Well, I think the thing to remember is the echo-chamber-ness of it all. This is a small little cross-section of people, mostly talking to themselves. There's a quiet majority that is either not involved in daily politics, or is so resigned they don't speak. Either way, that majority came out in 2008 and had their say, and I suspect they can be counted on again in '10 and '12.

this is why people get priorities totally jacked up. It's also telling that so many people are oblivious to how insurance corporations have hijacked our country.

in suburban and rural areas of this country, a car is pretty much an absolute necessity. that does not mean that an extra cost of 'state minimum' coverage can be afforded by everybody. You're talking as if one shouldn't be allowed out of bed unless they have an insurance policy for some sort of damage or harm they might do to another. Should there be a mandatory policy to buy for everyday personal business?

I'm sorry but owning a car is a luxury, and with that luxory comes a seperate responsibility. If you drive a car you are probably going to get into an accident eventually. If it is your fault you are responsible for medical payments to others as well as property damage, that is why it is a requirement.

---------- Post added at 11:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------


Probably. Most people have one already, It's called home owners insurance. In your policy you have personal Liability that covers you wherever you are. Alot of people want additional coverage so they buy whats called an "umbrella" policy which extends their limit of liability. The only way you wouldn't want any insurance is if you are rich enough to self insure, which 99.9% of the population isn't.

Well, there pretty much is. Not legally mandatory, but in practice, it comes down to the same thing.

One of my first jobs out of college was in the marketing department of a local gourmet food store, with a restaurant and deli and bakery as well as international grocery, housewares, wine/beer etc. You got ANY idea how much product liability insurance a place like that carries?

When I was working there, a woman contacted us who had broken a tooth on a bit of olive pit that had been in her tapenade she'd bought fresh-made from the deli. The company's insurance covered her dental work, plus several hundred thousand bonus dollars. If insurance hadn't been there to go between, such a case could easily put a company like that out of business. This sort of thing is a function of the (insurance-cartel-enabled) litigiousness of American society, but it works out to be just as mandatory as if there was a law requiring it.

On the flip-side... A friend of mine went white water rafting during a trip to New Zealand. At one point, the river forks. No signs or anything. You just have to know that if you go left, you go over a 100-foot waterfall and die. This isn't a problem for New Zealanders, they are willing to take care of themselves. It's downright shocking for an American, who's used to being babied and coddled at the threat of massive lawsuits.

We're a little far afield of the health reform debate, now, but I think the insurance business has broader tentacles than just health insurance.

wrong. everyone has a RIGHT to own property, including a car. You might not have the money to buy one, which might make it a luxury, but there is nothing that any government entity in this nation can do to prevent you from buying a car.


I'll refer back to my original statement as to the obliviousness of people nowadays.

Right to own, privilege to drive

Especially when driving on public property.

we've discussed that in another thread.

The government can stop you from driving by revoking your license, and failure to produce proof of insurance

yeah, nobody ever drives without a license or no insurance. :orly:

that's like saying "yeah, nobody every murders people." but you knew that

I'm not even sure what your point is anymore

Sure, go ahead and starve half the forum.

Half the forum are not trolls.

Says the fella just poppin' in to call troll. ;)

the point is that all too often people get this silly idea that all they have to do to fix something is write a new law. It never works that way though, but they never give up trying.

I don't want to offend anyone by diverting attention from the serious discussion that has been going since I was called a troll, but I have the need to point out that 45% in an NBC poll think Obama's plan will lead to "death Panels". In the British National Health Care Service they have what they call "Quality-adjusted life year" to help determine when or if a medical treatment will be paid for. For those of you who know the truth about Obama's plan are you guaranteeing the rest of us that we will never use such things as a "Quality-adjusted life year"?

I looked for a short definition of what a "quality-adjusted life year" is:

Quality-adjusted life year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh yea, and for those that need this - the concept of "death panel" and QALY are related in regards to both attempt to provide a means to allocate limited health care resources.

ace--you continue to indulge in entirely circular logic....so there are many people who are either uninformed about the realities that once upon a time were the subject of the debate or who are politically motivated to be as obtuse as yourself or who simply believe what they hear repeated alot of times. or all the above.

so knowing the meme is false, and knowing--assuming you retain *something* of what you read even if you don't like what it says---what it's supposed to do--which is capture attention at the news cycle level entirely independently of whether it means shit or not---you're trying now to argue that because alot of people believe it's the case then it follows that this "death panel" idiocy must be taken seriously.

bullshit.

basically, you have nothing to argue.
you enjoy recycling the memes of the moment and imagine yourself performing some Heroic Thing by standing up to people who think you're positions are goofy here, and so you persist.

it's time for a tactical rethink.

ace

It's not a death panel, though. It's an quantitative method used to help ensure that money isn't being disproportionately spent on ineffective medical care. And in any case, the status quo is already heavily focused on denying care to the sick.

