jadewahoo wrote: 

Is there a pro-illegal immigration stance???

 kurtster wrote: 
Kurt, man... you are stepping in your own horseshit again. Debi Segura Dobbs is not a Mexican. She is an American. Her parents were Mexican nationals. At best, you might say she is a Mexican-American. Calling her a Mexican is a racist statement, one that you should be ashamed of, especially given your paranoid anti-illegal-immigration stance.

 hippiechick wrote: 

your unbridled hatred is not appealing...

Poor Republicans!! Wah Wah! 

 arsenault wrote: 

arse,
Greetings to ya,
Any criticism of President Obama is seen as a slight, perhaps tinged with racism, and of course, uncalled for. We were told dissent was Patriotic, and it is, but dissent from the direction we are being steered is well, unacceptable. The dissenters are nut jobs, whackoids, racists, REPUBLICANS ALL. I confine my criticisms to President Obama on his job performance, not his persona. I take no prisoners when I dissent...I've scolded Republicans endlessly for their reckless stewardship of our Treasury. Seems now that many, with whom I agreed, now find it all very acceptable, the runaway maddening spending we are witnessing. It was NOT GOOD before, but now, IT'S ALL GOOD. Hypocrites...
mk

 Atman wrote: 

No. Going into Iraq was a mistake from day one. It should not have happened. Supporting the troops, of course, the reasons for heading into Iraq? No. And that's a bit of a qualified no...I make a living working to counter potential biological weapons.

 islander wrote: 
To call him, "Lou 'I hate brown people' Dobbs" is truly a racist remark of extreme ignorance.  His wife is a Mexican.  If you actually watch Dobbs at all you would know that he is hardly a racist.  Just because you are anti illegal immigration, does not mean you are a racist.  Or does it in the world you live ?

And to the transparent one.  Why not release the definitive documents requested, such as education records, his actual birth certificate and other documents his peers have provided ?  He should have nothing to fear, right, its all legit, right ?  By not releasing these documents, it provides ammo to the true kooks to keep going off and then associate these kooks with serious conservatives and thereby discredit by association.  Pretty smart and a time tested approach.  No one I know ever accused the transparent one of being stupid, except when it comes to economics.

 cookinlover wrote: 
"Blah, Blah, Blah", indeed!

 musik_knut wrote: 
mk
you are a voice shouting in the wilderness.
remember when bush was elected and took office, how much time did the lefties give him?...less than one day...?
they hated him with a knee jerk retarded vengeance, and now they criticize the low key criticisms of barack, like they were reasoned and measured and gave the republican a chance in 2001.. nonsense.
they never apologized for falsely accusing bush of stealing the election when every recount proved he won florida.
now they blame reps for the health care debacle, when it is the dems that could fast track the 'reform' but cannot due to a lack of democratic votes.
its like they think you are either for health care reform (as defined by the battalion of anonymous operatives) or you are against health care reform (as defined by the battalion of anonymous operatives).

oh, the irony.

http://www.blahblahbook.com/ 

 musik_knut wrote: 
MK, did you support the Iraq war?

 Atman wrote: 

