Simply un-American

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly enough, the Obama-Hitler signage that Pelosi/Hoyer point out as an example of the right's unhinged, uninformed, disrespectful nature are actually the product of the very left leaning Lyndon LaRouche organization.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Dont-blame-conservatives-for-LaRouches-ObamaHitler-signs-53044147.html

Lyndon LaRouche hasn't leaned left in 30 years. He used to be way left-wing, now he's off in the ozone somewhere, pushing whatever bizarre theory works for him at the moment. For example, along the way he decided the Queen of England was running an international drug ring. He's way crazy and anyone who uses him as an example of the left is simply out of touch with politics in this country.
http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/truestory.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly enough, the Obama-Hitler signage that Pelosi/Hoyer point out as an example of the right's unhinged, uninformed, disrespectful nature are actually the product of the very left leaning Lyndon LaRouche organization.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Dont-blame-conservatives-for-LaRouches-ObamaHitler-signs-53044147.html

Lyndon LaRouche hasn't leaned left in 30 years. He used to be way left-wing, now he's off in the ozone somewhere, pushing whatever bizarre theory works for him at the moment. For example, along the way he decided the Queen of England was running an international drug ring. He's way crazy and anyone who uses him as an example of the left is simply out of touch with politics in this country.
http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/truestory.html

So is if fair to point to this gentleman and his organization and equate him/them with the GOP? When NBC states that conservatives are equating Obama with Hitler based on the action of LaRouche, this is outright distortion, no? Correction, an outright lie is the better statement.

[Anonymous]

12:12 again. Yes, exactly. That was wrong. (And incredibly sloppy!) So the appropriate thing is to point that out rather than blaming the left for LaRouche and his swastika.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly enough, the Obama-Hitler signage that Pelosi/Hoyer point out as an example of the right's unhinged, uninformed, disrespectful nature are actually the product of the very left leaning Lyndon LaRouche organization.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Dont-blame-conservatives-for-LaRouches-ObamaHitler-signs-53044147.html

Lyndon LaRouche hasn't leaned left in 30 years. He used to be way left-wing, now he's off in the ozone somewhere, pushing whatever bizarre theory works for him at the moment. For example, along the way he decided the Queen of England was running an international drug ring. He's way crazy and anyone who uses him as an example of the left is simply out of touch with politics in this country.
http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/truestory.html

So is if fair to point to this gentleman and his organization and equate him/them with the GOP? When NBC states that conservatives are equating Obama with Hitler based on the action of LaRouche, this is outright distortion, no? Correction, an outright lie is the better statement.

Only if you believe that all conservatives are Republicans. But that's not true.

[Anonymous]

I wish Obama would stop trying to push his left agenda and start listening to the country. We don't want our healthcare screwed with and this is something that is being embraced no matter what party you are in. I am also not happy that people who disagree are really being attacked and marginalized. Robert Gibbs is losing all credibility because he just spins and spins and spins and not in a credible way.

One last point. Was I the only one who picked up how stupid it was that Obama was comparing Fed Ex to the Post office. I see a lot of people laughed at how badly the post office is run but....Fed ex is a shipping operator and does not deliver mail as a primary source of revenue. The Post Office mandate really is to deliver mail and the shipping options for overnight are ancillary business lines so it is not comparing the same things and that is why the Post Office is not able to overtake Fed Ex. Also if you lose a "contract" with Fed Ex for shipping, you are not forced to use the Post Office. But if we are to imagine the Post Office as the same as a single healthcare system. Did you notice that the Post Office is now talking about taking away certain services including boxes that you used to be able to drop your mail off at in your neighborhood? Hmmm just didn't make financial sense. The same way that you could be in a world where a doctor told you that your chances for longterm survival didn't look great so it would be too expensive to give you an operation that may not work so you are SOL even if you said you wanted to give it a try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish Obama would stop trying to push his left agenda and start listening to the country. We don't want our healthcare screwed with and this is something that is being embraced no matter what party you are in. I am also not happy that people who disagree are really being attacked and marginalized. Robert Gibbs is losing all credibility because he just spins and spins and spins and not in a credible way.

