http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Ar ... rn-Things/

Found that on the official WH blog.

Makes you wonder how they plan to use the information. How does this look when you start asking people to report people spreading anti-war "disinformation". Are they going to use this information to discredit the people making them? More importantly, are they going to use government agencies to find out *anything* about people making the claims.

I really don't like this. I understand the WH wanting to embrace the internet, and social networking. It's smart. But they need to be really careful and remind their underlings that they're big brother now, and some things need to be off-limits.

Geez, Chicken Little, relax. The sky is not falling. It's highly unlikely that they're going to come after individuals writing and/or forwarding chain emails. More likely they're going to address them the same way they did the chain emails about Obama during the election (did you forget that shit already?).

_________________

Someone posted some 'alarmist' links on an industry board I frequent. I went back to get the links, but couldn't find the thread (the layout there isn't that great, I tend to look at stuff by 'what's new' and don't see which of the gazillion subfolders it gets stuffed into).

Anyway it was very disturbing, but also moronic. It twisted the truth and told some outrageous lies. The person who posted the link claimed it was all from Ron Paul...though I didn't see any reference to him in the one link I went to.

The link I went to was regarding 'MANDATORY SWINE FLU VACCINATION' and was aimed at parents paranoid of vaccinations anyway, that children would be mandatorily vaccinated, regardless of religious exemption or belief (that was heavily emphasized among other things...and that failure to comply would result in FELONY CHARGES...and that the CDC had said there would be 'some human wastage' or some such nonsense that implied 'acceptable losses' in the crudest of terms...

It was pretty bad shit. I pointed out the most obvious bullshit and basically told the ninny who was sounding the alarm that there's simply NOT going to be enough vaccine for everyone who WANTS it come fall...there will be no 'mandatory vaccinations'. There are no current mandatory vaccinations, not even of measles, not even during an outbreak (which has happened due to stupid parents refusing the vaccinate their children). The criminalization elements are laughable. I didn't address it there but I assume they cribbed it from mandatory quarantine enforcement. If you think about it, should a quarantine become mandatory, there HAS to be legal recourse to keep you locked down in quarantine. And consequences for those who circumvent it. But those are extreme scenarios for very specific things.

Plus without mandatory vaccination, we'd still have small pox, so I don't necessarily think it's a horrible thing.

_________________

Complain too much and you may be called out for the facts! Oh noes!

Sorry... but thinking Obahma is going to round people up and "silence" them is going a bit far IMO. I think they should make the whole internet accountable. Would really stop people from being internet douchbags if their RL identity was easily available to everyone.

"Stop attacking our tenuous facts with other tenuous facts!"

This is the same tactic they used during the campaign. There were a lot of nasty emails going around spreading information that was completely (or mostly) false. The goal is to learn what's being said so they can mount an effective defense.

On its face, it's really no big deal. Interesting though, that once you're in power, the same tactics draw criticism.

Well, it's also easy to see how tin foil hat people might go batshit over additional fears.

If the White House wants to combat bullshit, they could accomplish the same goals by simply asking people to submit the shit going around so they could do an FAQ or Snopes-esque clarification.

If their goals are also to investigate and/or expose political foes fueling this bullshit...then it's potentially abuse of power if any office resources are used.

I have no issues with such investigations, but if no laws are being violated by people outputting this propaganda (though frankly when they're scaring the shit out of people with deliberate misinformation, and putting people at health risk...perhaps there should be a requirement that they back up their claims :p) then they cannot use any public resources to go after it, other than to debunk the claims and clarify for the public actual policy and laws.

IMHO there's a fine line between someone legally expressing the OPINION that vaccinations cause autism (despite evidence), which is their freedom of speech...and someone making specific claims that the government KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY causes autism among ...say a specific group of people to keep them oppressed lets say. That's a claim of fact and specific information which might be actionable, and certainly might also push people into making dangerously misinformed decisions. =\

The shit I've seen isn't normal tin foil hat stuff and I wish I had saved the link. It was clearly written to incite and instill fear, and potential panic in people. It essentially said the govt. would be vaccinating children with a dangerous flu vaccine *regardless* of any parent's objections, and failure to comply would result in felony criminal charges...and implied that parents should be prepared to pull their children out of public schools where they could be 'rounded up', and be prepared to defend in their homes...or flee.

