Town Hall meetings - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

rahl · 08-11-2009, 08:23 AM

I've been hearing alot about these meetings in the past few days. They seem to be a very volatile environment. My question is, what is the purpose of these meetings? All they seem to be about is people coming to rant either for or against the issue, which is ok but these meetings are just inflaming and already touchy issue so why have them at all?

Derwood · 08-11-2009, 08:35 AM

The original point was for Obama to use his grass roots methods (that were very effective during his campaign) to champion his health care plan. Problem is, the Glenn Beck's of the world have taken this opportunity to fire up the crazies and organize them to go crash the parties, which has more or less eliminated their usefulness.

So what do the Democratic congressmen do? Cancel the town halls and hand "victory" to the nutbags, or go forward with them, even though they aren't doing what they were intended to do?

rahl · 08-11-2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

The original point was for Obama to use his grass roots methods (that were very effective during his campaign) to champion his health care plan. Problem is, the Glenn Beck's of the world have taken this opportunity to fire up the crazies and organize them to go crash the parties, which has more or less eliminated their usefulness.

So what do the Democratic congressmen do? Cancel the town halls and hand "victory" to the nutbags, or go forward with them, even though they aren't doing what they were intended to do?

They do have a "tea party" feel to them. And at this point people are going to get hurt if and when a riot breaks out. The issue of healthcare reform has become so politicized that it's evoking strong emotions on both sides.

The_Dunedan · 08-11-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

The original point was for Obama to use his grass roots methods (that were very effective during his campaign) to champion his health care plan. Problem is, the Glenn Beck's of the world have taken this opportunity to fire up the crazies and organize them to go crash the parties, which has more or less eliminated their usefulness.

So when Mr. Obama organizes a grassroots PR campaign in favour of something, it's good. When his opponents allegedly organize a grassroots PR campaign in response and opposition, that's bad. Left-wing "Community Organizing" = Good, right-wing "Community Organizing" = Bad. This despite the fact that, wild and baseless accusations aside, nobody's been able to prove that the opposition/Tea Party folks -are- formally organized, unlike the Union/SEIU Sturmabteilung who've been proving so very useful lately.

Got it.

Quote:

And at this point people are going to get hurt if and when a riot breaks out.

People have already been hurt, by the Union/SEIU thugs who've been sent in to pack the houses and break heads. They've been caught at it, on video, repeatedly.

roachboy · 08-11-2009, 09:20 AM

anyone can play this game:
conservatives=victims. everyone else=Persecutor.
conservative community organization, whatever that means: good. every other form: bad.
militia group forms of organization=good. unions=bad.

how about we try to actually discuss the question rather than cutting directly to repeating the problem with the town hall format in the present situation?

YaWhateva · 08-11-2009, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Left-wing "Community Organizing" = Good, right-wing "Community Organizing" = Bad. This despite the fact that, wild and baseless accusations aside, nobody's been able to prove that the opposition/Tea Party folks -are- formally organized, unlike the Union/SEIU Sturmabteilung who've been proving so very useful lately.

When the entire point of the opposition "community organizing" is to disrupt and shout down any constructive dialog then yes it is bad. Freedom of speech only goes so far as to not impede on other people's freedom of speech and this is exactly what the disruptors are doing.

Derwood · 08-11-2009, 09:26 AM

At this point, it's working though, as the news is being dominated by stories about people talking about health care instead of stories about actual health care

The_Dunedan · 08-11-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

anyone can play this game:
conservatives=victims. everyone else=Persecutor.
conservative community organization, whatever that means: good. every other form: bad.
militia group forms of organization=good. unions=bad.

how about we try to actually discuss the question rather than cutting directly to repeating the problem with the town hall format in the present sit

Believe it or not, RB, that's precisely the point I was attempting to make; or part of it, rather. The party which elected a "Community Organizer" president (D)does not get to gripe about "community organization" in opposition to their programme, and the party which legitmated the use of repressive force in such contexts (R) can't bitch too much about the Union thugs.

Having never voted for a Demopublican or a Republicrat, and being opposed to -all- such violence, I have no difficulty denouncing both sides even while I agree with the objections raised by the one and the "diagnostic" info presented by the other.

Quote:

When the entire point of the opposition "community organizing" is to disrupt and shout down any constructive dialog then yes it is bad.

Kindy remind the SEIU folks, they seem to have gotten the notion that while shouting is impermissible, fisticuffs are perfectly fine. Furthermore, I do not recall reading anything in regards to manners, volume, or "constructive dialogue" in the 1st Amendment.

Quote:

Freedom of speech only goes so far as to not impede on other people's freedom of speech and this is exactly what the disruptors are doing.

