Gas Bandit's Political Thread IV

[GasBandit]

I don't consider protesting and intimidating others as the same thing.

I can go and protest, share my ideas and thoughts, without making my neighbors uncomfortable. If they have different ideas, great! Discussion is good.
Shouting over others who disagree is horse shit.

Oh, and Espy, that is what he said, but he's not saying to shout over them. Interesting that you think so though.

I guarantee you if any of these people were to "get in your face" you'd be extremely uncomfortable, and the volume of their voice would be largely irrelevant.

 

[Shakey]

You guys are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying the protestors aren't being assholes. What I'm saying is that the left has made a business out of protesting and then going after the idiots on the right who call them "un-american" for it and now that they are facing some of the same stuff from the other side suddenly that's "un-american"? It's amazingly hypocritical and yet no one seems even remotely bothered by it.

Here's how I feel: I don't think it's a good way to get things done and I don't care for it from either side. Them protesting is their right however and the louder they are (on either side) should tell the representatives of the people (thats what they are and it seems like more often than not they don't remember that) that just telling the american public to shut up and like whatever they get isn't the right way to go about it.

Nah, I get it. I just think the comparison is a bit off. A better one would have been if Pelosi said anyone who opposes health care reform is un-American, which she didn't say.

For that matter asking people to send in emails and websites to the government that are critical of the policy isn't terribly cool with me either but no one on the left seems to give a damn about that little recent gem. If Bush had asked people to send that kind of stuff in about what people were saying about he Iraq war it would be front page news.

I agree.

 

[Krisken]

I don't consider protesting and intimidating others as the same thing.

I can go and protest, share my ideas and thoughts, without making my neighbors uncomfortable. If they have different ideas, great! Discussion is good.
Shouting over others who disagree is horse shit.

Oh, and Espy, that is what he said, but he's not saying to shout over them. Interesting that you think so though.

I guarantee you if any of these people were to "get in your face" you'd be extremely uncomfortable, and the volume of their voice would be largely irrelevant.

Tell ya what. Just keep talking to yourself.

 

[DarkAudit]

Until some of the heavy hitters on the right start denouncing the wingnuts like Beck and Bachman and Taitz, and stop them from the further hijacking of their cause, there's nothing of substance that's going to be coming from that side of the aisle. The crazies have the floor, and have taken your credibility. Next stop irrelevance, population: you.

 

[Espy]

Oh, and Espy, that is what he said, but he's not saying to shout over them. Interesting that you think so though.

Actually Gas made that comparison if you look up a few posts, I just linked to what he was referring to. He isn't telling them "shout them down" he's telling them to "get in their face" which sounds just as lovely.

 

[DarkAudit]

First the noise, then the fistfights, next will be the uniforms. We're headed straight into brownshirt territory. :eyeroll:

 

[GasBandit]

Until some of the heavy hitters on the right start denouncing the wingnuts like Beck and Bachman and Taitz, and stop them from the further hijacking of their cause, there's nothing of substance that's going to be coming from that side of the aisle. The crazies have the floor, and have taken your credibility. Next stop irrelevance, population: you.

As a Libertarian, I was living in Irrelevance long before it had a train stop, thank you very much. In fact, I was practically there for the groundbreaking.

First the noise, then the fistfights, next will be the uniforms. We're headed straight into brownshirt territory. :eyeroll:

Now the shirts are purple.

 

[Dieb]

A lot of false equivilancies on this thread. How can you compare the loony right to the loony left in the health care debate? For God's sake, the rightwingers are arguing that Obama WANTS TO KILL THE ELDERLY AND THE DISABLED. There are plenty of good reasons to argue agains the propsed reform, but that's just fucking crazy. The loony left is doing what, exactly, that's as bad as that?

Then we have the fact that Gas and Espy are arguing the LEFT is stifling free speech. Yep, stifling free speech by...having lots of townhalls? Where anyone can get in and question Congresspeople? Except, oh wait, most of these townhall meetings are being shut down after the rightwingers in the crowd shout "LIAR!" every time they are told that Obama actually doesn't have a secret plan to kill th elderly and disabled. The rightwingers who go to these meetings are EXPLICITLY doing so to SHUT THEM DOWN, not engage in debate.

