But it isn't hard to construe Wilson as a racist is it.
After all someone who describes revelations about a white supremacist having had sex with people who ain't white as a smear campaign could easily be called a racist.
After all a smear campaign is meant to dirty a reputation, how do you dirty the reputation of someone who is so brainless that they can't possibly have a clean reputation?...unless of course the revelations were meant to dirty the white supremacists reputation with other white supremacists

Maybe, but many commented her retreat from Alaskian office as a first step to prepare her candidacy.

I really don't dare any prediction regarding her plans.

One thing is clear. You have no understanding of the USA, Republicans, or Democrats. I think you read from too many kook Internet sites. :D

No one knows it. The least of whom is you.

"You lie" could merely mean what the words mean at face value. The fact that people on the left seem to convieniently ignore is that, the part of the President's speech that Representative Wilson was referring to, Obama was indeed actually lying - otherwise he was criminally misinformed.

There's this idiotic (yes, these people are idiots) segment on the left that believes that, because the healthcare bill doesn't specifically say that it covers illegal immigrants, that means that it doesn't cover said people. In fact, illegal immigrants would receive the SAME DEFACTO healthcare coverage that they receive now.

The current Patient Bill of Rights (rightly) requires hospitals to treat any and all people who enter their doors. Considering that illegals have no social security number and work illegally, there is NO WAY for healthcare providers to recoup any costs that aren't paid up front.

In essence, illegal aliens receive better heathcare coverage than your average American, and it's costing taxpayers millions.

So, was Joe Wilson right? Absolutely. Obama CAN'T be so stupid as to realize that the health bill doesn't allow continued defacto coverage of illegal aliens. Indeed, there is language in the bill requiring that those covered be US citizens. However, there is NO language in the bill requiring anyone to PROVE that they are US citizens.

So wait, we're going to TRUST people in this country ILLEGALLY to tell the truth? That's damned stupid.

Was he wrong in his conduct? Absolutely. There is a certain decorum that should be followed. Was it racially motivated? Doubtful ... but irrelevent. If someone says "murder is bad" and is doing so because a black person is saying it's good, that doesn't mean that the first person is wrong.

I was not referring to the content of the statement, but the phenomenon of mounting slurs and attacks against Obama, that make the "you lie"-incident just one symptom in a longer developing phenomenon. And that it is like that we all know for sure - even those of us who for dogmatic reasons reject to admit the phenomenology.

I was referring to the same thing as you.

As has been pointed out, this phenomenon is no different than anything that has been seen in recent years in the cases of polarizing world leaders. Do you have any evidence that the US would be responding different should a white president be supporting the same policies? I seem to remember a certain outcry regarding HillaryCare, and the Clintons were far more to the center than Obama is.

The fact is that if race were an issue, Obama wouldn't have enjoyed such early approval successes. His policies, not his skin color, have impacted his decline.

Let's use mathematics here. He started at around 65% approval. That means that there were 35% that disapprove. Bush also started at 65% approval, meaning that there were around 35% who disapprove.

That is before ANY policy decisions were made.

Now, on both sides there were around 35% of the populace that disapproved, essentially regardless, and you want to make the argument that Obama's disapproval is rooted in race?

What, then, explains Bush's disapproval?

And besides, what do those people who are completely ingrained in an ideology matter? Nothing is going to change that dynamic - those people are thoroughly implanted into their ideology. The rest of us tend to lend our support to policies we agree with and oppose those we disagree with. And the "rest of us" are the people that are turning against Obama.

Now does race impact things to some extent? Sure. But nothing more than how, say blacks turned out overwhelmingly to support Obama while staying in for John Kerry.

Indeed, racial phenomenon does exist, but its highly unlikely that race is the factor that is driving the current opposition towards the president.

I mean seriously, when Bush made unpopular decisions it was unpopular because he was wrong, while when Obama does the same thing its unpopular because he's black?

Absurd.

It's not that those who voted for Obama suddenly turned into racists, although obviously there is quite some disillusionment going on. Its just that the racists in the other camp have become louder after the election. But present it was from the campaign days on. If you doubt that, discuss the issue with some people who are professionals in threat assessement: the Secret Service.