Again, someone please make sure the SEIU gets this memo. Furthermore, I find it difficult to label them as "disruptive" when their primary demand seems to be that the Congresscritter in question actually try -reading- a bill before voting on it or trying to sell it. Yes, the hypocrisy of people who "A-OKed" the USA PATRIOT act (which was -also- passed before being read) but are bitching about this now disgusts me.

Cimarron29414 · 08-11-2009, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

anyone can play this game:
conservatives=victims. everyone else=Persecutor.
conservative community organization, whatever that means: good. every other form: bad.
militia group forms of organization=good. unions=bad.

how about we try to actually discuss the question rather than cutting directly to repeating the problem with the town hall format in the present situation?

Of course, you forget that it was Derwood who implied that anyone who opposes the bill before the House is a crazy and a nutbag. So, perhaps you should ask him to tone it down and not the person who took offense to being called a nutbag. Just a thought...

roachboy · 08-11-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

August 12, 2009
As Health-Care Debate Rages, Obama Takes to the Stump
By JIM RUTENBERG and JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — President Obama traveled to New Hampshire on Tuesday to try to defuse fears about his plan to overhaul the nation’s health care system, an issue at the center of one of the fiercest public-policy debates in decades.

Lawmakers across the political spectrum also weighed in and tried to calm angry and worried constituents as the president prepared for the early afternoon “town meeting.” Their efforts are part of a campaign to fight questionable but potentially damaging charges that the president’s vision would inevitably lead to “socialized medicine,” “rationed care” and even forced euthanasia for the elderly.

In introducing a Web site to defend the president’s proposals, White House officials were tacitly acknowledging a difficult reality: they are suddenly at risk of losing control of the public debate over a signature issue for Mr. Obama and are now playing defense in a way they have not since last year’s campaign.

Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who is one of the most liberal members in either House, said on Tuesday that “the Republicans are the party of do-nothingism, and because of them it is very hard to move forward.”

But Mr. Sanders said in an interview on MSNBC that “frankly, the Democrats have not handled this as clearly and effectively as they might have.”

A different perspective was offered by Representative Peter King, a Long Island Republican far to the right of Mr. Sanders. Mr. King said it was quite understandable that many Americans are not enthusiastic about “the radical type of reform that President Obama’s talking about.”

The health care system should be changed “incrementally” rather than by major surgery, Mr. King said in another interview on MSNBC. The congressman said he thought the White House had made a tactical error in its approach on health care. “It may not be perfect,” he said, conceding that Americans “may have problems with it.”

“But it’s not the rabid-type issue that had to be solved by Aug. 1 of this year, the way President Obama was saying,” Mr. King said.

And Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a Republican-turned-Democrat, faced a crowd of emotional constituents in Lebanon, Pa. One participant drew loud applause when he said illegal immigrants should not be covered (Mr. Specter agreed), and another complained that the legislation was as complicated “as a Russian novel.”

Mr. Specter said the federal government has a “social compact” with the American people to “take care of people who need some help.” He pledged again not to vote for something that would add to the budget deficit, and he tried to reassure the crowd that people who are happy with their present health insurance do not have to worry about losing it.

“So far, no bill has passed the Congress,” Mr. Specter noted. “In the House of Representatives, five committees have passed bills, but the House has not passed a bill. In the Senate, we’re still working on a bill, trying to get bipartisanship.”

“I know the American people are sick and tired of Republicans and Democrats fighting, and the American people would like to see some bipartisanship and coming together in the public interest,” the senator said, in an appeal for calm that was not entirely successful.

President Obama, speaking at a summit of North American leaders in Mexico on Monday, sounded an optimistic note, predicting that “the American people are going to be glad that we acted to change an unsustainable system so that more people have coverage.”

But aides to Mr. Obama said the rapidly escalating threat to his health care plans had led him to order them to come up with a crisper message.

And Democratic Party officials enlisted in the fight by the White House acknowledged in interviews that the growing intensity of the opposition to the president’s health care plans — within the last week likened on talk radio to something out of Hitler’s Germany, lampooned by protesters at Congressional town-hall-style meetings and vilified in television commercials — had caught them off guard and forced them to begin an August counteroffensive.

In the process, the administration has had a harder time getting across the themes it wanted to strike in this period: that the current system is unsustainable and that Mr. Obama’s plan holds concrete benefits for people who already have health insurance as well as for those who do not.

