Hate Obama? You may not be a racist. But you will be white

I'd like someone to link up the percentages of who commits terrorist attacks based on race/religion and who constitutes the prison population. If you want to start making judgements on percentages, I'll play that game.

"No where did I suggest that all white people hate Obama"

"98% of damn near anything is indistinguishable from 100% for all practical purposes"

I'm specifically getting at the hypocrisy of when it's pointed out the vast majority of terrorist attacks around the world are committed by muslims, people like you cry racism. When the vast majority of the prison population in this country is comprised of minorities, people like you cry racism. Then you turn around, and have the audacity to insinuate that everyone critical of the president is white. If you want to start making claims based on large percentages, let's keep playing that game, not just stop where you feel it's convenient to your point.

We come from a large Spanish-American family,3rd generation for me and proud of it.

I have 9 siblings and we all do not like, NOT "hate", but we do not like Mr.Obama and so we did not vote for him anyway, since we are mostly Republicans. The Democrats in my family are moderates and did not vote for Obama either. None of us "hate" him and if we wanted to "cry rascism" them we could, becuase we are usually sterreo-typed becuase of nationality, but when we tell them we are Republicans and or did not vote for Obama we usually get the cold-shoulder. So ignorant, and to assume that every person who did not vote for Obama automatically means they are "white" and hate him is so ridiculous, it's embarrassing.

From BERT,

"When the vast majority of the prison population in this country is comprised of minorities, people like you cry racism."

Bert, you're stereotyping Killfile. When did Killfile ever say anything about racism concerning minorities in prison? You use the term, "people like you." Do you KNOW Killfile; or are you blindly making assumptions because it feels good and is convenient?

"I'd like someone to link up the percentages of who commits terrorist attacks based on race/religion and who constitutes the prison population. If you want to start making judgements on percentages, I'll play that game"

I'll play, too, although you will probably hate my unpolitically correct answer.

1) terrorist attacks? Nearly 100% MEN.

2) prison population? Mostly MEN.

Next?

I'd like someone to link up the percentages of who commits terrorist attacks based on race/religion and who constitutes the prison population. If you want to start making judgements on percentages, I'll play that game

It wouldn't be 98% like you are thinking.

There are terrorists in Columbia...they are called drug lords, and they commit crimes globally, their are people in Chechnya committing terrorism, up until the 90s there was a group of all white people committing terrorism in Ireland.

Proportionally I'm sure there are more minorities in prison, but I'm also sure it's not 98% minority either.

So ignorant, and to assume that every person who did not vote for Obama automatically means they are "white" and hate him is so ridiculous, it's embarrassing.

I don't believe that's what's being stated.

It was stated that a particular segment (the tea party) who openly hates Obama and has said so, is 98% white.

When the vast majority of the prison population in this country is comprised of minorities, people like you cry racism

Overall, nearly three-fourths (72.1%) of federal

prisoners are serving time for a non-violent offense and have no history of violence.

Between 1994 and 2002, the average time served by African Americans for a drug offense

increased by 73%, compared to an increase of 28% for white drug offenders.

·

In 1994, African Americans served an average of 33.1 months for a drug offense; this grew

to 57.2 months by 2002.

·

Time served for drug offenses for whites increased from 29.1 months in 1994 to 37.2 months

in 2002.

·

African Americans now serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (57.2

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_federalprisonpop.pdf

Mike Rupert

I'm not sure I can think of ANYTHING that's 98% white...

A ghost! :) The other 2% is transparency.

... Sorry, I had to say it.

Aha! Smart you are :)

this article is crap and stupid, keep up the hate lefties...

I am American

this article is crap and stupid, keep up the hate lefties...

Lol, irony. Still, one thing this article points out that critics can't seem to diminish is the incredibly high percentage of white folks opposed to Obama. If it was only a policy issue, there'd be more minorities opposing as well, as I'm pretty sure the concepts of freedom, liberty, and the American Dream are not the sole domain of whites.

"Still, one thing this article points out that critics can't seem to diminish is the incredibly high percentage of white folks opposed to Obama. If it was only a policy issue, there'd be more minorities opposing as well...."

REALLY? You don't think it's because the Dems have convinced certain minorities that the Republicans hate them? When Dubya was running for office, some of my daughter's black friends informed me that Dubya hated black people. Where would they get such an idea, I wonder? He did, after all, have Powell and Condi on his staff. Powell quit over those policy differences, not because Dubya hated blacks, but some people will never see anything but racism when they look at a situation. The only reason the Dems haven't won over more Latinos is because half the Dems want tougher illegal immigration laws (especially at a time when unemployment tops 10%); gee, do you think THOSE Dems are racist?????

And I haven't heard many Blacks state that Bush hated them, (though there are many who don't believe the Republican Party and platform is all that inclusive towards Blacks). ...other then the entertainer West and he is not be taken seriously as a spokesperson for anyone but himself. That said, we do know that the tea parties, the birthers and the "real Americans" have one thing in common, ain't to many "brothers" in their flock.

Lol, irony. Still, one thing this article points out that critics can't seem to diminish is the incredibly high percentage of white folks opposed to Obama.

Always gotta be about race, huh? Maybe some people are just waking up to the "Change" only included faces, not direction or policy. The rich are still getting richer and the poor are still getting the shaft. Only difference now is some who weren't poor before have found themselves standing in line at the welfare office and the local food banks.

