Americans know when a " liar " is " lying " and the
socialist left is LYING ! Just ask the AARP members !
***********************************************************************************************************
On Aug 12, 1:38 pm, Diogenes <[email protected]> wrote:
> If we would remover the histrionics and hysteria the radical right and
> left are creating about health care in the US we maybe able to form a
> coherent and workable plan. But, so much emotion and misinformation on
> all sides is making rational discussion impossible. Wasting time and
> disruption of meaningful discussion is the problem. Rather then
> listening and then responding in a reasonable fashion is not what
> sells newspapers or feeds the 24hr news cycle, so illiterate children
> the American public squanders the resources of the country on puerile
> comments ? The bigger question is no one is asking is who benefits
> from this childish behavior.
>
> On Aug 12, 12:56 pm, Bruce Majors <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Rubes of EngagementWhy there's nothing "un-American" about the health
> > care protests
>
> > David Harsanyi <http://www.reason.com/contrib/show/722.html> | August 12,
> > 2009
> > They own the bully pulpit. They enjoy a mandate. They can move the votes.
> > They dictate the debate. They write the legislation. They monopolize the
> > coverage.
>
> > When it comes to politics, Democrats are U.S. Steel, Ma Bell, and Google all
> > rolled into one. And yet because of a mystifying cosmic event, they are also
> > victims.
>
> > In a recent editorial in *USA Today*, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
> > and sidekick Steny Hoyer grumbled about how reactionaries are shutting down
> > the voices of the enlightenment on health care. They accused town hall
> > insurrectionists of being "afraid not just of differing views—but of the
> > facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."
>
> > On one point, at least, Pelosi is correct: Many protesters are terrified of
> > fact. Because the fact is every iteration of health care "reform" in
> > Washington is intended to lead us to a single-payer system, which would not
> > only wreck innovation and competition but also inject bean-counting
> > bureaucrats into our health care decisions, from zygote to cremation.
>
> > But the notion that grass-roots opponents have the capacity—even by acting
> > boorishly at a smattering of town hall meetings (rudeness, last anyone
> > checked, still is protected by the First Amendment)—to "drown out" the
> > voices of Washington is what our president might call silly.
>
> > Pelosi's party operates (in large margins) both houses of Congress, as well
> > as the presidency. Elected fairly and squarely by the American people, no
> > one can stop Democrats from passing any piece of legislation they desire,
> > even if it controls and dispenses a good chunk of the American economy.
>
> > The Republican Party, as we all know, is as impotent as it is leaderless.
> > Democrats could pass health care reform today without the benefit of a
> > solitary GOP vote. Democrats certainly don't need the blessing of the mob of
> > irate Brooks Brothers-wearing, un-American, swastika-toting agitators.
>
> > If the government-run health bill doesn't pass, it won't be the result of
> > anyone's voice being quashed. In fact, I would be curious to meet the
> > herculean life-form that has the capability to "drown out" either President
> > Barack Obama or Pelosi.
>
> > No television, radio, or Web site is immune from the rhetorical maneuverings
> > of our dear leader. Not even "American Idol" could stop Obama from appearing
> > in five prime-time news conferences already. (George W. Bush had four his
> > entire presidency. Don't get me wrong, though; that was best for everyone
> > involved.) If we had any more Obama, he'd require his own station. Oh, wait.
> > ...
>
> > Not long ago, ABC News aired a prime-time health care reform misinformercial
> > directly from the White House. Not a single critic was allotted serious time
> > to dispel this hourlong homage to munificent leadership. This, despite the
> > fact that John Stossel, one of ABC News' most popular personalities (and one
> > of the most effective opponents of government-run health care), was, I
> > assume, available to question the president.
>
> > If Obama desired a vigorous debate, as he claims, he would debate
> > vigorously. Instead, the president has launched snitch e-mails and a
> > "reality check" section on the White House Web site, which allows the
> > administration to conflate over-the-top accusations (e.g., "death panels";
> > the only thing being euthanized, of course, would be quality health care)
> > with completely legitimate concerns (the "public option" and how it would
> > displace tens of millions from their current doctors and insurance).
>
> > Now a "drowned-out" Pelosi has headed to the pages of the newspaper with the
> > largest circulation in the nation to accuse the growing number of involved
> > citizens who feel the health care agenda threatens their livelihoods and the
> > country's future of acting "un-American." How's that for vigorous debate?