“We all had a good sense that some of this was going to take place,” said Brad Woodhouse, the communications director for the Democratic National Committee. “To be fair, I think we were probably a little surprised — just a little — at the use of swastikas and the comparisons to Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich that even Rush Limbaugh has fanned the flames on. And we were a little surprised at the mob mentality.” (Mr. Woodhouse’s use of the phrase “mob mentality” was itself part of the Democratic effort to paint opponents speaking out against the plan as part of an unruly but organized effort.)

For some of Mr. Obama’s supporters, the newly galvanized opposition to his proposed policies provided a troubling flashback to the successful effort to stop President Bill Clinton’s similarly ambitious plans 16 years ago — a fight Mr. Obama’s aides had studied carefully to avoid making the same fatal mistakes.

White House officials say such fears are unwarranted, arguing that the conservative protests are getting outsize coverage on cable news. “Don’t associate loud with effective,” Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said in an interview, adding that he detected no anxiety from supportive lawmakers in politically vulnerable districts. “What is coming across is a lot of noise and a lot of heat without a lot of light.”

And White House officials say their August counteroffensive is a break from the Clinton approach, which is now viewed as having failed to adequately address critics.

Mr. Obama will take the lead this week as he continues a series of public meetings to counter the opposition, events White House officials hope will offer a high-profile opportunity to confront and rebut critics.

As part of the effort, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the House majority leader, wrote an opinion article in USA Today on Monday calling conservative protests at Congressional town-hall-style meetings “un-American” for “drowning out opposing views.” (That prompted a swift rebuke from the House minority leader, Representative John A. Boehner, among other Republicans.)

New television commercials disputing the conservative attacks are in the works, Mr. Woodhouse said, and allied members of Congress have been sent home for the August break with a set of poll-tested talking points intended to shift the focus to the administration’s advertised benefits of the plan from the scary situations opponents have laid out.

“There’s a whole set of rumors that the old playbook would tell you not to do anything about because you draw attention,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House deputy communications director. “The lesson we’ve learned is you ignore these rumors at your peril, and the right answer is to take them head on in as big a way as possible.”

It was only weeks ago that Mr. Obama was pressing both the House and the Senate to complete work on their versions of health legislation before recessing for the summer, a goal that went unmet as divisions erupted among Democrats as well as between the two parties.

After getting much of what he wanted on high-risk initiatives like the economic stimulus package and bailouts of banks and auto companies, Mr. Obama had yet to face the full force of conservative opposition to his policies. Some supporters now wonder whether his earlier glide path left him unprepared for the sudden surge of opposition from conservative groups, which have found a rallying point on health care.

“The expectation was that things have gotten so bad in the last 16 years that there would be consensus on the need to act this time,” said Howard Paster, who was Mr. Clinton’s chief lobbyist in 1993. “That was a mistake, that assumption.”

Mr. Obama’s team won early, high marks for diverging from the Clinton approach, specifically by emphasizing the need to control costs and improve coverage for those who are already insured instead of making the same moral-duty argument Mr. Clinton had about the need to cover the uninsured.

Yet once Congress started filling in the details this summer and its analysts began pricing the House and Senate packages, the estimates of the government’s cost caused sticker shock again.

And once again that drew taxpayers’ attention to the main reason for those costs: covering the uninsured, through more Medicaid spending and subsidies for people to buy insurance and small businesses to provide it.

That helped conservatives who had been struggling to gain traction on health care to speak to a constituency that has managed to gain significant anti-Obama attention this year, the fiscally hawkish “tea party” activists opposed to the president’s spending. They have dismissed Mr. Obama’s promises that his plan will be fully paid for through offsetting spending cuts or increased taxes, and have cast the plan as a costly takeover of health care by the government.

“I think the combination of spending a trillion dollars that we don’t have and another rushed process really triggered this,” said Matt Kibbe, the president of the conservative group FreedomWorks. “People started paying attention.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/he...ef=global-home

personally, i think the quality of the "debate" is a good indication of just how degenerated american "democracy" has become.
i find it depressing, like i'm watching the richard bey show---you know, the talk show that was amongst the worst of them but which tried to embrace it's horrific content by making fun of itself.

seems to me that the issue has been a bit bungled by the obama administration in that they've not been clear enough about the plan itself. what they seem to be pitching mostly is that "we have to do something"
the idea of floating this as a consensus building basis in a context that's been hobbled in terms of substantive debate by not only the conservative media apparatus, but by the entire spectrum of commerically-dominated mass media, is a bad idea.
as for the opposition to the plan, so far they seem to me to oppose it mostly because it gives them something to mobilize their demographic around, so for it's own sake.

rahl · 08-11-2009, 10:05 AM

I guess what I was asking or trying to ask was, what is the point of these meetings? Are politicians trying to put a stop to the spins that the media is putting on this issue, or are they trying to put their own spin on the issue?

