells at you, and you let an f-bomb go towards him...

Then you realize your mistake and apologize to him... But, don't you think you owe an apology to Auntee?? No, of course, you don't. That's because your momma didn't teach you no manners.

So, just sit back and get learned... Do I havta do it ALL?

excon

Speak for yourself. You have no idea what level of education Zippit has... or anyone else on this board, for that matter. Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. If he can better that then I would indeed be impressed.

So when will Clyburn and Mimi offer such a resolution against such "hateful rhetoric" from Pete Stark? Remember this from 2007?


First of all, I’m just amazed that they can’t figure out– the Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional ten million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? You gonna tell us lies, like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war? You don’t have the money to fund the war or children, but you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people, if we could get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.

This bill would provide health care for ten million children and, unlike the President’s own kids, these children can’t see a doctor or receive necessary care. Six million are insured through the Children’s Health Insurance Program and they’ll do better in school, and in life. In California, the President’s veto will cause the legislature to draw up emergency regulations to cut some 800,000 children off the rolls in California and create a waiting list.

I hope my California Republican colleagues will understand that if they don’t vote to override this veto, they are destroying health care for many of our children in California.

In the previous job as an actor, our Governor used to play make-believe and blow things up. Well, [the] President and Republicans in Congress are playing make-believe today with children’s lives. They claim we can’t afford health care. They say the bill will socialize medicine. Tell that to Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley and Ted Stevens, those socialists on the other side of this capitol. The truth is: [The] CHIP program enables states to cover children primarily through private health care plans. But, President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up… in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.

That clearly violates the same House Rules that Wilson is being censured for. Guess it just didn't meet the Dowd standard.

Yep, he was out of line too.

Hello tom:

Didn't your momma teach you manners??? I guess not. Here's what you don't understand... When, for example, you're at your aunts house for dinner, and you spy an old relative that you don't much get along with. He yells at you, and you let an f-bomb go towards him....

Then you realize your mistake and apologize to him.... But, don't you think you owe an apology to Auntee??? No, of course, you don't. That's because your momma didn't teach you no manners.

So, just sit back and get learned... Do I havta do it ALL?

See my last post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obama-black-396407-3.html#post1980973)... and then demand an apology also from the Democrat boo-birds that interrupted his 2005 State of the Union speech. You wouldn't want to be applying different standards would you?

Hello Steve:

So, you ain't got no manners either... Maybe there's somthin in the koolaid...

Using my example for tom, lets say the last time you were at your aunt's house, some OTHER relative let off an f-bomb and HE didn't apologize to auntee. So, I guess, according to the rightwingers manual on manners, it means you don't have to either.

I don't understand you guys...

excon

Hello tom:

Didn't your momma teach you manners?? I guess not. Here's what you don't understand... When, for example, you're at your aunts house for dinner, and you spy an old relative that you don't much get along with. He yells at you, and you let an f-bomb go towards him...

Then you realize your mistake and apologize to him... But, don't you think you owe an apology to Auntee?? No, of course, you don't. That's because your momma didn't teach you no manners.


Ex not a good comparison ;calling someone a liar is not as bad as the f bomb... but I'll go along with it

Suppose the old relative (or keeping with the Maureen Dowd example... the black sheep of the family ) started tossing F bombs at me ,and in fact began tossing those F bombs long before I replied ? Who would be owed an apology then ?

Lets go to the video tape...


Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It's a lie, plain and simple.

Throughout the address the President said his critics spread "misinformation" and "bogus claims," of "demagoguery and distortion," and of "scare tactics" .
Was the chambers of Congress the place for his flamatory rhetoric ?

Decorum means that he should get away with the very thing they sanctioned Joe Wilson for ? Where's his manners ?

Hello again, righty's:

It's like I suggested... Your manners are based on what the other guy does - NOT on what your momma taught you.. I figured as much...

excon

Just out of curiosity, what is the rule that Wilson violated? Can anybody show me the rule itself?

