news-record.com

BLOGS

Thinking Out Loud

Unhealthy health care rhetoric

There are valid arguments on both sides of the pitched debate over the Democrats'  health reform bill, which passed Sunday without one Republican vote.

Even the polls couldn't seem to agree.

But in recent days before the vote, the rhetoric clearly escalated from heated to ugly.

I noted in an earlier post one woman in Raleigh who last week promised  "blood in the streets" if the bill passed.

I sincerely hope she was wrong.

But you have to wonder.

First, there were the protesters in Washington who berated a health bill proponent who has Parkinson's Disease. They tossed dollar bills at the man and sneered, "Get a job."

Then there were the protesters on Saturday who repeatedly (by one count, at least 15 times) called black members of Congress "nigger" and spat on one. They also hurled epithets at gay congressman Barney Frank.

Here's one take on those incidents.

I had hoped this kind of stuff ended 40 years ago.

I had hoped.

 

 

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Doug Johnson

March 22, 2010 - 6:08 am EDT

Joan Walsh what a joke!
Another far left extremist.
Why do you not give us someone more creditably, maybe like Chis Matthews.
Then you could give us the name of the woman in Raleigh.
I sure there are some unnecessary comments, strange your paper never prints the others, like Alan Grayson republicans want top kill peopl
Are Nancy Pelosi, tea party people are brown shirts!
When we were at Hagan office in Greensboro getting spit at that did not make your liberal paper!

Allen Johnson

March 22, 2010 - 12:53 pm EDT

The woman's name in Raleigh, according to WUNC, was Vi McCane.
I'm not sure what to make of your Chris Matthews comment, Doug. Are you being sarcastic?

Get A Clue

March 23, 2010 - 5:39 am EDT

Doug J, when teabaggers get together to protest they always get spit on. It's what happens when morons start foaming at the mouth--their spittle-flecked rantings always spray. My question, do you provide towels with your free showers? ;-)
Thanks for playing.

left-wing conspiracy theorist

March 22, 2010 - 7:13 am EDT

"Then there were the protesters on Saturday who repeatedly (by one count, at least 15 times) called black members of Congress "nigger" and spat on one."

Of course race plays a big role in today's politics, and this morning I took the time to discover what appears to be a major source of today's racists 'intellectual' arguments.

Jarod Taylor is the editor of 'The American Rennaissance', and the founder of the 'New Century Foundation'. Here's some links: http://www.nc-f.org/ http://www.amren.com/index.html. Perhaps you won't be shocked there is an ad referencing the Tea Party in the upper left corner of the amren.com website. If you've never heard of Jarod Taylor you are not alone, but he comes with sterling references, including this one: "David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, has described Taylor as a 'a man of immense ability and the courage commensurate and necessary for telling the long-suppressed truths of race'."

If anyone wonders where our resident racialist (these people prefer that term over 'racist') Neocon gets his 'facts' from, this is it. They even have a book store, which you can view here: http://store.amren.com/cart.php?target=category&category_id=95 . Here's the latest, posted last night:

•Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
•Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.
•Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
•Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

So please people stop referring to Neo as being a 'racist'- he is a proud 'racialist'.

laserguidedloogie

March 22, 2010 - 10:33 am EDT

Ever occur to you that perhaps that person was in fact working for the Dems ?

False flagging is all the rage nowadays. Rabbis tip over jewish head stones, black kids torch black churches and various governments attack their own people and property.

It's possible that after all the gratuitous insults and accusations directed at them, specifically after the accusation of 'racist' has been made, that some particularly stupid member of the "Tea Party" showed up and decided to start hurling racial epithets.

Given what the vile nature of the opposition however, I'm willing to bet that the real perpetrator (who will never be identified of course) is more likely to be some left wing operative who decided to indulge themselves, knowing of course that their complicit media would put the 'proper' spin on things.

Ken
http://www.LaserGuidedLoogie.com

Allen Johnson

March 22, 2010 - 1:22 pm EDT

A plant by the Democrats? If I had a dime for every such conspiracy theory ...

rush-palin2012

March 22, 2010 - 4:43 pm EDT

I have it on good authority that rush-palin2012 is a liberal 'plant'.

But I doubt very much this guy is one. Liberals don't have the stomach for that kind of behavior. It's not like he was hiding in anonymity on some blog.

Panacea

March 22, 2010 - 2:45 pm EDT

Is this really the best you can come up with?

Allen Johnson

March 22, 2010 - 2:48 pm EDT

So, you believe those people were plants, too? Is that the best you can come up with?

Panacea

March 22, 2010 - 5:07 pm EDT

Goodness, NO!

What I mean is, "loogie, is the best arguement you can come up with that liberals are planting people to create trouble for conservatives."

Allen Johnson

March 22, 2010 - 6:25 pm EDT

Oh, OK. I thought it didn’t fit the flow of your other comments. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Get A Clue

March 23, 2010 - 5:41 am EDT

Just the kind of snotty assertion I'd expect from someone who names himself after a phlegmball. Boogie on back to your cave, jerk.

brian444

March 22, 2010 - 12:18 pm EDT

I'd give "blood in the streets" a partial pass as an example of the unfortunate violent metaphors too common--but too common to take seriously--in contemporary political rhetoric.

And I think there's a too easy construction of "Tea Party" based on incidents like these.

But there's no way to defend this kind of thing.