Derwood · 08-11-2009, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Of course, you forget that it was Derwood who implied that anyone who opposes the bill before the House is a crazy and a nutbag. So, perhaps you should ask him to tone it down and not the person who took offense to being called a nutbag. Just a thought...

I meant to imply neither of those things. Sorry if I was unclear.

hotandheavy · 08-11-2009, 10:25 AM

The point of the meetings, historically, was for the elected official to hear from his/her constituents. It's not a new idea. And it is getting ugly.

Obama wants the opposition to stop talking so he can get the job done.

YouTube - Obama Wants Folks Who Created Mess To "Get Out Of The Way"

The "angry mob" has been called un-American by Pelosi.

YouTube - "Un-American" Health Care Protester MIKE SOLA Calls Out OBAMA, PELOSI, REID, & HOYA!!!!!

Pelosi also accuses people who show up at Town Hall meetings as being Astro-turf protesters (creating the impression of public support by paying people in the public to pretend to be supportive).

YouTube - Obama-Animal Nancy Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters 'Carrying Swastikas'

So after viewing these Craig's List job offers:

~~WORK TO MAKE HEALTH CARE AFFORDABLE!!!~~$9-$14/HR

classifieds - craigslist

***LEADERS WANTED to organize for health care reform $11-16/hour***

And after seeing these photos of organized, professionally printed protest signs and flags being held by color coordinated protesters:

http://www.truthout.org/files/images...1308_story.jpg

http://www.seiu.org/images/PertoRico...062009_web.jpg

I ask you why this administration is afraid of these unorganized people carrying home made signs:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2561/...8c4e2a893f.jpg

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/m...009/07/li3.jpg

And I ask who's really being paid to protest?

Rekna · 08-11-2009, 10:37 AM

What I think is bad is when people are showing up only to disrupt and not to discuss. If your only defense is to stop others from talking about instead of letting others know what is wrong with it then you have no defense at all.

dksuddeth · 08-11-2009, 11:02 AM

well, this guy looks peaceful at least.

YouTube - Protester With A Gun At Obama Town Hall 8-11-09

ratbastid · 08-11-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

well, this guy looks peaceful at least.

See what his sign says? How is that not an open call for the assassination of the president?

It's a reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote, by the way. Google it. Timothy McVeigh's favorite quote, by the way. When McVeigh was arrested, he was wearing a shirt with a picture of Lincoln on the front and a tree dripping blood on the back. By the way.

I don't have a problem with a man exercising his rights to open carry. I have a REAL problem with people pretending they don't get what this guy is saying. Forget his gun. It's the message on his sign that's disturbing.

The crazy right is whipping up all kinds of frenzy--about HEALTH CARE, for god's sake--and I'm honestly worried it's going to end in assassination attempts. And then the maniacs who are driving nutbag-right opinion can wring their hands and say, Oh, I NEVER meant for THAT to happen. THAT person was obviously UNWELL! It's disgusting.

Yeah, there was bitter outcry against the Bush administration. There were protests. The difference is, nobody called for Bush's assassination.

hotandheavy · 08-11-2009, 11:13 AM

I love the fact that the man in NH is carrying a gun, out in the open. It is his right. And yes, he won't be allowed anywhere near the President, and I'm fine with that too.

I hope he's got all his i's dotted and his t's crossed. he could be the next Joe the Plumber.

Cimarron29414 · 08-11-2009, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

See what his sign says? How is that not an open call for the assassination of the president?

It's a reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote, by the way. Google it. Timothy McVeigh's favorite quote, by the way. When McVeigh was arrested, he was wearing a shirt with a picture of Lincoln on the front and a tree dripping blood on the back. By the way.

I don't have a problem with a man exercising his rights to open carry. I have a REAL problem with people pretending they don't get what this guy is saying. Forget his gun. It's the message on his sign that's disturbing.

The crazy right is whipping up all kinds of frenzy--about HEALTH CARE, for god's sake--and I'm honestly worried it's going to end in assassination attempts. And then the maniacs who are driving nutbag-right opinion can wring their hands and say, Oh, I NEVER meant for THAT to happen. THAT person was obviously UNWELL! It's disgusting.

Yeah, there was bitter outcry against the Bush administration. There were protests. The difference is, nobody called for Bush's assassination.

Do you remember the movie that was a Liberal wet dream regarding the assassination of Bush? Does that not count? That wasn't a 20 cent piece of cardboard with a magic marker - it was a multi-million dollar hollywood production.

