Ultraconservatives pretend homophobia/racism doesn't exist
Look, for example, at the ads put forth by Angle - a leader and representative of the Tea Party! They are overtly racist, not even trying to put on a veneer of civil discourse. If there are Tea Partiers who still claim that they have nothing to do with racism, then it's a case of the left hand either ignorant or apathetic of what the right hand is doing.
I've seen many, many tea party groups and have never seen anyone say Get rid of the Mexicans. Granted, there are probably a few people on the fringe who do, but as a large percentage of the group? Yeah, right. Having the belief to get rid of illegals is not a racist belief as race is not a factor. If someone has that belief, as I do, it doesn't matter what race they are, they shouldn't be here receiving any benefits from our nation.
Personally, I haven't seen ads put forth by Angle, but based on what you believe to be racist, I could probably tell you that none of her ads are racist at all. What you seem to think falls into the category of racism is almost laughable if the level of ignorance wasn't so sad.
There's no demographic fear at all behind it. It's simply a matter of illegals coming here and having their babies here to gain citizenship so they can leach off of our country that is nearly completely broke. Again, race has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter what race they are, if they're Mexican, British, Canadian, Indian, Chinese, German, etc, they should not be able to have "anchor babies".
So sayeth the "Nanny State is everywhere" Sensationalist.
If Dox47 took time to carefully read what I wrote, argue rather than crying foul, drop the pretension that he's a TRUE INDEPENDENT THINKER, or stop with his self-righteous attempts to police the left while giving the right a free pass, this debate might actually lead somewhere.
Last edited by Master_Pedant on 31 Oct 2010, 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
So sayeth the "Nanny State is everywhere" Sensationalist.
If Dox47 took time to carefully read what I wrote, argue rather than crying foul, drop the pretension that he's a TRUE INDEPDENT THINKER, or stop with his self-righteous attempts to police the left while giving the right a free pass, this debate might actually lead somewhere.
i think the caps might have ruined any point you could have been trying to make, and maybe misspelling independent but more than likely thats irrelevant.
you haven't been paying very much attention, then.
If they aren't racist, they wouldn't be picking racist leaders.
And apparently your browser can't be directed to Google, Dogpile, Yahoo, or any other search engine. Or maybe you're just lazy and/or incapable of googling.
Since you can't do it yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZn9ek95s-I
(that took about 2 minutes to find, btw, including the time that it took to watch the video). The commentary is a little simplistic, but the point is still clear.
Ad hominem.
Except that it's not just me who thinks that they're racist.
more ad hominem.
*snort.*
I'll just leave that up to speak for itself.
JasonGone wrote;
I've lived in central Florida most of my life and I DO NOT find that to be the case at all. From the Tampa area across through the Orlando area to the space coast it's pretty damned cosmopolitan.
Even more so in south Florida.
What exactly are you comparing it to, San Francisco?
you haven't been paying very much attention, then.
If they aren't racist, they wouldn't be picking racist leaders.
And apparently your browser can't be directed to Google, Dogpile, Yahoo, or any other search engine. Or maybe you're just lazy and/or incapable of googling.
Since you can't do it yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZn9ek95s-I
(that took about 2 minutes to find, btw, including the time that it took to watch the video). The commentary is a little simplistic, but the point is still clear.
Ad hominem.
Except that it's not just me who thinks that they're racist.
more ad hominem.
*snort.*
I'll just leave that up to speak for itself.
I watched both of those ads and there is nothing racist in them. She clearly illustrates her position against illegal immigration and compares it with Harry Reid. Or are you trying to make the claim that because the "illegals" they show in those ads are a Latino race makes her racist despite the fact that the vast, vast, VAST majority of illegals are Latino. Is it now racist to recognize reality? The only people who would find those ads racist are people would be against Angle regardless of where she stood on that issue and are using a made up issue against her.
you haven't been paying very much attention, then.
If they aren't racist, they wouldn't be picking racist leaders.
And apparently your browser can't be directed to Google, Dogpile, Yahoo, or any other search engine. Or maybe you're just lazy and/or incapable of googling.
Since you can't do it yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZn9ek95s-I
(that took about 2 minutes to find, btw, including the time that it took to watch the video). The commentary is a little simplistic, but the point is still clear.
Ad hominem.
Except that it's not just me who thinks that they're racist.
more ad hominem.
*snort.*
I'll just leave that up to speak for itself.
I watched both of those ads and there is nothing racist in them. She clearly illustrates her position against illegal immigration and compares it with Harry Reid. Or are you trying to make the claim that because the "illegals" they show in those ads are a Latino race makes her racist despite the fact that the vast, vast, VAST majority of illegals are Latino. Is it now racist to recognize reality? The only people who would find those ads racist are people would be against Angle regardless of where she stood on that issue and are using a made up issue against her.
