Perriello hears "racist" talk in 5th District

Rodney should have kept his mouth shut. His remarks have painted him as backward,insenstive indeed. POOR, POOR judgement here! He shot himself in the foot for sure. (May cost him the election). I'm unsure he is up to the task.

Obama's radical policies are CAUSING people to become openly racist. His far left leadership is causing a growing divide in the nation that is resulting in a resurgence in racism as he continues to push his own agenda and not that of a united nation.

You all need to read the quote. Perriello isn't saying the same thing as Carter or Pelosi at all. Everyone who has seen signs from the tea parties knows that some of the participants have resorted to racism. Perriello says that while SOME of the participants have injected racism into the conversation, for the most part his town halls (all bagillion of them) were civil. Give the guy a break; or at least read his quote before you freak out about it.

Periello is a complete bozo. Is that rasist you elite bigot.

As a conservative in a very liberal location, I don't think Obama is a bad President because he is black. It is because he talks without saying anything!

Rodney Thomas, candidate for Rio seat of Albemarle County supe just lost the election w/his racist remark about desegregation:

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/article/supervisor_hopeful_...

ââ?¬Å?I could care less whether it was going to happen or not, and all of us were that way. ”Š I don’t know if it helped the black people feel more equal or not. I never was on that side of the coin,” Thomas said. ââ?¬Å?I don’t see why I would have been for it. I can’t understand why in the world anybody would have been for it back in that time.”

Pits,

You seem to keep agreeing with me. I pointed out that uninsured people cost the tax payer. So I am glad we agree. As I said, being that it is the CURRENT system, the debt to tax payers could not get worse. But you seem to believe insurance should be mandated. Wouldn't that cost taxpayers and the government more than it does now according to your argument? It seems you are running in circles. You seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing, how liberal of you. Again, I NEVER said I oppose coverage requirements, I just pointed out my logic for both sides of the debate, but you continue to extrapolate the meaning of my statements to fit your argument. Also another liberal tendency. (SO YOU DONT READ TO FAR INTO THIS ONE EITHER, people too far down the conservative side do this too, but you have made it blatantly obvious which side of the fence you stand on).

If the auto insurance industry is subsidized by the government, how come that industry isn't having the same problems? Are you also stating homeowners are subsidized by the government? Either way, I'm not sure how the government mandating anything results in BIGGER government. When the government gives a tax break they are subsiding consumption, does that mean a tax cut results in bigger government? Again, you seem to be less concerned about the substance of this debate than you are with proving me wrong since I do not worship the ground Obama walks on. (How liberal of you).

You are going to need to explain how YOU misspelling government ("gub'mint") is insulting me in anyway. The only thing I could take from it was your were implying a some sort of southern draw or slang. Which, either way, would again make you a racist.

Can't wait to hear your next round of attacks on me, instead of any substance to your debate. (Because the only substance you have provided thus far is you agreeing with me).

Caesonia,

"We don’t have to own a car. We DO however have to have healthcare."

- EXCELLENT point! I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, some seem to feel that not everyone should have healthcare.

"Mandate coverage, and you will see even LESS competition in the market."

I suppose I take for granted that the supply side will catch up with demand. Obviously, there will be a lag period, but since MD's are not the only healthcare providers out there (i.e PA's and nonphysician practitioners can also provide much primary care), I think it fair to assume that the supply side can catch up (if, as you point out, it is allowed to).

in person, with my own ears, i attended an albemarle county forum hosted by mr perriello

i clearly heard commentary that was rooted in race-bias and anti-semitism

for example: a straightforward comparison of mr obama to the 'Antichrist' (in the Christian apocalyptic literature) and specific naming of the jewish advisors in the white house (or the spokesperson's words 'obama's czars') as 'forces taking over the government' ...

i looked around the room to see how hurt many in the audience were at the overt hatred of the anti-obama speakers

i wondered if those speaking 'as Christians' understood how much their words were in opposition to the direct teaching of Their Lord to love one another, and teachings of the early Christian fellowship (to sell what they owned in order to provide for the widows orphans, and those in need : which is generally considered by scholars to be a 'socialism' of property in early Christian fellowships, by those who had actually known Jesus) that the rest of the world would 'know the believers by their love' (Not their hate)

did others have a similar experience?

You're mad that Tom hasn't provided examples? He was interviewed on Friday morning. No one asked him on that interview for examples. I imagine that if someone asked him, he could provide examples. Maybe he will when he is back in the District this weekend, if someone asks him.

