The right has lost it.

[RandomGuy]

Birthers, tea parties, faked protests interfering with town halls, vilification of moderates...

Is is just me or has a good chunk of the country gone batshit insane?

[Crookshanks]

Birthers, tea parties, faked protests interfering with town halls, vilification of moderates...

Is is just me or has a good chunk of the country gone batshit insane?

Yeah - the people who are insane are the ones who voted for Obama and still believe his promises...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Birthers, tea parties, faked protests interfering with town halls, vilification of moderates...

Is is just me or has a good chunk of the country gone batshit insane?

No worries America rejects them and their numbers are dwindling.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yeah - the people who are insane are the ones who voted for Obama and still believe his promises...

why shoudn't they?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

NJxmpTMGhU0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Birthers, tea parties, faked protests interfering with town halls, vilification of moderates...

Is is just me or has a good chunk of the country gone batshit insane?


......and fake memos

:wakeup

[LnGrrrR]

......and fake memos

:wakeup

and birth certificates

:wakeup

[Viva Las Espuelas]

and birth certificates

:wakeup


i believe the op stated that, but thanks for being redundant.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah - the people who are insane are the ones who voted for Obama and still believe his promises...

What about those of us who didn't really believe the promises, but knew that he would be a better president than McCain?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yeah - the people who are insane are the ones who voted for PALIN and still believe she has national appeal...

[LnGrrrR]

i believe the op stated that, but thanks for being redundant.

Well, it wasn't mentioned specifically, and I liked the contrast. Hence the post :D

[Bender]

lets hope all this discontent dies down, and people go back to being peaceful and contented

http://student.biology.arizona.edu/honors2007/group01/zsheep.jpg

[DarrinS]

Birthers, tea parties, faked protests interfering with town halls, vilification of moderates...

Is is just me or has a good chunk of the country gone batshit insane?


Birthers are insane. You are wrong about the other stuff.

[balli]

Including the fake, corporate-backed protests?

And I'd be pretty willing to bet that the birthers and ball-suckers/teabaggers are made up if a lot of the same people.

[ChumpDumper]

lets hope all this discontent dies down, and people go back to being peaceful and contented

http://student.biology.arizona.edu/honors2007/group01/zsheep.jpgThat's a quote from the Board Republicans during the Bush years, only they wanted dissenters to be tried for treason.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

lets hope all this discontent dies down, and people go back to being peaceful and contented

http://student.biology.arizona.edu/honors2007/group01/zsheep.jpg


yeah. maybe we can eventually join the left. as pictured above

[DarrinS]

Hello. I'm reality. Have we met?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132804

W5vWh4gdgbc

uzonGRCGJ_Q

PtTBkxvBq88

dSeBKgzM5WQ

[DarrinS]

Including the fake, corporate-backed protests?



You guys have already been completely owned on this issue. It's just getting embarrassing now.

[balli]

You're fucking retarded.

[ChumpDumper]

yeah. maybe we can eventually join the left. as pictured aboveYou've got your own flock of faux oppressed sheep.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You've got your own flock of faux oppressed sheep.
foe oppressed sheep?

that's really not funny. never has. you should learn spelling and pronunciation. fox is spelled fox.

[SonOfAGun]

This is nothing.

[ChumpDumper]

foe oppressed sheep?

that's really not funny. never has. you should learn spelling and pronunciation. fox is spelled fox.You should learn the meaning of faux, dumbass.

[rjv]

yeah. maybe we can eventually join the left. as pictured above

now that's irony.

[LnGrrrR]

You should learn the meaning of faux, dumbass.

:rollin

[jman3000]

Meh... the health care protesters are probably 95% legit and 5% constructed. It's the information that the 95% have that is somewhat skewed.

Passing off information from an unfinished bill as fact and scaring the crap out of an already scared demographic is sketchy.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

now that's irony.
man, nothing gets past you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You guys have already been completely owned on this issue. It's just getting embarrassing now.

:lmao

[balli]

lmfao at you viva.

[TheProfessor]

You should learn the meaning of faux, dumbass.
:lol

[jman3000]

You should learn the meaning of faux, dumbass.

:lol

[Viva Las Espuelas]

i know what faux mean. just stating that it's a stupid "burn" to all the people that use it. y'all should learn how to read.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sure you know what it means now.

[jman3000]

i know what faux mean. just stating that it's a stupid "burn" to all the people that use it. y'all should learn how to read.

His post had nothing to do with Fox. It had to do with fake oppressed sheep.

I agree it's stupid when used in reference to Fox. Just as stupid as all the Messiah/Chosen One/King Obama/Hope and Change comments that wannabe witty conservatives use.

[TeyshaBlue]

i'm sure you know what it means now.

rofl

[rjv]

man, nothing gets past you.


now that's double irony.

[George Gervin's Afro]

His post had nothing to do with Fox. It had to do with fake oppressed sheep.

I agree it's stupid when used in reference to Fox. Just as stupid as all the Messiah/Chosen One/King Obama/Hope and Change comments that wannabe witty conservatives use.

You must not get it. The right has labeled him the Messiah..they then criticize him and mock him for being the messiah.. Very convenient.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

His post had nothing to do with Fox. It had to do with fake oppressed sheep.

found another dense one.

[jman3000]

Stop being so bitter. You made a comment that made you look dumb. Live and learn.

Try not to go in defense mode everytime you hear the word "faux".

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Stop being so bitter. You made a comment that made you look dumb. Live and learn.

Try not to go in defense mode everytime you hear the word "faux".

riiiiiiiiight

[ChumpDumper]

Just leave Viva alone with his faux knowledge of the word faux.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Just leave Viva alone with his faux knowledge of the word faux.
fox knowledge?


geez y'all are gullible.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

We are faux gullible.

[florige]

You must not get it. The right has labeled him the Messiah..they then criticize him and mock him for being the messiah.. Very convenient.



Now that the economy has started to stabilize some "there is no logical explanation as to why that is happening" -CosmicCowboy. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

"Ha ha, the American soldiers are dying by the hundreds to our bombs and mortar shells, I'm glad we have patriots like Wild Cobra to keep their "free" media from criticizing the regime and forcing them to get armor that might stop us from killing US soldiers..." --Omar al bashwari, Al Qaeda operativeHow long are you going to remain childishly bitter at me?

[101A]

Passing off information from an unfinished bill as fact and scaring the crap out of an already scared demographic is sketchy.

It's also a long-standing tradition in this country.

If everybody was informed and paying attention, we wouldn't need campaigns in this country. The ignorant, uninformed masses are who is running things - they hold sway, so they get the attention. Props to us.

[Crookshanks]

This is for all you libs who think the number of conservatives is dwindling and that the majority believe like you do.

Rasmussen Reports has taken a look at how conservative or liberal the voters are in different aspects of their everyday life. They found that 41% of the voters think of themselves as conservative when it comes to the issues of taxes, government spending and the regulation of private business while 41% consider themselves to be moderates and 12% say they are liberal.

Meanwhile, when it comes to social issues, 37% think of themselves as conservatives, 30% say they are moderate and 30% liberal. This includes issues like abortion, praying in public and the separation of church and state.

Breaking it down by political parties, 67% of the Republicans think of themselves as being conservative on fiscal matters while 50% of the Democrats and 49% of the independent voters think of themselves as being moderates when it comes to fiscal matters.

When it comes to the social issues, the figures are a bit different with 61% of the Republican voters considering themselves to be conservative while 43% of the Democrats say they are liberal. With the independent voters, they could not be split any more evenly than they are with 30% saying they are conservative it comes to social issues, 35% considering themselves to be moderate and 33% liberal.

Then they took the fiscal and social issues and put the results together. The largest segment of the population, 24% say they are conservative on both the fiscal and social issues while 17% consider themselves to be moderate both fiscally and socially, 14% who say they are moderate on the fiscal issues and conservative on the social ones 10% who consider themselves to be fiscally conservative and moderate on the social issues, 9% who say they are liberal on both the social and fiscal issues, and lastly, 6% who say they are conservative on the fiscal issues, but liberal on the social ones.
===========================

The problem with the Republican Party is that they're trying to be Democrat Lite. If they run truly conservative candidates who can articulate conservative ideals - they win.

[ChumpDumper]

Sure, folks think they are fiscal conservatives.

[Wild Cobra]

It's also a long-standing tradition in this country.

If everybody was informed and paying attention, we wouldn't need campaigns in this country. The ignorant, uninformed masses are who is running things - they hold sway, so they get the attention. Props to us.
I believed education has a bit to do with conservative or liberal also. Those who are more educated are generally those who seek the truth out. I believe a man or woman who does seek the truth will be a conservative, unless they are someone who benefits from socialism.

[clambake]

I believed education has a bit to do with conservative or liberal also. Those who are more educated are generally those who seek the truth out. I believe a man or woman who does seek the truth will be a conservative, unless they are someone who benefits from socialism.

in the other thread you said you were sure that they thought it was true.

thats some education.

[ChumpDumper]

in the other thread you said you were sure that they thought it was true.

thats some education.They were already conservative, so they didn't have to seek the truth.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I believed education has a bit to do with conservative or liberal also. Those who are more educated are generally those who seek the truth out. I believe a man or woman who does seek the truth will be a conservative, unless they are someone who benefits from socialism.

Ok, I'll ask. Is this just your opinion or is this based on any studies?

[clambake]

Ok, I'll ask. Is this just your opinion or is this based on any studies?

it doesn't matter. i understand that there's only a 1% chance of him ever being wrong.

[baseline bum]

The right wing will die soon. This country is becoming a majority-minority nation, and white nationalists will continue to lose their once strong grip on this nation's balls as time marches on.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

No worries America rejects them and their numbers are dwindling.

:lol

The birthers were never a majority. Just a convenient side show for Team Obama to use to divert attention from Obamacare.

Calling all the protests at town halls fake is nice liberal propaganda. Same for tea parties. The fact is main street America is waking up to the realities of socialism, and figuring out who will be paying the tab (i.e., them), and it's pissing them off.

It's also why Obama's poll numbers are tanking.

[rjv]

I believed education has a bit to do with conservative or liberal also. Those who are more educated are generally those who seek the truth out. I believe a man or woman who does seek the truth will be a conservative, unless they are someone who benefits from socialism.

