Healthcare Plan Misinformation Video-induced Debate

Remove all ads!

Which time are we NOT "criticizing?" At this point, American governing largely consists of just criticizing to the point of doing almost nothing (which is the intended goal).

I commend you for this. However, there is a feeling, judging by comments made by ranking Republicans, that they aren't interested in "getting something done," but are instead in planning how they can defeat "Obama."
This has become mostly a political game now.

You got that right.

Comments aside, the big question, atm, is whether or not to have a public option in health care reform. There will more than likely be health care reform, but the PO may not be in it in the end (but I'd like to see it). Even then, I predict that no more than 2 or 3 Republicans will support it. The majority of Republicans really don't care about a PO, but see this as a strategic path to defeating Obama, especially in the long run (2012). So, this will mostly be a fight between Democrats as to what shape reform should take at the end of the process. But in the end, they may get 2 or 3 Republicans without a PO; none with it.

 

Which is why I maintain that further concessions would be pointless. I'm being an idealist again - I'm hoping that Kennedy's death just might pull the Democrats together. I know this is most likely a dream, but hey, sometimes you're pleasantly surprised.

 

Umm, who ever said anyone has the right to speak unintimidated? Any time anyone opposes you in any fashion, there's the possibility that you (or they) are being intimidated by the other. The pressence of police at all these protests could be seen as intimidating. Does that mean that they're violating the rights of the protesters?

My point is that many democrats (and you) have said it's useless to criticize or debate the bills now, because nothing is final. My point is, there's no other time to do it.

Well, then it's just a question of what who want's to get 'done'. Seriously, though, sometimes not doing anything is better than doing something stupid, in which case stopping the Dems from doing something is, in itself, getting something done. I think. Wait...*re-reads that*... yeah. Maybe.

I think some kind of public option is necessary if you actually want to help the uninsured. I think the issue is what kind of public option. I'd say it should be a bare-bones plan and nothing more. Maybe cover preventative care only, or preventative care and certain common and simple major things (like casts for a broken bone).

 

I don't know, Tal. It's happened before. Civil rights, anti-war, probably even women's rights. The establishment honestly has a greater history of successfully harming unarmed protesters than attempted assassins (as far as I know).

 

That's a bunch of BS NOG! The "establishment", i'm assuming you mean police/government, never attacks unarmed protestors. That happens only in the movies and in 3rd world countries, not here. They will defend themselves against armed protestors. If there are unarmed mixed in, well, they should get out of the way when the melee ensues between 2 armed forces, that just would be basic comen sense....

 

Umm ... Blades ... Kent State ... I realize it was a long time ago....

 

Ah yes, government ... tyranny ... thinking of Kent State, certainly those leftist and/or peacenicks at Kent State would not have been shot had they only had arms to protect themselves from the national guard. Given the mood of the time that is highly likely. Nixon would have just loved that. Open street fighting between Lefties and the national guard would have been a brilliant idea, in particular, because it would have reasserted, forcefully, the protesters constitutional right to bear arms (don't thread on me!), which, I have been assured, is in connection with protests a good thing. Clearly, protesters need guns to protect themselves from government tyranny, which is why they ought to protest armed all the time, just in case.

Well, that is actually not my view. Face it, when protesters come armed, the government will bring bigger guns, SWAT teams and armoured cars. I propose to protest unarmed to fight another day. The utility of bringing arms to a protest as far 'defence against tyranny' is concerned, in today's America, is marginal. All it offers is for the armed protesters an opportunity for a last stand a la Ruby Ridge. Aargh, there it is again, tyranny!

It is worthwhile to remember what is hidden behind the abstraction 'resistance to tyranny' - the attacking and/or killing of local and federal cops, local and federal elected or appointed officials and soldiers. Think Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City. To invoke such an emergency measure, the last option, with so far reaching consequences - over health care? Preposterous!

That the protesters have largely been allowed to protest armed is, if anything, a very clear indication that America under Obama is not a tyranny but in many respects amazingly liberal (in the traditional sense of the world, unaffected by US political branding). Well, too bad for all the effort they put into their signs. Not that it matters.

 

Ragusa, my point was never that arms would protect protesters, but merely that they have no right to go unintimidated.

 

And I didn't say that you said that.

I merely pointed out the absurdity of the view held by many a gun nut - mind you, not by you - that armed protesters and their 'proud and defiant' display of arms in the US today are in any way good for 'protection against tyranny'. That point - the lack of utility for achieving the proclaimed goal - is something you have to address when you see the bringing of arms to protests as a legitimate exercise of the right to bear arms, with the purpose to defend against tyranny.

As for the right to not be intimidated by others and their display of arms when they are protesting, even more so when there perhaps is a reason to be intimidated in face of candid statements, signs and attitudes accompanying the carried weapons (i.e. implicit threat) - Tal made an excellent point on that that deserves closer attention.

 

Well, it seems to me that the American people believe that it is the Republicans who are the "stupid" ones.

Three things that the Republicans fought against and that you cannot take away from Americans today:

1. Civil Rights
2. Medicare
3. Social Security

Rather than just making meaningless partisan statements you may want to consider looking at what Americans are generally happy with, that the government and the Dems were largely responsible for.

 

And I stand by my response to it.

Don't kid yourself, Chandos. They think both sides are stupid, it's just a matter of which one they like less at the moment.