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotandheavy

I love the fact that the man in NH is carrying a gun, out in the open. It is his right. And yes, he won't be allowed anywhere near the President, and I'm fine with that too.

I hope he's got all his i's dotted and his t's crossed. he could be the next Joe the Plumber.

He already is. See you back here on Thursday when we know his name and how many taxes he owes.

aceventura3 · 08-11-2009, 11:25 AM

I think the frustration people are expressing in these meetings is a result of not having simple direct questions answered. For example: Given limited resources, under "Obama's plan" who is going to be the final arbiter on how those resources get allocated? Generally the response starts out like - well those crazy opponents to my plan say...and they just make stuff up...and the current system has your insurance company making those decisions...etc. etc., they never answer the question. Then people get pissed off. They just want a direct answer to a simple question.

Shauk · 08-11-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Do you remember the movie that was a Liberal wet dream regarding the assassination of Bush? Does that not count? That wasn't a 20 cent piece of cardboard with a magic marker - it was a multi-million dollar hollywood production.

No

I don't remember such a movie and apparently neither do you if you can't recall the title.

The_Jazz · 08-11-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk

No

I don't remember such a movie and apparently neither do you if you can't recall the title.

Neither do I.

Derwood · 08-11-2009, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotandheavy

I love the fact that the man in NH is carrying a gun, out in the open. It is his right. And yes, he won't be allowed anywhere near the President, and I'm fine with that too.

I hope he's got all his i's dotted and his t's crossed. he could be the next Joe the Plumber.

why do you love it?

ratbastid · 08-11-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Do you remember the movie that was a Liberal wet dream regarding the assassination of Bush? Does that not count? That wasn't a 20 cent piece of cardboard with a magic marker - it was a multi-million dollar hollywood production.

I don't remember that movie. Got a title?

EDIT: Besides, do you really think there were people out there honestly advocating taking Bush down the way people are about Obama? You REALLY think it rises to the same level?

And I'm not just saying that because he's my guy and Bush wasn't.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think the frustration people are expressing in these meetings is a result of not having simple direct questions answered. For example: Given limited resources, under "Obama's plan" who is going to be the final arbiter on how those resources get allocated? Generally the response starts out like - well those crazy opponents to my plan say...and they just make stuff up...and the current system has your insurance company making those decisions...etc. etc., they never answer the question. Then people get pissed off. They just want a direct answer to a simple question.

I don't think that's what the "frustration" is from. I think there's a lot of anger being generated by right-wing media lies. Spin it any way you want, that's really the bottom line here.

dksuddeth · 08-11-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

See what his sign says? How is that not an open call for the assassination of the president?

It's a reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote, by the way. Google it. Timothy McVeigh's favorite quote, by the way. When McVeigh was arrested, he was wearing a shirt with a picture of Lincoln on the front and a tree dripping blood on the back. By the way.

I don't have a problem with a man exercising his rights to open carry. I have a REAL problem with people pretending they don't get what this guy is saying. Forget his gun. It's the message on his sign that's disturbing.

The crazy right is whipping up all kinds of frenzy--about HEALTH CARE, for god's sake--and I'm honestly worried it's going to end in assassination attempts. And then the maniacs who are driving nutbag-right opinion can wring their hands and say, Oh, I NEVER meant for THAT to happen. THAT person was obviously UNWELL! It's disgusting.

Yeah, there was bitter outcry against the Bush administration. There were protests. The difference is, nobody called for Bush's assassination.

This nation was founded on the possible threat of violence against it's elected officials, should they become oppressive. This guy and his sign, much like anyone that held similar during the Bush/Clinton/Reagan years and before.

how qualified are you to determine that person was 'unwell'. are you a psychiatrist?[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

EDIT: Besides, do you really think there were people out there honestly advocating taking Bush down the way people are about Obama? You REALLY think it rises to the same level?

And I'm not just saying that because he's my guy and Bush wasn't.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------

I don't think that's what the "frustration" is from. I think there's a lot of anger being generated by right-wing media lies. Spin it any way you want, that's really the bottom line here.

I think you ARE saying it because Obama is your guy and Bush wasn't and I also think you're somewhat deluded in thinking that the only reason people are frustrated is because of 'right wing media lies'.

aceventura3 · 08-11-2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I don't think that's what the "frustration" is from. I think there's a lot of anger being generated by right-wing media lies. Spin it any way you want, that's really the bottom line here.

I guess I can specifically say that what I wrote frustrates me. If I went to one of these meetings and they started with the canned, double speak, talking point, response, I would interrupt and ask them to answer the question!

