or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 28

post #1081 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


4. There are inducements to switch away from the fee-for-service plan by which doctors have an incentive to do additional procedures because they get paid for each one, and towards alternative payment systems (e.g., salaries).

I particularly like this one. Real progress.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1082 of 2360
Nick, it's interesting that in trying to prove how much the CBO underestimates costs, you 1) don't provide a link to your information, but 2) appear to present information about the estimates of congressional committees rather than the CBO. The only time your information mentions the CBO, it's to say that they increased an estimate of cost.

If anyone wants an actual link to information about CBO's health care estimates, here's one, and it shows exactly the opposite pattern. The CBO is consistently overly cautious in its estimates of cost savings.

I understand why Republicans don't like the CBO. The CBO said that almost everything the Republicans did or tried to do when they controlled government would increase the deficit, so Republicans always ignored them. And this is the most basic fact about the American political system over the past three decades: Republicans increase deficits and Democrats decrease them. Both in projections and in reality. Watch that deficit line go up under Reagan, go down under Clinton, and then go back up under Bush. It's that history of our two parties that we need to learn from.
post #1083 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I've decided to just accept that I am and have been wrong on this thing all along for a whole host of obvious reasons, not the least of which are that things will just be great because we intend for them to be great and if things somehow, unlikely as that is, don't work out nearly as well as hoped or even have the opposite effects that are expected, I'll just sit around scratching my head wondering why, but eventually arrive at the conclusion that it's simply because they didn't go far enough and begin beating the drum for even more government intervention and control of healthcare.

While I appreciate the attempt at sarcasm, your real mistake is your black and white opposition to all things government, sans any room for reasoning. You are against government involvement in anything, simply to be against it, and that much is clear.

The fact is, sometimes government involvement in our lives and our systems is very a good thing. Without it there would be anarchy. With it, we can often greatly improve our standard of living, as well as that of those less fortunate.
post #1084 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The fact is, sometimes government involvement in our lives and our systems is very a good thing.

Sometimes? Maybe. A little? Sure. But that's not what we have anymore. And this is the problem now isn't it. Anytime someone does criticize or complain about the government or suggest maybe it really ought not be doing this or that, then someone like you assumes that you're calling for outright anarchy. Like anything less than the amount we have right now would lead to utter chaos. There seems to be a large or at least vocal contingent of people to whom the answer to the question "How much government?" is always "More!"

What's more, this group has an astonishing habit of ignoring the many failures of government and unquestioningly accepting the glowingly optimistic promises of even more government.

Conversely, they have both a fairly pessimistic view of freedom as well as a terribly narrow view of what freedom is and isn't and when it is being abridged and when it isn't.

Finally, they tend to operate under the rather annoying delusion that just because they mean well, their policies will work out well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Without it there would be anarchy. With it, we can often greatly improve our standard of living, as well as that of those less fortunate.

I believe these are assumptions which are not necessarily warranted or supportable. But I guess we'll just have to politely disagree on that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1085 of 2360
Just saw this... don't think it's been posted...

Republicans and Conservatives are trashing an 11-year old boy whose mom died at age 27.

Some of the comments are incredible.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/1...re-debate.html

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #1086 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Some of the comments are incredible.

Which ones?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1087 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It's looking like this disaster is actually going to happen. Obama and Pelosi have pulled out all the stops to ram this piece of crap through. What a sad day it will be.

The amnesty bill looked like it was going to pass, too. Then the American people put a full court press on their representatives and they backed down.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1088 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The amnesty bill looked like it was going to pass, too. Then the American people put a full court press on their representatives and they backed down.

I hope you're right.

There are still other things that will happen if this thing passes. There are state attorneys general warming up to sue if this thing passes. There are states passing "leave us out" laws.

This thing won't be over this weekend. Either way it's probably the end of the Obama presidency.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1089 of 2360
Obama gives a hard slap in the face to all the TeaBagging Republican Noise in his opening line in his HCR speech today

Obama- "It's good to be back with some REAL PATRIOTS!" - http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/20...gislation.aspx
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1090 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Obama gives a hard slap in the face to all the TeaBagging Republican Noise in his opening line in his HCR speech today

Obama- "It's good to be back with some REAL PATRIOTS!" - http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/20...gislation.aspx

Yeah, that's the way to play the game...