Also, what is the actual effect of "a resolution to disapprove"? As far as I can tell, it does absolutely nothing. It doesn't punish Wilson. It doesn't limit Wilson's ability to act in the House. It doesn't censure him. It didn't hurt him. It certainly hasn't SILENCED him (he's appearing on lots of TV and radio shows and getting some great "face time") and now he's got more people listening to him than ever before, especially on Health Care. Other than wasting their own time and the taxpayers' money that constitutes their salaries, what did the Dems accomplish with this vote?

Wilson has raised over $1.5 million of campaign money in the past week because of all the spotlight the DEMS have been putting on him. They took a guy that NOBODY knew and didn't care about and made him a huge money-maker for the Republican party. How did drawing this thing out help the Dems?

The Dems COULD have made this go away. They could have accepted the fact that Wilson apologized to Obama and let it stand at that. But instead they have made Wilson a household name. Wilson was only saying what 67% of Americans were already thinking to themselves during Obama's speech. Now that 67% has a face to flock to, at least temporarily. The Dems gave their opposition a FOCAL POINT. They gave them a rallying cry. If Wilson wins re-election, he becomes the darling of the Tea Party crowd... the guy who stood up to Obama in public and lived to tell the tale. If he loses re-election, he becomes their "Alamo"... the guy who was bullied by the Dems for standing up for them. "Remember what the Dems did to poor Joe Wilson, the guy who stood up to Obama for truth."

It was the stupidest political move they could have made under the circumstances. They SHOULD have just let it go.

Elliot

I really don't think manners apply very much in political discourse.Obama thinks he's telling the truth and so did Joe Wilson. In this case I think the Parlimentarians have more honest discourse . If one side is permitted to cheer lead from the back benches ,so should the other side be permitted to jeer.

Good point, tom. Not to mention there were more lies by Obama than just the issue on which Wilson was vindicated (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/will-united-states-ever-have-universal-healthcare-389870-10.html#post1973987) last Friday.

The claim:


"More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day."

The facts:


Mr. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about." The president continued: "They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."

Although the president has used this example previously, his conclusion is contradicted by the transcript of a June 16 hearing on industry practices before the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The deceased's sister testified that the insurer reinstated her brother's coverage following intervention by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She testified that her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week "window of opportunity" from "one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine," that the procedure "was extremely successful," and that "it extended his life nearly three and a half years ."

The president's second example was a Texas woman "about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne." He said that "By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size."

The woman's testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist's chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.

These two cases are presumably among the most egregious identified by Congressional staffers' analysis of 116,000 pages of documents from three large health insurers, which identified a total of about 20,000 rescissions from millions of policies issued by the insurers over a five-year period. Company representatives testified that less than one half of one percent of policies were rescinded (less than 0.1% for one of the companies). [/B]

The claim:


He asserted that 90% of the Alabama health-insurance market is controlled by one insurer, and that high market concentration "makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly—by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates."

The facts:


In fact, the Birmingham News reported immediately following the speech that the state's largest health insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, has about a 75% market share. A representative of the company indicated that its "profit" averaged only 0.6% of premiums the past decade, and that its administrative expense ratio is 7% of premiums, the fourth lowest among 39 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide.

When is Obama going to apologize for his inflammatory rhetoric and lies?

Hello again, righty's:

It's like I suggested... Your manners are based on what the other guy does - NOT on what your momma taught you.. I figured as much...

excon

Nope, he apologized directly and it was accepted. That should have been the end of it.

I really don't think manners apply very much in political discourse.Obama thinks he's telling the truth and so did Joe Wilson. In this case I think the Parlimentarians have more honest discourse . If one side is permitted to cheer lead from the back benches ,so should the other side be permitted to jeer.Hello again, tom:

Couple things... I don't know what's so hard here. The distinction I'm talking about is NATURALLY understood by MOST of the people here... But, not you guys... Really. You're MISSING it, which of course, ain't no big surprise over here.

