August 12, 2009
Steve Pearlstein, Political Terrorist

Some of you may have read the other day Steve Pearlstein's idiotic assault on people who disagree with him as "terrorists."

He started off just fine, saying, in effect, it is wrong to lie and misrepresent the health care program. I can't disagree with that. Lies are bad. But then he insanely says, "... there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation."

Tell me, how is it a lie to call a "takeover" a system where the government would force all individual health insurance plans into an exchange that would dictate profits and prices and benefits and services and doctor networks and more?

Sounds like a takeover to me. You can disagree with the characterization, but calling it a "terrorist" "lie"? If he had focused on actual lies, that would be one thing, but this is mere political disagreement, by any logical standard. (I could pick apart much of the rest of his column, but he's not worth my time.)

This morning he was on Morning Joe and he said something even dumber, though. He said that what separates political discourse from political terrorism is that the former tries to improve a bill, while the latter tries to kill the bill.

So now we are "terrorists" if we think a bill is so terrible it should be killed, rather than improved.

Seriously? Yep, seriously.

Note for the record that all the tactics Pearlstein identified were used by patriotic writers like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine. I am sure this isn't the first time they were called terrorists (Franklin's son, also a journalist, was jailed -- and died there -- due to the enforcement of the Sedition Act), but I find the characterization more than a bit irrational.

I feel like Susan Powter here. How is it that Pearlstein is engaging in rhetoric that proponents of anti-sedition laws would be comfortable with? Granted, he is not endorsing laws to keep people quiet, but he is villifying them just as much.

Pearlstein said he is loathe to "question the motives of people with whom I don't agree," but that in this case he would do so. Allow me to return the favor: Pearlstein is so much in the tank for the Democrats and Obama that he will do and say anything to undermine the people who oppose the health care plan, in order to avoid having to respond to their actual arguments.

When the Democrats said years ago that dissent was patriotic, I agreed with them. I never once attacked anyone for dissenting. I disagreed with some of their dissent, I thought some of them were jerks, I argued with many of them. But I did not say or imply, "you should not dissent," "you should go along with the program," "it is wrong for you to try to kill bills you dislike," or anything else of the sort. On the contrary, I explicitly stated the opposite, and even criticized Republicans for saying they should keep quiet.

And how am I repaid for standing up for the Democrats' right to dissent? I am now called a terrorist for engaging in the same sort of dissent they engaged in under Bush.

That, friends, is true "political terrorism."

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at August 12, 2009 09:57 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Classic obfuscaton.

Make a claim that is so blantently falsifiable that your opponents become emeshed in the process of falsification.

Don't fall into the trap. It's obvious that either Mr. Pearlstein is illiterate or a liar. Let's choose illiterate.
.

Posted by: OregonGuy on August 12, 2009 10:50 AM
2. I'll just come right out and say it:

Pearlstein is a political terrorist.

Posted by: Crusader on August 12, 2009 11:32 AM
3. So Al-Queda aren't terrorists according to Obama, but opponents to his Socialist Health Care turd are terrorists.

Far Left Moonbat Logic at its worse ever.

Posted by: Dave on August 12, 2009 11:49 AM
4. Just goes to show that one shouldn't expect too much from the Democrat paper of record.

Posted by: Jack on August 12, 2009 12:22 PM
5. The democrats are really going off the deep end now. Instead of answering questions about things that people are pointing to in the bill, now they are simply grabbing worn-out pages from the democrat playbook and calling everyone who's against the House plan as "racist". Makes you wonder how these people ever got to where they are.

Hey democrat pols and their mouthpieces, how about reading your own bill and answering for the concerns people are having?

Posted by: Michele on August 12, 2009 12:23 PM
6. Pudge,

I'd comment on your piece, but I'm too busy signing up for one of those death panels and then I have to plan grandma's forced euthanasia.

Posted by: Robert on August 12, 2009 12:42 PM
7. Robert, while you're at it---don't forget to answer one of those craigslist ads for hired "participants" in the Obama health care re-make effort.

Posted by: Michele on August 12, 2009 01:05 PM
8. Robert, I think you mean you're busy beating up on straw men.

Posted by: pudge on August 12, 2009 02:34 PM
9. Here's some justice: Kenneth Gladney, the black conservative who was beaten, kicked and called racist names by democrats from Kathleen Sibelius' favorite group---SEIU--is filing hate crimes charges against the SEIU goons in Missouri who beat him up. You go, Mr. Gladney!

Posted by: Michele on August 12, 2009 02:56 PM
10. Obama has seen the movie 'Logan's Run' and will name those death panels: "Carousels"

Posted by: Maria on August 12, 2009 03:11 PM
11. Right Pudge. It's not like a ranking Republican Senator brought up "pull the plug on Grandma" canard at town hall meeting today or the former GOP Vice Presidential Candidate brought up "Death Panels" last Friday. Or that the prime time Fox News hosts use Nazi Analogies practically everyday. Booga booga be afraid!!! The hysteria being brought up by the right is loony. You lost last November, get over it.

Posted by: Robert on August 12, 2009 03:11 PM
12. No, Robert, it was the Teleprompter-in-Chief who brought it up first with his Red and Blue Pill retardation analogy last month.

Posted by: Mark on August 12, 2009 03:18 PM
13. Michele@9,

I hope Mr. Gladney cleans house on this, but since I believe the SEIU thugs were black if anyone would take the hate crime aspect seriously.

Posted by: Jack on August 12, 2009 03:18 PM
14. Michele @ #3: "Makes you wonder how these people ever got to where they are."

Voter fraud has made quite a few of them. Al Franken being that latest example. When you know right up front that the deck is stacked in your favor, caring is the last thing you engage in. All you need to do is get your lies reasonably straight (the State Media will take care of the details) and you are on your way.

As for Obama's cabinet, liberals always elevate their biggest boobs, crooks, liars and commies to the highest quarters. Once they get into the liberal system the sky is the limit. That's why McClellan jumped ship. Money. And Huffington, man she made a good career move. And look at Al Gore or better yet Van Jones. Not to forget Obama's tax evaders. But you're pretty crackerjack, you knew this already.

The conservative position on fixing health care has never been explained better than in the Wall Street Journal today. John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, outlines his already successful system here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html and you know what? It doesn't cost the taxpayer one stinking red cent let alone 1.4 trillion for ObamaCare (which we all know will be three times that).

Posted by: G Jiggy on August 12, 2009 03:28 PM
15. Robert: do you deny that government will be deciding which people should and shouldn't get treatment based on equations measuring the value of life? Because that's obviously true.

But no one HERE is talking about "death panels" or literally forced euthanasia.


The hysteria being brought up by the right is loony.

Sigh. What did I, or anyone, write in here that was loony? How was it wrong?


You lost last November, get over it.

Oops, now you show yourself to be the same kind of political terrorist that Pearlstein is! You see, someone who actually valued debate and discussion and democratic processes would never say that. But you did. That sucks for you.

Posted by: pudge on August 12, 2009 03:31 PM
16. If the Dems were not doing such a hack job at selling this to the masses then we wouldnt have confused people fearing a guberment takeover of their healthcare.

Hey DEMS: Tells us clearly what the benefits of this new system will be and why it will be worth the trillions of dollars you will spend!

