Barack Obama: A Historic President

[daydreamer41]

The Republican Party of today: Party of bigots, racists, homophobes, hate mongerers & inciters of violence? You be the judge

Democratic officials and liberal Web sites are also upset that Sarah Palin used an image of crosshairs in a Facebook post this week listing 20 vulnerable Democrats who voted for the legislation. She plans to target them this election year with money from her political action committee.

Palin's team is fighting claims that she is encouraging threats of violence. One House member mentioned her Facebook posting during a Wednesday meeting on safety concerns, a Democratic source told CNN's Dana Bash. Mention of the map brought audible groans to the room, the source said.

An adviser to Palin responded by pointing to several instances in which the former Alaska governor has urged supporters to focus their energies on civil debate and action at the ballot box, not extremist activities.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/congress.threats/index.html?hpt=T1

Gee, Doc, CNN is really a fair and balanced source? (like you lambasted Fox).

Anyhow, why do you think Sarah Palin's Facebook page is so threatening? She does not mention violence of any sort. She is targeting Democrats for political defeat in November. The crosshairs are a figurative way of showing the target.

The left has been far more provocative than this example. How about the Movie, Death of a President (2006) where an actual clip of President Bush making a speech and then it shows him being assassinated. There was no outcry from the liberals about the "implications"of violence. Quite the opposite. Some cheered, laughed, etc.

Your concern goes one way. If you deplore violence, you should deplore it against anyone no matter their views.

 

[Below500k]

The movie that you are using as an example was a British film, and was distributed in America by the same company that brought other very left movies such as the Passion of the Christ and Prom Night. Even stating that movies are "left" is very telling about, either some pretty frightening racism/prejudice, or at the very least the absorption and acceptance of ridiculous talking points from those who are.

Now beyond that, if you cannot discern the difference between a movie (entertainment), "news" agencies, and a personally sponsored and endorsed organization from a former politician, then I really am typing to blind eyes.

It is incredibly sad that a part of the population cannot make those distinctions - that they are not ready to understand that liberty and justice for all means just that. For all of the bellyaching and whining about their voices not being heard, it fascinating that they do not remember that there was already an election. Your America, your direction and your beliefs was decidedly the minority. You may not be happy about it, but please TRY to understand that, like gravity, weather you believe in it or not, does not change that it is reality.

For people who claim to be patriotic, the amount of those who openly say that he is not THEIR president is really astounding. I cannot think of anything more un-patriotic.

 

[Below500k]

And if you are at all interested, even though it is a very "left" website (and just because it has a viewpoint does not in itself mean that it is not accurate), here is a collection of links and reports of what Doc is talking about...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/right-wing-terrorism-stok_b_511787.html

I will leave it to you, RNC supporter. Please post the same type of violent innuendo's put forth by Democratic leaning people so that we can be just as "fair and balanced" about our deploring this type of rhetoric.

 

[Jman47]

Politics based in fear mongering and ignorance...

Now beyond that, if you cannot discern the difference between a movie (entertainment), "news" agencies, and a personally sponsored and endorsed organization from a former politician, then I really am typing to blind eyes.

It is incredibly sad that a part of the population cannot make those distinctions - that they are not ready to understand that liberty and justice for all means just that. For all of the bellyaching and whining about their voices not being heard, it fascinating that they do not remember that there was already an election. Your America, your direction and your beliefs was decidedly the minority. You may not be happy about it, but please TRY to understand that, like gravity, weather you believe in it or not, does not change that it is reality.

For people who claim to be patriotic, the amount of those who openly say that he is not THEIR president is really astounding. I cannot think of anything more un-patriotic.

This is what is really frightening and sad. People actually believe this stuff to be real. And we are not only talking about poor, ignorant and illiterate people either - they actually have educated people believing some of this fear mongering crap...

Anyone else out there besides me ever get chain emails passed to you by someone you otherwise thought was relatively intelligent...I rest my case.