And, like you suggesting what I feel is "spin", when people get dismissed like that it illicits an increased emotional response. Perhaps, Obama should talk to Dr. Phil.

dc_dux · 08-11-2009, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I guess I can specifically say that what I wrote frustrates me. If I went to one of these meetings and they started with the canned, double speak, talking point, response, I would interrupt and ask them to answer the question!

And, like you suggesting what I feel is "spin", when people get dismissed like that it illicit an increased emotional response. Perhaps, Obama should talk to Dr. Phil.

I would suggest that the demonizing and the spin is on the side that has been saying that the Obama and/or various Congressional plans:

- are like a single payer European or socialist style program

- will ration health care and put personal health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats

- mandate government funded abortion on demand

- mandates euthanasia counseling for seniors

- will give the government total unfettered access to personal medical records

Summed up in the most ignorant bullshit description I have heard to-date - Sarah Palin's and "evil death panels":

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

IMO, that is ignorant and offensive fear-mongering by any standard.

hotandheavy · 08-11-2009, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

why do you love it?

I support the second amendment. I think more people should carry.

Cimarron29414 · 08-11-2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I don't remember that movie. Got a title?

EDIT: Besides, do you really think there were people out there honestly advocating taking Bush down the way people are about Obama? You REALLY think it rises to the same level?

And I'm not just saying that because he's my guy and Bush wasn't.

It was called "Death of a President".

President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama| News | This is London

Tell me you don't think this was advocating...

In all honesty, my biggest fear is that something will happen to Obama. I make no secret of the fact that I want him to fail. However, he needs to ride that wave all the way to the shore so that Americans can see him for what he really is and avoid giving someone with his values so much power ever again. (Again, I know many of you will disagree.)

If something were to happen to him, I fear how it would tear at our country. While I completely disagree with his policies, I am pleased that America has, as a majority, elected someone other than a white guy. Anything other than a full term would wipe out that "accomplishment".

The_Dunedan · 08-11-2009, 12:25 PM

DC; have you read the bill? I've only recently managed to find a full copy (H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)), but the fact is that at least some of the "lies" you've posted appear to be either contained within the bill (rationing, Gov' bureaucratic control, etc) or will be required by its' mandate.

No, it isn't a single-payer system. Yes, DMV-type drones will be empowered to make decisions regarding care. Mrs. Palin was RIGHT, because that's what -all- State rationing of healthcare comes down to; a cost/benefit analysis with regards to a person's usefulness to The Collective. When a person would cost more to fix than they would bring into the State through taxes, fines, fees...they don't get fixed, or at best become a lower priority. Ask a few vets who've cycled through Walter Reed Army Medical Centre about how that dance goes; I can put you in touch with a Guadalcanal "Mud Marine" who's been denied treatment by the VA because of his age, likewise a Vietnam-era Army grunt with a bullet in his hip and lungs full of Agent Orange who's having to shell out 100% of his costs himself because one of the pencil-pushers whom you insist don't/won't exist arbitrarily decided that his injuries, sustained in service to his country, didn't merit the public nickle.

Cimarron29414 · 08-11-2009, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk

No

I don't remember such a movie and apparently neither do you if you can't recall the title.

Read above. Apology accepted.

dippin · 08-11-2009, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

it was called 'vantage point' starring dennis quaid.

Vantage Point (2008)

came out during GWs last year in office.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

I really don't see how that movie can be seen in any way as a call to kill the president. Heck, the movie wasn't even about an assassination attempt, but a kidnapping attempt by terrorists portrayed in as negative light as possible.

Cimarron29414 · 08-11-2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

I really don't see how that movie can be seen in any way as a call to kill the president. Heck, the movie wasn't even about an assassination attempt, but a kidnapping attempt by terrorists portrayed in as negative light as possible.

He was incorrect. That wasn't the right movie. Read my above post.

dksuddeth · 08-11-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

I really don't see how that movie can be seen in any way as a call to kill the president. Heck, the movie wasn't even about an assassination attempt, but a kidnapping attempt by terrorists portrayed in as negative light as possible.

its not, see cimarrons post. I got my movies mixed up.

dc_dux · 08-11-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

DC; have you read the bill? I've only recently managed to find a full copy (H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)), but the fact is that at least some of the "lies" you've posted appear to be either contained within the bill (rationing, Gov' bureaucratic control, etc) or will be required by its' mandate.