It also misquoted out of a study (or so I surmise as I recognize the language used) where ANY study that has fatalites compares them to the overall good. A medication which has a .03% death rate, may have an 'acceptable death rate' given the good the medication does for the majority, and the necessity of such medication.

And people SHOULD have informed (or ...as well as they can be informed) consent over the flu vaccine, and weigh the options for themselves. There are *always* risks. But anyone who loses a kid to flu will lament they didn't vaccinate. And anyone who loses someone to a vaccine, will lament the vaccination. It's understandable. Or rather I should say most. I read a terrible rant of a parent who had a child maimed by the polio vaccine. It was most moving. Then I thought about my friend's mom who was a polio victim and stories she told about the polio epidemic when she was a child. I've never seen such horrors...thanks to vaccinations. I'm sorry for his kid, but yes when one does the 'cold hard math' better a handful of problems, than iron lung wards. Though the argument that some make is that since such diseases are practically gone, why vaccinate! No one has them!

Forgetting that it's "practically" not "totally", and the reason we don't have outbreaks is...vaccination. And because of anti=vaccine people we HAVE had outbreaks of preventable disease, they're small outbreaks...but dangerous.

Anyway a bit OT. But I'm all for free speech, even the speech I don't like...but when it's used specifically to alienate someone's rights, there I have a problem. Like in poor neighborhoods being told that warrant checks will be done at polling places to keep out minority voting...isn't that criminal? Or is it not criminal if someone's a crackpot and believes it? When and where is it akin to 'fire' in the crowded theater? I'm not exactly sure, and I'm probably a little biased. I just hate seeing people make bad choices for emotional reasons, or on misinformation. Whether the choice is what *I* think is right or wrong, I'd like to see it made with the best information possible, and reality based.

_________________

Isn't part of the problem, though, that the arbiter of what is good information and what is misinformation is a partisan political machine, which itself hasn't been all that great with the truth?

lol

_________________

Doesn't anyone remember history? Nixon? The Privacy Act of 1974?

I think this is hardly a round-up of dissenters, but it shocks me how quick people are to dismiss a call to identify spreaders of disinformation.

A more effective tactic would be to create a snopes-like site where people can submit links/claims where the White House can respond. Maybe that is exactly what they intend to do, but there is certainly a "black helicopter" feel to this link as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.alternet.org/politics/141819 ... sm/?page=1

I thought this was an interesting read.



rest of it at the link.

_________________

Rugen, you owe me 5 minutes of my life back.

That is the most retarded shit I've ever read... I thought it might be down the middle and suggest that Obama holding onto many of Bush's policies might be an issue.

Instead - it basically says "anyone who opposes us is a fascist."

That's laughable horseshit.

That's exactly what I thought.

NYT:Hope and same.

Funny, I read it and didn't get that at all. What I saw was a remarkably insightful detail of what's gone wrong with the "GOP" and why america/ns should deal with it now, rather than let it continue to roll forward.

To each their own.

_________________

God, I don't want to get into this... but here goes...

Do you serioulsy not see that as a ridiculous position? The GOP is crumbling right now because once they got some power, they got greedy (like most parties). They are floundering right now because you basically have 2 camps: The McCain Camp (moderates) and the Palin Camp (social conservatives)

Fascist is such a stupid term. By definition, almost any brand of unity driven politics can be labeled as fascist. I could call the enviornmentalists a fascist sect.

This is really not any different than what we saw in 2000 and 2002 when the Democrats got the boot. It is more extreme because the defeat for the Repubs was more extreme. But, you saw the same thing when the Dems lost power - you saw the super-liberal fighting against the moderates. They were going nuts.

Calling conservatives fascists is on par with calling liberals communists. It's stupid and unproductive.