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6274/94955528.jpg (http://img257.imageshack.us/i/94955528.jpg/)

the original "truth seeker" and conservative poster boy. otherwise known as socrates.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Meh... the health care protesters are probably 95% legit and 5% constructed. It's the information that the 95% have that is somewhat skewed.

Passing off information from an unfinished bill as fact and scaring the crap out of an already scared demographic is sketchy.

Kinda like selling a bill as necessary for 46 million, when you're playing lose and fast with said number (i.e., including in that number illegals, younger individuals in the 18-25 range who chose not to have coverage, rich folk who pay out of pocket, etc.).

But hey, passing off misleading information as fact is okay as long as it's Team Obama doing it, right?

[Wild Cobra]

in the other thread you said you were sure that they thought it was true.

thats some education.
Which are you referring to? The false news reports against the right, or the fake birth certificate? Besides, I was talking in generality. With such language, i thought that was apparent that I meant the statistical norm. Not everyone.

[Wild Cobra]

Ok, I'll ask. Is this just your opinion or is this based on any studies?Opinion based on personal observation over the many years of my life.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

The birthers were never a majority. Just a convenient side show for Team Obama to use to divert attention from Obamacare.

Calling all the protests at town halls fake is nice liberal propaganda. Same for tea parties. The fact is main street America is waking up to the realities of socialism, and figuring out who will be paying the tab (i.e., them), and it's pissing them off.

It's also why Obama's poll numbers are tanking.
I'll admit, from all I heard, I believed it was likely he was not native born. However, I wanted to see good evidence before believing either way.

[baseline bum]

I'll admit, from all I heard, I believed it was likely he was not native born. However, I wanted to see good evidence before believing either way.

So basically, your opinion and gut instincts are never to be trusted then. Nice way to completely contradict yourself in only two sentences also. :rollin

[jman3000]

Kinda like selling a bill as necessary for 46 million, when you're playing lose and fast with said number (i.e., including in that number illegals, younger individuals in the 18-25 range who chose not to have coverage, rich folk who pay out of pocket, etc.).

But hey, passing off misleading information as fact is okay as long as it's Team Obama doing it, right?

No. It's never ok.

Obama has said so himself that he doesn't believe that illegal immigrants should be covered (with the exception of their children)

[jman3000]

Read too fast. That wasn't your point.

I'm not defending the plan. I haven't read it considering there's 6 of the damn things and nothing is even close to being final now.

I'm just saying that a lot of these people have incomplete / false information.

I'm one of those 18-25 year olds who doesn't have insurance because I'm in great shape and choose not to have it.

[Spurminator]

http://www.profootballhof.com/assets/photo_galleries/630x536/2B5DC38E13DD40F8B8E548F17EF49EE6.jpg

[jack sommerset]

The right wing will die soon. This country is becoming a majority-minority nation, and white nationalists will continue to lose their once strong grip on this nation's balls as time marches on.

If someone does not close the borders and stop our country from giving away free food,shelter and doctors you will be right.

[rjv]

Read too fast. That wasn't your point.

I'm not defending the plan. I haven't read it considering there's 6 of the damn things and nothing is even close to being final now.

I'm just saying that a lot of these people have incomplete / false information.

I'm one of those 18-25 year olds who doesn't have insurance because I'm in great shape and choose not to have it.


from an actuarial point of view though you are in the highest acccident risk demographic.

[Wild Cobra]

So basically, your opinion and gut instincts are never to be trusted then. Nice way to completely contradict yourself in only two sentences also. :rollin
Nice try, but you fail again. Did I ever say I was always right?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The birthers thing is dumb. It will never be released, at least not while in office. And if so, and it's true, so what? All removing him would do right now is kick off some crazy riots IMO.

There are far more important matters on the table (like the government control of our personal health) right now that people should be focused on.

[jman3000]

from an actuarial point of view though you are in the highest acccident risk demographic.

except I don't think I'm invincible, I don't drink whilst driving, and as a rule don't hang out with trash that can get me in bad situations.

That demographic is at most risk because they are the most reckless.

[InRareForm]

What gets me is these people protesting moreso on mob mentality rather than being able to articulate

[InRareForm]

You should learn the meaning of faux, dumbass.

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[boutons_deux]

"government control of our personal health"

Liar

[baseline bum]

Nice try, but you fail again. Did I ever say I was always right?

Are you fucking retarded? one sentence you say you believed he was likely not US born. The next sentence you say you were going to wait for the facts to believe one way or the other? A third grader or even a Republican should be able to see those two sentences are in complete opposition. :rollin

[mouse]

Hello. I'm reality. Have we met?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132804

W5vWh4gdgbc

uzonGRCGJ_Q

PtTBkxvBq88

dSeBKgzM5WQ


Great videos post more if you can! :tu

[ploto]

except I don't think I'm invincible, I don't drink whilst driving, and as a rule don't hang out with trash that can get me in bad situations.

Ironic statement in which you say you know you are not invincible but then you lay out why you think you are not at risk.

[Yonivore]

Birthers, tea parties, faked protests interfering with town halls, vilification of moderates...

Is is just me or has a good chunk of the country gone batshit insane?
It's just you. Particularly if you believe these things are a manifestation of the right.

Birthers are to the right as Code Pink is to the left.

Tea Parties are getting results.

Faked protests interfering with town halls? And, most of the protesting begins when the politician -- who organized the town hall -- starts lying to the assembled crowd. I don't think there's anything faked about them and Obamacare protesters are hardly confined to one political party.

Of which moderates and, of what vilification, do you speak?

[SonOfAGun]

_kxaGfClPws

:lol

It's heating up. Time for the muscle to come in. It'll take more than some loser 300lb. wannabe bouncer to keep these people out.

[ploto]

Republicans trying to scare people- what else is new?

[DarrinS]

_kxaGfClPws

:lol

It's heating up. Time for the muscle to come in. It'll take more than some loser 300lb. wannabe bouncer to keep these people out.



Yikes! That was ugly. I'm not a big fan of the chanting "drown out" technique. That's how they teach lefties to debate in college.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Republicans trying to scare people- what else is new?



zTXBOgPCh9w

[Extra Stout]

The board liberals are neck-deep in denial right now. Glenn Beck on Fox News is not suddenly this great community organizer who gets all of conservative America to do his bidding. (This week, as we've learned, community organizing is bad.) Astroturf protestors are marked by their slick color-coordinated handbills, posters, T-shirts, and banners, not random messages scrawled on posterboard with a black marker.

I also know from my week in Oregon that to a white liberal "well-dressed" means wearing a clean T-shirt, so when people show up in knit tops with *gasp* collars, apparently liberal politicians get suspicious. Believe it or not, in flyover country, people actually dress that way. One night, I wore a bona-fide button-up shirt with khakis to dinner, and my wife wore a dress, and Portlanders, most of whom apparently think hair-washing should be done at most weekly, stared at us like we were black people or something else they had never seen before.

People are protesting at these rallies because they are genuinely pissed off about the current track of health care reform. It's just like when left-wingers protest, with the exception that the typical Midwestern mindset is far less about protesting just to be an attention whore. For Democrats to just start labeling all these people Nazis and redneck mobs, even though they may truly believe anybody who does not obey their agenda is as bad as a Nazi, is a strategy that will end at best in an electoral experience akin to what the Republicans went through in 2006 and 2008.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The board liberals are neck-deep in denial right now. Glenn Beck on Fox News is not suddenly this great community organizer who gets all of conservative America to do his bidding. (This week, as we've learned, community organizing is bad.) Astroturf protestors are marked by their slick color-coordinated handbills, posters, T-shirts, and banners, not random messages scrawled on posterboard with a black marker.

I also know from my week in Oregon that to a white liberal "well-dressed" means wearing a clean T-shirt, so when people show up in knit tops with *gasp* collars, apparently liberal politicians get suspicious. Believe it or not, in flyover country, people actually dress that way. One night, I wore a bona-fide button-up shirt with khakis to dinner, and my wife wore a dress, and Portlanders, most of whom apparently think hair-washing should be done at most weekly, stared at us like we were black people or something else they had never seen before.

People are protesting at these rallies because they are genuinely pissed off about the current track of health care reform. It's just like when left-wingers protest, with the exception that the typical Midwestern mindset is far less about protesting just to be an attention whore. For Democrats to just start labeling all these people Nazis and redneck mobs, even though they may truly believe anybody who does not obey their agenda is as bad as a Nazi, is a strategy that will end at best in an electoral experience akin to what the Republicans went through in 2006 and 2008.


There isn't even a finished bill so what about the current track of health care reform are they pissed at?

[DarrinS]

I also know from my week in Oregon that to a white liberal "well-dressed" means wearing a clean T-shirt, so when people show up in knit tops with *gasp* collars, apparently liberal politicians get suspicious. Believe it or not, in flyover country, people actually dress that way. One night, I wore a bona-fide button-up shirt with khakis to dinner, and my wife wore a dress, and Portlanders, most of whom apparently think hair-washing should be done at most weekly, stared at us like we were black people or something else they had never seen before.



:lmao




People are protesting at these rallies because they are genuinely pissed off about the current track of health care reform. It's just like when left-wingers protest, with the exception that the typical Midwestern mindset is far less about protesting just to be an attention whore. For Democrats to just start labeling all these people Nazis and redneck mobs, even though they may truly believe anybody who does not obey their agenda is as bad as a Nazi, is a strategy that will end at best in an electoral experience akin to what the Republicans went through in 2006 and 2008.


And how do they know that there aren't some moderate Democrats that are critical of Obamacare?

[Extra Stout]

There isn't even a finished bill so what about the current track of health care reform are they pissed at?
Well, obviously they are apprehensive that the cost of health care will go up, their taxes will go up, and the quality of health care will go down, so much so that when the administration says otherwise, people don't believe it.

To maintain that unless Grandma in Omaha personally reads some 1100-page bill her represntative hasn't even read, she has no right to complain, is simultaneously so asinine, so intellectually dishonest, and so contrary to the workings of democracy that I propose the next person who suggests such a thing be suspended from the nearest lamppost to think about his misdeeds for a while.

The Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress, so much so in the Senate as to prevent even a filibuster from derailing their agenda. They have a sympathetic media willing to listen to them as they try to sell their message on health-care reform. All their ducks should be in a row if they had a good plan and the werewithal to communicate it. But, due to what I can only ascribe to sheer stupidity, they are responding to a skeptical populace by villifying the protesters with whom much of that skeptical populace is identifying and therefore villifying much of the populace.