Oh, wait, I thought he was for change?
post #1091 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Nick, it's interesting that in trying to prove how much the CBO underestimates costs, you 1) don't provide a link to your information, but 2) appear to present information about the estimates of congressional committees rather than the CBO. The only time your information mentions the CBO, it's to say that they increased an estimate of cost.

Since CBO wasn't established until 1974, it isn't really possible to have their estimates for 1965. The point remains that the projected cost or programs versus actual is radically off.

Quote:
If anyone wants an actual link to information about CBO's health care estimates, here's one, and it shows exactly the opposite pattern. The CBO is consistently overly cautious in its estimates of cost savings.

Yes because we can understand why a NY Times opinion piece would be the coup de grâce in this matter. None of those numbers deal with the entire picture. It is clearly cherry-picking data and using the exception rather than the rule. Really when we are talking about Medicare spending the examples provided here are minutia, rounding errors compared to the overall picture. It notes for example an instance where the estimated saving due to fraud prevention would be $100 million and instead it was higher. It is also curious to see how the changes it notes only appear to be presented a couple years going forward.

Since the overall entitlement cost kept going up and outpacing inflation, this to me simply means they found new ways around the rules. It would be like declaring a win on campaign finance because category of donations was limited while the amount being donated clearly is going up drastically.

Quote:
I understand why Republicans don't like the CBO. The CBO said that almost everything the Republicans did or tried to do when they controlled government would increase the deficit, so Republicans always ignored them. And this is the most basic fact about the American political system over the past three decades: Republicans increase deficits and Democrats decrease them. Both in projections and in reality. Watch that deficit line go up under Reagan, go down under Clinton, and then go back up under Bush. It's that history of our two parties that we need to learn from.

Yes and also note which party controlled Congress which is the crux of the matter since they are the only ones who can spend a dime.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1092 of 2360
I think this is a simple case of projection - when Republicans have been in control, they never even tried to cut the deficit. They came up with big-spending health-care plans and didn't even try to pretend like they were covering the costs. Same with the Iraq war. Same with Bush's tax cuts. All projected by CBO to bust the budget, and all actually busted the budget. So surplus becomes deficit under R rule.

Now that Democrats are once again back in power and once again trying to reduce the deficit by going with CBO's cautious estimates, Republicans scream that it's all a lie and that whenever Congress does anything, they cynically cook the books and bust the budget, because that's what they did.
post #1093 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes and also note which party controlled Congress which is the crux of the matter since they are the only ones who can spend a dime.

Republican presidents simply sign everything into law without reading what they sign?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #1094 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I think this is a simple case of projection - when Republicans have been in control, they never even tried to cut the deficit. They came up with big-spending health-care plans and didn't even try to pretend like they were covering the costs. Same with the Iraq war. Same with Bush's tax cuts. All projected by CBO to bust the budget, and all actually busted the budget. So surplus becomes deficit under R rule.

I think this is a simple case of wishful thinking. Republicans in the 90's controlled both the House and Senate and move us the closest we have been to a balanced budget and by the definitions of some, it was fully balanced and in surplus. You are correct that for the eight years Bush was president this was much less so but must remember that Republicans lost control of the Senate for the first two years of his presidency and had no control of of either part of Congress for the last two years of his presidency.

Any analysis of the eight Bush years will show spending higher whenever Democrats had control or split control.

Also you are right that they busted the budget during those eight years. However Obama will have racked up the same amount of debt in 18 months that Bush did in 8 years and will have trillion+ dollar deficits a year still going forward the remainder of his term.

Quote:
Now that Democrats are once again back in power and once again trying to reduce the deficit by going with CBO's cautious estimates, Republicans scream that it's all a lie and that whenever Congress does anything, they cynically cook the books and bust the budget, because that's what they did.

The second Democrats took power in Congress, the yearly deficit went from an average of $250 billion to $400 billion. The second Obama took power it easily went to over a trillion a year of new debt being generated.

Republicans absolutely deserve their share of the blame for becoming less conservative in 2000 and not holding the line on spending. However this reasoning that it costs 300% more than the 100% problem to fix it just doesn't add up.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1095 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Republican presidents simply sign everything into law without reading what they sign?

