I have a lot of respect for Lewis, though I don't agree with his politics. ABC News showed video of the incident, and I couldn't hear any racial epithets. A large number of people were chanting "kill the bill, kill the bill." Period. They also interviewed a few of the protesters and they all said it was reprehensible, if true, and that the acts of a very few shouldn't detract from their agenda.
i believe 3 different black congressmen have told their stories. and the homophobic comments hurled at frank were independently verified by cnn and politico correspondents- i dont know how u can question the validity of these comments anymore. and this wasnt a mass demonstration- "few hundred" according to some publications like the AP piece and a thousand or so according to some other sources. so... the bigots might be a minority but they appear to be a vociferous and well represented bunch even in a crowd of a thousand. and why didnt these anti-racists challenge their bigoted teabagger brethren when these racial/ homophobic pejoratives were hurled? and why were the black congressmen targeted? why would these idiots connect black congressmen to the health care bill? maybe it speaks to some of the deep seated bigotry of some of these teabaggers; something that only manifested itself after the president's victory and they realized they became "irrelevant"
There weren't hundreds of people using racial epithets. If there were any, it was one person. If there wasn't one person, it's a nice way for these guys to explain their resolve to vote for the Bill and get a flashback to the wrongs of the civil rights era into the news. The latter fits far more than your bogus claims. Even the way the democrats locked arms in their march to the House was a deliberate photo op to remind people of the civil rights era, and Clyborn's speech after the vote called the legislation the civil rights bill of the 21st century. Clearly a PR strategy to misdirect peoples' attention from the process, the bribes, and the awful legislation they intended to pass against the majority's will. Passing civil rights legislation against the majority's will was necessary, so they're trying to make it out that the majority's will in this case isn't meaningful. But this is not some civil rights legislation, it's a mandate that everyone buy a service from the insurance companies and drug companies. The Bill also was to save Obama's presidency (not for the best interest of the people) and to give the democrats a better chance of holding the house and senate come november.
this one person is one active dude because he managed to harass three black congressmen and a gay one as well. your thinking is bogus, i make no claims. and in the continuum of american politics- this piece of legislation is certainly monumental considering how many presidents have tried and failed in passing healthcare reform. in fact, many ppl believe this bill resembles nixon's
Absolutely. He ran on it and won in a landslide. Had he not represented the people (who spoke by electing him) by doing all he could to get it passed, it would have been a strike against his presidency. Oh? So this will be a positive for Democrats come mid-term elections? Flies in the face of your prior belief that passing this bill will doom the congressional Democrats, but it's reasonable to change what one thinks.
The government is torturing me right now. BTW, please define torture for me. I think our definitions would differ.
The "strike two" comment doesn't make sense. I said it would have been a strike against him had the Democrats not passed the health care bill, since that's one of the things the people elected him to do. Perhaps you missed it...the bill was passed last night.
Please. Your side had him out before he even reached the batters box. Don't act like you are an impartial judge of his accomplishments or lack thereof.
Why work, when you can have extended unemployment benefits (enough to pay for house payments thanks to the shitty economy that's been made) and all the medical marijuana that free health insurance buys?
True. So I imagine you'll be quitting your job to get in on the sweet life that you feel the unemployed now enjoy? Can't exactly call it "going Gault," if you're going to live off the government largesse. "Going red state" maybe?
move to somalia- they dont have unemployment benefits, health insurance or taxes for that matter. although, u might have to fend for yourself against crazy, machete wielding warlords and their henchmen.
I only oppose the reason that unemployment benefits NEED TO BE EXTENDED. Because the people in charge of the govt. now are more interested in extending them than they are in making an economic environment where people who want to work can find a job.
im sure u teabaggers were overjoyed when u heard this news: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10168323
