The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality

12930323435119

Comments

  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    It will be hard for Obama to present a clear path because Obama doesn't have a clear path in mind. He is a middling placation-master. He is not an idealogue, which is what makes all the cries of "socialist!" so perplexing in their falsehood.



    If Obama were actually an ardent advocate of single-payer healthcare then a plea to him to stand up and lead would make sense. But he isn't, he is an ardent advocate of gradual change that doesn't make anyone angry.



    Then how does intend to get anything done? The whole point of being a leader is to, well, lead. Right? Would it be wrong for a person to ask the President to show leadership and make his agenda clear?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    The article is "Surge in Homeless Pupils Strains Schools".

    The article is a discussion of how a surge in homelessness is straining public schools.



    Where in the article do you see "a critique about lack of government resources available for the growing homeless"?



    I see some saying that Congress needs to provide more. (paragraph beginning "While the law's goals...").

    I see some saying that the laws have helped. (paragraph beginning "Educators and advocates...").



    I think the problem here is that you are so ensconced in paranoid right-wing media that you're incapable of seeing simple news articles anymore.



    Thanks for commenting on the poster. The rest isn't worth dealing with because you cite the examples yourself and dismiss. Strangeness indeed.



    Quote:

    All stemming from the same layoff circumstance.



    So you are advocating new government intrusion into families based on "evicted once, you get a warning; evicted twice, we send in government agents to take your kids"? Have fun selling that one to Powerline Blog.



    The inability to double-up or share housing is in no form related to the layoff. Thanks again for creating caricatures to prop up thinking instead of addressing the issues.



    Quote:

    What omissions? Something imagined by the reader is not "an omission". If you're worried about the lack of partisan blame-gaming in the article then perhaps you need to understand that not every piece of writing is partisan screed.



    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, no matter how delusional the mind of the partisan zealot might be.



    There is a reason why this article and others like avoid information and tend toward narratives that enhance and omit certain details. Continue to deal in caricatures rather than thoughts and don't be surprised when they fail to persuade.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    I have found some of the recent posts in this thread the ugliest posts I have read in any forum anywhere. I woll not respond to that level of dehumanization.



    You already did.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    When someone proposes a tyrannical policy of the government taking away the children of the poor because the poor aren't good enough to have children, what is the point of ignoring it? What is accomplished?



    It has already been well-established that ignoring zealots does nothing to temper their madness. One needn't become irrational, one needs merely to become strident. If liberals were capable of standing straight and proud with a spine then this country wouldn't be so fucking backwards.



    When someone continues to engage in strawmen and caricaturing of all opposing thoughts and ideas, it won't accomplish anything with anyone of any intellectual substance. Screaming that the country wouldn't be so "fucking backwards" if reality would just match the strawmen is a delusional state.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screener View Post


    Argue where it has results, not with someone here that that has a coat hanger sticking out of his window because he's going galt.



    Do what you want, I won't ignore what he posts, just not respond directly.



    Exactly because there is no direct response. There isn't a way to refute the idea that you can't cover more people with less money while giving everyone a better standard of medical care and not resort to some sort of rationing or loss of control. It is best to not address this and deal with whom John Stewart "blasted" or who Keith O named as "worst person" instead. Create diversions on the sidelines so no one thinks about how good intentions are not reality.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screener View Post


    Quoting a poster in a reply is a direct response.



    Picture the office asshole spouting some nonsense and you and others discuss the idiocy of whatever it was he said without responding to him directly.



    Even an dumbass would get the message and shut up or do something stupid and get fired.



    Picture a cartoon that works the way you want since reality doesn't happen to match. Then declare that all you have to do is believe harder in the cartoon.



    In the meantime Americans can look forward to fines.
  • stinkbugstinkbug Posts: 170member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    Then how does intend to get anything done?



    Go to his webpage and ask him.
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    NoahJ:



    Quote:

    Then how does intend to get anything done?



    That is, perhaps, the only way to get anything done. Bush got very little done when it came to domestic agendas despite all this notion of him radically reshaping laws.



    Quote:

    Would it be wrong for a person to ask the President to show leadership and make his agenda clear?



