I woke up this morning to a mass e-mail from Jen O'Malley Dillon of the Democratic Party, reading, "There's been a lot of media coverage about organized mobs intimidating lawmakers, disrupting town halls, and silencing real discussion about the need for real health insurance reform."
What? Now I am a little confused. I have seen videos of people showing up complaining about a bill they don't like, to their representatives. How is that silencing discussion? And if lawmakers are intimidated by constituents saying they are angry, isn't that a good thing? I call that democracy.
But it gets even worse. They say that citizens showing up at "town hall" meetings are being funded by "Washington special interests and insurance companies." Funny, I've never seen any communication from "special interests" about this, but I did get e-mail from a friend that simply gave me the dates and times for Congressman Rick Larsen's "town hall" meetings (Aug. 6, 6 p.m., Coupeville Rec Center; Aug. 8, 2 p.m., Mt. Vernon location TBA; Aug. 12, 5 p.m., Everett Station, Weyerhauser Room). And I hope to go. Isn't that good for democracy? Even if you disagree with my views?
The Democratic Party doesn't think so. They say that complaining about the bill is to intend to "disrupt and shut down legitimate conversation." Of course, that is precisely what the Democrats are trying to do: they are trying to shut down my legitimate conversation, to intimidate me into not speaking my mind.
Perhaps some of the disconnect here is that where I'm from, the Town Hall is not a metaphor, it's a real thing. All major town business for the year was done at the annual meeting, where every registered voter got a vote on every part of the budget, on capital spending, on bylaw changes, and so on. And sometimes things get heated. This is normal: people are angry. The solution is not to tell people to shut up as the Democrats are doing, the solution is to have an organized and ordered meeting where rules are explained and enforced. And if someone is continually out of order, you simply remove them.
As us tech nerds like to say, this is a solved problem.
Now, I do agree with some of the complaints of the Dems. Some of the information being spread about this bill is wrong, as I've noted before. But then again, the Democrats are lying about the bill, too: in this very e-mail they actually say, there is no "government takeover" in any part of any plan supported by the President or Congress. But we know that the government is creating a new insurance plan to take over a large segment of the insurance market; a health insurance exchange to control all individual insurance plans. Those are nothing but government takeovers.
And they also have a legitimate point about some of the discourse: I think it is low to compare Obama to Nazis, and to resort to yelling and so on. But the Democrats alternatively ignored and cheered when their own did the same thing to Republicans when the GOP was in control, so this is a nonsensical complaint coming from the DNC.
It's sad that on the only two legitimate points the Democrats have, they are hypocrites.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 05, 2009 08:31 AM | Email ThisUnfortunately, this doesn't appear to be happening at the video's displayed on line. I think what the Democrats should be doing is calling for orderly procedures. The random shouting and disrupting does a disservice to all who attend. What I don't get is why those oppose to the legislation don't also take it upon themselves to quiet these hooligans by asking that they be civil and speak decently and in-order (and stick to the subject at hand). It would allow them to also get their points in and not lump them in with the hooligans.
I believe in civil discussion and hope all representatives spend there break truly talking to their constituents. Too much disinformation is floating around. It is time to discuss the facts and for representatives to hear from their own constituents.
Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 08:58 AMFolks you know it is not long before they just sue in the courts or 'regulate' if this does not work. You other siders - You get to keep everything you want to do and you don't even have to waste your money on defeating us! Amazing!
My 'spouse' screams at everything I do...there is no rational future with the thinking anymore of my spouse. Everything my sposuse does will not lead to a susinable future. I try to talk and my spouse screams that I am an angry!!
My Spouse's friend, Hillary, yelled into the mic a few years ago that dissent was patriotic. I guess it is not anymore now that we raise the small issue of the constitution and such. My spouse's future leads only to a the death of people. (They really want that; it really frustrates them that it can't be faster...guess what in just 4 years you can have Ojesus as king for life and we'll go about our business on the good side of the new border.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on August 5, 2009 09:05 AMMost cities had meetings at night, so eventually, they replaced all these citizen comment hearings with a 'rubber stamp' hearing examiner who was paid to listen and more often than not, go along with the staff, which more often than not were corect.
But, they did this to avoid having to deal with the "people". These guys today just want to pick up the paycheck and enjoy the power. They don't want to have to listen.
Posted by: swatter on August 5, 2009 09:10 AMDo you understand why we are angry, or are we just stooges of the insurance companies?
Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 09:12 AMAnd I always thought the Dems liked the emotion as they reacted more to emotion as compared to Rep who dealt more with facts.
I don't think these Dem legislators like to deal with their own logic.
Posted by: swatter on August 5, 2009 09:14 AM"I call that democracy."
I think a better term would be activism, and the type of activism by those opposed is likely (no matter what it is) to ruffle those in favor.
And the contra is true. Those opposed are likely to be ruffled (as you posted) by the type of activism of those in favor.
At the end of the day, both WA Senators and all of the Democratic House members will vote in favor of the bill that gets through. The Republicans will vote against.
So, unless one thinks you are going to suddenly convince the likes of Murray or McDermott that Health Care reform is something they should be against, I'd recommend participating in the town halls in your area to make what is on the table better.
FYI - The sole Republican proposal is the
Empowering Patients First Act HR 3400.
tc - what do you think about the White House asking people to snitch on us?
Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 09:23 AM(It's not snitching, it's for the betterment of all)
Posted by: Duffman on August 5, 2009 09:30 AMI know I am unhappy with the insurance situation for my son, who is unemployed and can't get on the State Uniform Plan, even though that's the plan's intended purpose, due to quota's put on by the legislature.
So in one sense, I would agree with you that the public plan isn't what it is hyped to be. If it is similar to our own state's supposed public option for the unemployed and uninsured, it will be a joke. That is why I am willing to recommend to my congressman that it be dropped, if it means broader support for the rest of the reforms in the package. I still think there needs to be a solution for the unemployed and uninsured (e.g., people who work for employers who are too small to arrange group plans). Would you be for a different option that addressed those two groups? This is where I think congress should go, and it doesn't have to be government insurance. The FEHB is made up of private insurance companies. Wny not a FEHB for unemployed and small businesses that don't qualify for group rates?
Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 09:31 AM
What's that saying about the goose.
Posted by tc at August 5, 2009 09:34 AM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What's the zip code to 1600 Pen ave.
I need to let them know about (falsehoods in medical care)
LOL
Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 5, 2009 09:40 AMIt's on!
The latest made up leftist lie. Did you not know it was coming? What a bunch of dishonest creeps. Of course their media is reporting over and over about the "unruly" people showing up at town hall meetings.
The left is simply showing America who they really are. People who don't pay attention to politics are beginning to get that it is Democrats who "silence real discussion" in this country. They have been doing it for more than 40 years with political correctness, a media that is biased, and teachers in our schools who have a leftist agenda.
Well, the left has finally overplayed its dirty little hand. And it only took 6-months.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 5, 2009 09:41 AMI realize that.
I think what the Democrats should be doing is calling for orderly procedures.
Exactly my point. Enforce order rather than trying to quiet dissent by attacking people FOR dissenting.
What I don't get is why those oppose to the legislation don't also take it upon themselves to quiet these hooligans by asking that they be civil and speak decently and in-order (and stick to the subject at hand).
I'm sure sometimes they do. But realize a few things: first, most people have never been to such meetings; second, the people yelling are usually intimidating; third, attendees usually don't feel it is their place or position to try to enforce order if the organizers won't do it.
This is the responsibility of the organizers. It is good if some of them stepped in, but they are not to blame if they do not.
MikeBS: tempest in a teapot.
Shrug. Tell that to the DNC which is stirring it up.
I think a better term would be activism
Again, I come from Massachusetts, where ALL major town business is done via town meeting. To me, that is democracy, in its purest form in this nation. Granted, no one votes meaningfully at these meetings, but they are similarly modeled, and give people a chance to speak their mind directly to their representative in a public setting, and that is democracy to me.
At the end of the day, both WA Senators and all of the Democratic House members will vote in favor of the bill that gets through.
That's not clear. Larsen might vote against. He has 2010 to think about. Larsen voted for that "terrible anti-immigrant" bill a few years back, you may recall. I think it's because he had to, to keep his seat. You may not remember he voted for it, because the Dems didn't want to scare off Dem voters, and the GOP mostly liked the vote so had no reason to bring it up.
