The latest manifestation of right-wing craziness has hit the airwaves. It seems that "President Obama is after our children!" In a fit of conservative paranoia in a season that has seen more than its share of the same, right wingers, stoked on a tad too much FOX news, are preparing to yank their kids in droves from school on Tuesday to prevent their hearing a special address to the nation's youth by the President. Spoon-fed on fear by conservative talking heads such as Michele Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh et al., parents nationwide are moving to head Obama's speech off at the pass. The speech, purported by conservative pundits to contain mind-altering messages about the wonders of socialism, has caused dozens of East Texas Schools to announce that they would not be showing the speech to their students. I can recall no finer civics lesson on censorship in the annals of American education. The lone standout unfazed by the hysteria gripping the region is the Longview Independent School District. Hats off to that oasis of rationality in East Texas.
Funny, I don't recall liberal parents yelling "Katie bar the door!" when Ronald Reagan gave a similar address to school children during his administration. Perhaps that's because liberals are just not as susceptible to the wild speculations, not to mention manipulations that irresponsible "journalists" and news "entertainers" traffic in these days. Beyond that, liberal and progressive parents seem to have a clearer understanding of the importance of a presidential address to the nation's youth, regardless of the politics of any given executive in any given year. It's the President, people! What is to become of us when we don't trust the individual elected by way of a thorough, legitimate democratic process to lead our country? I see this as the logical conclusion of a longstanding propaganda campaign that has reached its critical mass of "catastrophic success." After all, it was Reagan who famously opined that "Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." Strange words from a man who invested so much to become the head of "government."
George Herbert Walker Bush also spoke to the kiddies when he held the tiller of our ship of state. Again, liberal parents didn't grab up their young'uns and head for the hills. Did liberals agree with the policy agenda of G. H. W. Bush? No, we didn't. Did we ascribe wisdom and clarity to his philosophy of governance? Not a chance. But neither did we attribute to him powers of persuasion so acute that he could, in the course of one speech, brainwash our little ones. Indoctrination is a long, drawn out, tedious affair carried out over years through a program that encompasses every level of society. One speech cannot possibly accomplish what these pitiful conservative parents hold in their fevered imaginations. That is giving President Obama way too much credit. One begins to think that in their minds, Obama has crossed over into some mythic realm of existence wherein all are rendered powerless to withstand his flights of oratory and his natural charisma and charm. Lighten up folks, he's just a guy like the rest of us. Seriously folks, it'll be alright. The children are OK. Really they are.
Finally, there's W. On that fateful day in September 2001, he was reading to school children when the planes hit the buildings in New York and Washington. Even though this same president would leave office when the nation's financial future was teetering over the abyss, when we were engaged in wars on two fronts, and all other economic indicators were flashing red, I still can say that the little ones to whom he read "My Pet Goat," received a rare historical treasure. If I disagreed with the father's policies, I abhorred the son's. That's to be expected in the adult world of politics. Yet few of us, including I suspect, President Obama, are capable of allowing politics to compel us to meddle with the innocence of a child. I have no trouble imputing integrity on this question to Republicans just as I do to Democrats. We have come to a sad and sorry pass when it becomes impossible to see our political opponents as decent human beings, or as being incapable of restraining themselves from tampering with the minds of other people's children. We forget at our peril that those on the opposite side of the aisle are not only our political opponents: they are Americans, too.
It's not a question of President Obama not is it a question of George W. Bush or George H. W. Bush. It's a matter of the people owning up to their duties, to question matters of the government. Many people are starting to take a closer look at the establishment; who is in power and how they are effecting our day to day lives. I feel it is the duty of both parties to question everything the government does and who puts those things in motion. Now if you blame the people for questioning the government for doing something you are looking for absolutism. I can call myself neither Republican nor Democrat. I will not simply let the wheels of government turn without my say so. I will have a voice and I will be heard.
ReplyDeleteI kinda go off subject there, so let me make my point. I don't care if the President makes a speech to the school children of this country. Still I will be wise to listen closely to what he has to say and if I don't agree with it I will speak my mind about it.