If it was only a policy issue, there'd be more minorities

Okay you put your foot in it: Read it and weep....

I was shocked when one survey showed President Barack Obama with a disapproval rating of 35 percent among African Americans in Georgia, while the second one had it at 38 percent. Those two results are statistically identical, as both polls had margins of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

Source

I hate Bush and any other Corporate lackey masquerading as a representative of "The People" too so I guess that kills your "race card".

Typical Leftist ploy to make disagreement into the word "hate" because of "race" instead of policies.

T Bourlon

REALLY? You don't think it's because the Dems have convinced certain minorities that the Republicans hate them?

No, not really.

Where would they get such an idea, I wonder?

Probably Kanye West, but that guy's a jerk anyway. An influential jerk, but a jerk.

The only reason the Dems haven't won over more Latinos is because half the Dems want tougher illegal immigration laws (especially at a time when unemployment tops 10%); gee, do you think THOSE Dems are racist?????

Now you're fading into the realm of general Democrat/Republican and the idea of labelling one (or both) racist. I'm talking Tea Party folks and minorities. Nothing to do with political affiliation here.

Citizen Kane-473667

Always gotta be about race, huh?

No, not always. This article just happens to bring up the point.

Maybe some people are just waking up to the "Change" only included faces, not direction or policy. The rich are still getting richer and the poor are still getting the shaft. Only difference now is some who weren't poor before have found themselves standing in line at the welfare office and the local food banks.

What does that have to do with the part you quoted me on? That's just an irrelevant rant.

Okay you put your foot in it: Read it and weep....

I was shocked when one survey showed President Barack Obama with a disapproval rating of 35 percent among African Americans in Georgia, while the second one had it at 38 percent. Those two results are statistically identical, as both polls had margins of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

Source

On the contrary, that makes my point, if anything. That's probably going to make you raise an eyebrow, so let me explain.

When referring to policy alone, there are plenty of people from all racial backgrounds that don't necessarily agree with Obama. That's just common sense, and is what that article of yours is pointing out. However, with so many black people opposed to Obama's policies, why are so few of them attending these Tea Parties? Ergo, we go back to that statement of mine you so conveniently quoted:

If it was only a policy issue, there'd be more minorities

Fact remains, the ridiculous rhetoric of these Tea Party sessions is based on more than just policy, as evidenced by the racial demographics within. This article points that out rather clearly.

Typical Leftist ploy to make disagreement into the word "hate" because of "race" instead of policies.

I'm not bashing disagreement; there are plenty of sound arguments by Obama critics out there. These Tea Parties? Not one of those arguments. That's really all there is to it.

Torabu

They don't want to understand...I mean I don't agree with some of the policies President Obama's is potentially trying to get accomplished. It doesn't mean I hate the man. The same with Bush, I can't recall liking any of his policies but I wasn't out in the forefront, along with many Democrats, leading hateful marches and protests against the former president.

I just notice it is the same posters day in and day out with the same rhetoric, their only recourse is to hide their hateful and racists attitude behind some dialogue called "Obama's policies." Even though, I don't really see anything he has done but continue to provide for the status quo. That said, it is still very early in his Presidency and I will continue to support him.

On the contrary it makes my point that while the minorities may not be ready to jump into the T.E.A. Parties, they also are getting tired of the same old bull@!$%# argument that if you don't kiss Obama's ass and you are white it is because you are a racist because they aren't white and they don't want his @!$%#ed up policies of rewarding his other butt munchers while running roughshod over the working classes.

It is coming to pass that he won't even enjoy the support of those who did vote for him based on his race and the next landslide you will see will be the red ink running over your paycheck and washing away all your earnings.

Enjoy the flood.

Citizen Kane-473667

they also are getting tired of the same old bull@!$%# argument that if you don't kiss Obama's ass and you are white it is because you are a racist because they aren't white and they don't want his @!$%#ed up policies of rewarding his other butt munchers while running roughshod over the working classes.

That's not what this article is about. It's focusing purely on the Tea Party people. Furthermore, your argument has no factual basis, instead relying on your interpretation of why minorities are not joining in these Tea Parties.

If over 30% of African American people oppose Obama's policies, and if the Tea Parties were purely critical of policy, then there would be no reason for such a racial divide in the Tea Party demographics. All it takes is a quick look at a few of the many racially inflammatory Tea Party images posted around the internet to realize why minorities take little to no part in them.

While you could emptily argue that my argument is also just conjecture, the demographics support my viewpoint.

It is coming to pass that he won't even enjoy the support of those who did vote for him based on his race and the next landslide you will see will be the red ink running over your paycheck and washing away all your earnings.

Enjoy the flood.

I'm from Canada; I'm not particularly worried about empty rhetoric like that. It helps me stay on topic.

Anyway, it seems like you're either misunderstanding me, or you're deliberately revising my intention regarding some of my comments, so let me be clear: I do not think all Republicans are racist. I do not think conservatism is racist in nature. I also don't think all people that attend these Tea Parties are racist. However, there is an inherent racial motivation fueling such protests. This includes certain types opposition like the Birther movement and empty calls for impeachment.