You know, I seem to remember tons of rightwingers complaining about free speech issues on college campuses that looks remarkably like this. Some Republican would go to try to have a civil debate at some college, and crazy leftists would do try to do everything to disrupt rather than debate, by using the same tactics currently used by the right (shouting, implicit threats of violence, etc). All of this is was denounced by rightwingers (and I seem to remember Gas was one) as anti-free speech. And I agreed. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Now it is rightwingers who are doing everything to disrupt debate but Gas, in this case, seems to think that this is just legitamate protest. How does that not surprise me?

 

[Tress]

Then we have the fact that Gas and Espy are arguing the LEFT is stifling free speech. Yep, stifling free speech by...having lots of townhalls? Where anyone can get in and question Congresspeople? Except, oh wait, most of these townhall meetings are being shut down after the rightwingers in the crowd shout "LIAR!" every time they are told that Obama actually doesn't have a secret plan to kill th elderly and disabled. The rightwingers who go to these meetings are EXPLICITLY doing so to SHUT THEM DOWN, not engage in debate.

But it's okay because they don't like either party, right? As long as they keep repeating that, it means we can't criticize what they say, right? :eyeroll:

 

[Espy]

A lot of false equivilancies on this thread. How can you compare the loony right to the loony left in the health care debate? For God's sake, the rightwingers are arguing that Obama WANTS TO KILL THE ELDERLY AND THE DISABLED. There are plenty of good reasons to argue agains the propsed reform, but that's just smurfing crazy. The loony left is doing what, exactly, that's as bad as that?

Actually, I was just pointing out, like I said in my post, that all this is just a wonderful example of how all politicians are the same, they all get pissy when people speak out against them. Here's what I wrote so you don't have to go back and find it:

I'm not saying the protestors aren't being assholes. What I'm saying is that the left has made a business out of protesting and then going after the idiots on the right who call them "un-american" for it and now that they are facing some of the same stuff from the other side suddenly that's "un-american"? It's amazingly hypocritical and yet no one seems even remotely bothered by it.

I'm talking about protesting and how suddenly, now that the tables are turned hypocrisy is coming out. It's not about party. It's about why we (that's a generic we mind you) believe that "our" party is better or different.
Funny thing, that point you made about how the right is making some really dumb accusations instead of the good reasons they could be using? I believe I said that as well in an earlier post. We agree on that. They are acting like total idiots here. The way the left is dealing with them however, is the same way the right did for the last eight years. It's like the circle of life but with less singing animals. :heythere:

Then we have the fact that Gas and Espy are arguing the LEFT is stifling free speech.

I don't believe I ever argued that actually. Can you find where I did? If so it was a mistake, I don't think that's the case. I made a joke to gas about it, but I never argued that that was what was going on here. I think there is a ton of resentment from much of the general public that they FEEL like there is a bill before congress that no one has read and no one really knows what it's going to do and they HEAR that people arguing against it are being called un-american and that the white house wants to get reports on them,etc, etc. Now it's not actually "trying to stifle free speech" but I can see how it could sound like that to many people. If the left wants people to get behind this, it's my opinion, they aren't going about it in the best way and trying to RUSH it through is only going to make people way more nervous.
Take your time. Don't rush it. Create a GOOD plan that really helps people and leaves choice in place. Show that you are willing to slow things down a little and maybe try and save some money in other areas and I promise you there would be more people willing to listen.
Does that make sense?



And come now Tress. I don't like either party, thanks for pointing that out, tis true! Are saying is that my views aren't valid since I'm not what? A republican? You would rather I just went with them 100% and argued that?
Sorry, neither party suits my political flavor and if that means that to you my views aren't valid, well, I guess I will have to find a way to live with that. But it's gonna be hard you bastard, it's gonna be hard :waah:
Obviously it doesn't mean that my posts aren't up for critique, just look at me and Shakey's discussion. Rather than making snarky jokes and calling names we actually talked about something, and I think, found some stuff that made us both agree on.

 

[Krisken]

See, anytime someone says "Your side", I'm pretty much done in the debate.

I don't mind sharing my opinion on the subjects, but there is no point in doing so if it's just going to be marginalized by someone who is only interested in attaching labels.

 

[Espy]

See, anytime someone says "Your side", I'm pretty much done in the debate.

I don't mind sharing my opinion on the subjects, but there is no point in doing so if it's just going to be marginalized by someone who is only interested in attaching labels.

