I'm not some dittohead here.

If you really think that Obama "forgot" he was in support of a single payer system is some sort of defense of the turn about, I don't know what else to say.

Because if that were true, it would mean he was just saying anything and everything to everybody and never really cared about it in the first place.

Which is actually worse, in my book.

_________________

It's so funny watching you turn against him, Rugen, when he doesn't jump all over the only issue you really give a shit about.

_________________

Yes, because gay rights is the only thing I care about. Because someone that was once a homeless street rat as a teenager has NO interest in how public health care is approached.

It is interesting watching you latch onto any possible thing you can to discredit me in your own mind now that you've decided I'm no longer part of the collective.

_________________

Talking points actually make that a lot easier than it sounds (though still somewhat of a challenge). The repetitiveness of political speech makes most of what they say very memorable, at least to themselves.

Welcome to politics.

(I seem to be saying that a lot lately.)

That should not be the responsibility of the government or anyone else to decide "your life isn't worth saving". Call me a part of the tinfoil hat crowd but that should scare the hell out of you. I know that the Hippocratic Oath has less and less meaning these days but it still has "To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority" in it.

I actually agree with Krby on that point.

"The collective?" wtf

I'll remind you that I'm less invested in this guy than you are. And you're the one that clearly started having issues with Obama only when he didn't immediately repeal DADT and start working on gay rights issues. It might be a coincidence that you've decided to find fault in everything he says/does now, but I doubt it.

_________________

You're wrong, Tyral. First, that you're less invested than Rugen. Second, that Rugen only criticized Obama for DADT.

Try using the search button.

I didn't say he only criticized Obama for DADT. Try using reading comprehension.

_________________

It's easy to make that SOUND really scary, and it's easy to try to take some moral high ground and say, "A LIFE IS WORTH ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD!" but the fact is that it isn't true. We all know this, deep down inside. There's a limit to what we're really willing to spend to save the life of some random stranger.

Is Dissent Still Patriotic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqJ_Yp3t ... r_embedded

It wasn't when Bush was in office.

_________________

It is disheartening to me to hear so many people on both sides of this issue being so insulting to each other. People are going to have differences of opinion, and the people have the right to have their voices heard. I don't support restricting protests no matter who is in power. People who do support restricting protests need to remember that those restrictions will affect them when they are no longer in power.

And I hear about people saying corporations are funding some of the protesters, and while that may be true, there were interesting sources of funding for many of the protests during the Bush administration as well.

People have every right to make their voice heard and express dissent.

But this is just childish shouting and disrupting other people's reasonable meetings isn't making your voice heard, it's actually trying to keep other people's voices from being heard.

Protest and dissent all you want. But don't bitch about people trying to shut you down when your entire method of expression is shouting other people down.

Bovinity, you are painting these folks with a mighty wide brush. Surely you know that plenty of times in the previous administration during protests the protesters employed the same techniques, in fact on several occasions it was both sides on this issue where people tried to shout the other side down.

Have any of you ever watched question time in the UK Parliament?

Bush was wrong. And I was wrong for supportiung him in 2004. But Bush never had an army of union thugs and "community activists" to act as enforcers who try to shut up his critics on anywhere near the scale The Messiah has.
Were you this upset with the antiwar people raised holy hell against Bush? Or do you only get upset when someone raises objections to the government dictating what the public can and cannot do when it comes to medical care (and other initiatives of The Messiah)?

_________________
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

I think for me, the biggest difference is that the anti-war folks like myself did not seem to be deliberately spreading knowingly false information about the war in order to try to keep it from happening. That's how the opposition to health care reform feels right now.

I shouldn't even reply to this silly "Messiah" nonsense. But really I don't remember prominent democratic figures claiming things like, "Bush is trying to kill my children with War Death Panels." and spreading heaps of pure, raw, blatant misinformation.

I don't remember democratic party websites posting what basically amounts to, "lolPwned" announcements because they managed to disrupt and shut down discussions and meetings.

