"Beaten" Conservative Activist Does not Have Health Insurance!

[DroppinScience]

It's disputed whether he really sustained injuries (from an altercation at a health care rally), but the grandest irony of ironies is that health care reform would have covered him -- something he's fighting against. You can't make this stuff up!

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019423.php

[kaiser soze]

How about the individuals on Medicare?

I bet a conservative against socialized medicine won't complain when their bill is absolved by the hospital for a broken arm

[Echewta]

Seems like he accepts not having health insurance and is asking for donations. I see nothing wrong with it.

[DroppinScience]

Seems like he accepts not having health insurance and is asking for donations. I see nothing wrong with it.

Read that sentence back to yourself. I thought the likes of him is so opposed to government intervention, "socialism," and any form of social assistance whatsoever. So to accept donations of any kind to pay for medical bills (but I thought health care was perfect the way it was, conservatives!) is proof that their ideology is bankrupt. I guess charity is only good when it's benefiting you. :rolleyes:

[saz]

inventing tales of a union "beating" (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908080004)

The conservative blogosphere is absolutely atwitter with news that an activist was attacked by union thugs at a town hall meeting this week in St. Louis. It's the best the right-wing can do to deflect blame for unleashing mini-mobs on town hall forums: They did it!

The tale was first told in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Kenneth Gladney, 38, a conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room at St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was awaiting treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack.

The newspaper had no witnesses, just Gladney's account. Then Gladney's attorney got involved and from conservatives' perspective, the tale got better and better:

He went to the ground. Subsequently, two other SEIU representatives or members, however you want to say it, jumped on top of him, yelled racial epithets at him...kicked him, punched him...He sustained some injuries to his back, some bruising.

And even better (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Fgreenroom%2Farchiv es%2F2009%2F08%2F07%2Fphotos-and-video-carnahan-event-in-st-louis%2F):

The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman. The three men were clearly SEIU members, as they were wearing T-shirts with the SEIU (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fstlouisteaparty.com%2Ftag%2Fsei u%2F) logo.

Gladney was clearly beaten at length (it was "brutal (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fgatewaypundit.blogspot.com%2F20 09%2F08%2Fblack-conservatives-attorney-sends-out.html)"), and at least from this description, was lucky to survive with his life, right?

Mary Katharine Ham wrote up an especially excited write-up (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weeklystandard.com%2Fweblog s%2FTWSFP%2F2009%2F08%2Feye_witness_to_st_louis_sc uffl.asp) at The Weekly Standard about the vicious union thugs and how Gladney was severely beaten. The only mistake Ham made was including a YouTube clip of the incident; a clip that pretty much undercuts the entire tale of run-away union violence.

Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line hypes (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchive s%2F2009%2F08%2F024217.php) it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?) and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.

That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop talking about?

The only real mystery from the incident is why Tea Party member Gladney, who's seen up-close after the brief encounter walking around and talking to people and who appears to be injury-free, then decided to go to the hospital to treat injuries to his "knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face." All that from a two-second fall to the pavement?

Also unclear is why he contacted a newspaper reporter, or why his attorney wrote up lavish accounts and sent them to conservative bloggers, or why Gladney and his attorney appeared on Fox News.

FYI, according to his attorney, Gladney plans on filing a civil lawsuit against the union.

UPDATED: The Hill erroneously reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fleading-the-news%2Fgibbs-those-comparing-dems-to-nazis-on-thin-ice-2009-08-07.html) that Gladney had been "hospitalized" after being "attacked." As you can see from the video, Gladney was not "hospitalized." (i.e. Rushed away by ambulance.) Instead, as the Post-Dispatch correctly reported, Gladney "said he sought hospital treatment."

fight at russ carnahan town hall event (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w)

[Echewta]

Oh wait, i get it now. Because there isn't a private health plan that this injured activist can afford while unemployeed, the governement is interested in stepping in and offering an affordable one. And like the private plans that collect money from many hoping that few will need services, I'm assuming the government would be hoping for the same. The dues of many pay for the costs of the few. Instead of this injured activist using emergency services and having to foot the bill, or the tax payer, or the hospital inself, the government plan and his copay take care of it. Maybe he could have even gone to his assigned or planned doctor instead of using an E.R.'s service, so they could assist those who were in more need.

Ahh!

[RobMoney$]

Why are union members working security for a town hall?

[saz]

they're not, the police are.

[RobMoney$]

Ok, why are union members organizing at a town hall and attempting to intimidate opposing views?
I'm from Philly, I know all too well about Union enforcers and local political functions.

I mean it's pretty clear someone organized these SEIU members to attend this town hall, right? They were all wearing shirts identifying themselves as SEIU members. I doubt everyone from that union wears SEIU shirts as part of their regular wardrobe.
Why are union enforcers at a town hall held by local politicians about national healthcare plan proposals?
What's the unions interest in it is what I'm trying to figure out?

[saz]

they're not attempting to intimidate opposing views. union members, as well as anyone who is interested in attending the town hall meetings to learn more, ask questions, have been attending and trying to civilly participate in the democratic process.

the individuals who are attempting to intimidate opposing views are the angry right-wing mobs, spurned on by rush limbaugh and glenn beck, who have been showing up at many town hall meetings across the us and intimidating and harassing those inside, by shouting, screaming, yelling, banging on doors and windows, and getting physical. this has been all over the news, and i've been posting about it "the joker" thread. they've also been bringing guns with them to these town hall meetings. seiu members have also been receiving death threats, as has north carolina representative brad miller. limbaugh and beck have been calling them "enforcers", and encouraging their wingnut audience to take photos of them and write down their licence plate numbers.

[RobMoney$]

I know the video from your above post doesn't come close to telling the whole story, but are you trying to tell me I should believe that those 4 SEIU members were just trying to attend the meeting when they were suddenly harrassed and physically confronted by that Gladney guy, all by himself?

Even in the video when the cops arrived, you see Gladney point to the White SEIU member and say "He attacked me", and all the guy could come up with for a defense was "How did I attack you, you attacked healthcare",...followed by the police immediatley cuffing the guy.
LOL.

They were clearly there, organized, and with a common goal.

[saz]

no, not just by gladney, but attacked by an entire angry, yelling mob. i don't see anything wrong with defending yourself when attacked by an angry, ranting crowd of wingnut idiots.

[RobMoney$]

So this group of SEIU workers just happened to be strolling alng, minding their own business on their way to the town hall meeting when suddenly they found themselves surrounded by an "angry, ranting mob" of conservative protesters.


So riddle me this then saz,
why'd the black SEIU guy who hit Gladney run away when they cops arrived?
If he was the one who was attacked by Gladney and his "angry, ranting mob", why didn't he seek the assistance of the Police when they arrived?

[Echewta]

Maybe the SEIU doesn't want another Florida voting mob destroying a debate like they did the ballot counts?

[saz]

So this group of SEIU workers just happened to be strolling alng, minding their own business on their way to the town hall meeting when suddenly they found themselves surrounded by an "angry, ranting mob" of conservative protesters.


So riddle me this then saz,
why'd the black SEIU guy who hit Gladney run away when they cops arrived?
If he was the one who was attacked by Gladney and his "angry, ranting mob", why didn't he seek the assistance of the Police when they arrived?

members of the seiu are participating in the forums, because they're interested in health care reform like everyone else. i don't know what happened, neither of us were there, but what we do know is that these angry mobs have been descending on town hall events across the country.

gladney claims he was hit. all we saw in the video was a union member already on the ground with someone standing over him. then gladney is pulled to the ground by somebody wearing a union shirt. but gladney wasn't beaten or punched. he got right back on his feet in a few seconds and the scuffle is over. from there, it's a lot of yelling, shakey camera, and loads of cops all over the place.

[RobMoney$]

Watch it again, the black guy's clearly gone when the cops arrive, and the white guy gets slapped in cuffs as soon as he doesn't have a rational excuse to the accusation of assault.

You're opinions on what occured are clearly shaped by your source.

[saz]

nice try. how do you know if the black is "clearly gone" when the police arrived? we just can't see him on camera. you don't know if he really did run away, and neither do i. not only did gladney claim that he was assaulted - and in the video we see he was pulled to the ground and then got right up back again (he wasn't beaten or punched) - but he also claimed the black guy ran away. anyways, there are a lot people all over the place, with a lot of yelling and confusion, and it's dark. and you can spin it any way you want, however my opinions are shaped by my own perspective, unlike yours which are shaped by right-wing hate radio like rush limbaugh, mr. obama = hitler.

[RobMoney$]

What on earth would make you think I listen to Limbaugh?

Just because I don't support Obama doesn't mean I subscribe to kooks such as Beck or Limbaugh.