BTW, did you happen to see the op-ed in your favorite, the IBD, claiming that Stephen Hawking would be dead had he been cared for by the British system? The dumbshits weren't aware that Hawking had been treated by the British system for his whole life. This right here is a microcosm of opposition to British-type systems. I wonder how well Hawking would have fared under the American system?

I'll ask you the same question I posed to rahl earlier. It would seem that those opposed to a government option should have little to fear from it since they surely wouldn't buy a plan with a government death panel in it.

How creative - totally ignoring a question.

Let's assume I am an idiot, and I am in a town hall meeting that you are leading, and I present what I presented above, your response would be...?

Got it. What do you think my response would be?


Assuming I have nothing to argue, why not answer the question?

It is a blessing and a curse - bow wow wow yippo yippy yay, nothing but the dog in me, somethimes I wish I did not have such a pit bull mentality - but I have learned to live with it, and I am mostly harmless.

http://zebraisfood.files.wordpress.c...pg?w=365&h=365

You wish!

---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

Is that a no or a yes to my question?

I will go there now and read it.

I am not interested in trading one failing method of allocating resources for another, my preference is to come up with a better system. Trading one set of bureaucrats who don't care for another is not an improvement.

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

I could support a single payer system for base level coverage with private options for supplemental coverage. However, currently Medicare is going broke my fear is that a public option will fail or require some massive rationing of care at some point. I think we need an honest discussion about this, rather than pretending it is not an issue, that it is not a fear and a concern that many people have. You have read it here, we are all victims of lies, we perpetuate the lies, we just think Obama is bad, we are illogical, we are unAmerican, etc, etc, etc - everything rather than addressing the issue.

I can't answer your question. I'm not sure it's an important question. You seem to be concerned about the possibility that a healthcare system might employ an internal system to ensure its own efficiency. Seems odd to me, coming from you.

They've changed it since their ignorance was brought to light.

Every method of allocating resources fails to allocate them perfectly. Furthermore, I have yet to see evidence that the goverment bureaucrats would do worse than the private ones have. In fact, there are certain other countries where it would seem that the government bureaucrats are doing better (that is, if you trust the World Health Organization, which apparently you don't).

No, my question was specific - you take it to mean something that was not in the question. I am concerned about how limited health care resource would be allocated under Obama's plan. I think QALY is subjective, I don't like it and if Obama's plan would employ something similar I could not support his plan.

I am confused by the inability to address a simple concept and a simple question. Why not say, yes. We will employ a method to determine when medical treatment will not be paid for and this is how we would do it? Not being clear, is making people more and more concerned.


Some systems would be more efficient than others. Providing "free" coverage has to be the most inefficient.

The second has to be a system like Obama is saying about preexisting conditions. If I am healthy, I don't buy insurance. If I get diagnosed with prostrate cancer, I buy a policy, get treatment and then cancel the policy. that is what you would get with what Obama talks about.

How about this - Medicare is going broke. Private health insurance companies a) are required by law to maintain adequate reserves and b) they actually do have reserves to meet future needs. The private bureaucrats follow actuary sound practices, government does not. Score 1 for the private sector.

ace---one last point before i leave you to blah blah blah...i responded to your "question" i responded by saying that the premise you used to set it up was circular, so the question itself is without interest.

you missed that part. again.

If anyone wants to contend that Fox News (and it's fellow conservative media platforms) doesn't spin the news, I present you with this:

Video from the Town Hall meeting with Barney Frank (unedited):




And Fox News' coverage. Notice what it leaves out:

Yes, exactly.

Filth: just joining an event already in progress. I'm gone now. Have fun trolling trolls.

I know that I am late to this thread, but I want to bring up a thought about the angry attempts at disrupting the town hall meetings. At first I could not figure out where the angry ones were coming from. Then I realized that comments like "We want our country back" were probably refering to the fact that we have a black president and the angry ones were afraid that their view of the country as being of white people and for white people was being upset. All this had nothing to do with healthcare, but protesters were using this forum to try to arouse opposition to our black president. Does this make sense?