There's more to WA than King County and the southwest of the state.
So, unless one thinks you are going to suddenly convince the likes of Murray or McDermott that Health Care reform is something they should be against, I'd recommend participating in the town halls in your area to make what is on the table better.
Yes, you've said that before, and it's just as stupid now as it was then. My goal is to KILL this bill. I will not try to improve it, but to KILL it. Preach tactics to your side, not to mine.
TC pass your hat and buy him some insurance!!! What kind of father are you!?!!!??????
BTW no one is denying him care, now, but why do want to deny me care!
I will call the Whitehouse line with the biggest falsehood of all! That I still get to choose my doctor and my care and buy my own insurance!
Where in the he double hockey sticks is this in any governmental powers.
"WHAT" I can't believe that! Obama and the dem's said WE must spend and spend to ensure your son would have a job.
Well TC, what happened?
Want to bet unemployment hits 10% tomorrow.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 5, 2009 09:45 AM"I bet TC & Mikey had NO problem when groups like Code Pink and ACORN were screaming at Bush,"
1) No I didn't.
2) How effective was it for Code Pink in preventing or stopping the Iraq occupation?
2) Why the heck would I want to emulate Code Pink's tactics and methods? [Hint: I don't. They don't work.]
Regarding peeling Larsen.. so what? The fight to kill the bill is not in the House. The fight is in the Senate. As a Washingtonian, WE are not going to persuade our Senators to kill it. But hey, if it spins your wheels to tea bag and such, have at it.
Regarding this too funny comment, "My goal is to KILL this bill. I will not try to improve it, but to KILL it. Preach tactics to your side, not to mine."
If I recall, your goal was to kill the stimulus. How'd that go? If I recall, your goal was to stop Obama's election? How'd that go?
Preaching
I understand you, pudge, are loath to discuss tactics to achieve a goal. But maybe if WE had effective tactics we wouldn't keep coming up short of the goal as often.
Being against is not a tactic. It is merely self expression. Have fun.
Wow how short your memory is. Can you say Code Pink and the Marine recurit station in SF that was blocked, sprayed painted and then shut down after the glass was broke and a bomb call.
You good lib's in charge the SF city wouldn't even support them.
"Can you say Code Pink and the Marine recurit [sic] station in SF that was..."
FTW are you talking about???? :-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 5, 2009 10:05 AM
Posted by Gary at August 5, 2009 09:53 AM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your right Gary and what about Vet's against the war. Where did they go and remember when NBC,ABC, CBS, CNN would list the dead count day after day. What happened to that. Heck they can even have pictures of our dead coming home (Gates) and yet not a single picture. What happened.
O-I forgot, a DEM is in the White House. Now it doesn't matter.
Enjoy
++++++++++++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Marine_Corps_Recruiting_Center_controversy
Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.
But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.
The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.
But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials.
You sure did Michele. It's who these people really are, and they act just like leftists have acted through history. Can you say "gulag"? They crush dissent, they control people, and they lie. Rotten, dishonest, controlling people gravitate to the left. They always have. Viewing any leftist blog for even a few minutes with their vile obscenity laced comments is merely confirming.
The good news is that the whole country is finally waking up and understanding that a bunch of 1960's socialist hippies run the Democrat Party. They weren't nice people back then, and they are even meaner, angrier, and nastier now.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 5, 2009 10:37 AMNone!
TC-gone; in shame at not helping his family.
Demo Kid-reporting us to the Whitehouse
Boyscout- nothing no answer.
Careful, careful lefitsts there is always someone rougher tougher and more violent than you..once you kill off the leveling force in a society good luck getting a seat at the table of those thugs.
Don't wind up on your own petard! I know I know you know it all and I don;t know history nope never I know.
Look at the success of soft overthrows of governments throughout Europe by their own systems and you can see the glowing success through out that continent.
I think it does surprise Americans who still think of the Democrat Party as the party of JFK, Scoop Jackson, and Warren Magnuson.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 5, 2009 10:51 AMI'm sorry. My crazy parser is busted.
Do you have a question?
Now, when conservatives apply some of the same tactics to show oppositions to Obama's political initiatives, the progressives and liberals want to silence their opponents. Yes, obama's chickens have come home to roost.
Posted by: Paddy on August 5, 2009 11:06 AMI think decent people finally are observing the modern left for the first time. And they are not pleased. Yup, those chickens are coming home to roost!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 5, 2009 11:16 AMI thought these liberals were all concerned about our carbon footprints. I think Obama has burned more jet fuel in 6-months than Bush did in his entire presidency. And then he has the nerve to tell us we have to rely on "wind and solar", and push "cap and trade" on us.
These people are nothing but a bunch of phonies. How much evidence is necessary?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 5, 2009 11:35 AMThe video doesn't lie, but our president does.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 5, 2009 11:58 AMThey have a different viewpoint. There statement is:
...That video shows a clip of Obama speaking at a March 24, 2007, health care forum for presidential candidates sponsored by the union SEIU and the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The video claims that the clip shows "Obama admitting his plan will ELIMINATE private insurance." But that’s not what he said.
Here is the actual transcript of the meeting in question.
Obama is referring to the Health Exchanges phasing out employer run plans in 15 to 20 years. The Health Exchanges would still offer a variety of private plans. Obama has constantly referred to the FEHB as the model for the exchanges. If you go look at the FEHB there are a multitude of private companies offering plans under the FEHB program, and there isn't a government plan.
People that are on the left have reached a point where lying is simply a part of their situational ethics. It's a part of moral equivilancy. It's the same mindset that kills unborn innocent children without a second thought. It's why these idiots let rapists, armed robbers and killers loose on our streets. It's why they hate conservatives that dare to draw a line between what is right and what it wrong.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 5, 2009 12:11 PMI have this damaging video that implicates all of us organized, Republican, well dressed mobs. Be sure to watch this, and then report anything you see to flag@whitehouse.gov.
I am turning myself in now.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.844cab9dda05a208d45a624ff10c219a.b91&show_article=1
" "I am not aware of any precedent for a president asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ?fishy? or otherwise inimical to the White House?s political interests," John Cornyn of Texas wrote US President Barack Obama.
"As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights," he wrote"
Per comments I made yesterday...Obama is trying to stifle free speech!!
Posted by: Tim on August 5, 2009 12:46 PM
That would explain most of your posts
#46, yes it is a snitch line. I'll mark you down as being in favor of it.
Hanging Bush in effigy is also a good way to gain street cred with the left.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on August 5, 2009 01:01 PMHere are the exact words from the transcript:
As I indicated before, I think that we're going to have to have some system where people can buy into a larger pool. Right now their pool typically is the employer, but there are other ways of doing it. I would like to -- I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we've got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.
I do believe that employers are going to have to pay or play. I think that employers either have to provide health care coverage for their employees or they've got to make a decision that they're going to help pay for those who don't have coverage outside the employer system. So I think that's one important principle. And as I said, the second important principle is that we're going to have to put more money into prevention, more money into chronic care management, more money into medical technology, because that is how we're going to accrue the savings that help us provide subsidies to those who don't already have it.
The issue in question is the "truthfulness" of the video, not what Obama stated "six" years ago. You are changing the subject.
Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 01:06 PMThis administration believing it is the arbiter of "truthfulness" is absoltely laughable given its less than trasparent (as promised) approach to governing. Their intention is to set up a public option that will by default become a single payer system over time. It's called incrementalism and you're aware of this reality, tc. You've repeated over and over in posts over the last few days on the SP threads that Obama and the Democrats goal is not a single payer plan. That is simply a false assertion.
Note to all you can see how well universal care works in TC's family as he has rationed care for his son and now demands we all pay for it and destroy systems we built to take care of our families.
Question #2 for TC et. al: I will ask why in the heck is it so hard to just get on board. No one EVER has attempted to take out your family yet you threaten mine. You literally are deliberately setting of conditions to kill my family by limiting health care and call it legislation.
Who do I call? Who is my police force as I get end of life counseling and a pill instead of a pacemaker?