Isn't that the hard thing though? It's much easier to argue when we can put people in a nice little box and we have to be honest, we all do it, it's just human nature to some extant anyway.
You know me and my friends (and does it shock you guys to know my 2 bestest friends in the whole world are shockingly liberal liberals?) put each other in boxes all the time, because it's our nature. What it does is give us chance to separate ourselves then by saying, No, I don't agree with that thing that party A does. It helps to define us better, which is a good thing.
So I don't tune out when someone says "Your side" did this, because, whether or not they are "my side", they are the side that I am perceived to be close to. It's my job to correct that then. I tune out when someone just hurls insults and names (outside of sarcasm and playing around that is).

 

[Krisken]

See, anytime someone says "Your side", I'm pretty much done in the debate.

I don't mind sharing my opinion on the subjects, but there is no point in doing so if it's just going to be marginalized by someone who is only interested in attaching labels.

Isn't that the hard thing though? It's much easier to argue when we can put people in a nice little box and we have to be honest, we all do it, it's just human nature to some extant anyway.
You know me and my friends (and does it shock you guys to know my 2 bestest friends in the whole world are shockingly liberal liberals?) put each other in boxes all the time, because it's our nature. What it does is give us chance to separate ourselves then by saying, No, I don't agree with that thing that party A does. It helps to define us better, which is a good thing.
So I don't tune out when someone says "Your side" did this, because, whether or not they are "my side", they are the side that I am perceived to be close to. It's my job to correct that then. I tune out when someone just hurls insults and names (outside of sarcasm and playing around that is).

That would be great, it really would. However, I've been posting in these threads long enough to know that the discussion isn't what is wanted. With Gas it's all about the argument. When the purpose is just to argue, I have better things to do.

 

[DarkAudit]

There is no debate. Not now that "Death Panels" and poisoning the Speaker of the House (Beck) is the agenda of the right. Too late to go "oh shit! I didn't mean THAT!" Fuck off. You're not in charge anymore. We don't need you right now. There's the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out. Put the panic and violence instigators in their place, and fast, or don't come back.

 

[Armadillo]

There is no debate. Not now that "Death Panels" and poisoning the Speaker of the House (Beck) is the agenda of the right. Too late to go "oh poop! I didn't mean THAT!" smurf off. You're not in charge anymore. We don't need you right now. There's the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out. Put the panic and violence instigators in their place, and fast, or don't come back.

Have you ever actually LISTENED to Glenn Beck, or are you just pulling the old "blahblahblahblahblahHannityblahblahblahblahblahBeckblahblahblahblahblahblahFoxNewsblahblahblahblahblahLimbaugh" stuff?

And am I interpreting you correctly as saying that conservatives don't deserve an opinion on current events?

 

[Krisken]

There is no debate. Not now that "Death Panels" and poisoning the Speaker of the House (Beck) is the agenda of the right. Too late to go "oh poop! I didn't mean THAT!" smurf off. You're not in charge anymore. We don't need you right now. There's the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out. Put the panic and violence instigators in their place, and fast, or don't come back.

Have you ever actually LISTENED to Glenn Beck, or are you just pulling the old "blahblahblahblahblahHannityblahblahblahblahblahBeckblahblahblahblahblahblahFoxNewsblahblahblahblahblahLimbaugh" stuff?

And am I interpreting you correctly as saying that conservatives don't deserve an opinion on current events?

You, sir, get two.

 

[DarkAudit]

You mean this?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UudQuVOwSds:2wxlb3c3][/youtube:2wxlb3c3]

And yes. Conservatives have shown their true colors. And it's sickening. Gleefully throwing their lot in with the crazies and modern-day Brownshirts resorting to screaming and violence to shout down any discussion. Their opinions don't matter. And won't matter in the future if they don't reign these idiots in.

 

[Armadillo]

EDIT: Never mind. I'm just asking to have an aneurysm.

 

[Dieb]

Actually, I was just pointing out, like I said in my post, that all this is just a wonderful example of how all politicians are the same, they all get * when people speak out against them. Here's what I wrote so you don't have to go back and find it:

I'm not saying the protestors aren't being *. What I'm saying is that the left has made a business out of protesting and then going after the idiots on the right who call them "un-american" for it and now that they are facing some of the same stuff from the other side suddenly that's "un-american"? It's amazingly hypocritical and yet no one seems even remotely bothered by it.

