The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by bob

Yeah, but don't you have to be a born-on-US-soil citizen to be president? Again, I'm not arguing that point, more curious what would happen if at this point we found out he wasn't eligible.

Natural born has never been clearly defined through a Supreme Court decision, but children born to citizens overseas have always been given the right of citizenship.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Nobody cared about the SCOTUS ruling on Gitmo photos, and Obama's flip-flop there.

The racism thing is an easier fight to "win" (even though nobody's opposing them), that's why the liberals gravitate towards issues like that. It gives them the feeling of moral superiority that the Democrat party sells. It's like crack cocaine for them. Only with membership of the Democratic party can you feel "compassionate" without actually having to do a damn thing.

I hate it when Democrats, who are all liars with a sense of moral superiority, make generalizations.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You've been on quite a roll lately making sure nothing in this thread is trivial, keeping people from making mountains out of molehills, and policing the copying and pasting thoughts from other sources.

Kudos.

That doesn't have any relevance to the discussion on health alternatives, but thanks for the input. I'd also note that I haven't posted a single link on this current 'racism' discussion, which is contrary to what you're implying.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by bob

Yeah, but don't you have to be a born-on-US-soil citizen to be president? Again, I'm not arguing that point, more curious what would happen if at this point we found out he wasn't eligible.

Well, there is an easy answer to your question

Originally Posted by 12th Amendment

then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

But the easy answer is too easy. Let's look at your original question:

Originally Posted by bob

it was conclusively discovered

By whom? Using what standard? Congress? The Courts? Well, I suppose that if someone came into court with evidence that Obama was not a citizen, they could try and bring suit. But would they have standing to bring that suit? Standing means a tangible injury in fact to you. You can't just ask courts to redress wrongs qua wrongs. You need some skin in the game. Standing is a very complicated concept as legal concepts go. The case would probably be thrown out on those grounds.

But let's say that standing isn't an issue. The courts might still refuse to hear the case b/c the qualification of the President is Constitutionally left to Congress. See Nixon v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, this is a very complex issue as legal issues go.

This question (which I know you are bringing up as more of an academic exercise) is sort of like the people who asked 5 years ago "what if we get evidence for certain that Bush lied about the war but the GOP in Congress does not do anything about it? Can we impeach him anyway?" The answer there is, it really is up to Congress. The framers left questions like that to the most politically accountable branch (elections every two years). And that's not really the worst solution. I mean, one could argue that the GOP lost seats, in part, b/c the GOP members of Congress did not stand up to Bush enough. And that also explains the Blue Dogs today.

At the end of the day, if Congress decides that an individual is qualified to be President and does not want to impeach that person, I think that that person will get to be President upon winning election.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I hate it when Democrats, who are all liars with a sense of moral superiority, make generalizations.

You've been really snarky and curt for a few pages, its kind of cute (except the part about just making shit up that nobody said).

I'm talking about my experience on this board (I didn't say liar - so you actually lied about that, as well as a couple of other things - but you absolutely do have a sense of moral superiority over anyone with a different opinion from you. That comes across in you dismissive snarkiness), and the product that the Democratic party sells for votes.

It's hillarious, time and time again. Sarah Palin makes an insane facebook post and you all just erupt with glee. "OMG - WE'RE RIGHT!!! A REPUBLICAN SAID SOMETHING DUMB!! Hooray! Let's make this the center of the debate, even with people that don't in any way agree with what she said!" It's nothing more than an attempt to invalidate any rational opinion that dare goes against your own. "These are the same people that are spreading LIES about death panels!"

[bob]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

By whom? Using what standard? Congress? The Courts? Well, I suppose that if someone came into court with evidence that Obama was not a citizen, they could try and bring suit.

That's why I skipped over that part in my question - more interested in what the result would be rather than how it could happen.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Republican Health Care Reform | The Next Right[/list]And I'll add one that's been out there for a while, but no one wants to touch: End the tax break for employer-provided health care plans. Use the savings to give people tax-credits/vouchers/whatever to purchase their own plans. Mandate that plans cannot discriminate on price or availability.

It is stupid that we insist on linking health-care and employment. Get rid of the employer as middle-man.

