|
Post by davdesid on Aug 5, 2009 15:22:19 GMT -8
Let's see here.... Here's something from "thinkprogress": thinkprogress.org/Note this part of the quote they attribute to Steele: "And we’re not encouraging people to be angry I mean to the point of being nasty and brutish and ugly. That’s not what this is about. " Compare: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CDZ4www.youtube.com/watch?v=FheVGrUvCWYSauce for the goose? Community organizing - good. Community organizing against the community organizer's policies - bad. Maybe the right is learning to use the tactics of the left. I would hope so. But somehow I doubt they are smart enough to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 5, 2009 16:48:17 GMT -8
Making them compete nationally sounds fine until you realize that what they'll do is move to the state with the least amount of regulation and thereby increase the number of people they don't have to cover. =Bob The case for national, as opposed to state-by-state, insurance coverage is powerful, Bob. Forcing a company to rely on the very small pool of customers in, say, North Dakota, makes no sense. The Feds could always change regulatory rules to prevent abuses while allowing companies to work with much larger risk pools. Come on, Bob. You are a smart guy and you know darned well that the larger the risk pool the less costly the insurance. AzWm If it is well regulated, I have no problem with it. McCain was not pushing regulation with his "plan". I am well aware that in many rural states, there is not more than one health insurance company. All I'm arguing is that the regulations have to include no denial for pre-existing conditions and some sort of cap on benefit costs based upon income levels. The right-wing doesn't seem to have a problem with pre-existing conditions not being a cause for denial, but I'm willing to bet they'd have a serious problem with a tiered premium concept. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 5, 2009 16:57:33 GMT -8
Let's see here.... Here's something from "thinkprogress": thinkprogress.org/Note this part of the quote they attribute to Steele: "And we’re not encouraging people to be angry I mean to the point of being nasty and brutish and ugly. That’s not what this is about. " The Party doesn't have to be involved because its surrogates do it for them. Hell, toss out one piece of mis-information to one website, such as under the plan old people will be encouraged to die, and it will go viral within a few hours. And as it goes viral, Faux News will report on it as "news" and get more people pissed off. Then Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity will take up the talking points and further the notion that it's legitimate. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 5, 2009 17:07:37 GMT -8
Let's see here.... Here's something from "thinkprogress": thinkprogress.org/Note this part of the quote they attribute to Steele: "And we’re not encouraging people to be angry I mean to the point of being nasty and brutish and ugly. That’s not what this is about. " The Party doesn't have to be involved because its surrogates do it for them. Hell, toss out one piece of mis-information to one website, such as under the plan old people will be encouraged to die, and it will go viral within a few hours. And as it goes viral, Faux News will report on it as "news" and get more people pissed off. Then Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity will take up the talking points and further the notion that it's legitimate. =Bob Well, I guess you do know how it works. The Alinsky tactic that your party has used for years. I doubt the Republicans are as smart as you seem to want us to believe. They get rolled all the time. I don't know who these "surrogates" you talk about are. But I'm waiting for the left to claim they are the Swift Boat Vets.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 5, 2009 17:34:27 GMT -8
The Party doesn't have to be involved because its surrogates do it for them. Hell, toss out one piece of mis-information to one website, such as under the plan old people will be encouraged to die, and it will go viral within a few hours. And as it goes viral, Faux News will report on it as "news" and get more people pissed off. Then Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity will take up the talking points and further the notion that it's legitimate. =Bob Well, I guess you do know how it works. The Alinsky tactic that your party has used for years. I doubt the Republicans are as smart as you seem to want us to believe. They get rolled all the time. I don't know who these "surrogates" you talk about are. But I'm waiting for the left to claim they are the Swift Boat Vets. Dave, do you ever watch Beck, O'Reilly or Hannity? Is there anyone other than them plus the Fat Boy who speaks for the Republicans these days? And you are intentionally missing the point. Both sides use their