I go back to my post @ #3 - Let's divorce that way TC can skip the answers - dismiss us all and get his 'O'topia.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on August 5, 2009 01:50 PMWhy wouldn't the CBO, Doctors, The Mayo Clinic, insurance companies, and even the gun clinging right wing hordes be for Obamacare? If Obamacare was truly going to deliver everything it promises, without raising taxes, and without moving some people in to more expensive plans that they don't get to choose, why would there need to be email directives from the Whitehouse asking their online army to get in the face of everyone who disagrees? And asking their online army to block the media from asking any dissenting questions, or being approached by anyone with a dissenting voice?
What is there to hide with the perfect plan? Why isn't every detail posted? Why hasn't every legislator read the bill?
If this is the change we need so desperately, then why do nationwide polls show that it's about 52-39 against the Obamacare plan?
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 5, 2009 01:55 PMGuess what, we're organizing our community against obamacare. Now I guess it's not so great.
Isn't irony ironic?
Posted by: dan on August 5, 2009 02:00 PMSo now it is back to demonizing and lying about anyone who dares oppose what the Dems want. I have yet to see a conservative "mob" but the Dems quickly invented them. Aren't these people something?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 5, 2009 02:06 PMAs to intent, you are assuming intent. What evidence due you have to back up your intent. The FactCheck.org piece goes into the other statements last year and links to their past write-ups. I base my assumption of intent on what is stated, not some dreamed up charge from those that don't like Obama. During the campaign, the only "evidence" you may have is Obama's preference statement, but you leave out the rest of the statement. You are missing the context and full scope of Obama's statement. It is like me preferring to be independently wealthy, it doesn't change the present facts that I am not. Obama has repeatedly stated that given the current starting point he is not for a single payer plan and is for everyone who has private insurance to keep the private insurance. The so-called video falsehood is that he wants to do away with private insurance. He doesn't state that. All he does state is an end goal of changing the way we get the private insurance (e.g., getting the insurance through health exchanges, instead of the non-portable option of getting it through our employer). No this may also not be agreeable, which is fine. Then argue that instead of keep bringing up the falsehood that Obama wants to eliminate private insurance. I am sure there are plenty of arguments against a health exchange of private insurers instead of individual corporations negotiating insurance for their pool of employees. One I could think of is would the additional cost of the exchange ensure any more coverage than the current method (employer-based system).
I would agree that there are others in the Democratic party whose goal is single provider (say Dean, probably Barney Frank, but I haven't bothered listening to him). Where you are wrong however is inferring on the President that his intent is exactly the same as these folks. They may agree on 80-95% of the reforms, but Obama has repeatedly shot down the single provider model as a non-workable solution given the current starting point.
Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 02:10 PMOf course, that is precisely what the Democrats are trying to do: they are trying to shut down my legitimate conversation, to intimidate me into not speaking my mind.
Can I ask how are you being shut down and not allowed to speak your mind? You seem to be speaking it quite well here.
Note to all you can see how well universal care works in TC's family as he has rationed care for his son and now demands we all pay for it and destroy systems we built to take care of our families.
This is false. You are totally making this up. This is a personal attack on my family with no basis. Where did I state that I rationed care? Where did I state that you pay for care? Where am I destroying systems built to take care of our family? Total BS.
All I did state was my dissatisfaction with the State of WA legislators for closing the Basic Health plan to the very participants it was supposed to be helping. I stated that if the federal public plan was similar then it was also worthless as I view the State Plan. Why have the state plan if it doesn't reach the people it is supposed to reach? To me it is worthless. You may view it worthless to start out with. If so, then write your legislator and tell them to kill it completely.
Question #2 for TC et. al: I will ask why in the heck is it so hard to just get on board. No one EVER has attempted to take out your family yet you threaten mine. You literally are deliberately setting of conditions to kill my family by limiting health care and call it legislation.
Where did I state this? This is another made-up falsehood. I am deliberately setting up conditions to kill my family. That statement is pretty darn strong, and completely false.
Who do I call? Who is my police force as I get end of life counseling and a pill instead of a pacemaker?
This is based on the euthanasia falsehood. See my links in Ron Hebron's post where this is debunked.
I go back to my post @ #3 - Let's divorce that way TC can skip the answers - dismiss us all and get his 'O'topia.
Let's see, instead of casting you off even after all the insults, I am spending time answering your question. This would make your statement false as far as skipping answers.
From the transcript:
Obama: "As I indicated before, I think that we're going to have to have some system where people can buy into a larger pool. Right now their pool typically is the employer, but there are other ways of doing it. I would like to -- I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer.
You are missing the context and full scope of Obama's statement.
Not at all. I and others are capable of seeing through his rhetoric and interpreting his true intentions...intentions he's made clear previously and in context.
"Psychological barriers hobble climate action"
According to this article, those of us who oppose global warming legislation are ill.
I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little tired of this. Andrea Mitchell says we just don't know what's good for us.
Do you liberals like being told how to think by the government?
Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 03:06 PMYou can state all the prophecies you want. They don't change the record.
I am moving on from discussing this specific point with you anymore. I will discuss other issues.
Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 03:24 PMWhy do you want to end health care and take away my choice and force me into back alley clinics and being a medical tourist to India?
Do you get off on the tyranny you want to impose?
Do you get excited at the thought of me dying for only the lack of money in 'the budget'? The medical equipment sits there, the drugs right there but I am not worth it?
Do you hope to die that way right after a car accident you are deemed to old no one sets your bone and the infection sets in all because you wanted to limit my choice?
Do you hope to one day sit in judgment of your fellow man and declare he must die for his medical sins?
Do you not care that my life and my liberty far out way your irresponsibility that you want to cover by imposing restrictions on my medical choices?
This whole thing sounds like you are some kind of intolerant religion guy-my way or the highway.
What happened to my desire to choose? Where is my choice?
What do you fear if we don't have Nightmarecare?
Impose FREEDOM TC on yourself! Cast off your desire to impose tyranny!
Posted by: Col. Hogan on August 5, 2009 03:49 PMSo, even though Obama was shown to be the most liberal Democrat in the Senate, you don't support liberal Democrats. Got it...
Cognitive dissonance never felt so good.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 5, 2009 03:51 PMI am not trying to "peel" anyone. I am trying to get my representative to vote the way I think he should, based on my principles. You STILL don't get it.
If I recall, your goal was to kill the stimulus. How'd that go?
VERY well, in fact. I followed my principles and that's the best I can hope for in this life. (That said, the Tea Parties DID help kill a tax hike in the state. But even if they didn't, that would be fine by me.)
I understand you, pudge, are loath to discuss tactics to achieve a goal.
No, you do not. I am not in any way loathe to discuss tactics. But YOU suggest the WRONG tactics, because YOU do not understand the GOALS.
Being against is not a tactic.
Correct. So what? I never implied it was.
-
I think I know what the problem is now.
So how is it unreasonable for anyone to believe that this is what it looks like, what the plan's authors and supporters say it is, what Obama said he was going to get: a step toward single-payer health care?
Obviously, it's not unreasonable at all. It may not actually be that, but there's no reason to think it's not intended to be that.
Oh, and I turned in the DNC to the White House. Here was my email to flag@whitehouse.gov: "I got email from the Democratic National Committee telling me that the plan from the Democrats and President are not trying to take over health insurance, but in fact, a public option and health insurance exchange are centerpieces to Obama's plan and is in the bill introduced in the House. Please correct this misinformation!"
Liberals like this sort of thing?
Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 04:00 PMFYI - The sole Republican proposal is the Empowering Patients First Act HR 3400.
Think San Fran Nan will let this bill come forward for debate? Or is it pure partisanship for her and her ilk?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 5, 2009 04:20 PM"You STILL don't get it."
Really?
"I am trying to get my representative to vote the way I think he should, based on my principles."
How exactly are you going to do that? How exactly are you going to get this guy to vote based on your principles? No, it is not your MO to answer these questions.
pudge, you and most of the folks on this board don't get it. Don't believe me? How many comments on this thread have nothing to do with your post, or with health care? Count 'em!!!
Being against, and debating who might want to silence you... doesn't get squat done, and more often than not distracts from what needs to be done.
Again, real life example, conservatives do one heck of a job dissenting. How many conservatives are winning elections?
How many conservatives are winning elections?
Over the last 15 years or so, nationally a LOT more than liberals. It's when conservatives started to adopt liberal policies that they got tossed out.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 5, 2009 04:25 PMThe Feds have done such a bang up job running Medicare, Medicaid and the VA that the reds can't wait to share the joy with everyone!