Here is the last paragraph from that article:For a brief moment, I thought you were semi-rational - but how can anyone read that tripe as anything other than insane? I hate Sean Hannity, and that is more extreme than ANYTHING I've ever heard him say. This article is more fascist than the people it is accusing of being fascist.

I'm boggled that anyone who is reasonably intelligent could buy that.

And this is where we differ. I didn't read a single thing in that article that called anyone currently a fascist. Just that we are in a situation where the politics of our society are in conditions that have LED to fascism historically, and why that should concern us and we should look at how we proceed forward.

Or do you not find things like the "birthers" and their support in congress disturbing as a further step in a trend?

_________________

The last lines I quote basically says "if we can't get our agenda through, we're doomed to fascism." Ok, they didn't say the GOP are fascists, but basically said they are putting us on a fascist agenda... um, that's the same thing.

As for the birthers - I don't know much except it's basically it's your typical "tear down the prez" stuff. I would liken this to the people who said Bush planned 9/11.

To me, this article is akin to a GOP thinktank putting out an article proving how we are doomed to communism if we don't stop the Dems.

Don't get me wrong, I have a big problem with anyone who uses religion as the linchpin of their platform. But, to claim that putting a stop to healthcare reform is driving us toward GOP driven fascism is silly.

If healthcare reform fails, there is absolutely NOBODY to blame except the Democrats. They have the power to push it through. The problem is, they can't get honest consensus on their side of the aisle. And that is what makes the article even more pathetic - the Dems have an unstoppable majority, and they're still unable to make their agenda happen.

Don't feel bad. I still think back to 2000 when Bush won, and I was injected with hope and excitement, only to be disappointed. So, I imagine this is what a lot of liberals are going through right now. They were thinking this is their chance to see things change, and they have more power than Bush ever did - yet they still fail.

Maybe we're too far apart to even bother on this, but to cast stones about fascism and the like seems like a sad cop-out.

I still think you're reading more into that article then is actually there.

I think that you see the article as painting a wide stripe across anyone who opposes Obama as "fascist". I don't. I see that article saying "historically, these things have had to happen to bring about fascism" and those things are now all present. Will we go that route? I don't know. If we do, I hardly (solely) blame the republicans...but I do see the new GOP being ruled by factions such as the "birthers" and bringing rise to "politicians" (and I do use that word losely) as Palin as really dangerous signs about our government in general.

The people courting that mentality are as much to blame as the people that fail to stop it.

For example...Obama could end the whole birther thing RIGHT NOW. Just produce the goddamn birth certificate. This dance of "not wanting to validate their claims" is pissing me off. Just end the fucking side show circus already. In the meantime, they have republican senators claiming "oh, well, I am not an expert on these matters so I can't really say if the president is a citizen". WHAT? Seriously? You're that desperate to court that far out there right nutjob section that you're not willing to say the president is a citizen of the country??

I just think we're in a sadly scary place. From the outright abuses of power by the executive branch, to a political party that has lost any sight of what "center" means that they are not just courting the loons of their fringe but parroting them in the senate and trying to elect them to power... I don't think it means good things overall. Unless we start taking steps to counter it rather than let the apathy and "status quo" go.

_________________

"go on" should have been the last two words. :p

_________________

Obama could not end the birther movement even if he went door to door personally handing them his birth certificate for their inspection. It's already been posted online and examined by forgery experts. Not to mention that his birth was published in the friggin' newspapers...if it's a conspiracy, they sure planned it exceedingly far in advance.

Ultimately, I feel confident saying that only a small minority of birthers honestly believe that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen born in Hawaii. I think that the vast majority of people are simply looking for an easy way to label him as different without being so obvious as to say "but he's black!"

This isn't going away until Obama is no longer President, or stupid finds another hobby.

This paragraph and many of the paragraphs in the article you posted (which started out fairly interestingly and then dove off the deep end) can easily be applied to the Democrats today. BOTH parties are praticing politics from their respective radical wings. NEITHER party has any room for moderates any more. I was hoping that after the election hype died down a clear choice of party would emerge for me but if anything both parties have made me more disgusted with them than during the election.