You didn't see such zealous protest of debt under Ronald Regan, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush. You didn't see such a fervent push for a president to prove he was really an American. Never before has a president been accused of being a radical Islamist sleeper cell and a Muslim, just because of his name.

Anyway, I digress. My point is that, while the motivation isn't purely racist in nature (and may not be a factor at all for a few), it would be equally foolish to ignore that racism does, indeed, play a role in such protests.

"You didn't see such zealous protest of debt under Ronald Regan, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush. You didn't see such a fervent push for a president to prove he was really an American."

ARE YOU KIDDING??? With Dubya, you had a SUBSTANTIAL portion of Dems arguing that he wasn't really elected, and that he somehow STOLE the election. Plenty of people believe that to this day. You had people wanting to impeach Bush for "lying about Iraq," and there are calls to charge him and Cheney with crimes against humanity. And let's see, there was this special prosecutor that went after Regan, wanting to charge him with treason for the lamest of reasons that couldn't be proven. Don't talk to me about American politics. No, I'm not saying there are NO racists at TEA parties, but people connect dots that aren't there half the time. Something like, "gee, these guys over here are racists and they're at a TEA party; therefore TEA parties are racist." It's a bunch of crap, but that's how it goes.

It's focusing purely on the Tea Party people.

Sure why not. Depending on who was carrying as to why the sign but the author insists, as you do as well, on lumping all of the witchdocoter carriers into the racist category:

Whether the sign is racist or not depends on the point of view of the person seeing it. One can see why some might consider the Obama as witch doctor sign racist as it purveys stereotypes about Africans. On the other hand, one suspects that the person who made the sign and carried it was trying to make the point that Obamacare was something that was as questionable and as dangerous as something practiced by a witch doctor, a valid point. The controversy surrounding the Obama as witch doctor sign reminds one of fights taking place over the Confederate battle flag. African Americans see the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of slavery and white oppression. Many southern whites see the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of south pride, devoid of the original meaning that it had during the Civil War. The two views are irreconcilable.

Source

Now when I saw them, I knew about the claim that his health care reform would put us back to primitive medicine as well as the ties to questions of his African birth so it took no racial leap in my mind to see the political satire in the African-born President of the U.S. crashing our healthcare so bad we might as well visit a witchdoctor but then I do seem to keep a better ear to the ground than a few others around here. Just as I saw the Bush/Hitler and the Obama/Hitler signs as pretty accurate if you choose to look at the rise of the Nazi Party to power and the direction this country has been headed in for quite some time.

Of course if you are such a firm believer in guilt by association, I have a few names I could throw in the mix if you would like; trust me, you don't want to go there but I am willing to bet you would find the mirror image of that 98% in those groups he has been proven to have associated with.

Clint

You made my point again, loud and clear...and the argument that there are some who voted for Obama because he is Black. Makes it all the more likely, there were millions, who voted against him because he is Black.

T Bourlon

ARE YOU KIDDING??? With Dubya, you had a SUBSTANTIAL portion of Dems arguing that he wasn't really elected, and that he somehow STOLE the election. Plenty of people believe that to this day.

Which has nothing to do with his debt problem nor had anyone calling for them to prove they were really American. So no, I'm not kidding. To address that point, though, it's because Al Gore won the popular vote, though those people failed (and maybe still do) to understand the Electoral College, as elections were never that close before, so many never really bothered to understand it.

After all, who's heard of a candidate winning the popular vote but still losing the election?

You had people wanting to impeach Bush for "lying about Iraq," and there are calls to charge him and Cheney with crimes against humanity.

There's plenty of documented evidence for such calls be be semi-reasonable, though. No WMDs, sketchy reasoning, and the unprecedented "enhanced interrogation" tactics. It's a lot of border-line stuff, where officials seem to be walking a fine line of evasion to avoid having to deal with it. Nevertheless, it still is unrelated to the two points I made, but if you have to include it, there's more credibility to the calls of action here than anywhere else.

And let's see, there was this special prosecutor that went after Regan, wanting to charge him with treason for the lamest of reasons that couldn't be proven.

Meh, one guy; I didn't say there were no kooks, but there certainly were not any outrageous ideological movements against Regan like there are today against Obama. Not that I'm aware of, anyway; if you are more informed than I, than please feel free to make reference to such a thing.

No, I'm not saying there are NO racists at TEA parties

And I've pointed out that not every Tea Party attendee is racist. Ergo, we seem to be in agreement here: there are racially motivated people pushing this movement, even if that isn't the case for every attendee.

Something like, "gee, these guys over here are racists and they're at a TEA party; therefore TEA parties are racist."

That alone is a fair point, but coupling that with the demographics is a head-scratcher. I've already made my points about poor minority attendance, so I won't be redundant.

Citizen Kane-473667

Sure why not. Depending on who was carrying as to why the sign but the author insists, as you do as well, on lumping all of the witchdocoter carriers into the racist category

That took a couple of reads for me to understand, but I think I get it now. There's a point to be had here, though, and you touch upon it temporarily:

Now when I saw them, I knew about the claim that his health care reform would put us back to primitive medicine as well as the ties to questions of his African birth

That gets kind of deep when you analyse it. So we have a picture of Obama as an African witch doctor. That's based on questions of Obama potentially being born in Africa. Stopping just there, we already have a racial stereotype being played: that the kind of medical practitioner from Africa has to be a witch doctor, which in turn goes deeper into racial views of some Ameicans viewing third-world Africans as primitive.

