FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), federal Judge John Roll, and others shot at campaign event (Page 9)

  This topic comprises 12 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12   
Author Topic: Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), federal Judge John Roll, and others shot at campaign event
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Are we agreed that a very long list of Republican politicians and pundits have said a lot of very irresponsible things, and that a couple Democrats might have, too?
Is this the type of tone that you want your politicians to have now? Isn't your question deliberately inflammatory?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Orincoro: Do you think anybody really wants to continue to talk about the breathing tube?
I don't want to actually discuss it in detail, but for all that Ron crows about how awful, stupid, and ridiculous liberals are, it'd be nice for him to man up and show some guts and integrity on a given issue.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Okay fine, slightly more substantive commentary: Geraine your analogy basically a perfect checkbox list of every Republican-US Right Wing gripe of the healthcare process as spoonfed by fox news and is extremely different from how a majority have viewed the process, you claim that the bill was a mess but why is it a mess and more importantly how is it a mess? Have you read the bill? Can you come up with a percentage of how much is "mess" to "substance"?

Would have having no bill really been better than having this bill that sets the foot in the door for more substantial reform later?

I've spent a little too much time on IRC so my apologies but reading it made my eyes roll.

Blayne, you assume that I have no idea what is in the bill. Do you? Have you read all 2000+ pages? I have. Every single page of it. I know what is in the bill. I know what kind of programs this bill calls to have implemented and frankly it scares the hell out of me. There are some REALLY good things in the bill. Then there are some absolutely atrocious things. Democrats know this, which is why they are willing to discuss removing some of these things rather than repeal the bill altogether, and I'm fine with that.

An example: The new 1099 rule is idiotic and has nothing to do with health care.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbusiness/1099_health_care_tax_change/

So now everytime your business buys ANYTHING over $600, you have to 1099 that business. Buying a new projector for the office? You have to 1099 Office Max. Buying a plane ticket for a business trip? You have to 1099 Southwest Airlines. Having an office Christmas party? You have to 1099 Claim Jumper.

Next time you accuse someone of regurgitating FoxNews, try not to do the same by regurgitating the liberal talking points.

Samprimary, I think it is important to point out that while some of the provisions in the Health Care law were Republican ideas, the way you typed it made it sound like it was the exact same bill. It wasn't.

The bill isn't without merit. I don't think it should repealed at all. I think there are portions that need to be removed, but I'm sure most people would agree with that.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Geraine,
What is your take on the Republicans' efforts to repeal the Health Care Law, specifically the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care" bill?

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
And what's wrong Geraine with clamping down on tax evasion?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
I forgot whether it was the chief of police or the Sheriff, but I heard him myself about an hour or so after the tragedy saying on national TV explicitly that he thought the Tea Party was to blame. That he said this has not been denied by anyone in the media. The man's words were recorded and broadcast, and I have seen them rebroadcast. And he wasn't the only one who talked this way.

Jered Loughner was a non-partisan nut.

Eric Fuller is an extreme liberal activist.

And Fuller certainly had to have heard all the irresponsible propaganda from the left blame the Tea Party for the shooting. That is why he made the death threat in public, on-camera, against the local leader of the Tea Party.

In the early reports, on the same day as the shooting, journalists repeatedly referred to the temple as the area where the bullet entered Rep. Giffords' head. This seems to be par for the course for the quality of journalism that day. Early reports also said Rep. Giffords was dead, and even announced that they had confirmed it. Imagine how devastating it was for her husband, mother, and children to hear this announcement on TV! In the interview last night with Diane Sawyer, Giffords' husband, Mark Kelly, said when they heard that announcement on TV, the kids burst out crying, her mother was close to screaming, and he went into the restroom and broke down.

Tom, the issue is not about inflammatory rhetoric, and no matter how many times liberals repeat that false script, that will not make it true. The real problem was the left trying to capitalize on a tragedy solely for poltical gain, by proclaiming flat out that conservatives were to blame for this particular shooting. That is absolutely inexcusable, and liberals are paying a heavy price for it right now nationally, whether they have the sense to see it or not. Do liberals think they can overcome the tremendous groundswell of condemnation of the left that was evident in the election last November, by offending people even further by such an obvious attempt to politicize a tragedy? Just wait until the next election! When are liberals going to wise up and realize they are only shooting themselves in the foot, and are not scoring points with anyone?