One last point. Was I the only one who picked up how stupid it was that Obama was comparing Fed Ex to the Post office. I see a lot of people laughed at how badly the post office is run but....Fed ex is a shipping operator and does not deliver mail as a primary source of revenue. The Post Office mandate really is to deliver mail and the shipping options for overnight are ancillary business lines so it is not comparing the same things and that is why the Post Office is not able to overtake Fed Ex. Also if you lose a "contract" with Fed Ex for shipping, you are not forced to use the Post Office. But if we are to imagine the Post Office as the same as a single healthcare system. Did you notice that the Post Office is now talking about taking away certain services including boxes that you used to be able to drop your mail off at in your neighborhood? Hmmm just didn't make financial sense. The same way that you could be in a world where a doctor told you that your chances for longterm survival didn't look great so it would be too expensive to give you an operation that may not work so you are SOL even if you said you wanted to give it a try.

It may be true that Americans don't want their health care screwed with. But they also don't want the costs to keep going up. The public is unable to reconcile this contradiction, but someone has to.

The British also don't want their health care system screwed with. It is so popular that neither party will mess with it. It also costs a heck of a lot less than ours does. The conervative press and politicians would have you think otherwise, but you don't see any party trying to change it.

[Anonymous]

I think the problem is that there is no balance to the discussion and a lot of confusion and the timing is horrible.

1. They need to drop the single payer arguement, it is not going to happen, Americans are not going to accept it.
2. The far right is unreasonable, SOMETHING needs to be done.
3. Obama's political motivations to rush this through have severely backfired. It is unbelievely detrimental to Americans to try to rush such changes through without long debate. People feel burned by the bailouts and the way they were rushed through. Turns out that a lot of the stimulus was just a bunch of pork and an orgy of speding.

Why not take baby steps? Lets start with making ALL health related expenses tax deductible? This goes for insurance premiums, co-pays, and out of pocket care. Why should someone who is self employed, like my sister who is a 1099, only grossing 45K/yr, living on the edge, not allowed to deduct her medical expenses? Why not pass simple legislation capping premiums, outlawing age discrimination for health insurance, outlawing dropping of coverage because you actually get sick? After taking a few steps in the right direction, THEN look at a public option or expanding Medicade.

I think on the heels of a questionalble auto bailout, sloppy stimulus, declining economy (NO we are not emerging from this mess, things still look grim), and profuse spending that repulses most americans, it is not the time for an agressive overhaul. This is not all or nothing.


To call protestors un-American (and I'm not hearing racist, which is a hit below the belt) is not only un-American and disingenuous, but does nothing more than inflame the opposition, make them dig their heels in, and offend the sensibilities of the extreme moderate middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that there is no balance to the discussion and a lot of confusion and the timing is horrible.

1. They need to drop the single payer arguement, it is not going to happen, Americans are not going to accept it.
2. The far right is unreasonable, SOMETHING needs to be done.
3. Obama's political motivations to rush this through have severely backfired. It is unbelievely detrimental to Americans to try to rush such changes through without long debate. People feel burned by the bailouts and the way they were rushed through. Turns out that a lot of the stimulus was just a bunch of pork and an orgy of speding.

Why not take baby steps? Lets start with making ALL health related expenses tax deductible? This goes for insurance premiums, co-pays, and out of pocket care. Why should someone who is self employed, like my sister who is a 1099, only grossing 45K/yr, living on the edge, not allowed to deduct her medical expenses? Why not pass simple legislation capping premiums, outlawing age discrimination for health insurance, outlawing dropping of coverage because you actually get sick? After taking a few steps in the right direction, THEN look at a public option or expanding Medicade.

I think on the heels of a questionalble auto bailout, sloppy stimulus, declining economy (NO we are not emerging from this mess, things still look grim), and profuse spending that repulses most americans, it is not the time for an agressive overhaul. This is not all or nothing.


To call protestors un-American (and I'm not hearing racist, which is a hit below the belt) is not only un-American and disingenuous, but does nothing more than inflame the opposition, make them dig their heels in, and offend the sensibilities of the extreme moderate middle.

People have always complained about the cost of healthcare and insurance. Talk to those in their eighties and nineties. Now it seems there are more tests and medical personnel for what used to be a trip to a GP. The prognosis and survival of many was more negative. Preemies, etc.