And you are absolutely right Below500k, even though I despised the man and thought he was an udder idiot, W was still my president when he was in office.

Jman

 

[daydreamer41]

And if you are at all interested, even though it is a very "left" website (and just because it has a viewpoint does not in itself mean that it is not accurate), here is a collection of links and reports of what Doc is talking about...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/right-wing-terrorism-stok_b_511787.html

I will leave it to you, RNC supporter. Please post the same type of violent innuendo's put forth by Democratic leaning people so that we can be just as "fair and balanced" about our deploring this type of rhetoric.

The link that you put here is an opinion piece. The article called the Tea Party members, Teabaggers. I stopped reading it at that point. You may drink it like Kool-Aid, but the language that the author uses discredits his writing.

The Huffington Post is as left as you can get.

As far as Liberal friends, how about Chris Matthews and his rant about Rush Limbaugh being blown up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkUiMo5tZlg&feature=related

Here's a link from the Free Republic of reported attacks against Republicans from 2004. It is a long list, so I am only putting the first few entires. Yes the Free Repulic is a Right leaning pulbication.

NEW & REVISED LIST OF VIOLENCE AGAINST REPUBLICANS
March 25, 2010 - 4:15 pm

Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2010 4:18:52 PM by MrChips

Here's an incomplete short list of violence/vandalism against Republicans in recent years: (Revised March 25, 2010)

September 22, 1975: President Gerald Ford survives assassination attempt in San Francisco.

March 30, 1981: Just 69 days into his presidency, there was an assassination attempton President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan and three others were shot, one of them crippled for life. President Reagan’s lung was punctured.

January 19, 2001: When the Clintonistas left the White House, they threw paint on the walls, ripped all the W’s off the computer keyboards, trashed the Executive Wing. The Clintons moved a bunch of furniture and silver out of the White House. Mr. Bush chose not to press charges.

March 21, 2003: GOP Headquarters in Madison hit with bricks, paint bombs Journal Sentinel

In 2004, Republicans were subject to an aggressive and sometimes violent campaign of harassment and intimidation orchestrated by Kerry supporters. At least three Bush-Cheney offices were shot at during the election season. A swastika was burned into the front yard of a Bush-Cheney supporter in Madison, Wisconsin. Other incidents included offices burglarized, windows smashed, tires slashed and other property damage. The following is a timeline of documented election-related violence and intimidation against the Bush-Cheney ‘04 campaign and Republicans in 2004.




http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2479784/posts

 

[CS Martin]

This is what is really frightening and sad. People actually believe this stuff to be real. And we are not only talking about poor, ignorant and illiterate people either - they actually have educated people believing some of this fear mongering crap...

Anyone else out there besides me ever get chain emails passed to you by someone you otherwise thought was relatively intelligent...I rest my case.

And you are absolutely right Below500k, even though I despised the man and thought he was an udder idiot, W was still my president when he was in office.

Jman

Jman,

Totally agree with all your thoughts. Where's a good barf smiley when you need one.

P.S. I promise to answer the other question when I've got more time and can formulate a few well chosen words that won't have the pennut gallery up in arms.

 

[Below500k]

[The link that you put here is an opinion piece. The article called the Tea Party members, Teabaggers. I stopped reading it at that point. You may drink it like Kool-Aid, but the language that the author uses discredits his writing.]

Really? Then you post a link from the freerepublic known for it's extraordinarily paranoid, racist, homophobic, religious right agenda? Please tell me again who is drinking what.

Thanks for the list. Unfortunately it is a poor attempt at a rebuttal of current events. Hinkley was trying to impress Jodi Foster, hardly "inspired" by the left, Chris Matthews was targeting another talking head - not an elected official, and things like stealing w keys, or hacking e-mail accounts is hardly publicly elected officials inciting others to act violently. Or an entire media network fabricating a movement based entirely on paranoia-laced rhetoric of events that have not happened.

Obviously things like the acts in 2004 were deplorable.