How is that intelligent politics? Do they think the Republican strategy of "Do what we say or you're a traitor" is a template for success? How did that work out for Republicans?

And enough of these stupid, "Wah, wah, the Republicans do it too" responses. Do you think maybe the reason the Democrats got elected is because after watching the GOP smear finger paint all over the walls, break all the china, and crap on the carpet of the republic, voters were hoping to put adults in charge? And maybe when they think the Democrats were mad not because the republic was being torn up, but rather because they weren't getting to have fun doing it, the next solution in line might not be to elect the Republicans again, but rather just to get rid of this whole form of government entirely?

[balli]

Wrong. You don't get to be called a protester if you don't have real rational for your loud and ferocious 'protests' . These people may believe the worst; that's because they're fools. Fuck em.



There’s a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled “Freedom of Speech,” depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series illustrating F.D.R.’s “Four Freedoms,” shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don’t like what he’s saying, but they’re letting him speak his mind.

That’s a far cry from what has been happening at recent town halls, where angry protesters — some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting “This is America!” — have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening, members of Congress trying to talk about health reform.

Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there’s no comparison. I’ve gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can’t find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds.

And I can’t find any counterpart to the death threats at least one congressman has received.

So this is something new and ugly. What’s behind it?

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, has compared the scenes at health care town halls to the “Brooks Brothers riot” in 2000 — the demonstration that disrupted the vote count in Miami and arguably helped send George W. Bush to the White House. Portrayed at the time as local protesters, many of the rioters were actually G.O.P. staffers flown in from Washington.

But Mr. Gibbs is probably only half right. Yes, well-heeled interest groups are helping to organize the town hall mobs. Key organizers include two Astroturf (fake grass-roots) organizations: FreedomWorks, run by the former House majority leader Dick Armey, and a new organization called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights.

The latter group, by the way, is run by Rick Scott, the former head of Columbia/HCA, a for-profit hospital chain. Mr. Scott was forced out of that job amid a fraud investigation; the company eventually pleaded guilty to charges of overbilling state and federal health plans, paying $1.7 billion — yes, that’s “billion” — in fines. You can’t make this stuff up.

But while the organizers are as crass as they come, I haven’t seen any evidence that the people disrupting those town halls are Florida-style rent-a-mobs. For the most part, the protesters appear to be genuinely angry. The question is, what are they angry about?

There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands.

Now, people who don’t know that Medicare is a government program probably aren’t reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing. They may believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly. (That particular claim is coming straight from House Republican leaders.) But they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is.

That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don’t know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it’s a substantial fraction.

And cynical political operators are exploiting that anxiety to further the economic interests of their backers.

Does this sound familiar? It should: it’s a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites.

Many people hoped that last year’s election would mark the end of the “angry white voter” era in America. Indeed, voters who can be swayed by appeals to cultural and racial fear are a declining share of the electorate.

But right now Mr. Obama’s backers seem to lack all conviction, perhaps because the prosaic reality of his administration isn’t living up to their dreams of transformation. Meanwhile, the angry right is filled with a passionate intensity.

And if Mr. Obama can’t recapture some of the passion of 2008, can’t inspire his supporters to stand up and be heard, health care reform may well fail.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html?em

[101A]

stared at us like we were black people or something else they had never seen before.



It's funny because its true.

[101A]

Wrong. You don't get to be called a protester if you don't have real rational for your loud and ferocious 'protests' . These people may believe the worst; that's because they're fools. Fuck em.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html?em[/quote

Thanks for that Times article; if it isn't cited 400 ways to Christmas, it's an opinion piece, regardless of the page it appears on.

Your take is arrogant and condescending, btw.

[101A]

Also, this isn't half as distorted as what was said about Bush's Social Security proposal; but those distortions were reiterated by the press, not questioned.

[DarrinS]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html?em



Krugman believes opponents of Obamacare are all racists? Shocking!
:wow :sleep

Just add it to the dungheap of articles and video clips of liberals losing their minds over this.

[ChumpDumper]

Krugman believes opponents of Obamacare are all racists? Shocking!It would be nice if he had actually said that.

Continue with your distortions. It makes debate that much easier.

[101A]

It would be nice if he had actually said that.

Continue with your distortions. It makes debate that much easier.


the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety

[ChumpDumper]

You're right, he didn't say all of them.
Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don’t know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it’s a substantial fraction.Distort.

Omit.

Lie.

Whatever works for your side.

[balli]

Also, this isn't half as distorted as what was said about Bush's Social Security proposal; but those distortions were reiterated by the press, not questioned.

Yes, because after the stock market collapse of 2008 I think we can all agree that the left was so wrong about the danger of privatizing Social Security. Distortions? GMAFB.

[balli]

the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety
It is. The lies about a health care bill that hasn't even been written are meant to appeal to the same lowest common denominator who believe in fake birth certificates and lynching black people. I'm sorry you guys don't want to face the fact that the GOP is made up of so many backwater bigots, who don't know anything about anything, but sadly, that's just reality.

[fyatuk]

Ok, I'll ask. Is this just your opinion or is this based on any studies?

It bears fruit in some polls. Scroll to the bottom here for some old data: http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=95

Clearly shows a trend of movement from Democrat to Republican thinking as education level goes up.

What I've always heard is that the uneducated and the highly educated (graduate degrees) usually end up favoring liberal, while the middle typically favors conservative.

You can probably find studies to support however you want to say it though. In a couple minutes of searching I've found studies that pointed education towards conservative, education towards liberal, and education have absolutely zero effect.

[InRareForm]

It's unfair to criticize people as being racist, or that being the only undertone message. However, to dispel that there is no hint of racism being fuel to the fire is ridiculous!

[Crookshanks]

It is. The lies about a health care bill that hasn't even been written are meant to appeal to the same lowest common denominator who believe in fake birth certificates and lynching black people. I'm sorry you guys don't want to face the fact that the GOP is made up of so many backwater bigots, who don't know anything about anything, but sadly, that's just reality.
This is getting so old. You keep repeating the same garbage that's been shown to be untrue. Racial Segregation was pushed and supported by the democrats - they're the party of Robert "KKK" Byrd. Not all republicans believe in fake birth certificates - but I bet there's far fewer "birthers" than there were those libs who believed the Bush fake National Guard memo.

We know there hasn't been a final bill written - so why are they pushing it so hard? Why did Obama insist they had to vote on it before the August break? The House has voted out of committee one bill - and that's the one people are looking at and referring to. If there's so much "misinformation" out there, wouldn't it have been better for them to write a final bill and then let the people read it and THEN have the Townhall meetings so people would know what they're protesting?

Instead, they want to ram thru a bill that no one has read - much like the stimulus bill. They want it rammed thru BEFORE those pesky voters have a chance to find out what's in it. And that's why people are so angry. :ihit

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Yes, because after the stock market collapse of 2008 I think we can all agree that the left was so wrong about the danger of privatizing Social Security. Distortions? GMAFB.
so the left was afraid that the stock market might not always do good? wow. thank you left for shedding that light for me. i thought they were gold.

[Nbadan]

A sensible Republican get shouted down...


2fGZATm4HkE

Talk about a Congressman who doesn't "get" his constituents. Sheesh. This ain't your party, buddy. The GOP belongs to Beck, Rush, O'Reilly and their ilk.

[DarrinS]

It would be nice if he had actually said that.

Continue with your distortions. It makes debate that much easier.





That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don’t know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it’s a substantial fraction.

And cynical political operators are exploiting that anxiety to further the economic interests of their backers.

Does this sound familiar? It should: it’s a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites.

Many people hoped that last year’s election would mark the end of the “angry white voter” era in America. Indeed, voters who can be swayed by appeals to cultural and racial fear are a declining share of the electorate.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What Krugman says is true.

[DarrinS]

What Krugman says is true.

Krugman is a fucking genius.

3EPd2i4Jshs

[InRareForm]

Krugman is a fucking genius.


youtube man has a youtube for everything.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you fucking retarded? one sentence you say you believed he was likely not US born. The next sentence you say you were going to wait for the facts to believe one way or the other? A third grader or even a Republican should be able to see those two sentences are in complete opposition. :rollin
Wow... you are obviously retarded. Go back and read my statements again, and how I responded to yours stupid retort.



I'll admit, from all I heard, I believed it was likely he was not native born. However, I wanted to see good evidence before believing either way.


So basically, your opinion and gut instincts are never to be trusted then. Nice way to completely contradict yourself in only two sentences also.


Nice try, but you fail again. Did I ever say I was always right?

Look at that exchange. I said "I believed it was likely." I did not say "I believed." I went on to say I wanted more evidence. You then say my opinion and instinct cannot be trusted, when it's your first gran reading comprehension at fault. My statement as for not always being right was an acknowledgment I am not infallible. I was wrong in assessing the likelihood, though I was not so wrong as to take a solid belief.

You really need to learn to parse peoples wordings better.

You failed for you stupid assumption that would lead to thinking I contradicted myself. Where's the contradiction? Likely... a relative point... wanting more evidence to solidify or disprove... where's the conflict moron?

Like exposing your utter stupidity to everyone here?

[baseline bum]

Look at that exchange. I said "I believed it was likely." I did not say "I believed." I went on to say I wanted more evidence.


Belief that something is likely isn't belief? :lmao

[SnakeBoy]

The right wing will die soon.

Yeah the dead enders are losing it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/august_2009/obama_total_approval_august_7_2009/238810-1-eng-US/obama_total_approval_august_7_2009.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Belief that something is likely isn't belief? :lmao
Believing it was likely he was not a citizen is not the same as believing he wasn't a citizen. One is absolute, the other isn't.

[fyatuk]

Believing it was likely he was not a citizen is not the same as believing he wasn't a citizen. One is absolute, the other isn't.

Not exactly a hard concept to grasp unless someone is only seeing in black and whites...

[baseline bum]

Not exactly a hard concept to grasp unless someone is only seeing in black and whites...

More like WC jumped to a conclusion and then backtracked.

[fyatuk]

More like WC jumped to a conclusion and then backtracked.

Not that I've bothered to read the entire conversation, but there is certainly a difference in "believe likely" and "believe to be". That's all I have to contribute to it.

[ploto]

People booing the government using energy efficient light bulbs??!!

These people scare me a whole lot more than anything Obama is doing.

[ploto]

There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands.

Now, people who don’t know that Medicare is a government program probably aren’t reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing.