I'm talking about protesting and how suddenly, now that the tables are turned hypocrisy is coming out. It's not about party. It's about why we (that's a generic we mind you) believe that "our" party is better or different.

But that's the thing! If the right was just protesting, I obviously wouldn't have a problem with that. Maybe Dem leaders would still be getting prissy about it - I don't know, in fact we'll never know. Because they are NOT just protesting. They are not just arguing. They are trying to shut down debate entirely. And that's what Pelosi and others are saying is "un-american". And they are right! Going to a townhall meeting in order to disrupt, rather than to argue, is anti-free speech. Just like it's anti-free speech when left wing college students do the same thing to Republicans who come to their campus. And what's more un-american than being anti-free speech?

Funny thing, that point you made about how the right is making some really dumb accusations instead of the good reasons they could be using? I believe I said that as well in an earlier post. We agree on that. They are acting like total idiots here. The way the left is dealing with them however, is the same way the right did for the last eight years. It's like the circle of life but with less singing animals. :heythere:

I noticed that you had denounced the crazy accusations, and I thank you for that. I also did so because, damn, that's some crazy coming from the right. I reject that what the Dem leaders are doing is similar to what Bush did during his tenure because what the rightwingers are doing now is NOT similar to what the leftwingers did back then. Did the left try to disrupt town hall meetings when Bush was trying to pass Social Security reform? No, they protested peacefully outside. Did the left wing simply try to shout down anyone who disagreed with them during the lead up to the Iraq war? No, they marched, they argued, but they didn't try to stop others from arguing with them! Code Pink does some things that are similar to what the anti-health care people are doing now, but Code Pink is denounced by democrats and republicans alike - in fact, Code Pink mostly protests the dems these days.

Can you not see the difference between protest and trying to stifle debate? Between being engaged in an argument and trying to stop any argument from happening?

I don't believe I ever argued that actually. Can you find where I did? If so it was a mistake, I don't think that's the case. I made a joke to gas about it, but I never argued that that was what was going on here.

I'm sorry, I must have mixed up something you said and something Gas said, or read your joke as serious, or interpreted some of your remarks wrong. Something like that. I apoligize.

If the left wants people to get behind this, it's my opinion, they aren't going about it in the best way and trying to RUSH it through is only going to make people way more nervous.
Take your time. Don't rush it. Create a GOOD plan that really helps people and leaves choice in place. Show that you are willing to slow things down a little and maybe try and save some money in other areas and I promise you there would be more people willing to listen.
Does that make sense?

But here I just have to scratch my head and decide you are tragically misinformed. What is rushed about this process? Health care reform was a major part of Obama's campaign, and everything being talked about now is based on proposals that were spelled out in great detail before the primaries even started, that is to say came out two years ago. Even before Obama took office, during the transition period, committee chairmen started introducing bills about health care. While it wasn't the biggest legislative priority at that time, that process therefore started more than six months ago. Gas has certainly been linking to proposals and sense that time. It because the A#1 priority, what, about a month ago? And even now, not all of the committees have passed legislation! That means the bill isn't even halfway through congress! And, oh wait, we're entering the August recess, so we'll have the whole month to "slow the process down" before congress meets again.

But what's REALLY bad is that you seem to think that the Democrats don't want to "leave choice in place". There is zero chance of single payer health care passing congress. Under ANY of the proposed legislation, private insurance is here to stay - as it should be! The big debate is whether to include a Public Option which, as the name suggests, would just be an OPTION. In fact, it would INCREASE choice, as there is currently of course no such option. Please, don't listen to the right wing crazies, they are basically wrong about everything in the prosposed bills, including shit like "trying to take choice away".

 

[SpecialKO]

Steven Pearlstein has a pretty good opinion piece about how the GOP is essentially willfully distorting the provisions in the bill in order to score cheap political points.

Not quite as awesome as all the stuff Ezra Klein is putting out, but still pretty decent

 

[Covar]

I'm just glad our Congressmen listen to their voters. rly:

 

[Krisken]

I'm just glad our Congressmen listen to their voters. rly:

Mine does.

 

[Covar]

But what's REALLY bad is that you seem to think that the Democrats don't want to "leave choice in place".

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E:2j4xi7tv][/youtube:2j4xi7tv]

you're right. they clearly want to ensure that we don't move to a single payer system.