What a bunch of creepy marxists.
Posted by: attila on August 5, 2009 04:25 PMWe're all frogs, in the slow boil of socialism
Posted by: yaddacubed on August 5, 2009 04:25 PMHow about the last 40-years of their political correctness where liberals have literally dictated what can be said in public, or at your place of work.
Heck yes. These people will happily investigate anyone who dares to disagree with them. At the same time they pretend they are for free expression.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 5, 2009 04:29 PM"Over the last 15 years or so, nationally a LOT more than liberals."
But neither you nor anybody here votes "nationally".
The fact that you were near a great person when they did something great doesn't make you (or me!) great.
Washington conservatives have sucked at doing their part to contribute to that national picture.
And, the high water mark of Republicans in the US Congress never equaled that of the Democrats high water mark that brackets that. The question conservatives and Republicans had better address (soon!) is shall those 20-30 years be viewed as achievement or anomaly? I contend that if conservatives and Republicans do nothing BUT dissent during the dark Democratic years this dark age won't end for a long time.
Some have said that conservatives favor Health Care reform. There's only one Republican alternative on the table. None of the HR 3200 dissenters are talking about that. No, we're talking almost exclusively about their bad program. Hate to bum y'all out, but that game is over. Unless one changes the game. :o)
Yes.
How exactly are you going to do that? How exactly are you going to get this guy to vote based on your principles?
By expressing my view to him.
No, it is not your MO to answer these questions.
False. I've said many times you shouldn't dictate tactics to me, but I've never implied I won't discuss tactics.
pudge, you and most of the folks on this board don't get it.
False.
Being against, and debating who might want to silence you... doesn't get squat done
False.
Again, real life example, conservatives do one heck of a job dissenting. How many conservatives are winning elections?
Where I live (39th LD and 1st Councilmatic District in SnoCo) ... a lot. Larsen is the one regional exception. We of course don't have too many statewide conservatives -- depending on your definition, there's Reed and McKenna and Sonntag -- but my state and county reps are conservatives, as are reps in neighboring districts (10th, 44th).
That doesn't make the least bit of sense. And "mikeboyscout" doesn't give his statement any context at all.
Typical of the incomprehensible drivel liberals spew in the media, and every day in high school and college classrooms all over the nation.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 5, 2009 05:07 PMYes it's on the news. LOL
Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 5, 2009 05:41 PMNo, because that's a question that has no bearing on anything. It does not change anything to answer it. No one needs to ask that question, and no one should bother wasting time answering it.
The only questions they need to ask themselves is what principles they will work toward, and what priority will they give those principles. That's it.
You keep trying to look at the big picture. But that is not how change happens. Change happens when everyone focuses on their piece to the puzzle. And you don't need some grand plan that everyone follows, you just need to follow your principles.
Let the result happen as it will. Focus on what YOUR role is and following YOUR principles. If you don't do that, then nothing you do will be positive, and if you DO that, then the end will take care of itself.
I contend that if conservatives and Republicans do nothing BUT dissent during the dark Democratic years this dark age won't end for a long time.
Your contention makes no sense. You want conservatives to agree to liberal bills to help conservatism win. The only way to win going forward is to follow conservative principles, and that means opposing liberal bills.
The Republicans have offered a lot of bills on a lot of subjects, and a lot of constructive amendments to Democratic bills. But the health care bill ... it's a terrible bill. You might as well ask Republicans to work on passing a better Democratic bill legalizing slavery. This health care bill is almost that bad, because -- like slavery -- it fundamentally (and probably permanently) removes more of our essential liberty. Of course, the practical effect on our liberty in this is not nearly as bad as slavery, but it's still an assault that cannot be accepted. You can't improve it, you can only try to kill it.
Some have said that conservatives favor Health Care reform.
Everyone with any sense says that, yes.
There's only one Republican alternative on the table.
One too many.
None of the HR 3200 dissenters are talking about that.
Because we don't care about it, because it has no chance of passing and is therefore irrelevant.
No, we're talking almost exclusively about their bad program.
Yes, because the Democratic program is terrible, and very well might pass, so we are talking about it. That's how these things work.
And you pretend that dissenting does nothing, but the fact is that more and more people every day are against the health care bill because of that dissent, and it is significantly increasing the chances it won't pass.
Remember when a guy trying to win the Prez made a statement about going to your nieghbors, friends and even people who didn't agree with you and (getting in their face) Yes it was Obama.
Funny how things just turn around, don't they. (-:
The trend looks bad for them if they continue to support the Government takeover of Health Care, and the more the White House and Congress leadership digs their heels in, the less support there will be. This flags website is just the most current in their effort to try and silence dissent - it will backfire.
BO Stinks - Change that you can count on...
Posted by: KDS on August 5, 2009 06:04 PMObama has never said he's opposed to single payer; he has said he doesn't think it can be implemented now. That's a different statement altogether...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 5, 2009 07:12 PMDo you dispute he said he wants single payer health care? Do you dispute that he said it would take time, and that it would not happen all at once, but require a transition? Do you dispute he has not taken any of that back? Do you dispute that THIS plan is said by some of its architects and supporters in Congress to be a part of that transition?
I don't see how you can dispute any of that. So what part of what I said do you have a problem with?
Yes, he hasn't said it recently. But what is going on now, with the public option and insurance exchange, is by many accounts -- without any contradictory evidence of any kind, including from Obama himself -- precisely what Obama said he wanted six years ago.
He can't backtrack from this obvious lie no matter how much his supporters attempt to prop it up with blind regurgitation of WH talking points.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 5, 2009 07:50 PMEqually funny (and disturbing) are Government's efforts to discredit support for propositions by fine combing -- when it doesn't jibe with their own positions.
Hey, have you guys read this site:
http://www.debunkingportland.com/
Amazing anti-light rail information.
Like this:
http://www.debunkingportland.com/Printables/LookOfLightRail5b.PDF
Just try to keep me away now. See you in Everett!
Posted by: jvon on August 5, 2009 09:10 PMThere it was: "In Austin, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, was mobbed by about 200 people. Gosh I wonder where the press got that "mobbed" word. It surely couldn't have come from the Democratic National Commmittee. Just a coincidence I am sure.
The mainstream press isn't an arm of the Democrat Party. Where would a person possibly get such a notion?
Also in the article are details about groups opposing "healthcare reform", tying them to the left's favorite demons, free enterprise and the far right.
Isn't it funny we never, ever, hear about the communist groups that are behind nearly every leftist protest. We had a big healthcare rally in Seattle a couple months ago which was backed by the usual socialist and communist organizations. Not a word in the press about who was behind the rally.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 07:38 AMYou're wrong there,Bill. If nothing else, this past election proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the entity set up to be the watch dog of government has increasingly been the lap dog of the Democrat party that they're politically aligned with.
IBD's Ramirez has another good cartoon today. Obama in a George Bush, Sr
moment- Nothing like learning from mistakes from the past is there, Mr. President.
I am not saying they are. I never implied they are. I am saying that they are part of a plan to get us toward single-payer, not that they are themselves single-payer.
How would it do that? At a minimum, it's obvious that they get us away from getting our health care directly through an insurance company: if this bill passes, no American will deal directly with an insurance company to get their primary health insurance. They will go through their company or through the government.
That's obviously a step toward single-payer: making more people more dependent on government for their health insurance.
1. You state that the move is to get us away from getting our health care directly through an insurance company. While individual payers buy insurance through an insurance company, most group policy participants do not. They get their insurance through their company or the third-party group that negotiates with the insurance companies for services.
2. I believe you also infer in the same paragraph that individuals won't deal any more with insurance companies. This is false, at least for the Health Exchange goal that Obama is on record as the direction he wants to go. This is why I asked the question. I base my assumptions on the Health Exchange based on the FEHB model. Under FEHB, the government negotiates the contracts (it is the employer in this case), but the individual (employee) then deals with the insurance companies directly throughout the year. It is the same with the doctor's and other providers. For example, I had Federal Blue Cross/Blue Shield, when I was a federal employee, throughout the year all me interaction was through Premera who was Washington State's Blue Cross/Blue Shield provider. This is where I am not getting your train of thought as to single payer.
Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 08:15 AMThe part they really missed. Austin the biggest LIB town in all of Texas.