Telling us "we won, you lost, get over it" just doesnt cut it.

Posted by: Dave O on August 12, 2009 03:33 PM
17. Robert, Barbara Wagner (Oregon) was diagnosed with cancer. She is elderly. Her doctor prescribed chemotherapy. The state refused, and has instead offered hospice, or assisted suicide.

What do you call that?

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on August 12, 2009 03:41 PM
18. Gary,
For every anecdote like yours I could come up with 10 more about Insurance companies. It's a snarky but We already have "death panels" - they are called insurance companies.

Where was all this vehemence when Bush pushed through Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit?


Posted by: Robert on August 12, 2009 03:53 PM
19. Robert, the federal government is not an insurance company. You used the word, "loony" to describe this, didn't you?

You don't remember the opposition to Bush's prescription drug program?

Nobody is making you do business with an insurance company, Robert.

Posted by: Gary on August 12, 2009 04:02 PM
20. BREAKING... Brian Baird has apologized for his "brown shirts" remarks. Must have gotten deluged, and has seen the most recent Gallop poll saying that Independents are on the side of the town hall protesters.

Posted by: Gary on August 12, 2009 04:09 PM
21. New Rasmussen Poll shows support for Obama's DeathCare and his Death Panels have fallen to an all-time low . . . just 42% support it, while 53% now oppose the plan.

www.rasmussenreports.com

Time to listen to the polls Fuhrer Obama.

Posted by: Karen on August 12, 2009 04:26 PM
22. Robert @ 18: My wife works in health care and I can tell you many of Canadian stories that she was personally involved in . . . not an anecdote but first person. Whole clinics have been set-up all along the border to deal with Candians fleeing bad care, gladly spending their own money to get treatment is a timely manner.

The dynamics of single payer are pretty well known. When the government tells you that you can't have a procedure, that's it. You will have nowhere else to go (Canadians come here and gladly spend their own money but we won't have that luxury). You CAN NOT go outside the system. If an insurance company denies a coverage you have options. Pay for it yourself, sue, go elsewhere, contact the state insurance commissioner, lobby the insurance company for compromise. With the state you get what they give you. End of story. In fact they have huge departments set up specifically to deny care (in the UK it is N.I.C.E.) and to whom. Same in Canada. IT IS HOW THEY CONTROL COST, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

The one thing that I don't understand is that all of the single payer systems around the world do not work. All are under stress and most are talking about a "private option" or, like in the case of Canada, bringing in free market reforms. But liberals everywhere think that single payer is the solution here. Our government can't run ANYTHING, what makes anybody delusional enough to think that they could run national health care? Canada's population is the same as California's and they can't do it. The Hawaii system is near to folding if it hasn't already. RomneyCare is broke and getting worse. How in the hell are the Feds going to administer health anything for three hundred million people(+)?

Posted by: G Jiggy on August 12, 2009 04:29 PM
23. G Jiggy, the Senate cold not run its own cafeteria.

Remember that?

Posted by: Gary on August 12, 2009 04:38 PM
24. John, you're against H.R. 3200 anyway, so we're on the same team.

Posted by: Gary on August 12, 2009 05:12 PM
25. #25 "What does that have to do with health care?"

I'm sorry, you're right. Running the nation's health care is far easier than running the Senate cafeteria. After all, can you imagine having to plan meals and costs for 100 blowhards?

Posted by: Gary on August 12, 2009 05:39 PM
26. Ha! The White House can't even manage to send constituents to Senator's offices without informing the Senators that it's about to happen:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/dianne-feinsteins-office-gripes-to-white-house-about-ofa-inspired-constituent-visits/

But that's okay, they can make our medical decisions for us.

Posted by: Gary on August 12, 2009 05:42 PM
27. John, again, we're arguing H.R. 3200. We both are against it. As for private insurance costs... those issues, and prices should be left to the people to figure out in the market, not the federal government. And doesn't private insurance have to make up for a lot of what Medicare stiffs doctors and hospitals for?

Yes, let's talk about the cafeteria, or the border for that matter. Why could not Congress run the cafeteria without losing money? Why cannot Congress secure the borders? That is already a job we have entrusted them with, right?

Hey, John... how about reforming the legal industry? Why just the health care industry? If people are concerned about costs, why are not our leaders reforming lawyers?

Another question, do you agree with the President's top health care adviser about allocating scarce resources to people based on his view of their value to society... with the elderly, the disabled, and the very young, at the bottom the rung?

I do not.

Posted by: Gary on August 12, 2009 06:10 PM
28. John - The biggest reason that the Medicare/Medicaid cost increases are of a lesser percentage than private insurance is the Federal State Governments have significantly reduced what they are paying Doctors and other entities.

Posted by: Tim on August 12, 2009 06:18 PM
29. Oh dear...

A newspaper columnist has used intemperate language to characterize his political opponents' use of intemperate language. And he has personally stabbed pudge in the back -- bitter repayment for pudge's staunch defense of the right to dissent!

I feel faint -- where are my smelling salts?!

pudge, I don't know if it'll make you feel any better, but I don't think you're a terrorist. A misguided polemicist, maybe -- but not a terrorist.

I hope you somehow find the strength to carry on.

Posted by: scottd on August 12, 2009 07:46 PM
30. The stimulus bill that was passed back in February with no one in Congress actually reading it end-to-end has an interesting section:

"One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis." According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners." "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Very few members of Congress realized that that was there because almost no one read the bill before it passed. Obama and Congress forced that bill though and then tried to the same with Obama's health care bill before the August recess.

That history reveals exactly what Obama has been trying to do even though 46% of the our voting population did not vote for him. All bills passed by Congress under Obama must be fully understood before they are voted on!!!! Obama's action are proving in his case the our Republic government is not working!!

Posted by: Tim on August 12, 2009 08:17 PM
31. they can call me whatever they want....I work and pay taxes, volunteer, obey the laws.....this is my country too.....I just want one of these dummies to stand up and say that all of congress will have the same health care that they are forcing on us....

just want them to promise that....

Posted by: lee on August 12, 2009 09:14 PM
32. scottd, I am now going to respond to every one of your points.

Posted by: pudge on August 12, 2009 09:18 PM
33. @30

President Bush created the position of National Coordinator of Health Information Technology back in 2004.

http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=1200&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=4&mode=2&in_hi_userid=10741&cached=true

Posted by: Joe Wisconsin on August 12, 2009 09:23 PM
34. Joe, yes, but Bush didn't envision for the position what Daschle did.

Posted by: pudge on August 12, 2009 09:53 PM
35. What did Bush envision for the position?

Posted by: Joe Wisconsin on August 12, 2009 10:25 PM
36. pudge: I didn't know we were supposed to be making points on this thread!

Thanks for the tip ...

Posted by: scottd on August 12, 2009 10:35 PM
37. Tim @ 28 posted:

The biggest reason that the Medicare/Medicaid cost increases are of a lesser percentage than private insurance is the Federal State Governments have significantly reduced what they are paying Doctors and other entities.

Note that the liberals are LYING about the lower increases if Medicare/Medicaid. In fact, Medicaid spending is up 25%, and Medicare is up 11% over the last year. Individual private insurance is increasing about 6% a year, about half that of Medicare, and a quarter that of Medicaid!

