[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l9-eT9WzPY[/youtube]
Substantive policy aside, the two biggest highlights from President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform speech last night came within seconds of each other, and both involved the utterance of the “L” word. Of course, I’m talking about the word “lie.”
The first instance came from the President himself, in refuting one of the must absurdly false allegations being lobbed by opponents of reform, and his bluntness was welcome:
“Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.”
By “prominent politicians” President Obama was likely referring to Sarah Palin amongst others, and by “lie” he was accusing them of making false statements with the deliberate intent to deceive. “Lie” is a strong word, and one that should not be bandied about lightly by a person of such stature as the President of the United States, but in this instance its usage was both apt and appropriate.
No doubt Palin is not the most informed politician ever to strut across the national stage, but when she repeats the same false statement over and over again, even after being repeatedly and thoroughly fact-checked, refuted and rebutted, it is more than fair to accuse her of lying. And in a policy debate of such import as that in which we are now engaged, mere gainsaying is not sufficient; it was absolutely crucial for the President to blow up this particularly pernicious lie, and in no uncertain words.
The truth is, people lie. The ability to lie marks a recognizable milestone in every toddler’s cognitive development, and this talent to consciously deceive is one of the uniquely human traits that separates us from most of the rest of the animal kingdom. Indeed, if lying were not such a basic element of everday human interaction, its prohibition would not be the most frequently violated of the Ten Commandments.
And yet, despite the abstract cliche of “lying politicians,” you will almost never read the “L” word printed in the polite pages of our family newspapers. Oh, they’ll fact-check and refute the claims of politicians, they’ll highlight disputes, and even occasionally label statements as clearly false. But they’ll almost never imply intent by accusing a politician or public figure of spreading actual “lies.”
That’s what I found so refreshing… not that President Obama refuted the other side’s lies, but that he bluntly called them as such.
The second use of the word “lie” last night was not nearly as refreshing, but in a way, just as welcome, when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) heckled the President by screaming “You lie!” from the floor of the chambers:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyTelRaoBAI[/youtube]
Of course, Wilson’s use of the “L” word couldn’t be more different than the President’s. The death panel allegations are demonstrably false, yet continue to be repeated by prominent politicians well after having been thoroughly disproved; these are indeed lies, plain and simple. But while Wilson might dispute President Obama’s assertion that his proposal would not insure illegal immigrants, “you lie” is not a refutation, and there is absolutely no evidence or consensus that Obama’s statement was false, let alone said with the intent to deceive.
I repeat, the word “lie” should not be bandied about lightly, and yet that’s exactly what Rep. Wilson did.
But of course the biggest difference between the President’s use of the “L” word and that of Rep. Wilson was the context, for the latter came from a US representative, heckling from the floor of the chambers, during a presidential address to a joint session of Congress… a violation of Congressional decorum the likes of which I have never before seen.
Whether Rep. Wilson felt free to interrupt the President because he is a black man, or merely a Democrat, I do not know. But I welcome his show of disrespect because it clearly illustrates the self-destructive naivete of attempting to work with congressional Republicans in an honestly bipartisan fashion, and expecting Republicans to honestly respond in kind. The current class of Republicans do not respect Democrats, do not respect President Obama and do not even respect the Office of the President when occupied by anyone other than their own… which means they do not respect the institution at all. Bipartisanship cannot be imposed unilaterally, and without at least the grudging respect of the party on the other side, would be an ultimately futile and self-defeating pursuit for anything more than rhetorical purposes.
Last night’s speech should be a turning point in the debate on healthcare reform, not just because the President clearly laid out the case for his proposals, but because Rep. Wilson clearly illustrated the petty, hateful and obstructionist nature of the Republican opposition.
No doubt there are many Republicans in Congress who find Rep. Wilson’s behavior dishonorable, but if they wish to avoid being painted with the same broad brush they must do more than merely criticize their colleague or even censure him. They must now prove themselves to be a loyal opposition, or else risk having their own call for bipartisanship demonstrably proven to be a lie.
all of the people in the room for the speech are members of the “yes we have” party. yes we have insurance. yes we have access. yes we have riches. no amount of rhetoric will change this.
This is a high point of bigotry even for the HA crew.
One republican says something admittedly inappropriate and rude. One. This, in the closed minds of the far left, is of course construed to extend to all republicans, past present or future.
” Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible.” Sound familiar?”
Just so you know, while rude and out of line, Wilson may or may not be lying. Just because your president says something don’t make it true, boys and girls. I know that to you blind partisans your little tin God president is infallible, but try to keep an open mind. There are several versions of legislation out there right now, and I’d lay odds you folks haven’t read them in total. I haven’t read all of them, and don’t presume to make claims on what’s in them. Try to have the same intellectual honesty.
And how, pray tell, do the more decorous members Congress prove themselves “loyal?”
Must they kiss the Obamas’ ring?
Actually, Obama is a LIAR!
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....lysts-say/
Spewing false numbers, making repeated “misstatements”…where I live folks call Obama a BULLSHITTER.
In other parts of the Country, it’s LIAR.
