Wait, where in my video does Olbermann appear? Where does Jimmy Carter say everyone opposing Obama is racist?

For that matter, was what Olbermann said literally "everyone who opposes Obama is a racist", or was it more along the lines of "might the excessive vehemence of the opposition be partially fueled by racial animosity?"

Are we no longer allowed to ask the question "what role does race play in this"? Or is it now that people have to turn a blind eye to all racially charged subtexts out of fear of being accused of "playing the race card"?

Fuck that. For all the years I've heard people bitch about how "Political Correctness" is some sort of restraint on their speech, is it any different if the politics we're being correct about become "thou shalt not ever accuse anyone of racism"? There's a good reason to be "PC" -- it's about treating other people with respect. There's no good reason to launch into tirades at everyone who ever suggests that someone's actions may have been racially tinged.

Joe Wilson probably doesn't deserve the label "racist". Do I think there's a reason to suspect race played a role in why he's so worried about illegal immigrants benefiting from reform, and that Obama's race might have lowered his inhibitions a bit when it came to treating him with disrespect? Hell yes.

Do I think the sea of older, white, southern people who refuse to accept Obama as being born in the US are all racists? No. Do I think race plays a role for some of them either consciously or subconsciously? Yes.

Do I think Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift because he's a racist? No. Do I think he was bringing racial animosity to the event, and casting undeserved aspersions on the judges? Yes.

I get why this issue is a sensitive one, but people seriously have to stop acting as though the accuser is always the one who deserves scorn.

Obama truly is all things to all people. Some on the left hate him for "being in the pocket of Wall Street" while to others the SOBUS is thriving on market chaos, fear, instability, obscene unemployment levels, record spending and borrowing and on top of it all, has the GAUL to state in his socialized medicine speech that the worst is over and he's turning it around! JIMMY CARTER II!

But seriously. Besides the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories... laws get passed that corporation disapprove of all the time.

It just takes some goddamn balls to do it.

Christ. Obama, if you pass healthcare reform NOW... in three more years when you're up for election either you will win handily because people will be so happy they can't stand it or you will lose because your government.. I don't know... kills people or something I don't really see a downside.

But you will be the incumbent president with MUCH more ability to be reelected than any challenger just as any encumbent president. But America despises weakness... more than anything. Jimmy Carter was portrayed as a wimp by Reagan and lost handily... because CARTER ACTED LIKE A WIMP! For the love of christ, Lyndon Johnson was a democrat! That dude was made out of fucking concrete and held meetings while he was on the shitter.

JUST DO SOMETHING OBAMA... AND DO IT WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND SOUL.

There is nothing Americans love more than a Rocky Balboa. Any guy that throws EVERYTHING he has into a fight, and keeps getting knocked down but gets back up to fight again... americans eat that for breakfast.

But if you go out there and get knocked out because you were afraid you'd hurt someone's feelings... well, join Jimmy Carter (a great guy, but not the greatest president) at the one term presidents' table.

Liberal Lies in National Health Care: Second in a Series
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, August 26, 2009

With the Democrats getting slaughtered -- or should I say, "receiving mandatory end-of-life counseling" -- in the debate over national health care, the Obama administration has decided to change the subject by indicting CIA interrogators for talking tough to three of the world's leading Muslim terrorists.

Had I been asked, I would have advised them against reinforcing the idea that Democrats are hysterical bed-wetters who can't be trusted with national defense while also reminding people of the one thing everyone still admires about President George W. Bush.

But I guess the Democrats really want to change the subject. Thus, here is Part 2 in our series of liberal lies about national health care.

(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.

Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it. (Hey, look -- I have two-thirds of a syllogism!)

Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, "The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs ... without ever denying a single medical treatment!

Also on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually help you lose weight! But first, let's go over the specs for my perpetual motion machine -- and it uses no energy, so it's totally green!

For you newcomers to planet Earth, everything that does not exist in infinite supply is rationed. In a free society, people are allowed to make their own rationing choices.

Some people get new computers every year; some every five years. Some White House employees get new computers and then vandalize them on the way out the door when their candidate loses. (These are the same people who will be making decisions about your health care.)

Similarly, one person might say, "I want to live it up and spend freely now! No one lives forever." (That person is a Democrat.) And another might say, "I don't go to restaurants, I don't go to the theater, and I don't buy expensive designer clothes because I've decided to pour all my money into my health."

Under national health care, you'll have no choice about how to ration your own health care. If your neighbor isn't entitled to a hip replacement, then neither are you. At least that's how the plan was explained to me by our next surgeon general, Dr. Conrad Murray.

(7) National health care will reduce costs.

This claim comes from the same government that gave us the $500 hammer, the $1,200 toilet seat and postage stamps that increase in price every three weeks.

The last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil industry. Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada -- presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau -- imposed price controls on oil.

