In a one-line blog post, "Health Reform: Euthanasia and Other Rumors," Time magazine's Karen Tumulty pointed readers to a blog post at The New Republic's Web site set on "Exposing the Euthanasia Scare" that has cropped up in the debate over health care reform:
Harold Pollack dispenses with them (and their sources) here.
Tumulty failed to mention the liberal bent of either TNR or Dr. Pollack (Ph.D., not M.D.), which would have been helpful considering her terse blog post practically amounted to an unqualified stamp of approval of Pollack's August 4 item.
Albeit in kinder, gentler language, Pollack posited that opposition to socialized medicine among American senior citizens was due to racism, xenophobia, and homophobia (emphasis mine):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓At a deeper level, these talking points go beyond the usual Medicare politics and pander. Seniors comprise right-wing talk-radio's core audience, but the anxiety extends beyond retired ditto-heads. A conspicuous number of scare stories pitched to seniors suggest that the main beneficiaries of health reform will be various frightening others. These listeners have endured dizzying social change, ranging from gay marriage to the rise of immigrants (legal and illegal) as a powerful political and demographic force. This predominantly white group watched an unprecedented youth vote fuel the unlikely ascendance of a black president with an Islamic middle name.
For millions of older people, America suddenly seems very different from the country they once knew. So when President Obama asks seniors to trust him as they trusted many Democrats before him, even his remarkable persuasive powers sometimes fall short.
In a July 29 blog post entitled "What We Lose When We Get Wonky," Pollack lamented how liberal advocates of government health care sound like coldly technocratic number-crunchers, not the morally superior activists they see themselves to be (emphasis mine):
In conceding ground to a dry policy discourse that downplays the moral urgency of collective obligation, we unilaterally surrender some of the best moral and political arguments for health reform. It’s a genuine dilemma. We must legislate in the society we actually have, not in the society as we wish it to be. So we present a rather cold-hearted calculus to sell humane policies. This isn't a stupid calculation, but I’m starting to think it is the wrong approach.
Of course, if the alternative is dismissing critics of socialized medicine as bigots, Pollack might want to re-crunch his "calculation."
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well, as long as a scholar
August 5, 2009 - 13:02 ET by Chris NormanOh, well, then, as long as a scholar says it - it must be true. I know you can take the opinions from scholars, like Ward Churchill, to the bank...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Chris... Ward Churchill
August 5, 2009 - 13:42 ET by bigtimerChris...
Ward Churchill indeed!
I agree with Rush..."O is a community agitator, a walking, talking destroyer."
The enemy within using their typical tactics can spin it anyway they want...I always believe my own ears and eyes...thank you very much.
Their agenda is failing...as is O.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Oh yeah, Chief "Greasy Weasel That Waits On Unemployment Line"
August 5, 2009 - 16:01 ET by SickofLibsOh yeah, Chief "Greasy Weasel That Waits On Unemployment Line" Churchill.
→ It's true SOL
August 5, 2009 - 16:05 ET by Cool ArrowIt's always the greasy weasel that gets degrees.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
HEY, TV, HOW ABOUT?
August 6, 2009 - 07:16 ET by reelman46How about a side-by-VIDEO of the recent t-hall crowds and the
democrat paid protesters when Bush toured to reform Social security
with a simple OPTION?
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
unrest
August 5, 2009 - 13:08 ET by WesenLOL, Massa don't want any rebellion on his Plantation.
"Live free or die."
→ Xenaphobic? Me?
August 5, 2009 - 13:12 ET by Cool ArrowI always liked Xena, even when the lesbians went ga-ga over her.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Guess what...
August 6, 2009 - 23:11 ET by Joe BlogsGiven the repulsive cultural norms and low intelligence of most illegal and legal immigrants, no wonder older Americans are furious. We were never asked in a referendum whether we wanted America transformed into a crime ridden, socialist third world mess like the LA of today, ruled over by an ignorant Mexican kleptocracy. As for Gays demanding special rights, it's their indiscriminate filthy sodomy back in the 70's that bequeathed to the world the AIDS epidemic. Of course, the American taxpayer picked up the medical tab for that to the tune of hundreds of billions. So when do Gays plan to reimburse us for their Anal Jubilee?
My predictions: Obama will not be reelected and we will not have another black president -- ever. The majority has learned a bitter lesson. The country will split apart before that happens.