By the way, Tom, I would argue that it is the left that are more likely actually to commit acts of violence, since they manifestly believe that the ends justifies the means. They are the ones ready to ignore and junk if they can the U.S. Constitution, because it keeps getting in the way of what they think is "Progress."

It is conservatives who champion "law and order" and the Constitution.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
What about when the US Constitution allowed slavery, or didn't provide equal rights to women? Were Progressives "wrong" back then to change and admend the constitution to reflect more mature social values?

What about Conservatives who passed laws that violate habeus corpus and the rights of privacy and protections against unwarranted searches and seizures? It is ultimately conservatives who find the Constitution a roadblock against greater security?

Did not George W Bush call the Constitution 'just a piece of paper'?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Blayne, check your history again. Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party in his efforts to oppose slavery. It was not anyone we would today identify as leftists or liberals or progressives. They were the Dixiecrats in the South who held on to Segregation for another hundred years.

Just because someone claims they are for progress, or identify themselves as progressives, does not mean they really are for progress or really are progressive. What matters more than progress is progress in what direction. Progress in the direction of collectivism where the state controls the individual in every way, is not progress, it is falling back toward the tyranny of the Dark Ages.

True progress is progess toward increased freedom for the individual; i.e., liberty under Constitutional law for everyone.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I forgot whether it was the chief of police or the Sheriff, but I heard him myself about an hour or so after the tragedy saying on national TV explicitly that he thought the Tea Party was to blame. That he said this has not been denied by anyone in the media. The man's words were recorded and broadcast, and I have seen them rebroadcast. And he wasn't the only one who talked this way.
So you don't actually have an explicit quote, do you, Ron. If they've been rebroadcast, surely you can quote them. See, I'm pretty sure I know which quote you're referring to, and if I'm right, it doesn't do what you say it does. This is sounding very much like when, on page one of this discussion, you said something provably false: "said that it was the rhetoric of the Tea Party that had inflamed people and leads to such atrocities."

Then there was the bizarre 2nd Amendment question. And then you just...dropped that part of the discussion with me when called on it directly. You're probably going to do it now, Ron.

I'm asking you a direct question about a plain statement you've made. You've said that, first, that the police chief 'explicitly blamed' the Tea Party for the attack. Then you said it was either the sheriff or the chief. Then you said you don't remember exactly what was said, but it's rebroadcast a lot...but you won't quote it, even though it's broadcast often.

Will you show this much dignity and integrity, Ron? To substantiate your remarks by citing them? The man's a police officer. You're a conservative. You're supposed to respect that, remember?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Blayne, check your history again. Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party in his efforts to oppose slavery. It was not anyone we would today identify as leftists or liberals or progressives. They were the Dixiecrats in the South who held on to Segregation for another hundred years.
Lincoln would probably have told a very different story about the Republican Party in its beginnings, Ron, given his exhaustive statements to the effect that his primary goal wasn't to destroy slavery but to save the Union.

In fact, there's no 'probably' about it, Ron. President Lincoln did tell a different story about it, before and during his time as President. So, no, you're factually inaccurate. Again. Can we get to the part where you pretend this misstep never happened, or will we have to prance through the 'that's not quite what I meant waltz first?

And then there's the fact that of course segregation existed quite thoroughly in reality throughout the nation, among Democrats and Republicans, exercised through simple economics as much as anything else, something which is widely known as well. Nor were the 'Dark Ages' as dark as everyone thinks, and in the respect that they exemplify a greater involvement of the church in the state obviously reflect your leanings much better.

But you tell yourself whatever stories make you feel better about conservatives, as usual.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
@Ron.

That a definition of progress from one part of a wide wide wide spectrum of political beliefs, ever read "On Liberty" by Mill? His concept of liberty included the possibility that there could be such a thing as too much liberty and proposed reasonable boundaries between negative and positive liberties.

Just because you say increased freedom for the individual is true progress doesn't mean it is, surely giving me the freedom to shoot you and take your wallet is automatically alright because 'restricting it' would be 'against freedom'.

Liberal/Progressivism and Conservatism have been fairly consistent since the 1800's.

