So What If It Is All Racist?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama
WHISTLING BY THE GRAVEYARD.

The Usual Suspects carry race cards in their holsters like Jesse James carried a Colt 45 in his. You never know when youll run out of argument and need help.

Obama is the President. The Democrats control both houses of Congress. And the rest of America is racist, to hear them tell it. Obama and the Usual Suspects have never fucked up or had a goofy idea, so the opposition to their miracles, fishes & loaves, and healings has to be racist resentment.

What are they afraid of?

 

[penandpaper]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama
WHISTLING BY THE GRAVEYARD.

The Usual Suspects carry race cards in their holsters like Jesse James carried a Colt 45 in his. You never know when youll run out of argument and need help.

Obama is the President. The Democrats control both houses of Congress. And the rest of America is racist, to hear them tell it. Obama and the Usual Suspects have never fucked up or had a goofy idea, so the opposition to their miracles, fishes & loaves, and healings has to be racist resentment.

What are they afraid of?

They're afraid of losing power.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It's not looking good for them. They grabbed more than they can handle.

If I was gonna pull some serious shit over on the American public I'd do it like the Ponzi Schemers do it. I'd start with a pilot community, pack their asses with free meds, get them appointments to see their MDs every morning before they shit, shower, and shave, then give them a refund. WE CHARGED YOU TOO MUCH, DOOFUS, HERE'S SOME OF IT BACK.

Americans would stampede to sign up.

The way the Democrats do it is:
FIRST WE GOTTA DECIDE IF YOU LIVE OR DIE, SO YOU NEED TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH OUR DEATH PANEL, AND THEN WE'LL TALK...MAYBE. OH! BY THE WAY, EVEN IF WE DECIDE TO KILL YOU YOU'LL NEED A 2ND JOB TO PAY THE PREMIUMS UNTIL WE PULL YOUR PLUG.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

Well, given that Jesse James famously carried a Schofield S&W, not a Colt .45, and given that the article you link is Obama saying it's not racist, I'd say you're right.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

There seems to be a new definition of RACIST and such -

Racist(1): Anyone who dares to publicly disagree with Obama.
Racist(2): Bill Clinton, Geraldine Furrao
Traitor: Anyone who stupidly voted for Obama and now refuses to admit it.
Terrorist(1): Anyone who watchs FOX News and agrees with their point of view.
Terrorist(2): Anyone who joins a "Tea Party" anywhere in the western world
Terrorist(3): Bill O'Reily or any other FOX commentator
Terrorist(4): Ted Kennedy (because he died before voting on Obamacare)
Hero(1): Nancy Pelosi (for hiding out during the "you saw the CIA torture" controversy.
Hero(2): ACORN (because of all the great community action work they do)

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l27/Jenny_Jackson/ScreenShot377.jpg

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

It's not looking good for them. They grabbed more than they can handle.

If I was gonna pull some serious shit over on the American public I'd do it like the Ponzi Schemers do it. I'd start with a pilot community, pack their asses with free meds, get them appointments to see their MDs every morning before they shit, shower, and shave, then give them a refund. WE CHARGED YOU TOO MUCH, DOOFUS, HERE'S SOME OF IT BACK.

Americans would stampede to sign up.

The way the Democrats do it is:
FIRST WE GOTTA DECIDE IF YOU LIVE OR DIE, SO YOU NEED TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH OUR DEATH PANEL, AND THEN WE'LL TALK...MAYBE. OH! BY THE WAY, EVEN IF WE DECIDE TO KILL YOU YOU'LL NEED A 2ND JOB TO PAY THE PREMIUMS UNTIL WE PULL YOUR PLUG.

See, here's the thing, man: There are legitimate reasons to oppose the national health care idea. Lots of them. You don't do anything any good by screaming about death panels that don't exist.

The debate is about whether it will work and how much it will cost, and I don't pretend to know the answer to either question. To say I'm not sold on the plan is an understatement. But there are no death panels, there is no rationing, and it's not socialism.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

See, here's the thing, man: There are legitimate reasons to oppose the national health care idea. Lots of them. You don't do anything any good by screaming about death panels that don't exist.

The debate is about whether it will work and how much it will cost, and I don't pretend to know the answer to either question. To say I'm not sold on the plan is an understatement. But there are no death panels, there is no rationing, and it's not socialism.