[saz]

well then why were you comparing obama to adolf hitler and the third reich? that's what limbaugh was condemned for by the american jewish congress and the anti-defamation league.

[RobMoney$]

I like to play basketball, does that mean I should like Obama because he likes basketball?

[Dorothy Wood]

obviously!

[travesty]

but what we do know is that these angry mobs have been descending on town hall events across the country.

Doesn't that one fact tell you something is wrong with this picture. Anytime you have "angry mobs" across the country it likely means that the government is doing something to piss enough people off that they organize to protest. That's how we do it in America. Consequently when the government dimisses their opinions as "radical", or "absurd" or based on "disinformation" then they get even more pissed off. Then when the government continues to label them as disingenuous and unAmerican and continues to talk at them instead of to them, they are eventually going to get a little more vocal and disruptive. If they continue to be ignored it will only get worse.

To label these people as right wing zealots or whatever you have to call them so that you and your idealogical buddies can feel above them or better than them is asinine and counterproductive. At the end of the day these are fellow Americans who simply disagree with you and are fed up with what has happened in the last six months. By debasing them you are ignoring that they are people and that is not what the left is supposed to be about. I love how most "liberals" want you to beleive that they are the pinnacle of tolerance, that is until someone disagrees with them. Trust me "eye for an eye" is not a priciple that suits the left well. Leave that to the war mongers on the right.

Remember when we were all "kooks" and "Commies" and unAmerican when opposing Bush's ideals and policies and wars? It sucked to be ignored like that and to have policies you ardently disagreed with crammed down your throat with no real discourse or debate didn't it? I know it pissed me off. If you don't think there were "mobs" attacking Bush's policies just remember how "liberals" do their protesting. Try Googling "Portland Bush Protest", "AntiWar Rally", or "Cindy Sheehan". In short this is how we do it in America...on both sides...we've been doing it that way for centuries and, like it or not, in the end it seems to work for us. Now that the tides have turned, this administration of "Change" is doing the exact same force feeding of policies but for some reason they think that no one will complain this time! WTF?

To cry foul when an opposing political party employs tactics similar to your own (i.e. Community Organizing) is ridiculous and makes you look like self-righteous douchebags. But you already know that, that's why you hate it when it happens to you. Use your brains here people, grow the fuck up and quit sniveling. Quit labeling people and go talk to someone who doesn't agree with you on every issue..... on a regular basis.

[travesty]

but what we do know is that these angry mobs have been descending on town hall events across the country.

Doesn't that one fact tell you something is wrong with this picture. Anytime you have "angry mobs" across the country it likely means that the government is doing something to piss enough people off that they organize to protest. That's how we do it in America. Consequently when the government dimisses their opinions as "radical", or "absurd" or based on "disinformation" then they get even more pissed off. Then when the government continues to label them as disingenuous and unAmerican and continues to talk at them instead of to them, they are eventually going to get a little more vocal and disruptive. If they continue to be ignored it will only get worse.

To label these people as right wing zealots or whatever you have to call them so that you and your idealogical buddies can feel above them or better than them is asinine and counterproductive. At the end of the day these are fellow Americans who simpy disagree with you and are fed up with what has happened in the last six months. By debasing them you are ignoring that they are people and that is not what the left is supposed to be about. I love how most "liberals" want you to beleive that they are the pinnacle of tolerance, that is until someone disagrees with them. Trust me "eye for an eye" is not a priciple that suits the left well. Leave that to the war mongers on the right.

Remember when we were all "kooks" and "Commies" and unAmerican when opposing Bush's ideals and policies and wars? It sucked to be ignored like that and to have policies you ardently disagreed with crammed down your throat with no real discourse or debate didn't it? I know it pissed me off. If you don't think there were "mobs" attacking Bush's policies just remember how "liberals" do their protesting. Try Googling "Portland Bush Protest", "AntiWar Rally", or "Cindy Sheehan". In short this is how we do it in America...on both sides...we've been doing it that way for centuries and, like it or not, in the end it seems to work for us. Now that the tides have turned, this administration of "Change" is doing the exact same force feeding of policies but for some reason they think that no one will complain this time! WTF?

To cry foul when an opposing political party employs tactics similar to your own (i.e. Community Organizing) is ridiculous and makes you look like self-righteous douchebags. But you already know that, that's why you hate it when it happens to you. Use your brains here people, grow the fuck up and quit sniveling. Quit labeling people and go talk to someone who doesn't agree with you on every issue..... on a regular basis.

[Echewta]

You grow the fuck up.

[saz]

Doesn't that one fact tell you something is wrong with this picture. Anytime you have "angry mobs" across the country it likely means that the government is doing something to piss enough people off that they organize to protest. That's how we do it in America. Consequently when the government dimisses their opinions as "radical", or "absurd" or based on "disinformation" then they get even more pissed off. Then when the government continues to label them as disingenuous and unAmerican and continues to talk at them instead of to them, they are eventually going to get a little more vocal and disruptive. If they continue to be ignored it will only get worse.

To label these people as right wing zealots or whatever you have to call them so that you and your idealogical buddies can feel above them or better than them is asinine and counterproductive. At the end of the day these are fellow Americans who simpy disagree with you and are fed up with what has happened in the last six months. By debasing them you are ignoring that they are people and that is not what the left is supposed to be about. I love how most "liberals" want you to beleive that they are the pinnacle of tolerance, that is until someone disagrees with them. Trust me "eye for an eye" is not a priciple that suits the left well. Leave that to the war mongers on the right.

Remember when we were all "kooks" and "Commies" and unAmerican when opposing Bush's ideals and policies and wars? It sucked to be ignored like that and to have policies you ardently disagreed with crammed down your throat with no real discourse or debate didn't it? I know it pissed me off. If you don't think there were "mobs" attacking Bush's policies just remember how "liberals" do their protesting. Try Googling "Portland Bush Protest", "AntiWar Rally", or "Cindy Sheehan". In short this is how we do it in America...on both sides...we've been doing it that way for centuries and, like it or not, in the end it seems to work for us. Now that the tides have turned, this administration of "Change" is doing the exact same force feeding of policies but for some reason they think that no one will complain this time! WTF?

To cry foul when an opposing political party employs tactics similar to your own (i.e. Community Organizing) is ridiculous and makes you look like self-righteous douchebags. But you already know that, that's why you hate it when it happens to you. Use your brains here people, grow the fuck up and quit sniveling. Quit labeling people and go talk to someone who doesn't agree with you on every issue..... on a regular basis.

no, it tells me that there is significant portion of the american population, the 20-28% or so who approved of bush's job performance in the waning days of his administration; who are complete tools for fox news, rush limbaugh and glenn beck; and are nothing more than grossly ignorant, knuckle-dragging mouth breathing neanderthal meatheads, who spew hatred, racism and extremist rhetoric.

the mob mentality - disrupting, bullying and intimidating people at town hall meetings (banging on doors, windows, yelling, screaming, getting physical), who want to ask questions, act civilly and engage in the democratic process - that's how you "do it in america"? everyone is entitled to disagree, have their own opinions and protest peacefully. but to turn up in mobs at town hall meetings, and intimidate and scare those attending inside is simply despicable. plus, some of these people turning up at these rallies are bringing guns with them. wtf?

it's not only the government who are dismissing not only their opinions, but their actions as radical (you know, scaring the crap out of people) as well, but also individuals such as myself, the media at large, and other sensible people. again, people can disagree all they want to and protest peacefully, but to resort to bullying and thuggery and issuing death threats is despicable.

why do you think congressmen and senators are holding these town hall meetings in the first place? it is an opportunity for people to engage in the democratic process, to ask questions and voice opinions and concerns. this is an opportunity for people to talk directly to their elected officials.

sorry, but they are right-wing zealots. they listen to rush limbaugh. they listen to glenn beck. they watch fox news. they are yelling and screaming, and holding signs and banners that equate president obama to adolf hitler, the third reich, to socialism and communism. it is coming directly from right-wing hate talk radio and you know it. you are a libertarian right? you do know and realize that these same idiots, limbaugh, beck and crew, also despise ron paul, libertarians and anyone who isn't with their strict gop dogma.

i don't debase people who protest peacefully. i am sickened by those who resort to thuggery, bullying, intimidation, harassment and violence, and who feel the need to bring guns with them to political events where elected officials and the president of the united states are in attendance. sorry, but that is really screwed up.

nice try though, attempting to spin that we are the "pinnacle of tolerance, that is until someone disagrees with them". there are all sorts of idiots on this side of the spectrum, ie al sharpton, randy rhodes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n8uAsLwHtY), rosie o'donnell, eric alterman from the nation etc. people like randy rhodes and o'donnell are no better than bill o'reilly or sean hannity, they are just as irrational and bullies too.

an eye for an eye? well, i don't support the death penalty as it is a huge drain on the tax payer and the legal system, but super maxs and solitary confinement (23 hours in your cell), now that's punishment. oh, and there have been plenty of warmongers on the left, ie lyndon johnson comes to mind.

i don't agree with any form of violent protest, so please don't attempt to categorize me with idiots who resort to any sort of violence. and not that i'm a cindy sheehan fan, but i don't recall her ever resorting to violence.

so, violence works for americans? assassinating presidents works for you guys?

and community organizing involves bullying and thuggery? community organizers carry guns?