Get A Clue

March 23, 2010 - 5:43 am EDT

...and yet, even Republican congresspersons continue to say anything except, "This is unacceptable behavior. Period."
Sensible people know why this is true.

michael1218

March 22, 2010 - 12:57 pm EDT

This behavior should be condemned, and I think that it was, immediately. Could very well have been a plant though. It happens more and more these days. I guess it's hard to get 15 or 20 thousand people together without someone messing things up.
Guess I'm not in a mood to be lectured by Democrats on behavior, compassion, or anything right now. Particularly since I learned last night that one day soon, part of my paycheck will be used to sponsor dead babies. Some 30% (or thereabouts) of all black infants are salted down in the womb, torn limb from limb and tossed into haz-mat bags. Guess after I let that sink in for a while I'll be better able to be concerned about some idiot that called John Lewis the n word.

Allen Johnson

March 22, 2010 - 2:06 pm EDT

What do you mean, "sponsor dead babies"?

michael1218

March 22, 2010 - 2:14 pm EDT

Pay for abortions with tax dollars.

Allen Johnson

March 22, 2010 - 2:15 pm EDT

That's not what it calls for, as I understand.

Panacea

March 22, 2010 - 2:46 pm EDT

It doesn't and never did. The Hyde Amendment prevents federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.

chickenlittle02

March 22, 2010 - 9:06 pm EDT

No, that's not the case. The Hyde amendment applied specifically to the House version introduced last fall. The Senate version rejected it (the Nelson/Hatch/Casey amendment). That's what the big hullaballoo was over getting the blue dogs to change their no votes to a yes. The President promised them he'd change it with an executive order. Problem is, an executive order is not law. All there would need to be is one legal challenge, and blammo, you've got federal dollars paying for abortion.

rush-palin2012

March 22, 2010 - 4:50 pm EDT

I understand and appreciate your stance on abortion, however, if men were the gender to conceive, I have a feeling the biggest abortion opponents would brag the most on the number of abortions they have had. Not only would abortion be accepted as any other legitimate procedure, you would see abortion ads on t.v., and clinics would have 4 different beers on draft, with ESPN on big screen t.v.s

Panacea

March 22, 2010 - 5:08 pm EDT

That's a . . . surprising comment based on things you've said in the past.

left-wing conspiracy theorist

March 22, 2010 - 6:31 pm EDT

Refer to rp's 4:43 post.

Mick

March 23, 2010 - 8:49 am EDT

Then you havent beem paying attention.

Get A Clue

March 23, 2010 - 5:45 am EDT

Mikey is as ignorant as the day is long. He's wrong regarding federal funding for abortions, and that's been made quite clear.

camera lens

March 22, 2010 - 5:04 pm EDT

"But in recent days before the vote, the rhetoric clearly escalated from heated to ugly."

These examples of unacceptable behavior by a few people I am afraid will become blown out of proportion and used to try to really do damage to a group that is mostly comprised of normal everyday folks protesting the NEVER ENDING raid on their paychecks by a federal government that thinks it knows best.

Someone here mentioned that perhaps they were plants, and that is a possibility, although, usually the plants will show up wearing kerchiefs over their faces so no one can identify them. These are agents sent in to provoke a group that is conducting a non violent protest. Their goal is to stir folks up in an attempt to provoke unacceptable behavior that the attendees would not do. It is an age old tactic.

Protestors are usually told before a march or demonstration to be on the lookout for such plants, to just ignore them, and not to get caught up in the nasty behavior. Last September I was one of 1.5 million people (the metro police gave that estimate at the event) that marched on DC in protest of the never ending taxes, in protest of the bail out, and in protest of the fiat money of the Federal Reserve persist in printing. Toward the end of the day some such people tried to provoke the masses into ugliness. They were in unison either booed by the crowd, or ignored, and the metro police dealt with them promptly, quietly, and escorted them from the scene.

So, these nasty folks in DC this weekend could indeed have just been "ignorant, crude racist people" or yes, they very easily could have been plants. My point is that, they did NOT represent the majority of the folks at that protest. To paint them as such is an inaccurate description and equally biased.

I often think that these folks are sent in by those that don't want our "right to dissent" to be honored. Their goal is too make the "protesters" look out of control and to thus allow the police to further crack down on its' citizens.

Get A Clue

March 23, 2010 - 5:47 am EDT

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Allen Johnson

March 23, 2010 - 9:19 am EDT

Lighten up, guys. There is no small irony that a thread about civility in public debate has gotten uncivil.

camera lens

March 23, 2010 - 10:59 am EDT

I was not whining,

I was simply stating known facts. Do you not think that folks were "planted" in the peaceful demonstrations of the 60's to try and provoke the peaceful black protestors into violence?. It happens in huge events like this, where one side trys to make the other side look evil. I did NOT say that is what took place on Saturday, as we do sadly still have folks among us that can't see past skin color, I merely said it was a possibility.

The simple truth in regard to the "health care bill" that just passed is this. We as a nation cannot afford this bill. We have no money, we are bankrupt. The President, the democrats, and anyone else in power can promise all kinds of things, and pass legislation to make it happen,...., but ........if we don't have the money...........then we simply don't have the money. We can rob Peter to pay Paul for only so long, before Peter runs out of money......and Paul has no where else to go for his monthly fix of "entitlements".

History abounds with examples. I find it absurd that we can't learn from it.

Brekka

March 23, 2010 - 10:26 am EDT

However, what is real is the 3.8% tax on all medical devices including wheelchairs, eyeglasses etc. This includes the seniors and the disabled who need them. I verified this tax with both Brad Miller's office and Hagan's office. If you wear eyeglasses, if the disabled and seniors use wheelchairs these people will pay the medical device tax. I find this tax an awful burden to our society. Especially, to those who can least afford it.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search