But if I had to choose a reason for public outrage, I think that blatantly lying a country into an illegal war upon a sovereign country, an act that killed thousands of citizens and 100s of thousands of innocent people, an act that is the single largest contributing factor to the debt that you are currently in - would seem to me to easily trump giving your population access to medical care.

Call me crazy.

 

[Merlot]

Hello Daydreamer,

The Tea Partiers have been peaceful. Do you have pictures of the racist placards? Can you post them, please?

This is a very sad statement. How can any rational person say this. Here's just some of the sick hateful bile.

http://www.jeffhead.com/912teaparty/912-TeaParty-DC-12.jpg

http://www.davesfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/anti-obama.jpg

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obama-witchdoctor-muck.jpg

http://chattahbox.com/images/2009/10/dc_tea_party_socialism.jpg

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/09/12/tea.party.express/art.obama.sign.cnn.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/110416/original.jpg

http://images7.cafepress.com/product/366388077v1_480x480_Front.jpg

http://www.jeffhead.com/obamaposters/orghealthcare.jpg

http://paulbuckley14059.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/anti-obama-sign-1.jpg

DESPICABLE!!!

So this is what you call "peaceful"?

Despite all of this I still say the Tea Party movement has a basic rational and honest basis. But the extremists are greatly poisoning the potential.

This is what is really frightening and sad. People actually believe this stuff to be real. And we are not only talking about poor, ignorant and illiterate people either - they actually have educated people believing some of this fear mongering crap...

Anyone else out there besides me ever get chain emails passed to you by someone you otherwise thought was relatively intelligent...I rest my case.

And you are absolutely right Below500k, even though I despised the man and thought he was an udder idiot, W was still my president when he was in office.

Jman

True. It is sad that even highly intelligent people can become extremely irrational when desperately in fear of not making it and scared of the unknown future. Funny how I was trying to explain this just a couple of years ago when most people felt fat and happy economically feeling like they had unlimited access to everything. I was told...nah...mindless desperation couldn't happen.

I remember when G. W. Bush got "elected" (so to speak) I got chain letters from Democrats, including a cousin of mine, who wanted to impeach him almost immediately. My answer then was NO! When scared many become so selfish they would rather revolt and take over than cooperate. People just don't realize the importance of government stability and the danger of destabilization. Imagine if government was based purely on who has the power instead of the lawful right to govern. It would be one shifting tide of chaotic "king-making" after another leading to total self-destruction. See: the Roma Empire. Whether such a thing is incited from the Left or the Right it's a disastrous choice.

What happens with the extreme split then is the need to populate support for the extreme views by attempting to draw from the center mass, so the rhetoric begins. The saddest part is that then these extremist try to popularize their view and spread the word using disinformation or in some cases outright lies. Sadder than that is there is a growing, uneducated segment of the American populous that will believe anything they see int the media or read on the internet.

But then again, if enough extremists run right and left the majority will be left in the center and rule...we can only hope the enough cool heads remain in the critical mass to prevails calmly and wisely.

Have fun...here is to cooler heads prevailing ,

Jman

It is so disturbing how many use the bile, slander, and baiting they hear from extreme pundits as the basis of their opinions. In view of this thread it's clear Merb is a microcosm of this sickening battle of hateful rhetorical one-ups-manship. But the absolute worst thing I see hear among all the hate, demagoguery, and mental stagnation is that some here...actually exploit all of this hate for the vicarious pleasure of antagonizing others.

Very sad,

Merlot

 

[Below500k]

Well said M.

And just to be fair and balanced, there are complete morons on the left as well, Nick Levasseur (New Hamp.) being one of them. It is fortunate for all that he is not a very public figure, and that he will have a slim chance at re-election.

 

[hungry101]

Greta, like many (oh, OK I'll say most) of the Foxmouths are good employees doing their job to make money. She had quite a different viewpoint when with CNN. The issue is not really with the people (although for some it does fall very close to the same moral standpoint lately as say... a crack dealer), it is with the perverse direction that they are mandated and employed to express. I would venture a guess to say that it is Murdoch who is bastardizing the lowest hanging fruit to a now dangerous point.

