»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Politics or just plain hatred?
| The Alley |
|
Politics or just plain hatred? |
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I really don't understand why anyone would treat another human being like this: Tea Partiers Mock And Scorn Apparent Parkinson's Victim http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ik4f1dRbP8 |
||
| © Copyright 2010 JenniferMaxwell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Single cases make poor examples, of course; and these are folks who may not be at all representative of the Tea Party thinking. I would hope they aren't. But the situation does dramatize a problem in the Tea Party and the right wing approach to health care in general. Rage at the suffering of the victim is a response one sees over and over again in history, certainly in recent history, where it's been frequent in discussion of the response of the Jews to the Shoah. We may also see it in the occasional discussion of how blacks have not assimilated in the same fashion that other ethnic groups have assimilated during the course of American history. The conclusion is, frequently, on the part of the people who raise the objection, that there must be something wrong with the group or the people concerned that justifies the way they've been treated. Blame the victim. Not me but thee. In reality, this is probably not such a great idea. I think not such a great Idea for two reasons. In the first place, it leaves unaddressed the feeling of guilt that makes the accusers angry at the victims in the first place. If there would be no guilt, no sense of responsibility, no matter how tiny and ridiculous or how large, direct and real, the rage toward the victims would not be there. Instead, there would be amusement, laughter and perhaps pity at the level of delusion these poor folk were harboring on top of the suffering they already had to deal with. The second reason is that the rage and the quarrel back and forth about blame inhibits efforts to understand what the issues may actually be, and how they might actually be addressed. This should be what's foremost on everybody's mind — how to alleviate suffering and make the society as a whole one that functions more smoothly and more happily. A happy society is the prize. When we do not have our eyes on the prize, then we are not heading in that direction. When we are quarreling about who to blame, the prize is getting rid of guilt and fixing blame; and that, friends, is what I would call a booby-prize. The folks who get awarded the booby prize get to feel resentful and vengeful, and to wait for a chance to re-open the conflict. The folks who get rid of the booby-prize get to act self-righteous. My nomination for the definition of "self-righteous" is "those folks who are signing up to get the booby prize next time around." Pick either side in the Arab-Israeli conflict on any particular go-around for an example. Pick a particularly bitter family fight. Try to find a way of telling yourself that it's no skin off your nose that people with Parkinson's disease are dying and that you think we ought to stop doing what we can for them. We are helping now, with some Federal help for treatment costs. We help a lot of people in a lot of different ways that I think we can and should feel proud about. So why not figure out how this does and should fit into Right wing politics and into The Tea Party platform instead of leaving those poor idiots standing there making idiots out of themselves in front of the cameras, not knowing how to respond to their sense of guilt, and not knowing what the government is doing and could be doing, and how much it costs? A little more solid research and a little less inflammatory rhetoric would probably go a long way. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"instead of leaving those poor idiots standing there making idiots out of themselves in front of the cameras, not knowing how to respond to their sense of guilt" Their sense of guilt? You think that was the cause or have I misunderstood you? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I couldn't help wonder if reactions would have been different had his sign said leukemia patient, or if it had been a woman holding a breast cancer sign. Limbaugh mocked Michael Fox, accused him of faking his Parkinsons symptoms. Perhaps those screaming really don't know how serious Parkinsons is - were following Rush's lead. It was good to note that even though they stood by and did nothing to stop the inhumane treatment, there were Tea Partiers who at least seemed embarassed by the outburst. Another quote: "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
The video is a lie. research it. Read what his sign said. The cameraman made great points to shoot behind the man so you couldn't read it. Also, they blurred the words they didn't want you to see. BUT they failed in the HuffPo to tell you what the LAST LINE SAID! I'm not going to give it away. You have to look for yourself. You can just barely see it, but the video glare (intentional) blurs the last word. Also, ask WHY this guy sat down on the street right in front of the Tea Party goers. The other side of the street had pro-healthcare supporters in mass, which you also don't see in the video. This was a classic Liberal setup done by ProgressOhio who has done many of these videos, including the infamous: He brought a gun to the townhall! Only thing, they didn't pan up and show the guy in the SEIU shirt with the gun in his holster. This video got passed along in its edited form to all the sheeple who sucked it up and said "Tea Partiers are coming armed!". But if you notice, they didn't show the front of him, or record any of his words. Duh..... That's because he was an SEIU goon. The shirt was purple by the way. Jennifer, really, you are too naive at times. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Let's talk about being free of government: I plan for my future. Here is the gold fund I sunk 50% of my 401K in last year in April 09. Bought XX shares at $36. It sells a year later for $59 a share. I made a killing. A good return, like I said would be 5% for an average IRA/401K: I made 61% profit. I don't need the government to suck 15% out of me for social security I can't use till I'm 69. I think of all the money I lost there, when i could have invested it. I'm disabled, Jennifer, at the age of 53, but I don't get Soc.Sec, or ask for it. I'm too proud to, and I don't need to. I pay my medical bills out of pocket, and live off the interest of my 401K plans. While everyone else's 401k LOST 50% of its value, mine gained biggtime. Government can kiss my ***. http://www.google.com/finance?q=MUTF:TGLDX p.s.: I wouldn't buy into this right now: the earnings have peaked for now, BUT if Moody's downgrades the US Dollar below Triple-A rating, ALL gold and gold funds will be, like, uh...gold. Make fun all you like of the gold commercials, but if you had invested in them a year ago, you would have DOUBLED your money by today. I'm just sayin..... Conservatives aren't as dumb as liberals think they are. [This message has been edited by threadbear (03-19-2010 12:00 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Maybe putting 50% of your returement into gold was a great idea, T-bear. I'm not an investment guy. But the usual investment advice is to go for one third, one third, and one third, that being very liquid assets like cash or gold; conmservative assets, such as verty highly rated bonds or bank CDs;, and growth assets such as stocks. As you get older, the more conservatively you want to play things. Every six months, you are generally advised to re-evaluate and redistribute the assets to maintain the balance, cashing in and taking profits in some of the areas and making sure that you maintain a diversified portfolio. I'm not about to argue with how well you've done with gold. But using half you retirement to do it with is closer to gambling than it is to investing. That has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. Gold may be a great investment, but it's a part of a diversified portfolio, isn't it? I'll try having a closer look at the video. I'll try having a closer look at the sign. Frankly, with the way those folks were behaving though, I'm not sure I'd feel safe being on their side of the discussion with a camera. And if the guy was sitting there as close to those folks as he was, he has a fair amount of courage near as I can tell. I would have stood up and walked away more than a minute or two beforehand. Perhaps you have some video that shows the confrontation from the other perspective that you speak about that backs up your account and which wouldn't rely on my poor fading vision and the effects of the sun. That would go a long way to supporting your account beyond your assertion, unless of course, you assert that you were there and were an eye witness to these events. It's not that I think that left wing folk are always bastions of truth; I know better. It's simply that I want more than unsupported assertions to make me change my mind. You want the same, don't you? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Jeff, I’d really like to believe I’m very naive, that the video was a lie, that no one would treat another human the way that man was treated. Unfortunately I can’t find any evidence that it was a set up. I really can’t say for sure what the last line is, nor can I think of any words that would justify the verbal abuse hurled at that man for exercising his First Amendment Rights. What was in that last line that was so offensive, deprived the man of his right to free speech and warranted the hatred screamed in his face? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
The last line reads: That's Communism. ...still think this wasn't a setup? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
So the last two lines read Thanks for helping That's Communism? Those lines justify verbally abusing, mocking, intimidating, and humiliating a person suffering from Parkinson's disease? Not in my America. As I said before, I've seen no evidence it was a set up. If you have evidence that it was,why not show it? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Your assertion may be true about note abouyt Communism on the video, it may not. I haven't found it, and you say it's obscured. Folks used to say you could see one of the little people hanging himself in The Wizard of Oz though I never saw that either. I did ask the source for your information, and while you've offered more of the same sort of information, the source is still unidentified. Time? Newsweek? Washington Post? Economist? BBC? CBC? Christian Science Monitor? Times of London? Jerusalem Post? Any publication could be correct, of course, though some tend to be more accurate historically than others. But the notion of "from each according to their ability and to each according to their need," roughly speaking, should not be thought of as being under exclusive Communist ownership, should it? Marx, for all the gaudy fashion in which he turned his back on rteligion, was certainly influenced by it in this regard. As in Judaism, the community has a responsibility to its membership. Traditionally one of the highest obligations is the ransom of members from cap[tivity. You can see this in some of the writings of Maimonides back in the 12th century, as he clarifies much of the earlier work in the talmud and midrash. Sickness is not all that different than a state of being held captive, I believe, in classical thought. Certainly, you'd have trouble denying support and succor to any member of a faith community within the classical Christian community. This is a contradiction that the modern conservative movement in the united states has trouble dealing with, in my opinion. Perhaps wrongly, of course, since I am neither a Christian no a scholar of Christianity, merely an interested amateur. But to claim that the community of faith has a right to impose law and obligation in one area — abortion policy, for example — and not another — making sure that everybody is treated in a fashion that their health may be maintained at its best — seems to be contradictory. It needs to be rethought to be more consistant in itself. As it stands, it seems consistant only to the comfort of the believer and not to the demands of the faith. My own thoughts are that we need to provide a basic level of care for all the folks in this country, and that failure to do so is economic silliness. It undercuts our ability to be competitive with foreign products. If people are foolish enough to become upset when they hear that a basic level of this support is called "communism," then they are slaves to pavlovian responses. They are the same people who are likely to line up with money in their hands to buy cars that are advertised as "sexy." Or to burn books which may be advertised the same way. I don't particularly like the word "sheeple." But it seems to me that these are exactly the folks who would line up to fill the bill, simply because they haven't allowed themselves time to think things through for themselves. Who should I care who came up with a particular piece of the truth, or something that comes usefully close to it? And why should I reject a piece of the truth simply because I don't like the person who says it, or the way that it's said. I can think for myself and put it in a way that fits more exactly. If there are knee-jerk liberals, T-bear, and we both know that there are, then there are knee-jerk conservatives and knee-jerk partisans of every sort. The problem isn't with the political point of view, it's with the knee-jerk reflexive reaction that goes with it. If I can't identify a decent conservative idea and make use of it, what kind of fool am I? Civil Liberties, for example, shouldn't be either liberal or conservatrive; it should be human, and yet here we are in an era where Civil Liberties is identified as part of a Liberal Agenda. And torture is regarded as a practical American conservative solution. What kind of foolishness is that? And the notion of folks having an obligation to take care of their neighbors is regarded as Liberal foolishness instead of basic human virtue. Here's a notion of basic frontier values for you, T-bear, let your friends and neighbors die because it'll cost extra money to help them survive. The government already wants too much from us, so letting members of the community die is perfectly fine. In fact, they need to prove that they have any right to my help before I'll even consider helping, because I have a deep down feeling that they don't really deserve to live. Thems the old fashioned American values this country was founded on, right? Perhaps some other America, but not the one that my ancestors came to. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
My source is the Columbus Dispatch newspaper who originated the video. I talked to their editor Andy Murphy, and spent another half an hour on the phone with reporter: Diana Hill. This video was stolen off their internet and reposted without their permission, edited to a 40 sec. blurb with a 14 second intro and extra (52 second total running legnth.) They used 'jump cuts' which are omissions in the original film, cutting out most of their original footage. I'm in communication with Breitbart right now as they check out some facts that I already checked out: who shot the film, who gave MSNBC, HuffPo and Daily Kos and others the right to air it edited (no-one), who did the original fact checking of the video (no-one); who did the followup interview with the Parkinsons' patient (no-one). I know you are used to sourcing things from the Internet, but whenever I smell a rat, I use real journalism sources by calling them. I am a journalist, after all, and I'd much rather hear the true story from the Editor himself, instead of some inflammatory post blogger writer. The actual word on the plaque originally said: That's community, but it was smeared somehow later when the film footage was made. The man's name is Bob, and he's a former Navy engineer, yet he wears a hat that clearly reads: Union on it. Beneath his torn jacket is the tell-tale purple shirt of the SEIU. There was a followup interview done, I found out just now, and it was done by the same group that put out this 'hit piece.' Nowhere in the interview is Bob asked what he thought about the altercation. They also show the sign he held in pristene condition in a freeze frame to close the video. He's a shill. And it's despicable that OhioProgress used him to make their point. In the original raw footage, available at the Columbus Dispatch website, is a slightly longer version with Doral Chenowith as the report from the Dispatch. He wasn't in the office today, so I wasn't able to get him on the phone, but I have his phone number and will try again on Monday. Bob, the Parkinson's guy, really does have Parkinsons. That much is true. In the raw footage, you also hear him same something about healthcare in Cuba, and that obviously set off the red meat in the crowd. The Dispatch, to their discredit, did not do a followup. Jeff |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I’m really not sure what you’re saying, Jeff. Are you saying the whole event was staged, that those weren’t really Tea Party members? Your claim was that it was a “setup done by ProgressOhio”. Did your sources agree with that claim? I thought the Dispatch did the filming, are you saying they didn’t? What was edited? I did see a longer version, but that exact scene was included. I certainly may have been had, but you haven’t yet shown anything to convince me of that. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Geez, that drives me nuts when you edit your post and add a lot to it after I've written a response to the original. Anyway- OMG, now the poor guy's a SEIU goon. The same group that put out the "hit piece". The sign was smeared,etc. No offense, but I'm not hearing the ring of truth, seems more like spin to me. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
OMG, I'm wearing a purple shirt! Actually, it's more like lavender. Does that make me a goon, too? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: The Post Dispatch is a good paper. Your notion that I am used to sourcing things from the internet is an interesting one. I try to be specific about my sourcing, and in addition to being specific, I generally try to be more right wing than left in my sources as a point of courteous Jennifer was clear about her source: You may not have noticed. Until this posting, you were not. You seem to have skipped over this omission on your part and tagged me with that omission when I asked you about your source. Should you wish to be credited for being scrupulous in your sourcing, and in your journalistic credentials, which I am clear you have, then you should be clear about the sources you offer and not continue to make unsourced assertions. Nor should you try to shift blame for tardiness in doing so onto those who call you on it. It is a more than legitimate request, as you should be well aware. Nor should your journalistic credentials be grounds for failure to supply that information. Even journalists with White House credentials have been known to have been misled from time to time, as you must know. There are copyright problems with the video, which nmeed to be sorted out. Intellectual property is a very important issue, and I suspect both of agree upon how serious a violation of the law this can be. We will also probably agree that this is something that happens frequently and gets ironed out unhappily and with minimal satisfaction in the courts afterwards. Pardon me if I twit you with a provocative one word comment here — Capitalism! It's not really to the point, it's simply silly. More to the point are the twin assertions you skip over in your commentary above. You act as though these make no difference in the world, when in fact they render everything you've said entirely moot: Nobody fact-checked the video. Nobody did a followup on the patient sitting in front of the reasonably poorly behaving crowd. If nobody fact-checked the video and nobody interviewed the patient, what basis do you have for any of the assertions that you've made? You have assumptions and conclusions on the basis of which which you have made assertions. You have not checked these, and apparently nobody else has either, against any facts. Your aggressive and blaming posture here does not appear to have the solidity that you would claim for it without actual fact checking. Is there someplace where it's possible to see the unedited video, so other might make their own call on this? I assume that it must be available someplace for other broadcasters and sources to make their own edited copies of the tape. If I actually see something that looks as though I've been misled, I'll be happy to say so. I'm not thrilled to be manipulated by anybody, whether they're on my side of the political spectrum or not. I find the practice repulsive. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I just watched the videos showing Bob being interviewed about the incident. My heart goes out to the man. And as for those Tea Partiers who mocked and screamed at him and those who continue to attack him, they should hang their heads in shame. And Jeff, it says Cornell on his cap. I’m pretty sure that’s not a union, |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