Not in favor of eliminating medicare/medicaid at all. You've got to provide coverage for all those senior citizens out there somehow, and with them not working and bringing in income expecting them to be able to save enough for cost-of-living and healthcare costs that are much more variable than those of a working-age population is a bad idea. they couldn't do it. you'd have senior-bankruptcies and seniors on welfare because they had gone bankrupt paying medical bills. plus at that point you're saying that someone would have to spend 20% of their income before they'd get relief? That's just building in a profit margin for current insurers. And seniors' gross income is so low that 15-20% is like nothing, so I don't know how that would save any money versus having them in a federal program where there's less overhead and better bargining power.

i agree 100% with "breaking up medical cartels" as you put it.

very much in favor of eliminating the link between healthcare and employment.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I posted the three main alternatives several pages back. It didn't elicit a single response. I don't think people are interested in productive discussion on policies. See the past few pages where people where arguing whether racism is wrong while no one disagreed with them.

I must have missed that. I'd honestly rather have productive policy decisions and maybe even learn something and consider alternatives than blather on about stupid shit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bob

That's why I skipped over that part in my question - more interested in what the result would be rather than how it could happen.

I would figure that either Biden would take over (thinking that the constitutional disability bit covers this) or Obama & quite a few members of Congress would be physically removed from their offices by an enraged populace.

[Noop]

The last few pages have been very good and I enjoyed being a spectator.

Too add I doubt Obama gets removed from the presidency because if his birth was an issue they should have brought it up before the election.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Republican Health Care Reform | The Next Right
[/list]And I'll add one that's been out there for a while, but no one wants to touch: End the tax break for employer-provided health care plans. Use the savings to give people tax-credits/vouchers/whatever to purchase their own plans. Mandate that plans cannot discriminate on price or availability.

It is stupid that we insist on linking health-care and employment. Get rid of the employer as middle-man.

I think there are good ideas here, but I also think there are some unintended consequences. First, on the "ear infection issue", I completely disagree. My 4-year old had a string of 6-7 ear infections in 8 months when he was 2. We had to be very careful not to use the same antibiotic to make sure he didn't build up immunities and when different doses were needed. We ended up switching between 4 different ones over that time. There also was the issue of the first one giving him hives all over his body. Having a parent just show up at the pharmacy and randomly pick antibiotics when they're kid doesn't feel well is a TERRIBLE idea for that kid's future health/immune system.

As to the employer issue, it sounds great to say "let's break the link between employer and insurance". However, employers currently subsidize a large portion of the health insurance premium costs for most people. If you take them out of the game then you need to ensure two things:

1. People get enough of a raise from their employer to cover the employer's portion of the premiums.
2. People understand that they are now paying for both their and their employer's piece of the premium and it will cost more. IE, a policy that was costing them $300 a month may now cost $500-600 a month because they are responsible for the full premium.

I also like the incentive to hold a good job in order to get a deal on health insurance. Now, I think better individual options should be out there (esp for entrepreneurs) - but the fact that most people know they can get very good health care coverage for their family by holding a full time job (in most cases) is healthy for our society. It's one of the reasons (IMO) that our unemployment tends to be much lower than many areas of Europe.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think there are good ideas here, but I also think there are some unintended consequences. First, on the "ear infection issue", I completely disagree. My 4-year old had a string of 6-7 ear infections in 8 months when he was 2. We had to be very careful not to use the same antibiotic to make sure he didn't build up immunities and when different doses were needed. We ended up switching between 4 different ones over that time. There also was the issue of the first one giving him hives all over his body. Having a parent just show up at the pharmacy and randomly pick antibiotics when they're kid doesn't feel well is a TERRIBLE idea for that kid's future health/immune system.

As to the employer issue, it sounds great to say "let's break the link between employer and insurance". However, employers currently subsidize a large portion of the health insurance premium costs for most people. If you take them out of the game then you need to ensure two things:

1. People get enough of a raise from their employer to cover the employer's portion of the premiums.
2. People understand that they are now paying for both their and their employer's piece of the premium and it will cost more. IE, a policy that was costing them $300 a month may now cost $500-600 a month because they are responsible for the full premium.

I also like the incentive to hold a good job in order to get a deal on health insurance. Now, I think better individual options should be out there (esp for entrepreneurs) - but the fact that most people know they can get very good health care coverage for their family by holding a full time job (in most cases) is healthy for our society. It's one of the reasons (IMO) that our unemployment tends to be much lower than many areas of Europe.

I don't think you need antibiotics on the shelf, but allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe more would be helpful. Your worries are legit, but it doesn't take paying a doctor for each visit to insure a child's safety.

