Have you attended a TEA Party in the last few months?
Have you spread the word about the dangers of Obamacare?
Have you attended (or are planning to attend) a Town Hall to voice your concerns about healthcare, bail-outs, government take-overs of major industries, cap-and-trade, or any other similar issue?
The the Democrat National Committee (DNC) is happy to inform you that you are part of an organized mob bought and paid for by “special interests and insurance companies who are desperate to block reform.”
In an email today to supporters, Jen O’Malley Dillon, Executive Director
Democratic National Committee, said,
There’s been a lot of media coverage about organized mobs intimidating lawmakers, disrupting town halls, and silencing real discussion about the need for real health insurance reform.
The truth is, it’s a sham. These “grassroots protests” are being organized and largely paid for by Washington special interests and insurance companies who are desperate to block reform. They’re trying to use lies and fear to break the President and his agenda for change.
The email goes on to point out “5 Facts Lies” about these so called “anti-reform mobs.” You can read them below the fold.
So if you turn up at a town hall meeting for any of the members of the Democrat Caucus in Georgia, expect them to respond with these as you are heckled down by the True Democratic Grassroots.*
*True Democratic Grassroots sponsored by MoveOn.org, George Soros and DailyKos.com
5 facts about the anti-reform mobs
1. These disruptions are being funded and organized by out-of-district special-interest groups and insurance companies who fear that health insurance reform could help Americans, but hurt their bottom line. A group run by the same folks who made the “Swiftboat” ads against John Kerry is compiling a list of congressional events in August to disrupt. An insurance company coalition has stationed employees in 30 states to track where local lawmakers hold town-hall meetings.
2. People are scared because they are being fed frightening lies. These crowds are being riled up by anti-reform lies being spread by industry front groups that invent smears to tarnish the President’s plan and scare voters. But as the President has repeatedly said, health insurance reform will create more health care choices for the American people, not reduce them. If you like your insurance or your doctor, you can keep them, and there is no “government takeover” in any part of any plan supported by the President or Congress.
3. Their actions are getting more extreme. Texas protesters brought signs displaying a tombstone for Rep. Lloyd Doggett and using the “SS” symbol to compare President Obama’s policies to Nazism. Maryland Rep. Frank Kratovil was hanged in effigy outside his district office. Rep. Tim Bishop of New York had to be escorted to his car by police after an angry few disrupted his town hall meeting — and more examples like this come in every day. And they have gone beyond just trying to derail the President’s health insurance reform plans, they are trying to “break” the President himself and ruin his Presidency.
4. Their goal is to disrupt and shut down legitimate conversation. Protesters have routinely shouted down representatives trying to engage in constructive dialogue with voters, and done everything they can to intimidate and silence regular people who just want more information. One attack group has even published a manual instructing protesters to “stand up and shout” and try to “rattle” lawmakers to prevent them from talking peacefully with their constituents.
5. Republican leadership is irresponsibly cheering on the thuggish crowds. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner issued a statement applauding and promoting a video of the disruptions and looking forward to “a long, hot August for Democrats in Congress.”
{ 96 comments }
My check from those “special interests” is lonnnng overdue.
And that pretty much sums-up the element of intelligence at the DNC Brain Trust. As Jen O’Malley Dillon clearly displays.
Wonder which DC whore house they recruited her from?
How amusing…..in the 60’s a common refrain about any civil rights protest was that they were all “outside trouble-makers who were bussed in…”
Karma…….long time coming…..reversal of fortune……
How did DNC get my email addy? Must have been that interest in Wesley Clark 8 years ago…………………….
Seriously, this is really hilarious, after what the Left did for the last 8 years… I’m really enjoying this.
Fact is, we can not afford the current health care system in the long run.
What did the left do for the past 8 years, Bill? They have only held power line 2007.
and they are running, for the most part, from the middle.
Unless we do something about healthcare in the next couple years we are going to see a huge public backlash. Remember, the baby boomers are getting old now. Coming up is the point where that 90% of their life time health costs are going to come up. When Blue Cross, Cigna, Aetna, etc start rescinding policies for you, me and our peers (well, your peers…most of mine are dead) simply for being old…then we will be calling for a completely state run health insurance system.
It is better to get this taken care of now before private industry screws the rest of the nation out of their insurance policies. It will happen, that is how private industry works. For profit…not the People.
You know, Goldwater, I agree with you. The GOP DID NOTHING about health care costs consuming family budgets for 8 years, 16 after Hillarycare.
To a conservative, the ideal system would be the one that existed in the 60’s, where any insurance reimbursed the medical service consumer. There should be government-financed catastrophic. THAT is what the GOP should have been working toward, but they squandered the opportunity.
Single payer is the next best option, if there is to be national health insurance.