[saz]

oh yeah, where were all of these people, screaming about "nazism", "facism" etc during the last eight years? where were these people during the illegal invasion of iraq, which was based on outright lies and deception? where were these people when the patriot act was passed? torture? illegal rendition? illegal wiretapping? the cia kidnapping innocent people and detaining them (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678155.shtml) in foreign countries? oh yeah, they were likely, maybe listening to rush limbaugh, glenn beck, bill o'reilly, fox news et al and being told how wonderful and awesome the bush administration was, how righteous the iraq war was, how to "shut up" and not question the president or government policy, how liberals are unpatriotic and cowards etc.

[travesty]

We wouldn't even be having these town hall meetings if the Admistration had it's way. This was all supposed to be over and done with before the recess remember? A little protesting has had a positive effect on getting the Obama steam roller to at least slow down a bit so we can have some kind of discussion even if it is imperfect. However, I am largely in favor of making sure that town hall meeting can only be attended by consituents, that seems to make sense and, I think, would largely eliminate a lof this BS. Besides I think it is all being WAYY overhyped. A few isoltaed incidents of pushing and shoving amongst mostly senior citizens is not a national pandemic of "violent mobs" in my book.

As far as bringing guns to politcal ralies, I don't agree with it but it in the instances cited so far I haven't seen any laws broken or arrests made. There are lots of things I don't agree with that are legal. I've gotten used to that. Besides there have been way more old, potentially senile people behind the wheel of 5000lb vehicles at these rallies and, according to statistics, that is far more deadly, and intimidating, than a few guns.:)

You can cling to the holier-than-thou lefty peaceful protester tag all you want but but history refutes that in spades and you know it...remember the Weather Underground? Anyhow Saz, I am not saying you are among this type of person. I am just saying that it goes both both ways and the end result is that we generally end up somewhere in the middle which is where most of this country's ideals lie. The fringes on both sides duke it out which keeps everything fairly neutral. Breaking the law should lead to arrest and I think law enforcement seems to be doing a decent job of making sure people remain safe. Yelling and screaming is uncalled for and disruptive but in the end it is a harmless display of frustration.

Another thing, I always felt like blaming a radio or TV commentator for the actions of their audience is akin to blaming some heavy metal band for Columbine or some dopey kid's suicide. As you mentioned, there are plenty of Beck, Limbaugh and O'Reilly alter-egos on the other side, they just don't seem to have the audience, which leads me to believe that a significantly less number of people in the US subscribe to their viewpoints. And fer chrisssake quit complaining about Fox News, it's ONE freaking channel for pete's sake. If you don't like them then the fact that they are more popular than the news channels you do like simply means that more poeple disagree with you than agree with you. That's all. Newsflash...you have a minority opinion compared to the rest of the US. Get used to it, it's not that big of a deal. If you think I'm wrong and that, in fact, the majority of the US agrees with your opinions, then who fucking cares what ONE network channel says? Personally, I find it highly amusing how a single network with a few comentators spouting dissenting views can terrify the Democratic base so much. It's downright comical and shows a real lack of conviction from the Democrats. I mean even the White House is so scared they have begun to slam FOX publicly. It might just be me but the Government being afraid of journalists is a VERY good thing. In fact, it's absoluetely crucial to our Democracy.

As for the "where was everyone when Bush did this or that"....where were you? You didn't see any protests? I am sure had you participated in any you would have remembered them. An entire March on Washington ring a bell? Bush couldn't go anywhere, including his home, the last four years without having protesters there. Now what do you think the media's response would be if angry Healthcare opponents set up camp outside the Obama home demanding to have 1-on-1 conversations with him? Please, the fucking National Guard would be there in a heartbeat.

[RobMoney$]

Doesn't that one fact tell you something is wrong with this picture. Anytime you have "angry mobs" across the country it likely means that the government is doing something to piss enough people off that they organize to protest. That's how we do it in America. Consequently when the government dimisses their opinions as "radical", or "absurd" or based on "disinformation" then they get even more pissed off. Then when the government continues to label them as disingenuous and unAmerican and continues to talk at them instead of to them, they are eventually going to get a little more vocal and disruptive. If they continue to be ignored it will only get worse.

To label these people as right wing zealots or whatever you have to call them so that you and your idealogical buddies can feel above them or better than them is asinine and counterproductive. At the end of the day these are fellow Americans who simpy disagree with you and are fed up with what has happened in the last six months. By debasing them you are ignoring that they are people and that is not what the left is supposed to be about. I love how most "liberals" want you to beleive that they are the pinnacle of tolerance, that is until someone disagrees with them. Trust me "eye for an eye" is not a priciple that suits the left well. Leave that to the war mongers on the right.

Remember when we were all "kooks" and "Commies" and unAmerican when opposing Bush's ideals and policies and wars? It sucked to be ignored like that and to have policies you ardently disagreed with crammed down your throat with no real discourse or debate didn't it? I know it pissed me off. If you don't think there were "mobs" attacking Bush's policies just remember how "liberals" do their protesting. Try Googling "Portland Bush Protest", "AntiWar Rally", or "Cindy Sheehan". In short this is how we do it in America...on both sides...we've been doing it that way for centuries and, like it or not, in the end it seems to work for us. Now that the tides have turned, this administration of "Change" is doing the exact same force feeding of policies but for some reason they think that no one will complain this time! WTF?

To cry foul when an opposing political party employs tactics similar to your own (i.e. Community Organizing) is ridiculous and makes you look like self-righteous douchebags. But you already know that, that's why you hate it when it happens to you. Use your brains here people, grow the fuck up and quit sniveling. Quit labeling people and go talk to someone who doesn't agree with you on every issue..... on a regular basis.



Great post.
Do you mind if I copy and paste this in another forum? :D

[yeahwho]

Great post.
Do you mind if I copy and paste this in another forum? :D

I'm not too sure if it has enough vitriol and "campus fuckface" in it. I know you can tweak it and make it even more nonsensical then it seems. Travesty is currently on another thread trying to explain to me how civil and brilliant he is. By calling me an imbecile and mentally disabled.

[travesty]

Travesty is currently on another thread trying to explain to me how civil and brilliant he is. By calling me an imbecile and mentally disabled.

And yet no one here seems to disagree with that assessment. Stange no?

[Dorothy Wood]

We wouldn't even be having these town hall meetings if the Admistration had it's way. This was all supposed to be over and done with before the recess remember? A little protesting has had a positive effect on getting the Obama steam roller to at least slow down a bit so we can have some kind of discussion even if it is imperfect. However, I am largely in favor of making sure that town hall meeting can only be attended by consituents, that seems to make sense and, I think, would largely eliminate a lof this BS. Besides I think it is all being WAYY overhyped. A few isoltaed incidents of pushing and shoving amongst mostly senior citizens is not a national pandemic of "violent mobs" in my book.

As far as bringing guns to politcal ralies, I don't agree with it but it in the instances cited so far I haven't seen any laws broken or arrests made. There are lots of things I don't agree with that are legal. I've gotten used to that. Besides there have been way more old, potentially senile people behind the wheel of 5000lb vehicles at these rallies and, according to statistics, that is far more deadly, and intimidating, than a few guns.:)

You can cling to the holier-than-thou lefty peaceful protester tag all you want but but history refutes that in spades and you know it...remember the Weather Underground? Anyhow Saz, I am not saying you are among this type of person. I am just saying that it goes both both ways and the end result is that we generally end up somewhere in the middle which is where most of this country's ideals lie. The fringes on both sides duke it out which keeps everything fairly neutral. Breaking the law should lead to arrest and I think law enforcement seems to be doing a decent job of making sure people remain safe. Yelling and screaming is uncalled for and disruptive but in the end it is a harmless display of frustration.