The article and your paragraph are correct, we are in a sadly scary place in this country. Sadder and scarier to me is that there doesn't seem to be anyone even attempting to be an adult in the political theatre of today.

One of the most prominent bloggers on the planet (certainly one of the most highly trafficked) accused Palin during the campaign that Trig Palin was not her son, but in fact her daughter's. This despite the fact that it would be medically impossible for Bristol Palin to have her new baby born 8 months after having had Trig Palin.

Right now, dems are accusing people protesting at town halls of being racists and un-American. This despite the fact that almost the exact same thing happened when Bush tried to revamp Social Security. People are angrier now, definitely. Maybe because there's a recession.

There's stupid shit on every side, but I disagree we're even remotely close to fascism.

This can be summed up for me in one thing.

Show me the democratic senators encouraging and fostering these beliefs. Show me the sound bytes on national TV where they say, "Well, you know, I'm not an expert on pregnancy, so I couldn't really say if Trig is her son or not". Yes, both sides have lunatics. Only one side in this game actually spouts their beliefs in the senate, from where I'm sitting. I'll be more than happy to believe I'm wrong if you can show me. I just don't see it myself.

Did you see Palin's commentary on the health care debate? And this is a republican "darling"? And who do we owe for bringing her to the spotlight she now enjoys? That was "Moderate McCain" at work. Thank you very much.

So to me...while the left keeps their fringe uncomfortably at the back of the party, the awkward guest we all know is there, the right is sitting them at the head of the table and loudly introducing them to everyone as people of import.

_________________

No, the right is leaving the Republican party so we don't have to deal with the McCains and Palins.

I've learned about myself that I appear to be an opposition kind of guy, that I'm not really for either party. What I will say is that the fringe of the GOP is scarier than the fringe of the democrats. But that the Dem fringe has much more influence right now than the GOP fringe, and that the things I see out of Pelosi and the White House are more damaging as a whole than any ludicrous tripe that Palin says on any given day.

We've gone from a concept that dissent is good, and debate is good, and grassroots people power is good, to town hall protesters being "un-American", something Pelosi and Hoyer actually WROTE in an op/ed this week.

What concerns me more is the seemingly permanent entrenchment of demonizing the opposition as the new politics of choice. You know the Democrats have lost a huge part of the health care debate when they have to resort to name calling instead of facts, have to ask people to report others, have to ask the SEIU to act as heavies at town hall events.

In the 2004 Dem convention, Obama went on and on about there being no red or blue America, but a united states of America. To me that was obvious theatre, but I figured it would take a little more time for them to be up front about it.

Both parties bow to their respective fringes. Obama absolutely *wasted* his honeymoon on a stimulus bill that the most extreme wing of his party created, and had to spend so much political capital that it really endangers a bill that we need in the form of health care.

Well, in some ways, it's pretty un-american to intentionally send people in to disrupt political meetings/discourse and effectively rob those people of their right to speak on these matters because you're just coming in and acting like a 14 year old douchebag. =/

Speaking up and protesting is one thing, but this is just childish shit that's going on right now. It's not protesting, its temper-tantruming.

Just for the record, demonizing the opposition has been going on since... um... forever.

Because of the internet more people are informed. We are actually much nicer today than years before. McCarthyism anyone? Go even earlier and stuff gets scarier.

Maybe that's what bugs me so much about the article Rugen posted. To declare us on precipice of fascism is so ridiculous it hurts. You are ALWAYS going to have nationalists. Always, always, always. It is a helluva lot more mild now than in years past.

You know how it is. It's always worse now than before, etc etc.

It's usually the opposite of true, but it's just how people think.

Well, at least we can agree on that.

_________________

http://www.breitbart.tv/father-of-handi ... p-dingell/

Father of Handicapped Son Received Threats After Confrontation With Rep. Dingell

Right back atcha.

"drowning out opposing voices by shouting them down is un-american" is a much different quote than "protesting is un-american"

_________________

What we really need is the metric system.