Liberals: We want political reform.
Socialists: We want Social reforms.
Anarcho-Liberals: We want but aren't getting political reform.
Communists: We want but aren't getting social reforms.
Conservatives: We want to keep the status quo.
Reactionaries: We want to roll back reform.
Fascists: I am angry about something but find it difficult to articulate exactly what it is.

This is how it's mostly consistently been, Liberalism evolved from the enlightenment and parliamentary reform, conservatism has it roots in royalism.

The details may change over 'what' but the above simplification has generally been fairly consistent.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh, you surely are not denying that Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, are you? Or that he was one of the first Republicans, and helped to found the party? Or that the Civil War was fought between the slave states vs. the free states?

President Eisenhower (Republican) was the first president who tried to do away with segregation. When segregation finally was abolished during Johnson's presidency, it required a united, bipartisan effort against the main holdouts in the South--who were all Democrats.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Is this the type of tone that you want your politicians to have now? Isn't your question deliberately inflammatory?
I consider that tone a distinct improvement over the current one, yeah.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
No. I note with a distinct lack of surprise that you're not answering my question about the, who was it, sheriff or police chief, first of all.

Second, the EP didn't destroy slavery. Second, Lincoln himself would have told you, emphatically and repeatedly (I know this because he did, so often, to contemporary Americans, privately and publicly) that his primary goal wasn't to destroy slavery.

Insofar as another human's mind can be known, Ron, this is a fact. You're wrong. Your claim of a Republican foundation in the destruction of slavery is ignorant self-aggrandizement that is, and I can say this truthfully, pretty sad because it's rooted in a high-school level misconception about Lincoln.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Ron, I know it has been explained to you about a dozen times - at least once or twice by me - that the Republican and Democratic parties are not the same now as they were in 1860. Civil rights basically flipped them. Quit pretending that you are unaware of this. Or are you going to start claiming that Bob La Follette was a conservative, too?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Hey, for my part, I'm personally willing to let Republicans hearken back to their anti-slavery past, as long as they also want to hearken back to their high-tax, trust-busting, pro-regulatory-protections-for-factory-workers past.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Nice to see another cheesehead, Tom. Some of us old Wisconsin ex-Republicans still mourn for the G.O.P.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
As an example of party-drift - here's that notorious leftist/socialist Nixon on health care in 1974: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Heh. I should have written 1960.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I consider that tone a distinct improvement over the current one, yeah.
Not exactly a surprise that you would favor a tone which is much more insulting to your opponents than it is to you. Same old, same old
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
You believe that Republicans suffer disproportionately if people are expected to behave with civility?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post 
I have an idea, lets all do the PC thing.

By PC I don't mean Politically Correct.

I mean Polite Conversation.

Those who fight the PC are just being rude. If you are rude that means you are not talking to me, you are talking at me, or about me.

Rudeness is petty.

Lets try not to be petty.

Rudeness in juvenile.

Lets be mature.

Civility is just a fancy way of saying polite.

We don't need to be fancy.

Politeness does not mean you have to agree with me. It means that you realize that I am a human. It means that you must listen to what I say if you expect me to listen to what you say.

It means that the power to control the conversation does not go the the loudest screamer, or those with the biggest threats, but it is shared by those who actually have something to say.

And if you are rude, being polite means I don't get mad, or get even, or suggest you are harmed. It means I quit listening to you.

Being polite requires wit, not the ability to call someone names. There is no wit needed to call someone a Nazi, or a Tea-bagger. Those terms are just rude.

I don't like rude people.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Geraine,
What is your take on the Republicans' efforts to repeal the Health Care Law, specifically the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care" bill?

My take is that it is a waste of time and is only being done to try to score cheap political points. Republicans should take the approach of removing certain portions of the bill while leaving the much needed changes in. Repeal right now would mean rolling back benefits some are already receiving, and would cause more harm than good. Removing other portions that have bi-partisan support before they go into effect however would be a positive thing.


quote:
And what's wrong Geraine with clamping down on tax evasion?
I have nothing against clamping down on Tax evasion. What I have issue with is that the HHS department has been given power to interpret this tax law. Not the IRS. Right now you only have to give a 1099 to an individual making over $600. Now every corporation will receive a 1099 from every single entity they did business with. If the vendor does not supply you with a TIN, you are obligated to withhold on your payments.