I do not think that even a staunch liberal would ever have the same vomit-in-the mouth reaction to respectful and valid conservative viewpoint... unfortunately that is not what Fox is selling to it's audience. They prefer to exploit the fears of the uninformed, lower IQ, or desperate populous for profit (present company not included in that statement), and it is morally despicable, and very hypocritical for those that claim cling to the words" We the people". Your constitution does not say "I the person", nor "Some of us people".

As for the Tea Party, I'm sure there are normal protesters. But that's not really what is going on now is it? There is something VERY wrong with Fox inciting and organizing protest rallies to perpetuate their viewpoint, one that has let in some very serious racist and violent undertones.

What is the problem with Fox News? The left has MSNBC, CNN, the Washington Post, NPR, The New York Times and really everyone else including Al Jazeera. Hell, Chris Mathews got a tingle up his leg when Obama was elected. Has anyone ever gone to journalism school and observe the professors and the general attitude of the kids that have chosen this field of study? Anyone work in a Newsroom? A relative of mine - a self proclaimed liberal - went to journalism school. He never met so many radicals when he went to Northwestern's Madill school of Journalism. I remember when he told me the story of how they brought in editors from all the major newspapers for summer camp. I remember him describing the seething hate for then President Bush from the editors of those papers. He told me "After all he is our President isn't he?" I remember hearing stories of the different newsrooms he worked in. Conservatives were the minority and if anyone dare voice a conservative opinion you would be attacked on all four sides. So are these people capable of fair and balanced reporting. Anyone listen to Christian Amanpour telling the people of Cambodia that the US water boarding of 3 terrorists was the same as what the Khmer Rouge did to the Cambodian people. Does anyone believe this is the moral equivalent? How about the writer for the New York Times Jayson Blair fabricating his stories? The Liberals have a near monopoly on the electronic media, the print media, Hollywood, nearly every major university and everyone that teaches a social science so why can’t there be a Fox News?

 

[daydreamer41]

[The link that you put here is an opinion piece. The article called the Tea Party members, Teabaggers. I stopped reading it at that point. You may drink it like Kool-Aid, but the language that the author uses discredits his writing.]

Really? Then you post a link from the freerepublic known for it's extraordinarily paranoid, racist, homophobic, religious right agenda? Please tell me again who is drinking what.

Thanks for the list. Unfortunately it is a poor attempt at a rebuttal of current events. Hinkley was trying to impress Jodi Foster, hardly "inspired" by the left, Chris Matthews was targeting another talking head - not an elected official, and things like stealing w keys, or hacking e-mail accounts is hardly publicly elected officials inciting others to act violently. Or an entire media network fabricating a movement based entirely on paranoia-laced rhetoric of events that have not happened.

Obviously things like the acts in 2004 were deplorable.

But if I had to choose a reason for public outrage, I think that blatantly lying a country into an illegal war upon a sovereign country, an act that killed thousands of citizens and 100s of thousands of innocent people, an act that is the single largest contributing factor to the debt that you are currently in - would seem to me to easily trump giving your population access to medical care.

Call me crazy.

Ok, Below500, I will call you Crazy, since you asked me to. You proved my point. When the Left does threatening things or violence, you justify it - Bush Lies, etc. When the perceived violence happens from the right, you say they are violent ^&*^*&*@# ... And by the way, Bush never lied (I can see you falling off your Liberal high chair). Boxer, Kerry, Clinton all voted to give Bush permission to go to war in Iraq based on the same intelligence as they had. So do not give me the Bush lied BS.