Actually, of the three, two of them are largely unpopular with the American people. Those on Medicare may like it (and that's debatable), and those with family on Medicare, but beyond that I really don't think it's too popular. The same goes for Social Security, and I even know a few people on it today who don't like it.

 

You're right. Medicare is only popular with the people old enough to actually use it.

I'm sure lots of people hate getting money from the government each month after they retire.

 

Medicare is all of sudden very popular with Republicans, if you've been paying attention to what they are saying. GWB made the same mistake about SS, when he tried to privatize it a few years ago and ran into a brick wall. While Civil rights was largely a regional issue, many Republicans in the North ended up supporting it and voting for it, just as many Republicans - in the end - voted for Medicare. It used to be that many Republicans were independent thinkers; you don't see very much of that anymore. Heck, Lincoln was a Republican....

 

No doubt.

People are willing to believe that Obama was in reality born in Kenia, that he has a deep seated hatred for white people and wants to kill off America's elderly, that under Obama's plan Democrats would deny Republicans health care - or that Saddam was behind 9/11. I'd say that are expressions of beliefs at best, and not the result of critical thinking. It's a the product of clever PR cultivated by the GOP, using state of the art marketing that has been carefully tailored for the target audience, the 'Republican Base'.

Great article from Newsweek: Lies of Mass Destruction - The same skewed thinking that supports a Saddam-9/11 link explains the power of health-care myths - an excerpt:

And they don't even have to surf the internet. They only need to switch on the TV and watch FOX and O'Reilly or Glenn Beck or to listen to Limbaugh on the radio.

 

Ragusa, again, it's hardly the only time this has happened. The reality that (I hope) most of us here realize is that most people don't want to think, and politicians, Rep and Dem alike, usually get elected by getting the support of the most non-thinkers. Bush and crew may have been better at it than most (though the Dems had a few experts on their team at the same time), but it's hardly a new thing in history.

 

Cut the 'it has happened before' nonsense, and then, aargh, the inevitable 'The D's do it too!' It must be hard to be a conservative in America. Everybody is out to get them, and is blaming them unfairly for stuff they do. I'm sorry, but I'm out of hankies. That sort of self pity and blame gaming is leading nowhere, and you know it as well as I do.

All I care about is that it is happening now and that it is having obvious detrimental effects.

As for D's propagandising as well - the R's are by a long shot the very the best at that game and use it extensively in their politics. That owes IMO a lot to their closeness to the industry, which is well aware of the value of marketing and branding and providing expertise. In lobbying that expresses itself as well. If you invest in defeating health care reform in order to retain your monopoly, you will want to make sure that this investment is secured by a proper professional marketing effort.

The GOP might well be breeding something that will come back to haunt them - thinking of it, haunt them again. Comparable populism defeated one of Bush's few in principle good ideas - his attempt at an immigration reform.

Currently leading the pack is tea bagger extraordinaire Dick Armey, head of Freedom Works, about whom Mike Huckabee, of all people, had the following to say:

I'll try and be polite here as well and not mention the word that Huckabee obviously had in mind.

Why the two don't get along well? Huckabee is socially-conservative with creepy ideas in his mind like, yuck, tobacco regulation and safety in the workplace Huckabee also signed into law a tobacco tax increase Taxes! How is it that a corporate guy like Armey is so engaged in tea bagging and the anti-tax movement? One might think that the industries are interested in the common man only as a customer. Well, that may just be the point. Think of Huckabee's sins, like the tobacco tax. Now there are reasons beyond concern for taxpayers that can drive resistance to taxes. If you're a tobacco company taxes on cigarettes increase prices artificially and reduce consumption, and thus reduce profit! That's a cancer on your balance sheet!

Why all this about Huckabee and where's Armey in all this? Armey is pro-business, in the sense that his Freedom Works is in part funded by Phillip Morris (having helped my company preparing a donation, I know that this wasn't out of altruism). Consequently Armey wouldn't have anything of Huckabee's 'small-minded populism' and he attacked him throughout his candidacy to be the GOP presidential candidate. I give it to Huckabee that he put his point quite well. I also think he's right.

 

Ragusa - You hit the nail right on the head: There is no love for Huckbee becuase he is an independent thinker who dared to step outside of the Repulbican echo chamber, and "upset the orderly apple cart." I would plus rep you for drawing such a good illustration of that point, but the system won't let me....

 

For fun, a memo on 'best practices for disrupting a town hall meeting' [PDF], written by Bob MacGuffie of Freedom Works. Summary: Try to rattle [the congressman], not have an intelligent debate.

Illuminating is this passage of the objectives of such a staged town hall protest:

Which suggests that the actual objective is pretty narrowly defined, namely to defeat legislation, plain and simple.

As for staged:

Interesting interview [mp3] with McGuffie by an Alan Cholmes who appears to have re-discovered his self-respect.

 

Ragusa, you're not a petulant child, so why do you sound like one? I wasn't trying to exuse the Rep's behavior, simply to make sure you remembered that when you point a finger at someone, there's always three more pointing back at you. Yes, the Reps should be chastized for the blatant hate-mongering and blind propagandizing they're doing, but so should the Dems.

And again, it's happening now on both sides, it's just that, as you said, the Reps are better (or perhaps worse since its so much more obvious) at it.

On the up side, I'm glad to see Huckabee getting his name cleared. He was always my favorite candidate by far. Thanks for that good news.