I don't like the idea of removing healthcare from employment precisely because of the cost issue you cite. I can't imagine every business transferring the costs of healthcare into salaries, at least not right away. Without another option a lot of people would see their healthcare costs rise substantially with little added income.

I'm not worried about moral incentives to work and I think the current system keeps people in jobs just to keep healthcare. As long as insurance costs money people are still going to need to work and I'd rather find a way to give people the freedom to move to a new job or start a business without having to lose insurance. IMO our current system penalizes risk.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I must have missed that. I'd honestly rather have productive policy decisions and maybe even learn something and consider alternatives than blather on about stupid shit.

Page 103 to be exact. FWIW, the merits of the bills are up for debate, but they are alternatives to what's been proposed........

The Obama Presidency - hopes and predictions - Page 103 - Front Office Football Central

[Honolulu_Blue]

I guess, in an off-the-record comment with an ABC reporter, Obama called Kanye West a "jackass".

Now, that is something Obama has said that I think everyone in this thread, both the racists and the commie-pinko-bastards, can agree on.

Obama will unite the nation at least on this issue.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

You've been really snarky and curt for a few pages, its kind of cute (except the part about just making shit up that nobody said).

I'm talking about my experience on this board (I didn't say liar - so you actually lied about that, as well as a couple of other things - but you absolutely do have a sense of moral superiority over anyone with a different opinion from you. That comes across in you dismissive snarkiness), and the product that the Democratic party sells for votes.

It's hillarious, time and time again. Sarah Palin makes an insane facebook post and you all just erupt with glee. "OMG - WE'RE RIGHT!!! A REPUBLICAN SAID SOMETHING DUMB!! Hooray! Let's make this the center of the debate, even with people that don't in any way agree with what she said!" It's nothing more than an attempt to invalidate any rational opinion that dare goes against your own. "These are the same people that are spreading LIES about death panels!"

It's very hard to have a productive discussion when you jump to generalizations so quickly. I favor a return to the Clinton tax rates, your response is that I hate rich people and want everyone to have the same income. I favor healthcare reform, you respond saying I want most to have worse care than they do now. I make clear that I don't believe the majority of protestors are racist, but that there is a racist element that is being tolerated , you respond saying I think anyone opposed to any Obama position is a racist so I won't have to discuss the issues.

I can, and do, have productive debates with Arles ,Cam, Steve, etc., but what's the point of discussing issues with someone who assumes I'm being disingenuous?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Page 103 to be exact. FWIW, the merits of the bills are up for debate, but they are alternatives to what's been proposed........

The Obama Presidency - hopes and predictions - Page 103 - Front Office Football Central

To be fair, posting a link to the text of bills, any bill, is unlikely to get many takers. There has been quite a lot of healthcare debate over the past weeks around here.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I guess, in an off-the-record comment with an ABC reporter, Obama called Kanye West a "jackass".

Now, that is something Obama has said that I think everyone in this thread, both the racists and the commie-pinko-bastards, can agree on.

Obama will unite the nation at least on this issue.

I will say that I have a much larger respect for Taylor Swift after that incident. She may not have reacted due to total shock that Kanye was being that stupid, but I'm sure that there are a lot of people who would have laid Kanye out on the spot for pulling that crap. At the very least, they would have asked him what the hell his problem was.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd rather find a way to give people the freedom to move to a new job or start a business without having to lose insurance. IMO our current system penalizes risk.

that's the key issue for me, and why i support separating it from employment. but if a way can be found to allow people the freedom to move between jobs without having to lose insurance, or run the risk of "preexisting conditions" denying them coverage while not separating it from employment i'm okay with that.

although i do think there needs to be an option for people who cannot get healthcare through work. what about walmart workers or others in the service-sector who do necessary jobs but whose employers don't offer healthcare or they can't afford it b/c they can't get 40hrs a week at one job?

the last thing we want is them continuing to use the ER as their primary care physician. that benefits nobody, and our premiums end up subsidizing it

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's very hard to have a productive discussion when you jump to generalizations so quickly. I favor a return to the Clinton tax rates, your response is that I hate rich people and want everyone to have the same income. I favor healthcare reform, you respond saying I want most to have worse care than they do now. I make clear that I don't believe the majority of protestors are racist, but that there is a racist element that is being tolerated , you respond saying I think anyone opposed to any Obama position is a racist so I won't have to discuss the issues.

I can, and do, have productive debates with Arles ,Cam, Steve, etc., but what's the point of discussing issues with someone who assumes I'm being disingenuous?