Don't make this about race, religion, political party or location. I'm from East Texas with a group of people who just may be to most narrow minded groups on this planet. I have no religion, I claim no race, I point my finger to no political party but I will look out for what's best for this country. People are losing jobs, people are afraid of what may happen under this administration. Could you blame them for wondering what this man wants to tell our President is going to say to the future of this country?
"Could you blame them for wondering what this man is going to say to the future of this country?"
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
If "wondering" were all they were doing, I could see your point, but these parents are actually threatening to pull their children out of school to prevent them from hearing an eighteen minute speech! No speaker's eloquence, not even Obama's is capable of altering hundreds of thousands of minds in so short a span. Even less so over television.
Since the President took office we have had a spate of bizarre conspiracy theories applied to him, and they seem to be growing exponentially. I think it's time to realize that these theories say more about the folks parroting than they do about the president. There are the "Birthers," who believe that somehow, we elected an alien born chief executive. The "Deathers" are convinced that the government of the future plans to get its jollies by euthanizing grandmas and grandpas! Now we're hearing the idea that an American President, who one the election with a clear majority wants to brainwash our children, turning them into little socialist atomatons over the course of a single speech. I mean, really!
This behavior is the stuff of pure paranoid delusion. And I'm sorry, but in my opinion, some of it is a thinly veiled racism that is conveniently hiding behind "death panels," "Socialism," and fears of the "alien born" usurper in our midst.
Sure, we should always watch politicians with a wary eye, not only because they are human beings with the same shortcomings that we all share, but also because in a participatory democracy, it's our duty. But to conjure up these wacked-out conspiracies smacks of a derangement that has little or nothing to do with the civic duty of monitoring the activities our elected officials. This stuff us just plain bat-crap crazy, and there really is no [sane] defense for any of it.
d.
Glad you blogged on this one. It floored me when I heard that the far-right was getting hot under the collar about a presidential speech that would encourage school kids to......wait for it....stay in school and work hard.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand you'd think this kind of ridiculous behavior would backfire upon the Republicans and they'd be embarrassed about the whole thing by now. Not so, because there is a clever propaganda trick at play here. This is how it works:
a) POTUS to give speech to school kids about staying in school, etc.
b) Far-right fling themselves on the floor, start foaming at the mouth, cry "socialism/ communism/ fascism/ Hitler youth".
c) Mainstream media now refers to POTUS speech as "controversial" despite absolutely zero controversial content in speech.
The same trick has been used successfully in the health care debate this past month with the outrageous claims about death panels. No rational person could possibly argue death panels were in the legislation, but that doesn't matter - the "Palinified" base of the Republican party will choose to believe it and will make a lot of noise about it. The mainstream media then starts reporting on the controversy surrounding "death panels" and the debate is no longer about the central issues of reform - mission accomplished.
My prediction is the far-right will continue to attempt to delegitimize the President at every turn. When they lost the election they were clearly traumatized by it, but I didn't buy the media spin that the Republicans were a spent force. True, they have no policies. True, they are being led by some of the intellectually least capable politicians of my lifetime. True, their mantra about no regulation and the market is always correct was cruelly exposed during the financial meltdown last year. All that said, it doesn't matter because all they need to do is block progressive reform and incrementally destroy Barack Obama.
Mark B,
ReplyDeleteTrue that. When your team is morally, spiritually, and intellectually bankrupt as Republicans seem to be these days, all you have left is the sort of obfuscation, misinformation and obtuseness that is ruining any chance we may have had to enact a policy that most Americans have said they want implemented.
I think the phrase "Crude, but effective" is more than apropos.
d.
I am coming late to this discussion, but I find it interesting that all of a sudden people are owning up to their duties by beginning to question their government. Why now? It is simple, bigots cannot stand that their is a black man smarter than they are and who has the bully pulpit. These bigots believe, but will not admit, that they are afraid that the power so long denied minorities will now be used against them.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteYou are spot on. Welcome to the discussion.
d.