Another thing, I always felt like blaming a radio or TV commentator for the actions of their audience is akin to blaming some heavy metal band for Columbine or some dopey kid's suicide. As you mentioned, there are plenty of Beck, Limbaugh and O'Reilly alter-egos on the other side, they just don't seem to have the audience, which leads me to believe that a significantly less number of people in the US subscribe to their viewpoints. And fer chrisssake quit complaining about Fox News, it's ONE freaking channel for pete's sake. If you don't like them then the fact that they are more popular than the news channels you do like simply means that more poeple disagree with you than agree with you. That's all. Newsflash...you have a minority opinion compared to the rest of the US. Get used to it, it's not that big of a deal. If you think I'm wrong and that, in fact, the majority of the US agrees with your opinions, then who fucking cares what ONE network channel says? Personally, I find it highly amusing how a single network with a few comentators spouting dissenting views can terrify the Democratic base so much. It's downright comical and shows a real lack of conviction from the Democrats. I mean even the White House is so scared they have begun to slam FOX publicly. It might just be me but the Government being afraid of journalists is a VERY good thing. In fact, it's absoluetely crucial to our Democracy.

As for the "where was everyone when Bush did this or that"....where were you? You didn't see any protests? I am sure had you participated in any you would have remembered them. An entire March on Washington ring a bell? Bush couldn't go anywhere, including his home, the last four years without having protesters there. Now what do you think the media's response would be if angry Healthcare opponents set up camp outside the Obama home demanding to have 1-on-1 conversations with him? Please, the fucking National Guard would be there in a heartbeat.


first of all, calling the people at Fox "journalists" is a stretch. I think that Fox is scary because they spread disinformation, and it's far from funny.

I don't mind protesting...it's just that these people who are going berserk are doing so over false information! anti-war, anti-bush people weren't protesting because of lies...they were protesting because the war is crap and bush was doing a terrible job, both facts!

I just think the whole thing is ridiculous. you brought up the Weather Underground, which was used against Obama during the election. The right wingers are becoming the very kind of activists they vilified less than a year ago! it's a fucking joke.

[yeahwho]

And yet no one here seems to disagree with that assessment. Stange no?

You must be very proud of yourself. It is sort of "Stange" isn't it? Whatever that means, it must mean you cannot help yourself, you're a last word freak.

[travesty]

first of all, calling the people at Fox "journalists" is a stretch. I think that Fox is scary because they spread disinformation, and it's far from funny.

Fair enough. However, there really is no need to be scared of them unless you A) can't back up your claims that they spread disinformation or B) aren't confident enough in your position to refute their commentary.

I don't mind protesting...it's just that these people who are going berserk are doing so over false information! anti-war, anti-bush people weren't protesting because of lies...they were protesting because the war is crap and bush was doing a terrible job, both facts!

I don't know why every single shouting person is shouting. They may have just finished reading all 1000+ pages of the bill and all be trained attorneys for all you and I know. What I do know is that the media, as always, is trying to lump them all into some sort of stereotype but the videos I've seen show a pretty braod swath of folks.To say that they are only pissed off over false information is almost certainly false information itself. I think more than likely they are protesting because this bill is crap and Obama is doing a terrible job..both facts!

I just think the whole thing is ridiculous. you brought up the Weather Underground, which was used against Obama during the election. The right wingers are becoming the very kind of activists they vilified less than a year ago! it's a fucking joke.

Like I said somewhere else, "eye for an eye" plays well with the righties. Surely you are not comparing a few disruptive protesters to people who actually set and detonated bombs are you? For some reason the Democrats never think that Republicans will stoop to their level in a mud fight, yet they always do and in the end everyone on both sides is dirty anyway.

[kaiser soze]

Surely you are not comparing a few disruptive protesters to people who actually set and detonated bombs are you?

surely you've never heard of Timothy Mcveigh

Or the 9/11 anthrax attacks which hit political and media outlets leaning to the left.

[Dorothy Wood]

Fair enough. However, there really is no need to be scared of them unless you A) can't back up your claims that they spread disinformation or B) aren't confident enough in your position to refute their commentary.



I don't know why every single shouting person is shouting. They may have just finished reading all 1000+ pages of the bill and all be trained attorneys for all you and I know. What I do know is that the media, as always, is trying to lump them all into some sort of stereotype but the videos I've seen show a pretty braod swath of folks.To say that they are only pissed off over false information is almost certainly false information itself. I think more than likely they are protesting because this bill is crap and Obama is doing a terrible job..both facts!



Like I said somewhere else, "eye for an eye" plays well with the righties. Surely you are not comparing a few disruptive protesters to people who actually set and detonated bombs are you? For some reason the Democrats never think that Republicans will stoop to their level in a mud fight, yet they always do and in the end everyone on both sides is dirty anyway.


I don't really feel like talking to you because you're making so many assumptions that it's impossible to intelligently address your claims. If you don't think that Fox News lies and manipulates people by spreading disinformation, then I don't know what's fucking wrong with you.


I've actually engaged in conversation online with people who oppose the healthcare plan. there are over 10,000 "fans" of the facebook page "socialism is no joke". many of the people on there are seriously misinformed and are talking about being violent. you can go along thinking everyone's all the same...but we're talking about stupid angry people here, they are fucking dumb asses. not all of them, mind you, but a good majority. and they're mad as hell and they don't even know why.

they all think they're losing freedom, and I tried to ask what freedoms they've lost, and not one of them could give me a straight answer. the only answer I got time and time again was, "If I say I'm against obama, people call me a racist". and I said, "well, that's not losing your freedom, that's just someone else exercising their freedom."

as far as I can tell, you're living in a fantasy world.

[Dorothy Wood]

surely you've never heard of Timothy Mcveigh

Or the 9/11 anthrax attacks which hit political and media outlets leaning to the left.


yes, and this.

[RobMoney$]

The Ghost of Protests Past

Did the press give short shrift to Bush-haters?


By JAMES TARANTO (http://www.beastieboys.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=JAMES+TARANTO&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND) of the WSJ

The popular rebellion against ObamaCare--and the Democrats' counterattack against the voters--has turned out to be the political story of the year. But of course it's far from the first time that America has seen protests against a president's policies. Writing at FoxNews.com, Bill Sammon faults the media for covering today's protests differently from yesterday's--specifically, than a rowdy 2002 gathering outside a Portland, Ore., hotel where then-President Bush was speaking:

Protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting "Bush is a terrorist!", the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Bush's assassination. The man held a large photo of Bush that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple."BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE," read the placard, which had an X over the word "ALIVE." . . .A third sign urged motorists to "HONK IF YOU HATE BUSH." A fourth declared: "CHRISTIAN FASCISM," with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Bush and witnessed the protest, none reported that protesters were shrieking at Republican donors epithets like "Slut!" "Whore!" and "Fascists!" . . .angry demonstrators brandished signs with incendiary rhetoric, such as "9/11 - YOU LET IT HAPPEN, SHRUB," and "BUSH: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT." One sign read: "IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!"Yet none of these signs were cited in the national media's coverage of the event. By contrast, the press focused extensively on over-the-top signs held by Obama critics at the president's town hall event held Tuesday in New Hampshire.
Sammon was with the Washington Times at the time; part of his Aug. 25, 2002, report is here.

To some extent the discrepancies in coverage are defensible as a matter of news judgment. A left-wing protest is a dog-bites-man story; screaming, chanting and carrying obnoxious signs is simply what those people do. On the right, by contrast, there is no tradition of such demonstrations--with the notable exception of the antiabortion movement--so that when one (or many) materializes, it represents a genuine phenomenon.

The protests outside the presidential appearance are of more interest in 2009 than in 2002 precisely because the protests of 2009 are so much more meaningful than those of '02. Whereas anti-Bush protesters were an incidental nuisance, the entire purpose of President Obama's "town hall" was to answer the protests that have swept the nation.
Then again, Sammon has a point when he argues that the media are eager to paint anti-ObamaCare protesters as extremists and did whitewash the actual extremism of anti-Bush protesters. The craziest quote in this 2002 Associated Press story, for instance, is the humdrum "Drop Bush, not bombs."

An even better example is the coverage of Cindy Sheehan, who became a media darling four years ago this month. News stories touted her as a normal mother grieving over the loss of her son in Iraq, when in fact she was an America-hating extremist. Imagine if someone who was both a birther and a racist emerged as the chief anti-ObamaCare poster child and the press covered such a person sympathetically while downplaying his crackpot views.

Still, even if the coverage of the anti-ObamaCare effort is unsympathetic or even hostile, all evidence is that it is helping the cause. That Obama felt it necessary to respond is Exhibit A. Which leads one to wonder: If the media had paid more attention to anti-Iraq protests back in the summer and autumn of 2002, would that have turned public opinion against the prospective war and against Bush?

