Congressman Suggests People Will Don 'White Hoods' If Wilson Not Rebuked

[twa]

I agree with this post 100%.

New point, WTF is Obama always considered black? I ****ing hate the *** **** boxes many want to put each of us in since we are all (in dog terms) mutts!

For those calling Obama black have you taken a good look at his mother and grandparents who raised him?

I agree with this post 100%.(and Bur's)

He is a damned American,drop the friggin labels.

[Burgold]

The bigger problem to me is that there will be time when the labels are appropriate, but if we cry wolf all the time then we will be desensitized to when the real wolves come to prey. I just think that this incident is one of incivility and partisan anger. I don't see racism and I think it is wrong and dangerous to interject it.

[Baculus]

I agree with this post 100%.(and Bur's)

He is a damned American,drop the friggin labels.

Please tell that to the "Obama's a secret Muslim-Communist-terrorist-angry man who hates white people and wants to destroy America" crowd.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I agree with this post 100%.

New point, WTF is Obama always considered black? I ****ing hate the *** **** boxes many want to put each of us in since we are all (in dog terms) mutts!

For those calling Obama black have you taken a good look at his mother and grandparents who raised him?

If you saw regular guy Obama on the street, would you think he was black or white? That's why.

[twa]

Please tell that to the "Obama's a secret Muslim-Communist-terrorist-angry man who hates white people and wants to destroy America" crowd.

I no longer converse with Hillary's people...would a e-mail do?

[Baculus]

I no longer converse with Hillary's people...would a e-mail do?

I don't think Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck is one of "Hillary's people."

[twa]

If you saw regular guy Obama on the street, would you think he was black or white? That's why.

I'd think,damn thems some big ears on a long drink of water.

[Baculus]

If you saw regular guy Obama on the street, would you think he was black or white? That's why.

I hear that argument a lot from right-wingers. "He's not even black!" Yes, officially he is a mulatto, but I don't think that is the point.

I always want to ask people this question: If Obama were in the South segregation, which water fountain would he have to used?

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Count me among those who never thought Wilson's outburst has anything to do with race. I think it's a really dangerous connection to make too. It creates to easy an escape valve for the President.

Agree 100%

My gut tells me that if he wasn't from SC race probably wouldn't have been mentioned. But thats all speculation.

[isle-hawg]

If you saw regular guy Obama on the street, would you think he was black or white? That's why.

I understand this point (it is kind of my point) - my point is what does it matter what ones skin complexion is - and why is it so important to put everyone in a box?

[Baculus]

The bigger problem to me is that there will be time when the labels are appropriate, but if we cry wolf all the time then we will be desensitized to when the real wolves come to prey. I just think that this incident is one of incivility and partisan anger. I don't see racism and I think it is wrong and dangerous to interject it.

I wanted to make this clear -- I don't want to seem like I am blundering forward and waving the "racist" stick. I don't think the rational conservatives on this board are racist, nor do I believe that all of Republicans are racist as well. BUT I do think some of the fear about Obama's "exotic" background does include a "cultural/other" component that could include race as an element. (And, as a note, the left/Democrats are not immune from this human flaw as well.)

I think most of us want to believe that the right-wing are totally rational . . . but, unfortunately, they are not. That is why Glenn Beck say "Obama hates white people" and he's cheered by his supporters.

[Larry]

They use someone else's or a false one, not that hard at all to get documentation that appears legit w/o a verification system.

Just ask the military or Medicaid,there are many eventually caught.

That is why many use verification programs now

You know those things they left off HB3200 UNTIL after the ruckus,NOW they say one will be used.

1) So, your scenario is that illegals will commit identity theft? They'll claim to be Joe Citizen? How does this system verify that the person who mails in a form isn't Joe Citizen?

And you say that these people are good enough at identity theft for them to join the military under a fake name?

How does an illegal steal from Medicaid? He shows up at a hospital with a Medicaid card in his wallet, and a driver's license in the same name? When anyone in my family goes to the Doctor, they require me to hand over an insurance card and photo ID.

Now, I can understand how they might get free treatment in an ER. They show up, say "I don't have ID", and the ER is required to treat them, anyway.

But for Joe Illegal to get free insurance under ObamaCare, he'll have to fill out a form, mail the form in, and wait for the government to send him his ObamaCare card. Or he'll have to buy private insurance, and send in the paperwork to ask the government to give him a subsidy on his premiums.