It's a leftist lie that Medicare and Medicaid costs are growing slower...

HR 3200 is a recipe to bankrupt the nation in 15 years. Not only will it increase the number of people drawing from the Federal purse, but millions more will be drawing at this much faster growing rate of Medicaid and Medicare.

And remember, the $1+ trillion cost is 90% born over the last 5 years of the plan This is a $200 BILLION a year increase in spending (the first 5 years are nothing). And the CBO deficit of $240 billion is predominantly a result of those last 5 years. This plan will add at least $50 billion a year in deficit spending, and based upon the much higher rate of growth in Medicaid/Medicare spending, it will most certainly be a lot more than $50 billion a year.

Remember when the Slavery Party condemned the GOP and Bush for the FY2007 budget deficit of $162 billion? We just had a $181 billion dollar deficit for the month of July! One month more than 10 times an entire year. Anything said about this? Anything brought up in the media? Of course not - deficits are irrelevant when it's a Slavery Idiot doling out the slop...

This group of thieves and liars on Capitol Hill - led by the Pelosi/Obama/Reid (POR) Triumvirate - are scum and villains and bankrupting this nation with glee! HR3200 is just another nail in the coffin they're fitting Uncle Sam to be laid to rest within.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 12, 2009 10:46 PM
38. gary:

The state refused, and has instead offered hospice, or assisted suicide.

had. and it was an error. the best you & drudge can do is recycle stories from over a year ago?

she ended up getting her medication.

a friend's neice was born 24 weeks premature on the same program as ms. wagner. oregon didn't 'off' her, even though her care was in the high hundreds of thousands.

dan,

medicare spending increased @ 3% per year from '92-'06, dan. what's yer point? for 14 years, private insurance doubled spending increasing of medicare?

which is pretty impressive if you think about the clientele of medicare v. cherry picked private insurance.

health care reform won't bankrupt the nation.

though you clowns on the right seem to be hell bent on destroying it unless you get your way. i forget, when do the losers write policy?

michele, you forgot your obligatory 'seig heil' and 'ich hasse juden'

any comparison of obama to hitler is disgusting and offensive. but i'd expect nothing less from you.

Posted by: mike on August 13, 2009 12:24 AM
39. mike: any comparison of obama to hitler is disgusting and offensive. but i'd expect nothing less from you.

Could you show me where you ever criticized someone on the left for comparing Bush to Hitler?

Posted by: pudge on August 13, 2009 12:33 AM
40. Is your dog this smart?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XivhwO_zWWg

Posted by: Michele on August 13, 2009 01:05 AM
41. I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about, if you think about it, um, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. Right? The, uh, no they are. I mean, it's the [government option] post office that's always having problems.~ Barack Obama

Cost of a postage stamp- .44 cents
Cost of replacing a lost USPS sent pkg- $64 dollars
Cost of the President making it painfully obvious to most Americans that the government shouldn't have a role in our healhcare - Priceless

The Heritage Foundation aks a few questions with regard to Obama's comment. Perhaps our pro "public option" friends can answer them honestly.

Posted by: Rick D. on August 13, 2009 05:38 AM
42. #38 "The state refused, and has instead offered hospice, or assisted suicide.

had. and it was an error."

-

Oh, well then I'll be quite happy to let the government make these errors on my behalf. How can something like that be an error anyway? By the way, do you agre with Dr. Emmanual about the various worth to society of people based on their age?

"any comparison of obama to hitler is disgusting and offensive"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're killing me! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

(gosh, I'm sure glad the Left never did that every day for for eight years)

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 07:20 AM
43. When the President said this in April, when talking about end-of-life issues, costs, etc:

"Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."

-

His "some independent group that can give you guidance." could be considered a "Death Panel" could it not?

And, why does "there have to a conversation" about what kinds of medical care to give old people? Until they're dead, you give them same treatment I would expect for yourself.

Right?

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 07:38 AM
44. Mike @ 38:

Hmmm, 3%? Citation please. And was Medicaid (not Medicare, Medicaid) "liquid" during that time? It's bleeding right now, living on reserves - spending more than comes in.

So tell me, how do you reduce actual expenditures overall (not just per person - per person AND in total) when you have a rapidly growing expense both in price (annual increase) and users (the tens of millions of new Medicaid recipients)?

Double the number of users of Medicaid, and you double the cost. This is a NEW COST born by the Federal Government that was not before. Meaning it's new expenses without new revenue.

So is it your contention that Medicaid will cut its costs per patient in half, to remain revenue neutral?

The numbers simply don't add up; even the CBO states as much and has consistently said so. I know the Obamassiah says otherwise; I guess he has magic fairy dust that will make things go his way, but there is no credible source saying this bill will be anywhere near revenue neutral. It's a bankrupting deal.

Come on, you must have some plan or data somewhere that shows how the costs will not just be contained, but reduced. Right now, it's spending more than coming in, and that rate of deficit spending is accelerating (like our general Federal budget). Adding tens of millions more consumers to it - people who do NOT draw on that system now - will massively increase expenses.

How do you pay for it?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 13, 2009 07:46 AM
45. Dan, I think they're gonna pay for it with what the President said in #43. Just eliminate the old patients.

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 07:50 AM
46. Gary @43: The "independent group" of which the O speaks is called CERT. They will provide the guidance - in other words, they will be the "panel". They received $1.1B in the stimulus package. Gingrich throws some light on this in his article posted yesterday by humanevents.com.

Posted by: katomar on August 13, 2009 07:52 AM
47. Thanks, katomar. So, liberals... why must we have "a conversation" including ethicists (Dr. Emmanuel) about what kind of medical care we offer the very old? What shall we talk about? Hey, I know... how about we offer them medical care that keeps them alive and as healthy as possible, just like anybody else? How 'bout that?

Or, should we just give 'em painkillers when what they need is a pacemaker?

Posted by: G on August 13, 2009 07:58 AM
48. The President said this week that surgeons get paid $50,000 for a leg amputation.

Actually, they get paid between $740 and $1,140.

Why do you liberals suppose that he does this? Does he think people won't check this stuff?

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 08:35 AM
49. #38 "she ended up getting her medication. "

Can you link me to the article that says the state made a mistake? Also, didn't she get her medication free from the drug company (Big Pharma!) after they heard of her plight, and not from the state?


Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 08:50 AM
50. Obama Town Hall tomorrow in Bozeman........
1) Tickets were supposed to be available today at Belgrade & Bozeman City Hall at 9:00AM. In Belegrade, they were all gone around 8:00. Not sure about Bozeman.
2) Also huge questions about whether or not ALL the tickets were distributed this way. Not sure any way of knowing unless someone was counting at each City Hall (don't take their word for it) and compare those handout #'s with the actual count of numbers in the audience.

This reminds me of Stefan's work comparing ballots with those given credit for voting.
UNDOUBTEDLY, tickets were skimmed by Democrats...just like Obama's last Town Hall.

I'm still hoping to find a way to go to the Town Hall...but unlikely. If I can't get in, guess I'll stand with the Protestors.