I've been there a few times and they have no problem letting you know it. So we must think that it was lib's (mob) who were protesting.
How so?
You state that the move is to get us away from getting our health care directly through an insurance company. While individual payers buy insurance through an insurance company, most group policy participants do not. They get their insurance through their company or the third-party group that negotiates with the insurance companies for services.
You are not disagreeing with me at all, tc.
I believe you also infer in the same paragraph that individuals won't deal any more with insurance companies.
You mean "imply," and no, I implied no such thing.
It sure is Medic/Vet. I caught the irony. Austin is the Texas equivalent of Seattle.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 08:47 AMNow if we object to Obama's policies we are a "mob", and today we are being called "nazis" by Nancy Pelosi. Aren't they showing us exactly who they are? It is likely their doom.
Maybe they are all attending a Dem focus group trying to figure out the latest damage control spin for tomorrow. And I think they seriously need big time damage control!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 12:10 PMCouldn't happen to nicer people!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 03:40 PMLet's see: we have the "mob" bunch of manufactured Democratic National Committee garbage,(repeated by an obediant media), we have Pelosi and others accusing conservatives of being "nazis", now we have other leftists talking about people showing up at town hall meetings with "swastika tatoos", which I'm sure is a lie.
These people absolutely have no shame.
This is what I have hoped for. They are revealing exactly who they are. Americans are looking behind the curtain at last.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 05:16 PMdoes not equal shouting down speakers, yelling "liar" and not letting representatives respond, shouting down constituents and being generally disruptive.
the morons aren't behaving like adults, they're acting like whiny children and sore losers.
remember these gems you nuts kept shouting as bush took away our rights?
"elections have consequences"
"my country love it or leave it"
could say it still applies. frankly, i'd rather you have a say than whine like babies and leave, but maybe some civil discourse wouldn be more appropriate?
Posted by: mike on August 6, 2009 06:48 PMJust look at how you act now when dissent comes from the other side. You are such a bunch of hypocrites.
You leftists scream and disrupt and have your protests with your inevitable stupid puppets. It's what you perpetually angry loons love to do. And those protests are always backed by communists and socialists, aren't they? I can document that they are. And you promote killing unborn children. You are awful, horrible people.
Who takes away the right of people to speak out? It is you leftists. How much proof is necessary now?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 07:15 PMI never said those things; at least, not to get people to be quiet. I did say Bush, having won the election, gets certain privileges, like his choice of SCOTUS justices ... and I favored Sotomayor's confirmation for that reason too.
Bill: I could name a few people who had their rights taken away unjustly. The Supreme Court even ruled that it happened. But it certainly wasn't a wholesale assault on our rights as the Democrats tried to make it out to be ... however, the Health Care Reform is.
Just for fun name them specifically.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 07:45 PMHere is "mike" and pudge just throwing stuff up against the wall and hoping it sticks.
I don't get it at all. Is there any evidence that the Bush Administration took anyones's rights away? Of course these kooks will never answer a specific question but they will resort to mean personal attacks. Pudge is an Obama birth certificate nutcase. I don't even know why he is allowed to post here. He is a looney.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 08:52 PMBut when challenged Pudge hasn't come up with a single name or court case that reasonable people can discuss. I'd be more than happy to look at any evidence he might provide.
My guess? Pudge is really a leftist or perhaps a Ron Paul libertarian. He sure acts like one or the other. He censors comments on his threads, routinely. He calls anyone who disagrees with him a liar. Not exactly civilized behaviour. I imagine I am not the only old detective to have figured this guy out. I don't like him. I don't like him at all.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 09:21 PMthe patriot act & anti-terorrism measures that curtailed civil rights??
taking away guest worker's rights?
the locking up (or threat) of 'terrorists' (not the real ones, but patriots who disagree w/ administration) without due process?
the curtailing of women's reproductive rights?
curbing of minority voter's rights?
eroding civil right protections
christ, even huckabee said bush was taking away rights.
btw, pudge is in your court, not mine.
feel free to come by any time, with or without your toy bopguns.
nothing says 'patriot' like threatening to shoot your fellow citizens.
what a sad, pathetic, waste of a life you must have.
Once single person. You can't and you just bleat the talking points of the liars you follow blindly.
I am waiting.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 09:45 PMNo one had their rights taken away by the Bush Administration and you lying leftists know it. You are nothing but a bunch creepy liars. How about being honest with yourselves for a change?
The moment you challenge lefties about the junk they have been putting out for years such as "mike" just did: "the patriot act & anti-terorrism measures that curtailed civil rights??"
You ask them to cite a single individual that had their rights threatened in any way and they disappear as if by magic. I know these people and I know they are liars.
These people are rotten, nasty liars. They can't back up their lies. They never do.
The great thing is that the whole country is figuring that out.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 10:09 PMdomestic wiretappees
the hundreds illegally detained after 9/11 sans charges
(fayez khidir, ayub ali khan, hady hassan omar, etc etc etc)
terror watch listees
library users when librarians were made to turn over patron's reading lists
TSA no-fly & watch listees
sibel edmunds
john warner defense authorization act (prez can send nat'l troops to roud up potential terorrists, illegal aliens & disorderly citizens - best watch out whiners!)
depositors over $10,000 (via patriot act)
joseph frederick
booker hudson
but keep at it, moron.
Posted by: mike on August 6, 2009 10:10 PMGosh, unless I was really brain dead I would say you are probably the same person that posts as "demo kid".
Same exact personal attack when someone disagrees with your point of view. Do you think we are really that stupid? Do you enjoy being a phony little leftist creep?
Perhaps, just perhaps, you could find the ability to answer some specific questions here instead of resorting to personal insults. That might be a novelty.
i enjoy being a leftist, but i'm not the creep. you certainly seem to fit the bill, though.
and i still stand by what i wrote, how many anti-depressants are you on these days?
These people are rotten, nasty liars. They can't back up their lies. They never do.
i know, why do people even listen to hannity, beck, rush or any of the half-truth spouting, corporate owned hacks @ faux noise?
The great thing is that the whole country is figuring that out.
sort of, they already figured it out.
that's why the country went overwhelmingly for obama and dems, and turned away from the lies, fear and lack of leadership from the right.
but i know, facts and reason don't matter to you, bill. that's why you have water pistols.
Posted by: mike on August 6, 2009 10:25 PMAnd here's your name: Yaser Esam Hamdi. He was an American citizen held as an enemy combatant and denied basic rights, such as habeas corups. Eight of the nine members of the Supreme Court said the President cannot do that; that, in essence, the Bush administration took away Hamdi's rights.
And Bill, I never censor comments. Ever. I ban people who have proven to be abusive. There's a big difference. And my acts to this end cover liberals (John Jensen, tc), right-wingers (Alphabet, Amused), and libertarians (Lysander). In no case was anyone ever "banned" for their views, but in every case for being abusive. The comments I remove from these people are never removed based on their content.
I have removed comments based on content, but only for vulgarity, and that is not censorship, in the typical sense of the word.
Now, Bill: you've said several things about me that are flatly incorrect, apart from the claim that I censor comments, and the implication that I was somehow avoiding responding to you. It is simply false that I am "an Obama birth certificate nutcase." If by that you mean a "birther," nothing could be further from the truth. I've spent a lot of time going over the evidence and debunking the claims of "birthers."
You also are entirely wrong when you say I call anyone who disagrees with me a liar. That never happens. I only call people liars when the LIE. There are many people I routinely disagree with that I don't call a liar; there are people I usually agree with that I call liars. And what's especially pathetic about what you said is that you are literally demonizing me for doing nothing more than disagreeing with you.
Perhaps now that I've proven you wrong you'll question your evaluation of me.
What jerks you people are. Give me one, just one person that Bush and Cheney rounded up because they opposed their policies. Come on "mike" play with the big dogs.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 10:33 PMWhen you have tense, riotous, situations with the police, you don't get in their way. If you get caught up in it, then, well, you shouldn't have been there. Mistakes happen in chaotic situations.
As to "domestic wiretappees," the only ones I know of whose rights were violated were violated against the explicit policy of the Bush administration. That is, the Bush administration set up policies for wiretapping, and the govt employees violated the right to privacy of people by violating those policies, listening in when they had no right to do so. That's hardly something you can pin on Bush in terms of rights abuse (though poor management, sure).