What we seem to be getting is the worst of all worlds, national health care that retains the insurance companies.
You’re singing my tune…
But just try to have a discussion with the screamers showing up for the town-hall meetings….
The GOP gets to own them and it’s gonna come back to bite them when some of the crazies really get going (as they did near the end of McCain’s campaign).
my tune too.
While, for most TEA people, this memo is bs…it is not productive to go yell at a town hall meeting. And its not productive to just oppose all taxes for anything because you feel that you are taxed enough already. Go back and look at our income tax system during the 50s, (the good ole days when the American Dream really took off).
The Dem establishment is going to try to marginalize the town hall raiders with the lies (that are still true in some cases) above, while from the view of all rational people, the raiders already marginalize themselves with their hyper-partisanship.
Partisanship is going to sink us. We all yell at each other while the very few rape the masses.
This is why I have been so frustrated with the GOP for years. They would not point out the democrats lies and their extreme ways. Now the democrats are projecting their deceit onto the GOP and getting away with it. They are the ones that had community organizers. They are the ones that promote hate. They are the ones that protest and demand stuff from the gov’t. They are the mob.
Kellie,
If we look at this (and the rest of politics) as Democrat vs Republican, we miss some of what is going on. Since 2001, the combination of Democrats and Rockefeller Republican’ts have controlled Congress and the White House. That shared form of liberalism, as a common, shared mindset, was always functioning in the background of the facade of party politics. During that time, we saw government grow in cost and in its reach into our personal lives.
If we look at what is happening in terms of 3 general philosophies (and their adherents), things, at least to me, make more sense. All 3 love America, but have very differnt views of the America they want to love. Those 3 are:
Consistent conservatives – limited government; reduced spending AND reduced taxes; strong defense; protection of personal liberty; reduced regulation; limiting federal government to its enumerated Constitutional powers; and affirming the role of government in social issues within the limitations of natural law (not sectarian theology). These adherents are more interested in their lives and the lives of their friends than amassing government or political power. They don’t really care who runs government so long as government remains out of their way when they are living within the law. These folks tend to see themselves, their friends, and their local communities (in that order) as the way to address most issues not specifically enumerated to the federal government in the Constitution.
Moderates – somewhat less limited government than Consistent Conservsatives; reduced spending is a low priority; reduced but more complicated taxes; in favor of deficits and Keynesian economics; a “kinder and gentler” national defense that gets involved in “nation building”; an aversion to any social issues that appear to be part of a Christian agenda; a broader interpretation of the Constitution, but short of the “living Constitution” concept. These folks tend to be more focused on political power. They share some conservative ideas with Consistent Conservatives, are willing to pay lip service to Christians, but tend to blend in the ideas of liberals – hence the name “Moderates”. They like big government when big government is their shortcut to change. They see a larger role for federal govenment in addressing issues.
Liberals – A strong central federal government with complete authority over state and local governments; high taxes, regulation, and spending; in favor of deficits and Keynesian economics; increased govenment control and/or influence in our personal lives; a Constitution that is interpreted by current trends, foriegn and domestic; lower standard of living for al lbut the elites; strong limitaitons on the practice of religion and eliminating personal ownership of guns. These folks also focus more on government and political power, and prefer an Old-European style of socialism rather than freedom and liberty. They see federal governement as the primary way to address issues. They tend to be unwittingly Orwellian.
While most people may share traits with more than one of these groups, in most cases, they fall primarily into one. When we see this dynamic instead of the party dynamic in politics, things make more sense. The Republican party was driven primarily by the Consistent Conservatives from 1994 until the 2000 election, and then the Moderates regained control of the party. Moderates and liberals share the desire for a larger, more active, expensive, larger, and authoritative federal government, which is what we have seen grow since 2001.
Look for genuine conservatives, not those claiming to be conservative who are, indeed, moderates.
I should have written:
Look for genuine conservatives if you are a conservative, not those claiming to be conservative who are, indeed, moderates.
I wasn’t trying to say that those who don’t adhere to consistent conservatism should only vote for consistent conservatives.
I am a fiscal conservative. I am sick of the GOP being more concerned with find someone against abortion and gay marriage than finding someone against spending and waste.
McCain was just right of Obama. He was a boring choice and people did not vote for him they voted against Obama.
The GOP needs someone who inspires and has true direction.
I understand that. You are certainly not alone in your views. I firmly believe in lowering spending AND taxes – not one before the other, but both. But, please graciously allow me to explain how I get to the positions I do on abortion. I’ll save the gay marriage issue for when someone wants to hear about it. I don’t expect others to agree just because I say so.
Like other fiscal conservatives, I believe in the federal government’s Constitutional requirement to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why at the federal, state, and local level, government investigates and prosecutes the taking of a human life.