By the way, the Lyndon LaRouche folks who were there with posters of Hitler mustaches painted onto posters of Obama sure seems like they had racist overtones to me... And I DID see those, at both of the two town hall meetings that I attended.

By the way, the budding scandal here is that the NRCC has been sending out documents that purport to be transcripts of Tom's interview, with key words edited out. Politico did a story, using the NRCC "transcript" without checking its facts; their story complained that Tom was calling his constituents racist. When the author of the story was called on it, he apologized, blaming it on the NRCC flak for their misleading information. From Glenn Thrush's apology today to Tom Perriello, which you can read at http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/ , you can see the whole quote from Tom, with the portions that the Republican flak left out put in brackets:

ââ?¬Å?I conducted over a hundred hours of town hall meetings in central and southern Virginia [and the vast majority of them were civil; people disagreed passionately on ideological grounds]. And there were [rare] cases where very racist remarks were made. Sometimes they were called out by neighbors in the audience; sometimes they weren’t. Clearly, race remains a factor in America, [but] there’s also a lot of disagreement here that is genuine and not based on race, so I think we have to have both conversations.”

Tom, unlike Jimmy Carter, did not say that "most" of the negative reaction was due to racism. He thought that the racist responses were "rare." The Republicans wanted to try to paint Tom as having the same response as Carter and Pelosi, and it just isn't true.

One point... it actually costs more to maintain a disease then to deal with it in one fell swoop.. so from a financial standpoint it is cheaper let someone die an early death from heart disease then treat them for twenty years. Sounds cold, but if we are talking about money here it negates the argument about preventive medicine.

Tbone,

Calling you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. And reading comments like yours reaffirms my position that abortion is absolutely justified in cases of incest.

"I never mentioned mandates."

Well, yes you did, when you took issue with Caesonia's complaint about the government propping up the insurance industry and then equated health insurance to auto and home owners insurance, which are literally (auto) and practically (homeowners) mandatory.

"Mandates are a different issue as people should not have to purchase insurance if they don’t want to (in theory). In practice however, those who do not purchase will most likely never foot the bill of their healthcare coverage, which will place the burden on the tax payer, but this is the current system, so I believe that to be an irrelevant point."

It is completely relevant to the problem at hand - namely that the government is already paying through the nose for the healthcare of uninsured and underinsured Americans. If you believe that people should not be required to have insurance (of some kind) then you must be ok with the government footing the high costs associated with caring for the uninsured - ER visits instead of well-visits, increased rates of preventable illness, lost productivity, higher costs of medical procedures for those not belonging to a group plan, etc...
Like it or not, unless everybody is covered by some sort of plan, Uncle Taxpayer is going to pick up the tab for those who either cannot afford coverage or those who "choose" to remain uninsured.

"MORE IMPORTANTLY, you have yet to explain how regular Americans purchasing insurance is a government subsidy. Can you please explain how Americans spending money equates to a government handout?"

As I said before, REQUIRING all Americans to purchase health insurance (by whatever means - employer plans, vouchers, individual out-of-pocket, etc.) from a private provider would amount to a subsidy for the insurance industry. Apparently you now oppose such coverage requirements, so I guess I was responding to your previous position.

"Also ââ?¬Å?small gub’mint”? Was that your attempt to poke fun at my intelligence? Are you implying that a person from the south is less educated? What are you racist or something?!"

Huh?? How on earth am I supposed to know where you hail from or what color you are? Insecure much? As a matter of fact, I'm from the South so no I was not poking fun at Southerners' intelligence. I was poking fun at yours though .

ohmy-- we ARE backward. Europeans and Canadians know that adequate health care for all should be a right, not a privilege. They know that this is the civilized thing to do.

Americans apparently can't figure that out...

"The debate over health care and the racist comments directed at our president have proven one thingââ?¬â?? compared to Europe and Canada, we are incredibly backward."

ROFL.....Stop it! You are killing me here.

"I naively thought that having a mixed race president would bring the US together. Instead, every two-bit racist KKK freak has crawled out of the woodwork to make their real views known."

You are not naive. This is something that plagues all mixed societies and brought to the forefront when an event likes this takes place. For this country to even elect this President is a major hurdle that has been cleared. There are many more to go.

I would give more credence to the talk of the folks on the "right" if they could learn to spell correctly.

"Citizen,"

I wasn't aware that pointing out the flaws in your arguments obligated me to single-handedly solve the nations' healthcare dilemma. My experience tells me that the guy who thinks he is full of all the answers is usually full of something else - present company included.