>
> > The problem for government-run health care proponents isn't that debate is
> > being "drowned out" by fanatical mobs. Quite the opposite. Their problem is
> > that too many people are finally listening.
>
> > *David Harsanyi is a columnist at *The Denver Post* and the author of *Nanny
> > State*. Visit his Web site atwww.DavidHarsanyi.com.*
>
> > *COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
> > DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM*
>
> > *Discuss this article
> > online.<http://www.reason.com/blog/show/135372.html#comments>
> > *
>
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:35 PM, "Lone Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Thats right, lets pay taxes, while we work for bugger-all and expect
> > > nothing in return--while the gamblers that made trillions losing
> > > trillions are guaranteed $23 trillion dollars in public funds to pay
> > > off their debts. Some off that $23 trillion should be spent on those
> > > that contributed the money--it could certainly go to health care,
> > > social services, education etc. All I am saying if we pay the money,
> > > can we please have the services--no more--no less
>
> > > The first thing that has to be done is to restore democracy--America
> > > is a plutocracy/financial dictatorship.
>
> > > It's not even a matter of socialism or capitalism. If the majority of
> > > people don't want socialized medicine (though the polls show
> > > otherwise) and prefer to use their taxes for other things, that's
> > > fine--at the moment the public has no say in what happens in any are
> > > at all affecting their lives--the don't know where their money is
> > > going --there is no transparency--and corruption is out of control--
> > > big business own everything--they are screwing us and suppressing all
> > > opposition and debate.
>
> > > On Aug 13, 12:13 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > What is behind the opposition to the Obama healthcare plan?
> > > > ---
> > > > those of us who should not be forced to pay for the healthcare of
> > > > others
>
> > > > your healthcare is your responsibility
> > > > it is NOT an entitlement that WE should have to pay for
>
> > > > On Aug 12, 3:29 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > What is behind the opposition to the Obama healthcare plan?
> > > > > 12 August 2009
>
> > > > > President Obama’s proposed restructuring of the US healthcare system
> > > > > has come under ferocious attack over the past week. Right-wing
> > > > > activists, in many cases organized by groups affiliated with the
> > > > > Republican Party or financed by sections of the healthcare industry,
> > > > > turned out at town hall meetings to shout down Democratic congressmen
> > > > > or Obama aides. There have been death threats and some actual
> > > > > violence.
>
> > > > > The right-wing attack combines hysterical distortion of the provisions
> > > > > of the Obama plan (frequently, and falsely, branded as “socialized
> > > > > medicine”) with an appeal to the concerns of wide layers of the
> > > > > American population who sense, quite correctly, that the healthcare
> > > > > restructuring being promoted in Washington will come at their expense
> > > > > and will benefit only the big corporate interests.
>
> > > > > Chief among the distortions has been the claim, fostered most notably
> > > > > by former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, that the
> > > > > Obama plan promotes euthanasia and that millions of elderly people
> > > > > will be hauled before a federal “death panel” to decide whether paying
> > > > > for their healthcare was warranted based on their “level of
> > > > > productivity in society.”
>
> > > > > The actual provision, Section 1323 of one version of legislation that
> > > > > has passed one committee in the House of Representatives, merely
> > > > > states that Medicare will now reimburse doctors who hold end-of-life
> > > > > counseling sessions for beneficiaries who want to know their options
> > > > > on hospice care, living wills, and similar services.
>
> > > > > Palin, who resigned as governor of Alaska July 26 in order to pursue a
> > > > > national career as spokeswoman for the fascistic wing of the
> > > > > Republican Party, is appealing to the same Christian fundamentalist
> > > > > elements who mobilized around the case of Terri Schiavo in 2005.
>
> > > > > The popular disaffection with the Obama healthcare plan goes much
> > > > > further, however, than the fanatical right-to-life constituency. The
> > > > > Obama administration has based its program for healthcare
> > > > > restructuring entirely on the argument that healthcare costs are
> > > > > bankrupting the US economy and that controlling and reducing these
> > > > > costs is essential.
>
> > > > > The logical conclusion of this policy—even if officially denied by the
> > > > > White House—is that somebody’s healthcare is too expensive and must be
> > > > > cut back or eliminated. Millions of people fear that that somebody is
> > > > > likely to be them and their families. One opinion poll published last
> > > > > week showed that 53 percent believed they would be worse off or
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
