Healthcare Plan Misinformation Video-induced Debate

Remove all ads!

How about Vietnam? We stayed until the administration didn't want us there anymore and then we pulled out. Yes, we lost, but the consequences of that on foreign soil aren't nearly the same as if we were on our own (or even a close neighbor's). I'm also not saying it's an easy process, just that it can happen at any time.

There's one problem: a Rep president would have to also have a majority Rep House and a supermajority Rep Senate to undo any bill passed now. That kind of thing doesn't happen often. If a bill is passed (any bill), the simplist way to overturn it is to challenge it in court (not exactly simple).

Tal, if you want to censor what is said in the political arena to what is intelligent, I'm all behind you, but good luck! On the other hand, we could probably get rid of 9 and 9/10ths of the political news channels I have right now.

Ah, but what if it was true? What if it really was the ANTICHRIST HIMSELF that was attacking CRPGs? That's my point again, that just because you're saying mean things about the opposition doesn't mean they're not also true things. In fact, if they are true, it's all the more important that we listen to them! It's that "are they true" thing that's the problem.

EDIT:
Correctly responded to Tal instead of calling him Ragusa. Sorry.

 

I really hope this was meant as a joke that I'm not getting the funny of.

I will say this, unequivocally, knowing full well what I'm about to say will include at least a few of our members.

If you* believe Barack Obama is a fascist, or that his government resembles anything close to fascism, you are a moron. If you think it makes any sense at all to compare Barack Obama, a black man, to Adolph Hitler, you are a moron. If you honestly believe Obama's health care panels are seriously advocating euthanizing old people, you are a moron. If you think showing up to townhall meetings and bringing them to a halt by shouting "tyrrany" repeatedly is constructive, let alone called for, you are a moron. And yes, if you believe in even the distant possibility that Barack Obama is really the Anti-Christ, and expect to be taken seriously by declaring so, you are a moron...squared. Nothing ambiguous or a simple matter of opinion here. Either Obama is like Adolph Hitler, or he is not. Either you are a rational, thinking human being, or you talk to your cereal. Period. No middle area. Yet these are the arguments - on posters, t-shirts, and the lips of the very "tea-partiers" at these events - we're discussing. There is no "...but what if it's TRUE?" ambiguity to these arguments. They are simply, definitively, stupid.

Nog, there's saying mean things, and then there's batsh*t lunacy. There is absolutely no excuse or reason for the behavior of these people. It would be nice if the anti-reform people showing up at these rallies were addressing concerns that resembles reality in the slightest. Then I would believe they simply "want their voices heard." They are not. That they are hostile mobs completely disrupting these town halls is a matter of video-taped fact. That they are spouting absolute nonsense is unambiguous. And that they are being egged on by right-wing media personalities like Glenn Beck (specifically his "9/12" movement) is indisputable at this point. I really hope I'm reading your point incorrectly, because it looks to me like you're defending them, rather than being embarrassed by them.

And again, I really can't believe Obama's election has driven people so insane that we're actually having this conversation. Never in my lifetime did I ever think I would have to reassure people that the black President of the united states was, in fact, NOT a Nazi, and that it is in no way reasonable to suggest that he is. Jeebus.

* Not you, Nog, specifically, of course - this is meant in general.

 

Actually, that's not what happened. We did not just up and leave: We negotiated a peace with NV that allowed us to leave:

The interesting aside about Vietnam is that it was never "officially" declared a "war." The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave the president the power to conduct military operations without a formal declaration of war. This was a huge mistake because it provided no real means to an exit strategy. So it really became the president's decision to "delcare the military action to an end."

Nixon's problem was that while searching for a way out, he declared "peace with honor." Which really meant that we would not "just leave" without conditions for a peaceful and honorable exit. So NV lied their way into a treaty, which they never had any intention of honoring, and then walked themselves right out of it. Jerry Ford was left with the ultimate decision of renewing the conflict, or just staying at home and letting NV walk right over the regime in the South. So while "just leaving" was an option, it took a much more convoluted path than that. Just saying, NOG...since it has almost nothing to do with our topic.

DR - I could not agree more. Right on!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War#Americanization

 

How many wars has the US ever lost? Not many. Since the situations we're talking about require some form of surrender or another, the examples of the US are necessarily going to be few.

True, though, it's a bit off-topic.