Read the Bill
August 5, 2009 - 13:15 ET by expatriotThe messiah and his followers want to distract people from reading the bill. If they keep distracting the American public with false statements and premises it keeps them from reading the bill.
Too late the word is out. http://www.lc.org/ provides and overview that shows what a unconstitutional piece of #@%^ this is. When the millions of older people find out what is really there they will be livid. The left's greatest fear.
No dissent allowed
August 5, 2009 - 13:22 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsCriticize Obama or any of his policies and you are a (x)ist and/or a (x)phobe. Simple as that.
D
Write Congress and Senate and tell them what YOU think!
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
As a senior citizen---
August 5, 2009 - 13:23 ET by misterbillAs a senior citizen--- I have carefully considered Pollack'statements about we older people. I have come to this conclusion---- Garofalo Pollack!!!!
useless eaters
August 6, 2009 - 09:30 ET by nadadhimmiMy mom is 84. When she heard of medical care rationing based on the # of yrs of life the Govt deems one has left, and the mandatory end of life counseling in this health care bill she said: "It's just like in Germany, Hitler called the retarded, homosexuals and crippled people>>>"USELESS EATERS". And they killed them... MY GOD, is this how we "progress" into the "brave new world".
Did Pollack and Tumulty
August 5, 2009 - 13:27 ET by zfDid Pollack and Tumulty actually read the bill? If they had there would have realised the euthansia and other concerns are very real..
Check out:
http://www.bizzyblog...
and
http://www.economicp...
for starters. It's laughable considering how often old folks are put on the back burner in the bill for any lib to be calling it's critics elderly haters. As for minorities, they'll be the first under this bill to be put under gov control and trotted around like show ponies, all the while being "treated" to typical government "benevolence."
.
Try to think for yourself
August 5, 2009 - 14:14 ET by bedmondsonTry to think for yourself rather than trusting what random people write on their blogs.
Why don't you just link to the actual bill? The cause for everyone's concern in on page 425, read it. http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
Everyone who reads this needs to realize that Hannity and the rest got all of their beliefs by reading the exact passage you just read. Everyone that is speaking on this issue got it right here. Now please someone explain where in the bill it says anything about being forced to die?
Took your advice
August 5, 2009 - 15:10 ET by jdlybrandSome juicy tidbits for your enjoyment:
Pg 91(4-7) Tax paid interpretors for illegals.
pg 170 (1-3) Illegals pay nothing
pg 195 Government access to individuals private records.
pg 272 Cancer treatment rationing
pg 429 (10-12) End of life counseling
pg 430 (11-15) Government decides end of life care
You cool with all that? This old fart don't like it at all. I have more if you're interested.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
jdlybrand, you're wasting your breath
August 5, 2009 - 15:36 ET by SickofLibsIt's too much of a mental leap for these people to understand that denial of treatments or rationing could result in deaths.
They are looking for us to show them where in the bill it explicitly spells out the details of the execution, oops, I mean end-of-life, chambers.
I know Sick
August 5, 2009 - 15:45 ET by jdlybrandI just enjoy the sound of them scurrying back to their crevices. Who needs a can of 'RAID' when you carry the truth?
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
It's too much a mental leap
August 5, 2009 - 15:58 ET by bedmondsonIt's too much a mental leap for these people to understand that we already have rationed care. All those people with out insurance and people with insurance going bankrupt must be fictional. (78% of bankruptcy filers burdened by health care costs had insurance). Have a pre-existing condition and try to see what kinds rationing you will be subject to.
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/stories
They are looking for us to show them where in the bill it explicitly spells out the details of the execution, oops, I mean end-of-life, chambers. What is wrong with pointing it out in the bill? If it is in there it should be there. Probably everyone on here has formed their opinion on the matter based on what someone on the radio said.
Thank for the information, I
August 5, 2009 - 15:45 ET by bedmondsonThank for the information, I am parsing it now.
Okay, read it and I am going to guess that you are not a moron, and just didn't actually read any of those.