Get the GOP leadership under control already.

Again, a mighty broad brush. Don't fool yourself, there was quite a bit of knowingly false information being spread during the anti-war protests. You know, the war is still going on - but I don't hear of many protests any more. I wonder why that is.

One reason a lot of people are upset is comments from members of Congress that indicate they support the bill but have not read it. That seems irresponsible.

Looks like Palin won, for all her idiocy. I guess showering attention on her meets her ends, after all. Removed the provision that provided end of life counseling. A good thing, from my perspective. Looked at in the kindest light, it's unnecessary. From the worst light - a bit creepy when packaged in a measure designed to cut costs.

The next big controversy - will this bill pay for abortions. That's what I think will be the next lightning rod.

They ought to strip this bill of everything but the basics. Strengthen the basics - universal coverage, cost control, etc. - and leave out the Dem goody bag treats.

No the biggest difference is that you want any government run health care bill to pass so you have hitched your wagon to this horse and won't remove your blinders.

Pretty sure most of the false info came from the side pushing the war. Remember that? I know both sides lie (It's politics) but really, it always seems like the GOP are the ones shoveling the worst lies at us.

WMDs!!! Be scared!
Death Panels! Be scared!

You get the idea.

And why aren't people protesting anymore? Well, for one, they still are. And two, it's been so long, I guess people have decided it didn't do much good.

- Economy!! OMG you're going to lose your jobs if you don't pass this stimulus right now!!
- GM!! OMG Americana will die in a fire if we don't bail out GM right now!!
- Health Care!!! OMG people are dying on the streets left and right! We've gone without universal health care forever but failure to act is scary oh noez!

Coming soon:

- Raise taxes!! OMG our deficit is teh suck we have to take teh hard choicez right now omg!!

Funny, I haven't heard those presented that way.

Not to mention that they are - at least in part - not complete and utter lies.

The economy was/is in trouble.
Health care does/did need reform.
Bailouts were ugly and annoying, but some probably good in the long run.

As opposed to getting our troops killed over imaginary WMD's and freaking people out over imaginary death panels.

Well, I can draw from this spat that you're against fear-based politics using bad information. I am also against that. One would think we're on the same side, but obviously we're not, because you're only against it when either the source of the information is someone you're aligned with, or the topic at hand suits your purposes.

I, on the other hand, am against misleading the public on the "dire consequences" of inaction in order to pass legislation in ALL cases.

I don't know you drew the conclusion that I'm somehow only aligned with Democratic information. I think anyone can agree that - by and large - the GOP leadership has been going nuts for years with their panic-inducing misinformation.

Yes, both sides lie. We all know that, none of them are saints. But really, looking at the last decade or so, you can't compare the two parties' lies. The GOP has been in rare form for a while now.

‘06 Flashback: Pelosi Tells Anti-War Protesters ‘I’m a Fan of Disruptors’
http://www.breitbart.tv/06-flashback-pe ... isruptors/

"Let me close with this about the Democrats, and how we see ourselves and how I hope you're hopeful. When Franklin Roosevelt died, and I got great inspiration from him because he was a disruptor and I'm a fan of disruptors - people who make change."

Then she says people who drown our discourse are un-American. And idiots like you gobble it up. yumyumyum

So you changed the subject you came at me about and then pulled out some video with a lady that even Democrats know is a little off her rocker and somehow assumed that I was all apeshit over whatever she says.

So krby, you aren't going to address your obvious spreading of misinformation concerning Canada's health system?

aww crap, I put that in the wrong thread.

You are of course calling your congress now to repeal it from the medicare revisions they already passed in 2003 right? I mean, if the same measure is creepy in a new bill, then it's even creepier it's already been passed in medicare for the past 6 years. I hope those poor seniors never find out about the death panels....

The 3rd most powerful elected official in the Democratic party is considered off her rocker? Not taking sides, but that is funny.