Our guess is that it wouldn't have--that viewers would have discounted the protesters as the usual malcontents, just as journalists, for the most part, did. It's possible that this surmise reflects our own bias, and it is true that public opinion started turning against Iraq somewhere around the time Sheehan enjoyed her 15 minutes of fame. Still, we're inclined to think that Sheehan did not, in the end, have much of an effect.
If you're inclined to disagree, consider this: The U.S. has now been in Iraq more than 2½ times as long as it had been when Sheehan became a celebrity.

[RobMoney$]

yes, and this.

The point you make about the media not covering liberal loonies at left-wing protests because such stories would be of dog-bites-man importance has some validity. However, I think you miss two much larger concerns. First, I do not believe that the existence of left-wing fringe elements at liberal protests is at all common knowledge. Certainly political junkies like us know full well about what really goes on at these rallies. However, I think there is a huge swath of middle America that would be quite startled to get the full picture of liberal protests. I also think that were the media to provide such coverage it would notably alter public opinion on many political topics. (By way of contrast, note how the media cover religion. They almost never cover mainstream religious organizations and activity, but consistently report on religious extremists, and always in a negative light.)Second, yes, at any political protest you will have elements there shouting, arguing, whatever, that politician so-and-so is a jerk and in bed with special interests and untrustworthy and all that. However, what infuriated me about the antiwar protests when Bush was in office is that the left's level of rhetoric was not just different in degree from what one might commonly see at political rallies but was different in kind. To me, the left became completely unhinged. To regularly brand Bush as Hitler, to regularly refer to the Bush administration as a "regime," to tolerate the not-uncommon calls for Bush's death or assassination reflected a serious change in the nature of political debate in this country. That change was very much a valid news story. In many respects, that change superseded the significance of the war itself. Yet, the media totally and completely ignored and whitewashed the level of lunacy among the left. Now, maybe I, myself, am an extremist for seeing such an acute liberal bias in the MSM, but, I feel very strongly that the MSM is "at it again." They are working hard to report on fringe conservative protesters as a way to undercut conservative positions when they have regularly ignored the lunacy which exists on the left--and have ignored the size and sway that such extremists hold within the Democratic Party.
WSJ

[Dorothy Wood]

whatever, like the left wing protesters have any sway. we're still at war, aren't we? we're still a country owned by corporations, right? we're still a consumer nation I'd say.


anyway, you can't even compare anti-war protesters to anti-"obamacare" protesters. the war is a terrible awful thing that has killed a ton of people, ruined even more people's lives and drained our country of money. people have a right to be angry as fuck about the war in Iraq because it's awful, just truly awful.

"obamacare" on the other hand...isn't. it doesn't even exist yet. and it doesn't take away people's rights, it gives more rights to more people. that's why the right wing is loony, they're screaming their heads off about socialism and death panels and promoting abortion when none of these things are going to happen. it's fear-based and fantasy-based and us vs. them. it's disgusting, it's embarrassing and sad.


everyone's just scared of what's going to happen in this country, and for whatever reason, they've decided that blaming Obama for everything is the best option for now. and that's just childish and shows that these people have no concept of history.

[RobMoney$]

I'm gonna post this again because I want you read it carefully.

Protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting "Bush is a terrorist!", the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Bush's assassination. The man held a large photo of Bush that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple."BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE," read the placard, which had an X over the word "ALIVE." . . .A third sign urged motorists to "HONK IF YOU HATE BUSH." A fourth declared: "CHRISTIAN FASCISM," with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Bush and witnessed the protest, none reported that protesters were shrieking at Republican donors epithets like "Slut!" "Whore!" and "Fascists!" . . .angry demonstrators brandished signs with incendiary rhetoric, such as "9/11 - YOU LET IT HAPPEN, SHRUB," and "BUSH: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT." One sign read: "IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!"Yet none of these signs were cited in the national media's coverage of the event. By contrast, the press focused extensively on over-the-top signs held by Obama critics at the president's town hall event held Tuesday in New Hampshire.


These protests aren't coming anywhere near that level of lunacy.
Liberals invented extreme protesting, and now their complaining when they're being protested against?
"HYPOCRIT" much?

[travesty]

I don't really feel like talking to you because you're making so many assumptions that it's impossible to intelligently address your claims.
Where and when???

If you don't think that Fox News lies and manipulates people by spreading disinformation, then I don't know what's fucking wrong with you.
Do you know what the words "Fair Enough" mean? They mean that I AGREE with you. I just don't think you need to be "scared" of FOX news if you can intelligently explain to people why they are fucked.

I've actually engaged in conversation online with people who oppose the healthcare plan. there are over 10,000 "fans" of the facebook page "socialism is no joke". many of the people on there are seriously misinformed and are talking about being violent. you can go along thinking everyone's all the same...but we're talking about stupid angry people here, they are fucking dumb asses. not all of them, mind you, but a good majority. and they're mad as hell and they don't even know why.

Who's making assumptions now Dorothy?


as far as I can tell, you're living in a fantasy world.

The fact that I come to a BB that in general opposes a lot of my views so that I can try and discuss this issue with others who may not agree with my view means that I live in a fanatsy world?? If that's the case you should try a fantasy world once in a while.

[travesty]

whatever, like the left wing protesters have any sway. we're still at war, aren't we? we're still a country owned by corporations, right? we're still a consumer nation I'd say.


Are you saying that the righties are just more effective protesters...that's pretty defeatist. I believe the entire Democratic party is also in the pocket of the corporations.... they really don't want to end the wars either. I think Obama has proven that.


"obamacare" on the other hand...isn't. it doesn't even exist yet. and it doesn't take away people's rights, it gives more rights to more people. that's why the right wing is loony, they're screaming their heads off about socialism and death panels and promoting abortion when none of these things are going to happen. it's fear-based and fantasy-based and us vs. them. it's disgusting, it's embarrassing and sad.

But it will increase taxes and limit your choice of options for care....not to mention elminate any recourse through judical review.... I'd say that is some lost freedom. But that's just me.
Here's a decent analysis form a Duke University professor. Some of the commentary of the article IS biased but it's hard to ignore what is actually written in the bill. Try it on for size as I get the feeling you have not actually read any of the real textof the bill.

The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says

John David Lewis

August 6, 2009



What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.



This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissio0ner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.

This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.

We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.

(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)

1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?

This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:

‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .

and:

‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and:

‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .

‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. This section amends the Social Security Act

2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”

3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.





2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.


3. What constitutes “acceptable” coverage?

Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

(a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . .

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care . . .

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .

(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.

2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.



4 Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?

Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE

(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)

The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.

2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”

3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.

4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.

5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.


5. Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?

Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—

‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.


EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.

3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.

4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.



6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?

What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.



7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?


What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—

‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,

‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),

‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,

‘‘(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and

‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code

2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.

3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.

4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.


8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?

What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:

(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

And, page 145, section 312:

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Do nothing and you are in.

2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.


9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?

What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.

And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.

‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—

‘‘(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or

‘‘(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”

2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.



everyone's just scared of what's going to happen in this country, and for whatever reason, they've decided that blaming Obama for everything is the best option for now. and that's just childish and shows that these people have no concept of history.

Unfortunately, just like the last Pesident this one is also giving us plenty to be scared about. His idea of "Change" has proven terrifying to most. But what I hear you saying is that blaming the President for the country's problems is childish? If that is the case would you like to rethink some of your earlier Bush bashing posts now?

[saz]

We wouldn't even be having these town hall meetings if the Admistration had it's way. This was all supposed to be over and done with before the recess remember? A little protesting has had a positive effect on getting the Obama steam roller to at least slow down a bit so we can have some kind of discussion even if it is imperfect. However, I am largely in favor of making sure that town hall meeting can only be attended by consituents, that seems to make sense and, I think, would largely eliminate a lof this BS. Besides I think it is all being WAYY overhyped. A few isoltaed incidents of pushing and shoving amongst mostly senior citizens is not a national pandemic of "violent mobs" in my book.

As far as bringing guns to politcal ralies, I don't agree with it but it in the instances cited so far I haven't seen any laws broken or arrests made. There are lots of things I don't agree with that are legal. I've gotten used to that. Besides there have been way more old, potentially senile people behind the wheel of 5000lb vehicles at these rallies and, according to statistics, that is far more deadly, and intimidating, than a few guns.:)

You can cling to the holier-than-thou lefty peaceful protester tag all you want but but history refutes that in spades and you know it...remember the Weather Underground? Anyhow Saz, I am not saying you are among this type of person. I am just saying that it goes both both ways and the end result is that we generally end up somewhere in the middle which is where most of this country's ideals lie. The fringes on both sides duke it out which keeps everything fairly neutral. Breaking the law should lead to arrest and I think law enforcement seems to be doing a decent job of making sure people remain safe. Yelling and screaming is uncalled for and disruptive but in the end it is a harmless display of frustration.

