The "birther" activity is racist pure and simple. There is no need to pretend otherwise.

Exactly. There is no other motivation for birtherism than simple-minded bigotry. The proof of Obama's birth has been provided and verified numerous times and birthers refuse to accept it because they simply don't want to. It's another example of people who willingly choose to be stupid - not ignorant mind you - STUPID because the reality of a black man in the White House is too untenable for them. They're children who think turning on the pretty white night light will make the big, black boogeyman go away.

My confession for the day is that I do a terrible disservice in posting by not reading/proofing to catch the unintelligible things with which I come up. Apparently it all sounds great in my mind though...

Anyway, I'm sorry.

Joe Arpaio keeps saying the birth certificate is a forgery. And obviously it is not overt racism; it is a vast right-wing conspiracy to make Barack Obama "different" from all previous presidents. Which he is different, but it's riding the line so as not to overtly imply that it's because he's black. Instead elected Republican officials and the Republican part of the mainstream media have created the Islam thing and the birther thing as ways to say black without saying black. Dunno, if you watch South Park, but there is an episode where Oprah, Will Smith, etc. move to town. The townspeople say they want the "richers" out, and succeed in getting them out without talking about race the entire episode; at the end Mr. Garrison proclaims, "At least we got rid of those nig--" and it cuts out. It's exactly like that. Of course you're allowed to say his middle name but I don't see people saying "George Walker Bush" or "William Jefferson Clinton" because it sounds weird. Why else would people constantly say Barack Hussein Obama if not to remind people of what his middle name is?

I think it's selective memory on your part to say the health care law was rammed through. It was extremely difficult to get it passed and they ended up having to do a budget maneuver in order to even get the House and Senate to pass the same bills. It's not like they passed Obamacare on day 1 and then ignored the economy for two years. In fact at the time conservatives were even saying the maneuver used to pass Obamacare was illegal -- it was that hard to get ANYTHING passed thru congress at that time. Between the Repugs voting no on everything and filibustering routine bills, it was not an easy time to get bills passed at that time so the "2 years of complete control" is just not true. It had also been 20 years since health care reform was even attempted and it went down in shambles the first time. It was now or never to get any kind of health care legislation enacted and Barack Obama had learned (some of) his lesson from the Hillarycare debacle.

When you say "find a way to control spending rather than figure out additional ways to blow the wad" you're failing to be objective. You have to realize, liberals see increased government spending as a way out of recession. You think the government needs to contain itself even during recession. So there's a fundamental disconnect there. The stimulus was our fiscal policy to contain the recession and achieve recovery. So really, it's not that you don't think Obama did enough for the economy, it's that you think what he did was not the correct solution and made our problems worse.

I'm not making racism a moving target at all. Black people wanting to be represented by one of their own is as valid a reason as any, and causes no harm to the prospects of any white man becoming president. The first black president being railroaded by elected, mainstream Republicans because he "must be a muslim foreigner" is thinly-veiled racism that actively seeks to unite white voters against a foreign entity holding power over them, actively preventing blacks from pursuing further glass ceiling shatterings.

Hey Juppiter...

First of all, I want to apologize for the comment earlier in this conversation where I said, "More crap, Juppiter." That was a disrespectful response to your well-articulated thoughts and was unnecessary.

Rather than line-by-line a response, I will offer something more general. I'm sensitive to the fact that there are some people out there who dislike Obama because he's black. I just want to make it clear that it isn't Republicans or conservatives as a block of people that feel that way... The fact of the matter is that people of all political stripes can carry some type of bigotry with them. I believe to offer up the old, "Well more Republicans do" argument is unfair without offering a disclaimer that it isn't EVERYONE... but some or even a fringe. I recognize some people like Ann here in the forum believe bigotry is part of the expressed Republican platform, interpreting meaning to words or whatever... I speak only for myself and MY interpretation as a registered Republican and I don't believe it or see it that way.

Joe Arpaio is a bulldog. I don't know what proof or evidence he has to back up his claims... we'll never know because, rather than disputing his claims or examining his evidence, he is dismissed. I would think the proper thing would be to discredit him and make him look foolish to revealing his claims to ridiculous... instead, it is covered up, glossed over, and never referred to by the mainstream media. That may be their biggest mistake, in my opinion... If there is no basis for his claims, then blow him out of the water publicly. Just a strategy, in my opinion...