No offense, Bob, but I'll give you my sources on MY time, not yours. I have a phonecall in for the Dispatch Night Editor to call me, which he should do in the next hour or so. You guys were pressing me for sources BEFORE i checked them out. I still need to get ahold of OhioProgress, but they're not in till Monday. I'll talk to them then, along with a followup phone call back to the Day Editor. The Union hat is the hat he is wearing while facing the crowd in the street. Clear as day in the raw footage. more as I get information on it. Developing, and i am writing an article on it as we speak. I'm also going to press the reporter for access to Bob if possible. ProgressOhio may have paid him for the interview since they put the interview with him on their website with their logo on it. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I hope someone did pay him for the interviews. Parkinson’s meds cost an arm and a leg and the side effects of many of them are something none of us would want to live with day after day. I honesty don’t understand why you want to continue to vilify the man after finding out how ill he really is. It took a lot of courage for him to face that mob, and he faced them with dignity and composure. A hero in my book. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
I just got off the phone with both the editor and reporter. Spent about an hour with each. I know you don't want to hear this, but I'll let you know the results after i write the article with the interview with Doral Chenowith, the man who shot the video. He is a free lance website videophotog that was hired by the Dispatch to cover this event. This video has been announced and mentioned on the Congressional floor by Kilroy today, so there's even more importance than ever to get this story straight since it is now a part of the permanent Congressional Record. I'm waiting now for the Editor to talk to the videographer the editor said it didn't pass his smell test either. There's more research I need to do on ProgressOhio before finishing the article. Jeff |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Forgot to mention that the reporter said he -didn't do any followup interview - didn't give permission for his video to be aired (except for the Dispatch web) - didn't fact check anything in it, including the guy he interviewed (unforgivable) - didn't see the first few minutes of the altercation at all, so he had no idea what the context of the situation was at all. - admitted to the jump cuts, and edits, but said he didn't do anything to intentionally obscure the sign. He is going to put the two video's side by side (UTUBE viral video vs. his raw footage). - basically he pointed the camera, did the voice over and didn't do anything else - this is a 'web video' for the Dispatch web site only, not a news story in itself, although it has become a news story. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Here's a tip before I sign off on this thread - if you're really looking for a story, go after the AFP guy who heckled and screamed at Bob, the man with Parkinson's. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
But T-Bear, I am offended. Your sources should appear with your assertions, and not scattershot, catch-as-catch-can, afterward, if and when you can find them. Your offended dignity is not something that I would choose to afflict you with, but you keep sticking your chin out further and further. I am trying to be polite about this, but being brusque with me about about you not having your ducks in a row when you originally made your assertions is not my responsibility; it is yours. If you weren't in hurry to make insinuations that you could not back up at the time you made them, then the thing to do is to wait until you have your proof in hand. To fault me because you made accusations you can't prove is getting things a bit backwards, isn't it? You're trying to tell me I rushing you when you've made smears against several folks that you think I should let stand while you grope about for proof that may or may not be there. Apparently you don't have much sensitivity about the reputations of the other parties involved and a great deal of sensitivity about yours. If I am misreading this, please accept my apologies, here, but you've said that you have no proof that your allegations are correct, haven't you? That there was no fact-checking at all? Far from not noticing these things as you suggest in your post just above, if you'll notice my posting # 15, the last 3-5 paragraphs of it, you'll see that I bring up that issue specifically. I'm glad that you're writing an article about the business, and I hope that you make some free-lance money from it — always welcome. But suggesting that your assertions should come before your sources and that you should not be held accountable for having those sources and for their accuracy is not to my mind a claim that a journalist has a right to make of any reasonable consumer of news. If you can tell me that you're interviewing the editor, then you're telling me that you're doing the thing now that you should have done before you made the assertions in the first place: You're getting your facts straight. It's not me that rushing you. You're rushing to catch up with your urge to issue statements before you have the factual ground to stand on. You may turn out to be correct. I have no idea how the actual events and how the actual information will play out. The point is that it's reasonably clear that you don't either at this point, and that this didn't stop you from making assumptions about the guy, the angry sounding crowd, and everybody's motivations. We can both agree that the folks who used the feed without permission were probably in the wrong. I commented on this as well, above. I have no idea what can be said in the Congressional Record with the state of the information in the shape it is in now. I'm nervous about looking. And even if the guy is wearing a union hat, you write that as though it has some significance that I am supposed to understand. What is that? Do you have some sort of problem with working class folks or somke sort of stereotype of union members? You were a union member, so you know for sure that not all union members like them, and that some union members really depend on the union for basic protections. What's the deal with this guy wearing a union hat for you, anyway? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote:I'm curious why we don't get the same courtesy? Getting off the phone with some guy you know doesn't greatly impress me as a valid source. The article, when you get it published, well might. Feel absolutely free to give us your sources on YOUR time, not ours. And we will continue to lend credibility to your posts in similar fashion? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: According to Mr. Letcher – the bloke who wrote it - the sign read: "Got Parkinson's?" I Do and You Might. Thanks for helping! That's community!" Of course he could be lying but I’m willing to believe him because at the end of the day I don’t think it matters, you see I can’t for the life of me think of anything that he could have written that would excuse the abuse he faced. He also said that he thought the group that hurled abuse at him probably weren’t a true representation of health care reform protesters. I’m willing to believe that too but it’d be a whole lot easier if some folk stopped trying to defend the indefensible and admit that the wingnuts in the video were out of line. . |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
the story is over. The Editor of the Dispatch took down the story voluntarily today. (they removed all references to it from their front page also, although in their archives footage is the Raw Footage video, still.) My article is therefore not necessary, and I won't write it to 'pile on.' This was the most popular video in Columbus Dispatch history and they took down. I just talked to the editor and we both agreed, the better part of valor is not to pile on an elderly decent guy. I researched him for 2 straight days, and wound up actually liking the guy, but not his affiliation with ProgressOhio. I sincerely apologize here to PIP for my abruptness: I didn't mean to come off rude. I was rushing around all yesterday trying to get the direct story. I was researching this article BEFORE it come out on HuffPo because I was doing some work on ProgressOhio. They took over this video as their own propaganda piece without persmission and then paid Bob some money. Whether you want to say it was for the post-interviews or whatever: that's whoever's call. Nobody in Mass Media will touch this either: it's a tainted story. It just doesn't check out, and that's why the Dispatch took it down. The bottom line is: to take down ProgressOhio, I would also have to hurt the reporter and Bob in the process. Don't really want to do that to either guy since the story was killed by the Dispatch, and the followup article by a second reporter was, too. End of story Again, i apologize for any rudeness. I really didn't mean it to sound that way. Jeff |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/19/angry-protesters-warp-focus-of-debate.html?sid=101 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
And it continues... http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/20/tea-party-spit/ Lewis responded, "Yes, but it's OK. I've heard this before in the '60s. A lot of this is just downright hate." http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88041-cbc-member-says-health-bill-protesters-called-rep-lewis-the-n-word |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
One more http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/03/menacing.php |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
And this from the memory book. The pages flip in a sec or two - a half a dozen or so different pages. http://www.airfarceone.net/antirepubs2/boothers.gif |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
All the aforementioned sites you listed, Jennifer, are illegal downloads to their blog sites. Only the Atlanta Constitution ran the article. The article is still there, buried, on the Dispatch's web, but they no longer allow comments or have it on their front page. The article you posted, Grinch, was a CYA cover-their-as* post that failed totally to illuminate any of the problems with the video I relayed to the editor. The video is viral: from 63,000 hits yesterday to over 100,000. I talked directly to Doral, the reporter: he hasn't authorized ANYONE to use his video. The Dispatch hasn't given permission either. So goes the internet..... This is one of the reasons I prefer live fact checking, as opposed to a cut and paste job illegally using someone elses' work. It's one thing to post it as a reference in a discussion: quite another to post an illegal video as a Web Site Attraction such as ProgressOhio, Daily Kos, HuffPo, and numerous liberal blog sites. At last count I saw 250 different sites using this video without permission, without context, and in it's pulled edited version (not the raw footage which shows the video in somewhat proper context.) A couple of things happened you didn't see on the video that I learned from the editor and the reporter: the camera was already setup- 30 feet from a large tree. You can see it in the rsw footage. Bob sat down right next to the camera, on purpose. Doral said he was filming the pro-health people across the street. The street had traffic on it, going back and forth, and Bob sat down so close at one time, one of the Tea Party people had to pull him closer to the curb to keep him from getting hit. He mentions this in the ProgressOhio video. According to Doral, he just swiveled the camera around and down, after he heard some comments back and forth between Bob and the crowd. And that accounts for the unusual camera angle. He was practically on top of Bob to begin with. He could have gotten any number of shouting matches between the two parties, but filmed what he filmed. He said they were equally verbally combative, but no-one laid a hand on any one else, to both parties credit. He said he's covered several of these and what happens is this: the Pro/Anti health care people are seperated initially, with a street or physical impediment between them. Then, one person or two will wander over to the other group and they'll start arguing, almost always nonviolently. On balance, I would say this jerk with the tie was the exception, and was the result of several Red Rover Red Rover trips by both sides that finally reached a climax. That's just part of the background on the story that isn't in the film. There's much more than this, even to relate, but I don't want to really want to point fingers since the situation was resolved. This is also the weekend, and the weekly daily Editor isn't there, so who know what will happen next week. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
After the caucus meeting, TPMDC's Evan McMorris-Santoro caught up with Frank, who reflected on the incident. "I'm disappointed at a unwillingness to be just civil," Frank said. "[T]he objection to the health care bill has become a proxy for other sentiments." "Obviously there are perfectly reasonable people that are against this, but the people out there today on the whole--many of them were hateful and abusive," Frank added. Asked by TPMDC whether today's protesters were more hateful than at other rallies, Frank took issue with party leaders for aligning themselves with the movement. I do think the leaders of the movement, and this was true of some of the Republicans last year, that they think they are benefiting from this rancor. I mean there are a couple who--you know, Michele Bachmann's rhetoric is inflamatory as well as wholly baseless. And I think there are people there, a few that encourage it. "If this was my cause, and I saw this angry group yelling and shouting and being so abusive to people, I would ask them to please stop it," Frank concluded. "I think they do more harm than good." This is incredible," House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) told reporters of the slurs. "It's shocking to me." He said he hadn't heard such vitriol since March 15, 1960 when he was protesting segregation laws that forced him to sit in the back of buses. "A lot of us have been saying for a long time that much of this, much of this, is not about health care at all," Clyburn said. "I think a lot of those people today demonstrated this is not about health care." |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Jennifer: rednecks are rednecks. They're on both sides of the liberal or conservative fences. Calling Barney Franks a F*g to his face is extremely disrespectful, but not UNusual for a redneck. I know, because of my Midwest friends say things like f*g in private circles, and I always chastise them for that and N* bombs. I also hear the opposite side call us Cracker and MoFo's all the time. I spend alot of time working with kids in the Parks departments that are close to the inner city. It's all a vicious name calling circle, and so wrong. I don't tolerate ANY of my friends to use the F* or the N* word in my presence. Bottom line: there is an unspoken racism in this country that falls just short of in-your-face name calling. Somehow, it all works out: I've only heard of two incidents of violence in all the tea rallies: a guy had his ear bit off and other was pushed down on the pavement by an SEIU t-shirt wear. There are no known arrests of ANY Tea Party goer at a rally. Astounding fact really, when there are usually 20 arrests after EVERY NFL football game. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
My impression is that there is some cross pollination between Tea Party rallies and NRA rallies, T-Bear. Is this stereotypy on my part? I'm always a tough leery of approaching folk I believe to be armed. They have arranged their conversational options to be far wider than those I feel belong in civil discourse, whatever their reasoning, and they have placed themselves beyond my willingness to open up a polite conversation. I limit myself to avoidance whenever I can. So I, unlike you, find it not at all unusual that the number of arrests at Tea Party gatherings would be far lower than at NFL games. Were I a cop, I would also be very careful about disrupting gatherings of potentially armed people, even if they were a bit more rowdy than I would otherwise tend to feel comfortable tolerating. Especially if I were nervous that these folk might confuse me with agents of government aggression. How close this is to reality, I have no idea; but I can't say that your speculation that Tea Party gatherings are so benign that police are utterly untroubled by them is an idea that is one that has much actual evidence behind it either. It would be nice, but most of the police I've known have had a nice healthy touch of paranoia in their dealings with others. It tends to serve them very well indeed in keeping their casualty rates further down than they might otherwise be for, say, a group of naive idealists. Paranoia persists because it's both functional and adaptive; that's my assertion. Crowds of demonstrators may at times be very well behaved. Crowds of angry demonstrators tend to have difficulty maintaining calmness and control. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Too much tea party racism “As protesters call Dem leaders "n____" and "f____," it's time for Republicans to denounce them. So far, none have “ http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/index.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think there is also the possibility that these clowns were plants from the opposition (the left) in an attempt to give the Tea Partiers a black eye by giving them bad press. Mike Huckabee denounced the comments last night. He's a Republican. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
From this video clip in this article of the time frame in question, it appears that the slurs were never uttered at all. http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/03/21/media-lying-about-racist-attacks-at-on-black-reps-by-tea-party-protesters-video-proof/ |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, The reports I read stated that the alleged events occurred inside the Longworth Building, the video you posted seems to be outside. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: The above is from one of Jennifer's links, Grinch. The one from TPM stated Waxman and Frank were yelled at or called names inside the building. At this point I'd need to see video of the alleged incidents to believe any of them happened. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Doesn’t get much lower than calling those members of Congress who were insulted liars, failing to condemn the abusive and belligerent behavior of that crowd and trying to blame others for the despicable actions that took place. I’m seeing a silly hat so I’m going back to “teabagger”. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Denise! You suggested the possibility that a congressman could lie? Have you lost your senses??? And you further suggest that a right-winger could do such a thing to bring a black mark on the tea baggers??? How dare you! Politicians don't do things like that! Hide your head in shame  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
So it never really happened? Well that’s a relief. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