That isn't to mention the amount of work businesses are going to have to do to make sure they are compliant or the billions of extra 1099's the IRS is going to have to wade through. To do that you can bet they will have to hire more people.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Geraine's right about the 1099 thing; it is a darn stupid law. Even the most optimistic estimates of the cost of enforcing the law that I've seen are hugely higher than any amount of missing tax that is retrieved, and a large proportion of those costs are placed exactly where it is stupid to put them, especially right now: small businesses.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Geraine's right about the 1099 thing; it is a darn stupid law. Even the most optimistic estimates of the cost of enforcing the law that I've seen are hugely higher than any amount of missing tax that is retrieved, and a large proportion of those costs are placed exactly where it is stupid to put them, especially right now: small businesses.

The estimates I saw said it could potentially bring in $2 billion each year. I couldn't find any estimates on how much it would take to enforce the law or process the additional 1099's, but I assume it would be quite a bit.

ETA: Looks like Rep. Giffords will be moving to rehab soon. I'm glad she is recovering so well!

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
I only recently learned that Lincoln would have kept slavery in the Union if there was any other way to keep the Union together. That he really issued the EP out of political necessity, rather than moral or personal drive. But I hadn't taken any hitory past 10th grade. I learned this through "the People's History of the US." But then again, I knew I was pretty ignorant when it came to history, and never claimed any real authority on the subject.

So I am suprised that Ron seems not to have known this, since he has claimed extensive knowledge on this (and many other) subjects.

My impression is, through this book, that a large chunk of what I thought was my knowledge of history is really some bizarre form of happy, scrubbed, near propoganda, and that I often see and hear this repeated and affirmed through a lot of media. I want to say mainly Fox-like media, but I don't watch TV enough to really make a firm claim there.

Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Geraine,
What is your take on the Republicans' efforts to repeal the Health Care Law, specifically the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care" bill?

My take is that it is a waste of time and is only being done to try to score cheap political points. Republicans should take the approach of removing certain portions of the bill while leaving the much needed changes in. Repeal right now would mean rolling back benefits some are already receiving, and would cause more harm than good. Removing other portions that have bi-partisan support before they go into effect however would be a positive thing.
Given the Republicans behavior here and throughout the process of working on health care reform, can you see how many people believe that they are not working in good faith? And given this, that trusting them in attempts to work with them or compromise is likely to be a waste of time at best and most likely detrimental to the process and result?

---

edit: I agree that the 1099 thing was stupid. If this is really a problem, I'd suggest the high profile prosecution of it in a bunch of cases to scare people straight as opposed to adding a mess of costly paperwork to everyone.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Geraine's right about the 1099 thing; it is a darn stupid law. Even the most optimistic estimates of the cost of enforcing the law that I've seen are hugely higher than any amount of missing tax that is retrieved, and a large proportion of those costs are placed exactly where it is stupid to put them, especially right now: small businesses.

The estimates I saw said it could potentially bring in $2 billion each year. I couldn't find any estimates on how much it would take to enforce the law or process the additional 1099's, but I assume it would be quite a bit.

ETA: Looks like Rep. Giffords will be moving to rehab soon. I'm glad she is recovering so well!

There are more than enough Democrats supporting a repeal of that specific provision of the healthcare bill to pass a repeal of it. Republicans, however, while carping about the issue, refused to entertain the notion of small specific fixes that might make it look like they tacitly accept the bill. So instead of small fixes, they go for full repeal of the whole thing, which will never happen, and they know won't happen.

It's political theater in the places of actual governance.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
The thing is, the 1099 thing can't be removed and keep the good scoring of the bill. The scoring of that section of the bill just assumes the extra revenue and ignores the associated costs. That's part of why it made it into the bill in the first place (along with a number of other boneheaded provisions that largely serve to shift existing federal costs onto the states -- removing them from the bill's official accounting, but screwing over the economy).

The main thing that's missing from the bill is an honest assessment of its costs, and that's one thing the Republicans were right about. Of course the provisions coming into effect right now are successful and popular: all the popular provisions were frontloaded, and as many of the costs as possible were backloaded!