But think about it, when a President BULLSHITS all the time like Obama…he is a LIAR!
But hey, remember what Obama said…”they’re only words!”
Final note: ENOUGH with the charges of rascism. This is a ridiculous straw man you folks throw around every time you wish to discredit someone with whom you disagree.
Don’t like what the person has to say. Fine. That’s your right. To slander someone simply because you disagree with them isn’t.
Interview with Senator Harry Reid, NBC’s Meet the Press, December 5, 2004
Where was the media outrage on that one??
The difference is Wilson apologized…Reid refused.
Reid is at less than 40% approval in Nevada.
Bringing this LIAR thing up again will hurt Reid.
Many thanks Goldy!!
Hmmm… another poster already delivered the boos from Democrats to President Bush in 2005 in a joint Congress Speech. Precedent set.
Mr. Cynical, you’re asking for logical consistency from someone clearly incapable of it.
Just within the text of this blog he can’t follow a basic premise. Do you think he’s even remotely capable of it over time and against his bigoted world view?
Last night’s speech should be a turning point in the debate on healthcare reform
————-
Wishful thinking, me thinks. Here’s one progressive’s view on Obama’s “game changer” of a speech:
“The wavering on the public option would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious. Really – his insistence that he supports it but might also support removing it reminded me of a Saturday Night Live skit parodying wavering and waffling Democrats.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....81559.html
Obama didn’t add much that was fundamentally new including, in particular, his position on the public option. This debate has a long ways to go despite the uplifting oratory that, apparently, always works like a charm for some listeners. When we get to an actual plan including hard numbers, we’ll have a much better idea where things are heading.
lostinaseaofblue,
“Just because your president says something don’t make it true, boys and girls.”
The “misrepresentaton” that the proposed legislation will result in undocumented immigrants being given healthcare is demonstrably false.
This isn’t opinion. There are actual words and things.
Rather than engaging in pseudointellectual sophistry, read the fucking legislation: You can read H.R. 3200 for yourself.
But, if reading legislation isn’t your thing, here are some sources who have read the bill:
Factcheck.org: (fact checking a Wingnut chain mail letter):
AP factchecking:
Politifact says it’s Wilson who’s wrong. “We rate Wilson’s statement False.”
Wilson has a long history of anger management issues, and he doesn’t seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. He’s small potatoes. The real story from last night is how effective the president was. It’s got the Republicans completely flustered today.
Actually, other primates have been observed to intentionally deceive, and birds too, I think. The more we look for signs of intelligence in non-humans the more we find them.
Otoh, I think humans have it all over the other animals when it comes to self-deception, viz the comments above…
Puddybud @ 7,
“Hmmm… another poster already delivered the boos from Democrats to President Bush in 2005 in a joint Congress Speech. Precedent set.”
Come on, Pud…you aren’t that dumb…
The boos were not the violation of Congressional decorum under discussion.
Put a little more integrity and intellectual honesty into your comments, please.
@5 “Final note: ENOUGH with the charges of rascism. This is a ridiculous straw man you folks (italics mine)throw around every time you wish to discredit someone with whom you disagree.”
As someone who has been repeatedly accused by your friends here of being a racist, and without one shred of evidence being offered, all while you sit at your keyboard with your thumb up your fucking ass, I say that you can take your “charges of racism” bullshit and go fuck yourself with it.
Re 10
Thanks Darryl for the cite, and I’ll read whatever bill actually emerges as the final draft.
But the fact checking misses the point. Reflexively Goldy and most on the left believe anything President Obama says without that fact checking. He’s just a man. Were he a great man he still would be fallible. He isn’t, and is that much more so.
I freely admit that Wilson was out of line and probably in violation of some congressional rule.
This doesn’t mean of course that all republicans who oppose health care reform on policy grounds are too. It doesn’t mean we’re rascist, or bigoted. It just means we oppose the bill on any number of grounds.
This is the bigotry Goldy exhibits in his conclusions- when he isn’t contradicting himself or backtracking incoherently as in the last paragraph. I run the risk of similar bigotry except that this is a common theme in progressive circles. ‘This person is wrong. He is a republican. Therefore all republicans are wrong.’ Doesn’t follow, guys.
Re 14
As usual Steve this is a masterfully eloquent response. Your command of the language is remniscent of Milton or Shakespeare. You use prose as though it were poetry and push the limits of English like Joyce did in Ullyses.
Bravo.
Steve wrote
Stop stealing PuddyLines. That’s my favrit for ylb StrangeEye and rujax. Puddy wants compensation when using my terms. Looks like lunch and dinner are on you!
Based on the way he conducts himself here it would appear so.
He said “conspiracy proved” about Keith Olbermann promoting conspiracy theories and then failed utterly to deliver any convincing evidence of that.
Hardly a week goes by when he doesn’t pull yet another whopper from the right wing bullshit mills.
I thought the ugly “L” word was Liberal.
No reasonable thinking person who considers any of the drafts of the bill under discussion would come away with the conclusion that they authorize government-run “death panels”.