Another thing, I always felt like blaming a radio or TV commentator for the actions of their audience is akin to blaming some heavy metal band for Columbine or some dopey kid's suicide. As you mentioned, there are plenty of Beck, Limbaugh and O'Reilly alter-egos on the other side, they just don't seem to have the audience, which leads me to believe that a significantly less number of people in the US subscribe to their viewpoints. And fer chrisssake quit complaining about Fox News, it's ONE freaking channel for pete's sake. If you don't like them then the fact that they are more popular than the news channels you do like simply means that more poeple disagree with you than agree with you. That's all. Newsflash...you have a minority opinion compared to the rest of the US. Get used to it, it's not that big of a deal. If you think I'm wrong and that, in fact, the majority of the US agrees with your opinions, then who fucking cares what ONE network channel says? Personally, I find it highly amusing how a single network with a few comentators spouting dissenting views can terrify the Democratic base so much. It's downright comical and shows a real lack of conviction from the Democrats. I mean even the White House is so scared they have begun to slam FOX publicly. It might just be me but the Government being afraid of journalists is a VERY good thing. In fact, it's absoluetely crucial to our Democracy.

As for the "where was everyone when Bush did this or that"....where were you? You didn't see any protests? I am sure had you participated in any you would have remembered them. An entire March on Washington ring a bell? Bush couldn't go anywhere, including his home, the last four years without having protesters there. Now what do you think the media's response would be if angry Healthcare opponents set up camp outside the Obama home demanding to have 1-on-1 conversations with him? Please, the fucking National Guard would be there in a heartbeat.

are you sure about that? weren't the town hall meetings their idea in the first place? apparently it was all going to be over and done with before recess, but some democrats are beholden to private insurance companies. and i think obama should be steamrolling his priorities and legislation. he won the election. the democrats have majorities in the house and the senate. the american electorate rejected the last eight years of republican rule first in the congressional elections of '06, and then in the presidential election of '08. polls show that the majority of americans want public insurance or an option for public insurance. if bush and the republicans were able to get their agenda through, then so should obama and the dems. they should not wimp out, they need to grow a backbone and not get all wishy-washy with biparisan crap. the republicans have become the party of "no" and obama and the dems simply can't work with them on anything. and there's no way it's being overhyped. congressmen have been receiving death threats. people have been bringing guns to these town hall meetings, and even where the president has been appearing and speaking. sorry, but that is seriously fucked up. yeah, it might be legal in some states, but come on, how fucking stupid is it to bring a gun to where the president is appearing? just think about the history of presidential assassinations and attempted assassinations throughout american history. it is completely unnecessary and absurd. people have also been arrested for illegally carrying them. right-wing hate talk radio, as well as conservative web sites and local republican affiliate groups have been whipping these people up into a frenzy with outright lies and misinformation.

"holier than thou"? that was completely unnecessary, and you know better. especially too about the radical right. the weather underground? they hardly compare to the extreme violence and murder of the right-wing fringe. yes, what the weather underground did was incredibly stupid, but at least they sent warnings and made sure that no one was killed when they bombed government facilities, and disbanded after the conclusion of american involvement in the vietnam war. no, i am not excusing them, they were idiotic and went well beyond the lines of peaceful, lawful protest. anyways, just look at the history of the violent and murderous anti-abortion forces, who murder doctors and bomb abortion clinics. and of course there's timothy mcveigh and oklamhoma city bombing. i can agree that it goes both ways, but only to a certain extent, as the right-wing fringe is very scary and very violent.

chris matthews, keith olbermann, rachel maddow, ed schultz et al have huge audiences, except they don't outright lie, yell and scream with outright vitriol etc. and no, but right-wing radio and television commentators have to be much more responsible for what they say and how their audience is interpreting it. disagreeing is fantastic and valid to the country's political discourse, however spreading outright lies and bullshit, calling anyone who disagrees with the right and the gop "traitors", "cowards", "enemies of america", "al qaeda sympathizers" etc is extremely stupid and dangerous, considering all of the knucle-dragging, mouth breathing neaderthal meatheads out there who will take that shit very seriously, just like jim david adkisson (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=87864) did, who had books by idiots like michael savage, sean hannity, o'reilly, beck et al. adkisson killed two people and wounded six others at the tennessee valley unitarian universalist church, because "of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in america with the aid of media outlets". this is exactly what happened in rwanda, when radical radio hosts said that it was the loyal duty of every hutu to rid the country of the "cockroaches" who were destroying rwanda, which resulted in the murder of 800,000 people. and right-wing media dominates the us media market. sorry, but fox news has a huge audience, as does glenn beck, sean hannity, rush limbaugh, michael savage, michelle malkan, ann coulter etc. the problem isn't a different perspective, the problem is their extremist rhetoric, vitriol and insanity. what ever happened to the philosophical, intellectual conservatism of william f. buckley? buckley was a gentleman and a classy guy. conservatism and conservatives used to be rational, civil and intellectual. now, over the last thirty years or so it has been completely dumbed down and radicalized, so much so that it's become disturbing. and i have a minority opinion compared to the rest of the us? ah, not necessarily (http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1089a6HotButtonIssues.pdf). the majority want public health insurance or a public health insurance option. the majority want the iraq occupation to end. the majority want stronger climate change laws. the majority want alternative energy and complete independence of middle eastern oil. a near majority (it's close) want marijuana legalized. americans are opposed to torture, illegal wiretapping etc.

where was i during the bush administration? i was on here pointing out everything wrong and illegal he was doing, and i've also been pointing out how president obama is continuing some of these same bush policies. and i think you're missing the point. all of these wingnut idiots, these mobs going to the town hall meetings, bringing their guns, and scaring and intimidating those inside by yelling, banging on doors and windows, seemed pretty damn complacent during the bush administration. other than loyal ron paul supporters and libertarians who have brains, these wingnut jackasses were not only watching fox, but listening to limbaugh and the boat loads of other right-wing hate talk radio hosts. so again, they were nowhere to be seen during the passage of the patriot act, the illegal invasion of iraq based on lies, illegal wiretapping, torture, cia kidnapping innocent civilians etc, because they were being told that the bush admin was great, and anyone who disagreed was a traitor and al-qaeda sympathizer etc. and regarding the bush protesters, the majority of them were informed, non-violent, peaceful and law abiding. cindy sheehan wanted to talk to president bush. i don't recall her being filled to the brim with rage and bringing any guns with her.

[travesty]

are you sure about that? weren't the town hall meetings their idea in the first place? apparently it was all going to be over and done with before recess, but some democrats are beholden to private insurance companies. and i think obama should be steamrolling his priorities and legislation. he won the election. the democrats have majorities in the house and the senate. the american electorate rejected the last eight years of republican rule first in the congressional elections of '06, and then in the presidential election of '08. polls show that the majority of americans want public insurance or an option for public insurance. if bush and the republicans were able to get their agenda through, then so should obama and the dems. they should not wimp out, they need to grow a backbone and not get all wishy-washy with biparisan crap. the republicans have become the party of "no" and obama and the dems simply can't work with them on anything. and there's no way it's being overhyped. congressmen have been receiving death threats. people have been bringing guns to these town hall meetings, and even where the president has been appearing and speaking. sorry, but that is seriously fucked up. yeah, it might be legal in some states, but come on, how fucking stupid is it to bring a gun to where the president is appearing? just think about the history of presidential assassinations and attempted assassinations throughout american history. it is completely unnecessary and absurd. people have also been arrested for illegally carrying them. right-wing hate talk radio, as well as conservative web sites and local republican affiliate groups have been whipping these people up into a frenzy with outright lies and misinformation.

I think a lot of what people are calling "lies and misinformation" are really just conjecture on how it will all work. Albeit silly and overblown. Since no one is telling us exactly how it will work...these clowns are kind of left to their own devices to think up the worst possible scenarios. From the media you would think we are in a sate of emergency down here with rioters taking to the streets but really, when the UNC tarheels won the NCAA championship it was WAAAYYYY more scary to be out in public.
As for the guns.... I know you all have a hard time comprehending all this in Canada but all I can do is refer you to the Second Ammendment of the US Constitution. If they are doing it illegally then they should be arrested. If they are not...well then they are not. I guess I just have a different outlook on it and was maybe raised around more responsible gun owners but frankly I am more scared of some high school equivilancy diploma douchebag cop with a chip on his shoulder and the favoritism of the legal system on his side carrying a gun than the average Joe.