Not sure what to expect.
Democrats challenged the R's to sign a "civility contract". R's said NO.
Hopefully the R's will challenge the D's to something...like a Contract with America where the Dem's financially guarantee to cover any negative budget or quality of service impacts.
Seems like the Financial & Service implications are a bit more important than sitting on one's hands at a Town Hall.

Also, Obama has been "misspeaking" alot lately.
No one here in Montana I know, knows what "misspeak" means.
We call it "BULLSHITTIN'!!
And when you do it repeatedly, we call you a LIAR Mr. President!!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 13, 2009 09:15 AM
51. After all the talk of astroturf versus grassroots, I decided to post the craigslist add link that supporters of obamacare are running. $500.00 a week to go support obamacare? Really? Is this the sort of green jobs explosion we are waiting for? Is this the sort of open dialog I am supposed to expect. Hiring protesters to push an agenda is now what we call grassroots? But people against obamacare are all "hired nazi brownshirts".
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/npo/1299047025.html

Posted by: lurkertroll on August 13, 2009 09:17 AM
52. Lurkertroll - What is the source of the money paying that $500?

Posted by: Tim on August 13, 2009 09:19 AM
53. Did you all see the fake pediatrician at Sheila Jackson-Lee's townhall? Not only is she *not* a doctor, but she's an Obama delegate, and a member of OFA.

Of course, it required bloggers to expose this as the Houston Chronicle did not.

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 09:24 AM
54. I always hear the democrat politicians saying "nobody's talking about a government take-over of health care". Parse their words. "Nobody's talking about it". Yep. They don't want to tell you the truth about the "real" Plan. The plan is to incrementally implement socialized health care. They know good and damn well they can't pull this off all at once. They know, however, that if they can get it started, and add people to the plan over time, that eventually it will turn into a single payer government controlled program, just like Obama and Frank and Pelosi and Kennedy have ALWAYS favored! Sure, they aren't "talking about" a single payer system. They don't want you to think that's what the goal is, even though it IS THE END GAME!

Posted by: scott on August 13, 2009 09:59 AM
55. If you follow the link provided @51 it will take you to the http://www.fundforthepublicinterest.org/
whose stated purpose is as follows.
"Fund For The Public Interest
Fund For The Public Interest is a national nonprofit organization working to increase the visibility, membership and political power of the nation's leading environmental and progressive groups."

Which as far as I can tell is a Community organizer group. Which is hiring people to support the obamacare plan. This is exactly what the protesters have been accused of. So when one side does it is is nazi brownshirt hatemongers, but when the other side does it its, grassroot community organizing. I see.

Problem is I haven't seen anyone hiring people to Protest Obamacare, only places like this hiring to support it.

Posted by: lurkertroll on August 13, 2009 10:06 AM
56. Chain letters form the White House????

WOW Obama, things going South are they.
***************************************

The White House is now hoping that a viral chain letter will help revive prospects for a health care overhaul.

Officials are forwarding an e-mail authored by top Obama adviser David Axelrod and urging recipients to pass it along. The missive includes a handy list of "8 ways (health care) reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now."

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 13, 2009 10:07 AM
57. Today. end-of-life provisions removed from Senate version of the bill. The entire bill needs to be moved from itself, but at least that part is gone, after all of the outrage over it.

Thank you, Governor Palin.

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 11:09 AM
58. For those "death panel" adherents:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1915835,00.html

Posted by: tc on August 13, 2009 12:07 PM
59. gary, flailin palin (who's poll numbers have tanked worse than obama or pelosi) hasn't been a governor for a few weeks now. she's out community destroying, er I mean organizing..

[i]Could you show me where you ever criticized someone on the left for comparing Bush to Hitler?[/i]

pudge, coming from you, that's rich. it is really disgusting, and whether dems did it or not, for the party of 'values and morals, etc' to think it's ok now is pretty effing pathetic, but like i said, no surprise.

fwiw, i have an unpublished LTE regarding this, and a few emails i shot out to friends that passed along hitler/bush emails. my mom worked at the holocaust museum for several years, i volunteered there during high school. I didn't stand for it then and i won't stand by it now. You should really curb that, unless you think denigrating holocaust victims, those repressed by Nazis, and the soldiers that freed them is somehow o.k.

but then again, I wouldn't be surprised.

Posted by: mike on August 13, 2009 12:16 PM
60. oppressed

Posted by: mike on August 13, 2009 12:19 PM
61. mike, it's common to call someone 'governor' even after they leave office.

Where did you get the story about Oregon making a mistake with regards to Mrs. Wagner?

And what does the President mean by "And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance."?

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 12:23 PM
62. mike, do you know how HR 3200 deals with people who are in the country illegally? If I understand correctly, Americans will be charged for health insurance whether they want it or not, right?
So, how does this work for people who are not here legally?

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 12:40 PM
63. #53: Ha, and that 13-yr-old girl who asked the question at Obama's Town Hall the other day---her mom gave over $2,000 to Obama's campaign and showed a photo of herself with Obama on her Facebook page. Her law firm also gave thousands to Obama. But hey, as Obama told us "I don't want people saying I just have a bunch of plants in here."

Oh no, Mr. President. Certainly not....

ps--when I heard that girl ask Obama about "mean signs", I thought "you mean people have showed her all the "Bushishitler" and "kill Bush" signs from the last 8 straight years??

Posted by: Michele on August 13, 2009 12:42 PM
64. mike;

Calling Obama a nazi does NOT denigrate holocaust victims. Not all comparisons to Adolph Hitler are concerning the holocaust. I haven't heard anyone saying Obama is a mass murderer so that means he is Hitler. There are other comparisons to naziism that are relevent to Obama. Power grabbing by the government being one of them. Tell us; Why is the government being in control of so much that affects so many people such a good thing? BTW this question goes beyond health care. I can agree with people who compare Bush to Hitler in so much that every government growth measure he took gave more power over the people resulting in less freedom. Yes, Bush was a nazi too. Go ahead and call him Hitler if you like. Just use it in the correct context.

Posted by: REBEL on August 13, 2009 12:45 PM
65. Godwin's law @ #38.

Apparently there's a corollary to Godwin's law regarding TERRORIST.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 13, 2009 01:13 PM
66. The point of the Woman denied coverage in the Oregon story is the Government has told someone to die rather than care for her. Forget the age of the story it has happened under a government run health plan, That is why it is NEVER going to happen here.
The point of all the questions that go unanswered at all the townhalls is that we know the plan is not what You sell it to be BHO. If you could just answer with chapter and verse from your bill we'd go away. Ya Can't so we won't.
The point is Never in the History of the Universe has a government run health care lead to a better country. Starting with Germany in the 1880's through to today it has never been successful.
BUT....
I will offer a solution...free government airfare and hotel to all Americans that don't have health care to get treatment in Canada (or just mileage), Cuba, England, Germany and all the other health care utopias. They get cash you get care!
All BHO Deathcare supporters like mike I'd support your right to go there and get the excellent care you proffer, get going. Free vacation too. Seriously that would not cost $1.5 Trillion a year!

Then we'll be done with this and you can put all the fake signs in the recycle bin.

Because after all this is another attempt to extinguish the light of freedom. Frankly the disgusting ungratefulness to your fellow man for what he has worked for that you claim as a birthright and the threat to him and his family's very CHOICE of life is Criminal!
Answer for what you are demanding mike, Demokid and TC et.al.! Answer!