Well, it is demonstrable that I am a human being, distinct from every other human being. Thus, if my hypothetical neighbor gets irritated with me, he has no right to kill me as he would a wart on his arm.
If science can shown beyond a reasonable doubt that an unborn babay is also a distinct human being, then by what logic can I conclude that the unborn baby is not also due the Constitutional protection to life? That is where keeping abortion out of the long list of issues breaks down for me. All the scientific data I have seen shows that the unborn baby is a distinct human being.
To balance my innate male perspective, I have discussed this with numerous women in my life. Most of them tell me that they agree – and they oppose abortion on that basis. The few pro-abortion women I know all use the same class of reasons – it is an inconvenience to the mother. I am glad none of those women make any of my end-of-life decisions.
If, as it seems to me, unborn babies have a Constitutional protected right to life, and they are being killed, by what logic do I differentiate that from other inconvenient lives (elderly, crippled, comatose, annoying conservatives, etc.) that are (currently) protected from being euthenized? If it were legal for adult children to have a doctor euthenize their elderly, sick parents, would that be something you would want your party to oppose? If you would want your party to oppose that, please help me understand a logical, reasoned process whereby the distinct unborn life can be killed, but the distinct sick and elderly life cannot.
Don’t get me wrong – I have no problem with allowing someone to die from natural causes when there is no hope for recovery. I cringe when my conservative friends try to cite the Terri Schiavo case. She was demonstrably brain dead, and the autopsy confirmed what the doctors had told the family – except for the brain stem, her brain was gone. Letting nature take its course, keeping her from pain, was entirely ethical and compatible with Christian mores. I am talking about the concept of euthanization, not about letting nature take its course when nothing can be done.
I would appreciate some insight that helps me see how, given what science teaches, a logical path towards it being OK to kill an unborn life, and thus unworthy of being on the political agenda.
“All the scientific data I have seen shows that the unborn baby is a distinct human being.”
Please elaborate
I understand your position, what I don’t get is when the party thinks that is the most important part of a platform. I believe most people are pro-life but they are more like me; middle of the road. I believe abortion should not be outlawed because it is sometimes needed and each case is different. We should leave the laws as they stand and work more on changing the minds of pregnant women rather than forcing someone to remain pregnant when there might be health reasons that they should not.
As far as marriage goes, a gay person getting “married” doesn’t affect me. I don’t think the government should be in the marriage business anyhow. Marriages should be done through church, contracts through the government.
griftdrift wrote:
“All the scientific data I have seen shows that the unborn baby is a distinct human being.” Please elaborate
First of all, the DNA of an unborn baby is distinct from the mother and father in the same way it is after it is born, and it is distinctly human DNA that doesn’t change from conception through death. Thus, it cannot be considered part of the mother’s body as an organ or some other mass of tissue would be. If you disagree, please point me to somethign scientific that refutes the assertion of distinct, human DNA.
An unborn baby is considered a human life at the latest at 9 weeks after conception. The unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, after major structures have been outlined, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.
“fetus. Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary. 29th edition. W. B. Saunders Company, 2000. Page 661.
The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.
Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. By Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud. W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition. Page 500.
At fertilization, the genetic composition of a preborn human is formed.
Psychological Development and Early Childhood. By John Oates, Clare Wood & Andrew Grayson. Blackwell, 2005. Page 217
This genetic information determines gender, eye color, hair color, facial features, and influences characteristics such as intelligence and personality.
Mayo Clinic Guide to a Healthy Pregnancy. By the Mayo Clinic. Collins, 2004. Page 45 (section on fertilization)
3 Weeks after fertilization the eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.
The First Nine Months of Life. By Geraldine Lux Flanagan. Simon & Shuster, 1962. Second edition
Gray’s Anatomy – The Anatomical Basis of Medicine and Surgery. Churchill Livingstone, 1995. Page 329
4 Weeks after Fertilization the heart is beating and a circulatory system is in place.
Biology: Investigating Life on Earth. By Vernon L. Avila. Second edition. Jones and Bartlett, 1995. Page 693
4 Weeks after Fertilization the portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) and internal organs such as the lungs are beginning to develop and can be identified.
Gray’s Anatomy – The Anatomical Basis of Medicine and Surgery. Churchill Livingstone, 1995. Page 329
7 Weeks after Fertilization muscles and nerves begin working together. When the upper lip is tickled, the arms move backwards.
The First Nine Months of Life. By Geraldine Lux Flanagan. Simon & Shuster, 1962. Second edition. Pages 52-53
7 Weeks after Fertilization portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) has divided into hemispheres.
Gray’s Anatomy – The Anatomical Basis of Medicine and Surgery. Churchill Livingstone, 1995. Page 329
There is a lot more, but you can do your own research. In 1973, a lot of the more detailed information was not known, but it is today. If you want to post references that dispute my assertions about DNA and development, please do.