Worthy of repeating.

[dimsah]

Worthy of repeating.

It is worthy of repeating since Medicare will be insolvent within the next 10 years.

What's their proposal?

How do they maintain the current level of care for medicare beneficiaries while adding 46 million more to the plan and find a way for it to cost less than it does now?

[MannyIsGod]

It is worthy of repeating since Medicare will be insolvent within the next 10 years.

What's their proposal?

How do they maintain the current level of care for medicare beneficiaries while adding 46 million more to the plan and find a way for it to cost less than it does now?

You miss the point entirely.

[MannyIsGod]

The board liberals are neck-deep in denial right now. Glenn Beck on Fox News is not suddenly this great community organizer who gets all of conservative America to do his bidding. (This week, as we've learned, community organizing is bad.) Astroturf protestors are marked by their slick color-coordinated handbills, posters, T-shirts, and banners, not random messages scrawled on posterboard with a black marker.

I also know from my week in Oregon that to a white liberal "well-dressed" means wearing a clean T-shirt, so when people show up in knit tops with *gasp* collars, apparently liberal politicians get suspicious. Believe it or not, in flyover country, people actually dress that way. One night, I wore a bona-fide button-up shirt with khakis to dinner, and my wife wore a dress, and Portlanders, most of whom apparently think hair-washing should be done at most weekly, stared at us like we were black people or something else they had never seen before.

People are protesting at these rallies because they are genuinely pissed off about the current track of health care reform. It's just like when left-wingers protest, with the exception that the typical Midwestern mindset is far less about protesting just to be an attention whore. For Democrats to just start labeling all these people Nazis and redneck mobs, even though they may truly believe anybody who does not obey their agenda is as bad as a Nazi, is a strategy that will end at best in an electoral experience akin to what the Republicans went through in 2006 and 2008.

Yeah? This is like saying that people who go to McDonalds and buy 50 nuggets and 2 large fries and order a 5834739oz Diet Coke are trying to watch their weight. Where were these protests when Bush was expanding socialized medicine?

Whats changed since then, ES?

I'm not saying its overt racism at all, but it absolutely has to do with not having one of the good ole boys in office. They certainly don't believe a word he says and I'm pretty damn sure if Obama had town halls right now stating the sky was blue these people would protest.

[DarrinS]

I'm not saying its overt racism at all, but it absolutely has to do with not having one of the good ole boys in office. They certainly don't believe a word he says and I'm pretty damn sure if Obama had town halls right now stating the sky was blue these people would protest.



You're not saying it, but yet you do.

[MannyIsGod]

Not at all. I stated clearly it wasn't because of his skin color but rather the fact that he's not trusted by this community at all. I made that very clear. You also choose to ignore the question I pose asking why these people have decided to protest now but not when Bush was passing the largest increase in government provided healthcare this nation has ever seen.

Simply put Darrin, why now?

[Wild Cobra]

Manny, you are wrong. I would love to see a black man in office if he was leadership material and not a leftist. This has nothing to do with his skin color other than the hateful types he has associated with. This is his connection, of his choice, and if I recall correctly, in his book, he said he seeked out prominent people in the black community to show he was black enough.

Us conservative whites don't dislike him because he's black. We dislike him because he's a phony and a socialist. We have valid disagreements and believe he will make things worse, not better.

[MannyIsGod]

I never said you disliked him because he was black. Yet no one seems to be able to address why the people who are protesting now did not during the Bush years when he was pushing socialized medicine through congress.

I ask again, why now?

[DarrinS]

Not at all. I stated clearly it wasn't because of his skin color but rather the fact that he's not trusted by this community at all. I made that very clear. You also choose to ignore the question I pose asking why these people have decided to protest now but not when Bush was passing the largest increase in government provided healthcare this nation has ever seen.

Simply put Darrin, why now?


So, no one criticized the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003?

You need to do some Googling.

[MannyIsGod]

So, no one criticized the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003?

You need to do some Googling.


Thats not at all what I said. For every piece of legislation there are people who are against this. This is obvious. However, it is completely disingenous to compare the outcry now with the outcry (or lack thereof) then.

Why the much greater resistance now, Darrin? Simply address the question in an intellectually honest way and do not deflect it or run and hide behind strawmen.

[Wild Cobra]

I never said you disliked him because he was black. Yet no one seems to be able to address why the people who are protesting now did not during the Bush years when he was pushing socialized medicine through congress.

I ask again, why now?
How was President Bush pressing for socialized medicine? I missed that. Please enlighten me.

[MannyIsGod]

How was President Bush pressing for socialized medicine? I missed that. Please enlighten me.

I honestly don't think I could have made my point any better. Thanks.

[Wild Cobra]

So, no one criticized the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003?

You need to do some Googling.
Is that what he's talking about? Doesn't he know that's a medicare change and not socialized medicine?

Oh wait. We are talking about Manny, right?

Manny... Several people were against it, including my father who is retired. He was worried about the changes. Myself, I was uncertain if it would be better, but I wasn't against doing things to improve medicare for our seasoned citizens. I don't see helping the old and the disables the same as socialized programs. I see it as helping them retire better, and they are our progenitors. I am only against permanent social programs for people who are able to care for themselves. I don't want it to be easy for them. I want them to have motivation to get off their asses and be productive citizens.

There is absolutely no comparison between the medicare prescription changes and HB 3200. How can you be so ignorant?

[Wild Cobra]

I honestly don't think I could have made my point any better. Thanks.
Agreed. You proved yourself an idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

How was President Bush pressing for socialized medicine? I missed that. Please enlighten me.You never heard of Medicare Part D?

[Cane]

Agreed with the OP and its really no more apparent than this forum. There's a handful or so of batshit crazy 'Republicans' that make up about 70% of the posts/topics on this forum and nearly all of the topics they start are nothing more than dumbass partisan bullshit. Its really made this place pretty pathetic in terms of actual discussion however that handful of batshit crazy Retardicans aren't looking for actual discussion in the first place --- just look at the thread titles to see what I mean.

I'm not a Democrat but man the Republican party's actions really have put them in a hole I don't think they can ever dig out of: Bush Dynasty, Iraq Wars, Palin, etc. Has there ever been a president more hated and despised than Bush Jr? If the amount of TV shows, movies, plays, etc are any indication - no.

[ChumpDumper]

Funny thing about Part D too -- the estimated cost over ten years went from $700 billion initially, up to $1.2 trillion a few months later and back down to about $400 million now. So the numbers aren't hard and fast.

[balli]

I am only against permanent social programs for people who are able to care for themselves.

I don't want it to be easy for them. I want them to have motivation to get off their asses and be productive citizens.
Yes, I know when I get cancer, I plan on cutting it out of my body myself. And then I'm going to drink an irradiated brew of my own making. I'm going to get off my ass for some good ol' productive self-reliance. That'll show em.

[sabar]

Agreed with the OP and its really no more apparent than this forum. There's a handful or so of batshit crazy 'Republicans' that make up about 70% of the posts/topics on this forum and nearly all of the topics they start are nothing more than dumbass partisan bullshit. Its really made this place pretty pathetic in terms of actual discussion however that handful of batshit crazy Retardicans aren't looking for actual discussion in the first place --- just look at the thread titles to see what I mean.

I'm not a Democrat but man the Republican party's actions really have put them in a hole I don't think they can ever dig out of: Bush Dynasty, Iraq Wars, Palin, etc. Has there ever been a president more hated and despised than Bush Jr? If the amount of TV shows, movies, plays, etc are any indication - no.

Insanity does not occur along party lines like members of each party would like to believe in their la-la land. Both libs and neo-cons have done the same thing here since I joined Spurstalk, and that is to parrot the party line and never budge an inch on any issue, while demonizing the opposing party. They both use fear-mongering and dance around every legitimate question posed to them.

And yes, there have been many presidents more despised than Bush. Just look at how many have been assassinated or attempted to be assassinated.

Just because modern technology (aka the internet) brings everyday Joe's hatred of incumbent X to the forefront does not mean that the hatred is any more than was before that technology. Even many of the presidents that rank high on scholarly lists were disliked by many people (FDR, Truman, etc).

Also, Iraq and Palin are hardly the worst things that have occurred during a president's time. Vietnam killed 60,000 of our soldiers and wounded some 300,000 in fighting that is much more brutal than that occurring in Iraq. Who knows how many people starved to death during the Great Depression, with unemployment above 25%.

The right and left are both quick to announce the end of the world if the opposing party is elected, but we head down the same road of expansion of government power regardless of who we put in charge.

:wakeup


Yes, I know when I get cancer, I plan on cutting it out of my body myself. And then I'm going to drink an irradiated brew of my own making. I'm going to get off my ass for some good ol' productive self-reliance. That'll show em.

Cancer is too expensive to treat regardless of most social status / health system / self-reliance. In a private system you go in debt that you hand to your family when you die anyways and in a public system the surgery never happens.

If you get cancer you'll probably do what most people do and take pain meds until you die, unless by some act of divine intervention you catch it early.

If society wasn't so obsessed with stopping death at every turn we could divert our economic output into more useful things than extending the life of the useless elderly.

Every health system is broken if our goal is immortality. Medicine is why almost half of the human population is born with defective lenses in their eyes and has a high chance of inheriting genes that predisposition them to heart disease or cancer. One day this will become unsustainable when we realize that there is no cure to heart disease or cancer.

[Creepn]

If society wasn't so obsessed with stopping death at every turn we could divert our economic output into more useful things than extending the life of the useless elderly.


WOW just wow. :wow

You are a very bad person.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You never heard of Medicare Part D?
yeah that was a load of crap. and there was opposition. i mean if the left gets razzed over joe the plumber this was definitely opposed.

[ElNono]

Funny thing about Part D too -- the estimated cost over ten years went from $700 billion initially, up to $1.2 trillion a few months later and back down to about $400 million now. So the numbers aren't hard and fast.

Not only that. It was passed without explaining where the money was going to come from to pay for it. Basically part of the reason we're looking at the bankruptcy of that system right now.

[101A]

I never said you disliked him because he was black. Yet no one seems to be able to address why the people who are protesting now did not during the Bush years when he was pushing socialized medicine through congress.

I ask again, why now?

Because that extended drug coverage to Medicare recipients that did not have it.

This does much more than that.

Apples and Oranges.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I never said you disliked him because he was black. Yet no one seems to be able to address why the people who are protesting now did not during the Bush years when he was pushing socialized medicine through congress.