Most do seem to be old white people, but some aren't. They seem to be an accurate cross-section of the Republican party, at least as far as the racial demographics. I suspect it's myriad conservative, evangelical, and social positions that are being seen as "real American" and that now seem to be on the list to be left behind.

I love that Video :)
That woman and articles like this reinforce so many stereotypes a lot of europeans have about americans its not even funny :D

Watching shows like "The Daily Show" is hilarious. It distracts me from the mess that german politics are at the moment :)

I doubt seriously it has anything at all to do with the race of the President. I think with all these bailouts and the hundreds of billions of dollars that seem to flow from Washington in an unlimited fashion and politicians that are out of touch with their constituents is beginning to wear on peoples nerves. I believe this discontent began during the Bush years and the Patriot Acts, wars, etc.. and the change people expected with this last election has become just more of the same. People feel disconnected from their elected officials and the whole government in general. The town halls was just a convenient way for people to vent this discontent.

I guess the next election will tell if it's truly "accurate cross-section of the Republican party". Like the Democratic Party is all that :thumbsup: Neither party truly has the interest of the average American at heart. Elected members of both parties only worry about themselves.

This is shaping up to be Obama's Waterloo ..... he's damned if he does and damned if he don't.

nah, I think he'll pass it and it will be successful enough over the next 2 years that it will be a non-issue by the 2012 election cycle. There was heavy opposition to Social Security and Medicare when they were introduced too....

You dont think the "birther" movement has a racial component?

What are you talking about? The birther movement is based entirely on race.

(Oh, were you being ironic?)

True and FDR had to considerably water down his Social Security Bill to get it passed.

However, over the years, it was ammended something like 70 times to get it where it is now.

If the Health Care Bill passes (which I doubt), it will probably take generations to get it where it needs to be, however, that's the way it will have to go. Hopefully Obama can plant a seed that will grow with time so that 70 or so years from now, Americans have a true Universal Health Care system.

Muddying the waters a bit are we?

He's right that the birther movement seems to be racially motivated. No one ever asked if Bill Clinton was secretly born in England or Sweden. Barack Obama isn't white and has a foreign sounding name, therefore we should have permission to see his original birth certificate? Comon.

Ok lets muddy the waters. We was discussing town hall meetings and "accurate cross-section of the Republican party" not the "birther movement". That's a whole 'nother discussion altogether. Probably 99.9 percent of the discontent people showing up at the town hall meetings really don't care about Obama's race or the "birther movenmemt".

Many of those showing up are birthers, though, so you can't discount them from the discussion completely. And last time I checked, 42% of Republicans believe President Obama is a natural born citizen, 30% don't know, and 28% are absolutely idiots.

HAHA the idea he isn't a naturally born American citizen seems to spread across all the political parties. excerpt from the link you so graciously provided...

sometimes you guys and gals are funny ... :)

*edit* I daresay Will if Obama was a Republican you would be on the "birther" bandwagon also. Heck you was on the 9/11 conspiracy bandwagon up until the last election.

When did I say birthers were only Republican? My point was that it's racially motivated. And it really, really is.

Anyway, when you can explain how this:
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3210/757.jpg
made this hole:
http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-con...tagon-hole.jpg
(in another thread, of course), you then have standing to cite my investigation as folly.

So now your flip flopping back and saying there was a government 9/11 conspiracy? Because it wasn't to long ago I was sure you had decided that the government didn't have anything to do with it at all?

I'm saying that there was ample reason for me to be asking questions, not that there is a vast government conspiracy. One clue does not a conspiracy make. Anyway, there are no clues that would suggest there's anything at all funny about President Obama's birth certificate, so I would imagine that if President Obama was a Republican, I would not in fact be a part of the birther movement. This is especially true because the movement is racially motivated and I am not racist.

Alrighty then!!! :thumbsup:

Roach,

Your responses simply continue to illustrate a level of intellectual cowardice that leads me to conclude there is not much substance in the words you share with me.

That has not been missed.

---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 PM ----------

Does Hannity make the claim that he is neutral? How can anyone watch his show and not realize his "spin"? Isn't there a difference between a "news" show and a "news talk show"? Are you implying that the Fox News channel is the only one that has "spin" on some of its shows?

No, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, et al do NOT come right out and say they are biased or spinning the news, that's the problem. People watch their shows and think they're getting the straight story and are accepting what is being presented as fact. Jon Stewart, on the other hand, is clearly presenting a comedy show, and I don't think Olbermann or Maddow are hiding their own biases.