If you really must know, I actually DO favor an insurance requirement for Americans. My earlier post merely sought to point out your hypocrisy in pretending that such a requirement does not amount to a big government handout to industry. How exatly does a government MANDATE to purchase an industry's product jibe with your "small gub'mint" instincts? And how does the boon that results for that industry not equate to a de facto government subsidy? Simply because the dogmatic small-government lens through which you seem to see all issues does not permit you to admit supporting a government subsidy, the facts seem to say otherwise.

In answer to your "whining" (not mine), I would say that our current healthcare crisis requires us to be open to a whole range of possible solutions - insurance mandates, public options, healthcare cooperatives, stricter industry oversight, yes even tort reform. My sense is that the answer will be far from black and white and will require a combination of solutions. Though, again, I would not be so arrogant as to pretend that I have all the answers.

I attended many of these meetings, and never heard any racist comments, nor saw any racist signs. With the amount of videotape, camcorder, and cell phone recordings that occurred at these meetings, there should easily be proof of his claims. The fact that he, and Nancy, can't show anything supporting their claims, is akin to yelling fire in a theater when none occurs, and they should be penalized accordingly. This is just an attempt to shut down debate, and he should be ashamed of himself. Next he'll be telling us that the Holocaust didn't occur.

If he can seriously say "I can't understand why in the world anybody would have been for it back in that time," then he has real problems with understanding other people's points of view. "Anybody"? What he really means is "I can't understand why in the world anybody who lived and thought exactly like me would have been for it back in that time." He doesn't define "anybody" to include, oh, I don't know, black people. He doesn't define "anybody" to include progressive whites who opposed segregation. His definition of "anybody" just happens to be exactly coterminous with his own self. That's a sign of someone who can't empathize, someone who can't look at the people living very different lives from him or with very different beliefs and even fathom their point of view. That's not a problem with politically incorrect language: it's a problem of being narrow-minded, parochial, and unimaginative.

I also liked this quote from him: "do they mind me calling them a Negro anymore? Is that improper also?”

If he truly has no idea, has paid NO attention at all to shifts in public discourse regarding race, if he really has no fricking clue that the word 'Negro' is largely archaic, then...again, it's not a matter of being politically incorrect. It's a matter of being clueless.

He complains that integration was "shoved down our throats" at the same time that he acknowledges that he and everyone else he knew like him was against integration, meaning they would NOT have done it themselves. So the government is bad for forcing people to do a thing that he says "was necessary" but that people wouldn't have done on their own. Sounds like the government can't win in Thomas's worldview. Wait around forever for racist white southerners to make equal educational opportunities to blacks? Or just get the whole thing rolling on their own? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. I guess what he means is "I like the government shoving federal highways and satellites and inspecting the food that I eat and standards for auto safety down my throat, but not making me sit next to black kids at school."

Look, you think-headed, troglodytic, neanderthal! They are the same. A government mandate to purchase private health insurance (where no mandate had previously existed) would amount to a boondoggle for insurance companies (read: subsidy). At the same time, while it would not grow the bureaucracy to the same degree that a takeover would, it will most certainly increase the size of government. (At the very least there will be increased regulation - which you affirmed in an earlier post.) If the government takes ANY steps (public or private) to fix the healthcare mess, it will be increasing its breadth and scope. Sorry.

"You also assume the goal of healthcare(sic) is to insure everyone..."

WRONG. The goal of healthcare reform is to provide HEALTHCARE. To EVERYONE.

"The goal of healthcare reform should be to LOWER COSTS because even if the end goal is to insure everyone, it cannot happen unless costs come down."

Talk about party line BS... Look chief, no matter how far you lower costs, there's gonna be a free-rider problem (people who remain uninsured - and cost Uncle Sam in the long run) unless you somehow mandate coverage. By the way, lowering costs is great, never said anything to the contrary - remember that stuff I said about the increased purchasing power of large group plans? What did you think I meant?

"I’m sure you don’t understand this for the same reason you probably think Medicare is a great, well-functioning system."

As a matter of fact, my experience with Medicare during my parent's catastrophic illness was absolutely fantastic. It sure beat the alternative of bankruptcy. Was it perfect? No. But nothing is.

"...demeaning a regional dialect is racism. If you made fun of someone’s accent, you are being racist."

I'll say it once more - I never demeaned anybody's dialect. But for the record, here's what Merriam-Webster has to say about your little notion of racism...
rac·ism
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

You, sir, are a complete and total horse's backside.