The call to 'boycott' the President's message to kids in schools this past week was definitely an overreaction, drawing too much attention from the right-wing media. However, the reason that Obama has elicited such a reaction is simply because a majority of the people in our communities (not an 'extreme' minority) across the US simply either don't believe that he is living up to what he promised in his campaign or don't trust him to speak the truth. When previous Presidents have spoken in our schools during their tenures, there was no outcry by the general public because there was no 'fear' that they would say anything to mislead our youth. President Obama is clearly demonstrating through both his actions and words that he is the extreme, left-wing liberal that he promised he wouldn't be during his presidential campaign. Right-leaning media personalities warned that Americans were being 'duped' by this man a long time ago. Unfortunately, he is proving to be an unethical, ungodly man based on his actions and his poor choice of leaders (czars) appointed to his cabinet. As Michael Savage, an independent media personality, said, "The problem with Obama isn't that he is too black, it's because he is too green." (paraphrase). He was simply a poor choice for president at a time when anyone other that a Republican was going to win handily.
ReplyDeleteIs Steve simply implying that white folks are starting to do what black folks have done all along?? Pretty bold to come right out and say it. Obama certainly has the bully pulpit. He's just another unqualified rich guy who thinks he has what it takes to run the country, when in reality he is a long way from being able to understand that his values and ideals are not representative of the majority of this country. How can you guys say he is promoting policies that the majority of people want?? He was barely elected by a majority in the first place. We already have a system in place to provide care for the poor and indigent and others who are financially challenged...The programs are called Medicare, Medicaid, and other low-cost, State sponsored health care plans to provide care for low-income families and kids, in particular (CHIP in Texas). It's funny, but the same insurance companies that the President is trying to regulate/control are reaping the benefits of his speech from the other night, as described in the Longview paper today. Investors are dumping money into health care and insurance companies such as Cigna, United, etc.. causing their stock prices to jump this week. Capitalism and the free market hard at work!
ReplyDeleteMarcus,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I'm glad we agree that the right's response to the speech to school children was, in your words, "an overreaction," because it seems to me that this is the mindset at play not only many of the actions and words of conservatives over the past few months, but unfortunately some of the comments you make here.
It simply won't do to imply that the President is an "untruthful" man without producing any evidence to back up your assertion. Clearly, among many in the conservative community, Congressman Joe Wilson comes to mind, Obama is an accomplished liar, but where's the proof?
In yet another in a long series of "overreactions," Wilson, who actually hollered "You Lie" at Obama during a joint address to congress, was proven to be the teller of untruths, since in none of the healthcare bills being considered in Washington is there a provision for providing care to illegal immigrants. Thus Wilson showed not only an inexcusable breach of decorum, he was wrong on the facts.
I certainly agree that conservatives are showing their true colors when it comes to their strangely obsessive appeals to the emotion of fear these days, but I cannot agree that it has much to do with the President. Some dark visions of threat do seem to be driving these folks to engage in hysterical antics recently, but I tend to believe its more a function of the steady diet of misinformation, disinformation, and fearmongering that they receive daily from talk radio and FOX NEWS.
Studies indicate that people who tune in to FOX regularly (are you one?) are among the least well informed in the country on politics. If you check this out, and I hope that you will, I advise you get the information from an objective source, which obviously rules out FOX NEWS.
As to the charges of being unethical, and ungodly, again I have to ask, to what are you specifically referring? The last time I checked, President Obama was still a professed, practicing Christian. And I seem to recall something in the Bible to the effect of "Judge not, that ye be not judged." What unethical behavior can you site, or should readers here just accept this statement as 'truthful' because you say it's so? Come on.
I won't dignify the Michael Savage quote with a response since this "independent commentator" of yours is frequently the source some of the most irresponsible, hateful statements that have been uttered over the airwaves in recent times. Such as, "When I hear someone's in the Civil Rights business, I oil up my AR-15!"
Nice. Surely you can get your information from people of a higher caliber than that.
d.