It has nothing to do with WHAT they said. It has to do with WHOSE HOUSE THEY SAID IT IN.

And, I agree, tom. Parlimentarians DO have more honest discourse. But, if you listen carefully to their jeering, you NEVER hear someone accused of lying... That would be NEVER!! THEY have manners... They UNDERSTAND whose house they're in. Jeering is NOT accusing...

excon

Elliot .

Not sure what the rules were at the time of the incident .But the Dems. Did publish updated rules since .

You won't believe them
There is a section on how to properly insult POTUS
DECORUM IN THE HOUSE AND IN COMMITTEES (http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/house_comm_dec.htm)


Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”
Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the president a “liar.”
• call the president a “hypocrite.”
• describe the president's veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the president has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the president as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the president's part.” (the Clintoon corallary )

It has nothing to do with WHAT they said. It has to do with WHOSE HOUSE THEY SAID IT IN.


I'd say it's the people's house . Perhaps that is overlooked here. Obama is not a king.

, what is the actual effect of "a resolution to disapprove"? As far as I can tell, it does absolutely nothing. It doesn't punish Wilson. It doesn't limit Wilson's ability to act in the House. It doesn't censure him. It didn't hurt him. It certainly hasn't SILENCED him (he's appearing on lots of TV and radio shows and getting some great "face time") and now he's got more people listening to him than ever before, especially on Health Care. Other than wasting their own time and the taxpayers' money that constitutes their salaries, what did the Dems accomplish with this vote?


Don't forget the Alinsky playbook... you need a personal demon to slay .That's why Dowd and Clyburn et al have pinned the scarlet racist on him.


Still waiting for that Charlie Ragel sanction.

"The Chair enforces this rule of decorum on his own initiative."

And what is the prescribed remedy?

I'd say it's the people's house . Perhaps that is overlooked here. Obama is not a king.Hello again, tom:

So, you WOULDN'T apologize to your aunt for swearing in her house, because, because... because... you think you have rights there?? Or something like that?? I have NO idea WHAT you guys think anymore...

But, that's OK... There's still some people around who know how to properly conduct themselves. That's why I'm here - to teach you what your momma didn't... Can you believe that? An exconvict teaching rightwingers about manners...

excon

Still waiting for that Charlie Ragel sanction.Hello again, tom:

Ohhhh... I'm beginning to understand... When the NEXT Republican gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, you're going to bring up Rangle as your excuse... I see... You're laying political groundwork... Good thinking...

However, it might be BETTER if the future Republican crook you're looking out for, listened to his momma, instead of thinking he can get away with it. Poor Republicans just don't think that way any more... I don't know why. I thought you were the righteous ones.

excon

I don't buy into your strawman . The Capitol building is our house not my aunts. Wilson apologized (for whatever reason ) to the only person who was speaking .

Screw this phony protocol ! There was a time that Congress men had to check their weapons in before they entered because the debate was so empassioned.
It was not uncommon to have brawls . In one famous one during the debate about Kansas entering the union ;the two parties had a "bench clearing brawl" . The Sergeant at Arms tried to bring order by beating members with his cane . The brawl lasted until one congressman grabbed the hair of another and grabbed hold of a wig instead . When he yelled "I scalped him!" The brawl ended as all members stopped for a good belly laugh .


I'm not saying we should go back to those days ;but lets have some perspective here. Wilson's outburst was no big thing.

I don't think it was a big thing to Obama real guys don't get their feelings hurt

I dont think it was a big thing to Obama real guys dont get thier feelings hurtHello z:

I've been trying to point out, that it's NOT about Obama. HE accepted the apology. It's about Joe Wilson's affront to the people who OWN the house he's serving in. It's THOSE people to whom he owes an apology...

I thought maybe you'da got that... That's why I used the aunt thing. No, huh? Ok. I'm not busy. I'll say it again, and even again, if I have to.

excon

Hello z:

I've been trying to point out, that it's NOT about Obama. HE accepted the apology. It's about Joe Wilson's affront to the people who OWN the house he's serving in. It's THOSE people to whom he owes an apology...