I ask again, why now?

ok so, take a woman.
she gets raped and doesn't report it
say she were to get raped again and wants to report it.
you'd question her why she's reporting this guy and talk down to her for doing that?

the whole argument of "why now" is pretty stupid.

[LnGrrrR]

ok so, take a woman.
she gets raped and doesn't report it
say she were to get raped again and wants to report it.
you'd question her why she's reporting this guy and talk down to her for doing that?

the whole argument of "why now" is pretty stupid.

Or better yet, take a judge. Once, she settled on a case with decision A. But this time, she decides to rule the completely opposite way. Nothing wrong with that, right?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Or better yet, take a judge. Once, she settled on a case with decision A. But this time, she decides to rule the completely opposite way. Nothing wrong with that, right?
well judges should rule by the law so they really shouldn't be ruling otherwise for the same case.

[balli]

So credibility and personal integrity only matter when dealing with cold, hard legal issues? Great to know!

[LnGrrrR]

well judges should rule by the law so they really shouldn't be ruling otherwise for the same case.

I'm glad you stated such, because the 'rape' situation was just as false a situation.

In MOST cases, it is best to have consistency when determining a moral/legal/ethical position. If person X does it, and it's bad, it's also bad when person Y does it.

[ElNono]

I'm glad you stated such, because the 'rape' situation was just as false a situation.

In MOST cases, it is best to have consistency when determining a moral/legal/ethical position. If person X does it, and it's bad, it's also bad when person Y does it.

Except for 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that is.

[Wild Cobra]

Why has the right lost it? The claims keep turning out to be true. Our current insurance will die as we know it to the point that in a few short years, private insurance providers will go out of business, except maybe a few very expensive policies only the rich can afford.

Page 16 of HB3200 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf):


1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV
4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER
18 MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be
26 fore the first day of Y1.

What will happen is that once a person changes jobs, they can never get such a health care package again. They will have to get a government approved plan which may or may not be covered by employers, and because of the mandates, will cost far more. As employees migrate, and fewer employees in a company are covered by the grandfathered policy, eventually either the employer of insurer will stop offering it.

[bresilhac]

Why has the right lost it? The claims keep turning out to be true. Our current insurance will die as we know it to the point that in a few short years, private insurance providers will go out of business, except maybe a few very expensive policies only the rich can afford.

Page 16 of HB3200 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf):


1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV
4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER
18 MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be
26 fore the first day of Y1.

What will happen is that once a person changes jobs, they can never get such a health care package again. They will have to get a government approved plan which may or may not be covered by employers, and because of the mandates, will cost far more. As employees migrate, and fewer employees in a company are covered by the grandfathered policy, eventually either the employer of insurer will stop offering it.

Aw. The insurance companies will go out of business eventually. Doesn't that just break your goddamned heart. Poor things.

[doobs]

Aw. The insurance companies will go out of business eventually. Doesn't that just break your goddamned heart. Poor things.

Thank God for the government, right? They solve EVERYTHING.

[LnGrrrR]

WC,

You're right about the 'government-approved', but all it means is different regulation, for the most part. It will slightly increase costs on large businesses, but I believe small companies will get credits/rebates to offset the cost.

Government-approved/regulated is not the same as government-run, after all.

[Wild Cobra]

WC,

You're right about the 'government-approved', but all it means is different regulation, for the most part. It will slightly increase costs on large businesses, but I believe small companies will get credits/rebates to offset the cost.

Government-approved/regulated is not the same as government-run, after all.I posted some time back what some of those written things are in the legislation already. They will mandate that private insurance insure just about every thing, yet the government will not have to. These government approved insurance company plans will be force them out of business. They would have to charge outrageous premiums to stay in business. Only a few will survive that can insure the rich that want a better plan than the public plan will be.

[exstatic]

I believed education has a bit to do with conservative or liberal also. Those who are more educated are generally those who seek the truth out. I believe a man or woman who does seek the truth will be a conservative, unless they are someone who benefits from socialism.


Liberals have the highest education level of any typology group . 49% are college graduates and 26% have some postgraduate education.

paper on red vs blue (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945)

[Wild Cobra]

paper on red vs blue (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945)
I should have said intelligence rather than educated. Sorry for throwing you off. It was my poor choice of words.

Today's university's, they have become "Universities of Indoctrinations." If you listen to talk radio, you hear several stories a year by student callers of what their schools impose on them.

wJuQQcXKLWM

[Wild Cobra]

Trailer for Indoctrinate-U:

u-zz1HwxIjg

[baseline bum]

I should have said intelligence rather than educated. Sorry for throwing you off. It was my poor choice of words.

Today's university's, they have become "Universities of Indoctrinations." If you listen to talk radio, you hear several stories a year by student callers of what their schools impose on them.

wJuQQcXKLWM

I can't fucking believe you bitch about the biased newsmedia and then expect us to give a fuck about your right-wing AM radio editorial shows posing as news.

[Wild Cobra]

I can't fucking believe you bitch about the biased newsmedia and then expect us to give a fuck about your right-wing AM radio editorial shows posing as news.
It's the other side of the issues. If you choose to remain ignorant and only listen to one side, well.... Here in America, you have the right to remain ignorant and stupid.

[Guru of Nothing]

It's the other side of the issues. If you choose to remain ignorant and only listen to one side, well.... Here in America, you have the right to remain ignorant and stupid.

Pride has no boundaries.

It's a universal right to remain ignorant and stupid.

[baseline bum]

It's the other side of the issues. If you choose to remain ignorant and only listen to one side, well.... Here in America, you have the right to remain ignorant and stupid.

LMAO @ the stupid fucking conspiracy theory that networks like NBC, ABC, and CBS are in some vast conspiracy to be liberal cheerleaders because they don't reiterate your stupid talking points. The poor oppressed right sound like 9-11 Truthers when they make up shit about how the media is so against them.

[SnakeBoy]

Birthers, tea parties, faked protests interfering with town halls, vilification of moderates...

Is is just me or has a good chunk of the country gone batshit insane?

It's just you

[RandomGuy]

Yeah - the people who are insane are the ones who voted for Obama and still believe his promises...

Obama---> Trump

[RandomGuy]

It's just you

Oooh the irony. The insanity... culminated in Trump's election

Not the point you thought you were making, I'll wager.

[SnakeBoy]

Oooh the irony. The insanity... culminated in Trump's election

Not the point you thought you were making, I'll wager.

The insanity culminated in the GOP having more power than they've ever had. So was it insane?

[SnakeBoy]

At the time your side was calling them "dead enders" if I recall correctly.

[Clipper Nation]

Oooh the irony. The insanity... culminated in Trump's election

Yes, the left's insanity culminated in Trump's election and the Democrats holding their fewest seats in every level of government since Reconstruction.

All that gloating you and your ilk did for the last eight years? That all backfired in historic fashion.

[Winehole23]

CN is still buttsore about mean libs gloating :cry

[Clipper Nation]

CN is still buttsore about mean libs gloating :cry
I love it, actually. Keep it up. It's only getting more and more conservatives elected. :toast

[Will Hunting]

CN is still buttsore about mean libs gloating :cry

I think last week proves that a lot of the country is "buttsore" about getting called racist/sexist/stupid/etc. for simply not having the same opinion as the millennial social justice warrior crowd.

[Winehole23]

that, and a lot of people got turned off and stayed home.


The most significant statistic from 2016’s election is the massive drop in support for both the Democratic and Republican candidates. While uncounted votes from California may slightly alter these figures, Hillary Clinton received about ten million fewer votes than Barack Obama did eight years ago. Trump, who lost the popular vote while winning the electoral vote, received the least votes of any candidate from either party since 2000. These figures are even more striking because of a drastic increase in the population of eligible voters: 18 million since 2008.


Far larger in number than the vote for either candidate are the 99 million eligible voters who abstained from the 2016 election or voted for a third party. This is a measure of social discontent and not of apathy. In other words, while Clinton and Trump received the vote of 26.6 and 25.9 percent of eligible voters, 43.2 percent chose neither.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/11/12/pers-n12.html

[Winehole23]

I love it, actually. Keep it up. It's only getting more and more conservatives elected. :toastKeep up the gloating -- it worked great for libs and SJWs, right?

[RandomGuy]

The insanity culminated in the GOP having more power than they've ever had. So was it insane?

You're right. The GOP has gerrymandered and suppressed enough voters to get into power. Fucking brilliant. Evil as all fuck, but brilliant.

[RandomGuy]

Keep up the gloating -- it worked great for libs and SJWs, right?

I think the right in general has no clue how pissed off the left is at this point. Trump will almost certainly face a pretty strong candidate in 2020, and an off-year election in 2018, both almost certain to erode GOP control.

"galvanizing" is probably a good word for what the next 4 years are going to do.

Dunno, that is just my sense of things based on my own thought processes and what I see in fellow progressive's feeds.

[RandomGuy]

I think last week proves that a lot of the country is "buttsore" about getting called racist/sexist/stupid/etc. for simply not having the same opinion as the millennial social justice warrior crowd.

Tru-ish.

The hard part though is acknowledging the genuine racism going on, and the fact that the white power movement definitely feels that its views have been mainstreamed.

The left is certainly overboard with its SJW bullshit, but that doesn't mean that racism is really dead or not a problem.

Hard to sort out a sensible, reasonable position.

[RandomGuy]

Pride has no boundaries.

It's a universal right to remain ignorant and stupid.

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
-- Voltaire
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/voltaire136298.html

[CosmicCowboy]

I think the right in general has no clue how pissed off the left is at this point. Trump will almost certainly face a pretty strong candidate in 2020, and an off-year election in 2018, both almost certain to erode GOP control.

"galvanizing" is probably a good word for what the next 4 years are going to do.

Dunno, that is just my sense of things based on my own thought processes and what I see in fellow progressive's feeds.

Do you not realize that only 8 of the 33 senate seats up for reelection in 2018 are Republican? This was the year for Democrats to make gains if they were going to.

[DMC]

Tru-ish.

The hard part though is acknowledging the genuine racism going on, and the fact that the white power movement definitely feels that its views have been mainstreamed.

The left is certainly overboard with its SJW bullshit, but that doesn't mean that racism is really dead or not a problem.

Hard to sort out a sensible, reasonable position.

Half admits it's true, then goes on to say it's not.