Marcus,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "He was barely elected by a majority in the first place." Normally, I would say, "that is not correct". However, I'm trying to get more hip and speak in the right wing-nut vernacular of 2009, so I simply shout, "you lie!".
That fact is you have to go back twenty years to find a US Presidential election winner who had a larger percentage majority of the popular vote than Barack Obama did in 2008. The same applies if you consider Electoral College votes. In other words, Obama had a larger majority than George W. Bush (who you'll recall had a negative sized majority of the popular vote in 2000) or Bill Clinton. Twenty years ago George H.W. Bush won with 53.4% of the popular vote, compared to 52.9% for Barack Obama in 2008, but Bush did it with over twenty million (20,000,000) less votes.
In summary, Barack Obama's victory last year was even more convincing that the previous four presidential elections.
Mark B,
ReplyDeleteThanks. I was hoping someone would set the record straight on Obama's margin of victory.
d.
Mark B,
ReplyDeleteObama's margin of victory was falsely inflated by the voter fraud demonstrated through ACORN's registration of illegal/illegitimate voters across the nation. Without networks such as NBC, CBS and ABC in his backpocket there would have been no such victory. His extreme liberalism has forever been downplayed, while his superstar status has been politicized. There is no doubt that his victory was sealed by his media prowess and the savvy of his staff and their ability to manipulate both technology and the media.
D.,
ReplyDeleteI think you should move into the fiction genre. You'd be a great fiction writer.
Read the wall street journal article today by Scott Harrington at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574409501904118682.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Obama simply thinks he can say what he wants when he wants just because he is 'the man'. All he is doing is pandering to his moderate democrats (whom he is losing by the day) to try to throw them a bone and bring them back into the fold.
Everyone knows that it is implied that illegals will be able to receive care under his healthplan simply because of the fact that the bill doesn't specifically prohibit them from receiving it. A main problem with the bill is that is doesn't address the REAL problem that American workers are being faced with right now which is that if they are laid off from their jobs there is no provision in place for them to receive care. What is evident in Obama's continued discussions is the fact that he is not being given accurate information to share with the American people and the media. He is mis-informed on some of these issues. Most American people know how insurance works in the real world, why doesn't he??
I'm just sitting back and watching as Obama and Pelosi run your party over the cliff. Can't wait for those mid-term elections!!
D,
ReplyDeleteDecorum is very important as is honesty. In good conscience, if I were an elected official, I would not have the tolerance or patience to sit in a joint session of Congress and allow the President to lie, blatantly, to me in front of the entire country. Furthermore, I would not have the ability to sit quietly and keep my trap shut and allow HIM to call ME a liar, which is what he is doing to all those who oppose him regarding this healthcare bill. All those who oppose are liars...no more or no less.
I would invite you to read HR3200 and point out, exactly, where it states that illegal immigrants won't be covered in the bill. And, while his outburst may be lacking in decorum, by your standards, is he so wrong? If he is wrong, why has the Senate proven him correct?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/13/AR2009091301559.html
Again, please point out where in the bill it states illegal immigrants won't receive healthcare benefits under the bill that's currently in Congress and is under evaluation? And, if illegal immigrants are truly not supposed to receive healthcare benefits, why did the House W&M Committee vote against and amendment that was written to keep illegals from receiving government subsidized healthcare?
If you would like to discuss decorum, lets discuss the tactics of the left which include, but are not limited to: calling the President liars (multiple times), calling the CIA liars, calling conservatives Nazis, investigating the movie rentals of potential Supreme Court candidates, shamelessly attacking the families of political candidates and not limiting their scope to the spouse but attacking children...minor children, and, my personal favorite, the use of the race card. Leave it to democrats to pull out that card whenever they run out of anything worthwhile to say. For some reason, you all must think it's like an ace in the hole. In reality, it's a joker...not worth anything and, really, a joke. When the democratic playbook comes to an end, you all turn back to page one and call republicans racist. It's ok, though...republicans always know what's coming.