Your library claim is completely made-up. It never happened. The TSA stuff is not losing your rights, it's being inconvenienced.
I am not going to go through all of your examples, but most of them just suck, mike. If you're going to pick examples, pick solid ones, not just any old ones you think might stick. Poor form.
learn to read. getting past 2nd grade wasn't that hard, was it?
Posted by: mike on August 6, 2009 10:37 PMAnd that's not a de facto violation of anyone's rights.
If I lock you up for years and deny you basic rights to access the juducial system, that's a clear violation of your rights.
If I tell you that I *might* do that to you, then it's not clear at all, and chances are, it is not any sort of a violation of your rights.
Posted by: pudge on August 6, 2009 10:41 PMWhat a pompous young man you are; "now that I have proven you wrong".
It is the thread that runs through nearly every comment you make Pudge. You are right and no one else is entitled to their opinions or given any respect for them.
We are all often wrong and say things we probably should not have. I think you have an ego the size of Texas.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 10:44 PMpudge, what i said was "the locking up (or threat) of 'terrorists' (not the real ones, but patriots who disagree w/ administration) without due process"
and over 300 people were arrested and held without charge, a clear violation of their rights.
but the prez seemed to have no qualms about locking up 'disorderly citizens' had it come to that (and what constitutes disorderly?)
Posted by: mike on August 6, 2009 10:44 PMI say it over and over and over. You leftists are a bunch of nasty lying creeps. Aren't you. Just as mean as people can be. That's why you are leftists. We don't have to make it up you people simply confirm how rotten you are all the time. Don't you?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 10:51 PMi don't know if bush rounded anyone up. i'm not in a position to admit that, and i wouldn't put it past the dbag.
i'm not 'nasty', i'm just appalled that you can't read.
if you think i'm mean, you must think rush is an a**hole, cos he's a significantly harsher dick than i am.
Posted by: mike on August 6, 2009 10:58 PMMust I further emphasize what I say about leftists?
Wow! What creeps.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 6, 2009 11:15 PMWhat a pompous young man you are
Shrug. I figured I'd repay your pomposity with pomposity. Gooses and ganders and all that.
You are right and no one else is entitled to their opinions or given any respect for them.
See, from where I sit, that description fits you a lot better than it fits me. Again, you are the one attacking me -- quite viciously -- for simply disagreeing with you. If that is what you call respect for opinions, then count me out, Bill.
I've not been rude or disrespectful to anyone in this thread except for MikeBS and you, and I think anyone here would admit that you were far more disrespectful to me than I was to you ... and, of course, my disrespect was merely in response to yours. And my disrespect shown toward MikeBS wasn't a tenth as bad as what you're showing to mike.
So I really don't know where you get off saying this about me. Pots and kettles, motes and logs.
I was even respectful to tc, despite our recent history where he was abusive toward me and I temporarily banned him, and even though we have significant disagreement on this subject.
mike: section 215 of the patriot act defines the library thing.
So? Can you tell me when someone's rights were violated with it? Describe the situation? No, you can't. The only times this has been used is when there's specific reason to suspect wrongdoing as part of an investigation, and only specific records for specific computers at specific times have been requested under this law ... which is perfectly reasonable and established law enforcement practice.
I know it's fun to pretend, but let's stay in the real world.
but the prez seemed to have no qualms about locking up 'disorderly citizens' had it come to that
You're making that up, mike.
Liberals should be as angry about this kind of thing as we are, but they aren't, because they do not believe in Free Speech.
Posted by: Gary on August 7, 2009 08:01 AMso tampa 912 isn't promoted by beck, and dems hacked into the Hillsborough Republican Party to send out an email w/ ridiculous marching orders & talking points?
manufactured protest by miscreants, morons and loons.
Posted by: mike on August 7, 2009 08:41 AMThen what are you worried about? Just pass the thing. Who is stopping you, mike? Not us.
Posted by: Gary on August 7, 2009 09:04 AMLike I said, we're not stopping you, so pass the thing. Obama wanted it done before the break. Why didn't you guys get it done?
Posted by: Gary on August 7, 2009 03:08 PMAbout a hour ago in post #170:
"Yes, we'll pass a bill over your nutter outrage "
Which bill do I support? There isn't one. I support the 10th Amendment personally.
Pot calling the kettle black?
I am just enjoying the left's implosion. They are in total freak-out mode.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 03:37 PMOkay (God this is hard) so you don't want is passed.
Okay, good.
I support none.
I challenged Pudge to come up with even one name and finally, after an apparent exhaustive Google search, he came up with some guy we captured in Afghanistan, who was treated entirely appropriatly by our justice system.
That was hardly the "few people" Pudge claimed to know about. He clearly had to internet search like mad to find even one person.
I'm just sayin' folks. You decide.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 03:54 PM
Why should I support any bill?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 04:00 PM(This is so damn hard)
And like Bill says, why must we support a bill?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
For cryin' out loud.
"eliminates pre-existing conditions" Whoa! A miracle plan!
Posted by: Gary on August 7, 2009 04:11 PMWhat part of 'leave it to the states or the people' do you not get?
Come on Jensen name any Democrat program that has ever been "deficit neutral".
You phony clowns can't run Social Security, Medicare, education, and even the "cash for clunkers" program. Name a single program Jensen that you people run that is "deficit neutral". Name one, you jerk.
You are simply not telling the truth and you know it. It is all about your lust for power over people.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 04:15 PMSo you don't support 3200, good. We agree.
Posted by: Gary on August 7, 2009 04:21 PMFalse, Bill, on pretty much all counts.
First, it was after WORK (yes, I work nights sometimes, almost every Thursday) and SPENDING TIME WITH MY FAMILY.
Second, it was not an exhastive Google search: I know the name "Hamdi v. Rumsfeld" off the top of my head.
Third, eight of the nine members of the Supreme Court said he was NOT "treated entirely appropriately by our justice system." If you're going to assert a contrarian view, fine, but maybe you should actually explain it?
That was hardly the "few people" Pudge claimed to know about.
Shrug. After I came back to this site after a mere three hours of being away, and waded through your vitroilic attacks on me, at the end -- as you admit -- you said to name "one." So I did.
Certainly you could read Thomas' dissent and try to say why I am wrong. But a majority of conservatives agree with the general reasoning I offer here, as Scalia does. You just dismiss it out of hand. I presented a case and gave you a link, and all you have to say is, in effect, "nuh uh!" Why would I present more, when you reject even this obvious case?
You're right that people reading this will decide, but it won't be very favorable for you if you can't come up with something better than that.
Oh no, you bring up the Iraq War and try to deflect the conversation. It's what you people always do. Can you answer the question honestly? I doubt it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 04:50 PM-
(trying to keep a straight face, I swear)
How much did this (non existent) law reduce the deficit by?
How much did the Earth's temperature go down since the (non existent) law was passed?
Posted by: Gary on August 7, 2009 04:50 PMAre you saying you have reformed? You've called people all kinds of names and used profanity on previous threads. Who are you trying to kid? Good grief!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 04:56 PMYes because of off-books accounting games.
You aren't saying that these programs are all running out of money? Surely, you can't be serious. You know that they are and you are just playing the stupid dishonest games leftists always play. Jerk.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 05:03 PMWell how about we start with one of the biggest polluters on the planet, Barack Obama. The guy flies to a different city nearly every single day. How much polluting fossil jet fuel does he use? He can't set an example by video conferencing? No he is a lying phony who wants to tell other people how to live. If you people were truly honest I wouldn't get so hacked off. But you are a bunch of lying creeps and you make me sick.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 05:18 PMby folks, by chance do you mean die bevoelkerung?
you've yet to respond to anyone that has answered your questions without changing the subject. are you 14?
Posted by: mike on August 7, 2009 05:37 PMMaybe you've hit senility, Bill? You see, in the real world, when I say someone had their rights taken away, and I present eight Supreme Court justices agreeing with me, that's not called "digging a hole," that's called "winning the argument."
But of course, you're not really here for an argument. If you were, you would actually provide an argument instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
You like to talk about your advanced age, but maybe you should actually act it.
Posted by: pudge on August 7, 2009 05:42 PM"You like to talk about your advanced age, but maybe you should actually act it."
Any further proof required that Pudge is not really a nice person?
