Might as well give up Ace. Obama, like Bush, is shitting in their oatmeal the only difference is Obama's tastes better because he has a {D} after his name.

Deficits under Bush= the most terrible thing to happen to mankind
Deficits under Obama= the best thing to happen to mankind

Patriot Act under Bush= the most terrible breach of human rights in history
Patriot Act under Obama= oh well he needs this to keep us safe

Wire tapping under Bush= OMG the gall of this man
Wire tapping under Obama= its a wonderful thing, we need to do it to stay safe

Dissent to Bush policy= the most patriotic thing to do
Dissent under Obama= you racist bigotted muther pucker SoB how dare you question the Messiah

This list could go on and on and on for a long time! It's amazing what that little {D} does for making smelly ass shit taste so much better!

The only thing we accomplished this past election was to change the name and the {R} to a {D} and explode the deficit from a little over 1 trillion to 9 trillion. Everything else has pretty much stayed the same.

I dont recall any one saying the Obama deficits are "the best thing to happen to mankind"

I do think many believe that the deficits are a necessary burden to fix an economy that was on the verge of collapse.

As opposed to deficits resulting from tax cuts that benefited the top 1% more than all other taxpayers combined and a war that benefited no Americans.

Many Democrats still oppose the Patriot Act.

This has to be the most comical comparsion

Bush authorized warrentless wiretaps of Americans by circumventing the law, without FISA court approval, and keeping it totally secret from Congress.

Obama supported the FISA amendments (many Democrats did not) that reaffirm the requirement to have FISA court approval and provisions to inform Congress on a regular basis in accordance with its oversight responsibilities.

The fact that you still feel the need to refer to Obama as "The Messiah" and the fact that you see nothing racist in the "birthers" says it all.

Try to keep it real if you want to make comparisons.

wow, the trolling in this thread has really ramped up this morning

Can you show where anyone has said any of this things in this thread, or even this forum? Because if you can't this is just flame bait.

Same thing with Ace's "innocent" conflation of demanding a birth certificate from Obama and opposing his deficits...

Is that a rhetorical question? I don't think I am dense or trolling. Generally when I don't "get it", I will ask. I recall asking what the concern about the "birther" movement was all about after reading a few posts on the subject, I clearly don't get it.

My point was that there are some real issues worthy of concern and the "birther" thing is not one of them.

Read the posts before mine on this subject, read the posts after mine on the subject.

Or, how about some people may be racially motivated and others may be motivated for other reasons. My concern is labeling everyone the same way.

---------- Post added at 08:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 PM ----------

Are you changing your tone from the "birther" thing being racist to there may be some racists in the "birther" movement"? And then is it simply safe to say there are racists in this country with all kinds of beliefs and agendas, perhaps there are a few racists who are liberal including members of your political party - and that those people are not reflective of your views on race even when you may agree with them on some policy issues?

---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ----------

I demanded a birth certificate from Obama? Is someone pretending to be me? Can you show me where I made that demand?

---------- Post added at 08:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------

I don't think I know what "trolling" is, can you clarify it?

roachboy might be referring to - among other instances - scout's last post, which is a mild troll but nothing this forum isn't completely used to.

(If he's referring to you, he's wrong.)

I like how you come in and lay the administrator fist down, but throw your own jab at town hall meetings while acting as a moderator.

The thread did go south and largely off topic, but putting your subjective slant into into it does not equal moderating. We know where you are coming from while reading your other posts.

Who exactly are the town hall meetings an embarrassment to? The politicians who tried to force the health care down our throats or the people who were against the health care bill?

I would think the embarrassment would be to those who think shouting down and attempting to disrupt an open town meeting is more productive that an honest and open dialogue where opposing views could be expressed without derision and false characterizations, most of which was on one-side.

added:
it is always clear when roachboy is speaking for himself as opposed to acting as mod.....unless you expect mods not to participate at all in discussions.

Yes, it is very easy to tell the difference as I can see the CONTRASTING YELLOW text. The difference is when he responds to a thread as a moderator then lincludes his opinion in the same text.

Jazz....that link has some extra characters in it.