I do not disagree that the unborn baby is wholly dependent on the mother, and that carrying a child to delivery is a difficult and awesome task, especially for a woman who doesn’t want to have a baby. But, how is it right to give capital punishment to an unborn baby who is not responsible for being conceived?
I’m very aware of the development of an embryo and a fetus. But I’m unaware of any scientific study which attempts to conclude “humaness”. I’m not aware of any that even attempts to define it.
Posting a list of mostly morphological development is not the same as establishing a fetus is a “distinct human being”.
In other words, it may be your belief, which is fine, but it surely is not science.
Kellie wrote:
“what I don’t get is when the party thinks that is the most important part of a platform.”
I agree it isn’t the most important, but given the extreme nature of abortion, if indeed it is the unjustified killing of another human being, and the disdain the moderates and liberals have for pro-life issues, it does elevate its importance to match the importance others give in opposing it.
“I believe abortion should not be outlawed because it is sometimes needed and each case is different.”
Would you explain this? In 99.9% of cases where the question is elective abortions, the case seems the same to me – depriving an innocent human being of life. When is abortion needed when it is not medically required for the physical life of the mother?
“We should leave the laws as they stand and work more on changing the minds of pregnant women rather than forcing someone to remain pregnant when there might be health reasons that they should not.”
I agree on changing the minds and hearts of mothers about their unborn babies. The pro-life folks spend many millions a year helping women financially and with counseling to be able to carry their child to term. And what health reasons are there for a woman to abort her baby? Almost all pro-life folks agree that medically necessary abortions for the physical health of the mother, while regrettable, are up to the mother and should not be outlawed. But that is a very tiny percentage of abortions.
“As far as marriage goes, a gay person getting “married” doesn’t affect me.”
This issue is less cut an dried for me than abortion. Those who oppose government endorsement of homosexuality need to do a better job of showing the scientific and psychological basis for why homosexuality has actual negative effects on society and on the homosexual. And, they should focus on all irresponsible, dangerous sexual behavior, not just homosexuality. When they can convince enough people with verifiable evidence, I think people will prefer to see government sanctioning of homosexuality and other immoral sexual behaviors stopped (the sanctioning, not the activity). I don’t believe government should go the other way and criminalize what adults do behind closed doors, but I don’t think government should use its power to force me or anyone else to accept a behavitro as normal that I believe, for scientific and religious reasons, to be a mental disorder (homophilia, as it is called in the DSM). Yes, I know it is officially not a mental disorder now, but it was and was removed only for political reasons. By the way, I believe the same thing about being forced by the government to accept and accomodate heterosexual sex outside marriage.
“I don’t think the government should be in the marriage business anyhow. Marriages should be done through church, contracts through the government.”
I agree hat marriages should be a church thing. However, there are so many current laws that hinge on the legal status of marriage, and affect people and the companies they own or are invested in, that until that changes, government-sanctioned marriage needs to stay in its traditional definiton.
I do believe that there is nothing wrong with citizens advocating for positions on either side. Those who disagree with anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage laws should not try to inhibit the other side, any more than the anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage folks should not try to stifle the participation of the other side. If a political party is dominated by the anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage folks, isn’t that because they earned the votes? I am not pleased that moderates have been running the party since 2001, and that the Ga GOP is run by moderates, but they did come about that power fair and square. They got the votes, and run the party.
griftdrift wrote:
“Posting a list of mostly morphological development is not the same as establishing a fetus is a “distinct human being”
and
“In other words, it may be your belief, which is fine, but it surely is not science.”
How is DNA not science? How are statements like “The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms” and “At fertilization, the genetic composition of a preborn human is formed” from science textbooks not science? I am forming my belief on the scientific evidence.
If you disagree that the unborn baby is not a human being, what species is it? Or do you subscribe to the theory that some portions of the human species are not as protected, in terms of life, as other humans?
Your responses do not form a reasoned argument. To do so, you would have to demonstrate that an unborn baby’s DNA is not human.
Yep. I knew it was a mistake to engage in this conversation.
For the record, so I don’t get accused of promoting eugenics. I have never argued that one segment of homo sapiens is more protected than another. That is easily the most bizarre argument I’ve heard.
All I stated is as far as I know, there is no scientific study on defining what is considered human vis a vis the definition of life framed in the abortion debate. A list of morphological developments in a fetus is a “know it when I see it” argument and that ain’t science. The DNA argument is so bizarre, I’m not sure how to respond. But once again I doubt you will find any scientist who will say it is definitive proof of the existence of personhood. Because once again, they don’t really get into “this is a human” vs. “this is not a human” because how do you define that scientifically?