Where are you trying to have a productive discussion? Maybe a few pages back, but all I see recently are little quips attacking concepts that nobody here has supported (like that people don't think racism exists, "Yep, no racism whatsoever" - that was a very disingenous post.).

I wish I had time to pick apart all the lies in your post, but you're clearly on a roll of dishonesty so there's no point. You've lied and mischaracterized everything I said.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Arles

First of all, I went to Belleville West High School and it is/was one of the more racist areas you will find (going both ways). Belleville is right next to East St. Louis, one of the poorer black communities in the nation.

Outside of the local police officer backtrack after his race comment (which he was pressured to do by the city to not incite anything), what makes you think racism wasn't involved? I've talk with family and friends from back there and everyone close to the situation feels there was a high race component to the crime. Now, I was witnessed a ton of white to black racism in that city growing up (and a similar amount of reverse black to white racism) and it doesn't seem like a lot has changed.

It seems to me that dismissing race as a factor in this crime without knowing all the facts is just as silly as Limbaugh attributing the entire action only to race. Race was a factor, now whether it was 25% or 75% of the reason is only known to the kids who took the action.

Dispute over seat sparked attack on school bus, student says - STLtoday.com

This:

A student on a Belleville West High School bus was beaten for his choice of seat, not because he was white, according to a witness and police.

"The incident appears now to be more about a couple of bullies on a bus dictating where people sit," said Belleville Police Capt. Don Sax, who originally said Monday's attack may have been racially motivated.

D'Vante Lott, 16, said he was on the bus and witnessed the attack by the two black students.

The victim walked onto the bus, looking for an open seat, but students kept turning him down, as D'Vante said happened often with this student.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Dispute over seat sparked attack on school bus, student says - STLtoday.com

This:

A student on a Belleville West High School bus was beaten for his choice of seat, not because he was white, according to a witness and police.

"The incident appears now to be more about a couple of bullies on a bus dictating where people sit," said Belleville Police Capt. Don Sax, who originally said Monday's attack may have been racially motivated.

D'Vante Lott, 16, said he was on the bus and witnessed the attack by the two black students.

The victim walked onto the bus, looking for an open seat, but students kept turning him down, as D'Vante said happened often with this student.

I just saw the video and I thought everyone involved was white, this is the one that happened in Illinois right?

The cheering didn't come off as racist because I have seen people cheer fights when both people were of the same race.

It sucks that kid had to take that beating however some of the responses I have heard (FoxNews) are calling for them to be jailed and tried as adults.

I hope they are not jailed but they do need to be punished for attacking that kid who just wanted to sit down.

[RainMaker]

I hope they are jailed which would hopefully teach them a lesson that behavior like that is not acceptable in society.

I also don't care if the issue was racial or not, I just found it fascinating that with two wars, massive health care debate, and in the midst of a major recession, conservative news sites were treating a fight on a school bus as the top story.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's sad that instead of having a productive debate on bullying some people want to make this all about race.

Or that a story about bullying with some racist elements that should be relegated to some local paper gets national play

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Or that a story about bullying with some racist elements that should be relegated to some local paper gets national play

SI

Agreed. It's much like the 'beer summit' fiasco.

[sterlingice]

Sort of- in that when it was a local story. Unfortunately for Obama, he forgot that when the President gets involved, it becomes news no matter what it is.

So, in that way, the local story was just that. But the "beer summit" was sortof news because once it escalated and the President was involved, it becomes a national story.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Republican Health Care Reform | The Next Right[/list]And I'll add one that's been out there for a while, but no one wants to touch: End the tax break for employer-provided health care plans. Use the savings to give people tax-credits/vouchers/whatever to purchase their own plans. Mandate that plans cannot discriminate on price or availability.

It is stupid that we insist on linking health-care and employment. Get rid of the employer as middle-man.

As for those two proposals:

Safety Net - Interesting idea although I'm not sure how it would play out. You're essentially going to get the same results from society though. The rich will have to pay more for medical bills and insurance to cover those who can't. It's also essentially nationalized health care and more "socialist" than the current plan on the table.

My biggest concern with this would be people avoiding minor issues and causing more catastrophic situations. I still think preventative medicine is important and getting people healthier in the country.

I don't think it's a bad idea, but I do think there would be a lot of questions I'd have on the details.

Break up the Medical Cartels - My biggest concern with this is that I think it hurts doctors who actually spend the time to take the long road through school. Would this plan cause more potential doctors to take less schooling? Does it lower the overall qualifications of our medical field?