True. There are a LOT of reasons to not support ObamaCare. Read -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090919/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

Even most of the members of the Senate Finance Committee who worked to write the plan to satisfy everyone won't vote for it.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

Yeah. There are several analyses of the plan out there now, and one of my goals for this weekend is to form a coherent opinion not just of the legislation that's out there, but of what everyone's saying they'd like to change about it.

I don't know that I'll support this legislation- I may, I want to know more before I decide- but even if I don't, how many times have we seen a legislative idea born flawed and progress over several iterations to be something supportable? Hopefully, this debate will clarify what everyone agrees needs to be fixed, what doesn't, and how we need to proceed on all fronts.

What does no good is people like James screaming from the rooftops. Not long ago a majority of Americans actually believed the bullshit about death panels and what have you, but now the truth is out there and the debate is moving on to real issues. Which means, James, that all you're doing is alienating people who might otherwise be inclined to listen to the right's objections to the plan.

It's like, to pick an example out of the air, PETA... from time to time they may have a valid point, but it's lost in all the screaming. No one pays attention to a single thing they say because so much of what they say is utter bullshit. That's where you and people like you end up, man. You scream nonsense so loudly that if by chance I happen to agree with you on a broad stroke, for example this plan being bad, I actually question my decision. "Fuck, if this reactionary fool feels this way, maybe I'm wrong."

Take a breath. Relax. Make your arguments based on facts. They're out there, easy to find. Stop screaming bullshit.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

None of the bills prohibit death panels, and if they did Democrats will argue that words mean whatever they intend them to mean. IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT 'IS', IS. Bill Clinton.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

They also don't prohibit the wearing of paisley pantyhose. Does that mean we all need to buy some?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

People understand that the government intends to force them to get insurance, pay for free Mexican medical care, bail-out the bankrupt union plans, and reduce the benefits geezers get. The blue-heads get it already.

You seem to be pretty dum when it comes to understanding how politicians work.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

Here you go: http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/health_care_reform2.2.html

There are lots of articles debunking what you're saying, but this one makes me smile because it's from the AARP. The bluehairs in question, in other words.

And here: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

No reducing benefits for the old, the plan would actually help them; no coverage for illegal aliens; etc, etc.

That second one is factcheck.org, which is a fantastic site. If you'd like to find legitimate things with which to attack Obama, Pelosi, or anyone else, that's a great place to start. They call everyone's bullshit.

I'm not dumb, I'm informed. Now slowly back away from the chain email and educate yourself. I promise, if you spend the time you'll actually be able to attack the health care bill, Obama, et al with actual facts instead of empty rhetoric.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

See, here's the thing, James. And it applies to all the other screaming monkeys in this forum, too: You aren't helping your side. When your contribution is just a bunch of all-caps empty rhetoric, you come off like a fool.

Sticking with analogies I know you'll understand, it's like the ACLU vigorously defending a child-rapist. It doesn't matter what percentage of what they do is valid, useful contribution to society, when they get on TV and say "This man's been treated unfairly" and the man is Chester the molester, we all tune them out. And more, we become inclined to listen to the other side. So in the end, the ACLU has hurt their own cause. Same-same PETA, the NRA, and dozens more.

You have to have some kind of validity to your argument, especially if you're going to yell it at max volume.

Witness the lead-up to the election. In the months ahead of November, conservative bloggers made all kinds of frankly slanderous accusations against Obama. So, for that matter, did the Hillary camp. And the media, especially outlets like Fox, picked the slanders up and ran with them. So instead of talking about his policies and his voting record and any legitimate concerns about his character, we kept hearing accusations that he was Muslim and went to a madrassa and lied about his father, etc, etc. So when it all turned out to be lies and slander, the entire opposition to his election looked stupid and vicious. And so the right helped defeat itself, they made their own candidate's policies and qualifications disappear in the noise. When you make a debate become about the lies instead of about the facts, ultimately you look like a fucking idiot and even people who might otherwise be inclined to agree with you turn to the other side.

Okay. I'm not normally inclined to participate in political threads, mostly because I have issues with both sides, but this is an important thing and guys like you choke off the legitimate discussion. I've said my piece, and will now go back to only participating in author-related threads. I honestly wish you well, and hope you'll come around to debating politics in a useful, productive way. Cheers.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Obama is having a tough time getting his own people aboard the health plan. He has to get some Republican votes or it will fail becuz people like Rockefeller wont vote for it.

Dick Morris gives ObamaCare about one more week of life before it expires.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Here you go: http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/health_care_reform2.2.html

There are lots of articles debunking what you're saying, but this one makes me smile because it's from the AARP. The bluehairs in question, in other words.