So that leaves only the question: are those that proclaim that the bills would indeed authorize government-run “death panels” (a) liars (uttering intentional falsehoods with the intent to decieve), (b) recklessly ignorant (repeating untruths without caring about their truth or veracity), or (c) blind followers of liars (repeating lies told by others, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary which they would rather not investigate).
Right-wingers said the same things about john kerry and al gore without being called racist.
Does that mean right-wingers are racist towards rich white men?
Lost @ 15
Even if true, which is quite debatable, that’s entirely different from people like you who will refuse to believe anything President Obama says despite that fact-checking.
Me thinks you doth protest too much if it wasn’t true.
Your continued whining is proving my point.
Like you’ve said many times, I’m an idiot and no one takes me serious… except you obviously.
This from the same guy who said he hated Obama practically on the day he was elected.
This from the same guy who said all homosexuals are mentally ill.
@ 19
Well, you are an idiot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM
Watch and listen to all the booing, sighing, talking and whining.
@16 As usual, you display a gross hypocrisy and, when confronted with it, you resort to insipid bullshit. In your case, “L” obviously stands for “loser”.
@17 OK, I owe you. But I get a dime every time you mention goats.
No reasonable thinking person who has ever dealt with any branch of the federal government found the process easy, intuitive or efficient.
So that leaves only the question: Are those who want single payer liars, ignorant or blind followers?
lostinaseaofblue,
“But the fact checking misses the point. Reflexively Goldy and most on the left believe anything President Obama says without that fact checking.”
This is absolute hogwash. It IS about fact checking. Congressman Wilson called the President a liar before the world in the most inappropriate and conspicuous way. And he was, objectively, wrong.
This is a symptom of a larger phenomenon that the right-wing has adopted. Everyone knows about (and reluctantly tolerates) spin. But what we have here is a recent cultural phenomena where much of the right-wing has abandoned truth as a high value.
Fact, objective analysis, non-selective evidence have been abandoned in much of the right wing culture. (I wrote about this here.)
This is why a huge proportion of Republicans don’t believe Obama is a U.S. citizen (I’m not making this up—there are a recent series of polls that show this). This is why 15% of McCain supporters believed Obama was a Muslim just prior to the 2008 election (Pew poll). This is why a shockingly large number of conservatives believe the “death panel” myth, or the “funding illegals” bullshit. Even this week, Republican “statesmen” have blurted out the politically expediant, but factually wrong, phrase “Government takeover of healthcare.”
What it boils down to is that some faction of the Republicans have decided that ideology trumps truth. I find that disgusting. And, yes, I would offer identical criticism of Democrats if they adopted a similar widespread culture of “ideology trumps truth”.
I sincerely hope you reject that culture, lostinaseaofblue. If so, you are a better person than many of your ideological brethren. And I sincerely wish you the best in changing that culture from within.
Here’s something that doesn’t lie, how people feel about Rep. Wilson’s worthiness to continue to serve in Congress:
http://www.actblue.com/page/kossacks4miller
The amount raised for his opponent since yesterday is staggering.
Of course, that leaves aside the question that there are already “death panels” in existence – its just that they are run by insurance industry accountants rather than the government.
My employer-provided health insurance provides for payment of “medically necessary” health costs, at a “rate consistent with the community average for similar services”. There are a number of items specifically covered, some which are specifically excluded, and the remainder are considered a judgement call. Not my judgement, or even my doctor’s judgement, but usually the judgement of an adjuster within the insurance company who may or may not be making such decisions after having a bad lunch, a fight with her boyfriend, etc.
These were the same people who at first delinced to pay for more than 24 hours of hospital stay for my wife because they said that was the industry average for removal of an appendix – despite the fact that in my wife’s case, the appendix had burst first.
These are also the same people who even now say that because I was given an EKG in my doctor’s office before being sent to the emergency room, I can’t be reimbursed for an additional EKG taken at the emergency room because it is a duplicate charge incurred on the same day for the same service – despite the fact that the clinic SENT me to the emergency room BY AMBULANCE with comments about them being concerned about my heart readings (I posted about that ordeal a few weeks ago).
And quite a few treatments and surgeries are specifically disallowed as “experimental” – and are expensive enough that most Americans couldn’t pay for themselves – even if they are life-saving and have been the standard treatment for over a decade.
And don’t forget that the “prevailing rates” for the community are usually established by a supposed independent survey group, which in fact is almost completely owned by a group of insurance companies with a vested interest in the outcome. That’s why in my plan, there is only one specialist who treats diabetes listed as a “preferred provider” between Anacortes and Seattle.
Re 24:
Is that a refutation of the comment, or more ad hominem attack? I realilze you’re trying a red herring to distract from the topic, but I’ll bite.
I hate what Obama stands for when he isn’t on a teleprompter. I hate his anti-american speeches as a professor prior to being involved in politics. I hate that he voluntarily attended a rascist church, then hypocritically dumped the church when it proved expedient. I hate his policies. I dislike the man for all these reasons, but more for trying to hide his ideology for political reasons. If he hasn’t the courage of his convictions he shouldn’t be in the office.