No they veto some items and then on others add signing statements which the Democrats also complained about.... until it was Obama doing it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #1096 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No they veto some items and then on others add signing statements which the Democrats also complained about.... until it was Obama doing it.

The Republicans are not complaining?

Did Republicans loose several election in a row?

Why?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #1097 of 2360
Nick: We don't have to guess about who is responsible. We don't have to guess about the parties' philosophies. We can look at two things, 1) what the parties do when they have total control, and 2) what the parties propose and get passed even when they don't have total control.

1980s: Republicans didn't have complete control, but Reagan proposed huge tax cuts and huge (military) spending increases. Reagan passed his policies with Republicans plus conservative Democrats.

1990s: Democrats had total control at the beginning, and passed a massive deficit-reduction plan. Republicans unanimously opposed it.

Mid-1990s: After Rs took over congress, we got government shutdowns because Congress and the prez didn't agree on anything. Rs now claim that this pressure prevented Ds from enacting deficit-increasing plans. Maybe that's a truth that Rs will never get their due credit for because it's invisible - a prevention of something that could have but didn't happen. But the fact that Ds had passed a deficit-cutting plan when they had total control, and Rs had proposed and passed plans that increased the deficit both in the 1980s and again in the 2000s makes that hard to believe.

2000s: Republicans had complete control on-again/off-again, and proposed tax cuts projected to increase the deficit, medicare expansion projected to increase the deficit, and unpaid-for wars projected to increase the deficit. Either because they had complete control or with the help of conservative Ds, these R policies got passed.

2010s: Ds have total control again, and are again trying to pass a deficit-reduction plan. Rs are again unanimously opposed.

In the past 30 years, Republicans have always proposed, and sometimes gotten passed with the help of conservative Ds, plans that increase the deficit. Ds, when they've had control, have always proposed, and usually gotten passed, plans to decrease the deficit.

It wasn't always like this, it doesn't have to always be like this in the future, but it is certainly true today and has been in my lifetime.
post #1098 of 2360
Look at the troglodytes that showed up in D.C. today. Despicable and disgusting and they think they're the indispensable "real Americans". Sheesh! -

"A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) relayed word to reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-M.D.) had been spit on by a protestor (the protestor was reportedly arrested by Capitol Hill police). Rep. John Lewis (D-G.A.) a hero of the civil rights movement was called a "n----r." And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president's speech, shrugged off the incident.

But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.

"It was absolutely shocking to me," Clyburn said, in response to a question from the Huffington Post. "Last Monday, this past Monday, I stayed home to meet on the campus of Claflin University where fifty years ago as of last Monday... I led the first demonstrations in South Carolina, the sit ins... And quite frankly I heard some things today I have not heard since that day. I heard people saying things that I have not heard since March 15, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_507116.html
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1099 of 2360
Clearly, this means everybody opposed to ObamaCare is a racist.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1100 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Clearly, this means everybody opposed to ObamaCare is a racist.

I wouldn't want to hear what comes out of your mouth tomorrow when HCR passes.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #1101 of 2360
Same thing I always say when legislation passes, whether I was for or against.

In a nutshell...Thy will be done.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1102 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Same thing I always say when legislation passes, whether I was for or against.

In a nutshell...Thy will be done.

Except that you're not even an American and will neither vote nor be affected by American Health Care legislation (unless you're in the business of selling gray market medicine to Americans).

I'd love to see you starting a "tea party" movement there in Canada to repeal Canadian health care. Do you think the movement will take off?
post #1103 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Except that you're not even an American and will neither vote nor be affected by American Health Care legislation (unless you're in the business of selling gray market medicine to Americans).

Actually, what happens in the U.S. will absolutely have an impact on Canada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'd love to see you starting a "tea party" movement there in Canada to repeal Canadian health care. Do you think the movement will take off?

As I've said many times on this board, I don't have a problem with single-payer health care provided that common sense market mechanisms are built-in. The problem is that the system inevitably moves toward total government payment (and thus control) and bureaucrats start banning and legislating all kinds of things that mess up any semblance of a health-care market.