Pg 91(4-7) Does not say anything about illegals. Are you saying that hospitals should not understand what their customers are saying? Just because someone does not speak good english does not make them an illegal believe it or not.
pg 170(1-3) You must be a citizen! http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-09-22.pdf Do you know what section 911(d) is?
p272 Ya, an insurance companies never do that right? and we should never try to lower Medicare costs right? Lets just keep on paying for stupid shit that allows you to live painfully for 1 more month.
pg 429 (10-12) It just pays for it. Where is it being forced? Why is this a bad thing? Do you think dying with nobody knowing how you would like to be treated or a will is a good thing?
pg 430 We are not talking about nationalized health care, Obamacare is socialized health care. Do you know the difference?It is up to the doctor and patient as indicated in this section what is decided for you end of life care, as it always has been.
I am not sure if i am cool with this plan at all, but what I am definitely not cool with is misrepresentation of the facts based on what a blogger said.
OK Bed
August 5, 2009 - 15:59 ET by jdlybrandI'll get into it deeper after I make dinner. Gonna enjoy the back and forth. In the meantime, Id feel a whole lot better about this if there were provisions for tort reform, which is what got us into this mess in the first place.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
OK Class
August 5, 2009 - 19:08 ET by jdlybrandI'll try to go a little slower this time.
Page 91 Culturally and Linguistically APPROPRIATE services and communications. Read-taxpayer funded translation for NON-ENGLISH speaking persons.
Page 911(d) Read it again. Then take the time to read 911(d)(4) exception. Sec of Treasury decides who is a bona fide citizen. So...tax-cheat Geithner decides who is bona fide? Comforting to know that one.
Page 272 I'd a whole hell of a lot rather I pick the entity that rations my healthcare than to have some dumbass bureaucrat that takes my money at the point of a gun (read-taxes) ration my healthcare.
Page 429 IT just pays for IT. Who do you think IT IS? (Read-taxpayer).
Now, don't go away mad...just go away.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Maybe you should go even
August 5, 2009 - 21:04 ET by bedmondsonMaybe you should go even slooooowwweerrr......
91. Appropriate to you is a synonym for illegal alien? If you don't speak english, it does not automatically make you a non citizen. Should a mute not get a translation? or is that just socialized evil.
911(d), So your new conspiracy is that the treasury secretary has the ability to naturalize all illegal aliens? So your theory could be the next truther or birther.
272. Where in the bill does it say you do not have the ability to retain your current health care insurance? Also, you wouldn't have the choice if you ever lost your job because health insurance does not transfer like that. If you were fired and had a preexisting condition, you may never be eligible for health insurance again. You call that choice?
429. Medicare would pay for you to draft a will. IT is Medicare. Now where in the wording does it say that someone on Medicare must draft a will, just that it will be paid for. When you don't have a will, Terry Shivo happens.
Anyways, it seems typical of someone on NB to tell someone to go away when they don't like what they hear. My point of view is that if you want to effectively defeat ObamaCare, you must also be honest. There are many honest articles and ideas out there on this issue but NB and others like to harp on the lies.
How about we talk about if we really want to lower costs because it is these high costs that give us such innovative drugs and procedures. How about we talk about the fact that the new system could hurt the economy? But no, we have to talk about how Obama is going to kill old people and force people to get abortions. How can you expect the American public to take conservative ideas seriously when they pull the same bullshit libs do when it comes to facts?
Not sure where the tax code comes in...
August 5, 2009 - 19:27 ET by retroconFrom the house bill...
Sec. 202. Exchange-elegible individuals and employers... does not specify citizens only, and it does not exclude non-citizens, legal or otherwise. "all individuals are eligible to obtain coverage through enrollment in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan offered throught the Health Insurance Exchange unless such individuals are enrolled in another qualified health benefits plan or other acceptable coverage." Period.
However, Title IV of HR3200 does amend IRS code to exempt non-resident aliens from paying the taxes that pay for all of this, while it doesn't exempt them from coverage.
This becomes nationalized healthcare once the "private insurance companies" are forced out of business by these laws, including a number of anti-competitive measures in this bill, and the natural non-competitive nature of a publicly funded institution using taxpayer dollars to compete against private entities. Once it's single payer, control over hospitals and doctors (a lot of control is already presented in this bill, BTW), becomes absolute. You get paid what they say, you service who they say, you resident where they say, you build hospitals where they say. It ceases to be private, or fails and gets "bailed out." Whereby, it becomes nationalized.
retro
August 5, 2009 - 19:42 ET by jdlybrandEver heard the expression "beating a dead horse"? But then what would I know... I'm just an angry, sexist, racist (I do like NASCAR sometimes), homophobic, bigoted, ignorant, astro-turfed, manufactured, typical white person. LOL! LOL!