As night leads to day, price controls led to reduced oil production, which led to oil shortages, skyrocketing prices for gasoline, rationing schemes and long angry lines at gas stations.

You may recall this era as "the Carter years."

Then, the white knight Ronald Reagan became president and immediately deregulated oil prices. The magic of the free market -- aka the "profit motive" -- produced surges in oil exploration and development, causing prices to plummet. Prices collapsed and remained low for the next 20 years, helping to fuel the greatest economic expansion in our nation's history.

You may recall this era as "the Reagan years."

Freedom not only allows you to make your own rationing choices, but also produces vastly more products and services at cheap prices, so less rationing is necessary.

(8) National health care won't cover abortions.

There are three certainties in life: (a) death, (b) taxes, and (C) no health care bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Barack Obama could possibly fail to cover abortions.

I don't think that requires elaboration, but here it is:

Despite being a thousand pages long, the health care bills passing through Congress are strikingly nonspecific. (Also, in a thousand pages, Democrats weren't able to squeeze in one paragraph on tort reform. Perhaps they were trying to save paper.)

These are Trojan Horse bills. Of course, they don't include the words "abortion," "death panels" or "three-year waits for hip-replacement surgery."

That proves nothing -- the bills set up unaccountable, unelected federal commissions to fill in the horrible details. Notably, the Democrats rejected an amendment to the bill that would specifically deny coverage for abortions.

After the bill is passed, the Federal Health Commission will find that abortion is covered, pro-lifers will sue, and a court will say it's within the regulatory authority of the health commission to require coverage for abortions.

Then we'll watch a parade of senators and congressmen indignantly announcing, "Well, I'm pro-life, and if I had had any idea this bill would cover abortions, I never would have voted for it!"

No wonder Democrats want to remind us that they can't be trusted with foreign policy. They want us to forget that they can't be trusted with domestic policy.

By predecessors, I'm guessing you mean Bush Sr. himself AND Cheney, along with (I assume) your hero, Reagan. They ALL supported both Sadam and Osama in their time.

You'd presume wrongly about Reagan. Should I presume Carter a hero of yours? Reagan's 'support'(we'll get to why this is in quotes) for Osama was merely a continuation of the policy started by good old Jimmy Carter.

You are playing too loose with the facts by equating support for the mujahideen with support for Osama. The truth is America under Carter and Reagan supported a jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It's really just as bad, or even worse, but the implications of it are still importantly different and the context you give makes it outright false.

As for Saddam, you need to be consistent. I'll happily condemn support for a monster like Saddam. I would hold the one reservation though that it is much easier to see his true nature with the advantage of hindsight. To me, it is harder to condemn handling Saddam incorrectly when his nature was unclear than after it was undeniable.

By the time Bush Sr. was president, Saddam's actions had made his nature undeniable. He was a monster willing to do anything and everything to get what he wanted. He would use chemical weapons, he would commit genocide, he would annex neighboring states. Upon that nature being clear, I can not condemn the act of removing Saddam from Kuwait, nor of removing him from power in Iraq.

Why is it that some people believe that American foreign policy with Iraq is the sole and only factor to consider when looking at the situation? Are people truly that naive or simple minded? Is it just that it makes people more comfortable? What is it, I just can not understand it.

Why are people so content to believe Saddam was just a puppet put in power by America and that America used him to rape and pillage the middle east until they'd used him up and then decided to kill him and move on to the next puppet. More over, why do people who believe that utterly refuse to consider or look at any other factors or influences that have occurred in Iraq and the middle east over that time to at least make a half hearted attempt to verify the story?

Long ago, intellectuals were the first eaten by saber-toothed tigers, as they were "above" feeling fear. As humans tamed the wilderness and became agrarian, the opportunity for intellectuals to thrive arrived, but they still weren't explorers and thrill seekers and it's doubtful you'd find many on the Mayflower or taming the West.

America was founded by balls-out bad-asses who decided to take their chances instead of being a satellite of another monarchy. They would not for one second equate the line "promote the general welfare" with the welfare state of today that is going bankrupt, as they all eventually do.

Even in Jefferson's day, intellectuals were suspect, that's the way it was, and is. ACTION made America, and made America great, and there was freedom enough that Franklin got his libraries and anyone could be a seeker of knowledge. But the egghead has never been embraced, in any American era.

Constitutional principles and Republican principles have an eerie resemblance and are a lot closer cousins than modern liberalism. I have more faith in the "ignorant" Midwesterners who understand the Constitution better than the socialists in power now.

Karl Marx was a great intellectual, and yet he couldn't have been more wrong about economics and human nature. On a personal level he was disastrous with money and never held a job. It would appear that WISDOM--the fusion of time, intelligence and experience--has it all over plain vanilla high intelligence that praises theory over results.