Once again. My bad for engaging in something that I knew would amount to nothing more than another circles around and round without ever reaching a destination.
griftdrift wrote:
“so I don’t get accused of promoting eugenics. I have never argued that one segment of homo sapiens is more protected than another”
I didn’t say you did, and I surely do not think such a thing about you. I really don’t want to demean anyone just because I disagree with their views. I was pointing out that given the absolute scientific evidence that an unborn baby has human DNA, such a detestable thing as eugenics is one view can result. I offered it with the idea that such an absurd illustration illustrates the conflict of reason between a baby having DNA that is distinctly human and doubting the unborn baby is a human.
Can a living being be genetically a human but not be a person? The word person means “a human being, whether man, woman, or child”. it dreives from the Middle English persone, meaning a life. Clearly, a baby’s DNA is formed for life at the moment teh egg and sperm unite and the new DNA is created from the parents’ seperate DNA. I hope we can agree that at that point, the unborn entity has fully human DNA. Are you then saying you are not exactly sure when, from that point, it becomes a person?
Why not search for “pro life scientist” and see what you find? I suspect you will find scientists are on both sides of the issues, and the key is filtering out the non-scientific reasons why.
I don’t want to do anything to discourage you from discussing this, nor do I mean anything I have written to demean or disparage you in any way. If it came across like that, I apologize. I certainly didn’t intend it that way. I surmise that you believe what you do for the best of intentions, as I do.
grift,
Did you really think anything productive would come out of an abortion debate?
“Yep. I knew it was a mistake to engage in this conversation.”
I’m right there with you, grift!
Extreme ways? Even the GOP Chairman isn’t falling in line behind these antics:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/05/steele-town-hall/
Pretty soon Dem Congressmen will be adopting Bush 43’s antics of carefully denying admission to those who are opponents.
That will be the next ironic – and amusing to the Ron Paul Supporters – shoe to drop.
What’s next, an “Oath of Loyalty”? Of course being outraged is nothing new for Constitutionalists.
http://aconservativeedge.com/2009/02/02/baracks-brownshirt-brigades-pledge-loyalty-oath-to-the-president-and-not-the-constitution-yes-we-can/
I pledge allegiance to the . . . candidate?
Political campaigns are always eager to keep hecklers out of their pep rallies, but the Republican National Committee took that desire to a new level last week, requiring supporters to sign an oath of loyalty before receiving tickets to Saturday’s New Mexico rally featuring Vice President Cheney.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31019-2004Jul31.html
BTW -
My name is Kellie and I’m an angry American but I’m not just mad at the current admin. I’m angry with all of them.
Then why the smiley, winking face?
habit
You make it a habit of smiling and winking at people when you’re mad? No wonder men can’t understand women!
Well, you know a woman never wants to come across as too harsh. I don’t want to be Hillary.
Talk of winking takes me back to Palin.
Women do better cussing, not winking.
A wink is a silent cuss word. Just like when a southern woman says “bless your heart” she really means “you are a dumb @$$”.
OOH! Good to know the “code” now, Kellie! (Blogging furiously on the nearly empty blog site More Things Men Know About Women)
Women everywhere are changing code now.
Dems want to point this at the GOP, but what they won’t realize is that average Americans just don’t like their plans on health care. I went to a TEA party in LaFayette on the Fourth of July. There were 200 people there. Six of them had been to a GOP county meeting before.
Your sampling is a bit, um, small and skewed for you to claim to know what the “average American” thinks. In fact, until you get out of the Bible Belt bubble, you’ll never really get what the rest of the country gets.
What? People think differently than us ’round here? Well, they are wrong, so they dont matter.
I’ll agree that a better sample size would be 300 or more, however 200 people attended so that’s what I had to work with. If I attended a TEA party in Atlanta, there would have been thousands, but I could not have looked over each and every member of the crowd and accurately state if they had ever attended a local GOP county party meeting.
I can say that the average American that attended a TEA party in Walker County, based upon my sample, has about a 3% chance of previously attending a county GOP meeting.
I am not the one making claims that the GOP is organizing or even attending TEA parties. Let’s see you try to prove your false statement.
I am not the one making claims that the GOP is organizing or even attending TEA parties.
Uh, gee, let’s go to the facts:
Organizer of tea parties is Freedomworks, founding director is Dick Armey (Republican House Majority leader for many years). Another person on the board of directors is James Burnley, who served as part of the government for both Reagan and Bush I. Does that seem GOP enough?
Remember the April 15 Tea Party here in Atlanta? Who was the talk host noisemaker at the party? Hannity, known Republican shill. Newt was the featured speaker in NYC’s party. Who else spoke? Tom Price, a Republican ELECTED official.
If you’re trying to say that the GOP is not behind this and the primary driver of this… you’re just keeping your eyes wide shut.