The reality of this president is just this: he wants power and will stop at nothing to get it. Tell me something...he equates 9/11 with a day of community service. What? I mean, what? Has he lost his mind? Service = 9/11. Did 9/11 happen because of a lack of service? I equate the day with remembering lives lost and paying respect to those who continuously fight to keep our country safe. Where was Obama on the day of 9/11? Not in NYC paying his respects to lives lost, but he was there to commemorate the fall of Lehman Brothers. I guess that Lehman Brothers' demise was more interesting to him or maybe more worth his time. To me, that is unethical.
While I could be here all day highlighting unethical practices, I'll just list a few:
ACORN (you know, the entire pimps and prostitutes issue)
Tony Rezko's land deal with Obama
His cabinet...I mean, pick one. How many of them couldn't be bothered to pay taxes?
"Studies indicate that people who tune in to FOX regularly (are you one?) are among the least well informed in the country on politics. If you check this out, and I hope that you will, I advise you get the information from an objective source, which obviously rules out FOX NEWS."
Umm...what "studies" are you referring to here? I would love to see THAT documentation.
Leslie,
ReplyDeleteNice try at obfuscation, and just general obtuse blather in order to hide one clear fact: Congressman Wilson called the President of the United States a liar on the floor of the chamber of the House of Representatives. Find me one example of a Democrat doing the same, and I'll concede the "decorum" argument. But I don't think I'll have to do that because Democrats still respect the office of the Presidency, even when they disagree with the man.
Politics is rough and tumble, I think we can all agree on that. But there are times and places for political rowdiness, and the chamber of the House and/or the floor of the Senate are not among them. If we can't agree that our elected officials should be held to a higher standard than crazed town-hallers (hollerers?),then there really is no point in discussing the matter. I mean if the typical Joe Schmoe on the street or Radio Shock jock (read: Limbaugh) can't respect the office, at least U.S. Congressmen and Senators should.
As to all the other right wing fodder you bring up, what's your point? ACORN has nothing to do with Obama or his administration. The so-called Rezko "land deal" proved to be a non-issue during the campaign, and is less than that now. If it didn't resonate enough to prevent the President from winning the election, what makes you think it's relevant now that he is in office?
"He wants power and will stop at nothing to get it?!?!" Seriously? Wow, there's a newsworthy item, a U.S. President who wants power. I bet he's the first and only one in the presidential club who ever wanted power! Please.
Really, everything you bring to the table here is pretty weak. Much of it is yesterday's news and has little if any relevance to what is going on today. I guess its to be expected from those who get their "news" on FOX and talk radio.
"Studies indicate that people who tune in to FOX regularly (are you one?) are among the least well informed in the country on politics. If you check this out, and I hope that you will, I advise you get the information from an objective source, which obviously rules out FOX NEWS."
Umm...what "studies" are you referring to here? I would love to see THAT documentation.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/fox-news-viewers-misinformed/
There ya go Les, Happy reading.
d.
Marcus,
ReplyDeleteFunny you should suggest that I try my hand at fiction, because I've always wanted to give it a go. I figure I can get lots of helpful pointers from that crew over at FOX NEWS.
d.
"Nice try at obfuscation, and just general obtuse blather in order to hide one clear fact: Congressman Wilson called the President of the United States a liar on the floor of the chamber of the House of Representatives. Find me one example of a Democrat doing the same, and I'll concede the "decorum" argument. But I don't think I'll have to do that because Democrats still respect the office of the Presidency, even when they disagree with the man."
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall a lovely photo of little "Mon Mon" playing under the desk of Bill Clinton. Oops...my mistake. I meant "John John" playing under the desk of JFK. While "Mon Mon" played under there, I'm sure it wouldn't be considered decorous by the standards of the democrats since they are so high and all.
I would, however, invite you to check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0xO-ZQSoP8
Was this a peer pressure like movement? One person started making a fuss and everyone else followed? Tell me something, why is it that you’re so up in arms about Wilson but this isn’t mentioned as being bothersome to you. I mean, all of this moaning and groaning on the floor of Congress. I mean, for SHAME.