You are right in correcting my statement about Obama's handling (or lack thereof) of the economy... I didn't like his attempt and resolution. Results speak for themselves.

But I stand behind the statement that voting for a person BECAUSE he is black is racism. Is may not be as insidious as cross-burning or denying employment based on color, etc., but it is still a bigoted thing. Why? Because if *I* said I was voting for a white man or woman because I wanted a President who looked like ME, then I would be excluding another based on the factor of race. It doesn't work one way and not the other... People of color can also be bigoted. When I hear a black woman express disapproval of a black man who wishes to be with a white woman, she is exhibiting racism - same as a white man who expresses disapproval of biracial romance. It's racism, period.

Anyway... I appreciate the spirited discussion, Juppiter. :-) I also appreciate the way you share your thoughts with me... You're offering me some things to think about, which is why I like to participate in these types of forums.

Look at all the reasons given today for why Johnny cannot read (short of a real physical or mental disability):

• the textbooks in his school are old, outdated, torn, etc.
  
• he speaks a special language/dialect and should have an ESL class like non-English speaking immigrants
  
• he doesn't have any teachers that look like him
  
• America's slave history has placed him on unequal footing
  

Wales, don't let me get away without commenting on this later... I don't have time right now but I want to add some thoughts to this... Remind me privately or here in the forum so I don't foget... Gotta go for now...

Rosie Perez blasts Romney

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EVIrNxba0ls" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The hatred of the right-wing conservatives on display yet again:

http://www.nytimes.c...ogram.html?_r=0

If only they would admit what they are and not misrepresent themselves as Christians.

I'm glad the SPLC finally classified the AFA as a hate group. That's really what they are.

These are the people who will be in power if Romney wins. He will spend four years catering to these people.

Joe Arpaio is a bulldog. I don't know what proof or evidence he has to back up his claims... we'll never know because, rather than disputing his claims or examining his evidence, he is dismissed. I would think the proper thing would be to discredit him and make him look foolish to revealing his claims to ridiculous... instead, it is covered up, glossed over, and never referred to by the mainstream media. That may be their biggest mistake, in my opinion... If there is no basis for his claims, then blow him out of the water publicly. Just a strategy, in my opinion...

What I've seen is that he threatens to reveal something and when the time comes he never does so I don't see how that becomes the media glossing over anything. It's him huffing and puffing smoke with no fire. Do you seriously believe if he had anything at all that Fox wouldn't have been all over it like a wrinkled woman in a mud bath if you told her it was the fountain of youth?

But I stand behind the statement that voting for a person BECAUSE he is black is racism. Is may not be as insidious as cross-burning or denying employment based on color, etc., but it is still a bigoted thing. Why? Because if *I* said I was voting for a white man or woman because I wanted a President who looked like ME, then I would be excluding another based on the factor of race. It doesn't work one way and not the other...

I agree with you that it's racism but so what???? We're not talking about a common occurrence where for years black Americans have had that option are we? If we were then the whole it's racist thing would be extremely significant because you'd be talking about a pattern. You're talking about one single instance and you cannot even confirm that any of these people would vote for Barack Obama if he were a Republican because they probably haven't even considered that themselves, and that would go a longer way to proving any sort of racism.

You don't need to make any sort of declaration about wanting a President who looked like YOU (personally I find the whole looked like me phrase stupid. My own brother doesn't even look like me and I'm into the literal not the race makes everyone the same person with the same looks....the more I repeat this stuff--the more ridiculous it sounds to me), 2008 was the first time in your entire life that you were presented with a real option of voting for someone who does not look white. So please......once versus how many times and you really want a make a big deal out of whatever black voters who made some racial solidarity declaration as if this is having the greatest impact in the America's history of race relations. To be clear, this is me trivializing it.

People of color can also be bigoted. When I hear a black woman express disapproval of a black man who wishes to be with a white woman, she is exhibiting racism - same as a white man who expresses disapproval of biracial romance. It's racism, period.

Doesn't everyone have some color?.....that's just my opinion of course. What about if a white man wants to be with a black woman and his white friends say "ewwww" because black women cannot possibly be attractive? Yet this thing between black women and white men happens and black men seem to be infinitely more annoyed by it than some of those racist black women mad about black men with white women (to which I would say why fret over a man who doesn't want you anyway...because I'm practical like that). The way I hear it is that black men think it's the ultimate betrayal because it's supposed to be like sleeping with a slave master which must mean that white women never owned slaves. Anyway, I shouldn't try to travel inside the minds of the ignorant because I might get lost. So what's a biracial romance anyway? Is that when two biracial people get together? I am just kidding because I know you meant interracial.