But Denise, why do you say that it appears that the slurs were never uttered at all? The commentator in the article you quoted certainly does say that, and you certainly agree with him, but I see no evidence that this is in fact true because the video doesn't keep a close focus on the folks in question for anywhere near even the part of the walk that it pretends to cover. And it doesn't pretend to cover all of it now, does it? And, beyond that, if you can make out anything beyond Kill the Bill and various Booing sounds coming from close to the microphone, your hearing is far better than mine is. How does this possibly support the conclusion that your commentator or you are trying to sell me and the rest of the public? That no such exchange happened? And why would I assume that there is a left wing conspiracy on this matter? It seems a reasonably small matter for a conspiracy to be built on and suggests that this is a great time for launching left wing conspiracies when all the left wing energies that I see seem to be needed in getting the silly health care bill passed. Conspiring to sully the good name of the TEA party folk seems reasonably far down on the ladder of importance at this point for us lefties when we're busy defending ourselves and trying to get our own tattered legislative agenda through. I don't want to suggest that you're unimportant to me, or that I'm not interested in what you're saying, but saying that the TEA party is capable of acting badly is not something I need to be convinced of. The TEA Party itself is reasonably sure that they would never act improperly because they are, after all, The TEA Party, and I'm not sure that the rest of the country is all that interested. If the commentator from the site you quote is going to continue to be as savage as he is trying to be, I wish he'd try to be clever as well. This is a personal weakness of mine, and not necessarily a very pretty one; but if somebody's going to savage me and mine, I'd prefer that they at least tried to be funny while they were about it. Straight out nastiness simply feels disturbing to me, though I've noticed that nobody every seems to ask my opinion on these issues first. I've always felt this was another of their failings as well, not that anybody asked. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Were they insulted Jennifer? I haven't seen the proof. Just accusations with nothing to back it up. If someone did actually say such things I would of course denounce it, no matter what side of the political aisle they were from. What kind of a reporter does TPM have who doesn't come with a camera or audio recorder? Words on a page with no proof doesn't cut it with such serious allegations. And for the record I don't wear hats of any kind. Use whatever term pleases you. Be my guest. I can tune you out. You're just revealing something about yourself when you use offensive slurs...sort of like the ones you are decrying are so horrible when even allegedly used against the esteemed congressmen, sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. Show me proof that what is alleged to have happened actually happened. What could I have been thinking, Mike? I have no idea how I could have ever suspected foul play from politicians! I suppose it's possible Grinch, I just haven't seen the proof. Bob, I think the evidence has to come from those who are doing the accusing, don't you? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
It's awfully hard to hear anything when you have your head stuck in the sand lining the banks of a certain river. Anyway, at about 44 - 45 you can hear the word that was never said said. Of course no point in bothering to to listen, the word that was never said was said by a plant, not a real honest to goodness teabagger teabagger teabagger teabagger teabagger teabagger teabagger teabagger teabagger teabagger teabagger teabagger teabagger teabagger teabagger Oops, sticky something or other. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I think you’re quite right to be sceptical Denise, people are apt to try to convince you of all sorts of stupid ideas and notions, expecting you to acccept that they’re true based on nothing more than faith. Jen, So it did happen? I was kinda hoping it hadn't. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It's awfully hard to hear anything when you have your head stuck in the sand lining the banks of a certain river Offensive slurs seem to be the norm here, Denise. Why waste your time trying to reason with the unreasonable? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Take a listen Grinch and see what you think. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm not Michael. I'm tuning it out. It's ironic, though, how some people get so outraged at certain people possibly being slurred have no problem slurring others. Talk about heads being in the sand. And the people who preach tolerance seem to be the most intolerant bunch of all, to the point of not even being able to carry on a civil discussion if you disagree with them about anything, or question any of their assertions. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I fail to see anything civil about calling innocent people clowns and plants and members of Congress liars. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I didn't call anyone a liar, Jen. I said that I would need to see proof of the allegation myself to believe it. The people I called clowns aren't necessarily innocent since they are the ones who have been alledged to have slurred the congressmen. And there is the possibility that if anything did happen they could have been plants from the opposition. I've personally witnessed trouble makers at rallies in the past, and it was clear what they were trying to do. They weren't Tea Partiers. Nowhere have I slurred you in our conversations, Jen. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
WELL, why not take a deep breath, and a step back, and then another deep breath on top of that. If folks in the TEA Party want to control their appelation, that's their right. I get upset at the Democratic Party being called the Democrat Party. I've been back and forth with people for years about what to call People of Color. If somebody finds a usage I have for their political Party offensive, I'll stop using it and do so graciously. I will ask what they would like me to substitute for that term so that the conversation may continue in a reasonably civil fashion. I will say that I'm sorry for any hurt feelings. It's easy to get hung up on these things, as you can see from your experience dealing with the issue now in what I hope will be an unaccustomed position. I can't speak for Jennifer here, but that's how I feel about the business. As for Denise's comments about proof, I think that it might be helpful to go back and look a bit more closely at some of the stuff Jenn did post in terms of references earlier about the incident. If you look at the Mother Jones article, you'll notice some more specific references appended, included a reference to an arrest being made by the Capital Police. The Congressman in question did not press charges, but the arrest was made. As to Denise's denial that somebody in the TEA Party would not have made a comment to Barney Frank about his sexuality, I find her consideration for her fellow members touching but wildly optimistic. The number of folks willing to voice such rough and ready language is high, and the likelihood that there would be none among the ranks of her Party's loyalists is vanishingly small. Truth be told, I would have no idea how to calculate such a thing, so I suppose it could theoretically be possible. In short, however, it looks as though the incidents described appear to be real and the TEA Party members appear to be human. With some of the assertions being made on their behalf over the past few days — never any violence, never an arrest, instant transport into heaven on the back of angels (joking about that second one) — I was beginning to wonder. other Jones article |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
A quote from an early book by James Welch called Riding The Earthboy 40 "Albert Heavy Runner was never civic." Just thought you'd like to know. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It seems to me you are making a few assumptions and putting words in my mouth, Bob. Why are you doing that? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
To John Lewis: An Open Letter to an American Hero “And although it's a stretch to say that all tea party protesters are patent racists, Saturday's incidents pretty much sealed the deal- fear of racial difference animates the "Tea Party Movement." These people claim to be about the notion of "freedom," but they not only do not seem to support the concept for those different from them, but the individuals they single out for their most vitriolic attacks are often those who have done the most for the cause of freedom for all. I would say it's ironic, but that would imply that tea partiers understand the term "freedom." So instead, I'll say it's surreal.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cynthia-boaz/to-john-lewis-an-open-let_b_507869.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I guess you think you've offered proof of your previous allegations or proof of the smear that the Tea Partiers are racially motivated. You haven't. The left can no longer ignore them, so now they are in discredit and attack mode. So very, very predictable. Enjoy the game. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Not very pretty in pink: Angry Teabaggers protest Health Care Reform at US Capitol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VpOnOspBZo |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Which assumptions, Denise? I am certainly exaggerating the reputation of the Tea Party Folks for non-violent protest that have been presented by various folks, including T-bear, recently. If you feel that I am placing words in your mouth, I'm sorry. My understanding was that you shared these views, which I do feel to be exaggerated, and I would and do say I'm sorry for mis-characterizing you. But I don't actually have the impression that my understanding about this is incorrect. What is it that that you think I'm saying about you that you feel is putting words in your mouth? I've been trying to be fairly careful about this, and wouldn't want to do that if I can help it, and certainly not accidently if I can avoid that. So, where have I said the things that bother you, and what are they? If I mean to be saying things, I should at least know what they are and be able to explain them. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It's not difficult, Bob. All you have to do is go back and read what I actually said, and read again what you think I said. Have a nice day! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Denise, if I'd understood what you meant, I wouldn't have asked. My ignorance runs deep and wide, and I do try to ask about it. Once again, What are you speaking about? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: This is an example, Bob. I never said that. What I did say was that I would need to see proof of the comments allegedly directed at Frank and comments allegedly directed at members of the Democratic Black Caucus. These are serious allegations and therefore require some evidence. And as I already said, if they did happen I would denounce them, no matter where they came from. But I also think it is wrong to try to mischaracterize the entire Tea Party movement, which some on the left are attempting to do, on the actions of a few looney-toons, whether based on a handful of over-the-top signs, or tasteless comments, if indeed some Tea Party participants did that. When you have millions of people involved there are bound to be a few nuts in the mix. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
There is a video of the incident where a homophobic slur was hurled at Barney Frank but since the video I posted earlier today showing a person being both verbally and physically attacked by a teabagger got no denouncement, no response at all, why bother posting another? It isn't a question of a few signs or a few nuts. There's been a whole campaign of inciting hatred, threats of violence tinged with racism ever since Obama was nominated. You've seen the video interviews asking teabaggers specific questions about the HCR legislation, to explain what exactly they objected to. Most of them had no answers other than the tag lines fed them by Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, etc. The level of fear, hatred or whatever it is that really drives them reached fever pitch over the weekend and mob mentality became more evident. What worries me is what's next on their agenda - watering the tree of liberty? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML_Ks6wIQWY |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
As to Denise's denial that somebody in the TEA Party would not have made a comment to Barney Frank about his sexuality, I find her consideration for her fellow members touching but wildly optimistic. This is an example, Bob. I never said that. What I did say was that I would need to see proof of the comments allegedly directed at Frank and comments allegedly directed at members of the Democratic Black Caucus. These are serious allegations and therefore require some evidence. And as I already said, if they did happen I would denounce them, no matter where they came from. But I also think it is wrong to try to mischaracterize the entire Tea Party movement, which some on the left are attempting to do, on the actions of a few looney-toons, whether based on a handful of over-the-top signs, or tasteless comments, if indeed some Tea Party participants did that. When you have millions of people involved there are bound to be a few nuts in the mix. Ah, Denise, thanks for getting back to me about that. I commented about checking the references that Jenn had quoted in more detail. I found that there were references in some of the secondary references, especially the ones attached to the Mother Jones article, that were pretty solid. One of them made reference to a Capitol Police person arresting the gentleman alleged to have spat upon the Black Congressman, though the Congressman declined to press charges. It is likely in my mind that the general misbehavior happened. The past few days have been times of high temper and frustration, and expressions of outrage would not be surprising, though they would have been unfortunate. I wasn't inclined to chase down the details and use them to be outrageous myself, and I'm still not, though I certainly will if you think it necessary. quote: In calling me to task for attributing these intentions to you, you are, I see, correct. You did not deny that somebody might make such a comment, and in fact quoted Mike Huckabee, who apologised for those folks who did make those comments. You weren't clear about whether he gave the impression if he felt they were members of the TEA Party or not, and what exactly, he felt his connection with these folks might be. But I think it was a responsible and decent thing for the man to do. I'm impressed by him in this case. While you didn't say that nobody in the TEA Party would have done this sort of stuff — which I appreciate as well, by the way — your suggestion of what did happen was a bit troubling. quote: and: quote: Given the content of the last statement in particular, it seems that my interpretation that you would have trouble believing your fellows might behave badly is not entirely unwarranted. At least I can understand why I could read it that way, even if you might have trouble understanding why I might have trouble reading it that way. What is unforgivable on my part is that I didn't give you credit for knowing that there are in fact bad apples everywhere, in every group and movement, including mine and your own. This was crass and unfair of me, and you were correct in being upset with me about this. I missed seeing a moment of the best of you, and that is a great loss on my part as well as a slight of you, and one for which I must ask forgiveness. Thanks for listening, Bob Kaven |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Authorities in Wichita and some other cities across the country are investigating vandalism against Democratic offices, apparently in response to health care reform. Mike Vanderboegh, of Pinson, Ala., former head of the Alabama Constitutional Militia, put out a call on Friday for modern "Sons of Liberty" to break the windows of Democratic Party offices nationwide in opposition to health care reform. Since then, vandals have struck several offices, including the Sedgwick County Democratic Party headquarters in Wichita. Over the weekend, a brick shattered glass doors at the Monroe County Democratic Committee headquarters in Rochester, N.Y. Attached to the brick was a note that said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice Vanderboegh posted the call for action Friday on his blog, "Sipsey Street Irregulars." Referring to the health care reform bill as "Nancy Pelosi's Intolerable Act," he told followers to send a message to Democrats. "We can break their windows," he said. "Break them NOW. And if we do a proper job, if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary." "What I was trying to get across was that people do not understand how on the edge of civil conflict this country is," he said. http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/22/1237045/democratic-offices-in-wichita.html#ixzz0ixrY6bqr |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I believe the country IS on the edge of civil conflict. That can happen when the government completely disregards the will of the people, as this one has. That can happen when deals are made in back rooms in secrecy instead of out in the open, which affects the lives of every American. That can happen when people see the congressmen they put into office sell themselves off to the highest bidder. If Americans were not like that, we would still be paying tribute to the Queen. Do I condone it? No. Do I understand it? Yes. You have your change. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Dear Mike, Tossing bricks through windows is illegal. If you don't speak out against it, you do condone it. If you don't like deals being done in private, behind closed doors, where were you when Dick Cheyney was meeting with the oil companies at the beginning of the first Bush administration, and through the entire following eight years when he refused to allow anybody to know what was going on. We seem to be fairly clear that President Obama made a deal with the insurance companies and the drug companies not to push for a single payer system before this whole health Care campaign got underway. I'm reasonably clear about it, anyway. I thought you were fairly clear about it as well. I was not and am not happy about that deal because I did want and still do want a single payer system. You, on the other hand, do not. I don't think the deal was particularly secret. Nobody has denied it as far as I know, though I certainly may be wrong about that. It was not deceptive, merely unpleasant. I have a pretty good idea what was going on, as do you. None of us have any idea what went on with Cheyney and the oil Companies. None of us know to what degree that deal had anything to do with the Enron disaster and with the enormous debt that California, among other states, remains saddled with beyond what the ordinary economic downturn would have left us with. And this is simply one of the many Republican deals of this type that we are still trying to understand and piece together at this late date because we really do not know what actually went on behind closed doors. In case you haven't been following the English investigations of the events up to the start of the Iraq War, by the way, it appears that my comments certainly include that as well. Apparently those events have been unfolding in the U.K. Press for a while now, though they get almost no coverage here. The information as to what is happening here is not very secret at all. The problem with our information is the amount of lying that goes on about the facts of the matter. The same Republicans who tell you that they don't know what's in the health care bill are the folks who have members on the committee that's supposed to be writing and discussing that bill. They're supposed to be at each session. They're supposed to be talking about each word of the bill and be in on how the bill is written. If they're not, why blame the Democrats? It's not that they Republicans have been excluded, you know. If the Republican congresspeople are there, then they should be keeping their fellows informed. What we're dealing with is not secrecy, it's actual Republican avoidance and unwillingness to be part of the legislative process that they've been paid to be a part of. It may be a principled stand, but that seems to be a pitiful excuse for ignorance, and a ridiculous excuse for sitting behind the stack of paper that represented the Bill in draft form and pretending that it was too much for them to master. If it was too much for them to master, then they should have spent more time with the bill, exactly as they would with other bills that are of the same size but even more opaquely written, such as the PATRIOT Act, which they pressed into passage within a week or so and raised no such fuss about. The nobility of the stance they pretend to take here is a false nobility at best. The American people have been kept up to date with the ongoing process of this bill during the year or so it's been winding its way through the Congress. Sometimes the information has been more current, sometimes less, but it's been pretty much up to date with what the folks working on the bill itself seemed to know. The bill has been slow to evolve. The Democrats have been pushing hard, and the Republicans have been pushing back, and the fight has been, to my mind at least, best characterized as savage on both sides. I believe that the rhetoric has been particularly savage on the Republican side; they have felt free to bring in every hot button issue they could find, including abortion, and they have worked up feelings to a fever pitch around that issue, and the issue of "death Panels" and the notion of socialized medicine — a long time favorite — and the notion of a government take-over of the health care system. I'd characterize this as being reasonably close to incitement to riot, and have little wonder that there are people who are running around at a hysterical pitch. I think that if you get caught heaving a brick through a window as a political act, you ought to get fined and jailed, and your party ought to get fined as well. You are responsible for your rhetoric, aren't you? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Cheney - Bush - eight years....same attempt to point fingers in another direction, instead of addressing a current topic. Hasn't worked before and is not working now, Bob. We're discussing health care bills. The information as to what is happening here is not very secret at all. The same Republicans who tell you that they don't know what's in the health care bill are the folks who have members on the committee that's supposed to be writing and discussing that bill. It seems inconceiveable to me that anyone would not consider these dealings secretive. Btw, what bill are you referring to? The final health care bill? Surely not because it hasn't been written yet, even after it's passage. Obama urged the House to pass a bill that was not even finalized, telling them that parts they found offensive would be changed and they had his word on it. Pelosi said, "We need to pass the health care bill so the people can see what's in it.", an amazing statement. Obama said on Wednesday in his interview with FOX that the bill would be posted "many days" before the vote so the American people could see it, quite a statement, since the vote was set up for Sunday. Not secretive? Is that why Republicans were not allowed in the finalization process or any of the back room dealings - because it was not secretive? This whole thing was handled the way college kids would plan a panty raid. The only times Obama had to back off was when dealings became public, like with Nebraska and Florida. WASHINGTON – Tucked into President Barack Obama's health care bill are several 11th-hour changes that help major insurance companies and doctor-owned hospitals. Among the beneficiaries, according to lobbyists and congressional aides, are Kaiser Permanente, the giant California-based insurance company; Geisinger Health Plan based in Pennsylvania; and doctor-owned health facilities in about a dozen states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. House leaders hoped to approve the revisions Sunday when lawmakers vote on the health care legislation. They were included in a 153-page bill revising the giant Senate-passed overhaul package, and in separate language that Democrats plan to add. it was eliminated in the revisions bill. The latest changes to the bill include: _Tax-exempt insurers would have to pay a new fee levied on insurers on only half their premiums. Kaiser Permanente and Geisinger are both tax-exempt. _An Aug. 1, 2010, deadline on new doctor-owned hospitals to apply to the government for eligibility to serve — and get paid for — Medicare patients would be extended to Dec. 31. Aides and lobbyists said this would help roughly 13 facilities. These include Mercy Hospital in Monclova, Ohio; Scranton Orthopedic Specialists in Dickson City, Pa.; and Paragon Rehabilitation in Goodlettsville, Tenn. The three facilities are represented, respectively, by Democratic Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, and Bart Gordon of Tennessee. Gordon has switched to support the health legislation after opposing an earlier version and Kaptur said Sunday she would stick to her "yes" vote. Kanjorski hasn't indicated how he would vote. Aides to all three said the lawmakers had nothing to do with the provisions and their votes would not be affected by inclusion of the language. _A new 2.9 percent excise tax on medical devices would be lowered to 2.3 percent. But it will be broadened to apply to some lower-cost devices it hadn't initially covered, though hearing aids, contact lenses and other items consumers buy retail would be excluded. According to one medical industry official, the changes were made at the insistence of Reps. Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth, both Indiana Democrats, and Scott Murphy, D-N.Y., who are all now supporting the legislation. _The 153-page bill would have allowed the state-owned Bank of North Dakota to continue making federally financed student loans to students, even though the health care overhaul ends that system nationally in favor of direct government lending. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who initially supported the exemption for the bank, decided to seek its removal when it was criticized, and revisions to the 153-page bill would delete that provision. [URL=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100321/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_special_deals;_ylt=AkmnrkqLrZaZtMDdZ59gzxoEq594;_ylu=X3oDMTNodjE1YXY2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzIxL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJ lX3Nw]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100321/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_special_deals;_ylt=AkmnrkqLrZaZtMDdZ59gzxoEq594;_ylu=X3oDMTNodjE1YXY2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzIxL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYX JlX3Nw[/URL] ZWNpYWxfZGVhbHMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM3BHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDaW5zdXJlcnNkb2N0 Those evil insurance companies getting tax breaks at the last minute? Quite a revelation. The American people have been kept up to date with the ongoing process of this bill during the year or so it's been winding its way through the Congress. Yes, with everything except the facts. Why? There weren't any. In the town hall meetings when congressmen were asked specifics of the bill, the reply was that they couldn't answer because the bill had not been written yet. The American people were kept up to date with the fact that there was a process going on - that's about it. Obama has reneged on every promise to make facts public. if you get caught heaving a brick through a window as a political act, you ought to get fined and jailed, I agree. Also, if you get caught bribing or accepting a bribe, you should be fined and jailed, also. To not be able to understand civil unrest, Bob, would be not being able to understand most of world history. Obama has succeeded in doing what Hitler and Bin Laden only dreamed about and he did it without firing a shot. He used bribes instead of bullets. The country is on the road to bankruptcy much faster than it would have been and the country, as we know it, will not survive. I feel blessed to have lived my life through the period of the country that existed then and I feel sympathy for the new generation and the ones that will follow. Instead of the land of opportunity, we have become the land of entitlements. You have your change |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I wasn't angry with you Bob, but you are forgiven. I couldn't have said it better, Michael! |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Teabaggers' New Rallying Cry: 'Mrs. Obama, Hands Off Our Obesity!' “ One day after the passage of an historic health care reform bill in the House of Representative, the Tea Party movement turned its attention to a new target today: First Lady Michelle Obama's campaign against obesity. Carrying signs that read "Mrs. Obama, Hands Off Our Obesity," angry Teabaggers marched on the White House to accuse Michelle Obama, in the words of one protester, "of plotting to take the Big Macs out of our mouths." "Being obese is one of our American core values," said Carol Foyler, a Teabagger from Toledo, Ohio who showed up for the march. "It's guaranteed by the Constitution." Ms. Foyler said that Mrs. Obama's campaign against obesity was yet another example of the White House interfering in ordinary people's lives: "They want us all to be skinny like they are in Europe." The Teabagger said that she would fight the First Lady's obesity campaign "because you know what happens when you get too thin? Your husband runs off with a tattoo model." As the march reached the White House, Ms. Foyler said that the pro-obesity movement was already picking up steam: "Rush Limbaugh is definitely with us." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/teabaggers-new-cry-mrs-ob_b_508683.html  |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Watch it happen: http://www.whitehouse.gov/live |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It's a sad, sad day for this country. With one stroke of the pen he has essentially taken over the healthcare/insurance industry and the student loan industry. Government will now be calling the shots, coming between the doctor and patient, authorizing or denying treatment. Senior Citizens will be hit the hardest. I hate what these people have done to my country. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/23/its_a_civil_war_what_we_do_now_104875.html |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Friend -- I'm writing to you on a great day for America. This morning, I gathered with members of Congress, my administration, and hardworking volunteers from every part of the country to sign comprehensive health care reform into law. Thanks to the immeasurable efforts of so many, the dream of reform is now a reality. The bill I just signed puts Americans in charge of our own health care by enacting three key changes: It establishes the toughest patient protections in history. It guarantees all Americans affordable health insurance options, extending coverage to 32 million who are currently uninsured. And it reduces the cost of care -- cutting over 1 trillion dollars from the federal deficit over the next two decades. To ensure a successful, stable transition, many of these changes will phase into full effect over the next several years. But for millions of Americans, many of the benefits of reform will begin this year -- some even taking effect this afternoon. Here are just a few examples: -Small businesses will receive significant tax cuts, this year, to help them afford health coverage for all their employees. -Seniors will receive a rebate to reduce drug costs not yet covered under Medicare. -Young people will be allowed coverage under their parents' plan until the age of 26. -Early retirees will receive help to reduce premium costs. -Children will be protected against discrimination on the basis of medical history. -Uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions can join a special high-risk pool to get the coverage they need, starting in just 90 days. -Insured Americans will be protected from seeing their insurance revoked when they get sick, or facing restrictive annual limits on the care they receive. All Americans will benefit from significant new investments to train primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals, and the creation of state-level consumer assistance programs to help all patients understand and defend our new rights. As I've said many times, and as I know to be true, this astounding victory could not have been achieved without your tireless efforts. So as we celebrate this great day, I want to invite you to add your name where it belongs: alongside mine as a co-signer of this historic legislation. Organizing for America will record the names of co-signers as a permanent commemoration of those who came together to make this moment possible -- all of you who refused to give up until the dream of many generations for affordable, quality care for all Americans was finally fulfilled. So, if you haven't yet, please add your name as a proud health care reform co-signer today: http://my.barackobama.com/cosigner Please accept my thanks for your voice, for your courage, and for your indispensable partnership in the great work of creating change. History, and I, are in your debt. President Barack Obama |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Is this the same bill that I'm aware of? If all those Republicans were sitting behind all that paper, smaller than many of the bills they've pushed through Congress themselves, how could they claim ignorance of the contents? Were the pieces of paper blank? If they were blank, then what were they objecting to? If the Republicans weren't lying, they how did Denise get the pieces of misinformation that she's been waving around in the postings she's made since yesterday? Pointing fingers is exactly what you've been doing here. When I point out what your finger pointing needs to be compared with, all of a sudden you want to change the subject, you come up with a case of amnesia or find some other reason for not dealing with the material you've opened up. Is the Democratic method of running this health care and insurance business my favorite? No, it is not. It excludes the single payer option. I do not have the solution I would dearly like. But the President and the congress have finally shown some backbone and look to be getting at least some of the potential benefits of this bill passed. It's not everything I wanted, but it's a step forward in a hundred year old fight. Teddy Roosevelt was the guy with the gumption to get it started, a reformer and a Republican, and you should be proud to have him as part of your historical record in the Republican Party. I don't think his wing would get much approval, sadly, in this crowd. But I didn't vote for the President so that he would carry out my agenda down the line. I expected the man to use his brain and to adapt and deal. He's been a bit slow off the blocks to start that, but he seems to be doing it now. Besides, he more moderate than I am, and his choices are going to be more moderate. quote: And you brought up being secretive and how that leads to social unrest. I think you might have forgotten that, or somehow figured that what you said wasn't germane to the discussion. Why you would say something you thought inappropriate to reply to is a mystery to me. The most obvious solution would be not to bring in material you think is off the point in the first place, let alone bring up material that places you at such an obvious disadvantage. Mike now quotes me as saying: "The information as to what is happening here is not very secret at all. The same Republicans who tell you that they don't know what's in the health care bill are the folks who have members on the committee that's supposed to be writing and discussing that bill." And, in responding, Mike says,— quote: Come on, Mike. There is a common text that both Democrats and Republicans are working from in their day to day dealings on this bill. The Republicans say, "I object to this and so language because it does not address the budgetary Process." All stops while a debate and a ruling must be made on this point of order. That common text is the current text of the bill as it is being worked on in public, in front of both parties and anybody who chooses to watch on television. Were there no common text, The Republicans would not know where to object and what to say, would they? The new items that come up have to do with the accommodations that have to be made on the bill to bring it into compliance with the reconciliation process. I would assume that it's too late for any serious horse-trading to be done, because that would ensure that the bill would have to make another House/Senate go-around to make sure that everything was to the satisfaction of the cooperative Republicans. Perhaps I'm wrong, but there's never a point when a little extra rancor and poison can't be stirred into the pot, is there? Next Mike presents an article designed to pour further gasoline on the fire. However, a close reading of the text shows some fairly major problems. Should a reader actually wish to read the text, it is in Mike's posting above. The article proports to be about late inclusions in the Health care bill. The implication is that we have been duped again. It speaks about the terrible things included in this 153 page inclusion bill, and all about the horrible things the Democrats have planned for you now this bill is here. About a third of the way into the text, however, the article drops this little bomb into the text. I will quote it exactly because it's worth the read. quote: In plain English, that means, "We were just jerking your chain." Unperturbed, the dingbats writing the article then go to great lengths to tell you which horrible provisions you might have had to deal with if the bill had actually been included. They completely ignore the fact that the bill was thrown out and now deal with it as though it has become law. "The latest changes to the bill include" is what the text goes on to say, instead of the factual "might have included" that the situation called for. My conclusion is that the folks who write this stuff live in a horseshoes sort of world, where "close enough" counts and the distinctions between one thing and another fade into indistinguishability, and once again it's Time to check the sheep entrails for the latest news from Capital Hill. Mike's comment? quote: Indeed it would be, if the article Mike was quoting from hadn't already debunked that conclusion by saying that the 153 page bill had been junked. And provided that all the information that needed top be included had been included by knowing that 3 out of 13 hospitals had democratic representatives representing their districts. It makes a guy wonder who represented the other 10 hospitals? If they'd been represented by Democrats, surely the paper would have said so, and made another scathing point for the Home Team. If, however, as logic would suggest, the other 10 hospitals had been represented by folks from some other, unknown party, then what about the people of those districts, who might have gotten some needed medical services at the cost of some tax breaks to incentivize some doctors opening new hospitals to serve Medicaid patients? Logic would suggest that such hospitals would not go up in areas already crawling with well funded hospitals in physician rich communities, either, though I certainly could be wrong. Looks like that Republican opposition is really in there doing its job for the people of this country, doesn't it, protecting them from better health care delivery and more jobs in rural and underserved areas? There's the old Republican spirit for you! Go get "em, guys! You might also want to research the bank in North Dakota, by the way, before you start to crow about how wonderful it is that you've gotten it out of the student loan business. It's an unusual bank indeed. Again, Mike quotes me: "The American people have been kept up to date with the ongoing process of this bill during the year or so it's been winding its way through the Congress." quote: And yet, somehow, despite the Republican attempts at disinformation and misinformation, the facts seem to be in the public domain. And the Republicans seem to have enough of them clearly enough in sight to raise word by word objections to the contents of the bill. Simply because their public position of the congressional Republicans is that the bill is unreadable does not mean that they haven't read it and studied it in detail, or at least their staffs have. You can get it off the web, same as Grinch can. The entire statement of its inaccessibility is silly. What is true is that it's been constantly in flux, and part of that is to satisfy the Opposition. The sad truth of the matter is that what we have in front of us is pretty much a Republican health care bill written pretty much as the Republicans wanted it circa 1993, when the Republicans thought it might actually be possible to have two party government in this country. This is how far to the right that the country has been forced in almost twenty years, when the actual Republicans of today condemn what is essentially the work of their fathers as the depths of depravity and evil. Mike and I agree, it appears on brick throwing, and now it appears that we have agreement on bribes and bribing. It seems a terrible pity that our agreement on this last point has been rendered moot by the Supreme court's opinion on financial contributions to political campaigns. The actual thought of a corporation being a person I find bothersome. On the other hand, it does open up some possibility of prosecution on the basis of public indecency and lewdness when it comes to environmental behaviors. Stuff that it's illegal for me to do in public ought to be illegal for a corporation to do in public, and that should include disposal of toxic waste. Ah, the every flighty mind! quote: Why you old hippie you! I never thought I'd hear you sympathize with such things! Welcome! Now, how about reading dome stuff on non-violent protest. I have trouble seeing you on the side of the "grab a gun and shoot the nearest cop or soldier" folks. I never liked them very much. Civil disobedience, on the other hand, is something different, where you take action that is against the law and don't run off. You take responsibility for it and allow yourself to be arrested, understanding that you've done something you feel is right, knowing that the society doesn't agree. So which one are you suggesting, Mike? Or are you letting seriously wacky rhetoric sway you into saying stuff that isn't an exact statement of your position. Is your position something entirely different than needs to be made clear, because advocating violent overthrow of the government is serious business, and that's what a lot of the fringe right wing folks are talking about. You decided that Abraham Lincoln is the wrong guy to be proud of in the early Republican Party? Not big on The Union? The title of the thread is "Politics or Just Plain Hatred," Mike, and while it's about the Health care bill, a lot of the Just Plain Hatred seems to keep coming up. Where is it coming from, for heaven's sake? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There is no just plain hatred, Bob. There is always a reason and hatred is not the sole property of any one political party. You know that, of course. I ran across this quote which applies so well to today... "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance." ---Cicero, 55 BC |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“If you’re looking for a handout you’re in the wrong end of town. Nothing for free over here, you have to work for everything you get.” http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/03/dispatchvideo1_3e8b6.jpg Cicero meets Bob? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"The Republicans fought long and hard for people's right to wait three hours in an emergency room for someone to take their blood pressure, and they went down to defeat, and now they should stop and rethink their Waterloo strategy. ... If you choke on your shoe during a speech in the House of Representatives, you'll be whisked away to Walter Reed, and specialists will extract your hoof from your mouth and your head from your colon and clean you up and all for a tiny annual premium. It does not behoove men who are enjoying a huge pork sandwich to deny a few pork rinds to others and to grin in the process..." Garrison Keillor http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/opinion/keillor/2010/03/23/healthcare_in_america_landmark_bill |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Bob? Really? Is that what I have been doing? I had a lovely afternoon thinking that we had come to a sort of cordial meeting of the minds, as much as is possible between the two of us anyway, and then I come home from work to read this? I'm disappointed, to say the least. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Fox News, health care, and the right-wing nervous breakdown “This televised, incoherent meltdown has gone way beyond sore loserdom. Or even sore loserdom on steroids. This hasn't just been more of the usual Democrats-are-crooks type of whining that Fox News has turned into an art form since Obama's inauguration. And it's gone far beyond the usual scare tactics that the cable channel has trademarked. (Recent on-screen graphics: "Will the health bill ruin the economy?" and "Does Obamacare mean millions more jobs destroyed?") Instead, this bout of spastic lashing out has been unique even by the previous standard adopted by Beck, who, on the eve of the health care vote, likened Democrats to Al Qaeda terrorists who were trying to bring America to its knees from the inside. Because apparently when conservatives lose consecutive nationwide election cycles, thereby allowing Democrats to set the legislative agenda, conservatives' objections render passing bills a criminal act, and "tyranny" threatens to topple our democracy. So how did it all go so terribly wrong for health care haters? My hunch is that over the past few months, the right-wing media, along with self-adoring Tea Party members, made the mistake of believing their own hype. They fastidiously constructed their own parallel universe and convinced themselves that last summer's mini-mobs at local town hall forums had defeated health care reform. They thought their rowdy show of force, complete with Nazi and Hitler posters, and even some protesters parading around with loaded guns, had changed the debate. http://mediamatters.org/columns/201003230001 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I thought we came to a meeting of the minds as well, Denise; that doesn't mean that you get to say this sort of thing without at least a little bit of reality testing thrown in. Where is you back-up for any of this sort of statement? How has "he" taken over both the health care and the insurance industries? Unless you perhaps think that regulation and take-over are the same thing? That "he" has taken over Denise because there is regulation that forbids her from creatively committing murder in the middle of Market Street , or cleverly liberating funds from her neighbors next door? What an intolerable curtailment of your liberties! Or of the liberties of the Health Care industry or the insurance industry. Nuts! If they don't want to sell health care, nothing says they have to. The public has a right to say what the conditions are that are acceptable if an industry wants right to a public market. No unnecessary killing or maiming is a good start, which is how we got the pure food and drug laws in the first place. It appears that industry is forcing us to be more and more particular as time goes on. Thus we get, Oh, you mean we have to really really really test Thalidomide before we give it to pregnant women to calm them down. We only thought you meant we sort of had to test it, and that birth defects between friends weren't such an enormous deal. How about Not dealing in bad faith. You see, to me, not dealing in bad faith is one of those things that shouldn't have to be regulated, but the industry itself seems to have forced the hand of the public. To me, for example, somebody should not have to lose their health insurance because they've, say, been raped; but rape can be "a pre-existing condition," that can get your insurance discontinued. You should have to make an insurance company continue to pay for folks who've been raped, should you? I'd call that bad faith. Until now, many insurance companies have apparently been calling it good business. Thalidomide, by the way, is now back in use, but for other purposes only, and its use for pregnant women is not allowed. So Denise, when your statements sweep like the one's I've quoted, yeah, I call them misinformed or disinformed. More likely disinformed statements, as in, I believe you've been lied to, and you've believed the lies. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Rape is a pre-existing condition that can get your insurance canceled?? Never heard that one before. Denise, you forgot to mention the takeover of the student loan industry. I had wondered how government takeover of student loans fitted into the health care bill until a congressman explained it on tv last night. There is a 4.2% difference between the cost of the government loaning money and the amount of interest they charge the students. With almost 19 million students eligible for student loans, that comes to quite a sum. That money will now go directly to the government, instead of the banking industry and be used, in part, to finance the health care bill. The government's excuse for the takeover is that they feel banks should not benefit from loans made to students....so the government will benefit instead! It is estimated by COngressman Mitchell that this change will cost students 1500-1800 dollars more in interest than they would have paid with the banks in charge. So add student loans as another government takeover, along with GM and the others. The list is growing and, no doubt, will continue to grow as long as Obama is in charge. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"Tea Party Is The Home Of The Angry White Woman" http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2010/03/pitchfork-protester-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/poll-tea-party-is-the-home-of-the-angry-white-woman.php?ref=fpb |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Rape Victim's Choice: Risk AIDS or Health Insurance? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html Big Changes Coming to Student Loans http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/paying-for-co llege/2010/03/24/big-changes-coming-to-student-loans.html?PageNr=1 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thanks for the references, Jennifer, I appreciate the effort. Mike? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
We agree on one thing, Bob. There is a lot of misinformation, disinformation and lying going on. We disagree on which side the fence the majority of it's coming from though. Mike, I long for the good old days. They weren't perfect but they were better than this nightmare. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Palin tells followers to ‘reload’ and ‘aim for’ Democrats Salon's Joan Walsh - "But in a country where angry right-wingers carry guns to see the president speak, and spit on African-American congressmen, I thought it was a chilling statement. Will any Republican denounce Palin's language?" http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0324/palin-gun-imagery-attack-democrats/ |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Joan Walsh needs to learn how to read. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Threats linked to health votes prompt security At least 10 Dems receive threats; gas line cut at Perriello brother's home At least 10 House Democrats are receiving access to increased security after receiving threats linked to their votes on the health care overhaul bill signed into law on Tuesday House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said at a Capitol Hill press conference that he is concerned by a rash of at least four incidents of vandalism targeting lawmakers who voted to approve the legislation, which did not receive any Republican votes. Concern about possible violence escalated Wednesday after a severed gas line at the home of a Democratic lawmaker's brother was discovered. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36020850/ns/politics-capitol_hill |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Denise, sorry you think that way. Which statements, attributed to Democrats, do you see as misinformation or disinformtion? There must be some that really are bogus, even from my point of view, since, as you said, there are some nut-cases in every party doing and saying nutty things. But surely you don't believe that the Republicans are exempt from the same principles that you've so clearly and — I believe — accurately stated as general principles governing both Democrats and Republicans both, as well as whomever else is on the scene. There are loony tunes at every picnic is the way I'd put it. You're usually more lady-like about things. It's a question of which things are disinformation and misinformation and where. For example, that this bill is a government take-over of health care, which seems to be one of your thoughts, and that this is socialism and communism rolled into one. My preference would be a more socialistic approach, one with a single payer health-plan, even a plan closer to the English National Health Plan, where most of the hospitals were owned and run by the government, and so on. This bill doesn't give it to me. What this bill does give is more to the wretched private sector insurance companies, drat them, 32 million more customers. It gives them a guaranteed market for their wares and money in the bank for the private sector for profit part of the health care economy. It does make them pay for it by making sure that they won't turn down people with pre-existing conditions, and that it won't kick people off the plans if they get sick. I don't like the insurance industry at all, but they are private sector, and nobody's taken them over. If only the government would put those jokers out of the private health care business, except for the bells and whistles plans, and took over supplying a decent level of care, I'd feel better. But then, I'm not Congress. Thoughts, Denise? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Pick any statement that you like, Bob, made by any of them. Chances are good it will fall into one of those catagories. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Rep. Louise Slaughter received an assassination threat against the children of lawmakers who supported health care reform. I don't mind reporting that, mixed in with the usual array of angry far-right blasts, I've received several death threats via email. One email ended with a warning that I should "check on the kids." It's inexcusable and it's unforgivably irresponsible how top-shelf conservative players like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and even some members of the congressional leadership are using coded and not-so-coded language that speaks directly to a small, but trigger-happy right-wing. Unlike the policy-driven arguments made by mostly pacifistic liberals during the Bush years, this language is a direct and precise emboldening of right-wing extremism -- and terrorism. And the behavior from certain elements of the far-right can be defined as such. It's terrorism. No gray area here. Right-wing terrorism. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/right-wing-terrorism-stok_b_511787.html |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Disillusioned, overall, Denise? Sorry to catch you in a mood like that. Hope you feel better. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There you have it. Palin, Beck and congressional republicans are terrorists who want their followers to start shooting democrats. I'm going to stop wrapping my garbage in the huffington post. It's an insult to the garbage. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Rachel Maddow- Emboldened extremist right incites violence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blrO3J0CmN0 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Rachel Maddow On The Lunatic Right's Intimidation Tactics & The GOP's Culpability http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNHZNYoy5tk |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Mike, I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that Palin isn't issuing maps with crosshairs sketched in over states where legislators voted for the health care bill, "targeting" them. A nice quiet x would have worked, don't you think? A Checkmark? Something that doesn't involve guns and telescopic sights? The Democrats got upset at the Bush administration without talking about shooting government officials, you know. President Obama is too polite to put the last administration on trial for treason, and the loonies on the right are polishing up their rifles. Yee-haw! The Democrats get what's essentially the 1993-94 Republican Health Care bill passed, and now the Republican think it's cause to declare open season on Democrats. They toss bricks through the windows of democrats. They threaten the lives of Democrats. Yep, I gotta say, Abe Lincoln's really proud of you guys. How stands the Union? Well, Abe, your party's tearing it apart. Other than that, pretty good. Don't blame the Huffington Post, Mike, it's the news that stinks like week old fish. That sulfurous smell you've got in your nose is good old fashioned hatred, and it's rolling in from the right so thick that nobody can see a thing. The fog's smeared everything decent in sight. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obama is too polite to put the last administration on trial for treason? He's put them on trial for everything. It's all Bush's fault, Bob. Didn't you know that? Our national debt quadrupling under Obama's watch is Bush's fault. The unemployment percentage going up 25% under Obama's watch is all Bush's fault. The fact that we are so buried in debt is all Bush's fault. The paint peeling from the White House facade is Bush's fault. Well, guess what? Obama has just taken over. The health care bill, and every effect it has on the economy of the country, is all Obama. He will sink or swim with it. There is no "Bush's fault" excuse he can use here. That sulfurous smell you've got in your nose is good old fashioned hatred, I agree, Bob. Hatred, as well as admiration, has a reason. Ask yourself what it is. You can condemn violence and I will agree with you wholeheartedly, but I won't condemn their hatred. It has been earned....earned by the most audacious, arrogant, self-serving unholy trio of leaders this country has ever seen. The administration has completely turned it's back on and closed it's ears to the American people and that can foster hatred. Turn your back on your wife, refused to listen to her, walk away from her, make the household decision without asking for her input or advice, spend the household money on whatever you want without giving her a voice in it...and see how long it takes for that love turns to hatred. The democrats have earned the feelings toward them. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think perhaps Maddow and Company may have dropped one too many hits of acid during their college years. They don't come any whackier! They certainly do make for good entertainment! I don't recall them being upset last week when the pro-aborts were threatening Stupack, nor do I recall them being upset during the 2008 campaign when McCain's offices were vandalized. Just some more of their selective outrage, very common with them. This article says it all about current allegations of violence: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mithridate-ombud/2010/03/24/medias-myth-right-wing-violence |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"I think perhaps Maddow and Company may have dropped one too many hits of acid during their college years" Wrong generation for acid, off by about 30 years. Senior moments, so darn cute. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: The difference between sentence one and sentence two is that there is a change in subject, Mike. Also, you changed the meaning of the word "trial" between sentences. In sentence one, where you're paraphrasing me, "trial" is used as a literal legal proceeding; in sentence two, you use the word metaphorically, as in trying to hold the folks responsible for their actions they're responsible for causing in an ethical or moral but not legal sense. This is not a very telling point unless you can say that the folks being held responsible actually feel any regrets about what they've done. It's not clear to me that you could call any of the folks in the last administration anything but smug and pleased with their actions, at least from the observations I've made. Enough of the country felt them responsible to vote the party out of office, but you could hardly claim that as being anything but a spasm of momentary disgust unless it's repeated on a fairly regular basis. In the meantime, you're confounding rhetoric and reality. quote: I won't go 100% of the way with you here, but I think you're pretty much right all the way down the line. The Republicans have made it very clear that they want no part of insurance reform or health care reform and have fought it bitterly. My personal wish is that it would have been a more robust Liberal or further left bill instead of the pale, Republican Lite piece of work that it is, but this is what my party fought for, and it's what we've got, provided the thing holds together for another go-around through the House. It's a Democratic love-child with Bob Dole. I shudder to think of it, but there it is. I hope it makes it through into Law intact. quote: I condemn the violence. I condemn what the Republicans have done to stir it up. I condemn the tactics that they use to keep it stirred up. There is no justification for stirring up hatred with the number of lies that the Republicans have encouraged and with the language that many of them are using. There is no excuse for not having corrected the lies that they've been spreading that are the root of this mess. I lay every act of violence directly at the feet of those voicing those lies and those not combatting them actively. There is to my mind no excuse for saying that I condemn the violence but understand the hatred when the hatred is based on deliberate propaganda that could have and should have been withdrawn at any time. This is a Democracy, where we are supposed to talk our differences out. It is not a country where we are supposed to take guns to the street and act like some third world dictatorship overthrowing an elected government because United Fruit doesn't like their export policy or is upset because that new Government wants land reform. Color Bob upset. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"I won't condemn their hatred" Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction….The chain reaction of evil–hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars–must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.” -Martin Luther King, Jr. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Oh it's still around, Jen, hate to disappoint you. http://www.drugabuse.gov/DrugPages/acidLSD.html |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
