Obamacare

[wadetheblade]

snupy I have been enjoying a lot of your posts. Good points.

[sgreger1]

You misspelled 'because he was racist.' Don't take my word for it. Look up 'Lester Maddox' and read it for yourself. He was a racist, who called black people 'socialists' and 'communists.'

First of all I know he was a racist. I didn't mean to imply he wasn't, as that fact is abundantly clear.

You misspelled 'Later the government acknowledged rights clearly stated in the Constitution.'

I agree, it is unconstitutional and generally unfair to segregate people or not allow them their fare chance. In America, everyone should be free to carve out their piece of the pie. Plus, why wouldn't the gov want blacks working or spending money in restaurants? More taxes.

Why call someone a Marxist, communist or socialist, when they very clearly aren't? If the label very CLEARLY doesn't apply (which can be easily verified by checking definitions on Wikipedia) then why apply the label to the person?

Your absolutely right, and Obama has not done anything particularly socialist except perhaps this HC thing but even that, not really. For the most part he is about making his friends money and propping up banks and big corporations. Not very socialist of him. I was referring to your attempt to link anyone who protests using signs about socialism as a racist. Which is not fair.

[snupy]

snupy I have been enjoying a lot of your posts. Good points.

The Tea Party is overwhelmingly white (as am I), yet they are VERY afraid. The question is, of what?

[sgreger1]

snupy I have been enjoying a lot of your posts. Good points.

The Tea Party is overwhelmingly white (as am I), yet they are VERY afraid. The question is, of what?

Inflamatory things like this make no sense to me. First of all, what does it matter what color the majority of them are? The anti-racists are always the first to bring up skin color, even when it does not apply to the situation.


What are they "Afirad of"? I don't think they are afraid, I think that they are under the impression that Obama will wreck our economy and "spread the wealth" around like he so often claims he wants to. They interpret this as socialism, but what he has done so far in office is not socialism. He is just doing the same things as bush. To me, that is worse than socialism.

So maybe the majority of these people are wrong, but their message is lower taxes, more freedom, less of congress telling us what is best for us. And with that, I agree, sans the socialism/nazi/Obama comparisons.

[snupy]

Plus, why wouldn't the gov want blacks working or spending money in restaurants? More taxes.

Can you imagine business owners having to cough up the money for separate bathrooms, one for whites and one for blacks? Talk about a waste of money.

For the most part he is about making his friends money and propping up banks and big corporations. Not very socialist of him. I was referring to your attempt to link anyone who protests using signs about socialism as a racist. Which is not fair.

Ok, so you admit he is neither socialist nor Marxist nor communist. Yet, we have certain leaders claiming him to be so, and certain leaders discussing a need for 'literacy tests' for voters, which are an antiquated relic from our racist past. And people protesting in the streets due to fear of all of these horrible things that will come to be.

What is the basis of that fear, given all of the above?

[sgreger1]

[quote="snupy"]

Can you imagine business owners having to cough up the money for separate bathrooms, one for whites and one for blacks? Talk about a waste of money.

Yah I always thought that was retarded.Any true businessman would have opened his doors and said "black always welcome here" and eaten up the entire untapped market for profit.

Ok, so you admit he is neither socialist nor Marxist nor communist. Yet, we have certain leaders claiming him to be so, and certain leaders discussing a need for 'literacy tests' for voters, which are an antiquated relic from our racist press. And people protesting in the streets due to fear of all of these horrible things that will come to be.

What is the basis of that fear, given all of the above?

I have been saying for a while now that he is just like Bush and that he is more concerned with helping out banks and insurance companies than bringing socialism. People were afraid because of his past that is filled with radical marxist views and the people he surrounded himself with. No conspiracy, it's in his own book he wrote about himself. Also his cabinet is filled with some of these types.

Is their fear correct? No, I think that while the right hand is promoting the "watch out for socialism" thing, they are passing fascism out with the left. More patriot act, more deficit spending, more helping banks and big corps, all while telling us that he is (ROFL) fighting against these very same entities.

And the leaders call socialism because they saw how massive the tea party thing got and republicans decided to try and grab all their votes, even if it meant claiming Obama was a socialist when clearly he is not.