This, and other posts similar to it in this thread are interesting to me. From my perspective, the Democrats aren't practicing politics from their "radical wings" at all, and honestly I wish they were.

For example, Obama has been quietly keeping many of the Bush era policies that I have always disliked. This was the right wing policies of the last 8 years-- that's no where near the left wing fringe.

Or, look at the health care bill-- it's not even close to universal, single payer, government run health care that I would think the "radical fringe" would want... that's what I would think the "far left" fringe would be-- that's where I certainly am, for example, and I know most of you think I'm a lefty nutjob.

How is the left playing to their radicals? It seems completely contrary to the right, who are holding up Palin as the latest savior, who apologize to dirtbags like Rush when they offend him, who still seem to cling to the insane claim that the only reason they are losing elections is they aren't far enough to the right.

I guess I need more illumination on your perspective on this, especially as it pertains to the left.

Palin's at it again!

After whining about the media dragging her kids into the spotlight, she uses her little downie baby as a tool to decry some imaginary "death panels" that Obama is apparently creating to kill seniors and handicapped people.

Ooookay.

There is a point where it's no longer cost effective to treat a person. It's kinda silly to think a government program won't look to the two most expensive care groups when they're developing a system for rationed care.

To be fair though, private insurance and the system we have now also do this. So does Medicare.

Yeah, it's amazing what a fucking hypocrite that woman is.

_________________

Yeah...

People like Palin and the other real nutjobs on the right wing make me think, though.

I figure...I'm not so arrogant as to assume I must be right just by virtue of being me. But these people just seem so insane and scary...then again I must seem the same way to them! I disagree with a lot of people, and I don't find them insane or scary, just holding a different viewpoint.

Then I turn on Fox News or something and I find myself just grimacing and turning it off - something I hate doing. I like to think I can at least listen and absorb different views.

But these nutjobs all seem so convinced of their position. They can't be wrong ALL the time, of course. Can they? And do they think the same thing about people who think like I do?

Not sure what I'm getting at here.

Perhaps the secret to her popularity lies, at least partly, in why you guys are completely obsessed with her. Being serious. All publicity is good publicity, especially for someone like Palin, who has no real substance.

Here's the question of the day for you. Name the TV network who covers Palin the most. The answer might surprise you. Next - name the TV network that covers the birthers the most. It's teh same one omg!

Oh, no doubt. People are attracted to spectacle, and she makes one of herself every time she opens her stupid mouth.

You're right about some of it. Couple things, though.

Is arguing against torture and for civil liberties a traditionally liberal point of view, conservative, or just a fairly mainstream American value?

Regardless, I think the truth lies in a few clues.

Who is driving the agenda? And who is winning? I'd argue that with the mess that is health care, and with the stimulus having passed, that it's Pelosi setting the agenda, or at least winning the trench battles, and Obama losing. We have no climate change bill enacted. we have no health care plan drafted, much less enacted. The end result is a perception of much bigger spending and much bigger government - and that's what people associated with being liberal.

It doesn't help perception that Obama makes promises about the health care bill paying for itself and the CBO coming out with numbers that hugely contradict him.

Second, look at the government takeover of GM and many banks from the end of the Bush admin and maybe you can understand public paranoia.

On top of all that, you have bills being rushed through Congress with no one even reading them and it all comes off as the Democrats trying to enact as much as they can before any opposition cements, or any discussion can occur.

So, while you may be right that the social liberal agenda hasn't done anything, I think you're wrong about the fiscal portion of it.

People know that higher taxes are coming. The Obama admin knows higher taxes are coming. It's simple math. You can't get all the money they need from the rich. With 18% less revenue coming in from taxes, the money has to come from somewhere. It's common sense.

Ridiculous. Someone makes a comment on something so it makes them obsessed? Fail.

_________________

I generally think of it as a liberal point of view, and that it's shared by libertarians. Would you think of the ACLU as a conservative organization?



But the direction the health care bill has been going overall is to the right, not to the left. Again, I think of the left position being a government run/administered health care system. The bill as it stands walked away from that a long time ago. This doesn't have anything to do with whether Pelosi or Obama is setting the agenda.