She doesn't believe insurance companies should be treating "autism" (complete with her own air quotes) either.
you haven't been paying very much attention, then.
If they aren't racist, they wouldn't be picking racist leaders.
And apparently your browser can't be directed to Google, Dogpile, Yahoo, or any other search engine. Or maybe you're just lazy and/or incapable of googling.
Since you can't do it yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZn9ek95s-I
(that took about 2 minutes to find, btw, including the time that it took to watch the video). The commentary is a little simplistic, but the point is still clear.
Ad hominem.
Except that it's not just me who thinks that they're racist.
more ad hominem.
*snort.*
I'll just leave that up to speak for itself.
I watched both of those ads and there is nothing racist in them. She clearly illustrates her position against illegal immigration and compares it with Harry Reid. Or are you trying to make the claim that because the "illegals" they show in those ads are a Latino race makes her racist despite the fact that the vast, vast, VAST majority of illegals are Latino. Is it now racist to recognize reality? The only people who would find those ads racist are people would be against Angle regardless of where she stood on that issue and are using a made up issue against her.
She doesn't believe insurance companies should be treating "autism" (complete with her own air quotes) either.
I hope you're just trying to point out something you don't like about Angle and not trying to claim this is racist
If you dig a little deeper, you'll find that it's not that she believes insurance should be treating autism, but rather, it shouldn't be on every single plan. Should a family without any autistic kids or members have to pay extra for their insurance for something they will never use?
use your words?
use your words?
[quote="Bataar]I hope you're just trying to point out something you don't like about Angle and not trying to claim this is racist
If you dig a little deeper, you'll find that it's not that she believes insurance should be treating autism, but rather, it shouldn't be on every single plan. Should a family without any autistic kids or members have to pay extra for their insurance for something they will never use?[/quote]
Well that makes absolutely no sense! Children are added to plans as newborns. I'm not aware of any newborns being diagnosed with autism. The whole point of insurance is to ensure that you'll have funding to pay for both expected and unexpected illness/disorder/disease/injury/etc. By Angle's logic, why should auto accident injuries be covered on every single plan? It's something many people will never use, right?
I didn't make the point to call her racist, just ignorant in general.
I didn't make the point to call her racist, just ignorant in general.
There are multiple, optional levels of auto insurance. When you buy it, it's not an all or nothing deal. If parents have a child, and they want to pay for autism coverage in their insurance plan, that's great, they should have every right to do so. However, if they don't want it, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it just to get "basic" coverage.
use your words?
<.< wut?
I didn't make the point to call her racist, just ignorant in general.
There are multiple, optional levels of auto insurance. When you buy it, it's not an all or nothing deal. If parents have a child, and they want to pay for autism coverage in their insurance plan, that's great, they should have every right to do so. However, if they don't want it, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it just to get "basic" coverage.
Health insurance is not an all or nothing deal now. Insurance companies are constantly trying to come up with ways to reduce their payouts. They put caps on benefits and they omit many services altogther. They continue to increase premiums and reduce coverage to increase their bottom line. That's how corporations work. Their #1 goal is profit - not people.
The suggestion by Angle to make autism coverage optional is just another way to screw the consumer out of yet another service. Why on earth would any parent NOT want autism to be covered? As a parent of an autistic kid who had to fight for months just to get our insurer to cover the diagnosis (not even treatment), I find this suggetion appalling. We, like many families, can only afford basic coverage. Under Angel's propsal, only wealthy families could afford to care for their autistic children. Shame on anyone who feels this is an appropriate solution.
I didn't make the point to call her racist, just ignorant in general.
There are multiple, optional levels of auto insurance. When you buy it, it's not an all or nothing deal. If parents have a child, and they want to pay for autism coverage in their insurance plan, that's great, they should have every right to do so. However, if they don't want it, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it just to get "basic" coverage.
Health insurance is not an all or nothing deal now. Insurance companies are constantly trying to come up with ways to reduce their payouts. They put caps on benefits and they omit many services altogther. They continue to increase premiums and reduce coverage to increase their bottom line. That's how corporations work. Their #1 goal is profit - not people.
The suggestion by Angle to make autism coverage optional is just another way to screw the consumer out of yet another service. Why on earth would any parent NOT want autism to be covered? As a parent of an autistic kid who had to fight for months just to get our insurer to cover the diagnosis (not even treatment), I find this suggetion appalling. We, like many families, can only afford basic coverage. Under Angel's propsal, only wealthy families could afford to care for their autistic children. Shame on anyone who feels this is an appropriate solution.
How does it screw the consumer? The choice to have it would still be there, but they don't have to get it, if they don't want it. I agree with you that probably most parents would want it covered and if it was an option and I had kids, it is an option I would include on my policy, but if, for whatever reason, someone wants health coverage and does not want it, they should have the option. Same goes for adults, I could be wrong, but I believe that even adults without children have to pay for the coverage which is definitely not fair.