Are there witch doctors in Africa? Yes, obviously, otherwise the racial stereotype wouldn't exist. But that's no different than someone displaying pictures of a black man with KFC and watermelon and excusing it with something like, "What? It's just food and the man was hungry." There's a deliberate undertone in such images that causes people supporting the appropriate protest -- in the case of the Tea Parties, national debt -- to wilfully ignore it while outraging the targeted party or parties. And so begins the "race card" shell game, where each tries to blame the other for the same thing.

You could go even deeper toward the root of the African birth -- "foreign birth" -- accusations and the Birther movement, the fear-mongering of Obama's name, declarations that he's a "secret Muslim" and "terrorist sleeper cell", and many other issues regarding the President based on racial fear and prejudice.

to see the political satire in the African-born President of the U.S. crashing our healthcare so bad we might as well visit a witchdoctor

Don't worry, I didn't skip by this part of the sentence. I just wanted to get my points down so I could direct you to the "wilful ignorance" bit. In other words, you personally reject that part of the messaging because it a.) doesn't match what you believe (this is a good thing) and b.) detracts from the part of the debate you personally want to underline: the increase in national debt.

The problem is that by ignoring it, you're assisting in providing a platform for the racially motivated ones in the group while exacerbating the stereotype that every last Tea Party attendee is racist. That's the real problem, and one both the American political left and right choose to ignore in their desire to demonize one another.

Just as I saw the Bush/Hitler and the Obama/Hitler signs as pretty accurate if you choose to look at the rise of the Nazi Party to power and the direction this country has been headed in for quite some time.

I personally don't feel either one was accurate. While Bush may have gone too far in some of his policies, he didn't even come close to matching Hitler. Obama is even further from Hitler than Bush (not that it was close to begin with). That is just more empty rhetoric and distraction from both sides of the aisle.

Of course if you are such a firm believer in guilt by association

Go back and read my previous comment. That you just blatantly ignored what I said leaves me to believe you're deliberately revising my intention, rather than the alternative I mentioned (just a simple misunderstanding).

I have a few names I could throw in the mix if you would like; trust me, you don't want to go there but I am willing to bet you would find the mirror image of that 98% in those groups he has been proven to have associated with.

It'd be a waste of time. When you stop pretending like I'm an "evil Democrat" and really read what I'm posting, you'll come to understand why it would be a waste.

to wilfully ignore it while outraging the targeted party or parties

Short rebuttal as I get tired of preaching to those who choose to either ignore the message or really don't understand it.Tagging the T.E.A. Parties as racist because of a few participants is as ridiculous as judging the President by his past associations. Both have put their less than desirable associates at arms length and we all know people we deal with we wish we didn't have to for one reason or another. This is the basis of my contention with this authors article; he attempts to paint all of the 9/12 marchers with his Racist brush and most Conservatives by association. Need I say more? Maybe I should. Just as shrinks have come to the conclusion that most homophobes are in denial of their own leanings and act it out by attacks on Gays, so do I tend to believe that some of those who try to project Racism on those objecting to the "Obama path to an enlightened America", I tend to believe they are closet Racist in denial. Note the qualifier of "some" before you go ballistic on me.

, he didn't even come close to matching Hitler

Missed the point that I do not equate either person as "Hitleresque" but the political and security policies being put into play as very similar to those of the Nazi Party in its rise to power and the resulting suspension of the Rights of the People of Germany.

When you stop pretending like I'm an "evil Democrat"

I do not pretend to know your heart and base all of my comments upon yours at this point. You claim not to be an "evil Democrat"; then you should be putting those who attempt to play the race card at as far a distance from yourself as possible. Failing to do so only endorses the feeling that you are also of the Far Left Wing who refuses to debate the merits of the Presidents policies and resorts, as this author does, to name calling based upon a few individuals of the Far Right Wing who are indeed racist enough and yet honest enough to be proud of it regardless of public opinion of their actions.

Citizen Kane-473667

Tagging the T.E.A. Parties as racist because of a few participants is as ridiculous as judging the President by his past associations.

I think we're starting to get lost in miniscule oversight on both our parts regarding the other's message. There's a subtle, but very important, difference in what I'm saying and the notion of painting the Tea Parties as outright racist. Let's see if I can't better clarify my point.

I've already pointed out on multiple occasions that not all Tea Party attendees are racist, nor that the Tea Parties are purely racist in nature. What I've been trying to emphasize is that there are a number of motivations empowering the movement and have mentioned two in particular: outrage over the rising federal deficit and racism.

The issue isn't about trying to label a broad group of people as racist, but rather to bring attention to the fact that there are racists in the ranks, and they're both tainting and distracting from the message. The incredible lack of minority support for the Tea Parties, despite the decent level of opposition to Obama's policies, is testament to this.

This should be a larger issue to the legitimate, conservative protesters attending these rallies than for the American political left, as it makes it much easier for the left to hijack the message and discredit the whole thing as racist. There's been plenty of examples of that to go around, to the point that even my criticism was seen as one such generic attack by folks like T Bourlon.

This is the basis of my contention with this authors article; he attempts to paint all of the 9/12 marchers with his Racist brush and most Conservatives by association.