alt,
As of now, it's mostly Democrat v. Democrat. There has been some movement, but to suggest Republicans stand in the way of heath care reform is both a canard and a denial of reality. If you look at headlines of the past two weeks, it's clear who is pitched against whom: D v D. A few weeks back, how many had heard of Bluedog Democrats? Pretty much an inside baseball term there.
Where have I stated any objection or offered resistance to efficient health care delivery? As a student of US History, I have a difficult time recalling any Congress or President who found the savings they sought, either to reduce a deficit, or pay for a program other than going the tax route. I would also be hard pressed to find any area where The Government defines efficiency. They do the opposite, they redefine maximum inefficiencies. The Government does a terrible job of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, it's overloaded with redundancies and programs that simply do not work as designed. Programs morph beyond their original scope and purpose, never really hitting targets as called for, never really solving problems and never, ever, staying within assumed costs. Never. Not even close on that count. Not...even...close. Since President Johnson declared war on poverty in 1965, we have poured in excess of 20 TRILLION DOLLARS into that effort. 20 TRILLION DOLLARS, a staggering sum *it's fun to break such a figure down so it is easier to grasp....20,000 BILLION DOLLARS* And yet, we still have poverty. It's not that a country does not make an effort to raise all its people, it's that its people must understand they are grabbing at false Utopias promoted by Governments eager to ladle largesse. Despite all efforts, the poor will always be among us. I think too many are hanging too much hope on health care reform, not keeping in mind that Government has a terrible and predictable record of underachieving on over promised programs, under scoring considerably, their costs and never failing to correct errors at the most fundamental levels. What has been fundamentally changed in Social Security since it came to be in 1935? Nothing.  While Social Security and Medicare race towards economic insolvency, we should now rush to add a program that will dwarf them? Add to them, a program given short work, little debate, no readings, no public review *as promised*? There is a finite amount of money to be raised from the people. I think we're moving swiftly towards that limit. Then what? What is it that the Government does well that instills notions of health care efficienies in the minds of some? The Government does a terrible job of running Medicare with any degree of acceptable efficiency. Keep rolling over in your mind the price tag for that program and how it is racing towards an economic implosion long about 2019 and how that will jolt this Nation. Follow that with Social Security imploding a few years later and now trust that after health care reform is on the books, the price tag shown will be what the consumer actually pays. And do not forget, the first ten years will be somewhere near 1 TRILLION. Any bets that number is on the low side? Who can hazard a guess at costs in the out years? Yipes!
I am not opposed to health care reform. I am opposed to this country going bankrupt and I take that possibility in a serious vein. Extrapolating current trend lines, somewhere around 2012-2013, the National Debt will push past 60% of GDP, an unsustainable point. Sen. Bayh, D-IN, today reiterated that point: unsustainable. Well, 2012-2013 is right over the horizon.
mk

 islander wrote: 

isl,
Well stated.
Of the many failures of President Bush, I thought his most colossal, most inexplicable, was the failure to secure our borders. BorderS. North and South and all Ports of Entry. We have 75,000 Troops in Europe. They should come home. How long much such a presence exist post-WWII? We have 35,000 in S. Korea. Should N. Korea send its Million Man Army South, US Troops would be a minor speed bump. Bring 'em home. If it had been my call to make, on Sept. 12, 2001, I would have instructed The SeaBees to get cracking on the logistics necessary to support US Troops on BOTH borders. Those troops would have come from Europe and SE Asia, for starters.
Of course, Mr. Bush was not the only President to leave our borders open like sieves. They remain so today, as they were 20+ years ago and before that. When the next 9/11 takes place and we trace the culprits back to our loose borders, perhaps then, we will act? I doubt it.
Different folks have different reasons for not supporting President Obama. I happen to support him, but can not agree with a single approach he has taken. For me, he's far more Liberal than he was portrayed *there was no mistake that he might be Conservative, but some thought him a moderate...hardly*. For the birthers, they are as insane as the 9/11 kooks or the kooks who attach to anything from which a conspiracy can be hatched. If for some, racism colors their opinions, pray for them. *and I think it's ok to curse them under your breath*
mk

 islander wrote: 
I can dig it

 musik_knut wrote: 
If you have followed any of my posting history, you'll know that I'm pretty conservative on defending our border(S-all of them), and think we are missing a perfect opportunity to redeploy our military in this particular mission. I'm re-stating this to emphasize that I don't see this as a left/right view, but as an American need. Lou Dobbs and his border crusade are pretty limited in scope, and the people he's trying to keep at bay are not the blonde haired, fair skinned people of Ontario. To give him a bit of credit, I don't think he has a very high opinion of poor people either, but he definately comes across as a person who is not comfortable around people who are 'different' than himself.

The fact that the whole Obama / Birth certificate thing has been asked and answered repeatedly, and that it takes hold precicely in line with places where racism is still fairly common, makes most of us think it's based on race. Several of the comments I've heard, (including a lady shouting at the back of some town hall meeting) include people using a highly emphasized 'Kenyan'. The way it is used and the slur sound put with it sound very much like tems I heard in my youth when I played with black kids in the south - "you don't really want to hang with 'them' do you? they're different than 'us'". 