I realize that you disagree and respect that. But it’s only comparitively recently that homosexuality was ‘normalized’ and delisted from the textbooks as a mental illness. If you read the old definitions they make a great deal more scientific sense than the current politically correct ones. I won’t back down from what I consider true comments just because you think I ought to. Fundamentally to see a physical reality in an unreal way is mental illness. Human sexuality works a certain way and, pop psychologists or no, homosexuality is a mental illness.
Having said all that, try to stay on topic. That is, if your illogical mind allows. Any answer to the basic comment, by the way? Any answer to the bigotry of the left?
lostinaseaofblue @ 28,
“No reasonable thinking person who has ever dealt with any branch of the federal government found the process easy, intuitive or efficient.”
This is simply not true. Seriously this kind of exaggeration is intellectual dishonesty. You pretend to expect better of the debate here, and then you spew blatantly dishonest bullshit like this?
@28
I dealt with Medicaid for 15 years at work and had more problems with my private insurance than I did with Medicaid.
I had finical aid when I had a brief run in with college and that went without a hitch as has paying off my student loans.
I’m 40 and have never had a problem with my taxes (and yes I’ve paid taxes every year since I was 16).
I, also, dealt with SSI at work and that is a whole different story…
@32
Darwin proved that things change over time a really long time ago. Those textbooks changed because science has grown and evolved.
Re 29
That’s a logically consistent and sometimes fair critique. My main argument was with the leap Goldy made from one republican screwing up to all of them being tarred with the same brush.
Don Joe is also somewhat fair in his assessment. Most conservatives look on most of what the president says with reflexive and unthinking scepticism. This is a kind of bigotry too, though for most not racially motivated.
If you know of a way for a human being to see the world clearly without some preconceptions please share it. I’ve never seen anyone do it.
@32 “I hate” “I hate” “I hate” “I hate”
“homosexuality is a mental illness”
“Any answer to the bigotry of the left?”
I’d say you’ve got it covered there, Blue.
RE 35
I’m Not going to be drawn on this red herring anymore. Anything to the point to say?
Re 34
Maybe you’ve had better dealing with the government than I. I’m happy for you, but ask yourself why the DOL became a by-word for surly slow service?
At one time, the smartest and most respected thought the earth was flat.
Do you agree with those smart and respected people?
How can you say who is lying? There is NO published bill to refer to. According to Maria Cantwells office in Seattle, Obama just made up his own ‘new’ healthcare idea LAST NIGHT! No lie. Call and ask yourself. There is NO TEXT OR BILL TO REFER TO!!!!!
Re 39:
Last time: This is a red herring to distract from the topic. Any real comments?
The games we play:
Healthcare/Insurance for illegals: They AREN’T afford healthcare/insurance. However verification of citizenship isn’t required
Death Panels: There are no panels or committees with that title. However if we go the path of England and Canada there will be tables and protocols developed that will have the same effect. If insurance companies do this patients can still obtain care on their own. In Canada they come here
Tort Reform: Well at least it sounds good in a speach.
This is what you said:
http://horsesass.org/?p=10387#comment-880512
YOU HATE THE MAN.
And YOU LIE about him. President Obama LOVES this country. And any socialist in the world would be laughing her head off at the notion that Obama is a socialist!
Obama Derangement Syndrome indeed.
The President said it well last night. He doesn’t want to put the insurance companies out of business.
HE WANTS TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.
Exactly what the right wing fears the most.
All you have to do is read the bill to see that death panels and healthcare for illegal aliens is absolute bunk.
Anyone who can’t be bothered to do so deserves the fruits bearing false witness will get them.
How can you say who is lying? There is NO published bill to refer to. According to Maria Cantwells office in Seattle, Obama just made up his own ‘new’ healthcare idea LAST NIGHT! No lie. Call and ask yourself. There is NO TEXT OR BILL TO REFER TO!!!!!
Steve@27, that’s censuring free speech. Guess Puddy will have to go with the ewes.
OK!
if so, then instead of changing the system, enforce the laws.
@44
There IS NO BILL TO READ! It is NOT HR3200 according to Maria Cantwells office. How can you say
“All you have to do is read the bill to see that death panels and healthcare for illegal aliens is absolute bunk.
Anyone who can’t be bothered to do so deserves the fruits bearing false witness will get them.”
There is NOT A SINGLE BILL TO READ! It cannot be done, therefore your comment is INVALID.
And still you don’t actually make any comment to the point. What does this have to do with Goldys’ bigoted view that if one republican does something all do it? What difference does my opinion about the disastrous president we have make to that?
President Obama said a lot of things last night. Presidents do when they have a national audience held captive. They jabber on about this and that, careful never to actually say what they mean or believe.
Obama promised during his election never to support mandatory insurance. Odd, I thought he said something about that last night too. Something about the new plan having mandatory insurance, or something…
Now-president Obama said as a professor of law that the Constitution was fatally flawed and should be gotten rid of in a speech. Look it up on NPR. They accidentally ran something that could be construed as anti-Obama during the campaign. I’m sure they’ve kissed his feet to apologize since, but they actually were journalists at one time, a long time ago.