Believe it or not, not all of us look at politics like sports, where we have to support our team and say the other team sucks.

I consider myself largely Democrat, but yes I do think that Pelosi is kinda...strange.

Also, Biden could use a muzzle. Or maybe one of those windows, "Are you sure?" prompts that pops up every time he wants to say something.

Because it it was by far the simplest of his campaign promises to keep. Supported by 70% of the population, there's not a lot of political ill will in terms of price paid. So it was a great test...did he mean what he said? Would he do the executive order to stop firing gay military and push congress to fix DADT?

No. Instead, his administration defended it and they did a couple of cost free items that don't advance gay rights at all. Yay Gay pride month. Yay medals to already famous gay people.

I said in the start when I began voicing my support for Obama that incredibly charismatic people were usually one of two things, great leaders or pied pipers, and that the risk was acceptable to me for my vote but that I'd be watching to see. Unfortunately, I'm starting to wonder if we're being led to the river to drown. The more it is politics as usual, the more I start to wonder where we're really heading.

I frequently used to ask followers of George Bush, who would spout off about "He's a great leader...he's taking us somewhere!", if it mattered that the destination might be the gates of hell themselves....they said No. My answer is not the same. I think it matters where we are being led and I'm starting to question.

The real danger that Obama has to contend with is that he made people like me want to believe again. It didn't happen by accident. He courted it. There's a price and a responsibility that comes along with that. If he fails it and it is just "politics as usual"? I suspect a much larger pushback wave of anger and/or apathy....neither of which helps his political agenda at all in the next election.

So, yes. DADT was an interesting thing for me to observe. It was such an easy thing to do. And he failed. He's doing about faces on Health Care and trying to pretend that he's not (and btw, I do support single payer for those that do not have health care). God knows what's going on with the stimulus package and the huge sums of money being tossed around by our government.

I'm not a detractor. Yet. I still hold some hope and faith. That said...I'm not sitting with my back to any doors.

_________________

Poor Rugen, he's learning that politicians will say one thing on campaign and do another when in power.

You're missing the obvious here in your attempt to be witty.

I expect that from every other politician, sad as that is to say. I do not expect it (and will not forgive it) from Obama. If you can stop for one moment and consider why that is, you might have upped your reading comprehension by one tiny smidge.

My expectations for him were set BY HIM. He (or his followers) do not get to just wipe that away in the "well, that is what all politicans do". He set the standard, he doesn't get a "get out of jail free" card on this one.

_________________

At least he and others voted for something they believed in, no matter how misplaced their trust was. Apparently you, and bovinity minimally - throwing around the "politics is politics omg" - voted for an inexperienced junior senator with no executive credentials, knowing that his chief campaign promise was a lie.

Congratulations. You're really smart.

Exactly. Anyone who doesn't hold Obama to his mantra of hope & change and a new bipartisanship in Washington is part of the problem.

It's not about just letting them off the hook for everything. It's more about realizing that when a politician is on the campaign trail and says everything to make everyone happy that maybe - just maybe - he's just trying to get your vote.

We go through this stuff every year it seems. Everyone's all shocked and appalled that this politician or that politician didn't do everything he promised. You'd think we would learn by now. But we don't, we just keep voting in the same career (R) and (D) politicians with the slick lines and big promises and wondering what happened.

Does this mean you're voting something other than Democrat next time?

That would depend on a wide variety of factors. Including but not limited to how Obama finishes out his first term and who else is running. We are, after all, just halfway through his first year. He may surprise me yet. Or he may not. The jury is still out. But if he washes on everything? No, I won't vote for him for a second term unless the other option is worse.

It is safe to say that I've never looked at it as a democratic or republican thing. McCain was a nightmare. There was no way he was getting my vote. Even more so when he proved my analysis of him by making his running mate Sarah Palin. This had nothing to do with his being a republican. If you were to search the old boards, and perhaps even this one, you'd find that I'd frequently had a generally favorable impression of McCain (and was hoping he'd be the republican nominee) up until he stopped being himself and started being a kickpuppy for the neocon christians.