What about CHOICE!!???? What about my Choice of Doctor??????!!!!!!!!
What about My Choice of Care!!!!!!!!????
Or does Choice ONLY apply to tearing apart a 2 pound 18" long baby?

No Little Cowards don't tell me the Marketing poison hiding the facts.
For if I could keep my current health insurance then none of this bill would be proposed.

Posted by: Col. Hogan on August 13, 2009 01:24 PM
67. MBS @65
Thanks! I learned two new terms today.

Posted by: tc on August 13, 2009 02:05 PM
68. tc, glad you're here. Do you know where the President got his figure of $50k for a leg amputation?

Do you know what he means when he says "And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance." with regards to end-of-life discussions? What independent group?

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 02:29 PM
69. Below is another link for the "death panel" adherents:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/zeke-emanuel-on-sarah-palins-accusation-of-death-panels-its-an-absolute-outrage.html

Gary,
I am not going to bother to respond to your posts. We have been through the arguments Ad nauseam. I have given up trying to reason and discuss with you. Good luck with other suckers.

Posted by: tc on August 13, 2009 02:35 PM
70. tc, okay. Nice talking to you.

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 02:41 PM
71. TC - As I have written in this blog before - the death panel discussion is a surrogate for government health care being part of Obama's plans! His plans, if passed will cause rationing to the extreme. That rationing - putting folks on waiting lists until they no longer can effectively utilize that medical care is the problem. Those waiting lists are generated by the government. Those government entities that make all the determinations of budget and limits are the 'death panels' even though they would deny it.

Just take a look at the Canadian and British government managed health care for evidence of the 'death panel' problem.

We do not need that here in the United States!

Posted by: Tim on August 13, 2009 02:54 PM
72. Tim, the very idea of the end-of-life discussions is to find ways to reduce costs. To talk grandma into going away and not being a burden.

And Governor Palin's remarks have led directly to the Senate pulling that from their version of the bill, because people can see this for what it is. It's only common sense the the government is aiming to reduce health care costs by cutting Medicare, and coaxing doctors and patients to accept painkillers instead of pacemakers.

The Man said so himself. He has been advised this way.

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 03:00 PM
73. Gary: I will answer because TC is a coward. In reading background on all of this, including Ezekiel Emmanuel's writings and mostly likely advice to the White House, as he is Rahm's brother, the independent group they are speaking of is most likely envisioned to be a combination of CER (sorry, I earlier misnamed is as CERT, which was in error) which stands for Comparative Effectiveness Research, and a MedPac Advisory Board. The MedPac Advisory board would follow the guidelines of CER which is not a single entity, but, I think, a body of research data showing which treatments are most desired. Our last stimulus bill included $1.1 B for CER. MedPac would instruct doctors on what treatments to use based on this information. Bottom line, the treatments to be selected, as is evidenced in the acronym CER, would be the cheapest ones. Very comparable to the ultimate effects now being implemented by Britain's system, called NICE (what a laugh). As an aside, since I mentioned Britain, I have a lifelong friend who is a nurse in Britain, and she has switched from hospital work to in-home pediatric hospice care because she says it is "less depressing". That's how bad their system has become. I fear that is what is in store for us if we go down this road.

Posted by: katomar on August 13, 2009 03:05 PM
74. Katomar,
You state that you read Emmanuel's writings. Did you read the two links I posted here today? If so, you will see you are not interpreting the writings correctly. You are attempting to spread fear.

As far as responding to Gary, I have discussed the issue with him ad nauseum. There is not sense discussing with him any more.

Posted by: tc on August 13, 2009 03:15 PM
75. Tim,
You are not correct. You are equating HR 3200 with Obama's plan. Obama did not write HR3200. Obama put out overarching goals in February, but did not submit actual legislation. I posted a few days ago a link to the Kaiser Family Foundation that compares Obama's goals/vision with the actual legislation being determined. You can go there to see the comparisons. There is no sense discussing until you get the facts.

Posted by: tc on August 13, 2009 03:18 PM
76. HA! Sheila Jackson-Lee was on CNN, and she was asked about her taking a cell phone call while at a town hall, and she suggested that maybe the video was doctored!

Man! These people... this Congress is a disgrace.

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 03:19 PM
77. Let's enact Obama's heath care proposal. If we don't like it, we get rid of it. Fair enough?

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on August 13, 2009 03:52 PM
78. #77 No.

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 04:03 PM
79. PI,

How about a trial run? Start with the Congress, the Administration, and the immediate staffs thereof. Let them do a trial 3 year run first, and then report back to us how it worked.

Sound fair?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 13, 2009 04:11 PM
80. @77 - Your comment is funny!

Posted by: Tim on August 13, 2009 04:17 PM
81. Rep. Norm Dicks refuses to talk to the voters of his community. He'll do Rotary Club meetings and the Chamber of Commerce meetings, but that's it. On Monday at the Rotary Club of Bremerton, Rep. Dicks spoke about healthcare for all of 16 minutes! He has been representing the 6th since 1976, I think you'll be safe Norm! Talk to us!
Rep. Dicks offices
202.225.5916
253.593.6536
360.479.4011
360.452.3370

Posted by: 6th on August 13, 2009 04:28 PM
82. TC @ 75

Yes I am correct!!

Duh! Obama did not write HR3200 but fully supports its it and also what ever the Senate finally approves!! (with total disregard to what the majority of people will support)

So when Obama and his 'government' finally come up with their 'laws' they need to provide the populace of the United States with a 'technical Executive Presentation', i.e. an extended PowerPoint presentation, showing exactly what is included in the proposed law before it is passed!!!

And then Obama needs to present that final presentation in detail to us in an extended 'National Town Hall' meeting before he signs it!!

And yes - we have all the facts and apparently you do not!!



Posted by: Tim on August 13, 2009 04:40 PM
83. Check this out. You can go a government website (paid for by taxpayers of course) and register your support for the President and his (his?) health care plan here:

http://www.healthreform.gov/support.html

I cannot imagine this is even legal.

I wonder why they need to do this when everyone wants this health care reform? Gee, maybe everyone doesn't.

Posted by: Gary on August 13, 2009 04:48 PM
84. @79 - That's the best idea I've heard yet. A beta test with America's "best and brightest" as the lab rats.

But seriously, let's face it - one party government equals tyranny. Even if you voted for the POS's, given that much unbridled power eventually your ox will be gored too.

Thank you Lord, people are finally waking up.

Posted by: threeoddnumbers on August 13, 2009 04:50 PM
85. Ah!!! The transparency in our Federal Government is very transpiring!!!

Posted by: Tim on August 13, 2009 04:53 PM
86. TC: No, I am not attempting to spread fear. I am connecting the dots. There are a few more dots that need to be connected for those who doubt whether private insurance will be wiped out. For this public option to pay, it is necessary for the private insurance industry to be absorbed/eliminated. With the greatly increased federal expenditures, where will they get the money? They will need a huge influx of young, healthy bodies who do not require much in the way of medical services for many years. Thus, the incentives for businesses to stop providing employment based health insurance. Businesses can save hundreds of thousands of dollars by dropping their coverage and encouraging their employees to take advantage of the public option. Voila, an infusion of young, healthy, paying, public option enrolees with not much need for services. Such a deal! Those are the segment of our society that Ezekiel Emmanuel considers most productive and the best investment for medical services, 20 to 40, but who need it the least. Then, when they are older and need services, unfortunately the CER and MedPac will be able to say they are no longer viable under the Comparative Effectiveness Research data. By then, a new batch of young, healthy folks will have enrolled to keep the whole thing going. Greatest Catch 22 Ponzi scheme ever hatched, and they get to control it all to boot.