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Love horsemeat...
August 5, 2009 - 20:43 ET by retroconActually, it took a while for me to draft that up, and the other responses beat me to it ;-)
;-)
August 5, 2009 - 20:54 ET by jdlybrand:-)
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
It sure is turning out to
August 5, 2009 - 13:27 ET by MidAmericaIt sure is turning out to be a lot of work trying to save the democrat party from itself. If they manage to cram this deathcare bill down the country's throat there will be suddenly millions of formerly appathetic voters going to the polls that the democrats will not be able to top even with their votes of dead people, illegals and ballot box fraud.
Once again they get it
August 5, 2009 - 13:57 ET by bedmondsonOnce again they get it wrong. Is anyone surprised? Opponents of ObamaCare are not racist and xenophobic, just satisfied with the status quo. Why would these old people in a government program already (Medicare), want to deal with a new government program that will compete with their own's for resources. For every $1 spent on health care somewhere else is $1 that they won't get. If Obama was named Bob and was as white as Rush Limbaugh, these people would still be opposing a change.
Anyways, would not the true conservative argument against socialized medicine also include the elimination of Medicare, which is socialized health care?
It should include a massively scaled back
August 5, 2009 - 14:57 ET by lsudolemiteversions of Medicare. Of course that would have the effect of scaring the elderly into thinking that the mean old Republicans are gonna take away their medical care and prescription drugs. Just like any argument against socialism in general should include the scaling back of Social Security and the legion of Great Society entitlement programs, but you'd have a hell of a time convincing the people who directly benefit from these programs to get on board. Not to mention the practical difficulty of eliminating enormous, entrenched government bureaucracies.
Isu.... Looks like the
August 5, 2009 - 15:36 ET by celatorIsu.... Looks like the prescription costs will go down with Obama's bill. Guidance for doctors for all illnesses is as follows:
DOCTOR: Take two aspirins and call me in a year if you are still alive.
Should save a ton of money.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Celator, you reminded me of the Gumby sketches from
August 5, 2009 - 15:53 ET by lsudolemitethe old Monty Python show:
Patient: My brain hurts!
Doctor: (Thumps patient on the head) It will have to come out!
Patient: Out, of my head?
Doctor: Yes! All the bits of it.
isu...LOL.. yes... I
August 5, 2009 - 18:11 ET by celatorisu...LOL.. yes... I remember.
And my parrot is still dead!
Great shows they had.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Agreed. But I think is
August 5, 2009 - 16:08 ET by bedmondsonAgreed. But I think is likely that it never be a politically viable idea to scale back these programs because historically old people are the most active participants in a democracy. Therefore they have a very large say in what the government does. Any candidate for high office that ever espoused serious responsible reform of major entitlements will have a difficult time to win an election in today's society.
Social Security is already untenable
August 5, 2009 - 17:29 ET by lsudolemiteand will be insolvent in the near future unless huge new tax burdens are imposed on working people. Not to mention illegals collecting benefits without paying a dime into the system. You can only ask people to subsidize a rapidly aging population for so long before they too start to vote with their pocketbooks in large numbers. Even now, if popular sentiment keeps up or worsens, Dems are in enormous trouble in the 2010 midterms.
There are two things that are very telling about the public option:
1. The legislators who craft it will not be required to put their precious families in this option under any circumstances. It's the same problem I have when I hear politicians tell me how wonderful the public school system is, but send their babies to the best private schools money can buy (Sidwell Friends, anyone?) You wanna sell me on the public option, Obama? You first, buddy.
2. No one in the Obama administration has addressed one of the things most responsible for the high cost of present health care: tort lawyers and the litigation lottery. Not once has this been mentioned among all the staged town hall meetings and prime-time address.
To answer your statement if conservatives ever regained both the WH and a supermajority in Congress, I don't see why they couldn't pull an Obama and propose some Trojan horse piece of legislation, all the while claiming that you get to keep your benefits :)
I guess in response... 1.
August 5, 2009 - 18:46 ET by bedmondsonI guess in response...
