Didn't Obama get elected by appealing to the passions of the masses? A passion for Hope and change?
So wait, I'm confused. Liberals are dispassionate, but liberals elected Obama by being...passionate? Can somebody explain this to me?
The argument is an over simplification, baseless bias, false dichotomy and a manufactured "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
Well, yeah, but I'd like someone who espouses the argument to explain it to me. I can always dismiss it as neo-con wharrgarbl, but I'm trying to be less of a dismissive prick all the time. :P
I haven't had time to read much of this thread, so take this with a grain of salt.
Here is what I don't understand. People are complaining about the conservative movement being disruptive at "town-hall" style meetings. They say it's hypocritical, they say it's manufactured, etc.
Who cares? It happened and, more importantly, it had a significant impact. It's provided countless hours of coverage and has placed the Democrats on the defensive. You're much better talking about how to counter this than complaining about milk that's already been spilled.
Time is the enemy of health care reform. Unless the Dems get the train back on the track, how long do you expect the blue dogs to hold out? Pelosi calling protestors un-American didn't help.
I haven't had time to read much of this thread, so take this with a grain of salt.
Here is what I don't understand. People are complaining about the conservative movement being disruptive at "town-hall" style meetings. They say it's hypocritical, they say it's manufactured, etc.
Who cares? It happened and, more importantly, it had a significant impact. It's provided countless hours of coverage and has placed the Democrats on the defensive. You're much better talking about how to counter this than complaining about milk that's already been spilled.
Time is the enemy of health care reform. Unless the Dems get the train back on the track, how long do you expect the blue dogs to hold out? Pelosi calling protestors un-American didn't help.
Because as I, and others, pointed out in the thread, it's fake manufactured outrage. The protesters ARE being un-American, because instead of protesting in a fashion that accomplishes a political goal, they're being belligerent and screaming in order to stop people from being told any side of the health care reform. Their goal isn't to improve or change or debate, it's to disrupt, distract, and continue a despicable course of non-democratic politicking from the right wing. AT BEST their goal is to knowingly lie to the public. This isn't about changing the course of health care's future, it's about partisan rage taken to a point of not letting anything happen at all. Worse, the people protesting, as mentioned earlier, are being bussed in from miles around to make the protests appear to be bigger at each site, when it's the same group of tea-bagging jackasses all over again. The republicans are only making themselves look worse, and to have a guy who is uninsured make up a bogus story about being beat up by "union thugs" and then ask for help getting health care while protesting the very thing that would get him the health care in the first place shows so much astronomical stupidity, that there should be a new word specifically for just how moronic and hypocritical this whole thing is.
I haven't had time to read much of this thread, so take this with a grain of salt.
Here is what I don't understand. People are complaining about the conservative movement being disruptive at "town-hall" style meetings. They say it's hypocritical, they say it's manufactured, etc.
Who cares? It happened and, more importantly, it had a significant impact. It's provided countless hours of coverage and has placed the Democrats on the defensive. You're much better talking about how to counter this than complaining about milk that's already been spilled.
Time is the enemy of health care reform. Unless the Dems get the train back on the track, how long do you expect the blue dogs to hold out? Pelosi calling protestors un-American didn't help.
You're right. From a practical perspective, we need to retaliate and not take this crap.
The problem I have is that there is a large group of people who consider this to be a valid tactic, who think that this is actually a way that will improve things. If we just keep firing back and forth at each other with increasingly ridiculous political tactics, the whole system will swing wildly out of control and then nothing will happen. Everybody loses in that case. We need to fire back while getting people to realize that this is not the way to do things.
You and I should both care that this is happening. It demonstrates that the system we have in place is broken and cannot be fixed from within.
EDIT: To put it more succinctly, democracy cannot possibly succeed, because it will eventually descend into this mess. In fact, no government system will succeed, and we should have re-written the Constitution 150 years ago. Unfortunately, there is a very widespread mindset that fears change, and would prefer to keep using a broken system. We've allowed cowards to influence us for too long.
Pointing out that it is despicable, manufactured, and propagates ignorant and dangerous claims is responding to it and calling out those creating the stir.
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that the current bills being worked on would be a boon for big business. I'm surprised no one asked me to elaborate on that point.