 

[Espy]

If the left wants people to get behind this, it's my opinion, they aren't going about it in the best way and trying to RUSH it through is only going to make people way more nervous.
Take your time. Don't rush it. Create a GOOD plan that really helps people and leaves choice in place. Show that you are willing to slow things down a little and maybe try and save some money in other areas and I promise you there would be more people willing to listen.
Does that make sense?

But here I just have to scratch my head and decide you are tragically misinformed. What is rushed about this process? Health care reform was a major part of Obama's campaign, and everything being talked about now is based on proposals that were spelled out in great detail before the primaries even started, that is to say came out two years ago. Even before Obama took office, during the transition period, committee chairmen started introducing bills about health care. While it wasn't the biggest legislative priority at that time, that process therefore started more than six months ago. Gas has certainly been linking to proposals and sense that time. It because the A#1 priority, what, about a month ago? And even now, not all of the committees have passed legislation! That means the bill isn't even halfway through congress! And, oh wait, we're entering the August recess, so we'll have the whole month to "slow the process down" before congress meets again.

But what's REALLY bad is that you seem to think that the Democrats don't want to "leave choice in place". There is zero chance of single payer health care passing congress. Under ANY of the proposed legislation, private insurance is here to stay - as it should be! The big debate is whether to include a Public Option which, as the name suggests, would just be an OPTION. In fact, it would INCREASE choice, as there is currently of course no such option. Please, don't listen to the right wing crazies, they are basically wrong about everything in the prosposed bills, including poop like "trying to take choice away".

Ah... tragically misinformed. Lovely.
It's actually tiresome to discuss the nitty gritty of the Healthcare bill, we already did it in it's own thread. So let me run some of my thoughts on it by you.
I never said they would take away choice. You assumed incorrectly.
However, choice as a term for healthcare means many, many things. Under a government run healthcare plan you do not "lose" your ability to chose, it's just severely limited, which isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as strong private options are in place. What we would deal with as a third entitlement program on top of medicare and medicaid, with, as far as I can tell, no hint of change to those programs. What we are talking about doing is adding over a trillion dollars in costs to the american taxpayer during the worst recession in ages. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of issues with this care plan. Here's a few of the issues I have with it:

The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer. Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.
The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

and one of my favorites:

As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.

Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.

So, I have what I feel are legitimate issues, not given to me by all those "crazy right wing radio hosts" you seem to think I spend my days listening to.

To sum up my view: There is a need for healthcare in this country and it's probably going to have to be partly run by the government, just because. I'm okay with that. What I want it a better bill than this one or, like my state has, a state run option with zero federal involvement, allowing for states to more closely control costs, etc.
Secondly, and my biggest issue is that if our lovely representatives would deal with tort-reform we could be starting down the road of saving millions and millions in healthcare costs as well as streamlining the business and care, but that will never happen since greed rules the day in America.

Keep in mind, much of my thoughts and issues is due to my experience ON government run healthcare, Tricare (military healthcare to be exact). This plan proposed is going to work very similarly to that one, and it's great in some ways and horrible in others, the horrible stuff is the things I have described above. Much of the quoted stuff is from CNN/Forbes article by an author who does want a government run healthcare, but wants a better one than this and some of my thoughts are from listening to the debates on NPR about the issue. Hmmm... sorry, I guess I must have missed Hannity, Rush, etc somehow. I will try to listen to them later so I can be a good rightwing nutjob... :tongue:

I simply think we can do a better job that that if we really wanted to. We can be more fiscally responsible if we want too and we can help more people better if we deal with things like tort-reform and the already existing and VERY expensive medical programs the government runs.

So. Please, stop listening to your crazy left wing MSNBC hosts and assuming that everyone who disagrees with you just does what Rush says (That was actually in jest, thought we had a little tit-for-tat thing I had to adhere too) :heythere: Sorry for any typos or anything, my coffee hasn't kicked in...

 

[Covar]

AARP is even backing health care reform now. So much for the whole forced euthanasia argument.

One of AARP’s new print ads reads: “Special interest groups are trying to block progress on health care reform using myths and scare tactics. Like the myth that health care reform will give the government the power to make life-and-death decisions for everyone. That’s simply false. The fact is, no one, including the government or your insurance company, will be given power to make life-and-death decisions for anyone regardless of their age. Those decisions will be made by you, your doctor and your family.”

a decision not that popular among their members

Last week, AARP officials speaking at a forum in Dallas walked out after several seniors interrupted the meeting with critical questions and comments.