Wow.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 05:51 PMI love these people. It is so fun to see them get what they deserve. All the years of shoving politcal correctness down our throats and oppressing free speech is "coming home to roost"
I love it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 06:06 PMI grew up with these intolerant lefties. I was one of them. I know how they play. They play dirty and are the most hateful, angry people in the country. Why do people become leftists? Because they are the kind of people who love pushing other people around. I think that explains Marxism and its attraction in a historical context. There sure is plenty of evidence, isn't there?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 06:28 PMAnd you are dodging the fact that you don't have an actual argument against what I said.
However, I do agree with you that it's interesting to see the left lose it here. They cannot STAND it that people actually disagree with them. It's so damned un-American ... trying to de-legitimize the concerns of other Americans by saying they are only puppets of special interests, calling them racists, and so on. And they are going regret it.
That doesn't even make sense. "Screaming at people and not letting them speak" is what leftists have done on college campuses for the last 40 years. It is what they do in public school as well. You know that Jensen but in your smirky little world that is just perfectly fine. You don't want any opposing views to be heard.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 06:42 PMI entirely agree on this with you Pudge. I think their house of cards is collapsing.
the adolescent antics of conservative blowhards sure looks like the last throes of a semblance of a legitimate party, however.
Posted by: mike on August 7, 2009 06:59 PMdon't you mean these are?
come on bill. you bore us.
Posted by: mike on August 7, 2009 07:11 PMbtw, nazi control freaks are on the right, herr crotchun
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/labor/seiu-gets-threatening-phone-call-youre-gonna-come-up-against-the-second-amendment/
http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5579_52.htm
These people just show what mean obscene people they are any time you might dare to oppose their point of view.
Again and again you can prove that the worst, nastiest people are on the left. Does the above comment not prove it?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 07:50 PMare you saying the u.s. didn't lose respect under the previous administration? why is reality so hard for you to comprehend?
Posted by: mike on August 7, 2009 07:55 PMAlso, in regards to the governments of other countries, no, we lost no significant respect in the world. Their leaders liked to say that, but that's just politics: when Iran has problems, Europe looks to us. When Syria has problems, the Middle East turns to us. When Norh Korea has problems, Asia turns to us. And so on.
As to what the PEOPLE of other countries think ... I couldn't care less. I don't even care what YOU think of me or this country!
Are you not aware of the killing fields that American cities are every weekend because of liberal welfare policies?
Do you care about all the unborn innocent babies you leftists kill? Of course you do not. That is the truth.
You are not compassionate. You are mean and uncaring.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 7, 2009 08:25 PMTalk about losing it... here is a TV report of a Dem congressman going off on a Dem doctor who asked a very simple, civil question.
http://www.11alive.com/video/?maven_playerId=immersiveplayer3&maven_referralObject=1208541313
-
mike, I ask again... why haven't you guys passed this thing yet? What's the problem?
and pudge, fascism is a 'right' thing:
fascists are for a single-party state (hey, remember karl rove? the permanent republican majority? i've done the math? thanks!)
fascism is opposed to liberalism (hmmm, i've heard this before...)
fascism is opposed to socialism (as is the right, except when driving, using public utilities, getting saved by police/fire, sucking up medicaid, etc)
fascism is opposed to rationalism (hello ralph and the rest of the anti-enlightement christian coalition)
fascists are nationalists (i want my america back, i'm not a racist, i swear!)
fascists are imperialists (iraq war/defeat of golom anyone?)
fascisim is pro-indoctrination and anti-intellectualism (um, o'reilly/faux noise/rush/hannity/malkin/etc etc etc)
fascism is anti women's reproductive rights (dr. tiller, anyone?)
fascism is chauvanistic & militaristic (hello, bush 'landing' on an aircraft carrier w/ his nads hanging out)
fascists make appeals to middle class & small business to protect them from 'communism' (hello modern, thankfully waning GOP)
fascists accept and manipulate religion for political gain (hello k street and the hypocritical right)
billybob,
what does 9/11 have to do with your whining? i don't get the connection.
our cities are killing fields because of liberal policies? like the right wing nut that went into a gym and just killed a bunch of women? yeah. liberal policies made him kill innocent victims. you mean like the wingnut that killed the democrat @ the arkansas hq? liberal policies definitely made him do it. i can go on and on, seriously.
the unborn babies that leftists kill? you do realize that lots of conservatives have abortions too, they just go out and protest afterwards. there are as many abortions post roe v. wade as there were before.
i'm a caring person, bill. i just don't particularly care about lying, uncaring, uneducated dittoheads on the right.
Posted by: mike on August 8, 2009 12:52 AMbig pharma/insurance own the repubes
False. And worse, this is a despicable and dishonest ad hominem fallacy: instead of engaging the arguments, you try to undermine them as dishonest/invalid by attacking relationships. This is a great example of the "fascist" anti-rationalism you speak of.
fascism is a 'right' thing
No, in fact, it is not. You're ignorant, mike. Most simply, fascism is statism through manipulation rather than force (not that force isn't used, it's just not the primary motivator). Fascists subvert individualism that conflicts with the state. Fascists make broad use of direct control of society and the economy, but try to allow people perceived freedom within that system, so they don't FEEL like they are controlled so much: a "managed" economy, as opposed to a capitalist or communist one.
What part of this does not fit the Democratic Party? What part of it DOES fit the Republican Party? (The answers are all, and none.)
fascists are for a single-party state
Republicans are not. "majority" is not the same "only one party." Emanuel wants permanent Democratic majority no less than Rove wanted a permanent Republican majority.
More importantly, though, fascists and Democrats want all power to the state. That was the point of the single-party system, that which Democrats and fascists have as their goal: statism.
Granted, most Democrats are not the complete statists that fascists are, but it's still about government control through subjugation of individual liberties.
fascism is opposed to liberalism
CLASSIC liberalism, yes, wherein people are free to direct their own lives. And Democrats are far more hostile to this than Republicans are. But modern liberalism? Nope. But fascism IS opposed, vehemently, to INDIVIDUALISM, which is -- as you should know -- what the right-wing in this country is absolutely devoted to.
fascism is opposed to socialism
Not really, no, it's not at all. It is opposed to COMMUNISM, but not SOCIALISM. Perhaps you forgot that the fascist Nazi regime was socialist, in its own way?
fascism is opposed to rationalism
So is most of the liberal agenda: that's why every time people get together in opposition to that agenda, people like you don't address them on the issues, but instead attack them through all manner of fallacy (usually through ad hominem and other forms of red herring).
fascists are nationalists
That is just one means to the end of statism, and, again, the Democrats are statists. There's nothing wrong with nationalism, it is in how nationalism is used, and to what end.
fascists are imperialists
And our first Democratic Socialist President, Woodrow Wilson, was, as was FDR, as was JFK, as was LBJ, as was Carter, as was Clinton (to a lesser degree). The 20th century has clearly shown a United States that is far more imperialistic under Democrats than Republicans. Even if you throw in Bush 43.
fascisim is pro-indoctrination and anti-intellectualism
So are most liberals. Public schools are indoctrination centers ... and didn't you hear? "The debate is over!" (One of the most anti-intellectual claims ever made, thanks Al Gore and Barack Obama.)
fascism is anti women's reproductive rights
No, fascism denies ALL rights. They saw a woman's pregnancy as serving the state (or not), just like everything else. Early fascism was all FOR abortion if it benefitted the state. It was not anti-abortion, it was simply anti-rights, of all kind, for the sake of all power going to the state. And the Democratic Party is far closer to that direction than the Republican Party, on a host of issues. Fascism, like the Democratic Party, embraced forced eugenics and forced population control (one of Obama's own appointees advocated forced population control!).
fascism is chauvanistic & militaristic
Again, only as a means to the end of statism, and the Democrats are statists.
fascists make appeals to middle class & small business to protect them from 'communism'
Again, only as a means to the end of statism: they made such appeals to get the people to run toward government control of the economy out of fear ... which pretty much fits the Democrats to a perfect T, as we've seen this year with health care and bailouts and stimulus and so on.
fascists accept and manipulate religion for political gain
Please. If you think the Democrats don't do try to do this as much as the Republicans, you are far more blind than I thought.
Or a group forming to prevent more thuggery from them at various events? Like most union thugs, they are cowards and prefer to gang up on folks (or assault the elderly), so are there any efforts to create a service group to halt these Obama-encouraged assaults?