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Weren't the insurance exchanges (which were supposed to be both popular and cost-saving) backloaded?

Either way, Democrats have indicated their willingness to sit down and work on amending this part of the law. Republicans have indicated they absolutely hate this provision. I don't recall if I've seen anything about how they'll fix it, but might not be a straight out repeal. I kind of figured this was more of a paperwork issue than a revenue issue, as in, they'd make the reporting requirements less onerous rather than kill the entire provision, but I'll admit to not having read up on the subject at length.

I expect it'll be months before they actually get into a room to negotiate.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Weren't the insurance exchanges (which were supposed to be both popular and cost-saving) backloaded?

The insurance exchanges are only cost-saving in the long run. In the short-run, they're going to be a very expensive adjustment. I admit "all" is probably a mild exaggeration, but not all that much.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
Also, insurers are prohibited from discriminating against or charging higher rates for any individuals based on pre-existing medical conditions until 2014. So says wikipedia anyway. I'm sure that will be a big deal for some.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, that's an extremely popular provision that was one of the first implemented. It is also one of the cheapest, at least in the short to medium term. Whether there'll be long term costs is much more up in the air, and depends heavily on what ends up happening with the insurance exchanges. Also, I'm fairly certain that the societal total costs will be gains, not costs.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh, the law enforcement official who blamed conservative talk radio and TV for the shootings in Tucson, and agreed with other liberal Democrats that the Tea Party was to blame, was Pima County, Ariz., Sheriff, Clarence Dupniks. Here is one excerpt from The Washington Post:
quote:
In a news conference Saturday evening, Dupnik condemned the "atmosphere of hatred and bigotry" that he said has gripped the nation and suggested that the 22-year-old suspect being held in the shooting was mentally ill and therefore more susceptible to overheated messages in the media.

"There's reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol," he said during his televised remarks. "People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."

His remarks especially resonated with liberals, who even before the name of the suspect was released suggested that the shooter may have had been incited by the tea party. There is no indication that the suspect, Jared Lee Lougner, identified with the tea party or was politically conservative. During the campaign, liberal pundits and politicians asserted that the sometimes militant language some conservative politicians used could incite violence.

Link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/sheriff-dupniks-criticism-of-p.html

In the on-air statement by Dupnicks that I remember, which he gave a few hours after the shooting, he mentioned the Tea Party by name, himself.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
Has it come into effect? I thought it had, but then wikipedia said not until 2014. However this one came into effect in 2010:

Insurers are prohibited from excluding pre-existing medical conditions (except in grandfathered individual health insurance plans) for children under the age of 19.

Is wiki wrong?

Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Rakeesh, the law enforcement official who blamed conservative talk radio and TV for the shootings in Tucson, and agreed with other liberal Democrats that the Tea Party was to blame, was Pima County, Ariz., Sheriff, Clarence Dupniks. Here is one excerpt from The Washington Post:
quote:
In a news conference Saturday evening, Dupnik condemned the "atmosphere of hatred and bigotry" that he said has gripped the nation and suggested that the 22-year-old suspect being held in the shooting was mentally ill and therefore more susceptible to overheated messages in the media.

"There's reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol," he said during his televised remarks. "People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."

His remarks especially resonated with liberals, who even before the name of the suspect was released suggested that the shooter may have had been incited by the tea party. There is no indication that the suspect, Jared Lee Lougner, identified with the tea party or was politically conservative. During the campaign, liberal pundits and politicians asserted that the sometimes militant language some conservative politicians used could incite violence.

Link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/sheriff-dupniks-criticism-of-p.html

In the on-air statement by Dupnicks that I remember, which he gave a few hours after the shooting, he mentioned the Tea Party by name, himself.

Ron: I'm a bit confused. In your link, none of his comments place the blame on the tea party. He places the blame on people who make inflammatory remarks, and rabble rouse. The article merely states that liberal groups have inferred that implicates the Tea Party.