Some AARP members say they are so outraged that they've taken to tearing up their membership cards and firing off heated letters to the organization's CEO.

-- Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:48 pm --

anyone else think that we need to make sure flag@us.gov gets in the proper hands over down by /b/

 

[Krisken]

AARP is even backing health care reform now. So much for the whole forced euthanasia argument.

One of AARP’s new print ads reads: “Special interest groups are trying to block progress on health care reform using myths and scare tactics. Like the myth that health care reform will give the government the power to make life-and-death decisions for everyone. That’s simply false. The fact is, no one, including the government or your insurance company, will be given power to make life-and-death decisions for anyone regardless of their age. Those decisions will be made by you, your doctor and your family.”

a decision not that popular among their members
[quote:1c23t26j]Last week, AARP officials speaking at a forum in Dallas walked out after several seniors interrupted the meeting with critical questions and comments.

Some AARP members say they are so outraged that they've taken to tearing up their membership cards and firing off heated letters to the organization's CEO.

-- Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:48 pm --

anyone else think that we need to make sure flag@us.gov gets in the proper hands over down by /b/[/quote:1c23t26j]
That's like using a poll at MSNBC to say it is popular among it's members.

 

[Covar]

I'll admit I'm a bit lazy. was good enough for google news good enough for me to post.

 

[Espy]

ABC News:

President Obama today suggested that the health care reform legislation for which he’s pushing has been endorsed by the American Association of Retired Person.

“We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors,” the president said.

At another point he said: “Well, first of all, another myth that we've been hearing about is this notion that somehow we're going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not. AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?”

The problem?

The AARP hasn't endorsed any plan yet.

The country's largest advocacy group for Americans over 50 issued a statement after the event saying, "While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

 

[GasBandit]

Raw video of the black conservative protester being beaten by the SEIU purpleshirts -
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqpfU_AC7Ls:1lixo9h8][/youtube:1lixo9h8]


Turns out the little girl who asked the question about the "mean signs outside" at the Obama townhall was... you guessed it.. yet another plant. Her mom, seated next to her, is an obamabot.

And all those "Obama/hitler" posters showing up on the news and being passed off as proof of Pelosi's "conservatives carrying swastikas?" Turns out they're from LarouchePac - a proponent of single-payer healthcare. Whups.

Rasmussen reports that support for the Democrats' healthcare plan has fallen to 42%.

Oh, and global warming is at it again .. temperatures in July were below average for the contiguous United States.

 

I don't doubt your video, but how the hell can you tell what's going on in that video? That's one chaotic mob on both sides there. I mean, they're arresting at least two people and one is a woman that doesn't look like one of the purple shirts.

 

[GasBandit]

I don't doubt your video, but how the hell can you tell what's going on in that video? That's one chaotic mob on both sides there. I mean, they're arresting at least two people and one is a woman that doesn't look like one of the purple shirts.

Everything you need is in the first minute of the video. Watch the white guy in the purple shirt that is untucked on the left side, wearing a cap and smoking a cigarette. He gets pushed off the guy on the ground (the victim) by other bystanders right at the beginning, spins his arms for balance. Watch what he does, and especially watch his body language when someone cries "you attacked him!" ... typical union thug.

 

[Krisken]

Deal with Pharmaceuticals internal memo leaked. :blue: Boo, sir, boo. :blue:

[spoiler:3dpvtvqy]The first person to say some stupidity about "messiah", "chosen one", or some other 'romance is over' type crap can punch themselves in the nuts. For reals.[/spoiler:3dpvtvqy]

 

[AshburnerX]

Bah, the Perscription drug costs are where they are fucking over most people to begin with. Most people aren't going to see real benefit unless they have a serious illness now. Obama dropped the ball by not fighting for that one.

 

[Espy]

The co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods would like to present his alternative to what he sees as a very bad proposal for healthcare.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html
Some highlights:

With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
•?Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
•?Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
•?Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
•?Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
•?Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. *See? Other brilliant people agree with me :heythere:
•?Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
•?Enact Medicare reform.
•?Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

Click the link to read more in depth. A really wonderful op-ed and I think he hits the nail on the head of what needs to be done.

 

[blotsfan]

No chance we will be able to stop the lawsuits.