1. The legislatures and their families already get government health coverage... so your point is in the opposite direction you intend.
2. Is that true? Can you link me to an article on that? I have heard this before but I have not found any studies or economic experts to back that up.
... I guess that is possible, that is how they got the patriot act through.
So I am to believe that
August 5, 2009 - 19:49 ET by lsudolemite1. Congress would subject themselves to the same plan that the plebeians would be under the public option? I don't think we would see our state senator waiting in line several months for a crucial operation or to see a dentist. The point was the disparity in the qualities of said programs; the fact that they are both government-run is irrelevant. Somehow I doubt that a plan that covers only 535 people plus WH staff will provide the same level of care as one that would cover 45-50 million (and that's just the low end). This goes back to Rush's question about whether Ted Kennedy (or Chris Dodd now, for that matter) would receive the same quality of treatment under the public option as they enjoy now.
2. 5 minutes of Googling and I found this: http://www.ibdeditor...
The money quote from this article:
The accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers says about 10% of the cost
of medical service is attributable to medical malpractice lawsuits. Roughly 2% is caused by direct costs of the lawsuits; an additional 5%
to 9% is due to expenses run up by defensive medicine.
The true cost of defensive medicine, by definition, is difficult to quantify. A discussion of the additional indirect cost of litigation/defensive medicine by the Massachusetts Medical Society:
http://www.massmed.o...
The relevant quote from that piece:
Dr. Woodward said other studies estimate the practice of defensive
medicine to drive 8-15 percent of overall health care costs in the
country.
and finally, and most ironically, a HHS report from 2002 on the disparities in health care costs between states that have cracked down on malpractice litigation and those that haven't:
aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/litrefm.pdf
YIKES
August 5, 2009 - 13:57 ET by MrShymoral urgency of collective obligation
Are liberals really wielding that scary 2-word phrase around?
Un-be-liev-a-bull(crap). Their agenda is downright frightening.
Not only that, but notice
August 5, 2009 - 14:21 ET by motherbeltNot only that, but notice that they are describing it as a moral issue.
Every time, public debate begins with
heart-rending stories of uninsured or underinsured peoples’
difficulties: the poor person receiving sub-standard care, the man
losing his home because he got cancer or was hit by a car, the
Alzheimer’s patient who loses her lifesavings to nursing home bills.
This is all paraphrasing because it was long ago, but I remember President Clinton telling an audience that he wanted to keep Social Security strong to take care of your parents...so you don't have to.
Suddenly realizing what he had said, he hurriedly modified it..adding something like in a manner that will reduce your standard of living.
Heaven forbid that someone should reduce their standard of living, or make a sacrifice in order to take care of their aging parents!! That's just not right!!
And now, the government should make sure that no one has to use their own resources for medical bills or nursing home care.
In the first place, no insurance (not even Medicare and Medicaid) does now or will in the future, cover custodial care for Alzheimer's.....so that's a specious example. Even so, since when is it the responsibility of every American to foot the bills so that the spouse or children can keep their savings to use for something else?
I know that sounds cruel, but every time I hear someone say "My mother or father can't afford their medicine" I want to ask them: "If YOU don't want to buy your mother's medicine, what makes you think I want buy it for her?"
Is it the collective obligation of everyone to share everyone's bills so that they can use their own money for whatever they want?
"collective obligation" also fails massively as a logical
August 5, 2009 - 15:03 ET by lsudolemiteargument. It's the same problem I have when I hear people talk about how health care is a "right" to be guaranteed by the government (i.e., you and me). Using that logic then, don't I have a guaranteed "right" to food? I need food to live, so why should it be my responsibility to go to the grocery every week? I should have a "right" to a job, since I can't live without money. I then claim a "right" to gov't-subsidized transportation; after all I have to get to that gov't job somehow. And so on, ad infinitum.
I had to Google to find
August 5, 2009 - 15:43 ET by motherbeltI had to Google to find this. I think it is the same column I saw on WorldNetDaily a long time ago.
It gives a good look at what happens when things appear to be "free."
Single Payer Food
And I've linked to this article before, but I don't think anyone delineates the distinction of Rights vs. Wishes better than Walter Williams.
This is a classic, IMO, and should be required reading for every college student, especially Poli-Sci majors!