That's debatable, in my view. Even the article's title points out, "You may not be racist." I won't lie when I say I skimmed the article's contents, so maybe there's some devil in the details I didn't notice, but aside from that, it seems to me that the article's more about emphasizing the highly unbalanced racial demographics just as I have been doing.

Just as shrinks have come to the conclusion that most homophobes are in denial of their own leanings and act it out by attacks on Gays

I don't know, I don't really believe in shrinks anyway. Just a bunch of psychological guessing games, in my view.

Note the qualifier of "some" before you go ballistic on me.

I haven't gone ballistic yet; no reason to start now.

Missed the point that I do not equate either person as "Hitleresque" but the political and security policies being put into play as very similar to those of the Nazi Party in its rise to power and the resulting suspension of the Rights of the People of Germany.

That's fair, but I still generally disagree. I don't see it flying far in America of all countries, were the legislative and executive branches to try.

You claim not to be an "evil Democrat"; then you should be putting those who attempt to play the race card at as far a distance from yourself as possible.

I've already made my position clear and have no intention of being dragged into American stereotypes. Ergo, I don't see a need to address the point with some pointless disclaimer. Furthermore, it shouldn't be an issue to people unless if they're deliberately trying to play the blame-by-association game, a la "if you don't explicitly stand against them, you must be one of them!" It's nothing more than an empty attempt to either justify their own position or demonize those with an opposing view.

Failing to do so only endorses the feeling that you are also of the Far Left Wing who refuses to debate the merits of the Presidents policies

Which demonstrates the point I just made. I've made a number of implications that disassociate you from the racist individuals and undertones of the Tea Parties out of good faith. Some common courtesy would be appreciated.

based upon a few individuals of the Far Right Wing who are indeed racist enough and yet honest enough to be proud of it regardless of public opinion of their actions.

And so we are now also in written agreement that there do exist racist individuals at these functions. With that, I'm sure we can agree that one side (conservative) ignores them and the other side (liberal) emphasizes them. That is, after all, pretty well documented.

My intention throughout this discussion has been to point out to the conservatives that they cannot ignore these people. Minorities notice them and refuse to participate (the general concept of this article), which gives even more ammunition for the left to use. The more the racists are ignored by the right at these events, the more the accusation of complacency and, God forbid, agreement sticks against them. As long as that's the case, the American right -- and their legitimate policy opposition -- will continue to be effectively marginalized in favour of the left.

And I bet you feel that George W. Bush, the person who is responsible for the mess this country is in more than anyone else, was a great president and fit to be leader, right? I'm sorry you are filled with so much hate, but then again most Republicans are. I disagreed with almost everything Bush did and feel he was the worst president this country has ever produced, but I never felt a personal hatred toward the man, only toward his policies.

What mess that GWB caused are you referring to? The economy? Sorry. The banking and financial institutions disaster started way-back-when during the CLinton Admin when Bubba had the Glass-Steagal Act rescinded. Glass-Steagal was a law passed in 1933 which delineated what activities banks could enage in and what activities other financial institutions could engage in. The purpose was to keep them seperate and protect the assets of the banking industry. Clinton had it repealed and then Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd, et al went wild allowing banks to make bad loans to people who could not pay them back so the democrats could run around the country telling minorities how much they were helping them out. In 2004 the Treasury Dept reorted to GWB that a disaster was looming and Bush sent some legislation to the House in an effort to stop it. The House shelved it and Bush didn't press the issue, unfortunately.

Greg, I think you have to go back further than Mr. Clinton. Much further.

Mr. Ronald St. Reagan was the first president to raise the national debt to unprecedented amounts.

He introduced the concept of "deficit spending." (For that, his corpse should be dug up, shot, and buried again.) What responsible adult tells his child to spend more than he has...unless he's got collateral. Well, Mr. Reagan had collateral, all right: social security and the economic future of the middle and lower classes.

He introduced "trickle down economics", which DOES NOT WORK. Humans will horde resources in a way that competitors cannot take them away....automically causing an imbalanced class structure.

Mr. Clinton and the Republican Congress balanced the budget. However, I believe they all should be drawn and quartered over NAFTA.

This crisis was inevitable, but Mr. Bush exacerbated it by furthering the conditions (deregulation of business and re-setting the tax structure for the obscenely wealthy) that Mr. St. Reagan began in the first place.

Bubba had the Glass-Steagal Act rescinded. Glass-Steagal was a law passed in 1933

ya clinton shouldn't have signed this bill written by republicans Graham\Leach & Bliley, with the sole purpose of helping out their banking buddies...

All I can say is, the past is the past....and nothing can be done or undone. However much Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan were in the wrong.....Obama tops them all. You can't outspend a bad economy. There is no economic theory to support such nonsense. At least Bush didn't start printing more money that had no substantial backing (such as Gold). The problem is Government.....period! They're all corrupt, Democrat and Republican alike. We, the people have allowed this corruption to completely take over and it will be our responsibility to stop it. We need a Constitutional Convention to ammend the ammendments that have been attached giving Congress and any administration too much power. Everything that happens should be through the vote of the people. No monies spent, or printed without the conscent of the people. This would solve alot of problems.