[snupy]

Inflamatory things like this make no sense to me. First of all, what does it matter what color the majority of them are? The anti-racists are always the first to bring up skin color, even when it does not apply to the situation.

How can race not play into the situation, when we have leaders who have called Obama Marxist, communist or socialist, (which we both clearly admit he is not and we both must clearly admit it is no longer 'PC' to use the 'n' word in public) and some of these same leaders are bringing up 'literacy tests' for voters AFTER Obama won the election? And all of these people are protesting, government spending, deficits, etc.

Yet, they weren't protesting government spending for the previous 8 years as the war bills were racking up. They weren't protesting in the streets the past eight years when the deficit levels were continually risiing from the two wars. Why protest now and not then?

What are they "Afirad of"? I don't think they are afraid, I think that they are under the impression that Obama will wreck our economy and "spread the wealth" around like he so often claims he wants to.

They surely weren't protesting when Bush policy 'spread it around' to the wealthy while the middle class was losing earning power. And who, exactly, are they afraid Obama will 'spread it around' to?

[sgreger1]

[quote="snupy"]

How can race not play into the situation, when we have leaders who have called Obama Marxist, communist or socialist, (which we both clearly admit he is not and we both must clearly admit it is no longer 'PC' to use the 'n' word in public) and some of these same leaders are bringing up 'literacy tests' for voters AFTER Obama won the election? And all of these people are protesting, government spending, deficits, etc.

While there are always some racists, I do not believe race is the biggest factor in opposition to Obama. I oppose him but not based on his race. Obama did this to himself by campaigning on change and bringing so much hope to people just to break many of his crucial promises after he got elected, like most politicians. The reality is that this is always how it happened, do you not recall republicans protesting HC reform under clinton? Surely that was about race too :roll:

Yet, they weren't protesting government spending for the previous 8 years as the war bills were racking up. They weren't protesting in the streets the past eight years when the deficit levels were continually risiing from the two wars. Why protest now and not then?

Lol, were you born yesterday and really need me to answer this for you? They didn't protest it then because they are hippocrytes and THEIR guy was doing it back then. You are expecting far to much critical thinking and logic from people that bring us headlines such as this:

Nearly a quarter of Republicans believe the Democrat president 'may be the Antichrist', according to a survey.
An even greater number compared him to Hitler.

57 per cent, believed the president was secretly Muslim, something he has consistently denied.
And 67 per cent of Republicans who responded believed Obama was a socialist, despite his central leanings.

They surely weren't protesting when Bush policy 'spread it around' to the wealthy while the middle class was losing earning power. And who, exactly, are they afraid Obama will 'spread it around' to?

Surely you don't need me to asnwer these obviousely rhetorical questions for you. But I will break it down Barney style for you: THEY ARE MORONS. Anyone who supported Bush should love Obama based on his policy thusfar.


And of course the obligatory "Both parties are bad... so vote republican".

[snupy]

I have been saying for a while now that he is just like Bush and that he is more concerned with helping out banks and insurance companies than bringing socialism.

I honestly believe the bank bailouts would have happened no matter who was president. It's not a party issue, but a matter of pure economics. Sweden took the same steps after their housing bubble burst, although I doubt our housing market will be recovered in the three year's time Sweden was, because our housing market is drastically bigger.

People were afraid because of his past that is filled with radical marxist views and the people he surrounded himself with. No conspiracy, it's in his own book he wrote about himself. Also his cabinet is filled with some of these types.

That's absurd. In order to win the presidency, you have to be able to raise millions of dollars. This is done with corporate backing. Why would corporations back a socialist, who believes the workers should own the means of production? Why would corporations back a communist, who believes the state should own the means of production? It is against corporate interests for either a socialist, communist or Marxist to even run, much less win, the presidency, which is why it is so damn RIDICULOUS to believe ANY who run for the office of presidency could possibly be socialist, communist or Marxist. But that also tells us those words are code for something that has nothing to do with one's political leanings, when it has been applied to Obama.

Obviously, many where SHOCKED to see the Republicans be booted out of government wholesale as they were. But to lose to a black man? There is a small percentage in our society, to whom this is an extreme insult.

And we have a leader of a national political party discussing the need for 'literacy tests' for those who vote and from our history, we know EXACTLY what this is about.

