Outburst during Obama's speech.

[chimp_spanner]

I need to re-assemble the DVD collection. I have the box set, the one that's shaped like Zim's house, with a toy GIR living in the attic.

Ahem. Anyway, sorry. Taking this way off topic. *shuts up*

[xXxPriestessxXx]

Some how this conversation made me think of this.

[HammerAndSickle]

Just wanted to say to Drakkar, I don't share your taste in guitars, I don't share your taste in music, and I don't share your taste in sexual partners but you've made some awesome points here.

[sevenstringj]

Originally Posted by minusthemonkey

I find the opposition to universal health care utterly perplexing.

It's pretty simple. You already spend anywhere from a third to half of your working life effectively toiling for the government. Do you want to work even more for the gov't to take care of this "social responsibility?"

Another glaring problem is the constant misuse of statistics to justify the urgent need for reform. Of those "46 million who are uninsured," most of them are either illegal immigrants, earn more than $50,000 a year and simply choose not to buy health insurance--god forbid people exercise their freedom of choice, and notice how Obama calls this "irresponsible"--or qualify for Medicaid but haven't signed up yet.

And probably the most obvious reason for the opposition to universal health care is that it's not opposition to universal health care, because that's not what's on the table. What's on the table is "universal health insurance." There's a BIG difference.

[JBroll]

There are also people who don't consider plans like this to be the best way to make health care affordable and reasonable. It's not "People supporting Obama's plan" versus "People who don't want everyone to have health care" like some on the left seem to believe.

Jeff

[Scar Symmetry]

Originally Posted by xXxPriestessxXx

[/COLOR]

unbelievable!

that guy's face when he realises what he's just said is priceless.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by JBroll

It's not "People supporting Obama's plan" versus "People who don't want everyone to have health care" like some on the left seem to believe.

FWIW, most of the opposition I see on a day-to-day basis, in my everyday life, sound a lot more like MTech than they sound like you.

[Adam Of Angels]

Jeff provides a good side to an argument, usually, I'll hand that to him. In this case, I agree with him on most points.

I did, however, talk to an old man today who had the same disposition as MTech on this matter... the man, admittedly, didn't continue his education beyond the 8th grade.

[JBroll]

Originally Posted by Randy

FWIW, most of the opposition I see on a day-to-day basis, in my everyday life, sound a lot more like MTech than they sound like you.

Trust me, I'm trying to distance myself from that type - and have been for as long as I can remember. (Could you tell?)

Jeff

[Randy]

Originally Posted by Adam Of Angels

I did, however, talk to an old man today who had the same disposition as MTech on this matter... the man, admittedly, didn't continue his education beyond the 8th grade.

^
Exactly. And I'm not saying that liberals/progressives are any smarter, but it's hard to buy into the opposition when the majority of them (which I encounter) sound like that.

EDIT: Yes I can, Jeff. [action= ]applauds[/action]

I have some experience trying to defend Democratic principles, while tolerating 'short-bus' Democratic arguments. So I can feel your pain.

[JBroll]

It's not hard to sound like a twit arguing for 'progressive' causes, either - the entire movement is given away by the incredibly arrogant title they've given themselves...

("*We* hold the key to progress! *We* are the future!"
"Well, what do you actually believe?"
".... if I know... like, progressive shit, and... shit, you know? We want, like, the government to do things because they can and stuff.")

... and if physicists thought about the world in ways even remotely close to the average 'progressive' they'd believe that massive particles could move faster than light because their favorite talking head said the government could fund it.

Both sides need to shed the lunatic fringe baggage - not necessarily the extremists, just the ones that can't get their damned facts straight. People like MTech will still do orders of magnitude more good for liberals than even the best of liberal pundits just by making the opposition look like total idiots - I have a hard time believing that he's not a troll just trying to shove everyone into being a leftist wacko through fear of association.

Jeff

[Randy]

I think the wikipedia article on contemporary progressivism frames what the name/movement is about pretty well.

In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them.

Social progressivism, which states that governmental practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives.