I think there is an issue with having to spend a lot of time and money seeing a doctor for minor things, but I also like the fact that we are being diagnosed by highly educated people. That 1 in 1,000 chance that the ear infection is something more serious is still important to me when seeing a doctor. I don't know if the answer to our medical situation is flooding it with less educated doctors. I also don't know if that creates a whole new industry of charlatans that peddle "medical services" with inferior backgrounds. Kind of like the chiropractic industry on steroids.

I personally would like to see those smaller clinics that pop up in Walgreens and such take off a little more. It's a real doctor, but it's one that is there for real basic stuff like physicals and ear infections. It's quick and much cheaper than your regular doctor. I also feel safer knowing that the one prescribing the medication is someone who has been to medical school and not some vocational school.

I would be more in favor of making it easier financially for medical students to get their degree. Whether that be subsidized loans, special rates, or help to schools medical programs. That way you are creating more doctors but they are fully qualified.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I don't just buy it to the level you apparently have been convinced to because every google search I try leads me to left-wing blogs. I spent about 5 minutes yesterday trying to find more reputable sources and could not...it shouldnt take any longer than that.

I guess the issue I see with this even being brought up is...what is the purpose of liberals making this a topic? Is it to attribute his sliding approval numbers on racists "converting" the middle to their beliefs? I just dont' understand this argument at all.

Racists (likely) didn't vote for Obama...Obama won the election by a landslide...part of that landslide is breaking off due to objections to his policy and direction...now because some racists (may or may not) have a presence in Tea Party assemblies, the entire health car debate and fiscal policy is about race?

If the point is to bring up that there are racists in this country...well, great, there are also child molesters, murderers, financial cheats, and tax cheats. They all suck in my mind and I bet they all had some presence at the Tea Party assemblies as well.

I don't know what to tell you man. If all these signs and videos are photoshopped/edited, then it's truly a great hoax. If the images and videos are of the event, I'm not sure why it matters what political affiliation a blog leans toward posts it. Either something happened or it didn't. Is it your intention that all those blogs you found the images/videos on are fabricating them?

In any event, here is a CNN interview with one of the leaders of the Tea Party movement. Besides confirming his beliefs in Obama's Indonesian Muslim affiliation and racist beliefs, he gets a nice jab in to those pesky homosexuals too. But then again, maybe this video was fabricated by the left too with Anderson Cooper and James Carville look-a-likes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. It's much like the 'beer summit' fiasco.

Except for the part where the kids on the bus weren't personal friends with Obama.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Except for the part where the kids on the bus weren't personal friends with Obama.

Yep.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

As for those two proposals:

Safety Net - Interesting idea although I'm not sure how it would play out. You're essentially going to get the same results from society though. The rich will have to pay more for medical bills and insurance to cover those who can't. It's also essentially nationalized health care and more "socialist" than the current plan on the table.

My biggest concern with this would be people avoiding minor issues and causing more catastrophic situations. I still think preventative medicine is important and getting people healthier in the country.

I don't think it's a bad idea, but I do think there would be a lot of questions I'd have on the details.

Break up the Medical Cartels - My biggest concern with this is that I think it hurts doctors who actually spend the time to take the long road through school. Would this plan cause more potential doctors to take less schooling? Does it lower the overall qualifications of our medical field?

I think there is an issue with having to spend a lot of time and money seeing a doctor for minor things, but I also like the fact that we are being diagnosed by highly educated people. That 1 in 1,000 chance that the ear infection is something more serious is still important to me when seeing a doctor. I don't know if the answer to our medical situation is flooding it with less educated doctors. I also don't know if that creates a whole new industry of charlatans that peddle "medical services" with inferior backgrounds. Kind of like the chiropractic industry on steroids.

I personally would like to see those smaller clinics that pop up in Walgreens and such take off a little more. It's a real doctor, but it's one that is there for real basic stuff like physicals and ear infections. It's quick and much cheaper than your regular doctor. I also feel safer knowing that the one prescribing the medication is someone who has been to medical school and not some vocational school.

I would be more in favor of making it easier financially for medical students to get their degree. Whether that be subsidized loans, special rates, or help to schools medical programs. That way you are creating more doctors but they are fully qualified.

nice thoughts. i like what you say about medical schools and flooding the market with underqualified doctors and stuff.

[DaddyTorgo]

here's something i'm against that the administration is doing - the move to "cloud computing."