Ah, but if the system is bad, that won't fix anything. It'll just take the next Dem in power to reset things (or at least start to). If we want to actually not have a bad system, now is the time to talk.

Yeah, sorry, just so used to arguing with him! Fixed.

So instead you want to enforce your beliefs of who is 'reasonable' and what's 'believable'. Ok, I understand that, though after the whole Patriot Act fiasco, I'm surprised you'd say it's unbelievable that someone in power is out to get you.

No, no, no! That's Nancy Pelosi!
My point is that you can't simply silence extreme claims as ridiculous, because sometimes extreme claims are true. Remember, Hitler really happened, and so did Stalin, and so did the Patriot Act. Claiming 'it can't happen to us' isn't much of a protection. My point is that these idiots should be allowed to say their piece (as long as they say it peacefully), because the next ones to do so may not be idiots.

Read the above statement to Tal. I think you'll be satisfied. It wasn't meant to be a joke, but it wasn't meant to be about Obama either. It was a principled statement.

I don't like insulting others, but I have to agree with that.

My only problem with that is the emphasis on "a black man". It's almost as if you believe it's impossible for a black man to be a bigot, fascist, racist, or hate monger. Obama is not Adolph, but there are black men who come very close.

I agree, they are, but it's still their right to speak (not to disturb private events or public functions, but to speak at least).

Their actions and behavior is completely inexcusable, and I hope they get jailed for anything they can legitimately be jailed for, but their claims are perfectly justifiable: the First Amendment. Again, I'm not saying they're right, I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm just saying they have just as much right to speak their minds (soggy though they may be) as you do yours (no matter what it's state of soggyness may be at the time).

And if you were just as upset when Bush was compared to the Devil, when people repeatedly compared him to a mentally retarded child, when they said he was starting wars just to push the oil business (yeah, how'd that work out for them ), or when they said he blew up the Twin Towers just to start a war just to push the oil business , I wouldn't complain. What bugs me is that you only seem bothered by it when it's a Democrat that's the target.


Overall, my point is that now is the time to protest, not after it's already been past (as opposed to wars, where the time to protest is durring the war, not before or after) and the words being spoken have every right to be spoken. It's only the behavior that I object to (and hope they face the legitimate consequences for).

 

Black men can of course be all those things, and some are (Farrakhan being probably the best example). They can't, however, by definition, be Nazis. Thus, the comparison is beyond ridiculous on purely logical grounds (I would think it obvious that any actual Nazi, if given the chance, would likely kill Obama without a second thought). That Obama himself has exhibited none of these qualities makes the comparison even more distasteful. Perhaps the most obvious facet of this point is: if you're resorting to comparing your opponent to Adolph Hitler, for any reason, you've already hopelessly lost the debate. End of story.

Two problems with this. One, I was upset by these things - at least in calling Bush the Devil, or insinuations that he was in on 9/11. Those are despicable, and while you may not remember, I have forcefully condemned such language in the past. Comparing him to a mentally retarded child and insinuating that oil profit was a motive for war, while perhaps offensive, didn't upset me because they at least make sense (considering Bush's well-documented buffoonery and he and his cabinet's direct ties to the oil industry, respectively). Even still, I don't really trade in such language because it is counterproductive. There are many effective ways to articulate one's distaste for President Bush and his fitness for office without calling him a retard. And I have. However, no such logical connection can be made for the Obama = Nazi crap. It's beyond absurd. What's more, no prominent Democrat (elected or otherwise) ever promoted the epithets you mentioned the way prominent GOP figures are promoting the Obama garbage now.

I agree, and I don't. I agree that it's the time for people who disagree with the health care reforms to stand up and be heard. LOVE that. That is the kind of dissent that is vital to our Democracy, and I welcome it, even if I disagree with it.

Where my problem with current GOP rhetoric stems from is 1) its gross inaccuracy and 2) its potential to incite violence, particularly against Democrats and the President himself.