And I still ask, does Pete Stark still owe the people an apology?

While you're debating that ex, let's get back to the OP. This is NOT about Joe Wilson, I asked specifically "do those who think it's all about race want us to give him a chance - or do they expect us to just roll over and let him do what he wants?"

And I still ask, does Pete Stark still owe the people an apology?Hello again, Steve:

Couple things... As a current rightwinger, you should be familiar with the refrain, two wrongs don't make a right...

IF somebody in the past broke with house tradition, is it then OK for everybody?? This is kind of like your position about the terrorists... THEY determine how we behave. You're apparently saying that Pete Stark determines how the Republicans should behave... I didn't know HE was in charge of YOUR party. Besides, if the principle you're espousing is valid, why don't you SHOW those Democrats how to behave instead of acting like 'em?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things... As a current rightwinger, you should be familiar with the refrain, two wrongs don't make a right....

IF somebody in the past broke with house tradition, is it then ok for everybody???? This is kinda like your position about the terrorists... THEY determine how we behave. You're apparently saying that Pete Stark determines how the Republicans should behave... I didn't know HE was in charge of YOUR party. Besides, if the principle you're espousing is valid, why don't you SHOW those Democrats how to behave instead of acting like 'em?

First of all you're still ignoring my original post. Secondly, I haven't condoned Wilson's outburst but as I said, he apologized and it was accepted. Stark did not and the same Speaker that censured Wilson let that slide. It has nothing to do with 2 wrongs making a right, it's about holding them BOTH to the SAME STANDARD which IS showing those Democrats how to behave.

In keeping with racism and giving him a chance can you explain this
Obama captured 43% of the white vote while McCain captured 4% of the black vote,
Obama just continues to make questionable appointments one of which is a advisor who made vulgar remarks referring to republicans <no big deal> but also signed a petition in 04 suggesting that the 9/11 attacks was an inside job by the u.s.government.
Again actions not race

Do those who think it's all about race want us to give him a chance - or do they expect us to just roll over and let him do what he wants?Hello again, Steve:

Maybe I WAS ignoring it... Ok, I'll get to it...

No, of course I don't think you should lay down. But, you got to admit that if you pay attention to the world, certain thoughts just kind of pop into your head...

It's like the Mark Fuhrman thread. This is a guy who has been proven to use the N word and has DENIED it... Therefore, the thought that he's a racist kind of popped into my head. I don't know where it came from...

Then I saw him on Hannity arguing with a black man. The thought that he might be calling his opponent the N word under his breath also just kind of popped into my head... I don't know where that came from either...

So, I don't know if criticism of Obama from your side is legit or NOT. It's VERY hard to tell. But, I'm NOT nuts because those thoughts pop up. Especially when I KNOW that Joe Wilson is a racist, just like Fuhrman. His history PROVES it, just like Fuhrman.

You're a reasonable guy. That's why I KNOW these thoughts pop into your head too.

excon

Especially when I KNOW that Joe Wilson is a racist... because Maureen Dowd told me so

Especially when I KNOW that Joe Wilson is a racist... because Maureen Dowd told me soOr you could look at his actions.


In 2003, Essie Mae Washington-Williams' revealed that she was the daughter of Wilson's former employer, the late Senator Strom Thurmond, and Thurmond's black maid. Wilson was among those who publicly doubted her claim that Thurmond had a child out of wedlock. Wilson said even if her story was true, she should not have revealed it because "it's a smear" on Thurmond's image and was a way to "diminish" Thurmond's legacy. After Thurmond's family acknowledged the truth of Washington-Williams' revelation, Wilson apologized but said that he still thought that she should not have revealed that Thurmond was her father.

You're a reasonable guy. That's why I KNOW these thoughts pop into your head too.

Dowd, chief of the thought police, should be aware of this. Are you going to report me to her? Is she hiding the precogs somewhere?

http://routingbyrumor.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/agatha-precog-550x250.jpg

Where I come from my thoughts, whatever they may be, are not a crime.

Or you could look at his actions.Hello again, Need:

You'd also find that he was one of the supporters of a bill that would keep the Confederate flag flying over the Capital in Columbia.

Or, you could believe Rush Limpdude. But, no. When he played Barrak the Magic Negro on air, those thoughts that the Drugster might be a racist too kept popping up... But, nahhh. I must not be thinking straight.

excon

I believe in equality. Now America has white and black presidents. Will people of other races have a chance to be president? (rhetorical question) For some reason I don't think society can open up to that just yet.

http://i29.tinypic.com/2w4mdyx.jpg

Y'know what?

I own part of that house where Joe shouted at the pres. It belongs to me as much as anybody else in this country,

And Y'know what?

The fact that Joe hollered the truth out doesn't bother me one bit!

Or, you could believe Rush Limpdude. But, no. When he played Barrak the Magic Negro on air, those thoughts that the Drugster might be a racist too kept popping up... But, nahhh. I must not be thinkin straight.

Still on that? You do know - I know you do - that that was a parody based on a claim by an Obot (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story). But I get it, a conservative can't make fun of a supporter of a black president any more than he can criticize a black president's policies. Decorum demands us to just roll over for The One.

I believe in equality. Now America has white and black presidents. Will people of other races have a chance to be president? (rhetorical question) For some reason i dont think society can open up to that just yet.

I think you are absolutely wrong about that.

The fact that Joe hollered the truth out doesn't bother me one bit!But it wasn't the truth at all, he was wrong.

Alinsky RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Alinsky RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.Republican Playbook!

I think you are absolutely wrong about that.

Why is that? I just have a hard picture imagining a Russian, Indian, Chinese, British and a lot more being the president of America one day.

But it wasn't the truth at all, he was wrong.

Actually, Wilson was proven correct about the fact that Obama lied.

And Obama has been proven to have lied multiple times in his speech to Congress.

Obama Speech Fact Check The Foundry (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/10/obama-speech-fact-check/)

Obama's Health Care Speech | FactCheck.org (http://factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-health-care-speech/)

Scott Harrington: Fact-Checking the President on Health Insurance - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574409501904118682.html)



Which means that Wilson WAS telling the truth.

Elliot

Which means that Wilson WAS telling the truth.

ElliotNope:

http://cloudfront.mediamattersaction.org/static/images/lie.jpg

But it wasn't the truth at all, he was wrong.

I've already refuted this at least twice, here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obama-black-396407-3.html#post1981078) today and here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/will-united-states-ever-have-universal-healthcare-389870-10.html#post1973987) on Friday. Where've you been?

Nope

Yep, see my last post.

Dowd was bad enough, Jimmy Carter playing the race card (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/15/jimmy-carter-the-overwhelming-portion-of-animosity-towards-obama-is-racist/) is pathetic, but Rep. Hank Johnson's response is absolutely inexcusable:


"He did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks -- if I were a betting man I would say it instigated more racist sentiment," Johnson said Tuesday. "And so I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people.. . That's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked, and Congressman Wilson represents it. He's the face of it."

7UJaeLjCvH4

Once and for all, racists are scumbags. But so are race baiters like Dowd, Carter and Johnson. The pathetic drivel being spewed by these race baiters is bullsh*t, they aren't the least bit interested in solving any racial issues, they thrive on fueling racism and maligning this country and her citizens. When will Americans wake up to who it is that's really keeping racism alive??

How does Obama lie? Let me count the ways:

Statements made by Obama in his speech to Congress. Check the links to find the TRUTH.

1) "There are now more than thirty million American citizens (http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/09/how-many-uninsured-people-need-additional-help-from-taxpayers/)who cannot get coverage."

2) First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-your-insurance-not-everyone/).