They've gone to court. They've published hit piece after hit piece. And they've only begun. It's an all out attempt to destroy her because she is a conservative woman. The same tactics they used against Sarah Palin. It could not be more obvious.
It's who these horrid people are. I can say it until I am blue in the face. The evidence is there for everyone to see. No need to make it up or lie about it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 8, 2009 08:26 AMmike, who is in big pharma's pocket?
* Main Entry: fas-cism
* Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
* Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Answer those questions truthfully and you'll see the face of the Democrats - and you'll understand why I call them the Slavery Party.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 8, 2009 09:16 AMumberto eco would strongly disagree with you...
http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html
last throes! does this mean the end of christian dominionism? will the republican party splinter into 2 or 3 parties? will moderates finally stand up to the whackjobs in their party?
bill, nastier than
Posted by: mike on August 8, 2009 09:56 AMExactly what I'm referring to. And it's a huge Dem strategy to push Republicans to the left which is why they constantly use the word "moderate".
Hate to break it to you "mike" but people are finally on to you guys.
And isn't it a lovely vandetta you swell people are conducting against Susan Hutchison?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 8, 2009 10:10 AMand are you saying that there isn't a christian dominionist faction in the republican party? if the truth hurts, that's not 'mean', that's just you being thin-skinned.
no one is 'on' to us, the only people getting faux outraged are annoying old white farts that see their power structure, their america, changing from the glory days of it's racist past.
and what is this vandetta (vendetta?) i'm conducting against susan hutchison? i've done nothing. i think it's hilarious she refuses to identify her politics, but i also think it's hilarious that republicans actively promote electing vacuous shells as leaders.
Posted by: mike on August 8, 2009 10:22 AMGo on any leftist website and you see exactly the same thing.
Why do I always say these are unpleasant, nasty people? Because they are.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 8, 2009 10:45 AMAnd I don't know ANYONE who believes in Christian Domnionism. Weak straw man fallacy. Some people do believe in it, but no one here I've seen, and no one I know in the GOP. There's more actual Marxists in the Democratic ranks than Dominionists in the GOP ranks.
And yes, it is typical you call Hutchison a "vacuous shell." Can't address her on issues, so you throw out ad hominems, as usual.
hutchison is a vacuous shell.
vacuous: emptied of or lacking content or marked by lack of ideas or intelligence.
if the shoe fits, susan...
she has absolutely zero experience - chairing arts organizations is slightly different city exec.
a board member of the anti-science pro-nutjob discovery institute
claims to be non-partisan, which would be fine - except she isn't
she's a bit of a religious wacko
she refuses to do interviews w/ small papers, non-right leaning papers
she's skipped out on candidate forums
and we know where news-anchor-cum-politician gets us (hello, former governor palin)
Yup, right out of the leftist playbook.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 8, 2009 01:19 PMshe's delusional. she thinks we're in 'the age of the activist atheists' which is ironic considering she sat on the board of an organization hell bent on making american students less competitive in a global economy, and dumber than a box of rocks.
she's for transparency in government. not for transparency in her own campaign. the hypocrisy is righteously awesome.
Posted by: mike on August 8, 2009 01:43 PMIt appears Obama shut down his "rat on your neighbor if he doesn't like our healthcare plan" website. Brought to you by the same lovely people that screamed about "illegal wiretapping".
What people are starting to figure out is that the modern left does not remotely resemble JFK's Democrat Party.
These people all cut their teeth during the radical days of the late '60's and early '70's. They are obsessed with hatred for traditional values. They push abortion, single parenthood, and gay marriage because they want the fabric of civilized society to unravel. Most of them are old hippies who when it really got down to it are not for "peace and love" but for controlling how people live, and making darned sure they are the ones doing it. That is the real legacy of the "summer of love". National healthcare is central to their plans, the ultimate cudgel they can wield over citizens.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 8, 2009 02:09 PMwe don't want civilization to unravel. quite the opposite, we want it to flourish. conservatives, on the other hand - not so much.
there was illegal wiretapping, the bush administration even admitted this. but alas, bill. facts just don't matter, do they.
what people are realizing is the modern right is starting to resemble a movement Franco would be very proud of.
the only money i make is through my business, not politically affiliated.
who's 'pushing' abortion? no one i know. i know that it happens no matter if it's legal or not and conservatives are just as likely to have them. what's your point? i'd like to see the number of abortions come down, but to do that we need a comprehensive sex-ed policy: conservatives don't seem to get this, and they don't seem to get that abstinence doesn't work.
One of the most fascinating moments ever had to be when Sean Hannity asked former NOW president Patricia Ireland if she favored a reduction in the rate of abortions. Ireland smirked at him and dodged the question. A chilling and revealing moment.
You lefties have been fooling Americans for 40 years.
Obama with his constant in your face presence has woken people up. Where did the big environmentalist fly to today? He flies somewhere nearly every single day. How eco-friendly is that?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 8, 2009 02:53 PMAlso in the humor department, one of the funniest moments I've heard in a long time was Michael Medved slipping up while talking about the protests of Obama's healthcare. I wasn't listening closely so i didn't get the context exactly, but Medved said something about how the protests might diminish the ability of Obama to "extend his rod" over the American people. Medved immediately realized what he'd said and used another analogy...something about a wielding a scepter. Everytime I think about this I start laughing.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 8, 2009 03:14 PMThat is what "ban" means.
Shrug.
Bill Bill Bill.
Anyone reading this thread can tell that you've been FAR more of a jerk and a bully than I could ever hope to be.
she has absolutely zero experience
As a government employee or official, yes. But no person serious about democracy finds this to be relevant.
a board member of the anti-science pro-nutjob discovery institute
More ad hominem fallacy. (And, clearly false ... you obviously don't really know much about the DI if you think it is anti-science.)
claims to be non-partisan, which would be fine - except she isn't
In this race, yes, she is. It's a fact.
she's a bit of a religious wacko
False.
she throws around her beliefs as if they're relevant in political discourse. i don't, and neither do most sane, intelligent christians.
False. In fact, most Christians believe -- and they are right -- that their religious beliefs are highly relevant to significant portions of political discourse. The Declaration of Independence itself affirms this: "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal." This statement is a religious one. Most of our political views in this country -- on both sides of the aisle -- come from our collective Christian heritage.
she sat on the board of an organization hell bent on making american students less competitive in a global economy
Now you're just lying.
and dumber than a box of rocks
Well, she's smarter than you. Shrug.
she's ... not for transparency in her own campaign
False.
she refuses to do interviews w/ small papers, non-right leaning papers
False.
she's skipped out on candidate forums
False.
and we know where news-anchor-cum-politician gets us (hello, former governor palin)
More dishonest ad hominem fallacy.
we don't want civilization to unravel. quite the opposite, we want it to flourish. conservatives, on the other hand - not so much.
Please stop lying. Thanks.
but alas, bill. facts just don't matter, do they.
To YOU, mike, no, they don't. Almost everything you've said in these last few posts is a lie of some kind.
who's 'pushing' abortion?
Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, who advocated about forced abortions. Even if the DI *were* anti-science -- which it is not -- it's a hell of a lot better than anti-human, like Holdren is, isn't it? Holdren's an old-school fascist: even though today he denies he still backs forced abortions, he has never even hinted that he believes the government doesn't have the RIGHT to force abortions. That's statism. That's fascism. That's Obama's "science" advisor.
(And his claims that he never supported those things are lies. He wrote the book. His name is on it. If he finds those things to be repulsive, as most humans do, as he dishonestly claims today, then he should not have allowed his name to be on the book.)
i'd like to see the number of abortions come down, but to do that we need a comprehensive sex-ed policy
That's idiotic.
conservatives don't seem to get this
Yes, we don't "get" something that is obviously untrue.
and they don't seem to get that abstinence doesn't work.
Sure it does. It works every single time, except in cases of rape. Talk about being anti-science: you believe in widepsread immaculate conceptions!
she also wants to raise taxes!
and thanks for proving you're a hypocrite, once again.
Posted by: mike on August 10, 2009 09:00 AMI never said she didn't. I never replied to any such claim. What you said was that "she's skipped out on candidate forums." That is false. That she has missed them is true.
and thanks for proving you're a hypocrite, once again.
How do you figure that? Nothing I said or did is remotely hypocritical.