In short, health insurance (as opposed to health care) is a process in which there's plenty of time for bureaucrats to demand all the paperwork be filled out. Applying for subsidized insurance ought to be like applying for any other form of welfare: You have to fill out forms, with all kinds of identifying information, send the form into a bureaucracy, and then wait for the welfare to arrive. That means, for example, that you have to provide a real address. And it means that the bureaucracy will be doing a lot of checking of the information you provide, because they have to do that kind of stuff anyway, to prevent people from getting welfare who aren't poor enough, or collecting twice, or whatever.

I have no trouble believing that a lot of illegals are receiving lots of society's benefits that don't require a lot of ID to get (like ER care, or sending their kids to school). I have trouble believing that there are very many, say, collecting food stamps.

2) Observing that a previous poster was basing his claim of "You Lie!" on the claim that the verification system had been removed. You seem to be basing your claim on the claim that it's been added.

[Larry]

I find it amusing you don't address the Democrats stripping the verification provisions out of the bills.

Joe Illegal walks into the government office and asks to receive healthcare insurance through the government. They don't ask for proof of citizenship...he get's the insurance.

Why not require a drivers license, birth certificate or social security card? What could possible be the motivation for Democrats to strip that out of the bill? You certainly know the answer.

Joe illegal walks into the office, asks for insurance. They say "Fill out this form and mail it in". The first blanks on the form are Name, Address, SSN, and Birth Date.

When he mails it in, the government will check his income tax returns, to verify that this person is poor enough to qualify for the subsidy.

Think maybe they'll notice that the name on the tax return isn't "Joe Illegal", and that his address isn't (whatever's on the application)?

Let's assume that Joe Illegal is a really good identity thief. He's managed to get the name, and the SSN, of somebody who's poor enough to get subsidized or free health insurance. (Call him Joe Sixpack).

Think the government will notice that Joe Sixpack already has ObamaCare?

Now, what are the odds of Joe Illegal successfully stealing the identity of a real person, who's actually eligible for subsidized or free health insurance, but who hasn't got it?

Where do you get this idea that the government is going to set up a walk-up window where they hand out health insurance cards, free, to anybody who walks up to the window?

[Larry]

Careful there, someone might think you are racist or unkind to shoe shiners:)

Thank you, Shoe Shine Boy. You're humble and lovable.

[Johnny Punani]

I wanted to make this clear -- I don't want to seem like I am blundering forward and waving the "racist" stick. I don't think the rational conservatives on this board are racist, nor do I believe that all of Republicans are racist as well. BUT I do think some of the fear about Obama's "exotic" background does include a "cultural/other" component that could include race as an element. (And, as a note, the left/Democrats are not immune from this human flaw as well.)

I think most of us want to believe that the right-wing are totally rational . . . but, unfortunately, they are not. That is why Glenn Beck say "Obama hates white people" and he's cheered by his supporters.

Yeah. I have been hearing the samething from Keith Uberdouche and the rest of the seat sniffers from the left. That is nothing but a roundabout way of saying racism is the reason for people's objection to the Obama Admin's policies.

[Larry]

Count me among those who never thought Wilson's outburst has anything to do with race. I think it's a really dangerous connection to make too. It creates to easy an escape valve for the President.

I don't think he's a racist, either. (Or at least, I certainly haven't seen enough to call him that.)

I think he's just a dishonest Republican who had too much Kool Aid with his dinner.

[Johnny Punani]

I don't think he's a racist, either. (Or at least, I certainly haven't seen enough to call him that.)

I think he's just a dishonest Republican who had too much Kool Aid with his dinner.

Dishonest about calling Obama a liar? No. I think he was pretty honest about that.

[isle-hawg]

I just think that this incident is one of incivility and partisan anger. I don't see racism and I think it is wrong and dangerous to interject it.

Agree.

[Larry]

Dishonest about calling Obama a liar? No. I think he was pretty honest about that.

Then you had too much Kool Aid for dinner.

And you're a person who requires zero evidence to call someone a liar.

[twa]

1) So, your scenario is that illegals will commit identity theft? They'll claim to be Joe Citizen? How does this system verify that the person who mails in a form isn't Joe Citizen?

And you say that these people are good enough at identity theft for them to join the military under a fake name?

yada yada...

2) Observing that a previous poster was basing his claim of "You Lie!" on the claim that the verification system had been removed. You seem to be basing your claim on the claim that it's been added.

They verify through in depth review of documentation,rather than a cursory check.

Yes, there have been a lot of aliens that have joined the military with false papers,so much so that they had to institute a in depth verification system.

The same with social services.

As far as the 'you lie' bit, initially rejecting verification processes certainly opens you up to doubt on the sincerity part.

Promising to add one(still not formally added)after getting called out certainly provides reasonable doubt to the accuracy of O's earlier claim .