Same Ol' Same Ol'
August 5, 2009 - 14:03 ET by mattmThe libs have been using this demonization tactic for decades because it's much easier to avoid the debate than win it - especially when they're peddling tyranny.
Hopefully the American People will finally wake up and refuse to be taken in by the demagoguery of the Left ever again.
Wow, the lefties are getting really scared to resort to this BS
August 5, 2009 - 14:04 ET by R D HelmHave any of these idiots even bothered to read the bill?
-Dave
Two things that the liberals can't wait for...
August 5, 2009 - 14:07 ET by c5thenState funding of abortion along with State funding of Euthenasia. This way the State gets to control your life from conception to death.
Doesn't the Health tsar advocate that an abortion should still be legal up to 2 years after the birth? Isn't he also the same genuis who said of babies that if they are nurtured and educated properly, they will eventually grow up to become human beings?
These are the same people who want to control all the health care that is delivered to anyone in this country.
Throw 'da bums out!
no incumbent re-elected, with very few exceptions!
www.loyaltoliberty.com
What Health Czar are you
August 5, 2009 - 14:23 ET by motherbeltWhat Health Czar are you talking about?
MB:
August 5, 2009 - 15:39 ET by SickofLibsI think he means Dr. Demento, our brandy-new science czar.
I think he's melding
August 5, 2009 - 15:50 ET by motherbeltI think he's melding Holdren with Peter Singer.
Holdren favored forced abortions and sterilization; it was Singer who said that a newborn baby isn't really a "human being" yet.
He (Singer) advocated allowing parents to put a "defective" newborn to death within the first month of life.
As we know, the radical
August 5, 2009 - 14:12 ET by celatorAs we know, the radical left, the Old Useless Media and perfessors in their ivory towers explain all existential phenomena through one or more of the following mental filters:
1. Eternal gender wars (of which accusatory homophobia is a subset)
2. Impending doomsday environmental catastrophe caused by something or other humans (usually white males) are doing--the cause varies from generation to generation.
3. Politicized race conflicts, all caused by those dadgummed white males.
Tumulty is a true believer (in the Eric Hoffer sense) in all of elements, which is why she is a completely untrustworthy whack job.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Tumulty
August 5, 2009 - 14:19 ET by east tennessee johnOK Karen qoute an ex associate of BO from the Uof C. I tell you what, I'll take my red pill 5 minutes after you take yours. As predicted, anyone who criticizes BO or his policy is a brain dead racist. Screw you and I 'd be doing you a favor.
to borrow from the left
August 5, 2009 - 14:35 ET by candanceIf I want a lecture on moral standards I'll go to church for that. One doesn't have to believe in universal healthcare to be a good moral person. Besides, it's not the government's job to impose arbitrary moral beliefs.
Keep your healthcare out of your welfare.
Crticism
August 5, 2009 - 14:40 ET by iveseenitallHow dare anyone criticize Adolf Obama. How dare they raise their voices against a megalomaniacal narcisist who wants to remake America in his own image. How dare they not understand his "vision". How dare they raise their voices against the collective mentality in which private ownership, private wealth, and private freedom is pushed aside in deference to the will of the group. How dare they refuse to give up their personal earnings,gained through their own efforts, in order that others "in need" can take it. How dare they!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
In Indonesia, Obama's mother forgot to teach him that town hall
August 5, 2009 - 14:43 ET by ekslibmeetings are PUBLIC and DESIGNED to let ordinary people speak their minds. We've had them for over 300 years.
While in Indonesia, Obama's mom expressed her disdain for rich Americans.
Maybe that's where Obama learned that mobs of people should travel to PRIVATE homes to intimidate the spouses and children of executives.
eks...Here in New England,
August 5, 2009 - 17:41 ET by celatoreks...Here in New England, many of the smaller towns still have an annual town meeting. These candy butt Washington congress people ought to take a lesson from them.
Here's what happens: The town warrants are published in a booklet before the meeting, and made available to all citizens. The politically active study the warrants and make a decision on how they will vote at the town meeting.
So come "town meeting night", here is the scene: ALL elected officials, police and fire chief, committees (finance, etc) are right up there on a stage (usually in the local high school). Sometime you can see them sweat even before the town meeting starts because they know they will be called on the carpet by citizens
The town meeting moderator who is on the stage also, then calls out each article (ex: shall the town buy a new police cruiser for $50,000, or whatever).