At least Bush didn't start printing more money that had no substantial backing

Bush Vows to Print "As Much Money As It Takes" to Defeat Debt

Washington, DC — President Bush toured the Denver Mint on Wednesday as the nation's paper money presses reached capacity. "We can print unlimited money because it's really only paper," Bush assured nervous Wall Street analysts. "But we need the right equipment or we let the terrorists win."

Mint officials have ordered additional printing presses from Taiwan to keep up with surging demand. "We must print over a billion dollars a day to cover the $400 billion in red ink this year alone, and that puts enormous strain on our equipment," said Henrietta Fore, Director of the United States Mint. Mint officials are considering alternatives, such as a $200 bill, wooden nickels, and bartering with fowl. "We like to think outside the coop," winked Ms. Fore

Don't Worry Folks - US Federal Reserve Printing More Money
September 15th, 2008

http://dailysquib.co.uk/?c=119&a=1481

Greg Johnson,

You may or may not be a racist, but I can certainly tell you're a card carrying republican, you definitely talk the talk of a GOP member, to the letter. Blaming all the country's woes on Clinton while completely exonerating the worst, most criminal president ever to sit in office...BUSH. It's as if you peope(no pun intended) were on another planet the last 8 years.

Julian - You never learn. Name a crime that Bush committed.

98% of the people who hated Bill Clinton were white. Are they racist too?? 98% of the people who hate Hillary are white. Are they racist too? 98% of the people who hate Nancy Pelosi are white? Are they racist too? Obama is half white. Not a racist thing as much as you libs wish it to be.

No they are not racists. But the common thread is that the object of the hatred is a strong liberal Democrat. It's truly sad that so many on the right are filled with such blinding hate. Right-wing hatred is a scourge that is doing great harm to the country. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

Yep. One can conclude from this article that Obama is racist against himself, as he is half-white.

I think you've missed the point of the article. The article never even incinuates that white people hate obama; the article directly states that the overwhelming majority of people who hate Obama are white.

There's a very distinct difference between those two statements. To assume reciprocity is a mistake in logic.

sammy sosa is white!

More race-baiting from the left... couldn't be that Obama's policies suck. How very narrow-minded of the left to think that the only reason Obama is hated is because he is black... kind of sounds a little like the left are the true racists, doesn't it?

GOP Rules

I think you may have hyperbolized this article unnecessarily. The author doesn't assert that being white is causality for hating Obama; he simply shows correlation between hating obama and being white. Those are two starkly different contexts and the author's premise is very difficult to refute at it's face.

Personally, I don't think it has to be a referendum on anybody as this information could be twisted to smear any race or party.

Obviously, everyone interprets information differently but what I gained from this article was the author's take on group dynamics. The author clearly points out that although there are some legitimate reasons to oppose Obama, the loudest and most boisterous messages are typically the ones that stick with the group; even if those messages aren't the ones primarily endorsed by the group. That dynamic applies to any group, not just the GOP.

blacks that didn't like bush were racists.... right?

gregjarvis

Again, you have missed the entire point.

For a parallel comparison using your hypothetical: if a significant majority of people who hated Bush were black, then one could draw correlation between hating bush and being black. Correlation is not conducive to causality, it simply implies some type of relationship between two factors. Such an occurence wouldn't mean that black people who hated Bush were racist, it would just mean that the majority of people who hated Bush were black. Several folks here seem intent on drawing causality out of this article.

The author never says that any white person who dislikes Obama is racist nor does he assert that white people hate Obama; he states that a significant majority of people who hate Obama are white. Again, those are two very, very different concepts.

jarrod - I didn't miss the point. We both know what the story was really trying to insinuate. You know, until Obama I was never called a racist and now I am called a racist on a regular basis because I don't agree with his policies.

GOP Rules

As I said, the implication here can be twisted any way one likes.

You seem to believe that this article implies that those who oppose Obama are racist. Well, by the same token, someone could assume that those who favor Obama are blindly sympathetic to a mixed race President.

Also, the author asserts only 2% of teabaggers are minorities. Since 2% is disproportionate to the overall percentage of minorities in the country, one could argue that the author implies that minorities are blindly following Obama simply because he is a fellow minority.

As I said GOP, you can believe whatever you want based on the information presented. I simply pointed out the fallacy in confusing correlation with causation.

jarrod - I see your point as well. I just see the obvious racial baiting in this whole story.

T Bourlon

I agree with your point about polarization; I disagree that this article is pointless.

As I have stated already, the author doesn't draw causality between being white and thus hating Obama. Given that 40 something percent of whites voted for Obama, that would be a pretty difficult assertion to sell. What the author does do is correlate those who hate Obama to being white because the vast majority of the tea party crowd is indeed white. That's not to say all white people hate Obama. Also, there's no evidence offered which proves that the tea party crowd demographics are an accurate representation of individuals who hate Obama in general.

Having said that, the article illustrates the intrinsic differences between a singular person and a crowd of people. As the author states, he doesn't believe that most white people are racist. He directly states he feels sympathy for the plight of those who feel they can't criticize Obama with being called a racist. However, the article quickly identifies how the perception develops that racism is driving criticism at some level. His points: (1) Conservatism has a callous history with race relations (2) A vast majority of the visible face of tea partiers is white. (3) Crowds are generally excited and/or led by extremes and the extremes of this particular movement consist of some blatantly racist things.