And here: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

No reducing benefits for the old, the plan would actually help them; no coverage for illegal aliens; etc, etc.

That second one is factcheck.org, which is a fantastic site. If you'd like to find legitimate things with which to attack Obama, Pelosi, or anyone else, that's a great place to start. They call everyone's bullshit.

I'm not dumb, I'm informed. Now slowly back away from the chain email and educate yourself. I promise, if you spend the time you'll actually be able to attack the health care bill, Obama, et al with actual facts instead of empty rhetoric.

And how many articles did you find in the list that professed what JBJ was alluding too?

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

What, that there are death panels, etc? Zeb, there aren't. There's nothing even vaguely related to any of that in the legislation. Go. Read. Learn.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Lets call em whatever we want; LIFE OPTIONS PANELS, etc. The bottomline is, if it costs too much to keep Granny kicking you'll get an appointment with a sweet young thang to talk about yanking her plug.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

No, James, you won't. From the AARP article I linked:

Q. Will the government encourage euthanasia to save costs?

No. This false but scary idea—now surging around the Internet in blogs and e-mails—claims that the House bill would require Medicare beneficiaries to have mandatory classes every five years to decide how to end their lives earlier. Typical e-mails add: “They’re going to push suicide to cut Medicare spending!” All identify page 425 of the bill as their source.

Where did this myth come from? On July 16, Betsy McCaughey, a former Republican lieutenant governor of New York, appeared on a conservative radio show. Citing page 425, she said: “Congress would make it mandatory … that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner … all to do what’s in society’s best interest.”

On July 23, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, leader of the House Republicans, issued a statement saying: “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law.” On Aug. 7, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin described the proposal as setting up a “death panel.”

What does the proposal say? The clause on page 424 (section 1233) would require Medicare to pay doctors for their time if beneficiaries chose to consult them for information on advance care planning, such as making a living will, appointing a health proxy, and hospice care (already covered by Medicare). Medicare would pay for these sessions only once every five years.

AARP described McCaughey’s claims as “rife with gross—and even cruel—distortions” of legislation that “would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves [on end-of-life care], but also better ensure that their wishes are followed.”

Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who has sponsored a bill that would also allow Medicare to cover end-of-life planning, characterized the death panel talk as “nuts.”

I can't say it more clearly than this: There are no death panels. No euthanasia, no encouraging anyone to die, nothing even vaguely like that under any name. It doesn't exist. It's a lie.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Screw the AARP

Did you know that there are 564 amendments to ObamaCare pending? This means you dont really know what will be in the plan, and for now youre screaming out your ass.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

So one of those amendments contains euthanasia? Huh. You'd think that would have come up. Your argument essentially is "Well, it isn't there, but they could put it in later!"... They could also put in a provision mandating rocket rides to outer space for all citizens, but it doesn't seem likely. The fact is, euthanasia isn't in the legislation or in the amendments to the legislation. Period.

From factcheck.org, which is completely non-partisan. They take apart democrats just as thoroughly as republicans. Like I said before, if you want real stuff to attack Obama with, this is a great place to start:

Claim: Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? Claim: Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time. Claim: Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death Claim: Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. Claim: Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. Claim: Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.


All False. These six claims are a twisted interpretation of a provision in the bill that says Medicare will cover voluntary counseling sessions between seniors and their doctors to discuss end-of-life care. Medicare doesn’t pay for such sessions now; it would under the bill. End-of-life care discussions include talking about a living will, hospice care, designating a health care proxy and making decisions on what care you want to receive at the end of your life. Doctors do the consulting, not the "government" or a "bureaucracy." The e-mail author’s assertion that the bill calls for "an ORDER from the GOVERNMENT" for end-of-life plans rests on language about a patient drawing up such an order stipulating their wishes, and having that order signed by a physician. There’s nothing about "an order from the government." The bill defines an order for life-sustaining treatment as a document that "is signed and dated by a physician …[and] effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment." See our article "False Euthanasia Claims" for more on such assertions.

It's just reality, man. The sky is blue, water is wet, there's no euthanasia in this legislation. Now, I'm tired of defending legislation I don't even know if I support, so I'm going to leave you with the facts and move on. Hold on to your delusions if they keep you warm. I led you to the information, but I can't make you think.

Edit: And here's a link directly to FactCheck's article on the euthanasia claims: http://factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Youre naive and clueless like VERDAD.