For NewsBusters, reporting on threats against Congressmen = "legitimizing Democratic talking points" Baker's argument is that Democrats are engaged in a "demonization effort" against opponents of the new law, and that the media, in reporting on the threatened violence, are playing into that effort. Notably, for all his denunciations of the Democrats and the press over this alleged "demonization," Baker couldn't find any space to denounce the people actually doing the threatening. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003250020 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Stop that, Denise. You can get upset about what people call your party with perfect justification if you want it called something else. But if you are going to call people who speak of themselves as pro-life in language like that, you undercut all moral right to make any sort of request of that nature. It's seriously hypocritical and it appears purposefully provocative. I'll still call you TEA Party Folks, but you have undermined any rational case you have for others treating you with equal consideration. What were you thinking? I don't know what Rachael Maddow said about Rep. Stupak last week. I would wager, however, that there weren't a lot of death threats involved against the man by your hypocritically named "Pro-Aborts." And that the "Pro-Aborts" weren't talking about cleaning their rifles and taking to the streets, potentially to hunt people who disagreed with them about health care. If there were, a reference from a neutral newspaper with decent sources would get an instant apology from me. More to the point, I'd like to know how you would know such a thing. I am only an occasional watcher of Rachel Maddow or Keith Obberman, and in order to actually be able to make a statement like the one you've made, you really would have had to watch all of them, wouldn't you? Otherwise, you simply wouldn't have any idea. I bet that you probably took somebody's word for it; that's what I suspect at any rate. Did you know, if you want to follow Rush Limbaugh, you can get a summary of his program every day in writing from Media Matters? Is there some right-wing service like this for Rachael and Keith and the gang? Inquiring minds want to know. If you want to tell me that you'll work against a candidate's re-election campaign, or help raise money for an opponent, or even give money yourself, why that's simply democratic give and take. Calling somebody a Baby-killer is way over the line, especially a guy like Stupak. And actual death threats are too far over the line to even deal with as beneath contempt. What are you thinking? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There is to my mind no excuse for saying that I condemn the violence but understand the hatred when the hatred is based on deliberate propaganda that could have and should have been withdrawn at any time. Ok by me, Bob. Keep deluding yourself but not understanding where the disgust and hatred are coming from. Obama is pretty good at self-delusion, also. "The American people are not interested in process" He may be having second thoughts on that one. Process IS the constitution. Process runs our legal system. Process is supposed to be how our government runs. He feels that he can ignore process by doing whatever was necessary to get his bill passed and the American people would close their eyes and buy it. He is wrong. He has shown that he could care less about either process or whatever the American public thinks. He has made a mistake and the people's disgust is his reward. This is a Democracy, where we are supposed to talk our differences out. Why not tell that to Obama, Bob? He doesn't seem to understand that point. He's not interested into discussion with the American people. He only tells them what he is going to do to them and if they don't like it, well, that's what elections are for. Now he's going around the country trying to sell the health care bill he has already passed. Makes sense, huh? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Stop that, Denise??? You are issuing orders now, Bob? SHould we submit our posts to you before submitting them for your approval? WHy didn't I hear a "stop that, Jennifer" when she made an insulting comment about senior moments? You missed that one, I guess. Why didn't I hear you mention that sucha a remark was provocative and insulting and served no purpose, as you have said with my posts? You are just a poster here, like we are, and issuing orders and slapping hands is not part of your realm, even though it appears you think they are. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Violence At Townhall - Against A Conservative; Six Arrested, Including a Reporter Photo of Seton Motley. By Seton Motley (Bio | Archive) Fri, 08/07/2009 - 09:46 ET UPDATE: We have some video of the attack. It appears that it is members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) doing at least some of the dirty work. But it's conservatives who engage in violence and hate speech, right? The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch is reporting that one of their own, reporter Jake Wagman, was one of six people arrested in connection with the beating of a conservative activist outside of a town hall forum held by Democrat Congressman Russ Carnahan. According to Dawn Majors, a Post-Dispatch photojournalist who witnessed everything unfold, an officer said that Wagman had been "interfering." From the article: Kenneth Gladney, a 38-year-old conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with “Don't tread on me” printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room of the St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was waiting to be treated for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face that he suffered in the attack. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack started. "It just seems there's no freedom of speech without being attacked," he said. That is some list of injuries, which means it must have been some beating. And Gladney says he was attacked by "some of those arrested," which means there were probably more in the mob than just that. And let us not overlook nor forget the racial slur Gladney additionally endured. Two of those were arrested on suspicion of assault, one of resisting arrest and three on suspicion of committing peace disturbances. To be very fair, Wagman of the Post-Dispatch could have simply been in the way while trying to shoot video of the assault; the article does not say. We'll see how widely this is reported by the Lamestream Media, as it certainly fails to fit into their Conservative Haters template. Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/07/violence-townhall-against-conservative-six-arrested-including-reporter#ixzz0jCoU7etr hmmm....guess you libs missed that one. I don't recall seeing any righteous condemnation of it by any of you. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I think Gladney’s ok now, fully recovered, found his calling selling land in the Okefenokee . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK0eFXa1nX4 |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The threats were coming from fringe elements of both sides of the spectrum, Bob. But the only outcry you hear about in the lamestream media, like MSNBC, are against those allegedly from the right. I haven't seen Maddow or Olberman in ages, only in occassional clips. I heard about last week's threats against Stupack on the news last night during the segment talking about this weeks threats, stating that the FBI is investigating all of them. But I haven't come across any from Maddow and Company talking about the threats to Stupack last week, so if you can find a clip of them reporting, and denouncing them, please share them here. Or maybe you will have some luck in finding clips of their outrage when McCain's offices were vanadalized during the campaign. I've never called anyone a baby-killer and I've never threatened anybody, and neither have the vast majority of those on the right, despite the best efforts of those on the left to slander everyone on the right at every opportunity, even if they have to imagine a conspiracy complete with code words encouraging violence emanating out over the airwaves. If these people didn't destroy their brains through drug abuse in their youth, then I guess maybe they were just born with a deficit in the thinking department. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The threats and intimidation against Stupak are reprehensible. Turn on any news channel and you will get full stories on them. The threats and intimidation against him conducted by Democrats when he was not in favor of the bill were equally reprehensible. Were they on the news programs, also, in such grand detail?? Nada, zero, zilch. How about that? The democratic senators who voted no on the health bill were on tv today talking about the threats and intimidation they got from unions. What channel were they on? FOX, of course. No other station took them. Where are ya, Keith? How about you, Rhodes Scholar Rachel? Guess it's not newsworthy if it's not anti-Republican. Banners have been shown on Fox saying "KILL BUSH" and one showing Bush's head chopped off. There was a clip of Kerry, making a joke, referring to someone going up to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and "killing two birds with one stone." Were these things shown anywhere else? You win the kewpie doll if you said no. The pathetic attempt to blame the republicans for the actions of the nutjobs and their actions is...well, pathetic. They just can't pass up any opportunity, can they? All politics and to hell what it does to the country. Be proud, democrats.... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “More Bottled Piety [Victor Davis Hanson] This week’s talking point is the sudden danger of new right-wing violence, and the inflammatory push-back against health care. I’m sorry, but all this concern is a day late and a dollar short. The subtext is really one of class — right-wing radio talk-show hosts, Glenn Beck idiots, and crass tea-party yokels are foaming at the mouth and dangerous to progressives. In contrast, write a book in which you muse about killing George Bush, and its Knopf imprint proves it is merely sophisticated literary speculation; do a docudrama about killing George Bush, and it will win a Toronto film prize for its artistic value rather than shock from the liberal community about over-the-top discourse. Socialism and totalitarianism are tough charges from the hard right, but they seem to me about as (or as not) over-the-top as Al Gore screaming “digital brown-shirts” or John Glenn comparing the opposition to Nazis. When 3,000 were murdered in Manhattan, and Michael Moore suggested Bin Laden had wrongly targeted a blue state, I don’t think that repulsive remark prevented liberal politicians from attending his anti-Bush film premiere. Yes, let us have a tough debate over the role of government and the individual, but spare us the melodrama, the bottled piety, and the wounded-fawn hurt. Like it or not, between 2001 and 2008, the “progressive” community redefined what is acceptable and not acceptable in political and public discourse about their elected officials. Slurs like “Nazi” and “fascist” and “I hate” were no longer the old street-theater derangement of the 1960s, but were elevated to high-society novels, films, political journalism, and vein-bulging outbursts of our elites. If one were to take the word "Bush" and replace it with "Obama" in the work of a Nicholson Baker, or director Gabriel Range, or Garrison Keillor or Jonathan Chait, or in the rhetoic of a Gore or Moore, we would be presently in a national crisis, witnessing summits on the epidemic of "hate speech." So here we are with the age-old problem that once one destroys decorum for the sake of short-term expediency, it is very hard to restore it in any credible fashion on grounds of principle when the proverbial shoe is on the other foot. A modest suggestion: If the liberal community wishes to be more credible in its concern about contemporary extremist anti-administration rhetoric, then they might try the following: “Please, let us avoid extremism and do not fall into the same trap as Baker, Chait, Keillor, Gore, Moore, or Range when they either expressed open hatred toward their president, or speculated about the assassination of their president, or compared their president to a fascist. We must disown such extremism, past and present."” [URL=http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTc3NDA5YjE2NzUyZmQ3OWRiOGUyNDVmNjJmNDJhMjg=]http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTc3NDA5YjE2NzUyZmQ3OWRiOGUyNDVmNjJmNDJhMjg=[/UR L] . |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Ah, now I get it, all the nonsense about drug abuse, drug abuse that didn't happen. Someone's trying to make Ph.d. Rhodes Scholar Rachel look as pathetic as two semester drop out viagra popping Oxy Rush. Bringing up BUSH, thought that was a big no no.  Just like Liz Cheney's attack on DOJ lawyers who represented Gitmo detainees, the right wing's cranking up the teabagger hate fest, cheering on the mob outside the Capitol has come back to bite them in the you know. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Maybe you want to talk about drug abuse that definitely did happen, Jen? Throw in some alcohol too....read Obama's book again. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Will the Next Act of Terrorism Be Domestic? Worse yet, the fringes have been empowered by a frustrated conservative mainstream desperate for popular support. Now, conservatives may have whipped up the kind of anger that cannot be put back in the bottle. What began as the corporate funded, Dick Armey led, FreedomWorks organized, anti-health care rallying Tea Party movement has grown into something beyond what its founders intended. The Tea Party (if we can call it such) has entered into a series of loose alliances (of convenience or common purpose) with fringe groups like The Oath Keepers, the Committees of Safety, and the Three Percenter Movement (to name a few) Party connections with the Oath Keepers, Committees of Safety, and the Three Percenter Movement, place these politicians very few degrees from radical white supremacists. The Oath Keepers have attempted to recruit on both the Keystone State Skinheads forum and the odious Stormfront.org; and Three Percenter Movement lists its values as follows: The Three Percent are the folks the Founders counted on to save the Republic when everyone else abandoned it. And we will. There will be no more free Wacos and no more free Katrinas. For we are the Three Percent. We will not disarm. You cannot convince us. You cannot intimidate us. You can try to kill us, if you think you can. But remember, we'll shoot back . We are not going away. We are not backing up another inch. And there are THREE MILLION OF US. Your move, Mr. Wannabe Tyrant. Your move. This April 19 will see an armed "Open Carry" rally outside of Washington DC - run by the Three Percenter Movement http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schneider/one-if-by-land-americas-n_b_513608.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
If you want to see dangerous radicals you don't need to look any further than the White House. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
We saw "dangerous radicals" riling up the teabagger mob from the Capitol balcony. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/03/will-going-negative-on-health-care-doom-republicans-in-2010-perils-of-catering-to-tea-party-activists.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/03/25/cnns-sanchez-asks-are-u-s-zealots-similar-al-qaeda-taliban The Democratic lapdogs are in full attack mode. I think they want a civil war. I think the best thing to do is to ignore their smears, don't take their bait, and just keep presenting the facts. The truth will eventually win out. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I don't think you'll see many Democrats at the April 19th Open Carry. Do wave if you happen to be near a camera. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Of course they are in full attack mode, Denise, anything to provide a diversion. Let them rant. They are not fooling anyone except readers of the Huffington Post and they are showing their true colors about how the country doesn't matter....only they do. Good and accurate comment about dangerous radicals and the White House. They have quite a group there, don't they? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Years ago, major league baseball and the national football league made the decision not to televise any disruptions on the fields by lunatics. They did not want to give them credence or publicity. What a shame our news media an the democrat party could not be as intelligent. Threats and attacks against democrats have been front page news and lead-in stories on nightly news all day long. Why? The answer is simple. They want to discredit the Tea-partiers and republican leadership. It's all a smear campaign on their part and it's orchestrated. If it causes more of the same by highlighting it, they couldn't care less. That is the democrat party....and the media it has in it's pocket. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"Weak as water!" - Mrs. Slocombe |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