Add those assertions to the thought that this movement didn't seem to exist in any substantial form until Nov. 4th, 2008, and it's not hard to imagine where the 'racist' perception comes from.

So Jarrod, you think the article was about perception? I didn't get that at all. What I got was "there are extremists in the tea-parties, and they will eventually corrupt all those white Obama haters." For the record, I've never been to a tea-party, but I support the concept. We are bracing ourselves for the inevitable tax hikes that will have to accompany this legislation, at a time when our country can least afford it. I don't "hate" Obama, but I don't like him much, either. And yeah, I'm angry that he flew to Denmark to try to bring the Olympics to HIS HOMETOWN when Congress was debating his alleged number-one priority. And lots of Americans are angry that more isn't being done to create jobs and get people back on their feet. Instead Obama wants health care legislation that will require all people to buy health insurance, whether they want to or not. The perception that I'm a racist because I'm a "white Obama hater" is already there, perpetuated by the Left, and articles like this fuel that "perception" without offering anything to remedy the situation. I guess that's why I called it pointless.

Fair enough.

A couple of things:

(1) Tax hikes, in some form, are coming regardless of rather this legislation passes. At the rate that healthcare costs are increasing, if we do nothing, we will be forced to subsidize more and more people who can no longer afford insurance (through the ER and increased rolls for Medicaid and Medicare). We've let the situation spin into a 'pick your poison' scenario unfortunately.

(2) Obama had nothing to do with Chicago being selected as the United States bid city. That happened in mid-2007. Yes, he went to Denmark for a half a day to advocate for the United States. If you felt that was largely consequential to the healthcare debate that many on the right don't want him anywhere near anyway, then you are entitled to that opinion.

(3) In the last seven recessions, unemployment has always been the last economic benchmark to recover.

In the recessions of 1990 and 2001, unemployment rose for more than a year after the NBER called an end to the recession:

For example, in the 1990 and 2001 recessions the unemployment rate continued to climb for a year or more after the NBER called an end to the recession. The direction of the rate of growth of the unemployment rate is a better indicator of the end of a recession than the unemployment rate itself.

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4057

Realistically, given what Obama stepped into, positive job creation in ten months would have quite literally taken a messiah.

(4) I agree with the healthcare reform being flawed; but probably for different reasons. I think a for-profit mentality anywhere in the healthcare industry is a fundamental mistake. Having a system that allows a third party to place bets on the health of Americans is absolutely ludicrious. Not only that, bets are also being placed on the overhead profit outcomes of the organizations placing bets on people's health as well as the providers of health. All the while none of the bet placers are providing a shred of actual healthcare themselves. The rest of the industrialized world has figured out how inherently destructive such a system is, but we are still plodding along, fighting ourselves tooth and nail.

(5) I agree, the left has indeed perpetuated the idea that white obama haters are racist.....but so has the right. And everytime someone shows up to a tea party and/or protest with an Obama monkey doll, the perpetuation continues just as it does when Limbaugh or Beck assert that Obama has a deep seeded hatred/resentment of white people.

Maybe you wouldn't be so bored if you bothered to read the articles before commenting on them.

Texasguy01

Apparently, it was entertaining enough to elicit a response from you......

*sigh*.................

1) Conservatism has a callous history with race relations

welcome to the world of false idealogy...the Ideals of the constitution which the left has no respect for includes the 13, 14th, and 15th ammendent which you and the left claim to be so free of racial issues yet even your President is quoted :"The courts have not ruled out the use of racial preference". when your party ever decides enact laws with equality...you might actually earn some respect from conservatives.

Billy

Hmmm.... where to start?

First, the exert you italicized was a point made by the author of the article. He stated this as much by saying:

Add to this the fact that it is a central article of faith for American conservatism that the whole business of diversity is nothing but a racket, forced on them by liberal elites. I can't think of one measure meant to ameliorate America's hideous history of racial discrimination that conservatives have supported. Literally not one, in the 50 years we've been trying them.

By all means, you don't have to agree with that. I would be interested in how you would refute it though.

Second, you seem to be intent on drawing strange relationships between seeminly unrelated things. When has 'the left' said that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were free of racial issues? Those amendments generally deal directly with racial issues, especially the 13th and 15th (the 15th is more direct; the 13th because the majority of slaves were minorities). To act as if those amendments were 'free of racial issues' would be an act of futility for anybody on the right or left.

Then you mention how the President ('your President', as you put it) said: "The courts have not ruled out the use of racial preference in the future". So, what's your point?

First, as the quote directly states, it was the courts who didn't rule out the use of racial preference in the future, not the President.

Second, if you are trying to account some type of guilt to the President because of the statement made by the Court, Obama had been responsible for picking exactly zero acting Supreme Court Justices at the time the statement was made. In fact, at that time, 7 of the 9 acting justices had been selected by Republicans.

Third, it was a common sense statement based on the situation.

As for me personally, I really don't put much stock into rather Conservatives respect me or not. I assume the left generally feels the same way on that topic ;)

add to this the fact that it is a central article of faith for American conservatism that the whole business of diversity is nothing but a racket, forced on them by liberal elites

Liberals...with their always better than thou attitude sure make a strong case for disagreement....and when you have liberals who think that Democrats brought the civil rights bill of 64 they have no clue...the policies since civil rights for Democrats have not changed...but you can thank McCullough and Kuchels for Americans having the Civil rights bill...