Racism is never going to go away, neither is sexism, age discrimination, fat shaming or any number of other categories that one could use to discriminate between A and B when choosing. The only thing changing is how willing people are to admit their bias.

[boutons_deux]

"The only thing changing is how willing people are to admit their bias."

yes, Don the Con made hate acceptable.

People and Repugs will do more than admit their bias, they will act to implement it, and then JeBo Sessions will fail to prosecute hate crimes.

[SnakeBoy]

Do you not realize that only 8 of the 33 senate seats up for reelection in 2018 are Republican? This was the year for Democrats to make gains if they were going to.

I don't think he realizes how bad the Dems fucked themselves trying to anoint Shillary.

[SnakeBoy]

I think the right in general has no clue how pissed off the left is at this point. Trump will almost certainly face a pretty strong candidate in 2020, and an off-year election in 2018, both almost certain to erode GOP control.

"galvanizing" is probably a good word for what the next 4 years are going to do.

Dunno, that is just my sense of things based on my own thought processes and what I see in fellow progressive's feeds.

They seem far more pissed than the Tea party folks were. I don't think your fellow progressives understand how far out of touch they have become with normal people. It'll be interesting to see what kind of candidates their revolt produces.

[rmt]

Do you not realize that only 8 of the 33 senate seats up for reelection in 2018 are Republican? This was the year for Democrats to make gains if they were going to.

Wonder if Bill Nelson (D) will run again - he's 74 yrs old now. Rick Scott has indicated that he might run for the senate seat.

[SnakeBoy]

Odds are very high that we will see a recession before the midterms (regardless of who is POTUS). I guess that should be a glimmer of hope for the far left. Still they will need candidates who can do more than scream racism & global warming.

[CosmicCowboy]

They seem far more pissed than the Tea party folks were. I don't think your fellow progressives understand how far out of touch they have become with normal people. It'll be interesting to see what kind of candidates their revolt produces.

Keith Ellison for DNC head?

:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

Odds are very high that we will see a recession before the midterms (regardless of who is POTUS). I guess that should be a glimmer of hope for the far left. Still they will need candidates who can do more than scream racism & global warming.

I dunno now...it's puttered along at 1% growth so long there might still be some leg left in this one.

[CosmicCowboy]

looks like energy prices might stabilize but still stay in the 40-50 range...that's good for stable growth.

[pgardn]

Half admits it's true, then goes on to say it's not.

Racism is never going to go away, neither is sexism, age discrimination, fat shaming or any number of other categories that one could use to discriminate between A and B when choosing. The only thing changing is how willing people are to admit their bias.

Racism
Sexism
Age discrimination
Fat shaming

All in the same category reguarding individual rights?

[pgardn]

They seem far more pissed than the Tea party folks were. I don't think your fellow progressives understand how far out of touch they have become with normal people. It'll be interesting to see what kind of candidates their revolt produces.

Who are normal people?

[CosmicCowboy]

Who are normal people?

The kind that went to the polls and voted after they got off work.

[SnakeBoy]

I dunno now...it's puttered along at 1% growth so long there might still be some leg left in this one.

I'm just going off of history not any current economic conditions. Since 1910 the economy has either been in recession or gone into recession within 12 months at the end of a 2 term presidency.

Of course, '09 and the govt/fed actions since are unprecedented so the streak could break.

[SnakeBoy]

Who are normal people?

The ones who aren't freaking out

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm just going off of history not any current economic conditions. Since 1910 the economy has either been in recession or gone into recession within 12 months at the end of a 2 term presidency.

Of course, '09 and the govt/fed actions since are unprecedented so the streak could break.

True, and if Trump really does a trillion dollar infrastructure deal it could extend it for awhile. Governments problem is gonna be financing it with long term debt. Trumps basically saying what i've been saying...if you can borrow money now at historically low rates it's time to do it now if you are ever going to do it. That's why I'm buying houses.

[SnakeBoy]

If the likes of boutons becomes considered a mainstream Democrat we'll see the birth of a new regional party. Judging from my FB feed most of lefty friends have gone full boutons.

[boutons_deux]

"if Trump really does a trillion dollar infrastructure deal"

Don the Con wants to sell infrastructure to capitalists, who won't buy unless they have a good, ETERNAL return (see the 36,000 Chicago parking meters sold to p/e). 99% will end up with shitty infrastructure with exorbitant usage fees.

Repugs won't spend a penny on infrastructure, will continue with their years-long austerity, cutting taxes on BigCorp/1% and "pay for" by cutting the safety net, welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.

[SnakeBoy]

True, and if Trump really does a trillion dollar infrastructure deal it could extend it for awhile. Governments problem is gonna be financing it with long term debt.

That's really the key for the GOP. If Trump follows the standard GOP formula of slash spending for Americans but spend like crazy on military adventures their reign won't last long.

[CosmicCowboy]

If the likes of boutons becomes considered a mainstream Democrat we'll see the birth of a new regional party. Judging from my FB feed most of lefty friends have gone full boutons.

True, The ones in mine are in full blown despair/denial mode.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's really the key for the GOP. If Trump follows the standard GOP formula of slash spending for Americans but spend like crazy on military adventures their reign won't last long.

agreed

[baseline bum]

True, The ones in mine are in full blown despair/denial mode.

They should be in despair with Ryan gunning after Medicare.

[boutons_deux]

They should be in despair with Ryan gunning after Medicare.

Ryan will probably try to delay fucking Medicare until after the mid-terms. If he does now, as quickly as possible, the Dems OWN the mid-terms, and maybe the House.

[baseline bum]

Ryan will probably try to delay fucking Medicare until after the mid-terms. If he does now, as quickly as possible, the Dems OWN the mid-terms, and maybe the House.

No way, Ryan is going to try to do it in 2017 while his party controls Washington. Between mostly Democrats running to keep their senate seats and gerrymandering continuing to deliver the house to the GOP he doesn't have a lot to worry about with the 2018 midterms.

[CosmicCowboy]

No way, Ryan is going to try to do it in 2017 while his party controls Washington. Between mostly Democrats running to keep their senate seats and gerrymandering continuing to deliver the house to the GOP he doesn't have a lot to worry about with the 2018 midterms.

Win 2018 and you can gerrymander the next 10 years.

[DMC]

Racism
Sexism
Age discrimination
Fat shaming

All in the same category reguarding individual rights?
None have anything to do with individual rights. We all have a right to discriminate. We just don't have a right to do it publicly. It's like religion, no one can remove it since it's internal. You can stop publicly led prayer, but you cannot stop people from praying internally without killing or disabling them. There are laws against discrimination for specific things like employment and voting and such, but there are no laws against internal discrimination. That's where it happens. That's where the majority of angst comes from. Overt displays of discrimination are noteworthy, but the every day, lingering racism, sexism, age discrimination and even things like hair color and eye color.. all things we find attractive or unattractive.

[pgardn]

None have anything to do with individual rights. We all have a right to discriminate. We just don't have a right to do it publicly. It's like religion, no one can remove it since it's internal. You can stop publicly led prayer, but you cannot stop people from praying internally without killing or disabling them. There are laws against discrimination for specific things like employment and voting and such, but there are no laws against internal discrimination. That's where it happens. That's where the majority of angst comes from. Overt displays of discrimination are noteworthy, but the every day, lingering racism, sexism, age discrimination and even things like hair color and eye color.. all things we find attractive or unattractive.

Sure but there are thoughts of internal discrimination that have a clear biological basis. Young children are not developed enough mentally to have the ability to understand or even read what we are typing. Internal discrimination based on obvious misconceptions are very danergouus. Blacks are stupid. Dark skin = stupid, lazy etc... It's in the genes. People believe this. "Smart" people who don't understand biology believe this. Even Nobel prize candidates in physics. There is no biological basis. It ain't there.

[pgardn]

The ones who aren't freaking out

Concerned? I hope so. Any reasonable person must come to a view of understanding we are in a new era of what legitimate ideas and plans actually are should be concerned as we don't really have a good read. If I need to go through examples to illustrate this then I should just stop typing.

Freaking out? The US as a country has too many strong institutions to dive into a hole or leave the country. That is part of our strength.

[pgardn]

The kind that went to the polls and voted after they got off work.

So retired folks...

College kids...

[Winehole23]

it's clear people are put off by the social disapprobation of racism.

which is the bigger grievance, the allegation of racism or the grievance against the same?

[pgardn]

it's clear people are put off by the social disapprobation of racism.

which is the bigger grievance, the allegation of racism or the grievance against the same?

Disingenious people on all sides have used allegations and grievances for their own devices. It's a very selfish thing to do when legitimate cases are tried in public.

[rmt]

So retired folks...

College kids...

How about those who vote BEFORE work since they don't know if they have to stay late at work (something always comes up at 5pm).

[pgardn]

How about those who vote BEFORE work since they don't know if they have to stay late at work (something always comes up at 5pm).

I don't know.

It was not my definition, it was CCs.
Ask him.

[rmt]

I don't know.

It was not my definition, it was CCs.
Ask him.

Just pulling your leg - hubby was up early - first in line - don't know why he doesn't do absentee ballot like I do - guess he just likes the tradition of voting on Election day.

[Winehole23]

Disingenious people on all sides have used allegations and grievances for their own devices. It's a very selfish thing to do when legitimate cases are tried in public.well, that seems to be normal, here

[pgardn]

well, that seems to be normal, here

Yep.

[DMC]

Sure but there are thoughts of internal discrimination that have a clear biological basis. Young children are not developed enough mentally to have the ability to understand or even read what we are typing. Internal discrimination based on obvious misconceptions are very danergouus. Blacks are stupid. Dark skin = stupid, lazy etc... It's in the genes. People believe this. "Smart" people who don't understand biology believe this. Even Nobel prize candidates in physics. There is no biological basis. It ain't there.

There is a biological basis for discrimination though. It's how we've survived. It doesn't matter how dangerous these things are, they aren't going anywhere. The new generations discriminate probably as much if not more than the older ones, they just pick different characteristics.

[DMC]

it's clear people are put off by the social disapprobation of racism.

which is the bigger grievance, the allegation of racism or the grievance against the same?

It's unimportant which is bigger. It's an individual concern that's being measured as a group concern. In reality there are no group concerns.

[pgardn]

There is a biological basis for discrimination though. It's how we've survived. It doesn't matter how dangerous these things are, they aren't going anywhere. The new generations discriminate probably as much if not more than the older ones, they just pick different characteristics.