The real issue here is that the democrats are mad that Wilson called Obama out on national TV and the teleprompter wasn't prepared with a rebuttal. You said it yourself, "politics is rough and tumble" and I agree. The democrats called Bush a liar for years. Where was the respect there? What difference does it make as to the location if the disrespect? None. The only reason this is such a hot issue is simply because Wilson stood up to a lie and a liar. If Obama can't take the criticism, he shouldn't have run for office and just assumed that the American people wouldn't get mad about a hostile takeover. Oops, pardon me...more of that conservative drivel.
I notice how you, conveniently, ignored answering my questions regarding the healthcare bill. I'm truly shocked. Again, point out where, exactly, in the healthcare bill that is being debated in Congress it states that illegal immigrants will not be covered. And, why did the democrats on the House W&M committee vote against the Heller Amendment?
Have you even read the healthcare bill?
Leslie,
ReplyDeleteYou might try reading (section 246)titled, "No Federal Payment For Undocumented Aliens. You act as though you have the whole thing right in front of you. Shouldn't be too difficult to find that section.
Mon Mon? Really? I'll make you a deal, you give that one a rest, and I'll refrain from going into the dozen or more recent sex scandals involving high profile "Family Values" Republicans like for instance, Governor Mark Sanford.
d.
Leslie,
ReplyDeleteAnd oh yeah, Bush was a liar. Or did those WMD's finally turn up?
d.
Marcus,
ReplyDeleteFirst you claimed President Obama's margin of victory was narrow - presumably to try to belittle the achievement and so reduce his legitimacy. Then I presented you with some facts that proved it wasn't that narrow especially compared with the past four presidential elections.
Having failed on that point you then said, "Obama's margin of victory was falsely inflated by the voter fraud". Do you have any evidence that huge numbers of votes were cast illegally at the last election? No, one or two links to an isolated case aren't going to satisfy me. Why? Because you need huge, really huge numbers to make that case. You need numbers so huge, it would be an international story of epic proportions. FoxNews and the other networks could run on that story for months. We've heard nothing from them.
You need to find 9.5 million illegal votes to bring Obama down to McCain's vote total. That's simply not plausible even for those dastardly evil doers at ACORN (except perhaps in the mind of Glen Beck).
D,
ReplyDeleteYou should try to not just use Factcheck.org as your only source, which is where I assume you got this from. I know, I know...section 50 is debunked by section 246. It's nothing new. If you read the section, you'll see that it only states that illegals won't get affordability credits. It says nothing about healthcare, which they already do receive if they go into an emergency room, which is then subsidized by the tax payers. The Heller Amendment specifically would have kept illegals from getting healthcare under this bill but the democrats voted against it. Why?
Go into them as I really don't care. I will make this clear...not many republicans will glorify and make light of the hypocrisy of those men who lack family values and act like stupid idiots and then cry (on national tv, I might add) like girls because they got caught. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. But, the democrats latch onto the sex scandals of republicans like leeches because they know it's ammunition. The only sex scandals that the democrats want to mention are those of the republicans. I would bet in the litany of scandals you would mention, you would leave out that little scandal of John Edwards, which is what most liberals do. Sex scandals on BOTH sides are inappropriate and lacking decorum, in my humble opinion. My point was not about sex...it's about decorum, which is the discussion at hand. Clinton lacked decorum but democrats paid no attention. Democrats lacked decorum during Bush's State of the Union address but no one cared. Liberals want to beat the decorum drum when it's convenient and the issue of Wilson is the opportune time for that and it just doesn't fly. What is decorum, really?
And, oh yeah...Obama is a liar. There is absolutely no mention in the healthcare bill in Congress that illegals won't be covered.
Leslie,
ReplyDeleteI can read, and therefore the factcheck reference suffices. Why did Dems vote against the Heller amendment? Probably because they don't tend to be cruel and indifferent to the suffering of other human beings. Just like conservatives to begrudge illegals the care they receive under the most traumatic of circumstances. What is with you people? Still, emergency room care is not the same thing as being afforded a place in the comprehensive healtcare system. To suggest otherwise, as you insist upon doing is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Let's be honest here. Both sides latch onto these scandals. The game of tit for tat over the sex scandals of politicians is a silly one and not worth the time it would take to ennumerate them all on both sides. But you brought it up, and I might add that your example was not germaine to the discussion at hand. Did Bill and Monica ever have sex on the floor of the Senate, or in the Chamber of the House of Representatives? No.