[snupy]

do you not recall republicans protesting HC reform under clinton? Surely that was about race too :roll:

Hillary was painted as an uppity female witch, much like Pelosi is today. Can't have someone with a vejayjay getting too far out of their place, can we?

They didn't protest it then because they are hippocrytes and THEIR guy was doing it back then.

They also didn't discuss a need for literacy tests for voters either, until the black man got elected.

And 67 per cent of Republicans who responded believed Obama was a socialist, despite his central leanings.

Who managed to get Republican health care legislation enacted.

I do not agree Republicans are morons. I do agree Republicans lost the moderates and the independents, leaving control of the party to the far right, who ARE the whackos (but then so is the far left.)

[LaZeR]

/Thread

[tom502]

Hey Tom if you had to pass a test to vote, the majority of your party would not vote and your party would be dead.

Well, 1, I don't have a party. 2, I would pass the test, if I wanted to vote, because I would study for it, and learn what I needed to. and 3, it's not about me, but for the good of the nation, so people won't just vote based on charisma, nice hair, pretty smile, and have no idea of anything else.


And on some of the basic theme of the general thread, the Communist Party USA, ISO, ect., seek to target blacks and hispanics, strategically playing the race card to get them to vote Democrat. They are also hand in hand with the unions. I know this from simple reading of their extremist left publications, websites, and having known actual members of the CPUSA, who specifically told me they seek to infiltrate and guide the Deomcratic party, because I asked him straight out as a CPUSA member, he was a black guy too, honestly, why he/they supported the Dems.

[wadetheblade]

not to offend but from reading your post you sound JUST like a republican.

[tom502]

My political leanings are a bit odd. Maybe 3rd positionist in some ways. Right leaning on some views. Hard Line State Socialist on others, and very libertarian individually.

A man without a party. I wish I could find one I did agree with.

[sgreger1]

I honestly believe the bank bailouts would have happened no matter who was president. It's not a party issue, but a matter of pure economics. Sweden took the same steps after their housing bubble burst, although I doubt our housing market will be recovered in the three year's time Sweden was, because our housing market is drastically bigger.

Obama and Mccain ran ona similar platform, and you are right, would have happened anyways. Obama actually adopted many of Mccain's ideas for the healthcare thing. But you ar eright, it would have happened either way. Lets us remember that Bush started the bailouts with TARP.

That's absurd. In order to win the presidency, you have to be able to raise millions of dollars. This is done with corporate backing. Why would corporations back a socialist, who believes the workers should own the means of production? Why would corporations back a communist, who believes the state should own the means of production? It is against corporate interests for either a socialist, communist or Marxist to even run, much less win, the presidency, which is why it is so damn RIDICULOUS to believe ANY who run for the office of presidency could possibly be socialist, communist or Marxist. But that also tells us those words are code for something that has nothing to do with one's political leanings, when it has been applied to Obama.

You have an excelent point, but I would rebuttal by saying that communism= gov owns businesses, socialism=you own businesses but gov tells you how to run it. For years corporations have been big lobbyers of our government. How convenient it would be if the government had more say in how businesses operated because then the big lobbyers could directly influence how other businesses (competition) operate, via the government.

See if you spend lots of money lobbying gov to help out your company, it would be much easier if we had a socialist president so then lobbyists could have more control, via the government regulators, on how to affect other businesses.


No matter what you call it, corporations and lobbyists run things now, and our government is bought and payed for. The recent supreme court ruling allowing corps to directly donate endless money will only reinforce that.

Obviously, many where SHOCKED to see the Republicans be booted out of government wholesale as they were. But to lose to a black man? There is a small percentage in our society, to whom this is an extreme insult.

And we have a leader of a national political party discussing the need for 'literacy tests' for those who vote and from our history, we know EXACTLY what this is about.

I'll remind you that Bush left with like a 20% approval rating. The left and the right didn't like him. The independants were the ones who got Obama elected as their swing vote was the one that counted. I really reject this whole concept that people protesting against a certain president is all based on race. We have protested presidents for years. What about people who protested against vietnam?

Protesting things, right or wrong, is as american as apple pie and has happened since the country started. All the presidents have been white up untill now so just because people oppose the current president (who happens to be black), I don't see how you could draw the conclusion that protesting must = racism. The facts just don't add up with that line of thought.