Your honored savior sat in a church whose pastor believed AIDS was a white federal conspiracy to destroy black people. That pastor was ‘his mentor,’ and ‘like family.’ Odd things for someone who LOVES his country.
I only answer the irrelevance you bring up. Anything to say to the actual statements I made? No?
The VA system is already like that of England. Do I see vets and men/women in uniform agitating to dump that system for say private insurance vouchers?
And Medicare is already like that of Canada – for folks over 65. At the townhalls, we see right wing seniors intoxicated by the right wing echo chamber screaming, “You socialists keep your grubby hands off my Medicare!”.
At this point I see health care for the rest of us moving towards the Swiss model – heavily regulated private insurance, regulated at the federal level – if we’re lucky. I’d be surprised if even a stunted let alone robust public option survives.
At this point it’s legal to deny coverage based on the flimsiest of pre-existing conditions. Obama talked about these in the speech.
If you don’t like what the insurance company does, you’re forced to sue – if you don’t die first.
Lost @ 32
Let’s take these one-by-one:
1) Obama uses a teleprompter. So what? How is that fact, in any way, relevant to his ideology or the validity of his views?
2) Who died and left you the final arbiter of what is and is not “anti-american”? There is no more vacuous, and deceptively ad-hominem, argument than the claim that some other American’s views are anti-american. Clearly, you’re one of those people who claim to love American, but can’t stand Americans.
3) The church wasn’t racist. Not even the pastor was racist. Bigoted, yes, but not racist. You still don’t understand the difference.
3a) There are plenty of reasons to attend a church, not the least of which would be the good that said church accomplishes in the community despite the political views of that church’s pastor. Yet, your condemnation provides absolutely no discussion of these issues. How is your condemnation not at least as bigoted as that which you condemn?
4) We rather gathered that you hate his policies, but you’re the one who keeps demanding that we respect you despite the fact that we disagree with you. How is it that you cannot respect our President despite the fact that you disagree with his policies?
5) That last one probably takes the cake. President Obama has never hidden his views, and among those views is his rather firm belief in the process of reaching across the aisle to reach a compromise. How can you reasonably claim that he’s hiding his ideology for political reasons?
Lastly, if that entire paragraph of yours doesn’t reek with bigotry, then kindly explain to us what bigotry really is. I’ve asked you to define that word before, because it sure as hell looks like it doesn’t mean the same thing to you as it means to the rest of us.
Hmmm. Was this what he said?
“In our first Constitution, my ancestors were three-fifths of a man. What does that say about American democracy at its outset? I’ve said it’s a great birth defect. And we have had to overcome a birth defect. And, like any birth defect, it continues to have an impact on us. It’s why we have such a hard time talking about race, and dealing with race.”
If not please tell me what he really said.
@39 Say, Marvin, I agree with the point you’re making but @41 you’re simply dismissed as bringing up a “red herring”. Odd, isn’t he the one who introduced homosexuality as mental illness to this thread?
Homosexuality is not a mental illness.
Judge Napolitano just mentioned if the public option goes through per the US Constitution illegals will be covered. You can’t have one class be covered and another not when something is offered globally.
Remember the Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that states could not bar illegal immigrant children from schools.
So we’ll see what really happens and if Joe Wilson is a liar or truth teller.
If you don’t like what the federal government does, you’re forced to pay higher taxes.
Damn you, damn you all to hell.
I must be wrong if someone that uses “faggot” as an insult agrees with me.
And you went out of your way to make sure I understood you were trying to belittle me by calling me a “faggot.”
Steve spewed:
Here’s a clue, you goatfucking faggot cunt. Our calling you a faggot cunt is not to belittle gays and women. It is to belittle you, you worthless goatfucking faggot cunt piece of shit.
05/05/2009 AT 8:46 PM
http://horsesass.org/?p=15786&.....ent-916253
Say, where did your fellow “faggot” caller go? gbs has been awol since he said he had the proof I was puddy.
@38
the DOL has a bad rep. because, like the folks I’ve dealt with at SSI, they suck.
Ever had bad service from a private company? There are good and bad in government and the private sector.
Big ups to Marvin @39!
Let’s just see this for what it is: Rep. Wilson just made his audition for Faux Noise Channel, because his career in Congress is over.
@57 “Damn you, damn you all to hell.”
Who pushed your button, goatfucker?
I’m quite familiar with the “homosexuality is a mental illness” thing, as I was part of a school of thought in psychology back in the late sixties and early seventies that promoted such stuff. I recall that there were protests by gays at an L.A. clinic at the time. I no longer believe such stuff and haven’t for decades.