You still haven't provided a direct quote where a law enforcement official while speaking to the media fingered the Tea Party.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmm, I might be misremembering. It seems they did only put in the pre-existing conditions clause for children. If anything, that annoys me. I'd like to see it put earlier. Ah, I recall what I'm thinking of: the bill immediately created an insurance program for people with pre-existing conditions who have lacked insurance for six months.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh, the usual liberal Democrat passion for revisiting history can really be awe inspiring. Let me see if I have it right:

Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War that ended Slavery, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, but he did not really want to do away with slavery. Is that what you are saying is your *Superior* liberal scholarship?

And oh yes, let me not overlook this one:

The Civil War was fought between the slave states and the free states, and the result of the Union victory was the abolition of slavery in America--But the liberal view is that the Civil War was not really about slavery at all, it was about "States Rights." (But state's right to do what--continue with slavery?)

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not confused at all. I don't expect him ever to actually do it. I expect him to do what he did back on page one, which is make the accusation and then not substantiate it.

He might respond to you, given the other hat you wear, but then again that might be a post of thinly veiled invective about how you're betraying the Cards by giving into to liberal atheist/agnostics such as myself (heh) and making this forum unfriendly to their ideals.

All while most likely, if he holds true to pattern, never directly returning to the question at hand and acknowledging, "The police chief/sheriff/dog catcher never actually explicitly blamed the Tea Party as I initially said more than once."

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Rakeesh, the usual liberal Democrat passion for revisiting history can really be awe inspiring. Let me see if I have it right:
Revisionism can indeed be awe-inspiring. Here's a great example: I voted for Dubya twice, came close to voting for McCain for President, and am a registered Independent and have been since I could vote. I expect this statement of fact to be as persuasive towards you as pointing out that, no, I'm not actually an 'agnostic/atheist', nor do I 'oppose the 2nd Amendment', and other frankly bizarre accusations you've leveled. They're a strange mixture of weird and street theater.

But let's look at what I actually said, instead of the much easier, less ethical route you're taking of putting words into my mouth:
quote:
Second, Lincoln himself would have told you, emphatically and repeatedly (I know this because he did, so often, to contemporary Americans, privately and publicly) that his primary goal wasn't to destroy slavery.

Insofar as another human's mind can be known, Ron, this is a fact. You're wrong. Your claim of a Republican foundation in the destruction of slavery is ignorant self-aggrandizement that is, and I can say this truthfully, pretty sad because it's rooted in a high-school level misconception about Lincoln.

At no time did I say the Republican Party didn't have a huge hand in the destruction of slavery, I said that that was not their goal as a whole at the time. It was the preservation of Union, as it was President Lincoln's in particular.


I haven't spoken here about what my view on what the Civil War was about, so how on Earth you presume to know what my mind is on the subject is beyond me. Who are you to claim such powers, Ron? If I went by the KJV, I'd not suffer you to live!

Now, how about let's go back to what the sheriff/police chief of Tuscon said about the Tea Party, shall we? You've said it's been broadcast so often, so it will be easy for you to dredge up a quotation for us to go over. No, this isn't going to go away. You're not going to throw a nice big neon red herring on the floor like whether the Civil War was really about slavery (though that's a great try!) to divert the subject. You made a statement. Be as strong as gun ownership and stand behind it!

------

ETA: Heh, I was going to let Ron continue saying ridiculous things before just doing a ten second bit of Google work of Lincoln quotes, kmbboots, but that's certainly a good start!

Prediction: Ron will say soemthing like, "Sure, he said that, of course I knew that all along, but what was clearly in his heart the entire time was the destruction of slavery, and no one can dispute it was destroyed in the United States under Republican leadership."

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh, I could not find a link to that particular statement (on air at Fox News about 2pm EST, Jan. 8). But I myself heard Dupnicks make the statement where he explicitly mentioned the Tea Party himself. I am an eye witness. And not the only one, considering Fox News' high ratings.

You can doubt me. You are free to doubt anything I say. But you will be wrong.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Your objectivity on this statement is underwhelming. Your appeal to the authority of the viewership of Fox News is unconvincing. You have failed to put your money where your mouth is.

If he had explicitly blamed the Tea Party as you say he did, you're perfectly aware it would be plastered all over the web. The fact that you've failed after repeated requests to find a quote of him doing so is a pretty persuasive indicator that he didn't.