    His agenda is clear. That agenda is, "I will sign what Congress wants me to and I'm not going to lead the legislative process."



    You're assuming there's a secret agenda that isn't being discussed openly.





    trumpt:



    Quote:

    The rest isn't worth dealing with because you cite the examples yourself and dismiss.



    I cite examples of an article quoting multiple involved people, some of whom have different opinions. Your characterization of the piece as "a critique about lack of government resources available for the growing homeless" is simply inaccurate and baseless.



    Quote:

    The inability to double-up or share housing is in no form related to the layoff.



    Explain the significance of this.



    Are you adding, "Doesn't have many friends or family" to the list of reasons for the government to come take our kids away from us?



    Quote:

    There is a reason why this article and others like avoid information and tend toward narratives that enhance and omit certain details.



    I agree, certain details may be omitted because they are completely irrelevant to the story. Neither George W Bush nor Barack Obama have anything to do with the article. For the author to insert them would be pointless.



    Quote:

    When someone continues to engage in strawmen and caricaturing of all opposing thoughts and ideas, it won't accomplish anything with anyone of any intellectual substance.



    - You have said that this woman is probably party animal and drug user with no evidence.

    - You have argued that two evictions establishes a pattern of being incapable of providing for her daughter and that the government should take her kids away.



    Are either of those statements not true?
  • northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,459member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    - You have said that this woman is probably party animal and drug user with no evidence.

    - You have argued that two evictions establishes a pattern of being incapable of providing for her daughter and that the government should take her kids away.



    Are either of those statements not true?



    See, it depends. If Obama is the president then under no circumstances should the government be anywhere near your children. If McCain were the president, then it would be just dandy.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    trumpt:



    I cite examples of an article quoting multiple involved people, some of whom have different opinions. Your characterization of the piece as "a critique about lack of government resources available for the growing homeless" is simply inaccurate and baseless.



    Thanks for sharing your view. Since the people you cite support my view, your own affirmation isn't necessary.



    Quote:

    Explain the significance of this.



    Are you adding, "Doesn't have many friends or family" to the list of reasons for the government to come take our kids away from us?



    The significance is pretty clear. It meets one of the definitions of negligence and as such facilitates the next level of involvement. A reasonable person can find a friend or family member to double up with for a period of time. A reasonable person is not evicted twice in a year. A reasonable person can share housing in some manner when suffering from lack of income. They can rent two bedrooms in a four bedroom house with some other adults.



    The person who cannot do this and thus keep a roof over the head of their children needs the government to intervene on behalf of the children. This repeated failure in an array of solutions points to a deeper issue which the article doesn't address.



    As a landlord, when a tenant doesn't pay, you serve a pay or quit notice. The point is obviously that when you can't pay, you choose to quit and while that doesn't remedy everything, it shows good faith. In being evicted twice, it doesn't just show that they lost jobs or money, it said they were intentionally acting in bad faith and that is why the court remedies it by turning over possession and rendering a judgment.



    Again, by now this is an established pattern that has occurred in multiple places over roughly six months.



    Quote:

    I agree, certain details may be omitted because they are completely irrelevant to the story. Neither George W Bush nor Barack Obama have anything to do with the article. For the author to insert them would be pointless.



    Actually it would very much serve the point. The article is filed under U.S./Politics/Education. If the NY Times were a true news organization it would address and investigate the issues instead of merely creating filler to appeal to feelings and intentions.



    Quote:

    - You have said that this woman is probably party animal and drug user with no evidence.

    - You have argued that two evictions establishes a pattern of being incapable of providing for her daughter and that the government should take her kids away.



    Are either of those statements not true?



    I said much more than that. Try the quote feature. I have no desire to deal with you putting words in my mouth.
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Thanks for sharing your view. Since the people you cite support my view, your own affirmation isn't necessary.



    And what of the quote that portrays the government support as adequate, how does that support your characterization of the piece as "a critique about lack of government resources available for the growing homeless"?



    Quote:

    It meets one of the definitions of negligence and as such facilitates the next level of involvement.



    Does it? According to what?



    Quote:

    A reasonable person can find a friend or family member to double up with for a period of time.



    So if your family dies and your friends cannot help you are "unreasonable"?