I have freely admitted that I have held views in the past that I no longer hold. I’ve even discussed some of the events in my life that helped to change my mind. You understandably ignore all that as your desire is to attack me, regardless of truth. Further, I apologized for my slur directed towards you, unlike your friends here, Klynical and Mark, who have unapologetically and repeatedly called gays “faggots” and other slurs while you ignore their obvious bigotry every damned time. To be silent is to condone, Marvin. By your very acts, you condone bigotry towards gays even as you condemn my slur. If you want to continue with the gross and oh-so-obvious hypocrisy even as you attempt to lower the bar on what constitutes real bigotry towards gays, then I’m sure that no one here will stop you from making an complete ass of yourself.
@57 “I must be wrong if someone that uses “faggot” as an insult agrees with me.”
Apparently you need me to point out that your friends Mark and Klynical agree with you all the time and they have often spewed the slur “faggot” in their posts and, unlike me, have purposely directed their insults towards gays. Of course, you ignore that, don’t you? That’s because you’re a hypocrite.
How did the obama speech go over?
After the Obama speech, 67% said they favor the plan; 29% oppose it.
After the Clinton 1993 health care speech, 67% said they favored the Clinton plan; 17% were opposed.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2...../top13.pdf
And we all know how that clinton free government healthcare program went over.
Since you didn’t get it I guess my joke wasn’t very funny. That was the last line from the 60s movie, planet of the apes.
You don’t get it, do you. I didn’t consider what you said to me an insult to me personally. You should have apologized for being homophobic.
So you approved of what bibigoober/headless and many others say since you remained silent?
Mark is as much my friend as bibigoober is your friend. Remember, I have NEVER met or had any contact with anyone on this blog off the blog.
Did either one of them go out of their way to make sure everyone knew they were trying to belittle someone like you did?
You didn’t just use the word “faggot” because you couldn’t control your temper, you made sure I knew you were lamely trying to insult me.
Gee I was about to commend Marv for asking an awkward question of a right wing nut @ 39
But then he did his 6th grade number @ 57.
Oh well… Maybe in another moment of weakness.
I get it…
…the marvin is gay.
For the moment, lets forget you called me a “faggot” and pretend you called me a gay asshole.
I understand why being called an asshole is an insult.
What kind of person would think calling someone gay is an insult?
You wanted so bad to insult me, so you called me what you consider to be an insult.
If I am, wouldn’t that make what steve said hate speech?
Is hate speech against the law in washington state?
Do you defend people who use hate speech?
If you are as I suspect, Marvin, an extremely self-loathing gay wingnut, then, yeah, calling you a faggot just might insult you all the way to your closeted core. But I’ve decided that I was very wrong to do so and I apologized. You, on the other hand, continue to ignore the unapologetic bigotry and racism coming from those on the right. Mark with his “jigaboos” and “faggots”. Klynical with his racist jokes and “faggot” slurs. JCH with his “nigger” and “faggot” slurs. Troll with all of his “nigger” posts. Lostinaseaofblue and his going off on “cunts” the other day. Where’s your outrage? There is none. You’re a no-show. The only thing that appears to offend your sensibilities is my calling you a name. In other words, your moral compass is either broken or lost, leaving your whining and your crying “Bigot!” to be nothing but pathetic and hypocritical nonsense. As I’ve said before, in your failed crusade to tar me as a gay-hating bigot and racist you’ve managed to enlist just, well, two gay-hating wingnut racists. Better luck next time, Marvin.
It’s OK marvin!!! I’m so glad you feel comfortable enough within yourself and with your friends here in the H.A. ccommunity to come out to us. Very brave of you.
Kudos!!
@66 “…the marvin is gay”
He seems a bit self-loathing about it. Too bad.
There’s nothing wrong with your being gay, Marvin, although it’s clear that Lost, Mark and Klynical would turn against you and hate you for it, leaving you all alone here. But that’s only because they’re the real gay-hating bigots around here.
Must’ve been emotional for the marvin…we should let him have his “moment”…
@64 “So you approved of what bibigoober/headless and many others say since you remained silent?”
Just what have they ever written in my time here, the last eighteen months, that would would require my condemnation? We all know what has been spewn by the likes of Mark and Klynical recently. You really do need to get yourself a functioning moral compass, Marvin.
Re 52,
For ‘teleprompter’ read ‘prepared speech carefully calculated to achieve a political effect.’ Or, any situation where the president isn’t speaking as he actually believes without sugar coating and misdirection.
I have no more control over the definition of a true American than you do, and don’t claim to. When a person listens to speech that expresses disdain and hatred for America (“God damn America!”), associates with people who have committed violence against America and himself expresses disdain for the founding document of the country, I think a reasonable person could call that anti American, though.
For 3 and 3a the same answer applies. If my pastor began to spout rants against people of color and the congregation cheered, I’d leave the church. That day. The good works it does would weigh much less heavily than the rascism expressed from the pulpit and ratified by the parishioners. And my pastor is not a mentor or a personal friend. Associations can be as telling as outright statements.
I don’t ask for nor care about your respect for me. I ask for civility as a general issue. I ask that a statement of opinion or fact be answered by a reasonable rebuttal. I actually don’t care if it doesn’t. It simply re-affirms my understanding of the methodology of much of leftist argument. As for your president, I can respect the office while having contempt for the man holding it. You folks did half of that with Bush, what’s the difference?