Posted by: katomar on August 13, 2009 05:55 PM
87. Speaking of political terrorism, the always dunderheaded Joel Connelly had the following gem in his column wednesday.
"They're not taking any prisoners," McDermott said of health care opponents. "We know the opposition is not playing with anything approaching fairness or civility."

Wow. So now, according to Joel Connelly, if you're opposed to a failure of a bill being written and supported by failed politicians, you're opposed to health care in general.

What an ignoramus.


Posted by: Rick D. on August 13, 2009 07:00 PM
88. tc: odd that the Time article didn't actually provide Zeke's quotes or try to explain them. Thankfully, the Tapper piece did. Tapper is smart enough to know we can't just take Zeke at his word when he says he was taken out of context; unsurprisingly, Time thinks we should, and will.


mike: pudge, coming from you, that's rich.

What's "rich" about it, coming from me?


it is really disgusting

Yes, it is. And not because a comparison here or there cannot be justified, but because the ONLY reason to single out Hitler or the Nazis for comparison in our society today is to do so in order to link those actions or beliefs to oppression and genocide. You could compare Obama's views to, say, the Amish. Or the Swiss. So why single out Hitler and the Nazis? To imply all the other bad stuff.

So yes, it is disgusting, and it is dishonest.


I didn't stand for it then and i won't stand by it now. You should really curb that ...

Curb WHAT? What are you blabbering about? You seem to be under the misapprehension that I compared Obama, or anyone else, to Hitler. Or that I endorsed or condoned such behavior. Where did you come up with such an obvious lie?


MikeBS: Apparently there's a corollary to Godwin's law regarding TERRORIST.

Good! Let Pearlstein know, wouldya?

Posted by: pudge on August 13, 2009 09:29 PM
89. pudge,

by not condemning it and allowing it to sit on your posting, you are effectively condoning it.

rick d,
what makes them failed politicians, exactly?

if you recall, most of them cleaned the clocks of right wing lunatics last election. that would make them (gasp!) winners. your logic is as f*cked as a glenn beck/michelle bachmann lovechild. yech.

threeoddnumbers,

But seriously, let's face it - one party government equals tyranny

you are right, that what liberals were saying from 2001-2006. ironic, the shoe being on the other foot now. though 'the people' aren't waking up, just the racist morons hoping to drown out public debate and civility.

Posted by: mike on August 13, 2009 10:49 PM
90. mike: by not condemning it and allowing it to sit on your posting, you are effectively condoning it.

First, no one compared Obama to Hitler here. You accused Michele of that, but I have no idea what you think you read; she made three comments before you did, and I don't see it anywhere in them.

Second, I do condemn it, often.

Third, allowing it to remain is not condoning it. You've said a lot of stupid things, and that's right up there at the top. Allowing people to comment freely is, in no sensible way, condoning what is written.

If that were true, wouldn't it be true that I am also condoning what YOU write? If I were going to remove every offensive and stupid comment, mike, you'd have very few left on my posts.

I think even your fellow liberals would say it's stupid for you to imply I condone anything just because I don't remove it.

(And while I am at it, once again, I am going to warn you about your language. Putting an asterisk in the word doesn't change the word, and it is vulgar. Keep it clean.) (And yes, I've used that word on this site too. Sue me.)

As I've often noted: I only remove comments that are vulgar, or when they belong to a poster who has been banned for being abusive. That's it, period. And I do not even remove any comments for being abusive: I let them stand, and then remove all further comments from that person, because I am not going to censor *content*, though I will ban individuals.


As to "racist morons," the only racially motivated attack we've seen was against a black conservative, by a union thug trying to drown out public debate and civility.

And of course, Pearlstein is trying to squelch public debate by deciding the terms of that debate for us, calling a reasonable point (government takeover) a "lie." And many other Democratic politicians and pundits are doing the same thing, characterizing reasonable dissent as "brownshirt" tactics (hello, Rep. Baird) in order to shut people up.

And then there's the Democrat who lied and said she was a doctor, hoping that her faked credentials would give her opinions more weight, drowning out the views of others.

Don't tell us about drowning out public debate. We see it from your side all the time. That is what I clearly demonstrated in this post: how Pearlstein and many others on the left are using all form of logical fallacy to dishonestly and undemocratically reject the arguments in opposition.

Posted by: pudge on August 13, 2009 11:09 PM
91. what makes them failed politicians, exactly?

When you have a pause in your long day regurgitating white house talking points, you may want to look up the approval rating for Congress, mike. I think the answer is self evident. With imbeciles like Sheila Jackson Lee and John Conyer's only reinforcing that low opinion through their actions of late.

Posted by: Rick D. on August 14, 2009 06:07 AM
92. Pudge @90
If you mean "here" is this post, then fine, but you should state "this post" (or whatever you want to call this specific article of yours). I (and I am sure others of use who are called brownshirts and Nazi's by Micelle and others) would equate "here" as meaining on Sound Politics. I don't bother to respond to Michelle, since nothing she states seems to address the discussion at hand, but instead is only meant to spread fear and falsehoods.

Regarding the Time article, I guess I didn't notice that it didn't have the quotes. They could have at least "linked" to the quotes. This is the web.

Posted by: tc on August 14, 2009 07:17 AM
93. tc: If you mean "here" is this post, then fine, but you should state "this post"

No, I SHOULD not, because that is obvious, because that is what mike was responding on: this post.


I (and I am sure others of use who are called brownshirts and Nazi's by Micelle (sic) and others)

... would have a record of complaining about the left using those terms against the right. So, where are YOUR complaints of the left using those terms?


I don't bother to respond to Michelle (sic), since nothing she states seems to address the discussion at hand, but instead is only meant to spread fear and falsehoods.

Right, since YOU decide something is a falsehood, it therefore is. Isn't that what NAZIS do? (Just kidding, couldn't resist.) But I must point out the fact that much of what you think is a falsehood is in fact true, and even more importantly, there is not a damned thing wrong with spreading fear, is the fear is based on truth. And there is good reason to be fearful of HR3200, and I will spread as much fear about it as I can, based on the scary facts.

Posted by: pudge on August 14, 2009 07:29 AM
94. Er, "if" the fear is based on truth, rather.

Posted by: pudge on August 14, 2009 07:34 AM
95. I (and I am sure others of use who are called brownshirts and Nazi's by Micelle and others)...

I'm sure you'd be even more offended if it came from the mouth of an elected politician that is supposed to represent you in your district too, right tc?

Posted by: Rick D. on August 14, 2009 07:35 AM
96. Rick, exactly ... where was the left's outrage at Baird?

I am not defending people on the right who use those terms. I criticize them for it. I am just wondering where their anger is for the leftists who use those terms.