No, it isn't a single-payer system. Yes, DMV-type drones will be empowered to make decisions regarding care. Mrs. Palin was RIGHT, because that's what -all- State rationing of healthcare comes down to; a cost/benefit analysis with regards to a person's usefulness to The Collective. When a person would cost more to fix than they would bring into the State through taxes, fines, fees...they don't get fixed, or at best become a lower priority. Ask a few vets who've cycled through Walter Reed Army Medical Centre about how that dance goes; I can put you in touch with a Guadalcanal "Mud Marine" who's been denied treatment by the VA because of his age, likewise a Vietnam-era Army grunt with a bullet in his hip and lungs full of Agent Orange who's having to shell out 100% of his costs himself because one of the pencil-pushers whom you insist don't/won't exist arbitrarily decided that his injuries, sustained in service to his country, didn't merit the public nickle.

I have ready fairly detailed summaries of the major House bill and one Senate bill.

The proposals under consideration are for universal care..not single payer.

There is no more rationing than currently exists by insurance companies approving or denying some treatments.

There is no plan for the government to collect more personal medical information than already collected.

And....there are no death panels.

In effect, Palin's characterization is complete bullshit and fear mongering.

added:

Sen Johnny Isakson, a conservative Republican from Georgia debunks Palins's death panel bullshit:

Quote:

ISAKSON: I have no idea. I understand — and you have to check this out — I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up. [...]

It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.

Is the Government Going to Euthanize your Grandmother?

dippin · 08-11-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

It was called "Death of a President".

President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama| News | This is London

Tell me you don't think this was advocating...

In all honesty, my biggest fear is that something will happen to Obama. I make no secret of the fact that I want him to fail. However, he needs to ride that wave all the way to the shore so that Americans can see him for what he really is and avoid giving someone with his values so much power ever again. (Again, I know many of you will disagree.)

If something were to happen to him, I fear how it would tear at our country. While I completely disagree with his policies, I am pleased that America has, as a majority, elected someone other than a white guy. Anything other than a full term would wipe out that "accomplishment".

So a British film about an assassination, imagining what would happen in that case, including a brutal Dick Chenney presidency, is akin to a call to arms against Bush??

The_Jazz · 08-11-2009, 12:33 PM

Let's see, made-for-TV movie that didn't air in the US. Relavence?

aceventura3 · 08-11-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I would suggest that the demonizing and the spin is on the side that has been saying that the Obama and/or various Congressional plans:

- are like a single payer European or socialist style program

- will ration health care and put personal health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats

- mandate government funded abortion on demand

- mandates euthanasia counseling for seniors

- will give the government total unfettered access to personal medical records

What about the demonetization of health care insurance companies coming from the WH and members of Congress?

Quote:

Summed up in the most ignorant bullshit description I have heard to-date - Sarah Palin's and "evil death panels":

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

IMO, that is ignorant and offensive fear-mongering by any standard.

It is interesting that in Obama's TH meeting today he addressed that issue twice. The first time in a dismissive tone, and then when a second question came up related to heath care panels for the purpose of addressing best practices, he did it in a much more serious manner but he still did not totally address the underlying concern. He went on about how the panel would make sure tests don't get duplicated, but he did not address treatment protocols - which is the issue. Palin may regret using the terms "death panel", but it did give Obama and others a tremendous opportunity to respond to the masses who are thinking that very thing. In my book it is always better to deal with real feeling in a direct and honest manner.

dippin · 08-11-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

DC; have you read the bill? I've only recently managed to find a full copy (H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)), but the fact is that at least some of the "lies" you've posted appear to be either contained within the bill (rationing, Gov' bureaucratic control, etc) or will be required by its' mandate.

No, it isn't a single-payer system. Yes, DMV-type drones will be empowered to make decisions regarding care. Mrs. Palin was RIGHT, because that's what -all- State rationing of healthcare comes down to; a cost/benefit analysis with regards to a person's usefulness to The Collective. When a person would cost more to fix than they would bring into the State through taxes, fines, fees...they don't get fixed, or at best become a lower priority. Ask a few vets who've cycled through Walter Reed Army Medical Centre about how that dance goes; I can put you in touch with a Guadalcanal "Mud Marine" who's been denied treatment by the VA because of his age, likewise a Vietnam-era Army grunt with a bullet in his hip and lungs full of Agent Orange who's having to shell out 100% of his costs himself because one of the pencil-pushers whom you insist don't/won't exist arbitrarily decided that his injuries, sustained in service to his country, didn't merit the public nickle.

Where, exactly, in the bill you linked to, are any of Palin's allegations? Where do you find any language that states "when a person would cost more to fix than they would bring into the State through taxes, fines, fees...they don't get fixed, or at best become a lower priority?"

This is the comical aspect of this debate. If a healthcare reform failed because of its merits (or lack thereof) it would be one thing. But if it fails because of absurd spin even by people who have claimed to read the bill, then its a tragedy.

So I am calling your bluff, the bluff of waving the bills and making false claims about what it contains: where exactly is anything you and Palin claimed to be true in there? In fact, section 102 of the bill, one of the first, clearly shows that everything that Palin et al are claiming is a complete and total lie.

Cimarron29414 · 08-11-2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

So a British film about an assassination, imagining what would happen in that case, including a brutal Dick Chenney presidency, is akin to a call to arms against Bush??

A British film shown at every major film festival in the world...and if you recall the context - someone above quoted a sign by the "evil gun carrier" as a direct call for assassinating Obama. I would say that a 250-year-old quote on a sign is a bit more indirect than a specific movie killing the exact person in question. That would be my point.

Rekna · 08-11-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Neither do I.

Actually I remember the movie, it was never aired in the US.... I never saw it but you could only find it online and it was produced outside of the US.

08-11-2009, 08:23 AM	#1 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	Town Hall meetings I've been hearing alot about these meetings in the past few days. They seem to be a very volatile environment. My question is, what is the purpose of these meetings? All they seem to be about is people coming to rant either for or against the issue, which is ok but these meetings are just inflaming and already touchy issue so why have them at all?

08-11-2009, 09:20 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	anyone can play this game: conservatives=victims. everyone else=Persecutor. conservative community organization, whatever that means: good. every other form: bad. militia group forms of organization=good. unions=bad. how about we try to actually discuss the question rather than cutting directly to repeating the problem with the town hall format in the present situation? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-11-2009, 11:25 AM	#19 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I think the frustration people are expressing in these meetings is a result of not having simple direct questions answered. For example: Given limited resources, under "Obama's plan" who is going to be the final arbiter on how those resources get allocated? Generally the response starts out like - well those crazy opponents to my plan say...and they just make stuff up...and the current system has your insurance company making those decisions...etc. etc., they never answer the question. Then people get pissed off. They just want a direct answer to a simple question. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 08-11-2009 at 11:27 AM..

08-11-2009, 12:33 PM	#36 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Let's see, made-for-TV movie that didn't air in the US. Relavence? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

08-11-2009, 08:35 AM	#2 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	The original point was for Obama to use his grass roots methods (that were very effective during his campaign) to champion his health care plan. Problem is, the Glenn Beck's of the world have taken this opportunity to fire up the crazies and organize them to go crash the parties, which has more or less eliminated their usefulness. So what do the Democratic congressmen do? Cancel the town halls and hand "victory" to the nutbags, or go forward with them, even though they aren't doing what they were intended to do?

08-11-2009, 09:26 AM	#7 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	At this point, it's working though, as the news is being dominated by stories about people talking about health care instead of stories about actual health care

08-11-2009, 10:05 AM	#11 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	I guess what I was asking or trying to ask was, what is the point of these meetings? Are politicians trying to put a stop to the spins that the media is putting on this issue, or are they trying to put their own spin on the issue?

08-11-2009, 10:37 AM	#14 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	What I think is bad is when people are showing up only to disrupt and not to discuss. If your only defense is to stop others from talking about instead of letting others know what is wrong with it then you have no defense at all.

08-11-2009, 11:13 AM	#17 (permalink)
hotandheavy Upright Location: Western WI	I love the fact that the man in NH is carrying a gun, out in the open. It is his right. And yes, he won't be allowed anywhere near the President, and I'm fine with that too. I hope he's got all his i's dotted and his t's crossed. he could be the next Joe the Plumber.

08-11-2009, 12:25 PM	#29 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	DC; have you read the bill? I've only recently managed to find a full copy (H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)), but the fact is that at least some of the "lies" you've posted appear to be either contained within the bill (rationing, Gov' bureaucratic control, etc) or will be required by its' mandate. No, it isn't a single-payer system. Yes, DMV-type drones will be empowered to make decisions regarding care. Mrs. Palin was RIGHT, because that's what -all- State rationing of healthcare comes down to; a cost/benefit analysis with regards to a person's usefulness to The Collective. When a person would cost more to fix than they would bring into the State through taxes, fines, fees...they don't get fixed, or at best become a lower priority. Ask a few vets who've cycled through Walter Reed Army Medical Centre about how that dance goes; I can put you in touch with a Guadalcanal "Mud Marine" who's been denied treatment by the VA because of his age, likewise a Vietnam-era Army grunt with a bullet in his hip and lungs full of Agent Orange who's having to shell out 100% of his costs himself because one of the pencil-pushers whom you insist don't/won't exist arbitrarily decided that his injuries, sustained in service to his country, didn't merit the public nickle.