To directly answer your question, the movement is already taking off. Both the recent Liberal and Conservative governments have begun allowing creeping privatization into the system to compensate for a sector which, like its union-controlled educational and automotive counterparts, has become too big to fail - and then started failing anyway. Private clinics are the biggest thing in both Alberta and Quebec nowadays. (And those two provinces more than any others, drive the national agenda.)

Outright bans on private care, lack of innovation and customer care, and being a wasteland of greed and inefficiency have all combined to raise Canadian health care costs to astronomical levels. The movement to reform is inevitable.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1104 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Actually, what happens in the U.S. will absolutely have an impact on Canada.



As I've said many times on this board, I don't have a problem with single-payer health care provided that common sense market mechanisms are built-in. The problem is that the system inevitably moves toward total government payment (and thus control) and bureaucrats start banning and legislating all kinds of things that mess up any semblance of a health-care market.

To directly answer your question, the movement is already taking off. Both the recent Liberal and Conservative governments have begun allowing creeping privatization into the system to compensate for a sector which, like its union-controlled educational and automotive counterparts, has become too big to fail - and then started failing anyway. Private clinics are the biggest thing in both Alberta and Quebec nowadays. (And those two provinces more than any others, drive the national agenda.)

Outright bans on private care, lack of innovation and customer care, and being a wasteland of greed and inefficiency have all combined to raise Canadian health care costs to astronomical levels. The movement to reform is inevitable.

The reason Canada restricted private practice is evidently because there are too few doctors, making it difficult to have a fully available public system and still allow doctors to charge for private practice should they choose to do so.

This is not applicable to the US. There is no reason private practice in the US will be restricted. Some doctors will gladly receive payment from the government, and some will concentrate on private practice. There has never been any suggestion in the US health care debate to limit the "private option".
post #1105 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.

"It was absolutely shocking to me," Clyburn said, in response to a question from the Huffington Post. "Last Monday, this past Monday, I stayed home to meet on the campus of Claflin University where fifty years ago as of last Monday... I led the first demonstrations in South Carolina, the sit ins... And quite frankly I heard some things today I have not heard since that day. I heard people saying things that I have not heard since March 15, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_507116.html

It's interesting the subtle thing he tried to do there. Did you catch it?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1106 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The reason Canada restricted private practice is evidently because there are too few doctors, making it difficult to have a fully available public system and still allow doctors to charge for private practice should they choose to do so.

Yes, that's interesting how that happened. We'll have to watch what happens in the U.S.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This is not applicable to the US. There is no reason private practice in the US will be restricted.

Your faith is admirable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Some doctors will gladly receive payment from the government

What makes you so certain?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1107 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It's interesting the subtle thing he tried to do there. Did you catch it?

What, that responding with dignity to disgusting racism from Tea Party protesters?

Explain. He was subjected to right wing racism and compared it to the 1960s.

Your objection is..?
post #1108 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

What, that responding with dignity to disgusting racism from Tea Party protesters?

Explain. He was subjected to right wing racism and compared it to the 1960s.

Your objection is..?

So you didn't see it? Is that what you're saying?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1109 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Your faith is admirable.

Can you think of any democratic nation that does restrict private medicine?

While you think of one, have a nice cup of camomille tea, a good stretch and then chill the fuck out.

This isnt the communist take over you think it is.
post #1110 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Can you think of any democratic nation that does restrict private medicine?

While you think of one, have a nice cup of camomille tea, a good stretch and then chill the fuck out.

This isnt the communist take over you think it is.

Yes, dear.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1111 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So you didn't see it? Is that what you're saying?

No. What are you talking about.
post #1112 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No. What are you talking about.

Well, he was very clearly but subtly trying to equate the health care takeover fight with the civil right fight. Brilliant move actually.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1113 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well, he was very clearly but subtly trying to equate the health care takeover fight with the civil right fight. Brilliant move actually.

Educate yourself, lest you look either really, really ignorant, or really, really dishonest.

Google: healthcare takeover myth

Paul Krugman

Urban Institute

Associated Press

AARP

Salon.com

WebMD

Now do us all a favor and stop spreading lies. kthanks
post #1114 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well, he was very clearly but subtly trying to equate the health care takeover fight with the civil right fight. Brilliant move actually.