Of course, this cuts both ways ... not TOO many people on the right express any criticism for these terms used against Obama etc. I can count on one hand the number of people here who raised objections to it recently.

I am not condemning anyone ... I am just trying to inject perspective.

Posted by: pudge on August 14, 2009 07:45 AM
97. Mike wrote:

you are right, that what liberals were saying from 2001-2006

I guess you forgot who controlled the Senate in 2001 and 2002? A guy who the Obamassiah tried to place into his cabinet, someone named Tom Daschle. Didn't realize he was a Republican!

And Mike, in post 38 you claimed Medicare spending had an annual increase of 3% for 15 years (92-06). You have any backup for that claim, or is it just some number you made up?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 14, 2009 07:48 AM
98. #95. Rick, that's the thing. I think liberals don't really understand the difference between private matters and government. They don't really get that government is the only entity that can really, legally, control your life in ways that you may not like. So, when elected officials start calling citizens Nazis, it's *far* worse than if a private citizen does so.

And they cannot fathom why free guys like us fear the government taking over health care, especially the federal government, because that's the whole ball of wax. It's over after that. No more freedom when it comes to that part of your life. Government can be just as corrupt as, say, a bad insurance company, or a cheating wall st exec, etc, but the government has people with guns to enforce their corruption.

And when Baird, Pelosi, et al starting calling the *people* Nazis... that's *way* over the line, and time for them to fear the electorate (and no you pansies, I'm not talking about shooting them!)


Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 07:50 AM
99. #38 "had. and it was an error."

mike, I didn't see it, but did you answer where you got this information from?

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 07:56 AM
100. Pudge: So far on this thread, I've seen both tc and mike claim that Michele has called them either "nazis" or "brownshirts", yet when I re-read her posts here she makes no such reference. I too am opposed to the "hitler" comparisons because it really doesn't advance the debate and will usually just undermine any credibe points you've made in your argument. Much the same way labeling those that oppose this Congress' boondoggle of a health care 'reform' bill as "racist morons" isn't productive dialogue.

A question for mike since he likes to engage in such tactics:
Since when does race factor into being against a bill that will reduce your options for quality health care and at the same time, by their own CBO's calculation, is financially "unsustainable"?

Posted by: Rick D. on August 14, 2009 08:10 AM
101. Rick, the thing about mike, and Pelosi, and Baird, and journalists calling us all names is purely an indication that they have *no* rational argument in their favor. If we point out a part of the bill that is problematic, than we get called names in return.

Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 08:16 AM
102. HA! Drudge has a thing about Pelosi telling protesters in 2006, "I'm a fan of disruptors!"

Now... not so much.

Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 08:26 AM
103. Rick,
My representative is Norm Dicks, not Baird. I haven't been following what he has been stating, so I can't comment on it

Pudge,
I would agree that I don't like the left using the term either. I am not sure where I have defended the left using the term. I am not sure where I would have supported a poster from the left using the term. I can't remember doing it.

What I do know is that Pelosi's original use of the Nazi term was not to describe the people but was in describing people bringing Nazi symbols to rallies, which is the truth.

Regarding the "truth" and falsehoods, I have not "hit" back at you lately regarding what you have posted stating it was a falsehood, have I?

I have, in the past week, repeatedly, responded those who continue to spread the "death panel" and its various incarnation falsehood, because it is a falsehood. It is also a falsehood to state that anything in the current law would lead to it.

I would state further that many here, not you, do not care to research the facts. I have been doing the research on this subject (e.g., end-of-life/medical directives subject matter). I have gone back to Ezekiel Emmanuel's original articles referenced by those who make up the "death panel" claim. I also have researched more on his body of work. He is being crucified by the right for unjust cause. He is against euthanasia. His work provides factual arguments to shoot down things like doctor assisted suicide. Just as you state that "fear" is appropriate to fight for truth. I would counter it is just as appropriate to fight for those who have been unjustly accused. Posters here continue to savage Emmanuel while failing to understand what he actually is saying.

Posted by: tc on August 14, 2009 08:28 AM
104. Right, Gary. The point about private citizens using derrogotory terms versus your own congressional representative is right on. Another good point you made was when tc refused to answer the true cost of an amputation that Mr. Obama only exaggerated by oh, a hundred fold. tc and mike are so far entrenched into their thinking that they merely try to rationalize when Obama misrepresents, skews numbers or outright lies to us. The frightening thing is what this guy could get away with if we weren't in the information age and can refute what he and his supporters claim with actual video, links to conflicting statements in news articles, etc.
You still have some of them saying that he's never advocated for a single payer system, even though there is visual evidence on at least two occassions that refute it.

Posted by: Rick D. on August 14, 2009 08:32 AM
105. Yeah, Rick. You have the President of the United States smearing doctors by suggesting that they just willy-nilly remove tonsils, legs, whatever. Gee, I wonder why he isn't doing his job and prosecuting them?

This guy has been warped by his associations, and he displays it all the time. He made so many mistakes at the townhall in NH, that it takes days to sift through it, and that was *with* a friendly audience.

I wonder what his source was for the cost of the leg amputation. Did he have one, or did he make it up? I mean, the man can't remember where he met Michelle, so who knows?

Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 08:40 AM
106. Basically, the President demonizes any activity that the people manage themselves, whether it's health care, or building cars, or banking. He has admitted to wanting to raise Capital Gains taxes... not because it would increase revenues, because he admitted it would not... but only to punish people making capital gains.

And what's really funny, is that the people who *want* socialism, don't like to be called "socialists".

Funny, I want capitalism, and I *love* being called a "capitalist".

Our side is honest.

Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 08:52 AM
107. More good news today, looks like Cap and Trade is dead in the Senate. Seems a lot of Democrats have come to our side on this.

But... I thought cap and trade was gonna help pay for health care reform...

Uh-oh. Now what? The UN says we have only four months to fix global warming or we're all gonna die!

(and we're the ones spreading fear?)


Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 09:02 AM
108. Dr. Emanuel, said his "thinking has evolved". Those who have been defending him are now being thrown under the bus by him:

"When I began working in the health policy area about 20 years ago ... I thought we would definitely have to ration care, that there was a need to make a decision and deny people care,"

Gee, that's exactly what we've bee saying based on what you wrote. And we've been called liars.

And:

"I think that over the last five to seven years ... I've come to the conclusion that in our system we are spending way more money than we need to, a lot of it on unnecessary care," he said. "If we got rid of that care we would have absolutely no reason to even consider rationing except in a few cases."


Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 09:12 AM
109. Rick D.
You are lying (yes, I will use that word in this case). I didn't refuse to answer Gary on his specific question. I refused to continue discussing the entire subject with Gary because we have been over it ad nauseum in other post's threads. Gary refuses to acknowledge any points I made and instead keeps throughout straw-man's. I have come to the conclusion that Gary doesn't want to discuss the subject but only throws out his questions as bait (thus my "sucker" reference).

Posted by: tc on August 14, 2009 10:40 AM
110. In @110, it should be "throw-out" instead of "throughout."

Posted by: tc on August 14, 2009 10:41 AM
111. tc: I am not sure where I have defended the left using the term.

I never said you defended them. I asked when you CRITICIZED them, in public, in front of everyone, like you're doing now.