3) And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care … That makes sense, it saves money (http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=345), and it saves lives. (See also NEJM -- Does Preventive Care Save Money? Health Economics and the Presidential Candidates (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661?query=TOC))

4) And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions (http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/capps.pdf), and federal conscience laws will remain in place (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/).

5) I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf)– either now or in the future (http://www.pgpf.org/newsroom/press/lewin_healthcare_report/). Period.

6) Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf).

7) This reform will charge insurance companies (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2578.cfm) a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money – an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.

All lies.

Or as Obama said...

Just words, just speeches...

Elliot

Sorry

Sorry for what?

sorry for what?

I double posted, tried to delete and couldn't. Then it wouldn't let me close the post without some text in the text box. So... "sorry".

Elliot

Ah, no problem

earlier I wrote


Honestly I thought that the constant interuption of the address by the mindless drones standing and applauding throughout the address degraded the proceedings much worse than Wilson's single expression .


That sparked a number of non sequitur comments from Mr Manners . But the real question that remained unanswered is... did Joe Wilson break House rules ?
When Elliot asked for the rules I was able to find where the Dems released a revised list of rules that on appearance shows he did . (#32)

But appearances is deceiving . The truth is ;according to Donald Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington;that the normal House rules do NOT apply when it is a joint session of Congress.
(my source for this is MSNBC . I hope the resident source vettor approves )
House weighs rebuke of Wilson - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32847320/ns/politics-capitol_hill/)


Wolfensberger noted that under regular rules, House lawmakers wouldn't be allowed to stand and cheer as they frequently do at presidential speeches before Congress.


The article goes on to say that Madame Mimi had wide latitude in interpreting its general code of conduct. Wide latitude and disgression + a bit of good politcs should've dictated to the Dems that it was wiser to let the incident drop and move on . But instead they wasted our money in phoney vindictive action that just further inflames passions over the issue of Health Care reform.
I am beginning to get the impression that the Dems really don't want to pass any legislation this year.

It is probably impolite to say "you lie" to the person at the Presidential podium, even though he is lying. But, the ones that really scare me are the ones that equate opposition of the radical communist agenda that His Majesty King Obama has to racism. (I cannot call him President - that, constitutionally speaking, is Joe Biden's position - which is also scary). Mr. Wilson's outburst was not racist, but Jimmy Carter's comments are racist. 95% of the black people in America that voted, voted for King Obama - that is racist. Hank Johnson's comments are outrageously racist. Maureen Dowd's comments are stupid, ignorant, racist, and incite people to hatred.

I would have liked to have seen the entire conservative block of Congress walk out on the State of the Union speech when His Majesty King Obama began his lying - and basically just said, "that is enough. We won't listen to this mouth of lies any longer". But, unfortunately, that would have been spun in the media as something else, and they would have lost. They knew that they had no recourse. We have no recourse. Our nation is sinking fast into the very same mud and slime that Russia sunk in, that Cuba sunk in, and that every communist nation in the world has sunken into. We are no longer leading, we are following. I am sorry for your death, America the Beautiful.

(I cannot call him President - that, constitutionally speaking, is Joe Biden's position - which is also scary). Hello M:

Why not? Isn't he a citizen? You're not a birther are you? Birthers are the most racist of the haters.

excon

Birthers are the most racist of the haters.

As ridiculous as I find the birther movement (although not as ridiculous as the truthers), on what do you base that, a hunch?

on what do you base that, a hunch?Hello steve:

An EDUCATED hunch... I'm like the Supreme Court Judge who said he couldn't describe pornography, but he knew it when he saw it... I KNOW what racism looks like - even the subtle variety. Just like I know what torture looks like - even if the government wants to call it something else.

excon

Hello steve:

An EDUCATED hunch... I'm like the Supreme Court Judge who said he couldn't describe pornography, but he knew it when he saw it... I KNOW what racism looks like - even the subtle variety. Just like I know what torture looks like - even if the government wants to call it something else.

Like Maureen Dowd, who prefaced her claim with "fair or not?" We all know there are still racists, but this controversy is entirely manufactured. And that's much more of an educated hunch than yours.