About Matthews wanting to see Rush Limbaugh dead and Sarah Palin's facebook page - what's the difference? Limbaugh is a central figure on the right and vehemently hated on the left. So what is the difference? I will tell you the difference. You and Matthews and every Leftist hates Limbaugh it is okay to make threatening remarks against Limbaugh. But don't even make perceived remarks against any leftist. And perceived is correct. The crosshairs are something I've seen done in newspapers. So get off your high horse.

 

[Below500k]

[so why can’t there be a Fox News? ]

No one said there could not be. There is however a line of accountability, and morality that has been crossed. When you continually bait (exploit) a segment of an (armed) population, and go as far as all but organizing rallies, then you've crossed that line of calling yourselves journalists, and have taken a part in being responsible for the outcome.

So yes, Mathews and Oberman get boners when BO speaks. However they do not continually inciting paranoia using violent and racial undertones to that segment of the (armed) population by fabricating potential situations or events, hiding behind the equivalent of " I'm just sayin' ", night after night, 24/7.
The difference is in WHAT they are spewing, words very much do matter.

To continually bring forward that much negativity and fear (a wonderful bit of fun made into a science by Jello Mold Rove), it will indeed get people to act a certain way. That way however is not very good for anyone, or anything, as proven by the last 8yrs. of American history.

Words do matter. As do the actions that they cause.

 

[Below500k]

[And by the way, Bush never lied (I can see you falling off your Liberal high chair). Boxer, Kerry, Clinton all voted to give Bush permission to go to war in Iraq].

Um OK, nice logic stream. G'night, please make sure the safety is on.

 

[daydreamer41]

Merlot,

I am responding to your pictures that you posted.

The first one was very provocative. Many others had racial overtones. None reach the level of the link that I attached below of the anti-war protestors against Bush.

At anti-war protests, there have been plenty of protestors with Kill Bush signs, nooses around an effigy of Bush. The link below has many of thoses pictures. Below500K, Bush was an elected official. Let's see you explain these actions away.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

I am getting a little tired of argueing who is more violent, the Iraq war protestors against Bush, or the Tea Party protestors. Judging from my link above and Merlot pictures, the anti-war protestors have the Tea Party protestors beat in the Violence provocation category.

 

[Jman47]

Merlot,

I am responding to your pictures that you posted.

The first one was very provocative. Many others had racial overtones. None reach the level of the link that I attached below of the anti-war protestors against Bush.

At anti-war protests, there have been plenty of protestors with Kill Bush signs, nooses around an effigy of Bush. The link below has many of thoses pictures. Below500K, Bush was an elected official. Let's see you explain these actions away.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

I am getting a little tired of argueing who is more violent, the Iraq war protestors against Bush, or the Tea Party protestors. Judging from my link above and Merlot pictures, the anti-war protestors have the Tea Party protestors beat in the Violence provocation category.

daydreamer41,

From where I am viewing these pics you have produced a link to 1 extremist web site containing multiple similarly themed pics depict violent threats against the former president (who was never elected). Obviously none of which the Secret Service felt were remotely credible as no one was ever arrested. The pics depict anger and an attitude towards one man.

The multiple pics produced by Merlot depict hatred and racism - pure and simple. The pics depict an attitude and belief system towards entire races, religions and cultures of people. We should not forget the basic belief system on which the United States was formed nor the lessons we have learned from past digressions into ethnic, religious and cultural transgressions.

There is a very large difference.

Jman

 

[daydreamer41]

daydreamer41,

From where I am viewing these pics you have produced a link to 1 extremist web site containing multiple similarly themed pics depict violent threats against the former president (who was never elected). Obviously none of which the Secret Service felt were remotely credible as no one was ever arrested. The pics depict anger and an attitude towards one man.

The multiple pics produced by Merlot depict hatred and racism - pure and simple. The pics depict an attitude and belief system towards entire races, religions and cultures of people. We should not forget the basic belief system on which the United States was formed nor the lessons we have learned from past digressions into ethnic, religious and cultural transgressions.

There is a very large difference.