U.S. government sets up online 'app store' - CNN.com

i don't want government employees using gmail or the creation of a "government cloud" where public data will be stored on google servers.

it's one step closer to googlezon and i don't like it very much at all!!

[molson]

I have a lot of respect for Obama for distancing himself from race card his supporters are trying to play. This comes after Jimmy Carter said yesterday that the, "overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man"

Obama disagrees:

WH: President Obama Disagrees with Former President Carter that Most Animosity Towards Obama is Race-Based - Political Punch

Perhaps he learned something from the beer summit, but it was an important thing for him to say. It wouldn't take much from him for things to really get out of control.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

I have a lot of respect for Obama for distancing himself from race card his supporters are trying to play. This comes after Jimmy Carter said yesterday that the, "overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man"

Obama disagrees:

WH: President Obama Disagrees with Former President Carter that Most Animosity Towards Obama is Race-Based - Political Punch

Perhaps he learned something from the beer summit, but it was an important thing for him to say. It wouldn't take much from him for things to really get out of control.

weren't we going to try to stop going back to this well again and again?

now you're just going to incite another round of back-and-forth over it

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Dispute over seat sparked attack on school bus, student says - STLtoday.com

This:

A student on a Belleville West High School bus was beaten for his choice of seat, not because he was white, according to a witness and police.

"The incident appears now to be more about a couple of bullies on a bus dictating where people sit," said Belleville Police Capt. Don Sax, who originally said Monday's attack may have been racially motivated.

D'Vante Lott, 16, said he was on the bus and witnessed the attack by the two black students.

The victim walked onto the bus, looking for an open seat, but students kept turning him down, as D'Vante said happened often with this student.

Great story . First, you didn't post the end of the story:

Still, several white parents and students said Tuesday afternoon that they felt the incident had to have been racially motivated, and that the school has been struggling with racial tension.

Next, Captain Sax was taken to task by the Belleville government for stating it was racially motivated before he knew the facts. So, his backtrack was the correct move (with some spin) given he didn't know the facts when he made that comment.

The rest of the article is misleading. They basically interviewed an African American kid who was suspended 3 days for "rooting it on" and his mom - asking if they thought race was a component. That's a pretty impartial duo there - what are they supposed to say 'Well, I don't think my son should be suspended - but that white boy had it comin!'

The area where that bus picks up has a lot of poorer kids and is around 60-70% black (with the rest being poorer whites). To think race didn't play a part is being blind to the socio-economic reality of that area (which has a history of severe racism). Put it this way, if a black kid on a bus with 70% white kids started getting punched by a white kid with numerous white kids yelling encouragement - I have a feeling many might think race was involved (and they would also be correct given the history of this area).

I'm all for not trying to insert race where it doesn't seem to fit (ie, the health care debate), but this is certainly a situation where race played a part and ignoring it will not make the situation any better. This area needs to start dealing with race issues (both white-black and black-white) as we are well into the 21st century and people need to start accepting both races in the community. To be honest, it's one of the reasons I wanted to leave Illinois as a High School Senior (and go to Arizona). Just downplaying the race element of this crime does nothing to help the serious situation in that community.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

weren't we going to try to stop going back to this well again and again?

now you're just going to incite another round of back-and-forth over it

Well, I thought what Obama said was in the spirit of getting back to a productive debate, and I appreciated it. I also like to say something postive about the president when I can.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know what to tell you man. If all these signs and videos are photoshopped/edited, then it's truly a great hoax. If the images and videos are of the event, I'm not sure why it matters what political affiliation a blog leans toward posts it. Either something happened or it didn't. Is it your intention that all those blogs you found the images/videos on are fabricating them?

In any event, here is a CNN interview with one of the leaders of the Tea Party movement. Besides confirming his beliefs in Obama's Indonesian Muslim affiliation and racist beliefs, he gets a nice jab in to those pesky homosexuals too. But then again, maybe this video was fabricated by the left too with Anderson Cooper and James Carville look-a-likes.

along with the jab at gays and the reiteration of his feelings on Obama's 'indonesian muslim' descent, he at least confirms my long held belief that the Health Care debate and the people yelling, "We want our country back" arent really pissed about health care but are pissed about the littany of things since TARP, ie. bailouts, AIG, etc.

[JPhillips]

While I find it curious that you see a clear racial component to this story, but not in the tea party movement, I think it's worth getting into what constitutes a racial element.