Shared Responsibility of Employer. Employers with more than 25 employees who do not offer qualifying coverage (as determined in section 3103) or who pay less than 60 percent of their employees’ monthly premiums are subject to a $750 annual fee per uninsured full-time employees and $375 per uninsured part-time employees. For employers subject to the assessment, the first 25 workers will be exempted. Beginning in 2013, the penalty amounts will be adjusted using the Consumer Price Index for urban consumers. Employers with 25 or fewer employees are exempt from penalties and are eligible for program credits in section 3112. (§ 3115)
Why would any large business bother paying more than $750 a year to offer health insurance to their employees when they can just pay a $750 fine and send those employees over to the govt plan?
I don't know why you are so upset about the protests. Didn't Democrats bus in protesters back in 2005 when Bush was trying to privatize a portion of Social Security? This little gem from Talking Points Memo sounds an awful lot like what is going on now, just from the opposite political direction.
Who cares whether or not the guy has insurance he was attacked by an SEIU member!!!
Here we have a case of a constituent being accused of being a hijacker! WTF? Are all voices that even try to ask questions (rather than blindly support) Obamacare illigitimate voices?
You wonder why I posted that video of Hillary early on in this thread? I posted it because she is right. We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.
To put it more succinctly, democracy cannot possibly succeed, because it will eventually descend into this mess.
Wasn't it Aristotle who said that republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms?
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that the current bills being worked on would be a boon for big business. I'm surprised no one asked me to elaborate on that point.
Maybe because you haven't bothered to answer any of the challenges to the utterly idiotic points you've offered up otherwise? Of course it's good for business; that's obvious. That's why nobody understands your trepidations, except as useless fear-mongering.
We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.
Damn right, and you should. However, manufactured rage and disruption of intelligent discussion is not debate, it's trolling. It's an Ann Coulter tactic, and it's not helping. If anyone had an intelligent point that they could phrase rationally, I'd be up for hearing it. So far, all I hear is the crying of the uncertain.
EDIT: I forget who said that about democracy, but yes, it's something like that.
Know what? America doesn't deserve health care reform right now. I just decided this. These videos have me so appalled and frustrated there's only one thing left to do: drop Medicare. That's right, I said it. Drop medicare, and wait for these same bastards to drive their Medicare-purchased Rascals back to the town halls and literally beg for their coverage back.
While we're at it, drop COBRA and Medicaid. With 10% unemployment we'll see how long these people last before they, too are crying for the government handout. I'm tired of it. Conservatives want to badly to be feudalist self-sufficient? Let's see them try to make it. To hell with it. I don't have coverage anyways, and "it's good enough for me" seems to be the name of the game.
I'm just so tired of the hypocrisy and hyperbole surrounding this debate some kind of hard reset needs to be hit, and these bastards who in one breath decry government run health care while in the other cash their medicare checks need to be taught a lesson.
Pointing out that it is despicable, manufactured, and propagates ignorant and dangerous claims is responding to it and calling out those creating the stir.
Arguably. My point was that the Dems need to elicit a fact based rebuttal to the hecklers, whether or not the hecklers are jerks. The reality is that the hecklers are getting a ton of media attention. Complaining about them just adds fuel to the fire. The best way to make the hecklers look like fools is to show that they are wrong factually. All the other complaining dilutes a counter-argument based on facts.
No, it's not. I'm just saying that the Dems, if they have facts on their side, need to brandish that weapon loud and clear.
This is nobody's "fault." It's a national debate. The question is how to debate effectively. I've always felt that "here are the facts" was a better tactic than "you're a bully." The Dems don't have to stay calm. They just have to use the most effective message.
Here's one interesting fact. Look at life expectancy by country. If we have the "best" health care system, why do so many countries with socialized health care have higher life expectancies?
My point was that the Dems need to elicit a fact based rebuttal to the hecklers,
That's impossible, since no amount of rational arguing will change that. Of course, that hasn't stopped us from trying. It's a futile endeavor, since the hecklers will just continue to make shit up, but at least the effort is being made.
If someone is making an argument that is not based in reality, you can't argue against it rationally. It's simple logic.
No, it's not. I'm just saying that the Dems, if they have facts on their side, need to brandish that weapon loud and clear.