Some hospitals are setting up clinics so hopefully those who frequent the ER for simple primary care will flock elsewhere:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125027261061432585.html

Does anyone really think anything will work when one sub group represents 15% of the total population officially [including elderly] yet is 25% of the population in pre-school and kindergarten? The 25% includes anchor babies.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j46sgu0010S-npDtoknb1hMSuM1AD9A06C000

[Anonymous]

The tax credits for everyone argument is being championed by conservatives but it is not what Obama wants. He wants the same coverage for everyone including illegals and that is not going to work. The 85% who have coverage are not going to take this and you are seeing this anger at the town halls that goes across party lines. There are a lot of people who love their benefits even more than their job and do not like being told what kind of coverage they can have and ultimately Obama wants single payer and views his plans as a means to get there. Remember he was talking single payer for many years until he ran for President and now expects us to believe him. I don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The tax credits for everyone argument is being championed by conservatives but it is not what Obama wants. He wants the same coverage for everyone including illegals and that is not going to work. The 85% who have coverage are not going to take this and you are seeing this anger at the town halls that goes across party lines. There are a lot of people who love their benefits even more than their job and do not like being told what kind of coverage they can have and ultimately Obama wants single payer and views his plans as a means to get there. Remember he was talking single payer for many years until he ran for President and now expects us to believe him. I don't.

Well if the proposed legislation does not in any way eliminate other payers, what is there to disbelieve? Do you think that somehow he will secretly bury a paragraph about making private insurance illegal? And then just pull it out after the legislation is passed, to the utter surprise of the entire Congress and every lobby in America? It's ludicrous. Look, you don't have to "believe" him. The only thing that matters is the law.

[Anonymous]

Oh god have you not followed any of the debate? He doesn't have to make private insurers illegal (although he is positioning that you have to go to government insurance if you lose your job etc.) but by having the government enter into insurance the field will not be equal for the privates and it will only be a matter of time before they are out. This is something he actually talked openly about in the past but is now hiding from since people do not want this and he would like to sneak this in. If you have insurance, you would be crazy to want this healthcare. The only people who are happy about this are the illegals and people who as a matter of practice like to have the government to just give them everything and have no self respect or care that they will be getting awful insurance.

I do not want the government involved in my insurance-don't need it and don't want it.

[Anonymous]

The only way private health insurance folds under that scenario is if no one wants it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh god have you not followed any of the debate? He doesn't have to make private insurers illegal (although he is positioning that you have to go to government insurance if you lose your job etc.) but by having the government enter into insurance the field will not be equal for the privates and it will only be a matter of time before they are out. This is something he actually talked openly about in the past but is now hiding from since people do not want this and he would like to sneak this in. If you have insurance, you would be crazy to want this healthcare. The only people who are happy about this are the illegals and people who as a matter of practice like to have the government to just give them everything and have no self respect or care that they will be getting awful insurance.

I do not want the government involved in my insurance-don't need it and don't want it.

This is the second time you are using "illegals" in your arguments. This is a lie, there has never been any proposals to cover illegals. How do you see illegals obtaining govt. insurance. Do illegals get medicare or social security.

BTW, govt. is there to serve us. People vote for elected officials to run government the way they like it, otherwise why have elections at all. We pay their salaries, we pay for the offices they work at, they work for us.

The healthcare and pharmacy industry lobby is doing everything possible not to have this reform, do you ever think why they are fighting tooth and nail? What is good for you isn't good for them, that's why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh god have you not followed any of the debate? He doesn't have to make private insurers illegal (although he is positioning that you have to go to government insurance if you lose your job etc.) but by having the government enter into insurance the field will not be equal for the privates and it will only be a matter of time before they are out. This is something he actually talked openly about in the past but is now hiding from since people do not want this and he would like to sneak this in. If you have insurance, you would be crazy to want this healthcare. The only people who are happy about this are the illegals and people who as a matter of practice like to have the government to just give them everything and have no self respect or care that they will be getting awful insurance.

I do not want the government involved in my insurance-don't need it and don't want it.

In the spirit of FULL disclosure, I'm a conservative/libertarian. However, your statement is not true. I want healthcare reform, I do not want a single payer option, but I do want private health insurace to be regulated much more heavily. I want tax credits, and I want a back up planned for people who lose their jobs. I want only Americans and people waiting legally to become American citizens who pay taxes to benefit from a public or non-profit alternative.

[Anonymous]

Interesting essay on the state of political discourse in the country (which is what this tread title was originally referring to).

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/18/free-speech-vs-hate-speech/

To quote a snippet:
"The trouble is a partisanship so entrenched that it's reflexive, and unreasoning. The hate-tinged sniping at "red America" by "blue America" and vice versa more resembles the turf wars of the L.A.-based street gangs the Crips (blue bandanas) and the Bloods (red bandanas) than any kind of deeply principled philosophical difference of opinion. Anything bad said about my homeys is a blood libel. Anything bad said about the other guy is obvious truth, or free speech or, you know, just satire. Lighten up, dude."