What you are advocating requires a forum for genuine debate based on accurate information designed to produce the best outcomes. This is not possible in a society where the media and the government are dominated by finance capital that deliberately disseminate misinformation and distortions so as our children remain illiterate and our debates puerile and childish.
Yes I am left wing, but I am more than happy to abide by any decision arrived at representing the will and best interests of the people themselves--this is never going to occur in the current environment. The simple thing is, if people want consensus government and decision making based on accurate information, then they need a government that is responsible to the people, operating in the interests of the people and drawn from the ranks of the people. At the moment you have government of the corporation that operates in the interests of the corporations and whose representatives are drawn from their ranks. This is not left wing radicalism--this is what we are confronted with and while this situation remains as it is the only changes will be the intensity of the attacks by the government on democratic rights, working conditions and social infrastructure. They intend in blasting us back into the Stone Age to pay for this crisis. On Aug 13, 3:38 am, 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