1) can be remedied by conservatives with the most influence (Beck, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, Drudge, etc.) actually offering up reasonable alternatives instead of deliberately twisting Obama's words, misrepresenting his actual policy proposals, and inciting panic and anger. I wouldn't mind a groundswell of public anger if it was directed at reforms Obama was actually proposing. This would actually be a GOOD thing, as it would help to shape a more even-handed final policy. But that isn't what they're doing. Some of the people at these rallies have absolutely no clue what they're talking about, and yet are piping mad. This is not an accident. GOP leaders/yackers are lying to their listeners and whipping them into an irrational frenzy, making reasoned debate impossible. When you combine that with claims that he stole the election and isn't eligible to be president (the Birther BS), with claiming he's a Nazi, with claiming he's going to take all the guns away, and that he's going to kill your Grandma, and that he's making an enemies list...and on and on...and you're convincing entire swaths of Americans that all these things are true, and this very demographic happens to be the one with all the guns, and feels particularly jilted by the results of the election...then I think you'll agree that we get a 2) and is exponentially more likely. And we're already seeing it at some of these rallies.

I guess what I'm saying is, this kind of irrational and poisonous rhetoric should not be tolerated or encouraged merely for the sake of the first amendment. We have the right to say whatever we want so long as our words are not a call to violence. In condoning these words, you're walking a dangerously fine line.

 

One of Bush's own people:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

When I listen to people high-up in the oil industry here in Houston talk about the necessity of defending our interests, I have whole lot more respect for them, than for those who are in denial. The "for oil" claim is that we built Saddam's oil infrastructure, and for others in the ME. And now these very same people want to use our investments against us, which is major threat to our national security.

Not only did someone like Saddam get wealthy on the investments that we made in his country, but he also did so on the backs of his people. Part of the "liberation" of Iraq was an economic one, that now the average person in Iraq would have more of an opportunity to profit from those American investments and oil revenues that those investments generate, without Saddam and his cronies skimming the gravy off the top. The oil industry claims that "our investmets are ours to defend." I'm not saying I agree, but they have a rational case in making it.

 

Desert Storm was completely about oil. I think the Iraq War was more about a personal vendetta.

Greenspan's book may be interesting -- considering that he is one of the main factors behind the housing market failure, so long as he takes appropriate responsibility for the economic failure his comments about other failures might be quite illuminating. If, on the other hand, it is a book which he pushes the blame for everything away from himself then it will be a worthless read.

 

I agree about Greenspan, T2. I was always bothered by how it was just "accepted" that Greenspan's word was gold. While I admit there are some people that are impeccably authoritative on certain subjects, they are just people - and they can be wrong. It always bothered me how his word was never openly questioned (or didn't seem to be). I think Greenspan is/was a very good man whose heart was in the right place, and I don't suspect him of any malicious intent, but I do think he got some very big questions wrong, and we're now dealing with the fallout. For that reason, I don't think positions like his should ever be the province of a single person.

 

Paliin on health care reform:

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/99399/Palin_and_Obamas_death_panel

Sorry, to disappoint you guys about Greenspan, but his book was written BEFORE the economic meltdown. You'll have to find a different premise to judge this one.

 

Come on, DR. It's called an analogy. Accusations of a fascist government are obviously going to draw comparisons to other fascist governments. I don't think anyone actually believes Obama is going to try to ressurect the uber-mensch.

No, I don't remember that, but my memory isn't that good. If you did, then I appologize and thank you for your support.

Now, here's the problem. They make sense to you, so you didn't oppose themm saying those things. They didn't make any sense to me (how can he be both mentally retarded and smart enough to get elected and then start a war to make himself richer).

Therein lies the problem. You can't silence someone just because they don't make sense to you. You can't even silence someone because they don't make sense to most people. If you do, you're just oppressing a group that you disagree with. Now, if you can prove that they're blatantly lying, then you can silence them (slander/libel lawsuits). If they're advocating violence, you can silence them (jail time). But not just because you don't like what they said.

That may be a good point, and I think the GOP figures who are doing it will suffer in the long run. It's just more alienation, and they don't need any more of that.

1.) I haven't seen any gross inaccuracies yet. I've seen some exagerated fears, but they're legitimate fears of what could happen. I've seen some emphasised claims, but I've always seen video footage of Obama actually supporting that (admittedly, maybe 6 years ago). It seems he's said enough on the topic over the years that almost any position can be supported. Even the most extreme (Obama want's to kill Grampa!) don't come out of the blue, but from fears of systems that have already been implimented in other nations that the Dems are praising for their Universal Health Care coverage. Obama may not want to kill Grampa, but maybe the Neatherlands do (don't know specifically), and the Dems are taking some inspiration from there.

2.) I'll agree with this insomuch as I think it's a real risk. I don't think anyone (who's actually sane) will do anything from anything I've heard yet (and those who aren't sane will do something regardless), but I'll agree it's moving dangerously in that direction.