I agree with you - racism is ugly.  That's why we should call it out when we see it. And these people still 'caterwauling' about 'citizenship' should be asked point blank - "the docmuntation has been provided, what's your real problem with Obama as president?". I'm fine with people not liking him. I'm not very fond of several of his initiatives so far. But I have no doubt that he is as much a citizen as John McCain, Bush1&2, Clinton, Reagan,Carter.... and the rest of the clan that held that in the last couple centuries.  I think it's cool that a bunch of white people got enough grip of their own uneasiness to vote for him so that he could win, and I hope that the rest of the people can be open enough about their fear of his race to realize that it is misplaced and their energy would be better focused on valid reasons to like or dislike him.

 musik_knut wrote: 
Not racism on my part; this is what the Republican Party does. "Obama is president, we need a black man!" "Hillary running for president, we need a woman!" then they parade out their tokens, which, to the more educated, recognize that this is a ruse.

And I agree with you, Atman.

 musik_knut wrote: 
This shouldn't be a Republican v Democrat battle, which is how the votes are mostly lined up right now.

Because it is a human v Health Care Industry battle. Why should any human be spouting the Industry view? Because they have figured out how to manipulate the fears and insecurities to make some of us into zombies. For the life of me, I cannot imagine how you can be against evidence of efficient proven health care delivery. Cheaper better. Every other industrial nation and many non-industrial nations have a far better system. What's the problem understanding that?

I'm sorry, I'm getting confused with these two threads.

 hippiechick wrote: 

hc,
That is a racist statement about Mr. Steele. And Republicans. Call off the dogs. Y'all won. Or is it real good sport to stomp those when they are down?
We could discuss nutjobs affixed to all things Democrat. Daily kos, anyone? Moveon.org, anyone? Speaker Pelosi, anyone? There are as many grenade throwers on your side as mine. At least I admit to mine. Try recognizing yours. It's healthy to do so.

mk

 Atman wrote: 

Alt,
Selective memory or omission? 15 years ago...Democrats, in control, said no to Hillary Care.
Let me say it one more time and you don't have to agree, but Medicare, riddled with mistakes and many, many, many false assumptions, was debated for 1 1/2 years. Now, in the span of less than 6 months, much of which was spent trying to cobble together health care reform in a final package readied for vote, we have to vote? A deadline certain is drawn, erased, moved, drawn again. Medicare cost 65 MILLION in its first year. It now costs over 400 BILLION, yet we were told it would cost 13 BILLION by 2000. What a fine track record on another medically related Government run program. Shall we proceed in a hasty manner and repeat many of the same mistakes? Make many of the same false assumptions? We are told half, perhaps more, of the as yet determined price tag for health care reform, will come from savings squeezed from Medicare. With The Federal Government's track record on recognized savings, would you bank the farm on it? And if that proves to be a false assumption, what recourse is left? Taxes and not just on the rich. Already Speaker Pelosi recognizes a revenue shortfall when she raised the surtax bar from about 380K to 1 MILLION. On that, taxes on all, I would bank the farm. The program we are discussing we before long, dwarf all others. When we add Social Security and Medicare today, we're at over 40% of our budget. Now add a bigger and what will be a fast growing program. What little of our budget will remain for defense, interior, commerce and all other considerations? Damn little. We are fiscally bleeding to death. Oh sure, President Bush and Republicans spent too much Treasury. Today, we're eclipsing the maddening pace they set. But for many on the other side, that's ok. We simply have to spend the money. Oh, really? Debt is debt. Already China is making noise about our fiscal ways. And what went with little note or fanfare just last Tuesday, Treasury sales were, and this is being kind, were flat. Our debt is attracting fewer takers. But lets forge ahead, have a quick vote, not wonder what is written, what T is not crossed or I dotted. Just do it. Just spend, baby, spend.
Rush? Yes, that is exactly what we are doing. Rushing to see a take over of 1/6th of our economy. That's a sobering undertaking that should not be rushed. And damn it, read the dam final bill for all to hear, Elected and Electors alike. That's not too much to ask on such a monumental undertaking. Perhaps as did the ever odious Rep. Waxman, we could further mock WE THE PEOPLE by employing a speed reader? It's a joke to some, Rep. Waxman, Rep. Conyers. It's not a joke when close to or over a TRILLION  BUCKS is the opening ante. Keep in mind, whatever final figure we hear, is good for just the first ten years. And that assumes no false assumptions.
mk

 Atman wrote: 
So many less people are willing to admit that they are Republicans, because the Party is being attached to the nuts, so that the moderate Repubs are being turned off to the Republican Party. Eve n Michael Steele comes off as a nut, not to mention a token black man in the party of old white men.