Hello M:

Why not? Isn't he a citizen? You're not a birther are you? Birthers are the most racist of the haters.

excon

There you go again.

Birthers are loons. They are nut cases. They are idiots, by and large. They are off the wall. They are 100% wrong about whether Obama was born in the USA or not.

But they ain't racist.

You see, no man of ANY race, can hold the office of President if he wasn't born in the USA or one ot its territories. It's not a race issue. But you're making it one.

Which again makes YOU the racist, not them.

Birthers are loons. They are nut cases. They are idiots, by and large. They are off the wall. They are 100% wrong about whether Obama was born in the USA or not. But they ain't racist... Hello again, El:

I don't know how you miss it, but you miss most stuff. It's OK. That's why I'M here.

excon

Hello again, El:

I dunno how you miss it, but you miss most stuff. It's ok. That's why I'M here.

excon


You say that about twice a day. I'm still waiting to see why you're here...

Can you explain why birthers must be racists?

Are they applying the law differently to one race than another? Nope. They are applying the provisions of Article II section 1 equally to all presidents, regardless of race.

Are they applying a different standard to one race than another? Nope. They want every president to provide a copy of their birth certificate or other document evidencing the birth of that president in the USA or one of its territories.

Are they demanding that a president of one race provide his birth certificate but not a president of another race? Nope. They want EVERY president to do this... and every president has.

They are applying the same stupidity across the board equally. They are equal opportunity idiots. But they ain't racists.

Elliot

Perhaps some of you who are adept at research will check this report out.

These are the words of one of the Sheikhs who is leading the Muslim demonstration in Washington Fri. Sept. 25.

"Muslims should march on the White House. We are going to the White House so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become into a Muslim house."

He also said "Obama is our man in the White House".

From thaty nasty site Little green Footballs:
Little Green Footballs - "The White House Will Become the Muslim House" (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/16413_The_White_House_Will_Become_the_Muslim_House )

One cleric said something similar in 2005. Has nothing to do with any current march. I notice far right blogs with the same text as you posted here. Please stop this spreading of misinformation and cite your sources for your "hearsay" next time.

From thaty nasty site Little green Footballs:
Little Green Footballs - "The White House Will Become the Muslim House" (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/16413_The_White_House_Will_Become_the_Muslim_House )

One cleric said something similar in 2005. Has nothing to do with any current march. I notice far right blogs with the exact same text as you posted here. Please stop this spreading of misinformation and cite your sources for your "hearsay" next time.

What difference does it make whether it was said by a Muslim cleric in 2005 or 2009? Have they changed their minds?

What difference does it make whether it was said by a Muslim cleric in 2005 or 2009? Have they changed their minds?

You're right, they have not changed their minds since the year 700, their goal is the establishment of the caliphate and world wide domination, where better to achieve it than in the nation that dominates the world?

What difference does it make whether it was said by a Muslim cleric in 2005 or 2009?

Because you said:
"These are the words of one of the Sheikhs who is leading the Muslim demonstration in Washington Fri. Sept. 25."
When of course that is not the case.

Because you said:
"These are the words of one of the Sheikhs who is leading the Muslim demonstration in Washington Fri. Sept. 25."
When of course that is not the case.

What do you mean that wasn't the case?

Is the sheik in question NOT one of the organizers of the rally?

Did he not say those words?

What part of it isn't true?

Elliot

Is the sheik in question NOT one of the organizers of the rally?

Did he not say those words?

What part of it isn't true?

The words were said by someone in 2005. No one knows who is the organizer of the rally because gal posted no source.

The words were said by someone in 2005. No one knows who is the organizer of the rally because gal posted no source.

OK, I'll accept that.

Thanks.

News flash: Jimmy Carter never really said Obama protesters were racists (http://www.breitbart.tv/jimmy-carter-denies-saying-many-obama-critics-are-drive-by-racism/).

Tell me again how Democrats have ANY credibility?