Can anyone tell me what he's actually proposing? He want's a single payer system, right? Oh, wait, he's backed off from that. A public option? He's still on that, right? What kind? Minimalist? Competitive? Over-the-top? Does he want private insurance regulation? If so, what kind? I think this is my biggest complaint, no one (not even the Dems) will give a straight answer. And anyway, the issues isn't so much what Obama has proposed, but what Congress has proposed, and there's been just about everything tossed around in there. This is one of the problems with this system. Until the bill is finalized, there's no real limitation on what may be in there (and so anything that anyone may want is a legitimate claim for criticism), but once it's finalized, no one can do much of anything about it.

I think, all in all, this is the biggest issue between us. Pretty much by definition, the line between violence and no violence is a dangerous one, but we have to address it or keep moving it back forever. That means we have to allow people to walk that line as long as they don't cross that line. And yes, it is dangerous, but so is continually moving back Free Speech on the grounds that it's too close to "dangerous talk".

You would think that, yes. Until it actually happens, that is. History tells us even the most intelligent, sensible, sane, and well-informed people can be fooled. That's the problem.

Unfortunately, that's what tends to happen when people feel shut out. The Dems haven't seemed to try to comprimize with the Reps in Congress, from what I've seen. Maybe that's because they have the power and don't need to. Maybe that's because the Reps have been so polarized they aren't willing to work with the Dems. I don't know, but it leads to a bad situation either way.


EDIT:
Let's talk about what would help the situation some:
1.) I'd love to see a straightforward breakdown of what is being proposed on various sides. Not what the consequences would be, not a 1000+ page bill, but a simple "here's the idea".
2.) I'd love to see some kind of enforcable promise that X won't be in the bill (unfortunately, that's pretty much impossible, but I'd like it anyway).
3.) I'd love to see some sort of dual-party expert analysis of the likely, possible, and unlikely consequences of the various proposals, including what we're learning from our European friends and their experiences.

 

For my part - and others have said much the same - I think the people who believe Obama is a facist, a socialist, or was not born in the US (the birthers) are just as addled in the mind as people who really believe that Bush was involved in 9/11 (called truthers), actually was the devil, or actually had the intellect of a retarded child. I will further concede that the first list of people consists mostly of conservatives, while the second list consists mostly of liberals. So there is more than enough unreasonable paranoia on both sides.

I do not think that Bush is a particularly smart man, but I do not think he actually was retarded. While I thought as a self-proclaimed devout Christian, he took some very un-Christian stances on a variety of topics, I never thought he was the devil. And on the topic of Bush's ivolvement in the 9/11 attacks, that can be easily disproven simply by the fact that the 9/11 attacks were successful.

EDIT: What I'm unsure about is actual belief and relative numbers. By that, I mean that 1) I think the Bush-bashers called Bush a devil and a retard as an insult - and not because they actually believe it. (As opposed to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who really do believe Bush was involved.) Quite to the contrary, the Obama-bashers actually seem to believe that Obama is a Nazi/facist/socialist, and that he was not a natural born US citizen; and 2) It seems like the number of Obama-bashers far exceed the number of Bush-bashers.

 

Baloney, NOG. I provided you a White House link a while back. Did you bother to look at it?

I will repaste the link for you:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/

 

I'm not sure what the point would be to read it then. Some of the most fascinating books reveal the issues at the time and why the decisions were made. A post-occurance synopsis of what went wrong is, IMO, crucial to turning a catastrophic event into a learning experience.

Aldeth: Bush was quite capable of destruction....

 

DR, I must disagree with you on the no black man can be a nazi comment. One of the most famous Swedish criminals, a man named Jackie Arklöv was a black adopted man. He fought as a mercenary for the Serbs in Yugoslavia and then shot and killed two police officers after a failed bank robbery in Sweden a few years back. This black man was a self proclaimed fascist, white supremacist and I am fairly sure he even called himself a nazi.

So yes, black men can be nazis, really stupid nazis but nazis nonetheless.

 

I'm sure people who are interested in history will find it fascinating, since 9/11 and the Iraq War were major events and policy decisions of the Bush presidency. It's interesting - at least to me - that the economic policies, in response to 9/11, contained the seeds of the housing failures and economic meltdown, which was exactly what Greenspan & Company was trying to avoid.

 

I guess it's like watching a really bad movie; humor is there, as is drama and a shock factor -- just not where the writer and director wanted them to be.

