Obama's speech and the heckler

[Edison]

Originally Posted by DJK

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
September 10, 2009

Wilson made his accusation after Obama pointed at the Republican side of the aisle and criticized them for opposing the government plan during his speech to a joint session of Congress.

Lie. The President was critical of their use of misinformation and scare tactics, not for them simply opposing the HC plan.

Democrats have called for disciplinary action against Wilson, even though he quickly backed down, apologized for his outburst, and went so far as to scrape and grovel before White House Chief of Staff and political enforcer Rahm Emanuel.

Lie. Wilson did not 'scrape' nor 'grovel'. It was a perfunctory apology at best.

“It’s time for us to talk about health care, not Mr. Wilson,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

Indeed, it is time to talk about the government’s plan to take over health care, as Pelosi suggests.

Lie. There is no government plan to 'take over health care'. This is not even a matter of semantics, it's simply not true.

Pelosi said Wilson’s outburst during Obama’s speech shows the “bankruptcy” of Republicans’ ideas on health care, the Washington Post reports.
In fact, it shows how the Democrats in league with the corporate media are attempting to ram Obama’s totalitarian health care plan down the throat of the American people and stifle opposition.

Lie. Lie. Lie. 'Totalitarian Health Care Plan'? ..I don't even know what the fuck that means, but it sure sounds SCARY, doesn't it? Safe estimates say that at least 75% of voting Americans WANT HC reform, that INCLUDES a public option. The 'single payer' plan would be the 'radical' direction. The public option is a very 'centrist' plan.
..And 'Democrats IN LEAGUE with the corporate media'? ..well, that's just laughable.

This guy Nimmo has effectively convinced me that he knows little of what he speaks, and nothing else.

[Edison]

More about Joe Wilson, the Republican from South Carolina:

In 2003, when The Washington Post persuaded Essie Mae Washington-Williams to publicly identify herself as the biracial daughter of Thurmond, who once had been an avowed segregationist, Wilson accused the woman of trying to "smear" the senator, who had died six months earlier. "It's a smear on the image that [Thurmond] has as a person of high integrity who has been so loyal to the people of South Carolina," Wilson said.
When the Thurmond family acknowledged that Washington-Williams was indeed Thurmond's daughter, Wilson apologized but did not back down from his assertion that she should have kept quiet.

In Washington, Wilson is known for covering his office walls with framed photos of Republicans and for filling cabinets with elephant figurines and busts of such politicians as Thomas Jefferson and Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek.
Wilson revels in the pomp of Capitol Hill, once telling the State, a Columbia newspaper, that every day is "like Christmas."
"I love parliamentary maneuvering!" he was quoted as saying. "I love the trees! . . . I love this view!"

Thurmond, Hollings, DeMint, Graham, Sanford, Wilson, ..South Carolina really is the gift that keeps on giving, when it comes to crazy.

[Scol]

What is the psychology at play here for people who are so rigidly against this bill? If there's any point that is repeatedly backed by evidence it is this: We are not in danger of turning communist.

Yet that seems to be the prevailing fear. "The government will take over our lives. This is a totalitarian move." Untrue. But why are so many clinging to this delusion?

It speaks to their worldview and self-image. All I can guess is that they believe that the private sector represents some sort of pioneer spirit of independence and strength, and the government, the UNITED STATES government, is the Soviet Union.

Do they even entertain the notion that these "Captains Of Industry" are in fact the very blue-blood elite that they're told to despise? And I'm using the word 'elite' only in a pejorative context to make this point, because when the same word is used to describe the smart, qualified and educated, it is a good thing. But it's been demonized so often, I would like to break it down into separate connotations.

We're all being robbed and cheated by a cold-hearted and amoral institution known as "unfettered capitalism." A better, more accurate term, is oligarchy.

Ask yourselves why no one classifies England, France, Germany, Canada, Japan or Switzerland (as well as many other countries) as "Communist."

Then ask yourselves why Little Lord Fauntleroys whose mummies and daddies vacation in Kenebunkport and The Hamptons can so convincingly wear cowboy masks.

And then, ask yourselves why you don't want to live in a world where it's a little (or a lot) safer for everyone, regardless of their economic conditions.

[Edison]

Here are some simple facts:

(1) illegal immigrants sometimes get sick.

(2) when they do, they go to emergency rooms because they have no insurance.

(3) doctors are required under the Hippocratic Oath to care for the sick and cannot turn them away.

(4) emergency room care is, by far and away, the most expensive care to provide.

..So, essentially we should make absolutely sure that we continue to throw money down the toilet, just to placate those who can't do basic math.

I just want to make sure we all see the brilliant Republican strategy here.

carry on.

[Fenstermaker]

I just want to add that I am frustrated more over the disrespectfulness than whether or not the statement was true.

Via Twitter, I found my way to a blog where someone referenced the Dixie Chicks, which for me, is a point that hits home.

A musician criticizes a President during a time of war and gets destroyed/raked over the coals. But a fellow lawmaker criticizes a President (during a time of war; not to mention a much more disrespectful way,) and they're campaign donations are up $200,000?*

This is so messed up.

*via a story I just read on CNN.

[Chip]

I read about the donations, too. That pissed me off a lot. Supporting someone's politics is one thing. Supporting disrespect is just disgusting.

[Hawkins]

Originally Posted by kremidas

DJK

You are either lying or being lied to.