But, again back to statistics: if you want to know what “average” Americans think, you have to find people throughout the country. 200 people at a rally in a single location in Nowhere, Georgia, organized by GOP minions to create noise about the opposition’s programs… well, that’s just partisan noise and not what the “average” American thinks or wants.
You seem to forget: you guys lost the election. And will continue to lose elections as long as you seem like sore losers.
I’ll start with “nowhere” Georgia. I am proud to live there. There are a lot of other places in Georgia that you would consider “nowhere,” and I am sure you would dismiss their voice and opinions just as fast. O.J. Miller organized the event in my county and he’s never been to a GOP meeting.
Sure, some of the people at the top of these organization have some ties or former ties with the GOP. At some of the larger rallies you will find members of the party not in power as a speaker. Of course, they are going to want to speak out on something they disagree with. “Joe, the plumber” can’t be everywhere.
What I am saying is for every large head liner GOP name at large TEA party you can name, there are 10 or so “average Americans” that are speaking out at the smaller TEA parties.
I did not say the GOP has ZERO involvement. I am saying they are not the majority or even close to the majority of the mob. The GOP is not the leadership of the TEA parties in nowhere Georgia, but I guess you consider that to be any place outside of metro Atlanta. People are fed up, but I hope the Dems don’t realize that until November of next year.
http://www.youtube.com/v/NJxmpTMGhU0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
Well this just goes to show how out of touch the Liberal Democrats are. Anyone with any sense would know that the various folks are more egged on by their daily dose of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.. then they are any type of payment or direct marching orders from any special interest group or what not…
Lib Dems will stop at nothing to continue their agenda…
If Obama were smart (which we all must admit that he is) he will soon push Nancy Pelosi aside and find someone else to drive his agenda through Congress.
frightening lies… http://www.OpenCongress.org is all I have to say to that. It’s there in black and white for everyone to see.
That would require spending time on educating yourself past the typical “news” sources and media loudmouths. Would also conflict with their chosen ideology. Won’t happen often enough to matter. Good try, though.
While y’all keep pointing fingers at each other whining that the other team did it first, those of us who don’t pledge allegiance to the partisan flag think all of you look like idiots. While both political extremes carry on yet another version of Ford vs Chevy or PC vs Mac, the rest of us have seen so much garbage that all we see is a bunch of fools wallowing around in, well, garbage.
Would some grownups please step up and say that they’re going to take the high road and not use the other side’s past actions as justification for their own wrong doing?
BTW, why is this on Peach Pundit? I can understand the article about the Hank Johnson meeting but there is nothing about this article unique to Georgia. Are we going to become Red State here or perhaps Spacey G’s blog? At the very least, it could be combined in with an open thread.
Wait a minute! You mean now the Democrats are trying to activate their base? Tsk tsk. How awful. Naughty Democrats.
Democrats have a “base?” That would imply they have a cohesiveness and a structure. Perhaps they’ve decided to coalesce arounf Code Pink and Daily Kos.
Do cats coalesce around anything other than a wounded bird? Same thing with Dems. Like herding cats.
Just folllow the smell of pachouli, right?
http://gamarchondc.wordpress.com/
Us “thugs” are planning a road trip.
That email was pretty funny. Someone forgot to tell the “special interests” they are supposed to be financing the tea parties.
We are not going away. If a Congressman or Senator supports Obama’s socialist agenda, then they need to get used to protests and voters confronting them about their support for that agenda.
I just want to know when we are going to get together and go up & lynch all of them. D&R’s. I REALLLLLLY wish we had a reset button.
I’ll be happy to prove that I’m not on the R payroll (though I wish I was!) and still oppose everything I’ve seen BO put forward.
If everyone wo put their thoughts forward on a blog were to show up at pol events, the US legislators would feel the visceral anger, disappointment and rage we all possess.
Take it to the streets. Peacefully, of course.
After 6 Months, More View Obama’s Presidency as a ‘Failure’ Than Bush’s
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/06/after-6-months-more-view-obamas-presidency-as-a-failure-than-bushs/
A rather surprising finding from the newly released CNN poll. Question three on the national survey of 1,136 adults (which includes an oversample of African-Americans) asks, “Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?”
Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they believe the Obama administration is a “failure,” while 51% consider it a “success” and 11% say it’s still “too soon to tell.”
An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a “success” while only 32% considered it a “failure.”
Obama approval rating sinks to 50 percent: poll
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090806/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticsobama_20090806123511
Yes, because the presidency is a sprint and not a marathon, so let’s call the race after we pass mile marker 2. In fact, let’s change it from 4-year terms to 6 months terms and ring in President #44.1 now.
Yes, I didn’t think this up.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-4-2009/interim-presidents
You know that you’re really behind the meme when Jon Stewart made fun of your tripe TWO DAYS AGO.