And sometimes ignorance is amusing....

 

Then why go with the Nazis? Why not compare him to other fascist governments? Why go for the most extreme and inflammatory example, unless your intent to begin with is merely to inflame?

Nog, they make some sense, at least, because they are rooted in fact. That is why I accept it to be true that Bush said many, many stupid things, and was an oil-industry insider (and the oil industry stood to gain substantially from an American military foothold in Iraq) - I have credible evidence for this. Thus, those criticisms make sense not by my choosing. In order to believe, for example, that Obama is a Kenyan-born citizen, one must choose to believe - falsely - that he got through the entire election process by hoodwinking the state of Hawaii and the entire US government. If you believe that nonsense, then the Birther crusade make sense to you.

Let's get two things straight. 1: I oppose this argument not because it doesn't make sense to me, I oppose it because it makes no sense at all. 2: I don't want to silence people who believe these things. I want you, who is on their side, to silence them by being the voice of reason. To not legitimize their rantings. To be a louder voice than the crazies. If I were a purely cynical person I would want the crazies to represent your party. But I don't. That's my problem. I know there are reasonable, intelligent conservatives out there who have legitimate gripes with Obama. The problem is they aren't the ones allowed near the microphone.

Then you aren't really looking. For probably the best example, see the quote from Sarah Palin that Chandos posted above. 'Tis but a sample.

Legitimate only if you believe the exaggerations. If you told me a nearby lake was full of sharks, I'd have a legitimate fear of being eaten. But it's still a BS exaggeration only meant to scare me, not rooted in fact (of course, I'd be an idiot to believe sharks live in lakes, but you get my drift. ). To wit, if you trust Sarah Palin, and she tells you Obama's evil "death panels" want to endanger her Down Syndrome baby, your fear would be legitimate, but your rationality not. See what I mean?

Chandos already covered this, but I think this is another example of the troubling nature of the news sources you rely on. Obviously they aren't reporting on the proposals themselves, which have received wide (if a bit disjointed) coverage. Rather, they're just offering analysis on it (and, likely, misrepresenting or exaggerating portions therein for editorial and/or entertainment purposes). I'll provide a portion of Obama's recent address to the AARP for you (below spoiler), which covers it about as good as can be done:

Spoiler

Q I have heard lots of rumors going around about this new plan, and I hope that the people that are going to vote on this is going to read every single page there. I have been told there is a clause in there that everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die. This bothers me greatly and I'd like for you to promise me that this is not in this bill.

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I guarantee you, first of all, we just don't have enough government workers to send to talk to everybody, to find out how they want to die.

I think that the only thing that may have been proposed in some of the bills -- and I actually think this is a good thing -- is that it makes it easier for people to fill out a living will.

Now, Mary, you may be familiar with the principle behind a living will, but it basically is something that my grandmother -- who, you may have heard, recently passed away -- it gave her some control ahead of time, so that she could say, for example, if she had a terminal illness, did she want extraordinary measures even if, for example, her brain waves were no longer functioning; or did she want just to be left alone. That gives her some decision-making power over the process.

The problem is right now most of us don't give direction to our family members and so when we get really badly sick, sadly enough, nobody is there to make the decisions. And then the doctor, who doesn't know what you might have preferred, they're making decisions, in consultation with your kids or your grandkids, and nobody knows what you would have preferred.

So I think the idea there is to simply make sure that a living will process is easier for people -- it doesn't require you to hire a lawyer or to take up a lot of time. But everything is going to be up to you. And if you don't want to fill out a living will, you don't have to. But it's actually a useful tool I think for a lot of families to make sure that if, heaven forbid, you contract a terminal illness, that you are somebody who is able to control this process in a dignified way that is true to your faith and true to how you think that end-of-life process should proceed.

You don't want somebody else making those decisions for you. So I actually think it's a good idea to have a living will. I'd encourage everybody to get one. I have one. Michelle has one. And we hope we don't have to use it for a long time, but I think it's something that is sensible.

But, Mary, I just want to be clear: Nobody is going to be knocking on your door; nobody is going to be telling you you've got to fill one out. And certainly nobody is going to be forcing you to make a set of decisions on end-of-life care based on some bureaucratic law in Washington.

@ jaoquin,

I am the self-proclaimed greatest sex Megan Fox has ever had. That doesn't mean anything, either.