Here's a fixed link: Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i normally wouldn't do this, but here i'll make an exception.

the thread is to my mind an embarrassment. you suppose that by that i mean something politically motivated, so that i mean it's an embarrassment because of what people whom i oppose politically are saying and doing.

but i dont: i think the entire debate is an embarrassment to all of us, and not just in the context of the thread. i see it as having been shaped by a tactical blunder from the administration in not presenting forcefully one or more options for types of alternative health care arrangements up front. i see it as an embarrassment because of the types of space for noise that this tactical blunder opened up. i see it as an embarrassment because of the extent to which all of us have been sucked into this---so a debate over a quite important social problem, one which i think requires at least some actual thinking, has become a pathetic donnybrook.

it's an embarrassment to the extent that it shows what's happened to the persistent fiction they call american democracy.
it's an embarrassment internationally--you think folk in other countries aren't taking note of this donnybrook, you're sadly mistaken.

here, i found myself getting sucked into the same non-dynamics in the context of this thread. so in the context of this thread, i'm part of what makes it an embarrassment. we all are.

i see no contradiction between holding this view of both the national non-debate and it's reflection in this thread and acting as a moderator.
and i see no contradiction between saying as much as moderating the thread.

and if you don't believe the characterization of this thread as an embarrassment, take a few days away from it and then read through the whole thing for yourself.
do it.

then if you want to complain, feel free to pm me.

I'm standing in ovation fashion. ^

I don't have much to add concerning the topic,
because the debates that are not really debates, negates.

ORLY? :orly:

speaking of making comparisons. I was also a 'birther' at first. Questions were raised, I wanted answers, and there isn't a racist bone in my body. lets try not using such a broad brush, deal?

out of curiosity, would you have had the same questions about McCain had he won the election (as he was not born in the US)? do you think the birthers would have?

You're not a birther anymore, though, right? Once you saw the evidence, once you did the research, you found the claim wasn't compelling, yes?

If a meeting is fraudulent does it deserve to be shouted down?

If you engaged in a common populist method to non-violently protest a public fraud that is being attempted by the powers that be in government would you be embarrassed by it?

If Nixon was having a town hall meeting on the subject of Vietnam and you thought the point was to promote untruths about the war what would you do? What if it were Bush on any subject, you think he lied about - would you do something anything to let your voice be heard?

Isn't protest a part of our Democracy?

Isn't it true that for the masses to exercise political power between elections they have to use an "outdoor voice" (I learned that when my son started kindergarten, as opposed to an "indoor voice", I guess they learn stuff like that in teacher school)?

So town hall meetings are fraudulent if a member of Congress would like to explain the legislative proposals and his/her position to constituents and seek their input in a constructive manner?

Protest is absolutely acceptable. "Outdoor voices" are acceptable.

Screaming "socialism" and "death panels pulling the plug on granny" or "government control of our medical decisions in a Hitlerite fashion" should be an embarrassment to anyone interested in an honest and open dialogue on the issue.

Give me a break. Protesting was bad when we protested the war and Bush's policies. The right wing had no problem calling them treasonous. Now that they are the ones out the outside it is perfectly fine.

How about this: The Town Hall meetings are for the adults who want to ask intelligent questions and the rabble-rousers can be outside calling for the birth certificates. Does that work?

Again, I calmly point to concerns I have as they, for example relate to "death panels" in the context of how government will allocate limited health care resources.

I say that I agree that the use of the words "death panel" is wrong, but that there is an underlying concern. The responses has consistently been a reference to end of life counseling which is not the point.

No one gives a direct and simple response to the concern. I perceive there is deception.

My voice grows louder.

I am told that oh, health care insurers are already rationing health care and they are evil. I say I don't want to trade one set of bureaucrats for another. I say at least in the private sector I have a choice and I have legal recourse. My point goes ignored.

My voice grows louder.

I am told billions will be saved in medicare to help pay for health care reform. I ask how they can save that money without reducing services (pulling the plug on grandma). I am told to just trust us. I say I don't trust the folks in Washington.

My voice grows louder.

I am told doing what Obama wants is the only way to fix the problem. I say medicare is going bankrupt, while those in the private sector are economically sound as they are required to be. I say I am concerned about an unfair competitive advantage for a government plan, that would lead to the demise of private options. I am told oh, that won't happen.

My voice grows louder.

In between all of that, I am subject to personal attacks, I am told my admitted emotional respose is grounded in "circular logic" not worthy of response, I am told I am racist, I am told I am a troll, etc, etc, etc.