Obama has spent more in 6 months than Bush did in 8 years so I’d say his presidency is a sprint. He is changing America as fast as he can.
That’s a good quip, but it’s not true. Thanks for playing!
look at this
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
and this
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-trillions-dwarf-Bushs-dangerous-spending.html
You said “spent”, not “deficits”. You want to say that Obama inherited a deficit larger than any of the Bush years, I can agree to that, considering how suppressed tax revenue is at the moment and how much money had to be funneled into the banking system to keep it from collapsing and taking our government (and several other countries) down with it. But since he hasn’t produced a budget for next year yet… you can’t say this year’s deficit is on him (the fiscal year is Oct to Oct). Thanks for playing!
He has spent us into more debt. Blame Bush, a game you seem to enjoy.
Well it’s so much fresher than “Blame Clinton”
I’ve got a few relatives that still blame Hoover, so there’s that.
I miss the Blame Clinton game. Blame FDR is sooo much cooler though.
Wait a sec… you’re the one who wanted to compare Obama to Bush. And now you’re bailing out on it? Chicken.
From Huffington Post:
…… “Back in 1932, the future Illinois Sen. Paul Douglas advised progressives not to expect too much from the Democratic Party. It was, he wrote, “maintained by the business interests” as a kind of “lifeboat.” Whenever the GOP ship sprung a leak — whenever Republicans were no longer willing or able to do business’s bidding — the interests simply piled into the other party and made their escape.
The Democrats have improved considerably since those days, at least from a progressive standpoint. But there are still branches of the party willing to carry out the ancestral mission. Let’s call them what they are: the lifeboat caucus.”…………………… BLUE DOGS
I think, for the most part, all of the rhetoric, reform and politics are focusing on the wrong things.
There are two goals that are always brought up with healthcare reform: cost and coverage. Too many people can not afford it and costs are continually rising.
I think forcing healthcare companies (ie providers, pharms, med equipment, insurance, etc) to be tax exempt non-profit is the way to go. There is one big short term problem it poses for a few peopel, but the mid and long range are entirely optimistic. Cardiologists can continue making $600k-$5m a year…so on and so forth. Investors in the healthcare industry, however, may not be happy. Their investments will either be refunded or transferred into longer term bonds. I think reprogramming the finances into loans would be the most profitable and popular method for investors, but in the end we get what we want.
Be taking the profit incentive out, people in the industry are necessarily making less money…just fewer people are. Afterall, something like 20% of people that make money off of the healthcare industry actually work in the industry. The rest are investors. Private capital will still be allowed in different forms and government grants will actually be taken advantage of.
Furthermore, we would probably see better service and treatment coming from a non-profit system. Afterall, in theory, there is no profit incentive to cure disease. Nearly every drug developed in todays market is designed to cover up a symptom or end a fit of a recurring sickness (ie flu, cold, asthma, arthritis, migraines, etc). The industry, again, hypothetically, would nearly be forced down the path of developing cures. Afterall, when there is no profit incentive…revenues plateau. You can not very well get a pay raise unless new developments and breakthroughs are made.
All and all, this problem is one for the baby boomers to fix or, like everything else you people do, pass it on to the next generation. You did it with debt, you are working on doing it with energy and education…why not tack healthcare onto it as well.
Like I mentioned before, without reform (even this package mind you) you are going to see things get alot worse. Heed my warning listed above. In ten years time it will be more profitable for private insurers to rescind your (babyboomers) policies and not pay out for even routine medical care. Your pre-existing condition will be living past 55. Again, profit drives private industry…not the interests of The People.
I’ve always wanted to be part of a mob. When are the axe handles distributed?
Every single one of those “facts” can be swapped in for something Liberal-Minded thinkers have done before, and likely for things Conservative-Minded Thinkers have done in the past. But hoo-boy, can we run in circles around that issue.
It’s a partisan email attempting to fan the flames and increase clout, of course it will paint a picture like this. Machiavellian politics is not an exclusive tactic to Karl Rove.
I find it funny how easily some of the intelligent people here, on both sides, so easily fall into these mind traps. I mean really, this is an issue that warrants so much discussion?
Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmead said the protesters should be tased or beaten to a pulp.
That’s nice for him.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, he said it about Code Pink protesters who disrupted a Hillary Clinton speech in 2007. I haven’t heard what Kilmeade thinks about the people disrupting the townhall meetings.
Is Mr. Kilmeade the only commentator to ever say something so ridiculous?
Nope. Guess what, plenty of people on both sides have done the same. If they had to buy a new pair of shoes every time they put their foot in their mouth, they could jump start the economy.
“Rah! So and so said this!” “Rah! So what, so and so said it first so it doesn’t matter what else is said!”