I'm with you in thinking that race was some sort of factor in the fight, but not in the "Let's get the white guy" manner. It's been proven that racial groups have a tendency to see the worst in the motives of other racial groups. So whatever this white kid did or didn't do was likely seen as more threatening than the same behavior from a black kid. Add in the economic and social history of the area and I'm sure there's a relative distrust blacks and whites that makes it more likely for confrontation.

This tendency to forgive your own race more easily and blame other races more easily is universal across racial groups. In some sense we're all racists whether we want to be or not. It doesn't mean we're all going to go out and start a racial holy war, but it's important that we understand our own tendencies. I can tell you I'm much more aware of the way I perceive young black men as I'm driving through downtown Newburgh.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

While I find it curious that you see a clear racial component to this story, but not in the tea party movement, I think it's worth getting into what constitutes a racial element.

I'm with you in thinking that race was some sort of factor in the fight, but not in the "Let's get the white guy" manner. It's been proven that racial groups have a tendency to see the worst in the motives of other racial groups. So whatever this white kid did or didn't do was likely seen as more threatening than the same behavior from a black kid. Add in the economic and social history of the area and I'm sure there's a relative distrust blacks and whites that makes it more likely for confrontation.

This tendency to forgive your own race more easily and blame other races more easily is universal across racial groups. In some sense we're all racists whether we want to be or not. It doesn't mean we're all going to go out and start a racial holy war, but it's important that we understand our own tendencies. I can tell you I'm much more aware of the way I perceive young black men as I'm driving through downtown Newburgh.

Great post.

[Arles]

I think there's racial overtones in a ton of situations. Where it becomes an issue is when it drives destructive (or even unfair) behavior. If John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean is president taking these actions, you would still have the tea party gatherings and a similar level of dissent on the health care issue. Now, are there some backwater idiots taking a shot using race/muslim crap reasons? I'm sure there are, but it's not the main reason for the dissent.

In the bus instance, I firmly believe if the kid finding a seat is black - there's no fight. So, it was an issue about race where racial divides played a role in this unfortunate incident. These are the instances where we need to look at race in communities and see what can be done to try and prevent this (or atleast improve the community acceptance). This goes for other instances where white kids may gang up on a Black/Hispanic/Asian kid in other communities as well. As an aside, I was very much involved in helping the African American community in Belleville/East St Louis when I was in High School and you had numerous instances of unfair citations/pulling over of lawful black motorists by white policemen in nicer areas. That was another instance where awareness was needed and the community needed to understand this was not acceptable behavior.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

You wouldn't have 60% of Republicans in the South either believing or not being sure Howard Dean or John Kerry were born in America.

That is quite the astute observation there Steve. We also don't have people accusing Obama of overstating his war injuries or being a screaming nutjob.

I look forward to your next tidbit of polical genius.

[Flasch186]

the 'woop' by Dean had to be the most inappropriate mischaracterization basis Ive ever seen or remember. Im not saying he isnt a nutjob but that was so unfair it was unreal. I mean people score and do stuff and if we judged them based on their celebration alone it would be a sad state but I dont think that's what you meant....you mightve just been repeating that cheapshot, instead of focusing on Dean's other real faults.

[CamEdwards]

It's a sad thread when Flasch is the reasonable one (j/k Flasch).

Yes, I was referring to the attack most people still remember about Dean, just as I was referring to the attack most people remember when it comes to Kerry.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, Cam, look who is the other person other than Flasch who responded .

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know what to tell you man. If all these signs and videos are photoshopped/edited, then it's truly a great hoax. If the images and videos are of the event, I'm not sure why it matters what political affiliation a blog leans toward posts it. Either something happened or it didn't. Is it your intention that all those blogs you found the images/videos on are fabricating them?

It wouldn't be much of a hoax at all. One person takes a few protester pics...photoshops them and sells them (or provides for free) the images to one liberal blogger that is less than discerning. This blog shares these images with other blogs or the same source of the images happens to have more than one contact in the blogoshpere...since none of them have fulltime staffed journalists and at the end of the day...they aren't expected to be as bullet-proof with their sources of information as conventional media. It isn't some "conspiracy"...it's called "lazy journalism" and it does happen sometimes.

And if you cannot see the inherent benefit to a liberal blogger to paint anti-Obama protesters as racists...well, I'll assume you do know better.

In any event, here is a CNN interview with one of the leaders of the Tea Party movement. Besides confirming his beliefs in Obama's Indonesian Muslim affiliation and racist beliefs, he gets a nice jab in to those pesky homosexuals too. But then again, maybe this video was fabricated by the left too with Anderson Cooper and James Carville look-a-likes.