Of course since it is not O's bill perhaps both he and Wilson simply are unclear on the details and are simply stating what they believe.

Kinda like Palin:evilg:

[Baculus]

Yeah. I have been hearing the samething from Keith Uberdouche and the rest of the seat sniffers from the left. That is nothing but a roundabout way of saying racism is the reason for people's objection to the Obama Admin's policies.

" . . . Keith Uberdouche and the rest of the seat sniffers from the left"?

:doh:

That's as observant as your "Marxist-liberal" claims.

That's why we get to hear right-wingers such as Mark Williams say that Obama is a "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug turned anointed." Or all the other stuff we've heard over the last year since Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/tea-party-leader-melts-do_n_286933.html

To you, I am sure it is fine to call the President "a racist" who is a "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug" -- after all, there's no way that can be seen as racist, right?

Sometimes, when you believe something, it is sometimes difficult to step out of the box to hear how others may perceive such sentiments.

[Baculus]

Dishonest about calling Obama a liar? No. I think he was pretty honest about that.

Pretty honest about it? How was he "pretty honest about it"?

I look forward to more random-word-collection explanations.

[Baculus]

The Democrats stripped out the resolutions requiring any form of verification. You are a smart guy so I'm sure you knew that when you typed your message. I'm sure Obama knew it as well. The Democrats WANT to take my tax dollars to pay for healthcare for illegals. If not, why not make proof of citizenship a requirement?

Obama and the Democrats are lying.

Actually, the Democrats didn't "strip out the language." The Republicans wanted to add in language to section 221 (and section 242) of the bill which would require legal residency verification. What is section 221 in H.R. 3200?

"221. Establishment and administration of a public health insurance option

as an Exchange-qualified health benefits plan."

That means for ANYONE trying to purchase ANY health care through the exchange -- not government public option health care, but private health care -- would be required to go through a indentification process.

We currently do NOT have this for the current private system, and this health care bill's objective is NOT to become a backdoor, background ID bill for the private health care system.

THIS is what folks such as yourself do not realize -- the Republicans were trying to add a identification process which would affect the PRIVATE industry. All this noise about "keeping government out of health care," and yet the GOP wants to mandate a verification process for the free market?

Is that what we want?

Now, we can debate about section 242, but I see no point in adding language which would affect the health care exchange. It is better that illegals buy health care insurance instead of using local resources.

[Larry]

As far as the 'you lie' bit, initially rejecting verification processes certainly opens you up to doubt on the sincerity part.

Promising to add one(still not formally added)after getting called out certainly provides reasonable doubt to the accuracy of O's earlier claim .

Utter BS.

One person claims that the law doesn't fund insurance for illegals. He writes a law which specifically, clearly, says that it doesn't.

One person claims that it does fund illegals. He ignores the fact that the law clearly says otherwise, and calls the other guy a liar. Eventually, he admits that, well, the law, in his opinion, doesn't do enough to prevent funding to illegals who are committing fraud.

The Democrats said that it didn't fund illegals, and it never did.

The Republicans said that it did fund illegals, and it never did. After claiming that the other side are liars for a month, they finally admit that well, when they said "it funds illegals", what they really meant was "well, it didn't have enough mechanisms in place to prevent identity theft". (But now it does, but we're still going to keep calling the other side liars, anyway, and we're going to keep opposing it, anyway, and we're going to claim that the fact that they added what we asked for (and which was never what we claimed it was, to begin with) proves that they are liars.

The Democrats haven't changed their position. The bill doesn't fund illegals. It never did fund illegals. They never advocated funding illegals. They still don't.

The Republicans have changed. They went from "It pays for illegals", to "well, it says it doesn't, but maybe some illegals will be able to successfully commit fraud", to "well, OK, now it's got better safeguards against fraud". And they claim that this somehow proved that the Democrats were lying?!?!

There's a liar in this debate, all right. It's the one that's calling everybody else a liar. The one that never had a single thing to base their cries of "liar" on.

[Duncan]

THIS is what folks such as yourself do not realize -- the Republicans were trying to add a identification process which would affect the PRIVATE industry. All this noise about "keeping government out of health care," and yet the GOP wants to mandate a verification process for the free market?

Is that what we want?

More dissembling. I recently opened an HSA and trust me the private sector verified who I was. Pulled our medical records, called us to ask about various prescriptions 10 years ago, we filled out reams of paperwork, etc.

I'm sure the liberals in congress were trying to protect the insurance industry by removing the verification. What a joke.

Yes that is what I want. Is it so terrible that I want my tax dollars to only go to those not breaking the law?