Progressivism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whether you agree with it's positions or not, there's good reason for the name and it's far from being ill-thought out or with the intention of sounding arrogant.

[JBroll]

If that were the only thing defining a 'progressive' we'd be on the same page, but good luck finding the One True Way To Modernize Shit if you think that clears the name against what I just mentioned.

Jeff

[DrakkarTyrannis]

Originally Posted by HammerAndSickle

Just wanted to say to Drakkar, I don't share your taste in guitars, I don't share your taste in music, and I don't share your taste in sexual partners but you've made some awesome points here.

Thank you...I do what I can. Normally I stay out of political debates..but I couldn't let that one go.

[troyguitar]

Originally Posted by JBroll

People like MTech will still do orders of magnitude more good for liberals than even the best of liberal pundits just by making the opposition look like total idiots - I have a hard time believing that he's not a troll just trying to shove everyone into being a leftist wacko through fear of association.

Jeff

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure he's serious. The vast majority of people I know over the age of ~50 sound exactly like MTech (there are younger folks who are the same, but they are a small minority in my social circle at least). My dad has me on his giant "everyone I know" email list where they spread around those retarded chain emails which read like an MTech post.

PS - Obama. Osama. Makes you think, doesn't it?

[Adam Of Angels]

^^

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by troyguitar

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure he's serious. The vast majority of people I know over the age of ~50 sound exactly like MTech (there are younger folks who are the same, but they are a small minority in my social circle at least). My dad has me on his giant "everyone I know" email list where they spread around those retarded chain emails which read like an MTech post.

1. Forward those e-mails to Jeff. He'll write a devastating reply which will physically cripple those who write that kind of inane garbage.
2. Send the reply to everyone in the to: and cc: fields of the original message, and if possible, to the original author of the message.
3. ????
4. Profit.

[JBroll]

Sadly, Jeff has little time for such rubbish. Further, Jeff objects to any such abuse of email. Fortunately, Jeff has many recommendations for sharp objects that could come in handy in those situations.

Jeff

[DslDwg]

I can't believe this is news - frankly who cares? Apparently Congressmen do this sort of thing a lot except it's just not usually within earshot of a microphone. Maybe it wasn't the appropriate way to do it - but is it illegal to disagree with President Obama?

The Bush was worse and Bush did worse arguments are just kind of sad. So anytime one of us decides to speak out against the President we get - "Well Bush did worse"? I'm not defending Bush at all - but the President doesn't make decisions alone - where was congress during Bushes eight years in office - funny how they escape blame for all the things that went wrong over the last eight years.

Do we need Health Care reform - I agree yes we do. It's sad that the Health Care Insurance companies get filthy rich while consumers pay more and the actual doctors make the same or less than they did before. But lets think folks - what is the U.S. Governments track record of successful programs. Social Security? Immigration? How did that whole cash for clunkers thing work out? Hurricane Katrina - that was a model of efficiency? Congress are buffoons - they are not business people.

I'll even play a little naive and say that I think in his heart the President thinks he's doing the right thing - I just don't think that our government has the business acumen to make it happen. Someone will be getting ....ed - someone else will be pocketing a lot of money and only a small portion of the intended people will be getting the help they need.

[Adam Of Angels]

Originally Posted by DslDwg

I can't believe this is news - frankly who cares? Apparently Congressmen do this sort of thing a lot except it's just not usually within earshot of a microphone. Maybe it wasn't the appropriate way to do it - but is it illegal to disagree with President Obama?

Again, this is the Politics and Current Events forum. That's why we're talking about it. Is it that hard to understand?

Originally Posted by DslDwg

The Bush was worse and Bush did worse arguments are just kind of sad. So anytime one of us decides to speak out against the President we get - "Well Bush did worse"? I'm not defending Bush at all - but the President doesn't make decisions alone - where was congress during Bushes eight years in office - funny how they escape blame for all the things that went wrong over the last eight years.

I agree with this, and always point this out.

[DslDwg]

Originally Posted by Adam Of Angels

Again, this is the Politics and Current Events forum. That's why we're talking about it. Is it that hard to understand?