Calm down sugar pants. Nobody is asking you to prove (or disprove) the existance of God.

He writes inflammatory things on his blog to gin up xenophobic sentiments in order to rally any and all people who dislike Obama (and for any reason, I'm sure). He's a typical zealot playing to the lowest denominator. I'm sure he's outraged by overtaxation, but his tact hurts that cause and I wish he wouldn't.

I honestly hate to even bring this level of nuance up...but I feel compelled to given the context and the general direction of the thread at this point...but what he called Obama was "xenophobic" and/or "islamaphobic", but not "racist"...and there is a difference. Unless Indonesians or Muslims have a race all of their own now. Don't get me wrong...the guy is a sleazeball, might be a closet racist for all I know, but do we now just assume anti-foreigner = racist? Is it always about the color of skin?

I watched this video 3 times and did not catch the gay jab you guys caught...it might be there, but damned if I could catch it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

It wouldn't be much of a hoax at all. One person takes a few protester pics...photoshops them and sells them (or provides for free) the images to one liberal blogger that is less than discerning. This blog shares these images with other blogs or the same source of the images happens to have more than one contact in the blogoshpere...since none of them have fulltime staffed journalists and at the end of the day...they aren't expected to be as bullet-proof with their sources of information as conventional media. It isn't some "conspiracy"...it's called "lazy journalism" and it does happen sometimes.

And if you cannot see the inherent benefit to a liberal blogger to paint anti-Obama protesters as racists...well, I'll assume you do know better.

These pictures are not limited to liberal blogs and to be quite honest, I just find it highly implausible that they all got together to masterly photoshop these events. I guess they also could have paid people to stand around and scream racist stuff at the rallies to make them look bad in videos. Seems highly implausible again, but if you truly believe that, then so be it.

I'm also assuming you believe that the ACORN videos that have surfaced are doctored as well since they were done by conservatives who can "benefit" from it.

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Calm down sugar pants. Nobody is asking you to prove (or disprove) the existance of God.

He writes inflammatory things on his blog to gin up xenophobic sentiments in order to rally any and all people who dislike Obama (and for any reason, I'm sure). He's a typical zealot playing to the lowest denominator. I'm sure he's outraged by overtaxation, but his tact hurts that cause and I wish he wouldn't.

I honestly hate to even bring this level of nuance up...but I feel compelled to given the context and the general direction of the thread at this point...but what he called Obama was "xenophobic" and/or "islamaphobic", but not "racist"...and there is a difference. Unless Indonesians or Muslims have a race all of their own now. Don't get me wrong...the guy is a sleazeball, might be a closet racist for all I know, but do we now just assume anti-foreigner = racist? Is it always about the color of skin?

I watched this video 3 times and did not catch the gay jab you guys caught...it might be there, but damned if I could catch it.

Racist or xenophobic, I still think the jist of it was that "he's not one of us". It just showed to me that this wasn't about health care or spending, but about the color of his skin or his ethnic background. I also think the "welfare thug" comment is tinged with some racial condescension.

Again, my only comment was that the tea parties seemed to have a racial element to them (not the opposition, just the tea parties). An interview of a leader of the tea parties goes on TV to make racist, xenophobic, and homophobic remarks. I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore.

[SteveMax58]

I gotta tell you...I might be dense...but I did not hear the anti-gay remark (or any remark about homosexuality or anything close).

Is this beginning, middle, or end?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Racist or xenophobic, I still think the jist of it was that "he's not one of us".

I don't really have the time or attention to give a proper response to your post, but I think you've hit something with particular phrase. Hopefully I'll be able to respond properly tomorrow.

[RainMaker]

The nipple-clip, feather boa in the streets of San Francisco didn't come across as a shot at gays? His blog seems to reference the gay pride parades as extremist, violent events.

This is also a guy who made the rounds on the cable news networks with racist rants against blacks after Katrina. But like you said, no racism in this event at all.

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/us...7obama.html?hp

“The issue there is not race, it’s civility,” Mr. Powell said. “This is not to say that we are suddenly racially pure, but constantly talking about it and reducing everything to black versus white is not helpful to the cause of restoring civility to our public dialogue.”

[ISiddiqui]

So I'm guessing you think members of the Congressional Black Caucus aren't "black people in positions of power"?

[RainMaker]

I agree with that editorial you posted.