My voice grows louder.

The pattern continues.

I explain the pattern and explain why I think people are acting the way they are. I even offer a suggestion that our law makers forget about town hall meetings and go back to Washington a present a single unified plan. I suggest that Obama lead on the issue.

The American people should not be embarrassed. The people letting there true feeling be known should not be embarrassed. the only people who should be embarrassed are those who have presented half assed plans and ideas to the American people. This is too big an issue for the vacuum of information, for the vacuum of leadership.

Dont you think if those questions (some valid, some not, IMO) were raised at a town meeting in a calm and adult manner, with a willingness to listen to the response and engage in further dialogue, would be more constructive than just ranting and raving like your kindergarten kid?

But I guess its hard to expect that if one comes to the town hall meeting with a pre-determined mindset that Obama is a socialist/fascist/anti-Christ/illegal alien out to destroy the country.

(to dk: i am not suggesting that all those at town halls who are speaking out against the health care proposals fit that mold.)

the scenario you just laid out is fine, except halfway into your first point, a handful of people would shout over you while waving signs with Obama as Hitler images on them. These Town Halls don't simmer and then start to bubble over as the conversation grows, they start off with the yelling and screaming right at the beginning. There is no way to have the kind of discussion you're describing.

Be specific. I think when a person who is the speaker of the house or the leaders in the Senate make certain type of public pronouncements about our commander in chief, about our military strategy, about our ability to win a war, boarders on treason. On the other hand when a person like Dennis Kuchinich, who was consistently against the war and voted against it expresses his concerns I respect it. Personally I have never had a problems with for example mothers of fallen soldiers or actually any regular citizen protesting the war.

---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 PM ----------

when Obama wanted to rush the bill through, people went from luke warm to piping hot. Everyone outside of Washington and the elite media were saying slow down. And you seem to suggest the level of emotion was a surprise? Where you surprised that there would be hostile people at town hall meetings? and, then they were immediately, categorized and dismissed. But along the way, the American people said that we will not be ignored. Now the suggestion that we should be embarrassed????? There was no real leadership on this issue. No clear communication on this issue.

i give up

Agreed.

Its time to SHOUT!

YouTube - Shout! - The Isley Brothers

YouTube - Shout! - The Isley Brothers

/end entertainment segment of this town hall meeting

I'm fine with free speech. For the past 6 and a half years, I've been protesting against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. When someone asked, I would say, "There aren't any WMDs, there aren't any links to al Qaeda. There's no reason for our people to be there, and there's no reason to earn the animosity of Middle Eastern Muslims yet again." I educated myself on the subject as well as I could and came to an informed decision before setting out to speak to people about it. I knew that facts, not emotional bullshit and hyperbole, are the best way to convince people. Was I mad? Sure. I'm still mad we're there. I'll probably go on fighting to get the US out of Afghanistan until we're withdrawing, too. But what we're seeing from these town halls is a different animal completely. People are showing up with deeply racist and ignorant signs, and are consistently uninformed. Death panels? Abortion? Communism? I never ever would have lied about the war, trying to scare people, in order to end it. That's not free speech, that's corruption, injustice, and dishonesty. Don't protect unjust people from just judgment.

I would have, I can't speak for another 'group' of people.

---------- Post added at 01:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 AM ----------

correct.

We have been through this before but it is worth repeating. True there are facts. But there are also legitimate emotional responses to facts. Your position seems to suggest there can or should be only one response to a given set of facts. The reality is that this is not true, never has been true and never will be true. People respond differently even when presented with the same facts. Why do you ignore this? Why do you imply that those who don't agree with you don't know the facts or don't care about facts?

Health care (health, life death, quality of life, care of loved one's) is the most emotional issue people deal with. I would argue on a national level this is even going to be more emotionally charged than war - war is often removed from most people health care issues are not, they affect us all.

---------- Post added at 12:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 AM ----------

What is the point of this statement? I say that people responded to Obama's strategy to rush a health care bill through in a negative manner. In my view this is a legitimate issue and is clearly on topic and is in-part the reason for some of the hostility in meetings. Is your giving up mean that you have no response, or what? Do you just want to "take your ball and go home", since issues are being brought up that you don't like? What is the deal with the sanctimony, at least the sanctimony I perceive in you comment?