Your last sentence, about "bigger spending and bigger government" is sort of true-- but I can't figure out your argument. You state that no bill is being passed, and then say that the government is getting bigger as a result of no bill being passed. How is this possible? Wouldn't a climate change bill and a health care bill make it bigger? It's definitely possible I missed some part of your argument.



I suppose.



It doesn't feel that way at all to me; they have been talking about this bill for months now. The "rushed off" argument just doesn't seem legitimate to me at this poing. If a congressman doesn't know what it says by now, they are simply not doing their job.



I don't think it's automatically the agenda of the left to make the government bigger, as you imply with this statement. I agreed that it was the perception, but I don't agree that they sit down and say, "how can we make the government bigger?" in meetings as this statement suggests.

Again, looking at the major things talked about in the news, from gay rights to wiretapping, to even health care, it doesn't feel like the left is catering to the "far left" at all-- it feels like they are trying to go too far right, or at least to the "center" whatever that is. This seems to me to be completely different than the right, which comes off constantly on the news as trying to find ways to be MORE conservative.

I still don't see it :/

The ACLU doesn't "own" the issue. And aren't libertarians more often ex-conservatives? I've always thought of libertarians as being closer to conservatives than liberals. /shrug

Yes, that is the direction it's going. Mostly due to mismanagement. But it's a bit hard to comment on the bill at all, as there are a half dozen versions of it, and new concessions are being made public every day, then debunked or contradicted by the same people the next day.

Obama wanted a vote on the health care bill within 3 weeks of Congress starting debate. Doesn't that seem a tad fast? Cap and trade was similar, and the stimulus was rushed through the process much like the Patriot Act. It's stalled only due to mismanagement, not the intentions of the White House and congress. Hell, health care is stalled only because of the blue dogs, God bless them.

But we're talking about perceptions, right? My point is that the perception of liberals is that they want to make the government bigger, and all of the actions in the past 6 months backs that up. See previous post.

A good example is the ludicrous Pay-Go legislation, which has zero teeth. Bill after bill expanding government, not just with higher spending on existing programs or just a huge buffet in the form of the stimulus, but with entirely new government-run sectors and businesses.

Whether they hold meetings with "Making Government Bigger" on the meeting invites doesn't really matter, does it? I mean - if all of their actions make the government bigger, despite strong protestations against the fact, isn't the net result exactly the same? If Democrat A tries to pass an 800 billion stimulus bill, and Republican B says "Holy shit we don't want to spend that much money and increase the size of the federal government" - isn't it a fair assumption that Democrat A wants to make the government bigger? Hell, even your posts here argued that the stimulus was great because, to paraphrase, "all spending is stimulative".

I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I can see you having that point of view.

But look at your own reactions to the Bush years for a clue as to why the perception is the way it is. Republicans had total control and absolutely embraced their social conservatisms - the part I hate the most about them. However, you could argue that their spending and government expansion was very liberal. More programs, higher debts, bigger government - traditionally NOT Republican values. Yet the perception is that our country became much more conservative in terms of governing - would anyone dispute that? That's because people focused on the social conservative element of the GOP's policies.

Right now, the Democrats are also socially conservative and fiscally liberal - not much of a change. But people see what they want to see. And like the GOP's social conservatism getting out of control, people are seeing the Democrats expanding the spending spree that Bush began and the perception is that we're becoming much more liberal.

From my perspective, with Pelosi and Reid apparently going to get any health care reform bill passed and then "fix it" (Durbin's words) in the conference committee apparently with the full backing and support of Obama, the left wing of the party is in control. If they were even considering the concerns of the blue dogs and the moderate republicans (why don't they have a catchy little name?) they would NOT be talking about taking the bill out of the hands of the committee and putting it to a full house vote or setting deadlines for Baucus' committee to come up with something before "stepping in" (again Durbin's words). Also the current plan for funding the health care reform plan is painfully left (I always have seen the far left as the wing of class warfare).

