I see and hear as bad or worse on Fox - passing as political commentary. I wish it were just a far right wing. But I'm afraid it's broader than that, and it's exploited by some big money.

graeme

This makes me sad, but it's true what Graeme said "I see and hear as bad or worse on Fox"

It's dumb, immature and stupid. But racist? Not in my opinion. They are comparing Obama to the villian of The Dark Knight, the Joker. "black-and-white minstrel in reverse"? No.... it's a clown face.

duplicate deleted

Lampooning and political cartoonery have been an integral part of the political landscape in North America for hundreds of years.  At one time it reflected the prejudice and racism that were a part of who we were.  Thankfully, mainstream political cartoons now largely reflect our more developed thinking and there would be a hue and cry if it didn't.

But I think in this case the lampoon doesn't cross the line.  Of course the American right will use the spectre of socialism to fight universal health care.  They did with Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan and later all of Canada.  Is it tasteless?  Maybe.  Does it inflame public opinion?  Yes.  Does it succeed in a compelling way in making the point the creator wants to get across?  Definitely.  Is it racist?  No.

ROFL!

I don't see the racism in this.  I may disagree with the dehumanizing factor in it, but it's just going overboard calling it racist.  I think crying racism is a counterplay.

I don't think I'll ever truly understand the big problem USA has with socialism.

Hmm.. maybe I'd get the racist crack if they referred to him as an "Uncle Tom". But it just appears to be a stab at Barack Obama for his Robinhood-esque antics: Taking from the rich, giving to the poor. There is no wrong in doing that, but to upperclass stuffy middle-aged conservatives, yes, that is a huge concern to them.

Lol I see.  So it's about greed, very democratic.

i get the 'christian report daily' on email, and yesterday there was this essay against obamas plan that pretty much stated that the rich shouldn't have to pay for everyones health care because, well, we should have mercy on the rich.

it was absolutely BIZARRE.... i'll see if its still in my delete file...

.......

This week I was shocked by the news that a long list of “progressive” ministers came out in support of the administration’s healthcare plan. They claim that universal health care is a moral issue. Their belief is based on a very superficial social, moral, and economic analysis. Contrary to their assertion, the Church has never historically viewed healthcare as the government’s responsibility.

The Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that: The modern concept of a hospital dates from AD 331 when Constantine, having been converted to Christianity, abolished all pagan hospitals and thus created the opportunity for a new start. Until that time disease had isolated the sufferer from the community. The Christian tradition emphasized the close relationship of the sufferer to his fellow man, upon who rested the obligation for care. Illness thus became a matter for the Christian church. 
 
Europe’s first medical schools came out of the Church. Not surprisingly, most cities still have hospitals that are attached to the faith community. The involvement of people of faith in this arena is both historic and pervasive. The development of hospitals in America followed a very similar path as the Christian community helped establish infirmaries that developed into hospitals. Although no biblical directive about modern health care, many Christians believe that concern about healthcare falls under the general principle of “loving your neighbor.”

With the community in mind, I would advocate a healthcare system that responsibly reaches out to the poor and needy. Unfortunately, the administration’s proposals (as it now stands) would result in lessening the overall quality of care. While this sounds acceptable in theory, it is impractical. The delay or denial of surgery or treatment for some patients would become a death sentence.

Five years ago, a friend of mine named Arnie developed a deadly form of brain cancer. He was given less than six months to live with no real chance of survival. Yet faith, the current healthcare system, and several of Washington DC’s elite surgeons beat the odds. Under what some derisively call ObamaCare, Arnie never would have been given the chance to attempt to beat the odds. Even though Arnie was a dental surgeon in his mid-fifties, his care would not be viewed as a “wise investment.”

How moral is it to create a healthcare system in which the sickest patients, no matter their income, are not tended to? Everyone in the nation will agree that we should help as many people as we can and that there should be realistic limits on how much is spent on a single patient. So why did “progressive” clergy side with the President?

First of all, I believe they wrongly used a broad-brush assessment of a very complex situation. Nowhere does scripture imply that the rich who are sick should not be visited or that the lower middle class sick person should be counted less worthy of help than the abjectly poor. I would argue that Jesus calls us to value all life – not simply the value of the lives of the poor versus the lives of the rich. The question we should be asking is this: “Is my life worth less because I am worth more?” The answer is obviously: no.

The second faulty assumption these clergymen make is that if you live in the right zip code, you can afford whatever the additional price of health services. The president has publicly acknowledged that many people go bankrupt because of “healthcare bills gone wild,” but somehow “progressive” ministers seem to think that “rich” people can just come up with the money.

Third, under the currently proposal, the administration wants to create a Robin-Hood-like healthcare system. The system will take from the rich and give to the poor. Although the concept works well in speeches, it is flawed. Imagine a 30-year old homeless man receiving a pacemaker that has been paid for by revenue that came from denying my friend Arnie his vital surgery. Our nation cannot place a higher value on one of these lives versus the other.

In addition to the assumptions about the value of rich people versus poor, there is a patent disregard to the fact that the proposed system will pay for abortions. Imagine a teenage girl that does not have to tell her parents she is pregnant before she gets a “free” abortion – paid for by Uncle Sam. Is it moral to increase the likelihood of abortions by at least a third? In my hometown, Washington DC, this would mean that one out of two pregnancies will be terminated by abortion. Further, three out four of those dead babies will be black.

Is it moral that every healthcare premium I pay for my 50 employees will finance abortions, when these monies are coming from the tithes and offerings of people that believe that killing a fetus is murder? Is it moral that elderly people are afraid that the plug will be pulled on them? Can we guarantee them that their lives are worth as much as anyone else’s?

The answers to the questions I just posed are obvious. The administration’s healthcare plan is flawed at best. I want to encourage all Americans to challenge their congressmen to vote against the bill as it stands. Let’s slow down the Obama express and create reform that we can really believe in!

Unfortunately we have people on this very forum who somehow believe that it is immoral for the Government to take the taxes that rich people pay to help fund services for those less fortunate in society.

Ridiculous? Yes, but it is an opinion held by some even in this country. Down south, it is an opinion held by a lot of people with a lot of money and power.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DEATH PANNELS!?!??!?!?! Those MUST be in the bill I mean... "it's a thousand pages long"!*

*Somebody on Fox "news" (I can't remember who but if I find the clip I'll link it), after being told that these death pannels are not in the bill said "well it's a thousand pages long" as if to say that any thing and everythng was in the bill because of its length

I wish mine did

Sounds like that's about what's going on.  From what I gather from my American friends, middle class people who are against health care reform seem to think that all the people who arent insured are the scum of the earth type who are just looking for a free ride.  Like people who use their welfare money for booze.

The sheeple down south have been told that we have a failed health care system, and that they have a better one.

the sheeple believe what they are told to believe.