Regarding the display of public protest and incidents at town hall meetings, comparisons with mass murderers and war criminals, and character assassination by inking Obama's policies to Nazi death camps - here in europe you would find yourself in legal troubles for such things displayed on such scale , in several countries, no only germany. If you claim that kind of hysteric, personally most offensive behavior to be "free speech", than neither freedom nor laws battling incitement, slandering and character assassination have any meaning anymore. Freedom does not mean to bully others and behave like a wild bull in the China shop. Freedom could be used to act freely and voice once free opinion, based on argument, freely - and still behave more politely and less cheating. Bullying is no sign of freedom. It is a sign of bad manners, big mouth, and just that.

As it also was often the case in this forum, the problem is not differing opinion, disagreement and somebody protesting. The problem is manners and behavior, using foul tricks and cheats and blatant lies. Some time ago they showed an interesting and very revealing piece on TV, by an American station. They asked protesters and some of the loudest yelling people if they could explain the model Obama was propagating.

They all explained it wrong, showing that they did not even understood what it was for which they yelled out their hate tirades and showed swastikas on Obama portraits and such.

There is no remedy and no cure to lacking education. But not being educated can be perfectly compensated by becoming noisier than those who are.

Which reminds me of a wonderful essay by norbert Bolz, an analysis of the deconstruction of the hero in western modernism and how Western general democracies disparage excellence in the name of "we, the people".
But that is a completely different story! :haha: :D

'Getting louder' has also been a key element of Obama's election campaign. You cannot blame the other side for applying the same means.

That is indeed disturbing, to say the least. I wondered how they could get away with this sort of slander and misinformation, not to speak of the bile and fury it takes.

Could you post some links here? Heated arguments -of course, ad hominem arguments - for sure. But what are foul tricks? In case you're not referring to this forum, please clarify.

Maybe noise can sometimes be equated by post length ... :hmmm:

All in all, nothing new under the sun this thread.

The forum history I will not recall here, there has been too much fighting in the past ten years, and you have missed the better part of the fun. Not for nothing some people I ignore here. What they have in common is that they mixed name-calling, personal insult and bullying - with argument one time too often.

Beyond the forum, for example to claim and claim again Obama is a Muslim Trojan Horse, and claiming it again and again according to the psychologic truth that masses tend to believe the one of several statements that gets
- claimed first,
- claimed repeatedly no matter any counter-argument,
- propagated more agressively.

Or to intentionally misspell his name as Osama.

Both things are dirty tricks, trying to score by appealling to the masses' unreflected, anti-intellectual instincts, making their behavior matching the wanted agenda on basis of irrational reasons when arguments are not convincing. That is what I call playing foul. It's like smearing bull#### onto somebody and then ask people: "Hey, smell him? Wanna follow somebody who stinks that bad?"

Demonising an opponent very much works this way. And if I would believe the noise reaching us from the other side of the Atlantic, Obama no doubt must be Satan himself walking on Earth, aiming at destroying the Union and raising death camps for the old and weak. Actually, quite some people seem to seriously believe he is Satan indeed.

Even worse than Satan - he is a socialist!

No, even worse - a socialist Islamist!

No, worst of all - a terrorist like Osama!

Conclusion: socialism is terrorism :doh: (heared during a town hall meeting that was in the short news on TV over here).



Oh my. Kill your extremist emotions, dear America. They are played upon like a piano player plays on the black and white keys - and obediently, you sing the according tune. Come back to your senses.

You can always turn me off and switch on the 30 seconds flash news on TV, if that is more to your liking. ;)

Go back to post 24...another growing phenomenon or was growing....Bush is home now in TX so who cares and everyone forgets. Look over both walls Skybird. You will find it is the same on either side. The only phenomenon here is Americans have a very short memory.

Skybird...I rest my case:

Quote:

I believe what Wilson did was unprofessional, immature, disrespectful, and inappropriate.

But I just can't see any racism context there. :nope:

Agreed 100%.

There is none. What you are witnessing is desperate flailing to deflect the accusitions (which were proven correct).