What is this, Kindergarten?
That the comment is ridiculous is only half of the point. The other half is that Republican commentators spent the Bush presidency making these kinds of comments about protesters, and now that Republicans are the ones protesting, not only do the Republican commentators not condemn them, they encourage them and refer to them as patriots.
So what you are saying, is it is ok for Democrats to have double standards – but not Republicans.
I’m sure someone will come here and pander to you and try to explain away things, but I realize you have partisan blinders you refuse to remove. Say, when is the farming going to shave your coat? I hear wool fetches a pretty penny nowadays.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. You might prefer that to be my belief because then you can continue the conversation in a manner that you are comfortable and familiar with, you know with your partisan blinders on.
Democrats and Republicans both have double standards. However, I thought the so-called party of “logic” and “reason” would have supporters that practiced introspection and restraint. When did you become okay with Republicans having double standards?
I think you are going to have a hard time portraying me as being ok with Republicans, or anyone for that matter, having double standards. In fact, had you taken the time to read the vast majority of my responses you would have arrived at a different conclusion.
If you are truly not okay with double standards then why do you appear disinterested in criticizing Republicans on this matter? Your only response to the main point of discussion has been that both parties have double standards. You clearly have little in common with the Democratic platform and probably vote for Republicans in most elections, therefore it would serve you well to police your own side.
“Every single one of those “facts” can be swapped in for something Liberal-Minded thinkers have done before, and likely for things Conservative-Minded Thinkers have done in the past.”
Sure sounds like I’m picking sides and criticizing one side there. Your argument is made of assumptions, which all happen to be misinformed. A quick glancing at my posts, or perhaps my website, would indicate I’m more critical of Republicans than I am Democrats.
So tell me another one, I love these little fictitious stories.
So – what are the Republicans going to say when MoveOn.org starts crashing their metings and shouting them down?
I’ll shout back.
Kellie will shout back.
In other startling news, this morning, the sun rose in the East and scientists have confirmed, on a clear day, the sky does indeed appear to be blue.
Thanks for confiming that for me.
“confirming”
Democracy fears the mob. Don’t let fear stop democracy.
I’m predicting more Georgia Republicans will adopt the Cut-n-Run town hall meeting style than Democrats.
We’ll see when Nathan Deal and Phil Gingrey have their not so public discussion on healthcare in Gainesville.
I’ll be there; will you Michael?
Democracy fears the mob.
That’s like saying lions fear the pride.
The mob has always been the democrats. They don’t like us taking time off of work to tell our rep we are tired of all the waste.
Kellie, shut up and pay your taxes.
You failed to include a
Yeah, probably a
was more appropriate than a 
What are you talking about? Democracy IS the mob. We are a representative republic. In a democracy, the rule is the majority of the people. In a republic, the rule is the majority of elected officials chosen by the people to make law.
Jason,
Democracy = mob rule. You are correct.
BTW – who losed the archives?
Doug – That’s what the dems are saying. How can they spend our money if we are not making any because we are protesting? Go back to work you “well dressed” mob!
From British physician Anthony Daniels – Opinion,
The Wall Street Journal, 8 August 2009 (emphasis mine):
“And I mean no disrespect to the proper function of government when I say that government control, especially when highly centralized, can sap the will even of highly motivated people to do their best. No one, therefore, would seriously expect the condition of dogs in Britain to improve if the government took over veterinary care, and laid down what treatment dogs could and could not receive.
…
“A few simple facts seem established, however, even in this contentious field. The United States spends a greater proportion of its gross domestic product on health care than any other advanced nation, yet the results, as measured by the health of the population overall, are mediocre. Even within the United States, there is no correlation between the amount spent on health care per capita and the actual health of the population upon which it is spent.
…
“…not only are differences in the health of the rich and poor in Britain among the greatest in the western world, they are as great as they were in 1948, when health care was de facto nationalized precisely to bring about equalization. There are parts of Glasgow that have almost Russian levels of premature male death. Britain’s hospitals have vastly higher rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (a measurement of the cleanliness of hospitals) than those of any other European country; and survival rates from cancer and cardiovascular disease are the lowest in the western world, and lower even than among the worst-off Americans.
…
“The one kind of reform that America should avoid is one that is imposed uniformly upon the whole country, with a vast central bureaucracy.
…
“And what I want, at least for that part of my time that I spend in England, is to be a dog. I also want, wherever I am, the Americans to go on paying for the great majority of the world’s progress in medical research and technological innovation by the preposterous expense of their system: for it is a truth universally acknowledged that American clinical research has long reigned supreme, so overall, the American health-care system must have been doing something right. The rest of the world soon adopts the progress, without the pain of having had to pay for it.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574334282143887974.html
It’s called “confirmation bias”.
Comments on this entry are closed.