_________________

The point is you will vote Democrat because their platform will always be closer to your core beliefs than anything else (other than a 3rd party, which is essentially not a vote).

And really, this is always going to be the case when people vote on idealogy vs. platform. Of course, you could argue idealogy = platform, but I don't buy that. Idealogy motivates your base. Platform wins you swing votes.

Perhaps, Orme. I won't say you're entirely wrong. But a socially liberal, fiscally conservative republican could easily win my vote.

As to bovinity:



Except that this particular politiican hinged his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN on the idea of changing this, of being different, of NOT doing that.

So, he either does it...or he disillusions the entire base he originally motivated and creates a backlash that will be hard to measure. Or at the very least, creates all new levels of apathy because people may start to realize...they really do not have a voice, anywhere, and the one time they believed that they did? They were lied to "to win at politics". That's a no win scenario there.

I truly believe he's smart enough to realize this. And that he DOESN'T want this to happen. But each little step down the "same old same old" line makes me lose a little bit more hope. I also realize that a large majority of the things he needs to change hinge completely upon a body of elected officials who have made a career out of doing nothing but serving their own interests. But when he fails on even the bits he does have complete control over? How am I to have hope that he'll succeed on the things he doesn't?

So...wait and see mode. He's got a couple of years. Although I do believe the republicans will turn this recent health care thing into a majority in the house and senate. So it could be even more interesting soon.

_________________

If I trade Grandma in, will I get 4k towards a new Grandma?

That's just another "promise", sir.

How many politicians, when they know they're speaking to folks like you, talk about "No more business as usual" and whatnot.

They know they're doing it. They have whole teams of analysts telling them what to spoon feed different groups at different times, etc.

Then every cycle we're all outraged and say, "omg we have to hold them to this or that." but what do we do instead? Mark that (R) or (D) in the next election, too.

Stop copying me

Hilarious.

full retreat on flag@whitehouse.gov.



http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/17 ... ontentBody

Have any better options?

It's largely vote for the nutjob that says they agree with you, vote for the nutjob that says they disagree with you, or vote for the nutjob who's platform is to tell everyone how crazy the other two people are.

It's not like we're passing up someone who we believe would actually do a good job solely because we want to see our party in office. Give me a qualified, fiscally responsible person who believes that all people are equal in all things under the law and I'd vote for him if he had a (Z) after his name.

It's not that I'm saying you'll only vote for your party, but rather than they know that you'll vote for at least one of them, maybe two. They know they have a virtual 2-way monopoly of sorts (contradiction? lol) on the political machine so they can do and say pretty much whatever they want.

You'll be back. You might stray for a little while on a Perot or Nader kick, but you'll be back to the good old (R) and (D).

Well, the whole flag@whitehouse.gov thing was practically begging the chan and goon folks to fuck with it.

We have to stop thinking that (R) and (D) are the only options.

If we ever want to truly change politics as usual we have to change the players. If you are pissed that "the Republicans are just like the Democrats" and vice versa then find that third party candidate that is even closer to your beliefs and go with them.

Until we can get rid of the "a vote for a third party is a wasted vote" bull then nothing will change.

For the most part, the alternative parties haven't fielded anyone that wasn't a Democrat or Republican with sour grapes or a wack job. None of them have put forward a candidate worthy of my vote.

I don't see how voting for them anyway would accomplish anything good. At best, the (R) or (D) win office based on the opposition voting independent and proclaim it as justification of their policies or the third party candidate wins with their narrow-minded focus on the one issue that is important to them and at worst, we get a nutcase for President.

(R) and (D) are the only options.

Yay, a self-fulfilling declaration.

Jox:

So I guess I'm confused since the anti healthcare people are putting out ads on their view point... is your objection that there are pro health care ads, or that they are using a firm that Obama has associations with?