Am I a bigot? I suppose it’s a shade of meaning. I’m intolerant of that which in my judgement threatens the country or the people I love. I have difficulty tolerating willful stupidity or intentional irresponsiblility. This is particularly true where either demands that I pay for others’ actions. If this makes me a bigot, so be it.
Re 53:
This one is somewhat puzzling to me. I don’t recognize that quote, but it sounds oddly erroneous for a professor of law. While I dislike the president, he seems an intelligent man not given to mistakes in public. Maybe the context is making it sound wrong.
The ‘first constitution,’ as I understand it, was the Articles of Confederation. The specific clause mentioned by Mr. Obama is the Missouri Compromise in the 1789 Constitution, the second constitution. The gross injustice to which he refers was partly corrected by the 13th Amendment and partly by the ongoing efforts of the civil rights movement, as the president rightly notes. The error, if it is one seems uncharacteristic though.
As for the speech to which I refer I couldn’t find it. It had been on utube and referenced by NPR in the spring of 2008. Obama was a professor in Chicago at the time the speech was given. In it he refers to the constitution of 1789 as fatally flawed. This doesn’t sound like someone who could take an oath to uphold and defend to me, but oh well. I’m willing to back off on this one, though as I can’t cite a source.
Lost @ 74
You’ve just given what many would consider the textbook definition of “political speech.” And, for this you hold President Obama in disdain?
Better yet, you take umbrage when some of wonder if there is no small amount of bigotry at foot when you take President Obama to task for doing essentially what every other politician has done in the past!
You mean like President Reagan’s infamous welfare queen? Or is that particular fabrication, made from whole cloth, to be excused because, presumably, President Reagan believed it was true? Do you have any idea how utterly disgusting your double standard is?
So, does my reading your disdain for our President mean that I automatically agree with it?
By the way, when you consider Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America” statement in context, he was offering an interpretation of the Bible not expressing a personal wish or view. Indeed, it’s difficult to categorize someone who has served six years in this country’s military as “unpatriotic”. Apparently those facts don’t matter to you.
The Bush and bin Laden families did business with each other for 20 years. I don’t recall you uttering a peep about that particular association. That’s a wonderful word, by the way, “association.” It encompasses such varied shades of meaning that one cannot possibly use it in a rhetorical context without being guilty of rabid equivocation.
First of all, I don’t recall anything Jeremaiah Wright said in any of the two controversial sermons as being racist. It’s a stretch to even call them bigoted when considered in their full context. So, unless you have a direct quote, the premise of your condemnation is not shared.
Secondly, I’m moved to point out to you, again, the difference between racism and bigotry. The key feature of racism in this country has been, and remains, the core belief that some people are inferior, in one or more respects, to the rest of us by sole virtue of their race. Bigotry is merely a presumption in the absence of fact. If you’re going to condemn everyone else for their bigotry, then you’re really going to have to start with yourself. No one is free of some form of bigotry.
Third, quite frankly, I think you’re taking a moral stance without ever having been put in a similar position of having to make a difficult moral choice. I think that if you grew up in the south in the 30’s, you almost certainly would not have left your church over a pastor’s outright denunciation of blacks as inferior beings. Your protestations to the contrary have a distinctly hollow ring to them.
Then why do you bring it up so often? You say some thing stupid. People here point out the stupidity of what you say, and you proceed to whine most vociferously about how mean we all are. If it really doesn’t matter to you, then you’d let it fall off your back like a duck treats rain.
Yet, some statements of opinion are so utterly stupid that rebuttal seems hardly necessary. More importantly, when someone does show up with a rebuttal, you have a tendency to disappear. I am, for example, still waiting for you to cite which specific Reagan policies “supported” business as you claim he did.
You have a remarkable ability to see the faults in everyone else while rarely considering the very large mote in your own eye.
You certainly can, but I’ll let you in on a bit of a secret. My disdain for George W. Bush didn’t start
he started fabricating facts in order to get us into a war of choice that took our attention off the real war we needed to be fighting in Afghanistan. My disdain for George W. Bush didn’t start
he began a dissembling, and nearly disastrous, campaign to completely undo Social Security.
Your disdain for President Obama began before he even took the oath of office. You’ve bought the lies and misrepresentations that the right-wing crazies have fed to you. Indeed, isn’t your own willingness to parrot the factually ridiculous claims about “socialism” advanced by the right-wing crazies sufficient proof that you are as guilty of taking some other politicians and pundits at their word as you accuse us of taking President Obama at his?
You, undoubtedly, are a bigot, as is evidenced by the number of times you’ve resorted to ad-hominem and equivocal arguments while demanding a cogent rebuttal in return. As also evidenced by the anti-intellectual screeds you’ve offered in defense of your claims about economic policies. As also evidenced by your claim, not too long ago, that, to you, questions of fact were a matter of trust (need I track down and link the specific comment, or do you remember?).
As for “willful stupidity” or “intentional irresponsibility” I think maybe you need to get back to me on those policies of Reagan that “supported” business before you can make any legitimate claims regarding anyone else’s “willful stupidity” and/or “intentional irresponsibility.”