As ignorant as they often are, and despite inevitable mistakes, The People are smarter than any king or bureaucrat. Or Bureaucrat-King. Even when they're "greedy".

If America continues to exist in some free incarnation, Obama will go down in history as just another Jimmy Carter, praised by revisionists and loathed by the people who were there.

Please tell me who we should have voted for, then.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Look at what's become of you.
You couldn't even find something for the middle "A".

Slightly more than half of America supposedly supports a statist, dictatorial fraud as President, who has done more harm to this nation in 60 days than Bush did in 8 years. A trillion dollars in new taxes? For what? No one knows.
While the Empty Suit diddles on Leno high on the wire without his teleprompter net, North Korea and Iran prepare their weapons. A tax cheat is running the Treasury, printing what will amount to Monopoly money in value, and the claim is, this cheat is the only one who knows "how the Stimulus is supposed to work".
Everyone that voted for The Accidental Kenyan saw in him what they wanted to see...then voted for it. What they got is Jimmy Carter II.
Is that "relevant" enough?

Look at what's become of you.
You couldn't even find something for the middle "A".


Slightly more than half of America supposedly supports a statist, dictatorial fraud as President, who has done more harm to this nation in 60 days than Bush did in 8 years. A trillion dollars in new taxes? For what? No one knows.

While the Empty Suit diddles on Leno high on the wire without his teleprompter net, North Korea and Iran prepare their weapons. A tax cheat is running the Treasury, printing what will amount to Monopoly money in value, and the claim is, this cheat is the only one who knows "how the Stimulus is supposed to work".

Everyone that voted for The Accidental Kenyan saw in him what they wanted to see...then voted for it. What they got is Jimmy Carter II.

Is that "relevant" enough?

can't blame this one on Obama though.. (yet, right QM?)

Thanks for singling me out the way Obama does Rush Limbaugh.

While the whole Middle East mess is centuries old, we can still thank socialist moron Jimmy Carter for enabling the rise of Islamic fundamentalcases in Iran.

The reality is, the Arabs want the Jews wiped out. Israel could be the size of Rhode Island (instead of New Jersey) and have only 3.5 million Jews instead of 7 million. That wouldn't matter to the Arabs.

Compare the size of the Arab world to Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_World

Could you seriously believe the Arab world still blames Israel for all their problems?

Some Arab countries have reached peace agreements with Israel and things have improved, but the other Arab countries won't ever accept peace.

The next best thing would be for Israel to permanently destroy its enemies. It really depends on whether or not one believes Israel has the right to exist.

It's the Jimmy Carter team who are behind Obama.

This sounds like a very old video from before the bailouts.

Wiki the Community Reinvestment Act, a gift from that loser Jimmy Carter and a 70s democrap congress.

Democrats bullied lending institutions in the mid-90s, forcing them to give bad mortgage loans to people that couldn't afford them.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac involved themselves and were ordered by Blarney Frank and friends to make 40% of their loans to the same poor folks. Fannie and Freddie are government-controlled and therefore not subject to the scrutiny of the Security Exchange Commission.

AIG and Friends sold "derivatives" which are insurance on these bad loans. When the bubble burst, they couldn't pay.

Republicans tried to warn what would happen but obviously failed.

The moral is: big government sucks. Anything they touch outside of their prescribed constitutional powers turns to dung.

The moral wasn't learned as the American people just elected another Carter.

>> ^quantumushroom:
The adult view is that torture is sometimes necessary. The Gitmo scum aren't enemy soldiers or combatants fighting under an organized army's flag, which means no protection for them under the Geneva Conventions.

And what about principles and ideals? What about being above such barbaric acts? You seem to be saying we should match our enemies' crudity blow by blow; a tactic, I'll point out, that will only further validate their actions to them.

Back to something resembling my original topic; I wonder if you'd tell us who you think was a great president? In fact, let's make it more interesting...

- Greatest President of your lifetime and why you believe such.
- Greatest President of all time and why you believe such.
- A liberal or progressive President whom you admire.

>> ^Farhad2000:
quantumushroom is so cute when he goes after democrats as if republicans haven't done the same or worse when in power


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2008/1598457402_a6bd1f1142.jpg

Jimmy Carter's comments on torture only apply when the torture refers to his Presidency, his politics, and his opinions.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Do these Scamnesty folks expect people to feel sorry for the scum at Gitmo and elsewhere? These poor, poor fellows who take up arms against the West and act like savages, homicide-bombing and cutting off heads...are we to feel sorry they're now getting 3 squares a day?
Torture? At the end of a waterboarding session, the "victim" is still alive, isn't he? Unlike Daniel Pearl.

American terrorism is so nice and clinical because of precision guiding bombing runs, arms sales to oppressive states, and "he's a son of a bitch but our son of a bitch" international policy.