And, this may surprise you: doubting you doesn't equate to being wrong. To think an un-Ron thought doesn't equate to wrongness. Such a thought! I'm getting Inherit the Wind chills here.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:


I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.


--- Abraham Lincoln.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
Ron, please address the quote (from Lincoln) that kmbboots provided.

How does it not demonstrate, emphatically, that Lincoln's primary goal was keeping the Union together, and not ending slavery?

Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Ron:
quote:
Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War that ended Slavery, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, but he did not really want to do away with slavery. Is that what you are saying is your *Superior* liberal scholarship?

Lincoln most certainly did not approve of slavery. But he became President at a time where states had been making very serious overtures at succession, including the succession crisis of Jackson's presidency. The previous President had been paralyzed as things began to crumble, and so Lincoln absolutely felt his first priority was preserving the union.

quote:
The Civil War was fought between the slave states and the free states, and the result of the Union victory was the abolition of slavery in America--But the liberal view is that the Civil War was not really about slavery at all, it was about "States Rights." (But state's right to do what--continue with slavery?)
I think you are confused Ron. Liberals accept that the Civil Warm while it was being conducted, adopted the end of slavery as an issue. States that did not leave the union were most definitely allowed to maintain their slaves and plantations, even after the emancipation proclamation. But the current consensus on the scholarship is that *Southern* states, in order to continue utilizing slave labor most definitely cited slavery and Northern pressure against slavery as one of the reasons they were justified in leaving the union. That dogged refusal to depart from slavery is almost funny in that many Southerners now wish to whitewash that part of their history and pretend the civil war was all about state's rights, and tie that into current conservative thought. So it's actually many conservatives that are acting like slavery had nothing to do with the civil war.

They are partly right, in that I'm am quite confident that if the Southern states hadn't attacked Union forces, they could have scared the Northern states and kept their slaves for the time being.

[ January 19, 2011, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
The real problem was the left trying to capitalize on a tragedy solely for poltical gain, by proclaiming flat out that conservatives were to blame for this particular shooting.

No.

Mostly the people who have proclaimed anything at all -- which does not include all "the left" -- have blamed it on violent, hostile rhetoric. Many have named specific commentators who often use such violent rhetoric. A few have, indeed, blamed all Republicans or all conservatives, but the overwhelming bulk of complaints have been about the loud, angry, violent talkers.

I do not think that loud, angry, violent talker = conservative. I'm really hoping you don't. There are many conservatives who are calm, intelligent, reasonable people who wish to govern together with their fellow politicians. And I'd really like to hear more from them, if I could get the loud ones to simmer down a minute.

Sarah Palin said, in her interview on Hannity, that no one will silence her. I think it's telling that, when asked to be civil, she complains of being silenced. Apparently when you take away her hostility, she has no voice at all. Does she have ideas? I'd like to hear them. So far I've mostly heard why all the Left's ideas are wrong and how they all hate her.

But, please, stop blaming the complaints about violent rhetoric on the left. An awful lot of us, left, right and independent, are damn tired of all of you, left, right, up, down, whatever. Between the bickering and the games and the points-scoring and the grandstanding and the name-calling and the lying and the endless fight for power and prestige and airtime, we'd like to see some of the people in office take maybe 15 minutes a day and frickin' govern something.

You know what? Liberals aren't going away. Neither are conservatives. There will never be a time when all of America suddenly decides that [pick either party] is completely right, largely because neither side ever will be. It's far past time for all of you to grow up out of the preschool mindsets you're stuck in and learn to work together to find solutions that work for as many people as possible.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Is the nuance really that difficult to follow?

The war was entirely tied up with slavery as an institution and political issue, it's just that slavery alone was not responsible for secession, nor for the beginning of the war. It was not the banner issue at the outset, though it was partly responsible for and indicative of the general conflict.

It's like this Ron: Oil has everything to do with the war in Iraq, by simple virtue if *nothing* else, of Iraq's history as an oil producing nation. Oil is a big part of what made Iraq into what it was by 2003- and oil has contributed to US foreign policy around the world for a long time. That doesn't mean we fought that war over oil- it doesn't mean the war was "about oil." Were it not for oil, it's doubtful that war would have happened- but it did happen, and the general political circumstances surrounding it were still bigger than oil.