If you want a definition, one is that bigotry is feeling superior to a class of people. Did I miss something or did Obama somehow become a class of people all by himself?
On the other hand Goldy’s post that began all this seems a textbook definition of the term as regards republicans.
Yes my disdain for that Obama began before he took office. His background was known at the time to those who cared to look. It certainly wasn’t covered in his pet press, but it could be found.
Jeremiah Wright isn’t merely Obamas’ pastor dumped for political expediency. He is or was a close friend, a mentor, like family (Obamas’ words.) This is a bit different than associates of political convenience which all long time politicians have. Other than his famous speech asking God to damn America he said a number of other inflammatory and bigoted things. The government was trying to destroy blacks with AIDS, which they invented. Crack cocaine also was invented by the government to destroy young black men. These statements weren’t made after the president left that church. They were a career of hate speech spewed from the pulpit Obama certainly knew about.
All I asked was to preserve the decencies of debate. You can categorize it as whining or whatever you want, but you do know the difference, because you practice it.
You may have more time than I to sit around and wait for every response to a thread. I actually work for a living and have a couple of rentals. I have friends and a family and a life. If I don’t respond to every small point you make that doesn’t mean I’m running away or conceding the point. Just so you know.
Reagan blah blah blah. To be fair I do understand that to the left Reagan represents what Obama does to conservatives. Mention either name and partisans go to whatever they believe without the ability to change it.
Willful stupidity like having 3 kids you can’t afford though has nothing to do with politics. Intentional irresponsiblility like signing a mortgage you can’t afford doesn’t either. I have no conception of why liberals believe responsible thoughtful people should pay for these choices.
Hmmmmmm.. I’ve seen a lot of hate speech in these comment threads directed at Hillary and Obama. I’ve seen Obama called a “jigaboo”, heard the outlandish claim that Hillary supports forced sterilization of blacks with out any supporting evidence whatsoever.
And now I learn that I support all that because I hang out here.
I learn if I don’t immediately leave and never return, I must agree with that racism and paranoia.
Guilt by association. Wow.
Lost @ 76
That’s not bigotry. That’s conceit, though it’s clear that you’re quite guilty of that vice as well.
You’ve said that before. Repeating it, doesn’t make it true. The question is whether or not you can conjure up an argument in support of that claim without revealing even more bigotry on your own part, and, so far, you’ve failed to do so.
Egads. Jeremiah Wright was all over the news, as was the tenuous, at best, connection to William Ayers. Your revision of history is as despicable as is your intolerance for the idea that some people knew all about the relevant facts before hand yet chose not to give it the weight you gave it. And that intolerance is a textbook definition of bigotry.
I have quite a few very close friends with whose politics I do not agree. I’ve had mentors with whose politics I do not agree. The ability to associate with, and learn from, people with whose politics one does not agree would, generally, be regarded as a virtue. That would be a textbook definition of the word “tolerance”.
So the question becomes, why do you presume that President Obama was not exhibiting this virtue in his relationship with Jeremiah Wright? Where is your evidence that President Obama was incapable of having this kind of relationship with Rev. Wright when millions of us all have similar relationships?
Unless you can come up with substantive evidence that President Obama is, somehow, significantly different from any other human being on the planet, then the facts you have cited are merely an excuse that you’ve found to justify a hatred for which you were predisposed before you knew anything at all about Barack Obama.
I’m amazed that you could write those two sentences in the same comment in which you spoke of “the decencies of debate.” Let’s review the time-line, shall we? You asserted that President Reagan promoted policies that “supported” business. I challenged that assertion, asking you to cite specific policies that you think “supported” business. I even went so far as to try to identify a couple of policies myself. You even responded to the comment in which I asked you to provide specific policy examples, and you failed to provide those examples in that reply (so your complaint about not having the time to respond is the lamest of excuses).
And now you effectively accuse me of knee-jerk, liberal apoplexy over your reification of Ronald Reagan. Is this your notion of the “decencies of debate”? In my book, your adamant and repeated refusal to provide substance behind your claims is as rude and reprehensible, in terms of the “decencies of debate,” as are other people’s predilection for calling you a goatfucker.
You, sir, raise hypocrisy to completely new levels.
You have “no conception”? One wonders how you can so thoughtlessly speak of “stupidity” and “irresponsibility”. Do you propose that innocent children should be forced to bear the burden of their parents’ mistakes? In the absence of a better policy proposal, all you’re doing is whining. Go get a violin. At least it will make the whining moderately more palatable.
As for the “irresponsibility” of people signing a mortgage they can’t afford, your selective example is more telling in those you’ve left out. Apparently the irresponsibility of the people who underwrote those loans doesn’t warrant any mention from you.
More important, and this is where your particular brand of stupidity knows no limits, is the fact that you continue to adhere to an anti-government ideology that was the primary causal factor in producing the very financial crisis of irresponsibility over which you so lament. If you don’t want to pay for other people’s stupidity, then kindly stop demanding that I continue to pay for your stupidity.