This discussion was about that and that alone. Yet, you are all over the lot with references of every by-gone grievance you can think of in the dealings between Democrats and Republicans. Tiresome in the extreme.
Some responses during a joint speech to congress are within the pale of accepted behavior, some are not. It's just that simple. As you have yet to cite an example of a Democrat calling a Republican President a liar in that setting, I don't concede the point. The speeches are in large part political theater. When one side likes what it hears, it stands and applauds. When it doesn't, it sits quietly and frowns. And this is not considered a breach of decorum. Nor was the groaning during Bush's speech.
Apparently the Republican leadership agrees with me on this since before two hours could elapse, Wilson was trotted out to apologize to the Whitehouse and the nation. If this was not for his lapse of decorum, what was it for?
If it was a matter of principle, why didn't he tell the leaders of his party where they could stick it. Or would that have been an inexcusable breach of decorum?
d.
I love this arguement about those less-than-human illegal aliens. The scourge of our country. Bringing us down by working in our fields, Bo's chicken houses, well, our houses for that matter. Yep, and guess what ...? No come on, guess? The conservative are right. They are! Even with healthcare reform, the illegals will go to the emergency room and get treatment because they wont be able to get it anywherelse. Just like they do now. They are not eligible for Medicaid currently and will not be eligible under any healthcare reform bill. Even though they may have paid into Social Security and Medicare, they did it on someonelse's number so they wont get them benefits either. The truth is no federal money will pay for any healthcare benefits for illegals. If it is, it will be under fraudulent conditions and they should and will be prosecuted. But, we will pay for it by increased costs in the ER, whether or not there is healthcare reform. Are you conservative voices suggesting that anyone attempting to get medical treatment in the states prove their residency? Is that what you believe should be in a healthcare reform bill?
ReplyDeleteThanks Durren, Clinton wasn't the only pol to get his carrot waxed. And you are also correct, that no Democrat, or any other Republican for that matter, had such a lapse of judgement as Mr. Wilson.
Let me ask you conservatives if you think it is true that Obama's big spending is his way of making reparations. Do you? I have heard that from a couple of sources. I have also heard from folks like Pat Buchanan that black folk are indebted to white folks for bringing them over to this country, even though they were brought over as slaves. Do you believe that, too? Just trying to gauge the depth of your ... knowledge.
The Heller Amendment has nothing to do with life saving care given to someone in an ER. It specifically has to do with THIS healthcare bill. If the intent is to not cover illegals with this bill, why vote against an amendment that specifically keeps that from happening?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16742&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007
What is fair about the numbers here? Why should tax payers foot the bill for people who can't seem to be bothered with the entire coming here legally process? I understand the emotional response... "They want a better life!" but that doesn't mean that WE should allow people to drain our resources simply to give others a better life. Soon, there won't be resources left and NO ONE will have a better life.
My point of bringing up Clinton's sex scandal was simply that democrats didn't care about his "decorum" while he was in the Oval Office or his behavior. The only decorum that ever matters to democrats is the decorum of the republicans. Democrats may behave as they wish with zero consequence and republicans have to mind their "ps and qs" at all times. In fact, we barely hear about John Edwards and his situation but republican elected officials are always in the news for their indiscretions. Why? There is a double standard as how one side may behave over the other and it's ridiculous.
If you believe that Wilson breached "decorum" during Obama's speech, that's your business but his actions are no different than those actions of the democrats who interrupted Bush's speech in 2005. We just overlook it simply because the manner in which it was interrupted was different. Apples and oranges, really...slightly different but members of the same family.