"holier than thou"? that was completely unnecessary, and you know better.
mea culpa

especially too about the radical right. the weather underground? they hardly compare to the extreme violence and murder of the right-wing fringe. yes, what the weather underground did was incredibly stupid, but at least they sent warnings and made sure that no one was killed when they bombed government facilities, and disbanded after the conclusion of american involvement in the vietnam war. no, i am not excusing them, they were idiotic and went well beyond the lines of peaceful, lawful protest. anyways, just look at the history of the violent and murderous anti-abortion forces, who murder doctors and bomb abortion clinics. and of course there's timothy mcveigh and oklamhoma city bombing. i can agree that it goes both ways, but only to a certain extent, as the right-wing fringe is very scary and very violent.

I think that's because the righties think they are doing it for God and we all know the kind of trouble blind faith produces. Who would the lefty fringe really be killing and dying for?? Mother Earth? The People? It's hard to really muster up the kind of conviction it takes to commit acts like this if you don't have the eternity of your soul on the line. :eek:

knucle-dragging, mouth breathing neaderthal meatheads out there who will take that shit very seriously,
I'm going to call that an elitist comment...I could be wrong.
"Meatheads" are are no more sated by commentary mirroring their own views than 20 year old college kids who have been spoon fed the left's mantras since they were old enough to watch MTV and now believe that anything conservative "isn't cool dude" even though they have no idea was "conservative" really is. You can't force a mind to open up.


the majority want public health insurance or a public health insurance option. the majority want the iraq occupation to end. the majority want stronger climate change laws. the majority want alternative energy and complete independence of middle eastern oil. a near majority (it's close) want marijuana legalized. americans are opposed to torture, illegal wiretapping etc.
All very nice big picture survey questions. Follow each of those questions up with..."How would you like to see it done?" and the results will start to go the other way fast. Here's the thing about America, right or wrong, it is completely and 100% business. From the momment you are born as a child until the second you die you are inexorably involved in business, there is no escaping it. It is engrained into the very fiber of your being regardless of your race, sex or profession. Every inch of your environment from the soil in the ground to the government is ...business. Everything costs something, nothing is free. So ask your average American shmo if they want better climate change laws.....what the fuck do you think they are going to say.. No? Who would say that? But then ask them if they want to PAY or WORK more for climate change laws and the number of people accepting the idea starts to decline. As the price and/or inconvenience goes up, acceptance of the idea goes down. See what I'm saying? This is what is happening to the healthcare issue right now. Not only do most people believe the price the Pres. is quoting is too high, but they also don't believe that is going to even be the real price. It's not that people don't want everyone to have healthcare....we just haven't settled on a price. Kinda fucked up huh?

the majority of them were informed, non-violent, peaceful and law abiding. cindy sheehan wanted to talk to president bush.

I am just saying that if I gathered up around 1500 or so "mostly" well informed, non-violent, peaceful and law abiding folks and set up "Camp Real Change" outside Obama's place in Hyde Park and rasied hell and carried derogatory signs about him until he gave me a one-on-one to discuss my personal opinion of his policies things would be a lot different.

i don't recall her being filled to the brim with rage and bringing any guns with her.

Kind of Ironic that you say that.
In her own words........
Wednesday, March 21st, 2007
'White Hot Rage' ...by Cindy Sheehan
I am filled with a white-hot rage that my first born is dead

.... that was too easy!

[travesty]

are you sure about that? weren't the town hall meetings their idea in the first place? apparently it was all going to be over and done with before recess, but some democrats are beholden to private insurance companies. and i think obama should be steamrolling his priorities and legislation. he won the election. the democrats have majorities in the house and the senate. the american electorate rejected the last eight years of republican rule first in the congressional elections of '06, and then in the presidential election of '08. polls show that the majority of americans want public insurance or an option for public insurance. if bush and the republicans were able to get their agenda through, then so should obama and the dems. they should not wimp out, they need to grow a backbone and not get all wishy-washy with biparisan crap. the republicans have become the party of "no" and obama and the dems simply can't work with them on anything. and there's no way it's being overhyped. congressmen have been receiving death threats. people have been bringing guns to these town hall meetings, and even where the president has been appearing and speaking. sorry, but that is seriously fucked up. yeah, it might be legal in some states, but come on, how fucking stupid is it to bring a gun to where the president is appearing? just think about the history of presidential assassinations and attempted assassinations throughout american history. it is completely unnecessary and absurd. people have also been arrested for illegally carrying them. right-wing hate talk radio, as well as conservative web sites and local republican affiliate groups have been whipping these people up into a frenzy with outright lies and misinformation.

I think a lot of what people are calling "lies and misinformation" are really just conjecture on how it will all work. Albeit silly and overblown. Since no one is telling us exactly how it will work...these clowns are kind of left to their own devices to think up the worst possible scenarios. From the media you would think we are in a sate of emergency down here with rioters taking to the streets but really, when the UNC tarheels won the NCAA championship it was WAAAYYYY more scary to be out in public.
As for the guns.... I know you all have a hard time comprehending all this in Canada but all I can do is refer you to the Second Ammendment of the US Constitution. If they are doing it illegally then they should be arrested. If they are not...well then they are not. I guess I just have a different outlook on it and was maybe raised around more responsible gun owners but frankly I am more scared of some high school equivilancy diploma douchebag cop with a chip on his shoulder and the favoritism of the legal system on his side carrying a gun than the average Joe.



"holier than thou"? that was completely unnecessary, and you know better.
mea culpa

especially too about the radical right. the weather underground? they hardly compare to the extreme violence and murder of the right-wing fringe. yes, what the weather underground did was incredibly stupid, but at least they sent warnings and made sure that no one was killed when they bombed government facilities, and disbanded after the conclusion of american involvement in the vietnam war. no, i am not excusing them, they were idiotic and went well beyond the lines of peaceful, lawful protest. anyways, just look at the history of the violent and murderous anti-abortion forces, who murder doctors and bomb abortion clinics. and of course there's timothy mcveigh and oklamhoma city bombing. i can agree that it goes both ways, but only to a certain extent, as the right-wing fringe is very scary and very violent.

I think that's because the righties think they are doing it for God and we all know the kind of trouble blind faith produces. Who would the lefty fringe really be killing and dying for?? Mother Earth? The People? It's hard to really muster up the kind of conviction it takes to commit acts like this if you don't have the eternity of your soul on the line. :eek:

knucle-dragging, mouth breathing neaderthal meatheads out there who will take that shit very seriously,
I'm going to call that an elitist comment...I could be wrong.
"Meatheads" are are no more sated by commentary mirroring their own views than 20 year old college kids who have been spoon fed the left's mantras since they were old enough to watch MTV and now believe that anything conservative "isn't cool dude" even though they have no idea was "conservative" really is. You can't force a mind to open up.


the majority want public health insurance or a public health insurance option. the majority want the iraq occupation to end. the majority want stronger climate change laws. the majority want alternative energy and complete independence of middle eastern oil. a near majority (it's close) want marijuana legalized. americans are opposed to torture, illegal wiretapping etc.
All very nice big picture survey questions. Follow each of those questions up with..."How would you like to see it done?" and the results will start to go the other way fast. Here's the thing about America, right or wrong, it is completely and 100% business. From the momment you are born as a child until the second you die you are inexorably involved in business, there is no escaping it. It is engrained into the very fiber of your being regardless of your race, sex or profession. Every inch of your environment from the soil in the ground to the government is ...business. Everything costs something, nothing is free. So ask your average American shmo if they want better climate change laws.....what the fuck do you think they are going to say.. No? Who would say that? But then ask them if they want to PAY or WORK more for climate change laws and the number of people accepting the idea starts to decline. As the price and/or inconvenience goes up, acceptance of the idea goes down. See what I'm saying? This is what is happening to the healthcare issue right now. Not only do most people believe the price the Pres. is quoting is too high, but they also don't believe that is going to even be the real price. It's not that people don't want everyone to have healthcare....we just haven't settled on a price. Kinda fucked up huh?

the majority of them were informed, non-violent, peaceful and law abiding. cindy sheehan wanted to talk to president bush.

I am just saying that if I gathered up around 1500 or so "mostly" well informed, non-violent, peaceful and law abiding folks and set up "Camp Real Change" outside Obama's place in Hyde Park and rasied hell and carried derogatory signs about him until he gave me a one-on-one to discuss my personal opinion of his policies things would be a lot different.

i don't recall her being filled to the brim with rage and bringing any guns with her.

Kind of Ironic that you say that.
In her own words........
Wednesday, March 21st, 2007
'White Hot Rage' ...by Cindy Sheehan
I am filled with a white-hot rage that my first born is dead

.... that was too easy!