Wherever the truth lies, the decision was made. The first priority of business for the administration was to enlist the support of Congressman McCulloch, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee which would write the bill.

so when you want enact laws that benefit certain groups like a hate crime bill or wait till 1996 to ratify the 13th Ammendment (freeing slaves) then call it an oversight and expect people to buy that B.S. sell it to someone else...not buying it here.

"The President was more interested in passing a tax bill to benefit some segments of the economy than in passing a civil rights bill for all of us." And one of the main architects of the Senate version of the civil rights bill, Senate Republican Whip Thomas H. Kuchel of California, remembers that "it was common knowledge in Congress that President Kennedy didn't want a civil rights bill. He deemed the tax cut more important to the economy. He was afraid that if he pushed civil rights too aggressively he would antagonize the powerful Southern chairmen of major committees who might be able to stop the tax bill as a means of getting revenge."

The stage was set, and the lines for and against civil rights action were beginning to form. At the White House, President Kennedy, now fully committed, held meetings with pro-civil rights Democrats and Republicans in Congress

Read the whole story... it was more than just Republicans it took actual bipartisanship to get past Kennedy and his tax cut bill, bipartisanship we do not have now nor Does Obama really want bipartisanship . Not all democrats wanted Civil rights but Republicans did...more and more we still see evidence of inequality voted on by Democrats

http://www.angelfire.com/pro/johnburris/drury65.htm

On another note ...this is what I wrote:

the Ideals of the constitution which the left has no respect for includes the 13, 14th, and 15th ammendent which you and the left claim to be so free of racial issues

This is what you wrote in response as if you were quoting me:

When has 'the left' said that the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were free of racial issues?/em>

This is why I posted Pulitzer prize winner Allen Drury special report...Congress makes a decision..because the left which only tells you what they want to hear or read...Per Anita Dunn, is about rewriting what actually happened ...pretty soon or what you may have in response to this article is the vine lefties ...talking about Dixiecrats like that has something to with Governor George Wallace(D-AL) keeping African Americans out of public schools . they will start claiming that what Rosa Parks did had nothing to do with Democratic Policy or that they had nothing to with the KKK or that Democrats in Southern states which genrally controlled most states from 1874 to 2000 and in the case of Mississippi had all Democratic Governors...Republicans in southern states marked an end to along era of racial of laws or ways of being like Jim crow laws legalized by Democrats with Plessy vs Ferguson in the SCOTUS,,,only Justice Harlan,a Republican dissenting.....I am guessing you were not there when the State Police kept African Americans out of schools or when you went to a restaraunt that African Americans could stand outside in the back and go to a window and get food...but I did and I know which political party supported those ideals...so whilst you want to believe that...the points made by the author have value ...ultimately this is another effort to by Killfile to point out his hatred for those who oppose the greatly miscalculated and misguided spending policies of this administration which will blame Bush for it's enormous spending and the ones who still put race, sex and inequality into the laws they make.

Yes, Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yep, that's within the 50 year time frame the author uses. The big question is whether so-called "affirmative action" is helpful or harmful. Basically we see it as legal discrimination against whites - shame on us for feeling that way! And we believe that "promoting diversity" is a poor excuse for legal discrimination - oh, what terrible people we are! Lemme tell 'ya, during Katrina there were blacks stating that Bush would let blacks in New Orleans die, and his approval ratings would go up - yes, they actually said that. Clearly "promoting diversity" hasn't done diddly to improve race relations, has it?

Billy

it was more than just Republicans it took actual bipartisanship to get past Kennedy and his tax cut bill, bipartisanship we do not have now nor Does Obama really want bipartisanship

In 1964 the parties were not as neatly divided by ideology as they are today. The southern democrats are now the "base" of the republican party.

Yes, Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That's great....but the author said 'Conservatives'....remember?

yes...remember how you like to make up stuff...you have already misquoted me several times.....no southern Democrats are not the base of the republican party..Those so called Democrats were segragationists...it is about time the left quits trying to defend the fact that they supported racism.....maybe the next time somesone speaks out against racism maybe you wont argue with them....but I doubt it...it is what your party has been doing for the last 200 hundred years...old habits hard to break....

I'm white too. The only thing I hate is liberal politics and broken promises about my taxes not going up and my healthcare costs going down. I am going thru benefits enrollment as we speak and my insurance is now more expensive than at any time under the Bush Administration.

I am going thru benefits enrollment as we speak and my insurance is now more expensive than at any time under the Bush Administration.

The bill won't take effect until 2013 bubba

Yes, but didn't Mr Obama promise if he were elected my costs would go down?? They have not gone down and they won't go down before election 2012??

Yes, but didn't Mr Obama promise if he were elected my costs would go down??

And you were expecting that to happen in 1yr.........

o..k....., but arent your premiums adjusted based on policy and outcomes of the last fiscal year.......

Not saying be an Obama fan, but do be fair.

I am expecting Mr Obama to keep his promise. When will premiums stop rising? His promise was that the premiums would go down under his plan, not up. That means go down before the next election. That means less than I was paying under the hated Bush administration.

4real, you are arguing with a brick wall....sigh

But, but, Obama promised my healthcare costs would go down and they're not goin down. I never believed him but millions did. Now independents have buyers remorse.