This is nobody's "fault." It's a national debate. The question is how to debate effectively. I've always felt that "here are the facts" was a better tactic than "you're a bully." The Dems don't have to stay calm. They just have to use the most effective message.
Here's one interesting fact. Look at life expectancy by country. If we have the "best" health care system, why do so many countries with socialized health care have higher life expectancies?
I think the problem is they are attacking a bill that hasn't even totally been written yet.... How can I defend or even use facts from the bill when there are like 3 different versions of the bill in the senate alone.
Maybe because you haven't bothered to answer any of the challenges to the utterly idiotic points you've offered up otherwise? Of course it's good for business; that's obvious. That's why nobody understands your trepidations, except as useless fear-mongering.
That's because too many people on here are under the false assumption that I support all of the things I post about. Sometimes I'm just looking for a good argument to use elsewhere. Sometimes I'm looking for holes in an argument I may have missed. So I'll post an argument used against me, albeit in a slightly altered form, in the hopes that someone will post a good rebuttal that I can use as a basis for countering an argument made elsewhere. Sometimes I go a little bit overboard in representing those arguments but I'm trying to post them in the same manner they were directed at me. Make sense?
The whole thing with the birthers? Those folks are bat-shit crazy but Donofrio's question has never been answered, so I keep looking for smart people who can answer the question. Sadly none have been found.
I don't know why you are so upset about the protests. Didn't Democrats bus in protesters back in 2005 when Bush was trying to privatize a portion of Social Security?
You can bus people in all you want, just make sure they have more to say then "Your going to kill all the old people" or "Maybe we should have health care reform from a US citizen".
That's because too many people on here are under the false assumption that I support all of the things I post about . . .
The whole thing with the birthers? Those folks are bat-shit crazy but Donofrio's question has never been answered, so I keep looking for smart people who can answer the question. Sadly none have been found.
I call bullshit. Most literate people will say something like, "Now I'm only being the devil's advocate here when I say . . . ", or "This person said X to me today and I was stuck for a response. Does anyone have any suggestions?" You have said none of that. It's clear that, even worse than holding some of the crazy views you hold, you are too cowardly to even admit that they are yours.
As for Donofrio, people here have tried and tried to help you with that and you have shown time and again that you are simply too stupid to be helped.
As for Donofrio, people here have tried and tried to help you with that and you have shown time and again that you are simply too stupid to be helped.
Then please cite the law that defines who is and who is not a Natural Born citizen. Or at the very least cite the law that clearly shows President Obama to be a Natural Born Citizen.
The only answer I have consistently received on this question is that there is no law and there is no answer.
As for Donofrio, people here have tried and tried to help you with that and you have shown time and again that you are simply too stupid to be helped.
Then please cite the law that defines who is and who is not a Natural Born citizen. Or at the very least cite the law that clearly shows President Obama to be a Natural Born Citizen.
The only answer I have consistently received on this question is that there is no law and there is no answer.
Of course there's no law regarding Obama. Laws cannot pertain to one person or group of people (I should have hoped you would know that). I should hope the fact he wasborn in Hawaii and continues to be a US citizen is enough proof.
There is no definition of "natural born citizen" written anywhere. However, due to common understanding, it is understood to mean one who was born in the US. This is like the right to bear arms, which was never legally defined (I am pretty sure) but has a commonly understood meaning.
Yeah, that whole thing is a big mystery . . . who knows where Obama was really born? Who knows if he was actually born at all? I've heard rumors that he is actually a homunculus.
What? You don't believe that? Can you prove that he is NOT a homunculus? Well then, I guess we'll just have to live with the controversy.
There are those who believe he's a Cylon and those who believe that he is a robot from the future and that he is made of liquid metal. All of these beliefs are more valid than the ridiculous belief that he was born in Hawaii, no?
The only answer I have consistently received on this question is that there is no law and there is no answer.
Hawaii was admitted to the union in 1959 and Barack Obama was born in 1961? Newspaper clippings from '61 announcing his birth in Hawaii exist? What else is there?
I love how every time I let Steve get to me he goes and posts something like this, reminding me that he is not to be taken seriously in any circumstance.
The British Citizenship at birth point? Of course he was an American citizen at birth but was he a 'natural' born citizen? If you say yes or no prove your answer.