Under Sec. 246 Under the heading (in all capital letters) NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments or affordability credits for individuals who are not present in the united states."

Look it up, it's there.

As for the claim that there is no way to enforce this rule or prove citizenship, this is another distortion.

There are two kinds of benefits in the bill that can be considered taxpayer-subsidized: tax credits and access to the public insurance option.

On the issue of tax credits, there are two reasons this is not fully accurate.

The first is if the tax credits are administered through the Internal Revenue Service, there would be built-in scrutiny. For instance, if a system were set up for taxpayers to declare insurance expenses and then receive a refund or a rebate, illegal immigrants couldn't obtain coverage, "because illegal immigrants do not have legitimate Social Security numbers," said Marc Rosenblum, a senior policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute, a group that is generally pro-immigration. "Screening out illegal immigrants through the tax system would prevent them from obtaining health care-related subsidies."

The second caveat is that language in the House bill does provide clear authority for the new government official who will run the exchange to set up that verification.

Now for the second issue: access to the public option. Many Republicans have argued that while the bill bars illegal immigrants from getting the affordability credits, it still permits them to take part in the public option. That reading is correct. But they assert that the public option is "taxpayer-funded," something Democrats insist is not true. They say the public plan will be self-supporting through its participants' premiums. Obama reiterated that point in his speech. "I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects," he said. Nothing we've seen so far has persuaded us that the public option will provide subsidized care.

You see, it's never as simple as Republicans would like you to believe.

Then why strike down amendments requiring ID?

If you're not allowed to check status or turn people away, then how do you not pay for illegal alien healthcare.

It's like most of our illegal alien policy in Los Angeles: if you don't know they're illegal, they're not illegal. A large part of the Obama platform was amnesty, he's not going to turn his back on them and since you don't hear their cries and they're not in the streets marching...

Look, it's always as simple as you can make it out to be with Democrats: America is at its heart, an unjust and unfair country and the solution is more government intervention to get a Utopia. The government does want to take over insurance. That's why they're railing against "profit motive." You see our benevolent government wants to take care of you. You know, like welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc all these other bloated New Deal/Great Society things that don't work.

You can say "they don't want to take over health care" but they sure as hell want to control the means to access. Most people with private healthcare don't want this, so the government has to find a way to game the system to get the paying folks in...and they'll do it under the disguise of competition or "a new option"

Again, if most state regulations would get out of the way so you didn't have 50 cartels, and Dems would let it be tax free and put a muzzle on trial lawyers, you cut costs by a good 40 percent.

But see, that's the private sector, that has freedom, and Democrats can't get their paws on it. But, if you put in government run healthcare and get enough people dependent on it, you get a permanent voting base.

All these things you want can be done without the government bureaucracy.

Also:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...lson_wins.html

So far, both Palin and Wilson have been correct. Again, I wasn't big on the outburst, but at least it couldn't be buried by the media. Not like Democrats have been all that civil the past 8 years.

According to them, my dad is an insurance company plant, a Nazi, a member of the KKK, etc.

[Forsythe]

Hawkins, your faith in business is scary. Big business is just as bad as big government. The reason we almost went into a second Depression was because of big business and a weak government. I don't buy the lie that Democrats are for big government. I think they are for efficient government; a government that actually looks out for its citizens. Republicans may say they are for small government, but everytime they are in the White House, the deficits go up and the Defense Department gets shitloads of money. Republicans say the Democrats are trying to be Big Brother but who else but Republicans seem to fit into the idea of Big Brother? Big Brother is secret wiretaps; deletion of emails; the FBI, CIA, and NSA looking into your private life. All of that happened under GW Bush. The "Patriot" Act is the biggest misnomer ever. It's like labeling poison "healthy food" and selling it to people.

Republican: Don't you support healthy food? Why are you against healthy food?
Logical people: I do like healthy food, but this is not healthy food.
R: What are you talking about? It's called "healthy food" right there on the label. You Democrats can't see the label? It's right in front of your face. Man, you guys defy logic.
LP: It's no healthy food. It's poison. If you open the box and actually look at what's inside the box, you'll see that.
R: Why do you hate America?

Democrats love America. Republicans love America. But Republicans love of America is a child's love; unconditional and naive. Democrats love of America is an adult love; able to see its flaws but love it still, and wanting it to be better.

[Scol]

Forsythe, I agree with most of what you said, except for the last part.

Republicans love America? Maybe the more moderate ones do. But those on the far right? I would like to know what it is they love? The people? The ideals? Nah. They hate America. They love money and the flag. But they hate the poor, the sick, the ethnic and the educated.

They do love to throw around the word "freedom." But what does that mean? I think for them, it's a world without responsibilities. A world where the lucky, and the advantaged, can turn a blind eye to suffering. Unless it's one of their own. In other words, a form of class tribalism. And their tribe is small.

But you're certainly right about the left: It's not big government we want. It's efficient government. Because their job is to make our lives more livable. And our job is to constantly demand that of them.

And Hawkins, there's a word for anyone who persistently champions those in power, be they government or big business. Ask any inmate in prison: The word is "Bitch."

[Chip]

Originally Posted by Scol

But you're certainly right about the left: It's not big government we want. It's efficient government. Because their job is to make our lives more livable. And our job is to constantly demand that of them.

I think this is probably the central difference between Democrats and Republicans. A Republican's idea of government is to stay out of the way and allow individuals to make their own lives more livable.