Then the fireworks begin.
Town officials defend (or not) the items and expenses for the coming year in their department, and citizens in the audience step up and defend or challenge the item. If citizens think an expense or purchase is stupid, they are not shy about shouting it out.
I've seen many a town official get his/her butt get publically roasted by angry citizens. That's just the way it is. They take it, and sometimes give it back just as well. It gets pretty darn hot. One time I saw the town fire chief get so mad at a citizen who called the chief stupid for wanting a new fire truck, that the chief yelled out from the stage: "Oh yea! Well, when your house catches fire, don't call for help because I'm not sending any trucks to put out the fire." That was fun.
When the discussion is over, the Moderator calls for a vote, and everyone in favor raises their hand publically.
Then it's on to Item #2 and so on.
Lots of heat and discussion. That's the way it should be. Congress could learn a lot about the rough and tumble of democracy from these town meetings instead of being a bunch of crybabies.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
columnist or reporter?
August 5, 2009 - 14:53 ET by RayRaynot being familiar with her at all, I proceeded to read through some of her replies to posts made by others on that page. It seems from how she conducts herself that she is a columnist, who takes a side (Obama's) and defends it while criticizing the other side.
But it turns out she is officially a "correspondent". These days, that word means "unprincipled, biased, filled with reverse-bigotry".
I did get a kick of how the wikipedia article exposes her.
Get ready everyone.
August 5, 2009 - 15:22 ET by Ascended Conservativethe show is about to begin. be wary of false flags and artificial animous towards the legislatures' wellbeing. just like during Palin rallies, progressive plants shouted violent things towards Mr. Obama, they will do the same. just like they did at the tea-party events, they will do the same.
if you do infact hear a town-hall meeting attendee shout threats and such, ask them why they are resorting to such immature PROGRESSIVE tactics. i bet 9/10 times they actually support socialized medicine and are just trying to jin up anger towards the legitimate resistance against this monstrosity of a governmental power grab. we must not become them when fighting them.
-ascended conservatives
Shhh.... Here is some
August 5, 2009 - 15:33 ET by bigtimerShhh....
Here is some more disinformation that needs to be sent to the WH flag email.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
I'll bet that comprehensive
August 5, 2009 - 16:05 ET by motherbeltI'll bet that comprehensive study will be the lead story on all the network news and cable news shows this weekend!!
\sarc off
That is a must-read; thanks for linking it, bt!
I'm going to send that link to everyone I know!!
Shoot, "single-payer" advocates won't give up a steak dinner to buy their own parents' medicine. They think everyone else should pitch in and buy it for them!
PS: What's the WH flag email? I remember seeing something about that this AM, but I forget....
mb.... Linda Douglas/O's
August 5, 2009 - 17:20 ET by bigtimermb....
Linda Douglas/O's communicating witch came out yesterday and wants all friends to report on each other regarding emails or anything they see on the web that is so-called 'disinformation' regarding their messiah's ObamaCare Bill to WH.... at a link she gave out...it's flag at whitehouse. gov
Talk about Totalitarism...or whatever word anyone wants to use.
Glenn Beck just did a segment on the end of his show that had a friend, a guy, impersonate her today...it was a riot!
Seriously, this is eerie what the gov. is doing...
All taking heads on the right have been talking about this.
I just saw an ad from the left where it shows us as a 'mob' and an effigy of a person hanging...I kid you not.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Naa naa na naa nyaaa!
August 5, 2009 - 19:16 ET by jdlybrandI'm gonna te-ell!
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
jdly... Watch
August 5, 2009 - 19:23 ET by bigtimerjdly...
Watch this....shhh.
Keep it between us...after-all it is the Disinformation Czar!
You will crack up laughing!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Really!!!
August 5, 2009 - 19:29 ET by jdlybrandLMAO
Just between us.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Xenophobic, racist = those
August 5, 2009 - 17:18 ET by jdhawkXenophobic, racist = those that oppose obamacare? So, that would label the prez, the executive branch, and the entire Congress as xenophobic and racist. Because, these two branches of government have specifically written themselves OUT of any pending healthcare legistlation. Oh, and throw in the labor unions - lots of xeonphobes and racists there - they are excluded too!