So while you can say that were it not for slavery, the Civil War would likely not have happened, you cannot say that the war was about slavery in its entirety. It simply wasn't- it was about the effects that slavery had already had on the economies of the north and south. It was about the rot that slavery had caused in the South. So if Lincoln could have fixed that without abolishing slavery and going to war, he might have tried to do it. The fact that it was impossible to fix, and that eventually the only thing for it was to commit fully to an end of slavery as an institution to ensure that Reconstruction would go ahead and this conflict would never happen again doesn't mean the war was about slavery as a political issue.

So, slavery = a cause of the war. However slavery != *the* cause of the war.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
"Apparently when you take away her hostility, she has no voice at all."

I do have difficulty recalling anything she has said publicly that has not been mixed up with hostility or bitterness, or not been otherwise adversarial. Interestingly, the boys on "It's All Political," who have both listened to and read a great deal more of her public record than I have, commented last week that a key problem in her public persona is that she apparently doesn't present any position on public policy that isn't couched in opposition to some other person, group, or policy itself. They seem to think that if she wishes to run for office, the fact that her current public policy agenda is presented entirely as opposition to existing policy agendas is going to be a major liability.

I would characterize her as perhaps the worst on the score of having no new ideas, but it's an issue that runs through the conservative movement- which is going to be interesting in this coming session. So far they support a number of policies which failed rather badly under Bush, and they oppose a number of policies that have yet to be tested.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
Aaaand we're off and running with the whole "civility" thing. A House Democratic, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), went off on the Republicans and brought up the Nazis:

quote:
"They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels," Cohen said. "You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing."
Cohen, you moron. Now everyone will ignore the point you were trying to make -- lies yelled loud enough and often enough will be believed, which is true -- and focus on your hostility, idiocy, and willingness to lump all opponents into the "they hate America and probably want to kill us all" group. And if you did have any good points as a politician you just threw them all away.

Honestly, what is it about people that makes them so ready to demonize their opponents? What Republican would be willing to work with Rep. Cohen now? What result was he expecting? To shame them into giving up? Shame rarely works in politics.

I have no use for any public speaker of any party or media who relies on volume, logical fallacies either accidental or, worse, intentional, and fear to rouse his or her listeners.

Editing to add: You want to make the same point? Try this:

"Americans are of many minds about health care reform. They worry that it costs too much, or will hurt small businesses, or that it's a socialist plot. And many of those worries are our fault, because we failed to comprehend just how loudly and how forcefully some opponents of health care reform would be willing to lie about it.

"Day after day, night after night, some opponents of health care reform, whether in office, on television or on the radio, screamed lies into the ears of their audiences. They didn't let up, they didn't acknowledge when they were proved wrong, and they all agreed with each other so that their audiences knew they must be right. Small wonder so few Americans know what to believe.

"Health care reform is a government takeover? That's a damn lie. That's what you hear from a corrupt businessman who fears that reasonable regulations that protect the consumer will keep him from making as much money as he wants.

"Death panels! Not only was that a whopping lie, it was the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The bill contained a provision for covering the costs of end-of-life counseling for the elderly, to answer their questions about living wills, powers of attorney, and the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy in the bill, and it would pay for that counseling up to once every five years. That's it! Entirely voluntary, solely there to help people nearing the end of their lives to have a little more control over what was happening. But don't worry! After enough idiots yelled "Death panels!" for long enough, they heroically got that useful, compassionate service chopped out. And they still wouldn't stop lying about it, even after it was removed from the bill, because it was too good a lie to let go.

"There are good and reasonable arguments against many aspects of this reform, and I am eager to sit down with good and reasonable people and find solutions. But the American people deserve to be told the truth, good and bad, and they deserve representatives who work together in good faith with what's real. When you lie to someone and they agree with you, you can't point at that agreement and claim a mandate, you can't tally up deluded voters and say this is what they want.

"Say a lie often enough and loud enough, and people will believe it. I say have the guts to tell the truth so that people will understand it."

OK, needs polishing. But 20 minutes and I wrote a speech that is just as impassioned, but without the Nazi comparison or the automatic condemnation of huge classes of people. Surely someone with a speech-writing staff could do far better.

[ January 19, 2011, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 12 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2