Funny. I saw someone objecting to being called a 'nigger' by some right wing protesters.

They called him a 'nigger', your Tea Party friends. And he objected. And all you can do is try and make political mileage out of the way he phrased his objection.

Your priorities are horrible.
post #1115 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes, dear.

An excellent, dignified and reasoned response that in no way says I do not have an answer to your question.

So if you cant think of any democratic nation where private health care is restricted, why do you think its going to happen in the United States?

Before you answer, remember that even after this bill you will not have a national health service, like they do in Britain and Canada.
post #1116 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

They called him a 'nigger', your Tea Party friends.

What make you think they are my friends? Or that anyone who calls anyone names or slurs would be my friend?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

And all you can do is try and make political mileage out of the way he phrased his objection.

Your priorities are horrible.

And your naïveté is amazing. It isn't like this was the first time during this debacle that such a comparison has been made. I believe it was Nancy Pelosi who did it a while back and there have been other subtle and not-so-subtle references suggesting this fight just like the civil rights fight.

Barack Obama has done it at least twice, once this week:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...mments/page/2/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27613.html

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1117 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

An excellent, dignified and reasoned response that in no way says I do not have an answer to your question.

Yes, dear.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1118 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes, dear.

So. You cannot name any democratic nation where private health care is restricted.

So, please explain why you think it will happen in the United States.

Before you answer, remember that even after this bill you will not have a national health service, like they do in Britain and Canada.
post #1119 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And your naïveté is amazing. It isn't like this was the first time during this debacle that such a comparison has been made. I believe it was Nancy Pelosi who did it a while back and there have been other subtle and not-so-subtle references suggesting this fight just like the civil rights fight.

Barack Obama has done it at least twice, once this week:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...mments/page/2/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27613.html

The congressman who was called a 'nigger' by the Tea Party protesters marched for civil rights.

So when he was called a 'nigger' by the Tea Party protesters he's entitled to make the comparison.

Being called a 'nigger' by right wing protesters yesterday probably reminds him of the other time he was called a 'nigger' by right wing protesters, you see.

So they call him a 'nigger'. He discusses it with dignity. And you want to make political mileage out of the way he discusses it.

I think if you'd ever been called a 'nigger', or if you were capable, perhaps, of thinking yourself in his shoes, you just let this one go. Perhaps they shouldn't have called him a 'nigger'. What do you think? You seem to be more preoccupied with what he said after they shouted 'NIGGER!' at him then the fact he was called a 'nigger' by Tea Party protesters in the first place.

When he was called a 'nigger' by right wing protesters from the Tea Party, it wasn't very nice. It's a bit like a re-run of the 1960s for him, being called a 'NIGGER' by right wing protesters.
post #1120 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The congressman who was called a 'nigger' by the Tea Party protesters marched for civil rights.

So when he was called a 'nigger' by the Tea Party protesters he's entitled to make the comparison.

Being called a 'nigger' by right wing protesters yesterday probably reminds him of the other time he was called a 'nigger' by right wing protesters, you see.

So they call him a 'nigger'. He discusses it with dignity. And you want to make political mileage out of the way he discusses it.

I think if you'd ever been called a 'nigger', or if you were capable, perhaps, of thinking yourself in his shoes, you just let this one go. Perhaps they shouldn't have called him a 'nigger'. What do you think? You seem to be more preoccupied with what he said after they shouted 'NIGGER!' at him then the fact he was called a 'nigger' by Tea Party protesters in the first place.

When he was called a 'nigger' by right wing protesters from the Tea Party, it wasn't very nice. It's a bit like a re-run of the 1960s for him, being called a 'NIGGER' by right wing protesters.

The person or persons shouting the slurs were obviously out of line. However one line in the story made me feel that this guy was simply making political hay for the bill and trying to draw a line to his civil rights days.

Never since that time has he heard any of those words called out. Since I live in the US and have been out on the streets I know for a fact that this is bull. Unless he has lived a VERY insulated life since then.

So to recap. Bad form for the slurs being called out. BS for the political hay being made from it by the receiver. Suppose that make me a racist as well...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality