President Obama Healthcare Speech

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Professor, the part in the speech where it was inturrupted by a "you lie" shout.. was Obama lying? To me the racism doesn't come in what is being argued, its how its being argued. Its being led by a lot of misguided hate and fear mongering.

Was he technically lying? No. Was he either ignorant of deceitful in the realities of the HR 3200, which I assume was what he was referring to since it was the only bill that passed anything at that point, YES. And I explained how earlier, but I'll do so again.

While the bill states that no healthcare can be provided to illegals, there is no policing in place, and when amendments to the bill were introduced to police the policy they were shot down.

So according to HR 3200, it's basically a don't ask/don't tell policy that says one thing but refuses to enforce it making the "ban" worthless and ineffective. The fact that efforts to enforce the ban were shot down on multiple occassions leads us to the obvious conclusion that it is intentionally worthless and ineffective

It's this type of intellectual dishonesty that makes people yell things at inappropriate times...

Where were all the animated protests when Dick Cheny famously said "deficits don't matter"? Where were the congressmen yelling out "you lie" when Bush was linking Iraq to 9-11? Why weren't people standing outside of Bush town halls with their guns? Why is Obama constantly called a racist?

Ok, there is a lot in there, most of it a bit rediculous, but I'll take them one at a time.

1) Deficits - To compare the Bush deficits to the Obama deficits is the equivalent of comparing Pike's Peak to Mount Everest. Look at the numbers. In any case, I think Cheney was wrong and there has always been conservative resistance to spending, just not Republican party resistance, and that was a big mistake on their part because they valued pork/re-election instead of doing the right thing. You've certainly never heard me say that spending isn't a problem. Spending was a huge problem when the Republicans were in control under Bush, and is 10 times the problem now under the democrats.

Is there some hipocrisy from Repubs on spending, absolutley, but I would chalk that up to political gamemanship rather than "racism".

2) The "You lie" fiasco was a violation of protocol, not message. I remember a TON of Dems calling Bush a liar throughout his 8 years with even less to go on than Wilson did. They just never made the mistake of doing so in session. So were they racists as well, or does being member of the Democrat party absolve one of racist belief? So do you think it's the location of the accusation that is racist? If so, what locations are racist locations to voice dissent?

3) Town halls and guns - If you want to concentrate on the handful of unfortunate protesters who brought weapons, feel free, and by the way one of the people mentioned in those reports was a black man, but how is that necessarily racist? Are guns racist? Do guns hate black people? Could they have been reacting more to policy they hate? These are wild, illogical leaps you are making.

4) Obama is constantly called a racist? I remember Glenn Beck saying that once (maybe Rush but I'm not sure as I don't listen to him and rarely to Glenn), but constantly? And by who besides Glenn/Rush? Has a former president called Obama a racist, like Carter called the opposition? At best I'd say that the left and right are tied in the racism accusation competition, if that.

Looking at your comments, I'll just assume that now that Democrats are in power you view dissent as racism. It's a lazy and stupid argument and honestly you're better than that.

As for the media, where were they with the whole ACORN issue? You have days of filmed proof that a publicly funded community organization group is teaching people to avoid taxes and break the law in outrageous ways... and only FoxNews carries it? Regardless of political opinion or who broke the story, wasn't that news worthy of broadcast? Where was NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.?

No. They were too busy concentrating on Joe Wilson breaking protocol (regardless of the apology or the fact Pres. Obama accepted it) to cover real news.

There is no such thing s journalism anymore, at least not how it was taught to me in school. If you want the truth, find it yourself and question everything.



EDIT: Looking back on this thread, I see exactly how effective the race card can be. Are we talking about Healthcare reform anymore and it's merits/pitfalls? No. Instead we're talking about whether or not people's motives are racist and attacking PEOPLE instead of discussing IDEAS. It's called "ad hominem". Objective achieved, I guess. So much for honest public discourse. Socrates is rolling over in the his grave right about now (and Saul Alinski is cheering wildly)...

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

As for the media, where were they with the whole ACORN issue? You have days of filmed proof that a publicly funded community organization group is teaching people to avoid taxes and break the law in outrageous ways... and only FoxNews carries it? Regardless of political opinion or who broke the story, wasn't that news worthy of broadcast? Where was NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.?

Just to comment on something I happen to know about, NPR ran a piece on the ACORN issue. They played the clip, and explained what happened.

But as you mentioned about the video from the D.C. rallies, the guys who made the ACORN video also only showed the worst example. It turns out they got lots more hidden camera footage of ACORN employees from other locations calling the cops on the supposed pimps. And yet none of those videos were included, only the worst example. Where's the journalistic integrity there?

EDIT: Not to mention it's on the front page of CNN.com right now.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

Just to comment on something I happen to know about, NPR ran a piece on the ACORN issue. They played the clip, and explained what happened.

But as you mentioned about the video from the D.C. rallies, the guys who made the ACORN video also only showed the worst example. It turns out they got lots more hidden camera footage of ACORN employees from other locations calling the cops on the supposed pimps. And yet none of those videos were included, only the worst example. Where's the journalistic integrity there?

EDIT: Not to mention it's on the front page of CNN.com right now.

There is one majory difference between comparing the ACORN and 9/12 issues, not that I agree with many 9/12'ers on many of their assertions or their methods.

ACORN takes public money. 9/12'ers don't.

As for those that threw them out, you don't get credit for doing what you're obviouly supposed to do. Now if the filmmaker were asked if anyone threw them out and they said no, then I think we could question their integrity, but the story is in the gross misconduct not whether or not some people behaved properly. I will agree that the journalist should have volunteered that some offices did not help them, but it should have beenno more than a disclosure.

The fact that it happened once is bad enough and should have been major news across the board, much less multiple times in several offices in several cities. I know that CNN and other places are covering it now, but thats because they are at the point they had to. It took them days to cover any of it, so I give them little to no credit.

EDIT: I found the ACORN artile on CNN... at the bottom after scrolling for a bit, and it concentrates on new training for employees, which I hope is a good thing and they really follo through on the promise.

Add to that how Van Jones was never really looked into, and they spent more time covering the fact he called Republicans "assholes" than the fact that he is a 9/11 truther and at least formerly a communist. Once again, both of these things are legitimate news items regardless of idealogy and they were largely ignored until immedacy forced their recognition.

I give credit to NPR for carrying it, and I never include them in my thoughts on journalistic corruption. They might be one of the last remaining bastions of journalistic integrity.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

There is one majory difference between comparing the ACORN and 9/12 issues, not that I agree with many 9/12'ers on many of their assertions or their methods.

ACORN takes public money. 9/12'ers don't.

As for those that threw them out, you don't get credit for doing what you're obviouly supposed to do. Now if the filmmaker were asked if anyone threw them out and they said no, then I think we could question their integrity, but the story is in the gross misconduct not whether or not some people behaved properly. I will agree that the journalist should have volunteered that some offices did not help them, but it should have beenno more than a disclosure.

The fact that it happened once is bad enough and should have been major news across the board, much less multiple times in several offices in several cities. I know that CNN and other places are covering it now, but thats because they are at the point they had to. It took them days to cover any of it, so I give them little to no credit.

EDIT: I found the ACORN artile on CNN... at the bottom after scrolling for a bit, and it concentrates on new training for employees, which I hope is a good thing and they really follo through on the promise.

Add to that how Van Jones was never really looked into, and they spent more time covering the fact he called Republicans "assholes" than the fact that he is a 9/11 truther and at least formerly a communist. Once again, both of these things are legitimate news items regardless of idealogy and they were largely ignored until immedacy forced their recognition.

I give credit to NPR for carrying it, and I never include them in my thoughts on journalistic corruption. They might be one of the last remaining bastions of journalistic integrity.

Fair assertions methinks. And you're right, I didn't hear anything about it on CNN.com until today (though it was in their top headlines when I checked earlier), while I heard it on NPR I believe either Monday or Tuesday this week. I almost never check any other news sources so I can't say for them.

I didn't know that the ACORN problems happened in multiple cities until today. I don't condone it whatsoever, and as NPR said in their piece the employees were immediately fired and more training is being done which I hope helps. While not exactly an excuse, it also sounds like ACORN is run mostly by volunteers so I wouldn't expect all of them to know immediately what to do in such situations without some formal training.

But the point I was making about only showing the bad examples is, what if they did 300 videos and then only five of them were bad examples? Certainly that makes it seem like just a few bad apples and not a systemic problem. I mean, in any organization you can't expect perfection. On the other hand, if they did 10 videos and five of them were bad examples, that would be a systemic problem. The numbers ought to be disclosed.

EDIT: Because of how you worded your reply, I'm not sure you were clear on what I meant. I wasn't trying to compare the 9/12 and ACORN issues, just the videos about them.

[TheGame]

Prof, I agree with you mostly on the things you have said. But your points don't address what racism really is to begin with.. With that said, in your opinion, what is racism?

Let me give an example...

A cop is sitting on a corner behind a sign. The speed limit is 50MPH and he is checking how fast people are going... A white guy rolls past the sign at 70MPH, and the cop shrugs him off. A black guy goes past the sign at 60MPH and the cop takes off quick and pulls the black guy over.

If you consider race relevant in this situation, then it can be percieved to be racist since he let the white guy go, and he pulled over the black guy. However, if you want to dismiss race from this scenario, the fact is that the black guy was pulled over because he was speeding. If he wouldn't have been speeding, he wouldn't have been pulled over, right? Or maybe the first guy just happend to be going fast enough that the cop didn't think he could catch up.. right?