    Quote:

    A reasonable person is not evicted twice in a year.



    This is absurd, purely absurd and ridiculous. The poor are now "unreasonable"?



    I think maybe "reasonable" is a very poor choice of words or perhaps your disdain for those without means is simply that deep.



    Quote:

    The person who cannot do this and thus keep a roof over the head of their children needs the government to intervene on behalf of the children.



    Has the woman been unable to keep a roof over the head of her children?



    Quote:

    Actually it would very much serve the point. The article is filed under U.S./Politics/Education. If the NY Times were a true news organization it would address and investigate the issues instead of merely creating filler to appeal to feelings and intentions.



    And you think "this happened under X-Congress" serves the purpose?

    It is funny, though, that when Bush is president you pin it on the Democratic Congress. Yet when Obama is president, you pin it on the office of President. Your partisan skewing is exactly what the NYTimes piece avoided.



    Quote:

    I said much more than that. Try the quote feature. I have no desire to deal with you putting words in my mouth.



    Are either of those statements not true?



    You are dodging, hiding, and avoiding, because your statements are so vile and irrational that they are hard to defend.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    And what of the quote that portrays the government support as adequate, how does that support your characterization of the piece as "a critique about lack of government resources available for the growing homeless"?



    How does the sky being pink and purpose support my critique? Parse the entire article for yourself it that is what you desire. I've read it and formed my conclusions. Your agreement is not needed thanks.



    Quote:

    Does it? According to what?



    It does according to the criteria I review yearly as a mandated reported due to being an educator. Perhaps you should go review it yourself.



    Quote:

    So if your family dies and your friends cannot help you are "unreasonable"?



    Enjoy playing with hypotheticals. Enjoy the strawmen. The facts are clear and I do not need to play your games.



    Quote:

    This is absurd, purely absurd and ridiculous. The poor are now "unreasonable"?



    I think maybe "reasonable" is a very poor choice of words or perhaps your disdain for those without means is simply that deep.



    Who gives a crap about what you consider to be a poor choice of words? Your insinuations and name calling grow tiring. Fake outrage over strawmen is even more ridiculous.



    Quote:

    Has the woman been unable to keep a roof over the head of her children?



    The article doesn't give us current information. It shares she is being evicted and leaves it at that. The conclusion of following through the outcome of that legal actions is a reasonable one though and tossing out fake outrage and calling it absurd, ridiculous or several other names won't change that.



    Quote:

    And you think "this happened under X-Congress" serves the purpose?

    It is funny, though, that when Bush is president you pin it on the Democratic Congress. Yet when Obama is president, you pin it on the office of President. Your partisan skewing is exactly what the NYTimes piece avoided.



    Are either of those statements not true?



    You are dodging, hiding, and avoiding, because your statements are so vile and irrational that they are hard to defend.



    What is very funny is the lack of quotes. Creating caricatures to be outraged against isn't reasoning, persuasive nor even particularly interesting. Quotations can't be found because then the strawmen wouldn't work. Keeping ranting against your synopsis of what you think I say instead of dealing with the actual words. Enjoy arguing and ranting against yourself over words your own brain has spit out. When you care to have a discussion with me, you can use my words and not what you want to claim and accuse with regard to me.
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Having fun groverat?
  • northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,459member
    I know. The guys starts with straw-men and hypotheticals and then complains about the straw-men and hypotheticals. Nice racket he has going on there.
  • northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,459member
    Hey I have a serious question? Has there EVER been a time when a Democrat has shouted down a Republican president during an address to congress and called him a "liar"?



    How would Republicans respond to such a disrespectful outrage?



    Will the Republican party reprimand the congressman for such childish and idiotic behavior?



    If they won't, then where did the party of grown ups go to? After almost a decade of Republicans schooling Democrats and liberals on proper discourse isn't a bit rich to flip-flop on your own foundational principles?



    Have the Republicans absolutely no shame left in their "discourse"?



    P.S. - Also, if you listen to the video footage of when Congressman Wilson yells "liar" and the president looks over at him you can almost hear someone also yell out "you're illegal."