Not hard to understand at all - you've obviously missed the point I was trying to make and maybe I was to tired when posting to clearly make a point.

My point is - The congressman didn't bum rush the president with a knife - he didn't scream racial slurs at the president. He simply stated that the Presidents opinion of how the health care program would work for illegals was a lie.

Like I said maybe not the best way to do this - but big ....ing deal.

Do not dare question the anointed one or fear the wrath of the politeness police.

[Adam Of Angels]

Well, I wasn't under the impression that there was any opinions involved in that one - either illegal imigrants can get coverage or not. From what I understand, only citizens can get coverage, and illegal imigrants aren't citizens.

[RenegadeDave]

Originally Posted by Adam Of Angels

Well, I wasn't under the impression that there was any opinions involved in that one - either illegal imigrants can get coverage or not. From what I understand, only citizens can get coverage, and illegal imigrants aren't citizens.

Just a bit of a heads up. In the "you lie" speech, the rhetoric changed from "47 million americans without health insurance" to "30 million American citizens". I recall even back to the campaign trail of that 47M figure, now, with the same piece of legislation that was argued with the 47M figure, now is being sold with this new 30M figure. As far as I can tell, it's still the same bill as the house just came back into session last week (when the speech was made), which suggests there haven't been changes made to the bill.

Coincidently the number of "illegal" immigrants is often touted as being between 7M-25M, with most people putting a number of 12M to 15M. Odd that 17M would fall off of the marketing statistic.

The rub is that the language is probably so damn vague in the bill, with enough lawyering it could probably go either way. Now, the Dems hands are tied and it's going to have to go the citizen only route because Obama said so (hence the rhetoric change). Considering it's the same bill, you figure it out.

So whichever group of politicians you trust (lol @ you for trusting politicians), the party introducing the bill has now imposed "stricter" requirements on their own legislation.

Regardless, I think the bill in it's current form is defeated. Any blue dog or Democrat in a swing district who signs that nuclear piece of legislation has his days are numbered. Dems can't garner enough votes in a super majority to pass the bill in it's current form, without Republicans stalling the bill with procedural nonsense.

That all being said, I'm sick of policy makers making excuses that "Republicans are blocking healthcare reform". The Republicans couldn't if they wanted to. Truth is the Democrats don't have have their ducks in a row to pass this monstrosity of a bill. So you can scapegoat the R's all you want, but the reality is it's the fringe left D's who can't sell the bill to the majority of their party, let alone the American public at large (if you keep up with polling, never mind the TEA party shenangians). But if thinking that the Republican boogiemen are the SOLE thing keeping the legislation from passing helps you sleep at night, go right ahead and keep deluding yourself.

[Adam Of Angels]

^Agreed on nearly all points. Its a sloppy mess of childish antics mixed with bad politics. The resulting concoction is a less than viable solution to an ever growing problem.

What I REALLY don't like about all of this is Obama saying that everybody would be required to have at least the most basic (public) form of health coverage. Why? If you don't want to be covered, then don't be covered. Why not use some of the inane amount of tax money we pay each year and just offer us a basic type of coverage when we have to make a visit to the ER?

Another thing that bothers me is the people going haywire, claiming that Obama is trying to tear this country apart and turn it into one run by Socialism.. from my honest perspective, the government already has a large hand in the market (which is supposed to be a free market, but let's face it - oil is politics these days, and oil often has a large effect on the well being of the market, and that's only one facet to bring up), but .... if we ever hear about most of the dirt.

[Korngod]

Originally Posted by DslDwg

The Bush was worse and Bush did worse arguments are just kind of sad. So anytime one of us decides to speak out against the President we get - "Well Bush did worse"? I'm not defending Bush at all - but the President doesn't make decisions alone - where was congress during Bushes eight years in office - funny how they escape blame for all the things that went wrong over the last eight years.

QFT! im not usually one for politics, but i get so pissed when people bash Bush or any president for that matter, congress is and should be equally to blame for any wrong doings.