Yes. We don't give infants and young children a large amount of freedom until we make up some arbitrary but workable ages where they can participate fully in society. This has biological basis in their mental capacity.

I would argue that darker skin as a genetic marker for lack of intelligence and laziness is a very dangerous idea. Much more dangerous than the aforementioned. And there are many notions that humans have And or gain through cultural practices that do not help the society survive, in fact they do exactly the opposite. Not every biological trait or biological trait that lead to certain behavior is an automatic natural selective advantage ( survival) just because we are here now with those traits and practicing those behaviors.

The above is a key misunderstanding of natural selection. If that's where you are going. So yes I do believe the ideas behind a discriminating personality can change its processing.

[RandomGuy]

I think it is ok for the president to enrich himself using his office while president.

Good to know, thanks for clearing that up.

[RandomGuy]

There is a biological basis for discrimination though. It's how we've survived. It doesn't matter how dangerous these things are, they aren't going anywhere. The new generations discriminate probably as much if not more than the older ones, they just pick different characteristics.

There are biological bases for many things that worked for us in the past.

That doesn't make them ethical now.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Good to know, thanks for clearing that up.

Making up fake quotes now? you are better than that cmon.

[SnakeBoy]

Don't discourage him TSA. I'm enjoying watching RG...

http://www.internetmonk.com/wp-content/uploads/jump_off_cliff.jpeg

[Winehole23]

It's unimportant which is bigger. It's an individual concern that's being measured as a group concern. In reality there are no group concerns.pardon me, are you white and male? you might not be as susceptible to the disadvantages of group membership.

[Winehole23]

cause if you think white supremacy is dead in Texas, you ain't paying attention.

[Winehole23]

fifty years of civil rights laws didn't change many hearts, but they do fear the law

[DMC]

pardon me, are you white and male? you might not be as susceptible to the disadvantages of group membership.

I am Native American.

[DMC]

There are biological bases for many things that worked for us in the past.

That doesn't make them ethical now.

So it goes from a requirement to be biological to an ethics issue.

[Winehole23]

the law is what it took for Texans to start to pretend to treat (disagreeable, unattractive according to you) like ordinary human beings. there's a big backlash against that now.

are you part of it, DMC?

[Winehole23]

I am Native American.yeah, well so am I

[DMC]

Yes. We don't give infants and young children a large amount of freedom until we make up some arbitrary but workable ages where they can participate fully in society. This has biological basis in their mental capacity.

I would argue that darker skin as a genetic marker for lack of intelligence and laziness is a very dangerous idea. Much more dangerous than the aforementioned. And there are many notions that humans have And or gain through cultural practices that do not help the society survive, in fact they do exactly the opposite. Not every biological trait or biological trait that lead to certain behavior is an automatic natural selective advantage ( survival) just because we are here now with those traits and practicing those behaviors.

The above is a key misunderstanding of natural selection. If that's where you are going. So yes I do believe the ideas behind a discriminating personality can change its processing.

You're free to argue whatever you feel is the most ethical stance. It doesn't change the biological fact one iota. It also matters not if the biological traits are advantageous. They are biological. You can no sooner do away with them then you can do away with fear of the dark.

[Winehole23]

what biological fact, profe?

[Winehole23]

I am Native American.has that been disadvantageous to you in some way?

[DMC]

what biological fact, profe?

We discriminate naturally. We only overcome it by learning, but it's temporary and in essence we learn to hide it, not to rid ourselves of it. That's been shown time and again.

[Winehole23]

no one's immune, including you.

you never answered my question, profe.

are you white and male in addition to being a Native American or were you just being an asshole?

[DMC]

has that been disadvantageous to you in some way?

Possibly. It doesn't matter. Do you think stereotypes and discrimination, even internal, will go away because of how it has affected me? Do you think it would cause me to not have internal discrimination triggers?

[Winehole23]

ducks the question again.

I have no idea what you think, why don't you stop clearing your throat and tell us what's on your mind?

[DMC]

no one's immune, including you.

you never answered my question, profe.

are you white and male in addition to being a Native American or were you just being an asshole?

Immune to what exactly?

I answered your question. You just didn't like the answer.

[Winehole23]

you're Native American, but piss down on black folks? is that about the size of it?

[DMC]

you're Native American, but piss down on black folks? is that about the size of it?


None have anything to do with individual rights. We all have a right to discriminate. We just don't have a right to do it publicly. It's like religion, no one can remove it since it's internal. You can stop publicly led prayer, but you cannot stop people from praying internally without killing or disabling them. There are laws against discrimination for specific things like employment and voting and such, but there are no laws against internal discrimination. That's where it happens. That's where the majority of angst comes from. Overt displays of discrimination are noteworthy, but the every day, lingering racism, sexism, age discrimination and even things like hair color and eye color.. all things we find attractive or unattractive.

Try to keep up instead of the waging the tired ass bad faith argument time and again.

[Winehole23]

even the devil quotes scripture for his purpose.

you might not be, but how am I supposed to tell the difference? you're just some asshole on a comment board.

[Winehole23]

and cheers to that

[Winehole23]

all the stories qua stories are unreliable. the facts are few, and the stories ruin them.

[pgardn]

You're free to argue whatever you feel is the most ethical stance. It doesn't change the biological fact one iota. It also matters not if the biological traits are advantageous. They are biological. You can no sooner do away with them then you can do away with fear of the dark.

So you think it's a biological fact that we discriminate against what? You are starting to sound like what the Nazis read into Darwin vs. what we now know. Explain your biological facts please. Are you saying there are genetically induced behaviors that.... (please finish) I would really like to read this as you are getting into extremely heavy water from any biological point of view that involves science. (there is some interesting stuff on group behavior and degree of relatedness)



And of course we have a right to discriminate. But when that right leads to behavior that squashes another's rights then what?

[pgardn]

Try to keep up instead of the waging the tired ass bad faith argument time and again.

Wow.

Let us proceed with your biology.
Go.

[DMC]

So you think it's a biological fact that we discriminate against what? You are starting to sound like what the Nazis read into Darwin vs. what we now know. Explain your biological facts please. Are you saying there are genetically induced behaviors that.... (please finish)
"Overt displays of discrimination are noteworthy, but the every day, lingering racism, sexism, age discrimination and even things like hair color and eye color.. all things we find attractive or unattractive."

I'd also include less controversial things like social status, disability, employment (Fizzy routinely castigates WC for being a parts changer), body type (look at all the discrimination going on on this forum any time someone posts a pic of a half naked female "would not hit, pointy elbows"), what car you drive, what clothes you wear, home owner or not, height... just about anything that would cause you to favor one person over another even if you don't realize it. Even religion (especially religion) can cause discrimination.

I never said they were genetically induced.

The Hitler card so early?



And of course we have a right to discriminate. But when that right leads to behavior that squashes another's rights then what? Give me an example.

[DMC]

even the devil quotes scripture for his purpose.

you might not be, but how am I supposed to tell the difference? you're just some asshole on a comment board.

Defend your bad faith argument, leads to progress.

[pgardn]

"Overt displays of discrimination are noteworthy, but the every day, lingering racism, sexism, age discrimination and even things like hair color and eye color.. all things we find attractive or unattractive."

I'd also include less controversial things like social status, disability, employment (Fizzy routinely castigates WC for being a parts changer), body type (look at all the discrimination going on on this forum any time someone posts a pic of a half naked female "would not hit, pointy elbows"), what car you drive, what clothes you wear, home owner or not, height... just about anything that would cause you to favor one person over another even if you don't realize it. Even religion (especially religion) can cause discrimination.

I never said they were genetically induced.

The Hitler card so early?

Give me an example.

So they are socially acquired. That is something environmentally induced and can definitely change.

Overt displays of discrimination are noteworthy, but the every day, lingering racism, sexism, age discrimination and even things like hair color and eye color.. all things we find attractive or unattractive."

So from your pasted above. So what? And agree. What expectations does this give you about the way we behave towards each other? Where are we going with something that is rather obvious? We constantly make decisions on how to behave towards all sorts of discriminating qualities. Does this mean it's understandable we should act out in some manner?

[pgardn]

"Overt displays of discrimination are noteworthy, but the every day, lingering racism, sexism, age discrimination and even things like hair color and eye color.. all things we find attractive or unattractive."

I'd also include less controversial things like social status, disability, employment (Fizzy routinely castigates WC for being a parts changer), body type (look at all the discrimination going on on this forum any time someone posts a pic of a half naked female "would not hit, pointy elbows"), what car you drive, what clothes you wear, home owner or not, height... just about anything that would cause you to favor one person over another even if you don't realize it. Even religion (especially religion) can cause discrimination.

I never said they were genetically induced.

The Hitler card so early?

Give me an example.

You look at a black person, let's say as a teacher, and automatically make the assumption he can't understand math. You move him to a remedial course. And this is a very benign example. Yes, I think education in this country is a fundamental right that aides the entire population.

[DMC]

You look at a black person, let's say as a teacher, and automatically make the assumption he can't understand math. You move him to a remedial course. And this is a very benign example. Yes, I think education in this country is a fundamental right that aides the entire population.

That's not a realistic example. You'd never move someone to a remedial course through prejudice (not racism). A racist would not want to help the black person. Prejudice would be the device that would lead the teacher to conclude black = cannot read, and the solution of remedial reading would be a corrective, not punitive one.

Do you have a realistic example? Does the teacher have a right to conclude black people cannot read?

Your question presupposes that a right to discriminate has crossed the boundaries of another's rights against discrimination.

[DMC]

So they are socially acquired. That is something environmentally induced and can definitely change.

Overt displays of discrimination are noteworthy, but the every day, lingering racism, sexism, age discrimination and even things like hair color and eye color.. all things we find attractive or unattractive."

So from your pasted above. So what? And agree. What expectations does this give you about the way we behave towards each other? Where are we going with something that is rather obvious? We constantly make decisions on how to behave towards all sorts of discriminating qualities. Does this mean it's understandable we should act out in some manner?

You asked too many questions. Can you whittle down to just a couple so we don't end up with War and Peace?

1. I don't have any expectations outside of what we are currently and have always done. Our actions change but not our tendency to deploy rapid analysis to groups for sake of expediency.