I cite the common understanding... I just said it wasn't written anywhere. Look in any high school government textbook if you want a reference.
Think of obscenity: there's no legal definition, yet one can be prosecuted for it. It has a commonly understood definition rather than an explicit one.
Comments
Where the people in the picture are now
Salon article about the event
Paid staffers
Here is what I don't understand. People are complaining about the conservative movement being disruptive at "town-hall" style meetings. They say it's hypocritical, they say it's manufactured, etc.
Who cares? It happened and, more importantly, it had a significant impact. It's provided countless hours of coverage and has placed the Democrats on the defensive. You're much better talking about how to counter this than complaining about milk that's already been spilled.
Time is the enemy of health care reform. Unless the Dems get the train back on the track, how long do you expect the blue dogs to hold out? Pelosi calling protestors un-American didn't help.
The problem I have is that there is a large group of people who consider this to be a valid tactic, who think that this is actually a way that will improve things. If we just keep firing back and forth at each other with increasingly ridiculous political tactics, the whole system will swing wildly out of control and then nothing will happen. Everybody loses in that case. We need to fire back while getting people to realize that this is not the way to do things.
You and I should both care that this is happening. It demonstrates that the system we have in place is broken and cannot be fixed from within.
EDIT: To put it more succinctly, democracy cannot possibly succeed, because it will eventually descend into this mess. In fact, no government system will succeed, and we should have re-written the Constitution 150 years ago. Unfortunately, there is a very widespread mindset that fears change, and would prefer to keep using a broken system. We've allowed cowards to influence us for too long.
Why would any large business bother paying more than $750 a year to offer health insurance to their employees when they can just pay a $750 fine and send those employees over to the govt plan?
I don't know why you are so upset about the protests. Didn't Democrats bus in protesters back in 2005 when Bush was trying to privatize a portion of Social Security? This little gem from Talking Points Memo sounds an awful lot like what is going on now, just from the opposite political direction.
Here we have a case of a constituent being accused of being a hijacker! WTF? Are all voices that even try to ask questions (rather than blindly support) Obamacare illigitimate voices?
You wonder why I posted that video of Hillary early on in this thread? I posted it because she is right. We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration. Wasn't it Aristotle who said that republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms?
EDIT: I forget who said that about democracy, but yes, it's something like that.
While we're at it, drop COBRA and Medicaid. With 10% unemployment we'll see how long these people last before they, too are crying for the government handout. I'm tired of it. Conservatives want to badly to be feudalist self-sufficient? Let's see them try to make it. To hell with it. I don't have coverage anyways, and "it's good enough for me" seems to be the name of the game.
I'm just so tired of the hypocrisy and hyperbole surrounding this debate some kind of hard reset needs to be hit, and these bastards who in one breath decry government run health care while in the other cash their medicare checks need to be taught a lesson.
This is nobody's "fault." It's a national debate. The question is how to debate effectively. I've always felt that "here are the facts" was a better tactic than "you're a bully." The Dems don't have to stay calm. They just have to use the most effective message.
Here's one interesting fact. Look at life expectancy by country. If we have the "best" health care system, why do so many countries with socialized health care have higher life expectancies?
If someone is making an argument that is not based in reality, you can't argue against it rationally. It's simple logic.
The whole thing with the birthers? Those folks are bat-shit crazy but Donofrio's question has never been answered, so I keep looking for smart people who can answer the question. Sadly none have been found.
As for Donofrio, people here have tried and tried to help you with that and you have shown time and again that you are simply too stupid to be helped.
The only answer I have consistently received on this question is that there is no law and there is no answer.
There is no definition of "natural born citizen" written anywhere. However, due to common understanding, it is understood to mean one who was born in the US. This is like the right to bear arms, which was never legally defined (I am pretty sure) but has a commonly understood meaning.
What? You don't believe that? Can you prove that he is NOT a homunculus? Well then, I guess we'll just have to live with the controversy.
There are those who believe he's a Cylon and those who believe that he is a robot from the future and that he is made of liquid metal. All of these beliefs are more valid than the ridiculous belief that he was born in Hawaii, no?
Common understanding? Please cite references.
Think of obscenity: there's no legal definition, yet one can be prosecuted for it. It has a commonly understood definition rather than an explicit one.