What I do know is that Pelosi's original use of the Nazi term was not to describe the people but was in describing people bringing Nazi symbols to rallies, which is the truth.

Yes, she criticized people comparing Obama and the Dems to Nazis ... and she was completely silent when the liberals did that to Bush and the GOP. Funny that.

Posted by: pudge on August 14, 2009 10:44 AM
112. tc @ 109: Nothing I said was a lie. You failed to answer the question because you know that answering it would be an admission that it was the president that threw that figure out that WAS LYING, and you, being a loyal Obama supporter could never admit the man could do such a thing.

68. tc, glad you're here. Do you know where the President got his figure of $50k for a leg amputation? ~ Gary

69.Gary,
I am not going to bother to respond to your posts.

Posted by: Rick D. on August 14, 2009 10:59 AM
113. Guys, you know... I don't really blame tc for not wanting to answer the questions. Would you want to if your guy (or his advisers) said that kinda stuff?

We have to ask questions, because the obligation is on those trying to enact the legislation. The obligation is not on our side.

Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 11:03 AM
114. Gee, I wonder why he isn't doing his job and prosecuting them?

are you really so obtuse, or do you really think the president is a prosecuter in chief?

Posted by: mike on August 14, 2009 11:52 AM
115. #115. mike, yes. The President is the chief law enforcer of the land. Why don't you know this?

Are you guys so removed from the Constitution that you have forgotten what the President's job is? Hint... he isn't a doctor.

Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 12:50 PM
116. Pudge @111
Re: Baird -- I am not aware of the specific statements in question, so I can't be expected to CRITICIZE. If you want to post the statements, in full context, then I can reply
Re: Pelosi -- I am not sure by your response whether you agree or disagree with what I wrote, which was Pelosi's ORIGINAL statement was about what was being brought to the rallies and not the people themselves. Factcheck.org has the context and the review of this. Here is their write-up.

Posted by: tc on August 14, 2009 12:50 PM
117. facts, reality and reason are irrelevant, tc.

Posted by: mike on August 14, 2009 12:53 PM
118. Alphabet Soup @112
False. Gary asks the same question in slightly different form on numerous occasions. A question meant as bait. Further, he stated that Emmanuel support euthanasia. I pointed out various sources disproving this fact. Gary has failed to acknowledge that he was wrong. Finally, I pointed out a FactCheck.org writeup on Gary's straw-man lady in Oregon question that has the full context of Obama's quote. Gary has not acknowledge that he has taken Obama's quote out of context and distorted it to say that Obama supports euthanasia.

Posted by: tc on August 14, 2009 12:56 PM
119. mike, will you give me your source about the state of Oregon making a mistake with Mrs. Wagner's treatment? I'd like to read it.

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 12:57 PM
120. mike: are you really so obtuse, or do you really think the president is a prosecuter in chief?

Actually, yes, he is. Every federal prosecutor's power comes directly from the President. When they prosecute, they do so on his behalf. Every time anyone is prosecuted by the federal government, it is by the power of President (which is why the President himself cannot be prosecuted).

(Now, some people think that independent prosecutors are exceptions, but really, they have no actual power to prosecute if they are truly independent of the President. The Constitution is quite clear: Article II, Section 1.)

Posted by: pudge on August 14, 2009 01:15 PM
121. tc: Re: Baird -- I am not aware of the specific statements in question, so I can't be expected to CRITICIZE.

Dude. We've many times mentioned Dems calling people brownshirts and Nazis and so on. And many commenters have done so here in the discussions. Have you ever criticized them here? Ever?

I am not looking for your view of those statements now that you are put on the spot. I want to know if you are now acting consistent with how you acted when Bush was President.


Pelosi's ORIGINAL statement was about what was being brought to the rallies and not the people themselves

Right. She criticized people for comparing Obama and the Dems to Nazis. And yet she never criticized people for comparing Bush or the GOP to Nazis.

Posted by: pudge on August 14, 2009 01:18 PM
122. Pudge,
I don't recall ever calling Bush a Nazi or Republicans Nazi. I also don't recall what specific instances you are referring to Democrats calling Bush a Nazi and on those occasions what the SP post was about as to whether I "didn't" critize the left on that occasion. Further, I don't believe I called posters here Nazi or brownshirts (like Michelle). So as far as consistency, I am not sure what you are asking for.

I did voice my opinion that I think Bush was wrong on numerous occasions and they related to the Iraq War, Warrentless Wiretapping w/o going through FISA court, for not following up on his word regarding the Plame outing, for the "enhanced interrogation techniques", etc. I don't agree with Obama on the wiretapping program he is continuing either (mass datamining is an inefficient method to achieve the intended goal and is an invasion of privacy to all Americans). In all these disagreements, I didn't refer to Bush as a Nazi or any Nazi related term. Again, what exactly am I being accused of being inconsistent of.

As far as specifics in the past as to Democrats referring to Bush as a Nazi, I claim ignorance on the details. If you can provide me specific examples, then maybe I would know what you are referring to.

Posted by: tc on August 14, 2009 01:35 PM
123. tc: I don't recall ever calling Bush a Nazi or Republicans Nazi.

And ... I never implied you did.


I also don't recall what specific instances you are referring to Democrats calling Bush a Nazi ...

I don't care. It happened all the time. Did you criticize them for it? If you say one more time that you need specifics, I am going to give up and assume you're just avoiding the question: EVERY WEEK FOR ALMOST A DECADE someone was comparing Republicans to Nazis, and those someones were often on here, on HA, in the press, in the Congress, and so on.

Did you criticize them for it?


Further, I don't believe I called posters here Nazi or brownshirts

And ... I never implied you did. You keep saying stuff like that as if I ever questioned that, in any way.

All I am implying is that your criticisms of people who call Obama and Democrats Nazis (and so far, no one has shown evidence Michele did, even though you keep accusing her of it) is hollow if you didn't also criticize people who said the same of Bush and Republicans.


So as far as consistency, I am not sure what you are asking for.

I've been very clear, for the third straight comment now: examples where you criticized people, when Bush was President, for calling Bush or the GOP Nazis.

Posted by: pudge on August 14, 2009 02:08 PM
124. Looks like the President is gonna push Amnesty hard too, and soon. I say, Bring It! You think they've called us names over health care? I can't wait to see what they call us over Amnesty.

Steve Pearlstein will call us "political gringos".

Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 02:40 PM
125. Shanghai Dan,

Sure, that's OK with me. If we want to have the Senate and Congress try out Obama's plan for themselves first to see how they like it before it becomes the law for everyone else, then I'm OK with it.

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on August 14, 2009 02:48 PM
126. #125. You think they would?

Posted by: Gary on August 14, 2009 02:53 PM
127. PI,

Great! Let's see if we can start that movement...:)

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 14, 2009 03:50 PM
128. Pudge,
I am not trying to avoid the question. No, I haven't criticized anyone on the left. I also don't know when I should have in the past. I will now that you called to my attention.

Posted by: tc on August 14, 2009 04:25 PM
129. I wonder where the outrage is from the latest round of organized protesters at the town halls...

Oops, these organized protesters are from ACORN, so they're OK and will never be condemned, right?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 15, 2009 05:37 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?