    Is this what you people are proud of? Is this the way you want your party to be ran? Are these the representatives you want? Christ! I used to have at least some modicum of respect for Republicans for being strident with their principles and values. But these days....they can all go fuck themselves.
  • formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Northgate View Post


    Hey I have a serious question? Has there EVER been a time when a Democrat has shouted down a Republican president during an address to congress and called him a "liar"?



    How would Republicans respond to such a disrespectful outrage?



    Will the Republican party reprimand the congressman for such childish and idiotic behavior?



    If they won't, then where did the party of grown ups go to? After almost a decade of Republicans schooling Democrats and liberals on proper discourse isn't a bit rich to flip-flop on your own foundational principles?



    Have the Republicans absolutely no shame left in their "discourse"?



    P.S. - Also, if you listen to the video footage of when Congressman Wilson yells "liar" and the president looks over at him you can almost hear someone also yell out "you're illegal."



    Is this what you people are proud of? Is this the way you want your party to be ran? Are these the representatives you want? Christ! I used to have at least some modicum of respect for Republicans for being strident with their principles and values. But these days....they can all go fuck themselves.



    Sen. John McCain's response when questioned by Larry King on Rep. Joe Wilson's catcall of "you lie" during the President's speech:



    "Totally disrespectful... no place for it in that setting or any other, and he should apologize immediately."
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Northgate View Post


    Hey I have a serious question? Has there EVER been a time when a Democrat has shouted down a Republican president during an address to congress and called him a "liar"?



    Don't know.



    Quote:

    How would Republicans respond to such a disrespectful outrage?



    Likely the same way they did to this one.

    Wilson's shout drew immediate condemnation from both sides of the aisle, ultimately leading him to apologize.



    Quote:

    Will the Republican party reprimand the congressman for such childish and idiotic behavior?



    If they won't, then where did the party of grown ups go to? After almost a decade of Republicans schooling Democrats and liberals on proper discourse isn't a bit rich to flip-flop on your own foundational principles?



    Reaction to the outburst included criticism from members of Wilson's own party.



    "Anybody who would cat-call the president of the United States addressing this body is very, very inappropriate, and he will hear from a lot of us about that," Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., told FOX News Radio.




    Quote:

    Have the Republicans absolutely no shame left in their "discourse"?



    According to The Describer he is going where the British have already gone in their Parliament. (I found that article amusing anyhow.)



    Quote:

    P.S. - Also, if you listen to the video footage of when Congressman Wilson yells "liar" and the president looks over at him you can almost hear someone also yell out "you're illegal."



    Is this what you people are proud of? Is this the way you want your party to be ran? Are these the representatives you want? Christ! I used to have at least some modicum of respect for Republicans for being strident with their principles and values. But these days....they can all go fuck themselves.



    You know before you inserted this part I was totally fine with your comments. This is, however, totally false. I have listened and listened and nothing even comes close to leading me to believe anyone ever says "you're illegal". If anything they were shouting him down telling him he is out of line.



    Shouting "you lie" in the middle of a speech is not acceptable behavior, and he has been made to apologize to the President and fellow Senators. His own party did not back him for his behavior, and nobody that I can see are showing pride for what he did.
  • flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    His own party did not back him for his behavior, and nobody that I can see are showing pride for what he did.



    Karl Rove and Neil Cavuto to the rescue.



    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/09/...joint-address/



    Although I can't say I really give a shit.
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flounder View Post


    Karl Rove and Neil Cavuto to the rescue.



    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/09/...joint-address/



    Although I can't say I really give a shit.



    That's unfortunate.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Newsbusters notes that the number of uninsured magically changed last night in the president's speech.



    Quote:

    What's 16-17 million uninsured among 300 million Americans?



    Apparently not much to President Barack Obama, who slipped a not-so-subtle change to a statistic he had cited previously different during his Sept. 9 address to a joint session of Congress. The president pointed out there are "more than 30 million American citizens" who are having difficulty obtaining health insurance (emphasis added).





    Very interesting.....
    patterico examines the new spin and the reasoning behind it.



    Quote:

    The magical reduction serves at least two purposes. First, as Frank Luntz notes in the video, it helps the Democrats claim that ObamaCare will not cover millions of illegal immigrants. House Democrats have rejected every attempt to require that people should be required to prove they are a citizen of the United States before receiving government health care subsidies, despite the fact that verification is overwhelmingly popular with voters. But pulling illegals out of the uninsured helps them sweep that inconvenient truth under the rug a while longer — or so they hope.