If the government really wanted the support of the public they would not even attempt to pass any programs this far-reaching and important until they had already fix the messes that are medicare, medicaid, and social security. The fact that these three programs are such a disastrous mess is undoubtedly why so many are opposed to any kind of public option for health care even if the reason for their distrust isn't apparent even to themselves.

Me, I'd love to see a single-payor plan put in place. It makes the most economic sense to me to get profits out of the health care equation. It also removes the ties between employment and healthcare that trap many people into jobs they dislike or that limit their upward mobility.

BUT, and it's a pretty big 'but', it's time for Americans to wake up and realize that comprehensive health care for all is damned expensive and is a cost that should be borne by everyone; not just those who have worked hard to get to above $250,000.00 in income (or is it now $200,000.00?). Look at other countries that have comprehensive health care for all and look at their tax rates, ours are much lower. (Of course it could be funded by instituting a extremely high inheritance tax but that's another argument for another thread)

Anyway, when I say the left wing is in control I am generally talking about fiscally. I would be extremely happy if Obama were moderate fiscally and socially liberal; unfortunately that just isn't the case.



I don't think it is currently moving left or right but more towards corporate concerns instead of individual concerns; although because it is Obama's people making backdoor deals with the Pharmaceutical companies and undoubtedly who will reap the campaign dollar benefits of those deals I tend to think of the movement as liberal.

It's just mind-boggling. How do you reconcile these two statements?

At today's Town Hall Obama says he has not said he was a single-payer supporter. 50s mark.



But he DID say that. "I happen to be a proponent of the single-payer healthcare plan.



His statements on health care are not helping. It's quite frankly just plain bizarre. Maybe I'm missing something really obvious.

I'd agree with that statement generally. There are a few differences, but all the other folks I know who were in line with Goldwater Republicans, including myself, fall more into line with the Libertarians and Constitutionalists (minus the fucking insanity that is much of Ron Paul).

It's funny you note this because when I wrote up most of my thoughts on health care, the first chapter is called: "What's a Life Worth?".

And really, before any health care system can be effective, you have to decide how much a life is worth. Standard question I ask as when chatting with friends about this stuff.

30 year old needs a magic pill that costs $30 or he dies tommorow. With it, he lives 30 more years. Do you pay for that?
40 year old, pill=$4000, will live 20 more years.
50 year old, pill=$25000, will live 10 more years.
60 year old, pill=$60000, will live 5 more years.
70 year old, pill=$100,000, will live 1 more year.

Obvious there is no such question in medicine - this one is a lot easier. But, every health insurer has to make this decision.

No point other than health care companies are naturally villified because sometimes the answer is "your life isn't worth what it would cost to save you."

I hate to say it, but I'll call it what it is. He's been bought. For what, we'll probably not know for sure for a bit here.

_________________

The impossibility of having opinions in politics:

1) You have an opinion that never changes: People label you as inflexible, rigid, dogmatic, old-thinking, etc etc.

2) You have an opinion, but change it for some reason: People label you as a flip-flopper, being bought, etc.

3) You say you never said something there's a video of you actually saying.

He's a well spoken dude, Bov. It really is as simple as:

"You know, I was a big proponent of the single payer plan coming into this, but after learning X, Y, and Z, I have to say, I no longer think that option is on the table."

Instead, he took the Pope route. "The Pope says as the Pope has ALWAYS said..." when the pope decrees something new against he previous position.

So in other words....bought. For what, though?

_________________

The other impossibility of SAYING anything in politics: you have to have an eidetic memory to keep track of everything you've ever said, because if you say something contradictory to anything you've ever said in the past, you're either corrupt or an idiot.

_________________

It's reasonable to assume a person would remember their stance on something they have called a core issue of their term. If they do not then, well, yeah.

I dunno. I guess we could play semantics and say that Proponent doesn't neccessarily mean Supporter, if you're really picky with definitions.

...no, I don't really believe that. Just having fun with it.

Blowjobs aren't sex either!

Health Care Bill Rev B -

Change nothing. Regulate costs and law suits. Issue fixed.