websites to offer spin that they know will go viral as soon as it's posted. My problem is that idiots on here argue things based upon their preferred reading of those websites. You often offer the UCSmellA law prof and he has a reasonable, if right-wing, view. William offers things from RCP and while he mostly offers right-wing nonsense, it's somewhat credible because it's based upon fact, even if the fact is spun. Pooh offers nothing other than ridiculous tabloid websites such as World Net Daily. It's just my opinion, but I think a lot of the anger that is coming from people is due to two things - their reading of websites that lie through their teeth (and I will condemn the left as much as the right for that) and email newsletters. I'm on an anti-Blackwater website. I didn't join it because I'm all that anti-Blackwater but rather because they were fighting a local Blackwater development and I've always believed that one of the roles of those in government is to tell people how to fight a project - I'd give advice to people opposed to projects I was recommending approval of on the best way to argue against it. The point being that if you do a search on any political subject of the day, you'll find that as soon as one political website reports something, it goes viral in a hurry and it is quite easy for this or that lobbyist to plant a story and know that it will reach the "true believers" in nothing flat on their favored website or email list. That makes it incredibly easy to plant a steaming pile of bull$#!+. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 5, 2009 17:38:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 5, 2009 18:26:45 GMT -8
The case for national, as opposed to state-by-state, insurance coverage is powerful, Bob. Forcing a company to rely on the very small pool of customers in, say, North Dakota, makes no sense. The Feds could always change regulatory rules to prevent abuses while allowing companies to work with much larger risk pools. Come on, Bob. You are a smart guy and you know darned well that the larger the risk pool the less costly the insurance. AzWm If it is well regulated, I have no problem with it. McCain was not pushing regulation with his "plan". I am well aware that in many rural states, there is not more than one health insurance company. All I'm arguing is that the regulations have to include no denial for pre-existing conditions and some sort of cap on benefit costs based upon income levels. The right-wing doesn't seem to have a problem with pre-existing conditions not being a cause for denial, but I'm willing to bet they'd have a serious problem with a tiered premium concept. =Bob If you haven't already done so, please read my latest thread which addresses the difference between insurance and welfare. Apparently, you are one of those people who believes that, to use a common analogy, a driver should be able to wait he has been involved in a crash before buying auto insurance. Obviously, such a system cannot long survive. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 6, 2009 13:50:29 GMT -8
Well, I guess you do know how it works. The Alinsky tactic that your party has used for years. I doubt the Republicans are as smart as you seem to want us to believe. They get rolled all the time. I don't know who these "surrogates" you talk about are. But I'm waiting for the left to claim they are the Swift Boat Vets. Dave, do you ever watch Beck, O'Reilly or Hannity? Is there anyone other than them plus the Fat Boy who speaks for the Republicans these days? And you are intentionally missing the point. Both sides use their websites to offer spin that they know will go viral as soon as it's posted. My problem is that idiots on here argue things based upon their preferred reading of those websites. You often offer the UCSmellA law prof and he has a reasonable, if right-wing, view. William offers things from RCP and while he mostly offers right-wing nonsense, it's somewhat credible because it's based upon fact, even if the fact is spun. Pooh offers nothing other than ridiculous tabloid websites such as World Net Daily. It's just my opinion, but I think a lot of the anger that is coming from people is due to two things - their reading of websites that lie through their teeth (and I will condemn the left as much as the right for that) and email newsletters. I'm on an anti-Blackwater website. I didn't join it because I'm all that anti-Blackwater but rather because they were fighting a local Blackwater development and I've always believed that one of the roles of those in government is to tell people how to fight a project - I'd give advice to people opposed to projects I was recommending approval of on the best way to argue against it. The point being that if you do a search on any political subject of the day, you'll find that as soon as one political website reports something, it goes viral in a hurry and it is quite easy for this or that lobbyist to plant a story and know that it will reach the "true believers" in nothing flat on their favored website or email list. That makes it incredibly easy to plant a steaming pile of bull$#!+. =Bob I never watch those programs you mention, and I don't watch any of the other cable bull$#!+ stations. Period. No "fat boy" speaks for me. If some fat guy says something you don't like, it's not my fault that maybe the fat guy agrees with me. You say, "My problem is that idiots on here argue things based upon their preferred reading of those websites." And yet you opened this thread with a steaming pile of bull$#!+ offered by the "thinkprogress" liars. Professor Volokh of UCLA is not "right-wing", he is a libertarian. As a refugee from the Soviet Union, it's hard to blame him if sometimes he raises questions regarding the power of the state. Another law prof, Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee, offers a site (Instapundit). A recent link he provided with regard to the "thinkprogress" pile of bull$#!+ can be found here: pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/83062/
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 6, 2009 14:32:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 6, 2009 16:05:59 GMT -8
And yet you opened this thread with a steaming pile of bull$#!+ offered by the "thinkprogress" liars. Professor Volokh of UCLA is not "right-wing", he is a libertarian. As a refugee from the Soviet Union, it's hard to blame him if sometimes he raises questions regarding the power of the state. Um, libertarians are right-wing anarchists at their extremes. But that aside, I was watching Chris Matthews today and he was interviewing a guy who stated that his company (don't recall the name) has a database of 400K names and it sends out "alerts" about up-coming town hall meetings that their congressperson is holding and gives them talking points regarding health care and other issues. You're welcome to believe that this is all grass roots if you want, but you are being quite naive to think so. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 6, 2009 16:24:52 GMT -8
And yet you opened this thread with a steaming pile of bull$#!+ offered by the "thinkprogress" liars. Professor Volokh of UCLA is not "right-wing", he is a libertarian. As a refugee from the Soviet Union, it's hard to blame him if sometimes he raises questions regarding the power of the state. Um, libertarians are right-wing anarchists at their extremes. But that aside, I was watching Chris Matthews today and he was interviewing a guy who stated that his company (don't recall the name) has a database of 400K names and it sends out "alerts" about up-coming town hall meetings that their congressperson is holding and gives them talking points regarding health care and other issues. You're welcome to believe that this is all grass roots if you want, but you are being quite naive to think so. =Bob Well =Perfesser, concerning Professor Volokh, whether you like libertarians or not, or whether you just want to tar him as "right-wingnut" or not, come back when you can match his credentials. www.law.ucla.edu/home/index.asp?page=739Until then, you can just play with yourself and watch ol' "Mister Thrill Up My Leg" and swallow the juice that runs down it.
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Aug 6, 2009 16:42:40 GMT -8
And yet you opened this thread with a steaming pile of bull$#!+ offered by the "thinkprogress" liars. Professor Volokh of UCLA is not "right-wing", he is a libertarian. As a refugee from the Soviet Union, it's hard to blame him if sometimes he raises questions regarding the power of the state. Um, libertarians are right-wing anarchists at their extremes. But that aside, I was watching Chris Matthews today and he was interviewing a guy who stated that his company (don't recall the name) has a database of 400K names and it sends out "alerts" about up-coming town hall meetings that their congressperson is holding and gives them talking points regarding health care and other issues. You're welcome to believe that this is all grass roots if you want, but you are being quite naive to think so. =Bob Too funny. To the think the GOP has a standing army of ACORN like lemmings that responds on call at the request of a Michael Steel or some obscure former Health Services CEO is right out there with the kooks that think the Bush Admin was behind the 9/11 attacks. Where were they at the last election? If you looked at any version of the Healthcare overhaul bill, you can read hot button after hot button issue for not only Republicans, but Independents and Democrats too. Here is just a starter: Paid care for illegals, Inability to keep private care once you change a job, End of life counseling every 5 years when you get older, Reduced access to diagnostic testing, reduced access to certain medical procedures, Mandated Employer Healthcare or a Tax Penalty, special treatment for union members, Surtax on "Cadillac" care (causing a reduction in private care), Surtax on high incomes (affecting small business mostly), phony promise of being revenue neutral, etc, etc. To think that there isn't a large cross section of the population really pissed at this legislation and the Obama Admin, especially in the wake of his failed Stimulus bill, increasing unemployment and his gargantuan projected deficits is absolute cluelessness.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 6, 2009 17:34:16 GMT -8
Um, libertarians are right-wing anarchists at their extremes. But that aside, I was watching Chris Matthews today and he was interviewing a guy who stated that his company (don't recall the name) has a database of 400K names and it sends out "alerts" about up-coming town hall meetings that their congressperson is holding and gives them talking points regarding health care and other issues. You're welcome to believe that this is all grass roots if you want, but you are being quite naive to think so. =Bob Well =Perfesser, concerning Professor Volokh, whether you like libertarians or not, or whether you just want to tar him as "right-wingnut" or not, come back when you can match his credentials. www.law.ucla.edu/home/index.asp?page=739Until then, you can just play with yourself and watch ol' "Mister Thrill Up My Leg" and swallow the juice that runs down it. Nice response. I stated that Volokh was right-wing but reasonable. Apparently you missed that in your desire to offer yet another crass sexual reference. You really demean yourself when you offer that sort of response. But that aside, you say you don't watch any political show and don't read many political websites. Perhaps you should. Start with this one: www.cprights.org/And then do some research on Rick Scott. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 6, 2009 17:38:59 GMT -8
If you looked at any version of the Healthcare overhaul bill, you can read hot button after hot button issue for not only Republicans, but Independents and Democrats too. Here is just a starter: Paid care for illegals, Inability to keep private care once you change a job, End of life counseling every 5 years when you get older, Reduced access to diagnostic testing, reduced access to certain medical procedures, Mandated Employer Healthcare or a Tax Penalty, special treatment for union members, Surtax on "Cadillac" care (causing a reduction in private care), Surtax on high incomes (affecting small business mostly), phony promise of being revenue neutral, etc, etc. Ah, there are the talking points. But, of course, I'm sure you've read all 4 of the proposed bills and can cite exactly, and in context, where those things are in all 4 bills. BTW, the supposed end of life counseling every 5 years is the biggest load of horse $#!+ you and the other right-wingnuts are tossing out. Nothing mandatory; all it says is that such counseling would be paid for. But feel free to offer the section of each of the 4 currently proposed bills that requires what you claim they require. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 6, 2009 17:46:55 GMT -8
Oh BTW, Dave. At least one Congressman has received death threats over health care a Missouri Republican made jokes about Democrats facing "lynch mobs" in town hall meetings and Limbaugh is comparing the Administration's symbol for health care to the Swastika: www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080609/content/01125106.guest.htmlBlow this off all you'd like with pathetic jokes typical of your generation about blow jobs (I'm rather surprised you've not yet called me a faggot), but the simple fact is this - the right wing is raising the anger level like a bat outta Hell. Of course, you wouldn't know that, because you don't read their websites. How convenient for your denials of what's going on in this country. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Aug 6, 2009 19:12:30 GMT -8
If you looked at any version of the Healthcare overhaul bill, you can read hot button after hot button issue for not only Republicans, but Independents and Democrats too. Here is just a starter: Paid care for illegals, Inability to keep private care once you change a job, End of life counseling every 5 years when you get older, Reduced access to diagnostic testing, reduced access to certain medical procedures, Mandated Employer Healthcare or a Tax Penalty, special treatment for union members, Surtax on "Cadillac" care (causing a reduction in private care), Surtax on high incomes (affecting small business mostly), phony promise of being revenue neutral, etc, etc. But feel free to offer the section of each of the 4 currently proposed bills that requires what you claim they require. =Bob And what good would that do? Would it change your mind about the crap coming from the neoComms if I cited paragraph and sentence on the ludicrousness found in the various bills? ....<crickets chirping>.....
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Aug 6, 2009 19:20:04 GMT -8
Oh BTW, Dave. At least one Congressman has received death threats over health care a Missouri Republican made jokes about Democrats facing "lynch mobs" in town hall meetings and Limbaugh is comparing the Administration's symbol for health care to the Swastika: www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080609/content/01125106.guest.htmlBlow this off all you'd like with pathetic jokes typical of your generation about blow jobs (I'm rather surprised you've not yet called me a faggot), but the simple fact is this - the right wing is raising the anger level like a bat outta Hell. Of course, you wouldn't know that, because you don't read their websites. How convenient for your denials of what's going on in this country. =Bob The fact is, had Obama not overnighted the Stimulus Bill and portrayed it as one thing while it turned out to be another (and a miserable failure at that), the grass roots might be much more tolerant of the crap coming from Obama, Pelosi and Reed on healthcare. I would love for the silent majority to be as organized as it is portrayed by the current PR tactic coming from the WH, its obedient media and their gullible flock. But they aren't and everybody but glassy-eyed true believers know it. They think the is organized and willing to be told what to think because that is how they look at their own constituency.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 6, 2009 19:20:11 GMT -8
But feel free to offer the section of each of the 4 currently proposed bills that requires what you claim they require. =Bob And what good would that do? Would it change your mind about the crap coming from the neoComms if I cited paragraph and sentence on the ludicrousness found in the various bills? No, because you've taken the talking points without any question and are now proclaiming Obama to be a "Communist". How pathetic is that? All your comments show is that you are incapable of offering anything approaching a reasonable response. Just shows that the best you can offer is "THEY'RE A BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS". Clearly you cannot cite chapter and verse from the 4 bills that are currently running through the House and Senate and you are trying to bail on what you claimed was "real". $#!+ or get off the pot, pal. Back up you statements on what the bills say or just walk away. As near as I can tell, you can't back up your statements, so you just attack me. How pathetic is that and what does it say about what you actually know about the bills? Sorry. You lose. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Aug 6, 2009 19:35:55 GMT -8
And what good would that do? Would it change your mind about the crap coming from the neoComms if I cited paragraph and sentence on the ludicrousness found in the various bills? No, because you've taken the talking points without any question and are now proclaiming Obama to be a "Communist". How pathetic is that? All your comments show is that you are incapable of offering anything approaching a reasonable response. Just shows that the best you can offer is "THEY'RE A BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS". Clearly you cannot cite chapter and verse from the 4 bills that are currently running through the House and Senate and you are trying to bail on what you claimed was "real". $#!+ or get off the pot, pal. Back up you statements on what the bills say or just walk away. As near as I can tell, you can't back up your statements, so you just attack me. How pathetic is that and what does it say about what you actually know about the bills? Sorry. You lose. =Bob You and the left can't even defend the points raised, regardless of their origin. The points have been raised by Obama himself. Just go back to some of my previous posts that you ran away from earlier and tell me how defensive testing will be reduced when medical liability stays the same (No Page - no liability reform included)? When Obama says that he will reduce testing and restrict certain technologies or procedures, please explain how "everyone" but the organized right likes that when it could cost them their lives(HR3200 P30 Benefit Committee to enforce Obama's desired reductions in care)? Tell me how the proposed mandate/tax penalty on small business discussed in one of the house versions will not cause unemployment (HR3200 P150)? Covering your ears and and eyes and saying I can't hear or see the issues unless you give me the paragraph is a playground technique that is unfortunately not beneath you. You know the $#!+ in this bill and you think it smells like roses. Try to counter them if you can but I see why you would try to put up a fake roadblock up so as not to confront them.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 6, 2009 22:29:02 GMT -8
Nobody this side of Pyongyang is a Communist these days, not even Barack Obama. But Obama is most certainly a collectivist who sees people more as single cells in a larger organism than as individual human beings. Collectivists such as our President value "social justice" and "fairness" over liberty. What's the loss of a few individual freedoms compared to the greater good, right? And, as we are seeing these days, those who hold different views are to be identified as (dare I say it?) enemies of the people who must be shunned and marginalized. (Well, we can be thankful for one thing; shunning and marginalization are preferable to facing a firing squad. ) The basis for leftist collectivism is utopianism. Once you have bought into that delusion, all sorts of things that earlier would have been considered not only unthinkable but downright sinister suddenly become acceptable or even mandatory. AzWm
|
|