Yeah, two of the three branches of our government have great healthcare, but they don't want to share. You see it is from private insurers - the best kind apparently - even though you won't get anyone of them to say it.
This is like Bush's Social Security legislation. He wanted private accounts that would allow all workers to invest part of their Social Security in money market, bonds, and common stock mutual funds. The savings in these private funds could be passed on to one's heirs. AARP was totally against it. It was just too RISKY! Yet, we later learned that they had over $600 million dollars invested in the stock market. It was too risky for the little people, but not for AARP.
Villainous Company Birthers
August 5, 2009 - 17:29 ET by lareehttp://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2009/08/birthers_plus_t.html
Birthers… Plus!!!! Trig Palin’s Real Mother, Revealed
The Editorial Staff are pained to admit that we really have not been
following the Amazing Palin Impending Heartbreak Brouhaha. Mostly, this
is because we would be hard-pressed to describe how deeply,
emphatically, passionately we refuse to notice people who have no lives
of their own. Who, to fill some sick void where their souls ought to
be, occupy their waking hours (and rape the attention of all and
sundry) by conducting marital health checks upon a woman who isn’t
holding public office at present and (in a non-election year, no less)
won’t be running for anything anytime soon.
I love Villainous Company.
I would be all for a
August 5, 2009 - 18:31 ET by mostlymoderateI would be all for a government health care system if we didn't have so many American's that make it a lifelong career to suck off the teet of Federal "give-out" systems like welfare, foodstamps, etc. Anybody visited a big city lately? I was just in New York and Los Angeles on business; it is no wonder why our country is in such a horrible debt because all I see is non-productive people living off the "system" in these big-city, liberal towns. Add to that the 20 million illegal aliens that keep having babies on American soil who get free "everything" until they die and you really have a problem.
MM, I have the pleasure
August 5, 2009 - 18:36 ET by NeoConfirmedMM,
I have the pleasure to live in LA and feel the liberal squeeze everyday. It's unbelievable.
Dear Mr. Shepherd: Am trying to e-mail this article and can't.
August 5, 2009 - 20:14 ET by BO STINKSIs NB getting slammed again tonight? I can try again tomorrow. My husband works for UP Railroad and several, if not most, of the people who voted for BO are extremely angry with him re: Health Care bill.
He is working right now and wants some links to give to them. I also sent him to the WH website for the "facts" article and videos. Those union boys are going to go ape*%&# over the 'turn in your neighbors & loved ones' email address. Hah! more buyer's remorse! I LOVE IT!!!
"The preservation of the sacred faith of liberty & the destiny of the republican model of gov't. are justly considered deeply...finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the American people."G. Washington's 1st inaugural address
→ Pelosi claims "Swastikas"
August 5, 2009 - 23:04 ET by Cool ArrowNancy Pelosi claims Americans are carrying Swastikas to Town Hall meetings.
I think there can be no question the liberals are now actively trying to provoke violence.
We now have the Speaker of the House calling us Nazis because we disagree with her health care plan.
She understands there are many Americans still around today whose lives were forever changed by the Nazis.
I honestly believe she would like nothing better than for violence to break out in one of these meetings. Then we'll see the real stormtroopers.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
This angers me greatly.
August 6, 2009 - 05:08 ET by ZacraI am not a racist, I am an American. I believe in Capatalism, and Social Darwinism. The people of this country said NO to the Auto Bailout. The people of this country said NO to the Stimulus. The people of this Coutry said NO to the Cash for Clunkers and the people of this country are SCREAMING NO to healthcare; but our elitist leaders appear hell bent on inciting riots in order to throw out the constitution and give the president dictator like control of the country. Mark my words this is the plan. Now you know that they were right in the 50's the communist had infiltrated Holywood and US politics.
I can't tell if you are
August 6, 2009 - 08:28 ET by bedmondsonI can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not but if your not, then you are a textbook racist. Do you even know what Social Darwinism is? Pol Pot, Stalin, (and everyone's favorite) Hitler all used ideas like Social Darwinism for their genocides against parts of their population. That is not American and not conservative.
Liberal tolerance on
August 6, 2009 - 10:32 ET by wiwfLiberal tolerance on parade
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
I've quoted your post on Jeremiah Films site.
August 6, 2009 - 15:44 ET by AtTheWaterCoolerI've linked to your post from Exposing Bias and Deception