ââ?¬Å?I conducted over a hundred hours of town hall meetings in my district in central and Southern Virginia, and the vast majority of them were civil; people disagreed passionately on ideological grounds. And there were the rare cases where very racist remarks were made. Sometimes they were called out by neighbors in the audience; sometimes they weren’t. Clearly, race remains a factor in America, but there’s also a lot of disagreement here that is genuine and not based on race, so I think we have to have both conversations.”

"Rare cases..." "the vast majority of them were civil..."

There's too much jumping to conclusions and assumptions being made, rather than giving Congressman Perriello a fair hearing, as he gave lots of people in all the town halls he did. You know what they say about assumptions.... they make an.... out of U and ME!

"The healthcare bills is written in such a manner that the upper class should subsize the poor, NOT the government subsidizing an industry..."
Let's get real. Requiring Americans to purchase private insurance amounts to a government subsidy for the industry.

"The healthcare industry is noncompetitive because companies cannot compete across state lines."
Citizen, I imagine you to be a fan of limited government (at least limited Federal Government) and a proponent of state authority. What do you suppose would happen to the authority of states to regulate the insurance industry within their own borders if those insurance companies were allowed to operate across state lines? Would the (gasp) Federal Government become the primary regulator? Would it be the state in which the company is headquartered? And if so, would it be very long before all insurance comapnies simply moved to the states with the least stringent consumer protections?

"Get rid of all the litigation and malpractice suits doctors and drug companies have to insure themselves against. THAT’S how to fix this."
Hogwash! Tort reform is a red herring bandied about by those opposed to real reform. The states that have experimented with tort reform have seen absolutely no decline in healthcare costs.

Get your facts straight and stop pretending that there are simple solutions to complex problems.

Race crying wont get you out of this mess congressman......

"It’s best to keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re stupid than to open it and leave no doubt."

Excellent advice for our leaders.

I think Mequa Shore is correct in suggesting that Tom should be more specific about what he means and exactly what he heard. Were the meetings taped? Maybe it is all on tape. A big problem with regard to racial issues is that people (including politicians) are afraid to talk about the exact details. I'm afraid that is what is going on here. Come on, get it out Tom! What exactly did you hear? Folks want to know what racial comments the inappropriates are spouting off. Putting the entire facts on the table can fix problems. One more suggestion Tom, as you were the leader in charge, why didn't you ask those yelling out racial comments to leave? Please open up the conversation more.

Citizen,

"But you seem to believe insurance should be mandated. Wouldn’t that cost taxpayers and the government more than it does now according to your argument?"

No. Learn to read. The government pays more now b/c it has to pay for much more costly procedures that result when uninsured people delay going to the doctor until they are extremely sick, or they use the ER as their primary care facility ($$$). Don't forget the cost savings that insurance companies (and Medicare) are able to demand for medical procedures simply because of the large pool of consumers that they represent. Uninsured patients pay more for the same procedures, and those costs get passed on to taxpayers.

"If the auto insurance industry is subsidized by the government, how come that industry isn’t having the same problems? Are you also stating homeowners blah blah blah..."

Huh? Who's running in circles here and extrapolating meanings to fit their arguments? I will say this agin, and TYPE IT SLOWLY SO THAT YOU CAN COMPREHEND: My point was that if the goal of health care reform is to cover everyone, and the means through which we accomplish that goal is by government mandating private coverage for everyone (i.e. NO GOVERNMENT OPTION), then we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we are not giving a huge boost to a private industry - which is pretty much what Caesonia pointed out in the first place and YOU DISAGREED WITH. Period. End of story. I suppose I gave you too much credit for being able to read between the lines (and holding to one position).
The point where I split with Caesonia is that I am ok with such a dependence on private industry (even at the expense of a public option) as long as the ultimate goal of covering everyone is achieved.

"Either way, I’m not sure how the government mandating anything results in BIGGER government."

Really? I know lots of conservatives who would take issue with that statement. And the guy who wrote that "You should be allowed to do WHATEVER you want, as long as you are not taking away freedoms of others..." SHOULD probably take issue with the statement as well (if he weren't to busy talking aout of both sides of his face).

The Gub'mint crack was intended to portray you as the type of knee-jerk "conservative" who likes the notion of small government but 1) really has no idea what the term means in practice and 2) that he benefits in many many ways from the type of robust government protections that he himself (if he thought about it) would consider to be "big gub'mint." Based on your delusional remblings here, I think that assessment is dead-on.

"The only thing I could take from it was your(sic) were implying a some sort of southern draw(sic) or slang. Which, either way, would again make you a racist."

How do you equate demeaning a regional dialect (which I was not since I share that dialect myself) with racism!!?? If anything, I was trying to demean one very particular moron about whose race I have no clue.

Pits,