STUPAK: "Well -- well, the thing that outraged a lot of us was, while the demonstrations were going on, the Republicans were on the second floor with signs urging the crowd below. Some of them said, "Kill." Some of them had a picture of -- of the speaker, and they would hold it up and slice their hand across the speaker's throat. To the crowd, they would all cheer. I mean, it almost became a -- a mob mentality here. And then, when you have members, same members of Congress, encouraging it with signs and pictures and gestures, that -- that's -- that's really uncalled for." |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Wow, Mike, back to calling the Democratic Party, the Democrat Party! I thought you actually said that you'd not do that, but perhaps my memory has gotten foggy. And Denise seems to avoiding dealing with calling the pro-life folks the "Pro-Abort" people. Each of you seems to be saying that you think that democrats are being hateful, neither of you seem to notice that you are crossing lines that really needn't be crossed. This language functions as a way of hurting feelings without any particular need to do so right here. These little language slips are the same sort of thing that seems to be happening nationally. Here, we can look each other straight in the eyes — at least figuratively in our little computer space — and say, Hey, that was painful and needless, and I wish you'd stop that. And we have the choice at that point of pushing the reset buttons in our heads, saying Okay, I see what you mean, and then trying to make the point differently. No, Mike, I can't order anybody to do that; and if I had the power to do so, I wouldn't. The most I have is the right to say it like I'm serious about it. People usually ignore me anyway, but I can at least feel like I made a straightforward statement about what I think is right, and I usually try to temper it with consideration and politeness. Sometimes that even comes across. I wouldn't want to be in a position of power where I could make what I said stick like that. I've made a point of avoiding that sort of thing. Others are better at it than I am. The flip side, for me, is that when somebody else is right and I'm not, or when they have a point that I think is a good one, or when I make a mistake and realize it, I try to make a point of saying that as well. As you should know. quote: Occam's razor applies to your question. There have been reports of attacks against Democrats all day (and for several days) in the press. These reports suggest that there are a bunch of folks on the right who have been whipping up hate against Democrats, and that some of these hate messages have begun to deliver violence as a result of more than a year of preparation. Many on the Right have called the Democrats names like Fascist, Communist, and socialist, sometimes within the same paragraph. If not precisely, then closely enough as to make President Clinton's comment about what the meaning of the word "is" is look like it wasn't hair splitting at all. So, why have their been reports about attacks on the Democrats in the press? William of Occam would suggest to us that the simplest answer is generally the best — not because there's an attempt to smear Republican leadership, but because [i]there have actually been a large number of attacks against Democrats.[i] There is the most reasonable explanation. The fact that folks have been predicting that the constant barrage of lies and distortions directed at the Democrats by the radical right over the past years and a half might have this effect, would surely have this effect unless it was moderated to criticisms based in reality, has conveniently been forgotten. It is not like the Democrats haven't made mistakes worthy of genuine reality based criticism, you know; it's not like a good case couldn't have been built without the lies and the half truths. I would have agreed with some of it and disagreed with other parts of it, but I couldn't have fought the grounding in the facts. It's the basis of creating attacks based on lies that bothers me, and ought to bother everybody (except those who deal with politics from a purely technical point of view, I suppose) else as well. It's not the wretched press that smears the leadership of the Republicans and of the Tea Party subsection, it the coming out of what's actually been said by these folks yolked to factual reporting of what the actual result has been. When the connection is made, the thing actually looks as ugly as it is. That, my friends, is not a smear; au contraire, it is the merciless light of day focused on what has, till now, been going on under rocks and in various noisome dank places that flourish far better without the sterilizing presence of light. The buzzards, as we used to say back home in Ohio, have come home to Hinkley. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I see nothing about the party being "democratic" these days, in any way. Democrats they are. Your post reiterated the news stories about threats against democrats but ignored my statements about the threats, present and past, against republicans that the press virtually ignore or slip on page 42. When that happens, it shows the bias I refer to. The word obviously went out before the vote to trash the movement and the press complied. Right before the vote a "tea-partier" screamed at a disable man. Some alleged "tea-bagger" in the crowd shouted an alleged racial slur at a congressman, with no proof. Now "tea-baggers" are threatening congressmen. All of these things get major press coverage. The threats against republicans? Barely a whisper. The threats against Stupak by the left and unions before he changed his vote? Nope, not much there, either. You may not wish to recognize this ploy but, believe me, many do and, once again, democrats underestimate the intelligence of the American people. It's another example of why network news watcher numbers has plummeted faster than Clinton can unzip his pants. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"The word obviously went out before the vote to trash the movement and the press complied." Tinfoil hat time! OMG look what I found - a pitchfork right here in the Alley!  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
If they were so proud of this mess they just jammed down our throats they'd be hyping that, not trashing those who opposed it, would they, Mike? They do think we are stupid and they think they know better than we do. They have a rude awakening coming their way. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Their arrogance will be their downfall, Denise. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Let’s just hope that "rude awakening" doesn't come in this form - teabaggers in silly hats marching again with pitchforks. Then again, perhaps teabaggers parading with pitchforks is a heck of a lot safer than thousands of them gathered at an Open Carry rally. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hey, Denise, should we pretend to be offended by Jenn's comments to make her feel better or just continue ignoring them? I'll vote for the latter |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I'm sorry about whatever threats the Republicans have gotten. If they've come from Democrats, the democrats were wrong. They should be investigated by the police and prosecuted fully. If there was hate-speech involved, then the necessary hate-speech legislation should be invoked. There's no excuse for this sort of stuff no matter who does it, Mike. Nobody asked you what your views were on what my Party decided to name itself, Mike. The name was given, and really, that's what's supposed to be used, the same way that I am obligated to call you Mike, Michael or Balladeer, even when I'm frustrated with you. That's the social convention. If I'm to slap you with a personally insulting name because I want to, that says something about what I think about our relative social positions now, doesn't it? It says that I think that I'm allowed a special set of rules that you aren't allowed and that I'm better than you are. I am not better than you are. You treating me and people in my party in this way is insulting. It also blocks actual conversation about issues, while I spend time not only trying to address the issues, but attempting to get you to treat me and members of my party with civility. Civility shouldn't be hard, it should be pretty much reflexive. You would like it from others, and even get upset when you don't feel you get enough of it. Offering it isn't a bad way to start. I heard some of the stories about Republicans getting rough treatment, and I don't like them any more than I like the stories about Democrats getting bad treatment. I would like to point out to you, that stories about stuff said and done to Democrats have pretty much been ignored, passed over or outright denied by the Republicans since the last election. We could go back further, should you wish, but we don't have to. The Republicans have been outright lying and certainly distorting the facts about the Obama administration and this insurance bill from the beginning. I have seen Grinch correct distortion after distortion within these pages. I cite him because he is conservative, and you have at least from time to time listened to the reality of what he has said. Similar things said by myself or others on the left have seldom been acknowledged at all. It seems to have made no difference, however. You get shot down about your facts once, twice and more (death panels come to mind) and the same stuff crops up again as though you weren't aware that it was a lie. None of this has mattered to you, near as I can tell, in the least. Until. Until the bill passed and the public began to look around at the sort of atmosphere had been created over the past almost two years. Until it began to soak in that there were actual threats of armed unrest in the streets, and that the Republicans were — if not actively encouraging them, a position which I believe there is plenty of evidence to support, should we wish to go coal mining in that direction some day — at least passively encouraging and cheerleading. Instead of trying to keep the burgeoning violence in line, what we got were voices that said, "Bluster, Bluster, Bluster, violence is right on the horizon, it's right next door, it's coming because of the Democrats who are taking our freedom away from us; and we understand that. Of course it's understandable that you would believe the lies we're telling you. Here are some more: You'll lose your doctor. The Democrats are taking over the health care system and they fascist, Nazi, communist tyrants. Also bluster, Bluster, Bluster." Until the public looked around and began to say, hey, this is pretty ugly stuff the Republicans and the Tea Party folks are doing here. We really don't like it at all. It's sort of disgusting, this level of violence and threats of violence." Now, of course, the Republicans have still not gotten around to saying, We're sorry. They still indulge in calling folks things like "Baby-killer" on the floor of the house, and calling the President a liar in a joint session of congress. They wait till they're forced to say, That wasn't what I actually said in public, then go off on right wing talk shows and brag about how they got away with it and use the incidents to raise money from the very loonies who are responsible for some of the violence making the rounds now. The latest response — and I confess I find this response just a little bit more revolting that some of the previous responses — is to say, Me Too! Yes, Folks, we Republicans too have been the poor victims of hate and violence, and what;s more, we want to know why this hasn't been made as important as the wave of hate that we've unleashed countrywide over the Democrats. I am authentically sorry that the Republicans have been swept up in this. It's not that I would wish it solely on the Democrats; it's that I don't like anybody getting this sort of response. I also think it might have been a little tiny bit foreseeable, and that the Republicans have been getting told right along that once you release this sort of rhetorical wave, it's not good for the country period. That's still true, by the way. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
 Maybe I'll quit my job, join Organizing for America, plaster the internet with trumped up stories in an attempt to smear average everyday Americans in an effort to enhance the image of The One, then sip a latte while relaxing in front of the TV watching the boobs on MSNBC, and daydream about the ways I will spend the redistributed wealth that will soon be coming my way courtesy of the idiots who insist on continuing to work, Michael! Care to join me? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Are all the stories trumped up Denise? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You can never say 'all' or 'none', Grinch, but since the administrator of Security at the Capitol issued a memo yesterday stating there had been no uptick in the number of incidents this week, over and above the average that they always get, which target both sides of the aisle, I'd say all of this attacking of the right is quite trumped up, nothing but political grandstanding. Very Alinskyesque. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Have you read Saul Alinsky, yet, Denise, or not? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm sorry about whatever threats the Republicans have gotten. If they've come from Democrats, the democrats were wrong. That's good of you, Bob. If you were to say, "I'm sorry about whatever threats the Democrats have gotten. If the've come from Republicans, the Republicans were wrong". You don't say that, though, do you. The "ifs" somehow got lost in the journey from one party to the other. On this side of the coin, it changes to the Republicans being responsible, taunting, antagonizizng, calling for violence....no "if" the republicans in sight. There's no excuse for this sort of stuff no matter who does it, Mike. On that we can agree. There is also no excuse for placing the blame on the actions of a few idiots on an entire party, which you are more than willing to do to the Republican party, but not to the democrats when the roles are reversed. There is no excuse for the media give front-page headlining to acts against democrats and find it not newsworthy enough to mention when it is against Republicans. Now, of course, the Republicans have still not gotten around to saying, We're sorry. You need to watch more tv, Bob. All major Republicans have condemned these actions. They should say," We're sorry"? I'm sure everyone is sorry that these kinds of acts exist...or do you want them to say they are sorry because they committed them? They didn't and they have never advocated it. They still indulge in calling folks things like "Baby-killer" on the floor of the house, which he didn't do. He called the bill a baby-killer and calling the President a liar in a joint session of congress. Which was true. You treating me and people in my party in this way is insulting. I'm assuming you typed that without laughing, though I don't know how. Do you really want to speak of insulting a party? Yes, Folks, we Republicans too have been the poor victims of hate and violence, and what;s more, we want to know why this hasn't been made as important as the wave of hate that we've unleashed countrywide over the Democrats. Bob, I could fill many pages with direct insults you have made concerning the Republican party and you know it. You don't even have the courtesy of saying Republican leaders or specific Republicans. You just apply them to the entire party. SInce I am a member of that party, I must assume you are applying it to me as well. Now you complain that the word democrat is insulting to you and your party and you want it stopped? Rotsa ruck. The word is in the dictionary. It is not considered blasphemous (yet) and it is not on the list of banned words on this site. I will continue using it. You may call me anything you like. Yoo may call the republican party anything you like. You can call them Repubs and say it stands for the regrowth of pubic hair after a close shave. I could care less. If you really want respect for your party, you may try giving some, instead of the dozens of insults and accusations you have thrown our way. It's regrettable that you don't like it but, for me, the name of your party will continue to end with -rat. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I'm a Democrat, Mike. I can say I'm sorry about things members of my party have done that I don't approve of. I would have trouble speaking for members of other potentially offending groups, wouldn't I? It would be misleading and false for me to even try. Keeping in mind one of the articles quoted by Denise the other day, which proported to list Democratic attacks on Republicans, I tried to be clear that not all attacks were real, just as many of the attacks listed in that article were real or politically motivated. The woman professor in Alabama who shot fellow staff people because she failed to get tenure had no political motivation at all that I could see, for example; and the guy who flew his plane into the Federal Building IRS offices didn't seem to me to have anything against conservatives, simply against the faceless IRS and the large government. Most of the incidents and people could be disposed of that way, I thought, and fairly clearly, too. The black guy who was assaulted by another black guy may well have been Liberal on Conservative violence it certainly seemed like it was to me. Though I must say that it was hardly buried on page 42 of the local papers. We spoke about it here. If the examples the Republicans chose tended on the whole to have more truth to them, and less obvious misinformation and disinformation, it would be easier to be even-handed about business such as this. It is not my responsibility to make an apology for the behavior of the Republicans, as you seem to suggest I should. I am not a Republican, and the apologies that I see are mostly accompanied by attacks and justifications, as yours have been, as to why it's perfectly fine to call Democrats "Rats." That is not an apology; that's an excuse for another chance to use hate speech against Democrats. quote: These remarks describe two different incidents on the House floor. The Texas Representative who made the Baby Killer comment reported that he made that statement about the bill itself. He waited at least a day before issuing that correction, which suggests that he was in no hurry to correct anybody's misapprehension about his statement. He made the statement after it was public knowledge that the President had issued an executive order forbidding use of monies from that bill to be used for abortion, and he made the statement knowing that according to the Hyde ammendment, it was already illegal for public monies to be used for that purpose. I am prepared to believe that the Representitive was stupid enough not to be aware of one of these things, and maybe two, but not all three. Perhaps you might wish to argue that his stupidity was larger than what I might imagine from a Texas Congressman, but I believe that being a Congressman does really in truly take a good amount of smarts. So The Congressman knew that any reference he was making to "Babykiller' in not going to be construed by anybody in the Body as being made in reference to that bill itself. They were no more stupid than the Congressman himself, and the gaveling that came from the front of the chamber and the murmurers that ran through the chamber were a pretty clear indication that everybody knew he was talking about Congressman Hoyer. Perhaps Mike choses to believe differently, but it is clearly his nobility of spirit giving the Texas Congressman the benefit of a doubt large enough to sink the national debt in without a trace. As for calling President Obama a lier, I will respectfully suggest that Mike is making a hot headed choice of words. quote: And you do it again. If you want to deal with how I speak about Republicans, feel free to bring it up sometime in a thread. Here, you change the subject top avoid how the Republicans have been treating the Democrats for over a year now, since at least the last election. The subject comes up and suddenly you want to talk about everything that hasn't bothered you for the whole period of time. You've been busy attacking the Democrats and people related to the Democrats. A major Bill doesn't go your way, the public doesn't like what you've been doing, and now you want to change the subject the other way around. I'd say, one thing at a time, guy. You've been insulting the President and everything Democratic nonstop for a year. You've been told that this is essentially incitement to riot. Now you want to pretend you haven't done a thing; it's all the Democrats again. And yes, you've been insulting Democrats right along with the best of them, Mike. Even in this thread. I'd rather keep the pubic hair out of the dialogue, Mike, if you don't mind. I'm not in any race with you to see who can get to be crudest, fastest. I'd rather preserve this forum for a place where people have the possibility of democratically talking out differences and sharing thoughts, ideas and information, and not trying to overwhelm each other with personal insults. Your party will continue to be Republican to me, though I don't think the Lincolns and the Roosevelts and the Eisenhowers of that great party would be very pleased with the way she's being treated right now by the folks who have taken her over. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm a Democrat, Mike. I can say I'm sorry about things members of my party have done that I don't approve of. I'm sure you are, Bob, being the decent fellow you are, I doubt though that you can direct me to a thread where you have attacked them as democrats for their actions, as you have with republicans. I tried to be clear that not all attacks were real, just as many of the attacks listed in that article were real . Most of the incidents and people could be disposed of that way, I thought, and fairly clearly, too. ...and yet you will state that all attacks blamed on Republicans are? Should we present any thoughts on how some of the republican accused actions could be disposed of as being staged or untrue, you dismiss them immediately and Jennifer puts on her tin-foil hat. It is not my responsibility to make an apology for the behavior of the Republicans, as you seem to suggest I should. I have no idea where that comes from. I wouldn't expect you to apologize for Republicans. What I would expect you to apologize for would never come to pass, anyway, so I don't expect anything. He waited at least a day before issuing that correction, which suggests that he was in no hurry to correct anybody's misapprehension about his statement. So that is the basis for your statement, that he waited longer than you would have liked for him to? With regards to Denise's post about the republican condemnation of violence, you looked for grammatical errors to bring up. With this, his actions were not quick enough. I see a recurring theme there. He made the statement after it was public knowledge that the President had issued an executive order forbidding use of monies from that bill to be used for abortion Yes, Bob, an executive order that has no weight at all, one that cannot overrule any decision by congress and one that can be repealed at the whim of this president or any to follow. It is a sham stunt aimed at appeasing Stupak to get his vote only. SHould congress decide to change it tomorrow, next week or whatever, it's gone and Obama will look trite and apologetically at Stupak and say, "What can I do? I tried.." Will that happen? WHo knows? The point is that it can. As far as the "You lie" incident, Obama was touting health care for 46 million uninsured, which included illegal immigrants, while saying that such immigrants would not be covered. That was a lie. The proof of the pudding is that he changed his figures the next day, dropping them over 10 million. Why? He got caught in his lie. If you want to deal with how I speak about Republicans, feel free to bring it up sometime in a thread. Bob, it doesn't matter to me how you speak of republicans. The only points I bring up is when you use the double standards that you do. You may call republicans anything you like. Just don't tell me that I should not use words that offend your party while doing so because you would be wasting your time. You've been insulting the President and everything Democratic nonstop for a year. You've been told that this is essentially incitement to riot. Now you want to pretend you haven't done a thing; it's all the Democrats again. And yes, you've been insulting Democrats right along with the best of them, Mike. Yes, I have, Bob, and I freely acknowledge it. I think Obama is wrecking the country and I think Pelosi and Reid are two of the most horrendous creatures to have ever held high positions in the government (toss Frank in there, too, and don't forget Gore and Kerry while you are at it). You are calling it essentially incitement to riot???? Speaking one's mind is incitement to riot? What communist manifesto does that come from? Perhaps you would enjoy Cuba or Venezuela, where such actions are forbidden. Were your years of Bush-bashing incitements to riot then? Your double-standard is showing once again, Bob. No, I don't think JFK would be that happy with the democrats, either....and it's a certainty that Will Rogers never met Nancy Pelosi. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Mike, you seem to be overlooking the obvious. The pres hasn’t said anything in the Executive order that contradicts current law. Government money can’t be used to fund abortions regardless of whether he issues the executive order repeals it of makes a nifty paper plane out of it. quote: You’re definitely right there Mike, it certainly was a sham, and a stunt, but it wasn’t to appease Stupak, it was designed to appease the people who might vote for Stupak. You see Stupak knows that the bill doesn’t allow government funding of abortions, it’s the man in the street, the potential voters, who are confused and need the assurance of the executive order. It's called politics. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
OK, grinch, I'm confused...there has been so much about this health care over the past year that I'll admit my small brain has gotten completely overloaded. It was my understanding that the bill the senate passed included the possibility of health-care funded abortions and Stupak has a problem with that, causing Obama to issue an executive order to assure Stupak that, when the bill went back to the senate for tweaking, there would be no stipulations for any federal monies to be used to help pay for abortions. If there had never been any provision in the senate bill for abortion coverage, where did Stupak's original decision not to vote for the bill based on that point come from? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Easy Mike - from his constituents who believed all the false claims that were floating around the interweb. Stupak had to look like he was on their side, that he was willing to play hardball to get what they wanted. The fact that the bill already complied with what they wanted was incidental. Either that or he was a complete dipstick who believed the lies being peddled or didn’t have the sense to read the bill for himself and needed the pres to write it down for him in big letters with pictures in the form of a (not worth the paper it was written on) executive order. Check out the bill in all its forms for yourself Mike – it doesn’t contain anything anywhere that changes the current law regarding abortion in any way whatsoever, it never did. People simply convinced themselves that it did and the kings clothes executive order was the result. . |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Republican hypocrisy - From 1991 on the RNC’s insurance plan covered elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.” |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
In my neck of the political Wood: Last night, I attended my first formal dinner in support of the Republican Party: The annual Hamblen County Lincoln Day Dinner. The turnout for the dinner was the largest on record: 350+ fine folks dined together while listening to the speeches of those who were running for various positions of office. All was delightful within the gathering network of social classes. (Many of my family members, clients, church family, former co-workers, school teachers, professors, etc. were in attendance.) Not once did anyone become radically irrational over any of the topics or campaign pitches; who were passionate, yes, and poignantly moved with gratitude and/or high-spirits. In fact, our good Mayor, Sami Barile attended and was quite a smile maker and instigator of a few good-natured laughs. Barile is a notable liberal, deemed a “tree-hugger,” and SHE is quite proud of such. She is our first female Mayor. And she gets this quite often: “I thought you were a man!” (Despite her press.) LOL. I personally enjoyed her handshaking response to the continuous confession: “I get that a lot. As you can see I’m not a man. I really am a woman.” My point is: Conservatives & liberals can and do get on very well in most cases and I’m very sad with the fact there’s always something ugly in the news that’s more party-favor-empowering & “newsworthy” than a prayerful “supper” for supporters of Jobs/Controlled Spending/Lower Taxes/Better Education/And last but not least, a Better Plan for Health. As Grinch points out: “That’s politics.” But I take my stance and remain active as an important member of the first order of government: We the People. And I was being dutiful with my attendance. My husband is a volunteer materials editor for a campaigning comrade. (My sweetheart dozed-off for a brief moment during one of the speakers and I gave his hand a light squeeze. He was so tired, bless his heart, but he snapped awake with a grateful wink.) Despite our slight political differences and view points, who am I to let my loved one end up with his face in his salad plate?? How déclassé that would be of me in any respect or party hat. And that was probably the most threatening incident that could’a happened during the dinner. That, and perhaps the accidental slip of a volunteer table waiter who might have caused a huge small town folly. My imagination is always at work, but if the slip resulted in the misalignment or removal of a certain attendee's toupee! Well, it was possible and the thought made me smile when the waiter actually did graze his rug but not enough to snag it. By nature, such makes for good-hearted amusement and how ill-natured it would be if written-up as a DEMOCRATIC PLOT to abuse an elder republican. Good reporting is too boring, anymore, I suppose. But I still report and some still enjoy it in small ways which are pretty grand to me. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Stupak had to look like he was on their side, that he was willing to play hardball to get what they wanted. I can't say you're wrong, grinch, but I find that scenario highly unlikely. He received hate mail from Democrats and threats from unions by taking the stance of voting against the bill...or were they all part of the grand deception also? In one scenario, you portray his followers as being stupid enough to warrant the play of such a deception and, in the other, you portray Stupak as being stupid by not knowing what was in the bill. Quite a choice.... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, You don’t need to be stupid to be deceived, some deceptions can fool the best of us for a while. Stupidity is not recognising you’ve been had when all the evidence suggests otherwise or, in the case of the deceiver, when you start to believe that you can fool all of the people all of the time. quote: No Mike, in one scenario they’d be the people trying, in a rather crude way, to show him he was being deceived. In the other scenario they’d be the ones Stupak doesn’t give a hoot for, the ones that can’t vote him back into office. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, the unions warned him that a negative vote would lead to their withdrawal of support and active campaigns against him...so, in that instance, they certainly ARE a force that could determine his re-election. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: You will have heard me assert that as a party in congress, they have been spineless from time to time, and that their actions have been spineless. You will have heard me say that some of the legislation that I dislike has come from them, at least in part, and you will have heard me say that they were foolish and certainly politically outmaneuvered. On the other hand, I don't recall they they've acted in the same way that the Republicans have acted, used the same language or made the same sort of attacks on the other party as the Republicans have. For me to have attacked them in the same way that I have attacked the Republicans, I would have had to see them do the same sort of thing that the Republicans have been wont to do, and that, thank you, I do not recall them having done. Had they acted in the same way I see the Republicans have acted, rest assured, I would have attacked them in exactly the same way. I know lots of perfectly fine Republicans. I know many admirable Republicans, my late father-in-law included, my brother-in-law included, uncles and cousins included. But I don't hear them talk the same sort of trash that I hear from Fox News or from the RNC or from the Republicans in either house of Congress. quote: I made no such statement. Don't put words in my mouth, please; I sound silly enough on my own without somebody adding things I didn't say and don't mean. All reports blamed on Republicans are not real, and I never said they were. Where did you see me say such a foolish thing? And why would you imagine that I would believe it? The comment about Jennifer was a personal attack. Not only was it completely off the subject, it was gratuitous and sad insult about the character of somebody not even present. The rationality of such a comment completely escapes me. quote: No, Mike, it's not. It's only the part you quoted to make fun of. The reasoning was this: The Texas Representative who made the Baby Killer comment reported that he made that statement about the bill itself. He waited at least a day before issuing that correction, which suggests that he was in no hurry to correct anybody's misapprehension about his statement. He made the statement after it was public knowledge that the President had issued an executive order forbidding use of monies from that bill to be used for abortion, and he made the statement knowing that according to the Hyde amendment, it was already illegal for public monies to be used for that purpose. I am prepared to believe that the Representative was stupid enough not to be aware of one of these things, and maybe two, but not all three. Perhaps you might wish to argue that his stupidity was larger than what I might imagine from a Texas Congressman, but I believe that being a Congressman does really in truly take a good amount of smarts. So The Congressman knew that any reference he was making to "Baby-killer' in not going to be construed by anybody in the Body as being made in reference to that bill itself. They were no more stupid than the Congressman himself, and the gaveling that came from the front of the chamber and the murmurers that ran through the chamber were a pretty clear indication that everybody knew he was talking about Congressman Hoyer. Perhaps Mike choses to believe differently, but it is clearly his nobility of spirit giving the Texas Congressman the benefit of a doubt large enough to sink the national debt in without a trace. What you did is called "quoting out of context." It is impolite. quote: Mike, near as I can tell, Denise posted about some group other than the Republican Party. Her posting quoted a statement that was concerned about hostile statements from the Republican Party, as well as the other two major parties. I didn't have to look for Grammatical errors to bring up; the existence of the grammatical errors made the statement so unclear to me that I didn't understand it because of its ambiguity. It was unclear whether that ambiguity was accidental or purposeful, as one sometimes finds in a statement crafted with legal help. There is, sadly, no ambiguity about the fact that you have ignored my statement, and by taking only a single part of it to stand for the whole, you misrepresent me in front of others. I choose not to be curious about the "why" of this. I have not wish to know. Your method for arriving at "a recurring theme" is not one I wish to know about either. Please keep it to yourself. quote: Okay, Mike, let me try to be clear here, because I think there's a real distinction that you may not understand; or, if you do understand it, you choose to overlook. We live in a country with constitutionally protected free speech. That speech is not only a right, some would say — myself included — that it is an obligation, at least as far as politics goes. You have an obligation. What you do not have an obligation to do is to say these things in an offensive or cruel or rude or abrasive fashion. Those of us who are inarticulate might be limited to doing so by lacks in our ability to think or speak or remember. Those of us who are articulate are blessed. This means that we are able to say what we think without actually needing to be cruel in the process. Imagine somebody with the gall to criticize the fine quality of the customary Balladeer driving, the melodious singing tones that flow from the balladeer voice box as he cruises down the Floridian highways and byways, his deft turnings around the flow of traffic, his excellent eye, his fine control of speed. Tee-tum, tee-tum, te-tum and so on. Then some jerk sitting beside him pipes up with a rude comment like, "Yer going too fast!" The thoughts that flow through the cortex of the famous Balladeer brain would boil down to, ""Mercy, I do so disagree with this fine fellow." And the polite Mr. Balladeer would do what? For the sake of discussion and discussion only, mind you, let us imagine him saying something on the order of, "Blow it out your ears, Banana-brain!" Perhaps far fetched, perhaps not so far fetched, who but the mighty one himself would know? I certainly know that Mr. Bob might react in a fashion not all that far off. Mr. Bob might say, Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Blow it out your ears, Banana Brain!" A much more suitably Liberal comment, I'd think. Now, to continue out thought experiment, imagine that the criticism has not come from the fruit-head on the bench beside balladeer, or trussed in the back-seat beside Mr. Bob, but from a police officer, peering quizzically through the driver's side window, holding out hand for various official documents. The thoughts going through the fevered brains of our two heroes, Balladeer and Mr. Bob may in fact be much the same as they were when so rudely interrupted by the previous ill-mannered lout — "Blow it out your ear, Fur-ball!" or something of the sort, with some additions or deletions of course — but the actual speech flying from the lips of of two examples of nature's noblemen would possibly run somewhat differently. Both would probably include the words, "Yes, Officer," in them somewhere. Maybe not, but probably. Neither of the two gentlemen in question are total idiots. The Officer or the lout in question aside, and the reality of their complaints aside, the thoughts inside the heads of the two poets are not all that different. The question is how they get across the truth with their freedom of speech, isn't it? In the example, the difference between the two reactions for our two middle aged gentlemen (middle aged, ha!, there's a good one!) would be discretion, prudence, or, more baldly, fear. Both of us would still probably tell the truth to the officer — "Well no, officer, I don't believe I was speeding. No officer, I'm not calling you a lier; last I heard a disagreement didn't mean that there was a lie, it meant only a disagreement. Of course I believe your instrument said what you say it said. Yes, I believe you believe it." Und so weiter. My point? We can exercise the same discretion other places as well. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that it's helpful to act nasty or contemptuous while exercising that obligation and right. The truth is just as true when it is phrased respectfully or even neutrally as it is when it is phrased with a cruel twist or in a put-down. Would I exclude myself here? No, sir, I would not. And I think that the truth is often a bit more understandable when put in that form, so there are advantages in approaching it that way. Not to undercut the pleasure in the dangerous keenness of a well turned phrase, gleaming in the sun. Of course, of course. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