With that said, I'm not going to waste my time argueing the fact that Obama has done some things that are not agreeable to a group of people. However, I will argue that when he does anything, he gets a worse reaction then when a white president does the same thing.

For example.. Gitmo. When Bush wanted to close it, people respected his decision to want to close it. Even though some may have got on his case for using it in the first place, generally nobody wanted to talk him down when he wanted to close it. Then, when Obama wants to do the same thing, all of a sudden its a big discussion, and people even come out in support of gitmo and torture.

Another example, when Bush talked about getting troops out of Iraq, nobody argued with him. They understood that its the right thing to do. When Obama talks about it, his motives are questioned, and its a discussion again. Some politicians come out and say that we should be in Iraq as long as it takes to reach the impossible goal...

I think the outbursts at Obama for pushing for some of the same things as his predecessors can easily be seen as racist. While I agree, the bottom line is that they're fighting the policy, just like the bottom line is that the black man was speeding in my first example.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

All I can argue is my view point on the issue, which I've done many times and I think quite effectively. Regardless of whether or not you want to dismiss the opposition, you can't ignore it's size and effect on the discussion going on right now, even if you really really want to... and it seems like many of you really really want to.

Didn't the South use this argument before the Civil War? I kid, I kid....there's always two sides to every argument. It's my opinion that there hasn't been a ton of intelligible arguments on the News or TV or at these rallies. Most of the intelligent discussion is happening under the radar or perhaps in Congress? That's just what I see.

Originally Posted by Professor S

So does anyone else have anything to add other than grand generalizations and insults?

My home state of New Jersey is one crazy place, according to the new survey of the state by Public Policy Polling (D).

Dave Weigel points out that one out of every three New Jersey conservatives think that Obama could be the anti-Christ. To be precise, 18% of self-identified conservatives affirmatively say that Obama is the anti-Christ, with 17% not sure. Among the self-identified Republican label, it's 14% who say Obama has the number 666 hidden underneath his hair, plus 15% who aren't sure.

But oh it gets even worse on some other questions -- among both the right and the left.

It turns out that 33% of New Jersey Republicans say that Obama was not born in the United States, plus 19% in the Birther-Curious undecided category.

But Democrats shouldn't be too eager to laugh at this. On the other side of the political spectrum, there's some significant 9/11 Trutherism among Dem voters. We've got 32% of Jersey Democrats who say that George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. In addition, another 19% of Jersey Dems are Truther-Curious, in the undecided column.

So that's only 48% of Jersey Republicans who definitively are not Birthers, and 49% of Dems who are officially not Truthers. Don't you just love our polarized politics?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...t----oh-my.php
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...ase_NJ_916.pdf

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Didn't the South use this argument before the Civil War? I kid, I kid....there's always two sides to every argument. It's my opinion that there hasn't been a ton of intelligible arguments on the News or TV or at these rallies. Most of the intelligent discussion is happening under the radar or perhaps in Congress? That's just what I see.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...t----oh-my.php
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...ase_NJ_916.pdf

KG, I read the article and the poll... and the article tales a few liberties with the results.

There is nothing in that poll that states 1/3 of Conservatives think Obama is a the anti-Christ. I saw that 18% did, but then again in the same poll 5% of Liberals aren't sure if he is or isn't, and 10% of those that voted for him think he is or aren't sure.

Overall, those poll numbers are plain weird. I think people from both sides are losing their minds over all of this stuff.

Well...it is Jersey for Christ's (or the anti-Christ's) sake.

EDIT: Oh, and Corzine is screwedin his election. What a complete and utter failure.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

KG, I read the article and the poll... and the article tales a few liberties with the results.

There is nothing in that poll that states 1/3 of Conservatives think Obama is a the anti-Christ. I saw that 18% did, but then again in the same poll 5% of Liberals aren't sure if he is or isn't, and 10% of those that voted for him think he is or aren't sure.

Overall, those poll numbers are plain weird. I think people from both sides are losing their minds over all of this stuff.

Well...it is Jersey for Christ's (or the anti-Christ's) sake.

Hehe...I'm glad you saw the humor in the poll. I posted it for the LOLs, not for any serious discussion. I think the bottom line is there are idiots on both side of the spectrum. This country boggles the mind sometime. On the other hand, we have the women with the biggest breasts, the burgers with the most beef, and the biggest nukes. God bless America!

Anyway...onward with the Health Care Reform discussion!

[TheGame]

wtf...

[Professor S]

O'Reilly has been pro reform from the beginning. And for the record, I agree with many of his thoughts on healthcare reform. He's along the same lines as McCain in his views on the subject.