I continually don't understand liberals. On one hand we get the talk about facts but then legitimate issues or questions go ignored. One day perhaps some of you will surprise me.

this is entirely dependent on context. in your livingroom watching television, you're right.
in the context of what is supposed to be a democratic debate, however, emotional responses are catastrophic. they can be compelling but they add nothing but distortions to the questions at hand; they can be persuasive, but they do not operate on the same grounds. emotional responses are not amenable to argument. they are not argument. so they are not deliberation. so they are not part of a democratic process. they are anti-democratic in the context of a deliberation--they short-circuit the process. they impede decision-making. they prevent consensus. they are noise that dissolves signals.

and in a functional democratic process, such responses are excluded by the rules of the game.

what the right demonstrates through it's actions is that they do not know even the most basic rules of democratic process.
what the right demonstrates is that they know they cannot win a rational argument on this topic and so their only option is to stop the process itself.

but the style of political philosophy that's crept into conservative discourse has nothing but contempt for actual democracy anyway. it is built around the need for a Leader to enter the fray in the context of a State of Exception to make Decisions. the style of political philosophy particular to american conservatism these days is a justification for dictatorship.
political theology.
you should read it sometime, ace.
it's by carl schmitt.
it sums you up.

that the right advances this sort of position seemingly without knowing that they're doing it is what makes then unnerving as a political movement.
for a long time, i've seen the american populist right as neo-fascist.
this is why.

Roachboy what you are saying is correct in a perfect world, unfortunately very few of us live in a perfect world. Emotional response has always and to some extent always will play into our "democratic" debates and our responses to those debates. I don't think those emotional responses are limited to one side of the aisle. Young or old, democrat or republican, no matter what race or educational background or any other variable you wish to throw in we will always have the emotional side of democracy to contend with when we enter into these life changing and potentially life altering debates and potential legislative actions.

Because while you claim to be open to the "other side's" viewpoints, your response to anything we say is always "yeah, but...." After awhile, it feels like we're talking to a wall. You refuse to see our point, so why bother debating any further?

I'm headed to Michele Bachman's TH this afternoon. I'll let you know what happens.

scout: we're not talking about a perfect world. we're talking about an actually functioning democracy. which the united states has no relation to.

want a good idea of what the direct drivers are of this new demonstration of the wreckage of the american system?

here are two of the weekly news coverage weeklies but out by pew research center's project for excellent in journalism.
have a look for example at the skew in the amount of time devoted by cable outlets to this issue at the expense of almost all other aspects of reality.
have a look at the analyses of the actions of conservative media personalities in the context of the 24/7 infomercials for rightwing politics that fox etc fob off as information:

Anger and Rancor Fuel Cable?s Health Care Coverage | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

Health Care, Afghanistan Emerge as the Summer?s Big Stories | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

what does disabling debate as part of a deliberate strategy imply about how the populist right sees democratic process?
that's easy.
they have contempt for it.

you see the same thing in this thread---there's no possibility that, say, ace would recognize much less accept a refutation of his arguments. it's all just shuck and jive with the sole objective of making him feel whatever--because at this point, it's all about "feeling"---by making rational discussion about health care, and about the actions of the populist right in trying to break down any semblance of it, almost impossible. in the end, the stream of badly argued, ill-considered trivia that he's been posting functions to perform one of the objectives of all this conservative horseshit: they have nothing to say, but want to be sure that even though that's the case, the situation is all about them.

i've said it before, this is about news cycles, not about substance.
this is about narcissism, not about politics.
if anything, the right is willing to try to smother the idea of the political by rendering it a space of endless garble. they must find something comforting in generating an image of an irrational polity, even as they create it. what's comforting is that the irrational polity is all about them. they get the media exposure for their actions (compare the amount of press these people are getting as against the amount that protests against the bushwars got...try it)...
it's infantile.
and this is what they seem to want.
make an infantile polity that will someday be Saved by a Charismatic Leader.
one of the things that Charismatic Leader will do, no doubt, is officially sanction even more empty blah blah blah about america and freedom and how everyone wants to come here to the land of self-dominating infants, democracy and Heroic Individuals.
maybe that's all conservatives want, nice words to tell themselves while in their daily lives they actively participate in their own domination by trying to disable the central mechanisms that might check it.
go figure.