2. I was addressing the "biological" comment.

3. The qualities change but the discrimination does not.

4. Act out? We chose between things. What leads us to pick one over another is discrimination. Social pressure to use or not use specific characteristics when deciding don't change the fact that we still use them. We just then must weight the pressures of society against the benefits of acting out on our biases. How will it affect me negatively if I refuse to live next to a black person, or if I won't date an Hispanic, or if I refuse to eat in a restaurant where a gay couple are eating?

[pgardn]

That's not a realistic example. You'd never move someone to a remedial course through prejudice (not racism). A racist would not want to help the black person. Prejudice would be the device that would lead the teacher to conclude black = cannot read, and the solution of remedial reading would be a corrective, not punitive one.

Do you have a realistic example? Does the teacher have a right to conclude black people cannot read?

Your question presupposes that a right to discriminate has crossed the boundaries of another's rights against discrimination.

No this is not how it works.

You put the kid in a remedial course as it is a storehouse for kids who have trouble learning. The decision is made before the teacher knows based on skin color.
Thats my fault. I should have made this clear. This is not helping a kid who needs to move on and is capable. He is losing a whole year of math. This automatic assumption is clearly punitive from an educational point of view.

[pgardn]

You asked too many questions. Can you whittle down to just a couple so we don't end up with War and Peace?

1. I don't have any expectations outside of what we are currently and have always done. Our actions change but not our tendency to deploy rapid analysis to groups for sake of expediency.

2. I was addressing the "biological" comment.

3. The qualities change but the discrimination does not.

4. Act out? We chose between things. What leads us to pick one over another is discrimination. Social pressure to use or not use specific characteristics when deciding don't change the fact that we still use them. We just then must weight the pressures of society against the benefits of acting out on our biases. How will it affect me negatively if I refuse to live next to a black person, or if I won't date an Hispanic, or if I refuse to eat in a restaurant where a gay couple are eating?

Its the same basic question.

How will affect you personally? Well, if you try to segregate yourself from all your unfounded reservations you might miss some great opportunities to educate yourself. To actually learn about people you see as unworthy. This does not mean you must marry a Chinaman.

And the whole "how does it affect me" is in itself part of the problem. Does this go back to the idea of basic genetic selfishness? Which the right loves to move to extremes. And the left acts as if they need to save every individual from himself.

[DMC]

No this is not how it works.

You put the kid in a remedial course as it is a storehouse for kids who have trouble learning. The decision is made before the teacher knows based on skin color.
Thats my fault. I should have made this clear. This is not helping a kid who needs to move on and is capable. He is losing a whole year of math. This automatic assumption is clearly punitive from an educational point of view.

So was it the teacher's decision or the school system?

[DMC]

Its the same basic question.

How will affect you personally? Well, if you try to segregate yourself from all your unfounded reservations you might miss some great opportunities to educate yourself. To actually learn about people you see as unworthy. This does not mean you must marry a Chinaman.

And the whole "how does it affect me" is in itself part of the problem. Does this go back to the idea of basic genetic selfishness? Which the right loves to move to extremes. And the left acts as if they need to save every individual from himself.

It was a rhetorical question. I'd have to weigh those decisions if I held that bias (neighbors on both sides are black btw). No one would know that's why I made those choices except me, and it's quite possible I wouldn't be aware of it either. That is a form of discrimination that cannot be legislated out of us.

How it affects "me" is always at the root of the decision. Even if you think you're using more of a group view, you're still doing it because you think it makes you better. There are no truly unselfish decisions. Some are more egregious than others.

[pgardn]

It was a rhetorical question. I'd have to weigh those decisions if I held that bias (neighbors on both sides are black btw). No one would know that's why I made those choices except me, and it's quite possible I wouldn't be aware of it either. That is a form of discrimination that cannot be legislated out of us.

How it affects "me" is always at the root of the decision. Even if you think you're using more of a group view, you're still doing it because you think it makes you better. There are no truly unselfish decisions. Some are more egregious than others.

So a parent jumping the water facing certain death to save a child is still selfish? This is just not true and has been debated by philosophers and evolutionary scientists for a while. If you mean selfish as the decision must come from inside one's brain I agree. If you mean selfish as will benefit one immediately or in the long term... up for debate. IMO you have a highly deterministic view of human nature and how brains work.

What does altruism mean? You don't think this exists?

As an aside: I like these discussions because they help me personally understand others views. Which could be defined as selfish. The definition of words becomes very critical at some point. And I admit I am not a wordsmith. And I am not a philosopher, much more of a science oriented mind.

[DMC]

So a parent jumping the water facing certain death to save a child is still selfish? This is just not true and has been debated by philosophers and evolutionary scientists for a while. If you mean selfish as the decision must come from inside one's brain I agree. If you mean selfish as will benefit one immediately or in the long term... up for debate. IMO you have a highly deterministic view of human nature and how brains work.

What does altruism mean? You don't think this exists?

As an aside: I like these discussions because they help me personally understand others views. Which could be defined as selfish. The definition of words becomes very critical at some point. And I admit I am not a wordsmith. And I am not a philosopher, much more of a science oriented mind.

Here you are changing my words to "selfish".

Why does the parent want to save the child? Whatever the reason, the action is to appease the need in the parent, not the need in the child. It will always benefit one immediately as it quells the "urge". That's always the case. The parent who kills the child and herself is considering only her wants but perhaps feels its also best for the child. If the parent knows the child wants to live but kills it anyhow, that's total disregard for the other person. At that point what soothes the urge of the parent is the death of the child, perhaps the suffering as well if there's hate involved. Some acts take into account the mutual benefit, some have longer term benefits for the recipient than for the actor however all acts are to appease the actor. I realize this gets into some sloppy psychology but too often folks discuss group think, and that simply doesn't exist outside of the artificial construct of convenient thinking.

Could a person alone on an island be altruistic? Would they instantly become selfish?

Words are important because we cannot understand thoughts and we also need the ability to build a pen in which to trap the other individual so we can drill down on a thought process. If we allow so many semantic escape routes everything becomes a cat and mouse game. This diminishes as people grow to know each other and these things are no longer important.

[pgardn]

Here you are changing my words to "selfish".

Why does the parent want to save the child? Whatever the reason, the action is to appease the need in the parent, not the need in the child. It will always benefit one immediately as it quells the "urge". That's always the case. The parent who kills the child and herself is considering only her wants but perhaps feels its also best for the child. If the parent knows the child wants to live but kills it anyhow, that's total disregard for the other person. At that point what soothes the urge of the parent is the death of the child, perhaps the suffering as well if there's hate involved. Some acts take into account the mutual benefit, some have longer term benefits for the recipient than for the actor however all acts are to appease the actor. I realize this gets into some sloppy psychology but too often folks discuss group think, and that simply doesn't exist outside of the artificial construct of convenient thinking.

Could a person alone on an island be altruistic? Would they instantly become selfish?

Words are important because we cannot understand thoughts and we also need the ability to build a pen in which to trap the other individual so we can drill down on a thought process. If we allow so many semantic escape routes everything becomes a cat and mouse game. This diminishes as people grow to know each other and these things are no longer important.

IMO immediate action does not involve appeasement. It involves a complex group of neuronal signals eliciting a decision. There is no appeasement. You are saying because a decision is made it has to be some sort of want or urge but then extended this to very complex situations. I don't see that we are getting anywhere in understanding each other's points.

This will eventually lead to some discussion of free will. There are plenty of totally involuntary decisions we make through the brain or just the brain stem that illicit urges that lead to actions that have nothing to do with complex decision making. If I am not mistaken, this subject is on a more complex level. This is not the hammer on the knee response that doctors test that never even involves the cortex until well after a very quick decision has been made in the spinal chord.

Every decision comes from within our brains, but I don't see this as meaning the action must be what you describe as biased or discriminating. I still believe that bias based on misconceptions can be dangerous. And that they can be changed with experience, which does have a tremendous impact on how our brains reason. On the simplest level, poking eardrums out at birth totally changes the part of the brain that is normally used for hearing in humans and other animals. The brain rewires and some of it even dies.

Am I completely missing your point?

[DMC]

IMO immediate action does not involve appeasement. It involves a complex group of neuronal signals eliciting a decision. There's either a decision or there isn't. If it's a reaction only then there's no decision process (like blinking). Where there's a decision there's appeasement.

There is no appeasement. You are saying because a decision is made it has to be some sort of want or urge but then extended this to very complex situations. I don't see that we are getting anywhere in understanding each other's points. Would the same person drown to save a cat or a mouse, or even a bug? If not, there is a decision. That person feels strongly enough about the life of that child that the only appeasement available at that time, as far as the actor realizes, is to risk death or even accept it as a way of quelling the urge. The actor won't be around to see the child he saved, he'll be dead. The decision is made in an instant, and the urge to save the child overcame the urge to survive. That could have changed as soon as the actor hit the water, however.


This will eventually lead to some discussion of free will. There are plenty of totally involuntary decisions we make through the brain or just the brain stem that illicit urges that lead to actions that have nothing to do with complex decision making. If I am not mistaken, this subject is on a more complex level. This is not the hammer on the knee response that doctors test that never even involves the cortex until well after a very quick decision has been made in the spinal chord.

This is correct, however given all chemistry and conditions can be controlled to the nth degree, the outcome would be the same every time. So in effect it's the same thing but for the sake of discussion we can consider that complex decisions that weigh the repercussions of actions even for an instance are different than involuntary responses. The actor still uses the most desirable outcome given the limited possibilities as they are currently understood as a measuring stick.


Every decision comes from within our brains, but I don't see this as meaning the action must be what you describe as biased or discriminating. I still believe that bias based on misconceptions can be dangerous. And that they can be changed with experience, which does have a tremendous impact on how our brains reason. On the simplest level, poking eardrums out at birth totally changes the part of the brain that is normally used for hearing in humans and other animals. The brain rewires and some of it even dies.

Am I completely missing your point?
It is biased and discriminating. Without the two we could never make a decision.

The effects of bias and discrimination are another issue. We can agree they have undesirable consequences in some instances, however the point is that bias and discrimination is a biological aspect and not controlled by social pressure. All we can control is what we do about it, not how we feel about it. The fact that blacks and white still, by and large, are segregated in society at least lends some credence to the notion that birds of feather flock together, even if they purport to think it's not socially beneficial.

[Winehole23]

it matters little that human experience goes one by one, statistical variation is real: outcomes are race segregated.

Existentially and philosophically, there is no collective grievance, but this is banal and assholish. Society ain't fair.

[pgardn]

Gonna get back to this.

No time.