Wales, don't let me get away without commenting on this later... I don't have time right now but I want to add some thoughts to this... Remind me privately or here in the forum so I don't foget... Gotta go for now...

About that.... I didn't realize when I picked the name Johnny that it was a Don Henley song so if you just want to discuss songs well.... I think you'll remember all on your own though.

Wow, so Hillary Clinton is to blame for what happened in Libya? Guess she wasn't ready for that 3am call...

Or was she?

My question is, does Barack Obama take responsibility for ANYTHING that happens under his watch?

Wow, so Hillary Clinton is to blame for what happened in Libya? Guess she wasn't ready for that 3am call...

Or was she?

My question is, does Barack Obama take responsibility for ANYTHING that happens under his watch?

It's crap. As President the buck stops with him. Perhaps it was the state dept that denied the embassy in Libya's plea's for beefed up security, which is Hilary's domain, but he is the president. The presidential thing to have done would have been for him to step up and accept some responsibility or at least talk directly to the American people about what happened. I hate this because it seems like its being done to deflect attacks on Obama.

For the record I'm not enamored with either candidate.

Edited October 16, 201213 yr by JaneAusten

But if security at the embassy in Tripoli had been increased as requested, how would that have helped the consulate in Benghazi? And how would adding more Marines have helped against heavy weapons used in the attack? All that would have happened is that more people would have likely died. Given the intensity of the attack we are lucky that only three diplomats were killed. It is the responsibility of the host government to provide adequate security for the exterior of the foreign embassies. The Libyan government is at fault for not protecting the consulate's exterior adequately.

Like Bush with 9/11, Obama and Clinton (I am not giving her a pass) are at fault for the CIA's failure of not stopping the conspirators before they actually attacked the embassy. Given the danger and all weapons the CIA passed on to the Libyans when they were fighting Gaddafi, the CIA should have tracking them and making sure that they were all accounted for. The CIA should have also been tracking radical groups in Libya.

Losers: http://www.huffingto..._n_1970603.html

Edited October 16, 201213 yr by Ann_SS

I'm not absolving Clinton, the CIA,and a multitude of others for responsibility. What I don't like is that she's stepping forward one day before the debate. It smells of an attempt to take the heat off the president because of the upcoming debate and election. I don't care for the appearance of Obama hiding behind the culpability of others or at least appearing to.

I try not to dabble in the hypothetical that much because you cannot go back and change things. You can only hope to learn and avoid repeating the same mistakes. I don't see what could have been done to prevent what happened short of knowing it was going to happen, and stopping it. More security isn't a guarantee of anything so to suggest that this was the key to preventing the attacks seems a bit careless. At best, one can say that it might have and might is not the same as absolutely would have.

If I lived in Darrell Issa's district I would never vote for him. He's an example to me of tax dollars at waste. I don't think his last inquiry turned out to be anything but some political stunt but he's determined to keep trying until he thinks he's gotten somewhere and the only somewhere he needs to get is out of political office.

Wow, so Hillary Clinton is to blame for what happened in Libya? Guess she wasn't ready for that 3am call...

Or was she?

My question is, does Barack Obama take responsibility for ANYTHING that happens under his watch?

It's crap. As President the buck stops with him. Perhaps it was the state dept that denied the embassy in Libya's plea's for beefed up security, which is Hilary's domain, but he is the president. The presidential thing to have done would have been for him to step up and accept some responsibility or at least talk directly to the American people about what happened. I hate this because it seems like its being done to deflect attacks on Obama.

For the record I'm not enamored with either candidate.

The fact that Obama loves to blame others is proof that he is such a coward. Getting Hillary Clinton to take the fall for him represents a new low in this regard. At least he is not blaming Bush or McConnell this time.

I am so very glad that I don't dabble in the utter ridiculousness of partisan politics otherwise I would be still waiting for George W. Bush to explain the whole fraudulent WMD rationale for all those lives being taken....not lost....taken for no real reason.....or is there a story about gaining control of foreign oil supplies that I blinked and miss?

Ha, even the mainstream media has had enough of the American Family Association's hatred and lies: http://www.huffingto...ir=Gay%20Voices

Edited October 16, 201213 yr by Ann_SS