No. The issue to me is much more complex than that. I think the starting point of the problem was with Obama not proposing a specific plan for Congress to act on. Given his campaign I would have expected clarity from him - for some reason he chose to be vague and ambiguous regarding what he wants and what he would sign as President. And that is just the starting point in my mind.

OH, good. It sounds like you weren't a birther, you were just concerned so you checked it out. When I first heard the claim, after I finished laughing, I went and researched it and found that the claim was unfounded.
"Death panels" aren't an emotional reaction, though. They're lies that are bought by people unwilling to set aside 5 minutes to objectively fact check the statement. I have a serious problem with that level of selective laziness. They're not interested in spending 5 minutes to verify the claim, but they will drive 2 hours to troll a town hall meeting? You know that's dishonest. The reason I mentioned emotion is that there's a reason that someone is unwilling to objectively research a claim, but is willing to fight tooth and nail because of it: bias. The prejudice against anything considered liberal is not an intellectual, but an emotional reaction, overriding reason in order to appease a sense of "us vs. them"ism.

I appreciate your response. However, I am not sure we see the issue in the same manner. I will try to illustrate with a simple example of the decision process. It can be a clear certain fact that is is raining outside. Two people can have the same fact. One decides to carry an umbrella the other does not. the decision to carry an umbrella is one based on "emotion". the decision not to carry an umbrella does not mean that the person ignored the fact, did not do research, made an error, etc, he simply made a decision. The person who decided to carry an umbrella may not understand the other persons decision, but they can not honestly say it was not based on the known facts. I think it is the same with more complex decsions as well. With health care there is no doubt there is misinformation and people promoting misinformation but there are also people against Obama's plan who are informed and do not support it based on facts. and to be for it or against it is emotional. i do not see that response as catastrophic as you describe.

I think of national decisions to wage war or to engage in peace treaties. there are facts but the decsions to act are emotion based no matter how you look at it. In my view you can not seperate emotion from human decisions. emotion drives the political process both liberal and conservative - the politician who hits the right emotional chord at the right time wins the day. In my view this is the process and does not short circuit it.

---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------

When I have made errors, when I have been proven wrong, when I change my position, I have stated it. When I have questions, I normally start with my first question or first few and I normally have more. when I don't understand a point of view I let that be know as well. When I am not open on a subject I state that, just as when I will say I am open. with health care I am open to change, we have problems with our current system and I have a ton of questions and concerns regarding what is being proposed. Literally, hundreds of questions and then perhaps as many follow ups. I doubt I am unique in that regard.

---------- Post added at 07:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------

those are not my words, they are Palin's. I have shared my issue. If you want to debate "death panels" perhaps you should contact her.

ace---so as your attempts to provide coherent arguments have been dispensed with one after the other here, for example, you've shifted over into the claim that your position is emotion and so is therefore legit. now you're saying, based on some strange example that does not really fit with your conclusion, that all positions are emotional. therefore there are no grounds for confirming or invalidating any particular claims with respect to the health care proposals. therefore anything goes.

so there are no facts. beyond banal empirical matters like whether it is or is not raining outside.

so why are you bothering with a debate?
there's no basis for one at this point.
you dissolved it.
all in order to maintain a pattern of self-referential actions.
so you win, ace. in your fact-free meat puppet way, you win.
there's no point in talking about health care.
it's all about you.

enjoy the rest of the thread until someone messes up and it gets shut down.

People are showing up to the town hall meetings with words and phrases like "death panels", "abortion", "communism", "fascism", "nazism", etc. instead of actual relevant topics. These people are conservative, not liberal. They are getting their information from people like Palin, Hannity, Beck, ORly, and Rush, but they're not even bothering to check if the information is correct before going to these meetings to "protest" (it's not actually protesting, it's actually an attempt to end the debate). What these people are doing has nothing at all to do with free speech and everything to do with trying to end a debate by trolling. It's censorship. I'll say that again, IT'S CENSORSHIP. It's the exact opposite of free speech.

Same exact thing people did with the Bush war protests only that got even more obnoxious. Google 'zombietime' for an example in pictures. Just because you don't agree with them on an ideological level doesn't mean it isnt free speech. That is being naive, and I know you're smarter than that. For better or for worse, these are the activities of a democracy. None of this would be happening in, say, Iran or Saudi Arabia.