[RobMoney$]

"Meatheads" are are no more sated by commentary mirroring their own views than 20 year old college kids who have been spoon fed the left's mantras since they were old enough to watch MTV and now believe that anything conservative "isn't cool dude" even though they have no idea was "conservative" really is. You can't force a mind to open up.


Thank You for this.

[saz]

I think a lot of what people are calling "lies and misinformation" are really just conjecture on how it will all work.

death panels?


Albeit silly and overblown. Since no one is telling us exactly how it will work...these clowns are kind of left to their own devices to think up the worst possible scenarios. From the media you would think we are in a sate of emergency down here with rioters taking to the streets but really, when the UNC tarheels won the NCAA championship it was WAAAYYYY more scary to be out in public.
As for the guns.... I know you all have a hard time comprehending all this in Canada but all I can do is refer you to the Second Ammendment of the US Constitution. If they are doing it illegally then they should be arrested. If they are not...well then they are not. I guess I just have a different outlook on it and was maybe raised around more responsible gun owners but frankly I am more scared of some high school equivilancy diploma douchebag cop with a chip on his shoulder and the favoritism of the legal system on his side carrying a gun than the average Joe.

yeah but come on, bringing a gun to an event where the president is speaking or appearing?


I'm going to call that an elitist comment...I could be wrong.
"Meatheads" are are no more sated by commentary mirroring their own views than 20 year old college kids who have been spoon fed the left's mantras since they were old enough to watch MTV and now believe that anything conservative "isn't cool dude" even though they have no idea was "conservative" really is. You can't force a mind to open up.

you know who i'm talking about. the birthers. the people who don't believe in evolution, climate change or science. the faith over facts crowd. people who believe obama is a secret muslim communist facist agent who wants to destroy america.


All very nice big picture survey questions. Follow each of those questions up with..."How would you like to see it done?" and the results will start to go the other way fast.

how do you know that for sure though? california in the next few years could legalize, tax and regulate marijuana in order to help address the budget and revenue crisis.


Here's the thing about America, right or wrong, it is completely and 100% business. From the momment you are born as a child until the second you die you are inexorably involved in business, there is no escaping it. It is engrained into the very fiber of your being regardless of your race, sex or profession. Every inch of your environment from the soil in the ground to the government is ...business. Everything costs something, nothing is free. So ask your average American shmo if they want better climate change laws.....what the fuck do you think they are going to say.. No? Who would say that?

those who don't believe in the science of climate change.


But then ask them if they want to PAY or WORK more for climate change laws and the number of people accepting the idea starts to decline.

yes but you don't pay for the laws themselves to be legislated.


As the price and/or inconvenience goes up, acceptance of the idea goes down. See what I'm saying?

no.


This is what is happening to the healthcare issue right now. Not only do most people believe the price the Pres. is quoting is too high, but they also don't believe that is going to even be the real price. It's not that people don't want everyone to have healthcare....we just haven't settled on a price. Kinda fucked up huh?

i sort of get what you're getting at, but what i don't understand is how people can be concerned about health costs, and not be concerned about how much money the us owes china, for borrowing trillions in order to pay for the illegal and unnecessary invasion of iraq.


Kind of Ironic that you say that.
In her own words........


.... that was too easy!

you know what my point was and you understand it. she's not packing heat.

[RobMoney$]

how do you know that for sure though? california in the next few years could legalize, tax and regulate marijuana in order to help address the budget and revenue crisis.

Interesting.
Ever consider that California's being forced to look at legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana to solve this "budget crisis" is due to their overwhelming liberal spending policies?

[saz]

really? with arnold cutting back spending on everything over the last six years? and the recession which has depleted revenue sources?

[travesty]

death panels?
Yeah that ones is kind of stretch but I guess if you already don't trust the government and take the whole "rationing" thing to the extreme...
I guess since private insurance rations care already then we already have "death panels" right?:confused:


yeah but come on, bringing a gun to an event where the president is speaking or appearing?
Legal, maybe but not the smartest move to prove your point.

you know who i'm talking about. the birthers. the people who don't believe in evolution, climate change or science. the faith over facts crowd. people who believe obama is a secret muslim communist facist agent who wants to destroy america.
All too well my friend...they surround me.

how do you know that for sure though? california in the next few years could legalize, tax and regulate marijuana in order to help address the budget and revenue crisis.
They gotta do something. That state is fucked with a capital F. Talk about spending out of control. We lived there in the 70's and it was bad then...then it just got worse. Never leave a Democrat in charge of the bank account.:D

A little off base but if the Feds can still sieze and confiscate your weed in CA even though it is "legal", I wonder if they could seize and confiscate the tax money from it should that plan go through in CA? Interesting, gonna have to ask an attorney about that.

those who don't believe in the science of climate change.

Thos people don't answer the door for surveyors.

yes but you don't pay for the laws themselves to be legislated.

Every law has financial repercussions one way or another.

no.
Yes you do.

i sort of get what you're getting at, but what i don't understand is how people can be concerned about health costs, and not be concerned about how much money the us owes china, for borrowing trillions in order to pay for the illegal and unnecessary invasion of iraq.

'cause the terrorists were coming dude! They were going to kill us all! Women and children too. And washington knows that China still thinks we are "too big to fail"...I love that line, it's so stupid.

you know what my point was and you understand it. she's not packing heat.

Fair Enough.

[RobMoney$]

http://community2.myfoxdc.com/service/displayDiscussionThreads.kickAction?as=70048&w=205204&d=268312

Liberal California’s Tax-n-Spend Nightmare Will Kill Obamanomics


Commentary by Kevin Hassett





July 6 (Bloomberg) -- Last week, we discovered that the state of California will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

With California mired in a budget crisis, largely the result of a political impasse that makes spending cuts and tax increases impossible, Controller John Chiang said the state planned to issue $3.3 billion in IOU’s in July alone. Instead of cash, those who do business with California will get slips of paper.
The California morass has Democrats in Washington trembling. The reason is simple. If Obama’s health-care plan passes, then we may well end up paying for it with federal slips of paper worth less than California’s. Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.

It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.

California has engaged in an orgy of spending, but, compared with our federal government, its legislators should feel chaste. The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.

Bleak Picture

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S. I would imagine that he would be the intergalactic champion as well, if we could gather the data on deficits on other worlds. Obama has taken George W. Bush’s inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.
The Obama administration has no shame, and is willing to abandon reason altogether to achieve its short-term political goals. Ronald Reagan ran up big deficits in part because he believed that his tax cuts would produce economic growth, and ultimately pay for themselves. He may well have been excessively optimistic about the merits of tax cuts, but at least he had a story.
Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth. Nobody believes that it will pay for itself. Everyone understands that higher spending today begets higher spending tomorrow. That means that his economic strategy simply doesn’t add up.

Character Deficit

Back in the 1980s, Reagan’s own economist, Martin Feldstein, spoke up when he felt that the Reagan administration was pushing the deficit too far. Where are the economists with such character today? Apparently, the job description for economists has transformed from recommending policies that are defensible to defending whatever policies that the political hacks in the West Wing dream up.
As bad as the California legislature has been over the years, it has never entered a fiscal crisis like the one that we face today and then doubled down with a massive spending increase. In the end, when times got tough, patriotic and sensible Californians of both parties stood up and began acting like adults.
Maybe the same thing is starting to happen in our nation’s capital. The key players in Washington are Senator Evan Bayh and 15 Senate Democrats who joined him this year in forming a coalition of moderates. One thing that has distinguished moderate Democrats from the garden variety of the species is heightened concern about fiscal responsibility.

Off a Cliff

With the price tag of Obama-care likely to exceed $1 trillion, moderate Democrats face a simple choice. They can jump off the cliff with the president, or they can stay true to the principles that they have espoused throughout their careers.
There are reassuring signs that principle is winning. One of the most expensive components of the Obama plan is the so- called public-insurance option, which opponents fear would result in massive government subsidies. Senator Mary Landrieu said that she is “not open” to a public option that will compete with private insurance.
Many other Democratic Senators, including Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Tom Carper, also oppose the public option. As the cost estimates increase and support wanes, the Senate Finance Committee is even going as far as to pursue its own health-care plan, meaning that the health-care end game is now in sight.

Tax Bite

Moderates might support Obama’s health-care objectives if the bill also included tax increases to cover the spending increases. But those tax increases would likely be unpopular, making it almost impossible to pass a bill.
Given the increasing public concern about deficits that heightened significantly last week because of the California crisis, there are only two possibilities left. Either the Obama plan will come crashing down or Senate Democrats will concoct some bill that has health in the title but costs almost nothing and does even less. With Al Franken arriving in the Senate and providing Democrats with a crucial 60th vote, the latter seems most likely.