Jman

Jman,

I have no idea what you are talking about. Your post mystifies me. The United States was founded on the principal of Liberty and Freedom. The Revoloutionary War was fought on basis of taxation without representation, freedom of Religion, right to assemble, right to redress grievances, state's rights. What do you think to US founded on?

And the one man that you talk about was President of the US. There were signs all over the place - Kill Bush. In the pics that Merlot posted, not one said Kill Obama. I think the tea party protestors are more concerned with their futures and future of their children than anything else. The legislation passed by the Senate and House and signed by President Obama do more to destroy the health care system in the US than to fix it. Wait a few years and you will see. No longer will Canadians who need to wait too long for a needed operation will they have the option to come to the US. The US will have equally long or longer waiting periods.

 

[Jman47]

Jman,

I have no idea what you are talking about. Your post mystifies me. The United States was founded on the principal of Liberty and Freedom. The Revoloutionary War was fought on basis of taxation without representation, freedom of Religion, right to assemble, right to redress grievances, state's rights. What do you think to US founded on?

Hello again daydreamer41,

Perhaps your mystification would be satisfied with a little more research...and maybe a little more of an open mind.

While your list of some of the basis points of foundation are all correct (and we agree on them) the Declaration of Independence also contains a few choice words about natural and human rights, freedom from tyranny, all men being created equally, and life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Any of those ring a bell? The original drafts even had passages that were not friendly to slavery but those had to be stricken from the document because of threatened non-ratification from the southern colonies (a move which later came back to haunt this country).

What the far right is promoting right now and what was shown in the pics presented by Merlot are a direct contradiction of the points I mention. What you are presenting in the info you presented is the historical viewpoints of a far left group that rejected the leadership policies of one man. There is a large difference to me between attacking a race, religion or culture vs. attacking the leadership of one person.

Hope that helps.

Jman

 

[Jman47]

The legislation passed by the Senate and House and signed by President Obama do more to destroy the health care system in the US than to fix it. Wait a few years and you will see. No longer will Canadians who need to wait too long for a needed operation will they have the option to come to the US. The US will have equally long or longer waiting periods.

dd41,

I do not even think the experts agree on this...perhaps you can share some of you insight otherwise your statement is pure speculation. What I believe is something had to be done and someone finally had enough stones to do it.

Under the current system people are routinely denied coverage because:
-the insurance companies "paid board of experts" over rule the treating physician and deny coverage on a procedure often opting for less expensive treatment or allowing test only when life is eminently threatened.

-in an effort by employers to limit cost exposure "life time limits" are imposed and the people who are really sick cannot get coverage when they need i the most...or benefits are slashed, particularly on meds.

Under the current set up the working middle class cannot afford coverage and often opt out because they need to buy groceries. If they do opt for coverage each year benefits are squeezed and deductibles are increased causing even the insured to lay out more cash for care while insurance company execs are collecting hefty bonus checks.

Please...cry me a river...the system had run amuck and needed to be fixed...

Jman


PS Anyone with cash in hand in either country goes to the head of the line and we both know it...money always talks.

 

[daydreamer41]

dd41,

I do not even think the experts agree on this...perhaps you can share some of you insight otherwise your statement is pure speculation. What I believe is something had to be done and someone finally had enough stones to do it.

Under the current system people are routinely denied coverage because:
-the insurance companies "paid board of experts" over rule the treating physician and deny coverage on a procedure often opting for less expensive treatment or allowing test only when life is eminently threatened.

-in an effort by employers to limit cost exposure "life time limits" are imposed and the people who are really sick cannot get coverage when they need i the most...or benefits are slashed, particularly on meds.

Under the current set up the working middle class cannot afford coverage and often opt out because they need to buy groceries. If they do opt for coverage each year benefits are squeezed and deductibles are increased causing even the insured to lay out more cash for care while insurance company execs are collecting hefty bonus checks.

Please...cry me a river...the system had run amuck and needed to be fixed...

Jman


PS Anyone with cash in hand in either country goes to the head of the line and we both know it...money always talks.