D, let’s be clear, here...I don't think I ever said Wilson wasn't lacking in decorum. I believe my point has been, from the beginning, which democrats always point out the indecorous behavior of republicans and use "decorum" when it's convenient. Again, the reason that Wilson's comment is such a problem is because it attacked a democrat. If Wilson's comment would have been directed at Bush, your response would be 100% different. As for his apology...it was for a lapse in decorum but notice how he didn't apologize for his comments...just his lack of civility.
Wow! What a response. The problem with arguing with the base of of the republican party is that they don't care for any truth. To try to convince them is simply a waste of time, just look to the "birthers" for proof of that.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think is sad is that the republicans are instigating the ugly in their party. As a Texan and living here I happen to know a lot of conservatives who are intelligent sensible people who have lost their party to the radical bigots that you see on TV almost daily. Not only have conservatives lost representation they have no party to turn to.
What could be a positive is the possibility of these disenfranchised conservatives splitting and creating a third party. Leaving the ones like Leslie to continue with "The Party of Hate".
Leslie: "Why should tax payers foot the bill for people who can't seem to be bothered with the entire coming here legally process? I understand the emotional response... "They want a better life!" but that doesn't mean that WE should allow people to drain our resources simply to give others a better life."
ReplyDeleteAnswer:
1. This reform is about health insurance, not health care. Undocumented aliens will get the same health CARE they do now, whether on their dime or the taxpayers'. We already foot the bill since their dime goes to food, housing, clothing, and poor relatives back home. So why not LET THEM ENROLL in a government health INSURANCE plan so their health CARE will drain less of our resources? But the Dems won't go that far because then we just might see the tree of liberty being watered with the blood of patriots.
2. Why do we have so many undocumented workers and why did their numbers multiply so fast under the previous administration and Republican Congress? Because the Bush administration and congressional Republicans are squarely in the hands of Big Business, which profits from work of undocumented workers.
Leslie: "If you read the section, you'll see that it only states that illegals won't get affordability credits. It says nothing about healthcare, which they already do receive if they go into an emergency room, which is then subsidized by the tax payers. The Heller Amendment specifically would have kept illegals from getting healthcare under this bill but the democrats voted against it. Why?"
Answer:
1. I honestly don't know what was in the Heller Amendment but I will take your word for it that it prohibited giving them health care. So maybe the reason so many voted against it was that we don't want people dying or giving birth outside of emergency rooms.
2. Or did you mean "illegals" could not get health INSURANCE under Heller? Maybe the reason Dems voted against that is the bill already ensured "they" would not get to enroll in an insurance plan.
3. All the bill says is they can't get affordability credits? Oh, I see, so if they pay full price for health insurance then the bill says they can enroll. I'm sure all those undocumented fat cats will be lining up to pay their premiums under the bill then.
Leslie,
ReplyDeleteBT's right. Why should Dems endorse Heller if those concerns were already addressed? Maybe they reached a point where they felt that accepting 161 Republican ammendments (more than twice as many as Dems proposed) was enough bipartisanship, thank you very much!
Just a reminder here, that "horrible man Obama" did "somehow" manage to win the election. The party out of power always has to accept the harsh truth that it can't get everything it wants. I guess that's why it sucks to lose.
d.
Leslie,
ReplyDeleteYou can rest assured that all Dems were outraged at Clinton for his incredibly stupid indiscretion. And Edwards? How can anyone not be offended by a man who has an affair with a younger woman while his wife is suffering from cancer? (Ahh yes, remember Newt?). There is no double standard here. We, as Dems, love to shove it in y'alls face when your holier-than-though spokes people put themselves on pedastals only to be struck down by the very sin they so loudly condemn.
By the way, take a look at teh July 7, 2009, CBO report on HR 3200. It verifies that "unauthorized aliens" will not be covered by this bill. That is why the Heller Amendment was voted down. I read the Heller Amendment. It is redundant and it's only purpose is to continue the campaign of misinformation to derail needed reform in how America provides healthcare. I find it interesting that the R's are picking on a group who have no voice in this debate. Why to the R's want to pick on the weak and disenfranchised?