There is no "birther" movement. Certainly we can find people who actively promote the pursuit of this issue, but to call it a movement?!? Just because liberal talk shows had a few slow news days and filled it up with a few angry people and an ambush video, does not make a movement. Then you have the ..."well this person or that person did not denounce this enough or to our liking so therefore...", gee. And now we have people saying by implication that anyone against Obama is a racist. What is that all about?

---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 PM ----------

I watch MSNBC to get a different perspective from my views. I am a grown up. I know when I am listening to someone with an agenda, don't you? Why do you assume others can not?

They have a website: the Birthers

Oh, I guess that makes it official. Get a website and become a movement. Got it.

You talk about this as if a "movement" needed to be certified by someone. Let's see, how do we describe a group of people who coordinate events, websites and material requesting for a specific action from a public official?

Can you define "movement" in the political context? This may be a semantic disagreement.

Is there a "bigfoot" movement?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=2693244

Perhaps, my problem is having too high a standard for a "movement".

---------- Post added at 11:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 PM ----------

It clearly is. I think something becomes a (political) movement only after a group of people actually have enough power to change the political dynamics of an issue. For example our historic equal civil rights quest, did not become a movement until about the early 1900's. I would argue the birth of the NAACP was the birth of the "movement. There was a much sharper focus and ability to affect change after the formation of the NAACP, a clear moment of demarcation in my opinion.

posting their website was halfway facetious, but they do have a "leader" (Orly Taitz) and some US legislators support. I don't know what else you think they need to be a "movement". Their efforts won't be successful, but that doesn't make their organization of people and resources any less real

---------- Post added at 07:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 PM ----------

So is Pro Life not a movement because they haven't had the political power to change the issue?

I actually choose my words carefully. I said "change the political dynamics" of an issue. "Birthers" are out there just like there are people who have been "anally probed by aliens" , neither group has any impact on the political dynamics of any debate on any subject. However, people like "right to life", or even people who want to "save the whales" do affect political dynamics.

According to polling, 39% of Republicans are birthers. If about 39% of all adults are Republican (that's the best figure I could find), and there are about 200 million adults in the US, that means that there are about 30 million birthers, or 1 in every 10 Americans.

As for political impact, ask yourself why there are congressmen and senators standing up for these morons.

Are they trying to achieve any political goals?

Various surveys will show different numbers, but this one shows almost 90% of blacks favor reparations for slavery. I bet most of these people who say yes are pretty casual about it, but a much smaller number are passionate about it. the issue of reparations is in the news, but hardly a movement. By comparison I would say reparations is much closer to a "movement" than "birthers". The survey results you cite don't make me put "birthers" in the "movement" category.

Survey Shows Most Blacks Favor Slavery Reparations - NAM

---------- Post added at 12:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------

Yes, however the believers are a splintered group. If you talk to some, they have a goal of uncovering this and some other perceived cover ups by the government.

It is interesting but if you took the above sentence out of context, it could apply to almost any fringe group, including "birthers". I think the ambiguity in their message is one reason I would not consider fringe groups with all kinds of out of the mainstream ideas something less than a "movement".

You know, I cannot really believe I am actually debating this with you folks - keep on believing "birthers" are a serious threat to Obama, just back off of calling people racists.

No one really believes they are a serious threat to Obama, but I think it is absurd to deny the racial aspect of this whole made up controversy.

What in your view makes it racist? Oh, never mind - I get it - Obama is half black, so any "movement" against him is racism.

Hey, did you hear the Feds are increasing the deficit projection to $9 trillion. Those "birthers" - are they changing the political dynamics of that issue? And, before you respond with it - I was against the deficits under Bush too, the only difference is that the deficits under Bush were within historical norms in terms of % of GDP.

{added} Were the vast right wing conspiracy "movement"s against Bill Clinton racism too? By some he was considered our first "black" President. Or, could it be conservatives, of all kinds, just don't like liberals?

{added}.......... News flash......News Flash......"Birthers" don't think Arnold Schwarzenegger qualifies to be President. They clearly have a bias against former steroid users, according to Obama supporters........

{added}..........News Flash,,,,,News Flash,,,,,"Birthers are at it again, claiming Henry Keissinger does not qualify to be President. This is clearly antisemitism according to Obama supporters.........

Are you really this dense or are you just trolling at this point?

What the fuck do the deficits or any other problem with the Obama administration have to do with the "birther" made up controversy?

Who said anything about any movement against Obama being racist?

Now, there is absolutely no doubt that the whole birth certificate "controversy" is racially motivated.

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.