Your information is incorrect. The largest denier of health insurance claims is the U.S. government, not private insurance companies by almost two to one, 6 percent of government claims are denied and 3 percent of private insurance are denied.

Well, I don't know if you live in the U.S. or Canada, J-man. But the sky was not falling as you claim. It is better than the Canadian system. There is more access to health insurance. No person is denied healthcare in the U.S. They can walk into an emergency room at any time, and they will be treated. Yes, they will be billed. In some states, they will be given coverage if they meet the income requirements. Many states have insurance programs which cover individuals without insurance and they will enroll them at the hospital.

You paint such a tear jerking picture, but there are resources. In fact, the newly unemployed have a new benefit where they can get a sizeable grant to meet their Cobra payments or purchase insurance using existing state programs.

Jman, have you read the bill? Do you know exactly what's in it. After you read the bill and can tell me what is in the bill, we can talk. Until then, keep your fantasies to yourself. The system will not be fixed. It will be more broken than before. Many doctors who were willing to work longer will retire once they receive mandates from the government on how they have to treat their patients. This bill gives the government the power to approve healthcare plans and Doctors will have to read regulations on how to treat their patients. Doctors in the US will not stay around. They have said so. Therefore, an already existing doctor shortage will become even more dire. Even if the Messiah Obama snaps his figures, it won't make the shortage go away after the exodus.

 

[daydreamer41]

Hello Daydreamer,

My post that you refer to was about your reference to the Tea Party movement being "peaceful", NOT about whether those against Bush back in the day were better or worse than the Tea Party. The tactic of comparing which, what, or who is worse is a dodge. Frankly, those against Bush yesterday and Obama today are the same with all the same rational and irrational or extreme elements. So starting from that perspective I find the comparison irrelevant.

I was addressing your "peaceful" label only. I never started any comparison between the anti-Bush and anti-Obama people and I find it silly, like using the schoolboy ploy of childishly pointing fingers...oh yeah...well, he did it first...no, he did it...no, he was meaner...no, he was. This goes nowhere, so why does one bother with that at all. Again, it's just a dodge. Who do you think you are making points with anyway when you say "the anti-war protestors have the Tea Party protestors beat in the Violence provocation category"? Because that's what this silliness is amounts to: scoring cheap points as if in some game to please like-minded head-nodders no matter which side is doing it. If someone just wants to point fingers then why post at all.

Now, I won't even talk about the Tea Party extremists specifically just to please you. The fact is anyone who goes around yelling ...communist, nazi, socialist, traitor, promoting race-baiting, burning effigies or using any kind of demagoguery is simply not being peaceful, whether there has been actual violence or not. These tactics are aggressive violence baiting tactics meant to appeal to the worst fears and impulses in people. Anyone who doesn't know this is promoting violent impulses is either as inexperienced and unthinking as a child or too full of irrational emotions to think at all. And in case anyone still missed my point...THIS OPINION APPLIES TO ALL SIDES REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW!



Now here is the biggest pseudo-argument dodge of all. Even in a perfect fantasy world where everyone was insured and health care was absolutely free wouldn't there be long lines. So when you try to use this argument what is your goal? Is it that there should only be as many people insured so that you can get an appointment whenever YOU need one?

Cheers,

Merlot

PS

Yeah, I tried to stay away. Obviously, I couldn't...lol.

Merlot,

We do not have such a shortage of doctors like you do in Canada. We will in a few years with Obamacare. It may not be this year, but when the Obamacare bill is in full swing, the doctor shortage will come. Intelligent people, like Physicians, have low tolerance levels for government bureaucrats and will quit once the morons start telling them what to do and how to treat patients. And less younger people will want to become doctors also.

As for the Tea Partiers, most are patriots. In this thread, they have been called scum bags, dsipicable, etc. And when you go and see the anti-war protestors, my word, there is no comparison. The anti-war protestors are very violent. So don't tell me not to compare.