    The other benefit is that adopting a more honest number of the uninsured will make ObamaCare seem cheaper and (near-)universal coverage easier to attain. Again, in reality, ObamaCare would play out far differently, making the underlying cost estimates a fantasy. But the establishment media is so desperate to spin a Obama’s speech as “comeback” that there is almost zero chance that anyone will challenge Pres. Obama’s most obvious and arbitrary rewriting of the healthcare narrative.



    30 million, it's the new we were off by two trillion on the deficit and two percent on employment but what do we really care, they are just numbers.
  • taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    ...the number of uninsured magically changed last night in the president's speech.



    Revising numbers as a result of new information is to be expected. After the "46 million" number was criticized and a new study identified more accurate information, that new number reflects reality more accurately. NOT communication that info would be disingenuous.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Northgate View Post


    Hey I have a serious question? Has there EVER been a time when a Democrat has shouted down a Republican president during an address to congress and called him a "liar"?



    How would Republicans respond to such a disrespectful outrage?



    Will the Republican party reprimand the congressman for such childish and idiotic behavior?



    If they won't, then where did the party of grown ups go to? After almost a decade of Republicans schooling Democrats and liberals on proper discourse isn't a bit rich to flip-flop on your own foundational principles?



    Have the Republicans absolutely no shame left in their "discourse"?



    P.S. - Also, if you listen to the video footage of when Congressman Wilson yells "liar" and the president looks over at him you can almost hear someone also yell out "you're illegal."



    Is this what you people are proud of? Is this the way you want your party to be ran? Are these the representatives you want? Christ! I used to have at least some modicum of respect for Republicans for being strident with their principles and values. But these days....they can all go fuck themselves.



    Yes pretty damn childish. There are certain members of the conservative mindset that will go to any lengths to make sure you only think and vote like them.



    Sad really. But they're only tarnishing their own image.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


    Revising numbers as a result of new information is to be expected. After the "46 million" number was criticized and a new study identified more accurate information, that new number reflects reality more accurately. NOT communication that info would be disingenuous.



    It would be but it also affects the credibility of the person making the case when they keep getting so many estimates wrong.



    We gave Obama $787 billion dollars to keep unemployment at 8% and now it is 9.7%. His spending plans have now already altered the estimates of deficit spending by increasing it by two trillion more dollars. He crafted the larger number to create a crisis with regard to uninsured but now has changed tactics and thus the number.



    The only thing transparent about his administration is how many tax cheats have been found working under and for him.
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Parse the entire article for yourself it that is what you desire. I've read it and formed my conclusions.



    Wonderful. I have merely demonstrated that your conclusion is faulty and based more on irrational paranoia than evidence.



    Quote:

    It does according to the criteria I review yearly as a mandated reported due to being an educator. Perhaps you should go review it yourself.



    What is "it", specifically?



    Quote:

    Enjoy playing with hypotheticals. Enjoy the strawmen. The facts are clear and I do not need to play your games.



    These are your direct statements we are dealing with.

    You said, " A reasonable person can find a friend or family member to double up with for a period of time."



    It is not a straw man to then ask if that means someone who cannot is "unreasonable". If you are so afraid of your own statements then you should not make them.



    Quote:

    Fake outrage over strawmen is even more ridiculous.



    What straw man? You said, " A reasonable person is not evicted twice in a year. "



    This is an irrational statement, because a person's ability to reason has very little to do with his ability to not be evicted. A perfectly reasonable person can be poor.



    Quote:

    The article doesn't give us current information. It shares she is being evicted and leaves it at that. The conclusion of following through the outcome of that legal actions is a reasonable one though and tossing out fake outrage and calling it absurd, ridiculous or several other names won't change that.



    You have asserted that she should have her children taken away, one of the points in your argument being her inability to keep a roof over their heads. Now you can't even actually say that she cannot keep a roof over their heads?



    How much more shit are you going to make up? Just come out and say, "Fuck poor single mothers" and get it over with.
Sign In or Register to comment.