TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?!

@OmSigDAVID,

and that makes him different from everyone else here how?

@blueveinedthrobber,

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

and that makes him different from everyone else here how?

There are members of this forum who support the left, whose minds I MUST respect.
It saddens me that thay don 't support the pro-freedom side, but that 's just how it is.
One of them is a physicist; he has to be able to reason logically;
otherwise, he coud not function on-the-job.
He, and some other leftists like him,
have never called anyone an "idiot" so far as I have observed.
Some people can be rational and polite.

I woud never, never assert that he is an "idiot" as the imposter likes to put it; "Psychology .
a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation,
having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25."

There r other leftists, whose minds I must respect, tho I disagree with their conclusions.
I woud not allege that u r an "idiot" either. I am not aware that u have ever said anything idiotic.
Sometimes, rational, reasonable minds can disagree.

On the other hand, there r also several leftists here who have shown
very poor ability, or no ability, to reason in the abstract.
I cannot respect their minds; some of them r on my Ignore list.

As I said b4, I assess everyone on an Individual basis.

David

2 Replies

@farmerman,

You're right that we have concentrated on the tea totalitarians as a phenomenon when they are just the latest manifestation of the old American ultra right. We are too steeped in "red carpet reporting," that is how long is Brad Pitt's beard and what is Angelina wearing, to concentrate on things that matter. And the right thinks we have a left-wing media! HA!

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

It saddens me that thay don 't support the pro-freedom side,

As the left created and supported Abolitionism, the Women's Suffrage movement and the Civil Rights movement, may we all then suppose that you were sympathetic to the leg iron, kangaroo court, work farm, for whites only, KKK, MLK-is-forcing-things-to-go-too-fast, dogs and firehouse side of the AMerican political spectrum?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

As the left created and supported Abolitionism, the Women's Suffrage movement

Well now, that's a crock. The first state to grand women's suffrage was Colorado (Wyoming was the first territory) and it was hardly a "leftist" initiative, actually it was rather devious as women began that slippery slope by appealing to the legislature to include women on school boards; children's education being a "natural" responsibility of mothers.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I'll give you that one with no rancor.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I think that these baseless slogans that surround much of the teaparty rhetoric should be challenged repeatedly. Weve been too involved looking at the teaparty as a phenomenon. It needs to be challenged on its laxck of credibility.

Perhaps the death panel term was a bit strong, but it was not manufactured out of thin air, farmer. You should recall that it was originally in the bill that the government would mandate that a doctor would be reimbursed for a patient having "advanced care planning consultations." These consultations were for the purpose of giving a patient information about options for dying or refusing treatment. To be accurate, people already do that, and people have what is called a living will. Hospitals encourage, even require a patient to have a living will on file before any serious procedure is done. This is entirely reasonable and logical for people to do that in this day wherein the medical care can keep people alive beyond almost the point of being alive.

Now, given all of those facts, I do not believe it is the government's role to mandate or to do this kind of stuff for people. It is the people's business what they do. It is between them and their doctors, and it is none of the government's business to get into that. I do not think it is beyond the realm of possibility at all to at some point have government bureaucracies looking over the treatment options submitted by patients, and perhaps doctors, and if provided by government, for those same bureaucrats to prioritize seriousness and treatability of the patients, who they should let die first. If we end up with government run universal health care, which everyone should know was and is Obama's aim, then it could be bureaucrats reviewing this stuff for patients and rating their worth to live. That is pretty close to the term used, that being "death panels," as a result of the end of life options reviews in the health care bill. Thanks to those politicians that keep a sharp eye out for this insidious stuff that pokes its head up over the horizon, and they warn us about it.

I think this issue boils down to how much do we and should we trust government? The founders did not. Nor do I and most other conservatives.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

If we end up with government run universal health care, which everyone should know was and is Obama's aim, then it could be bureaucrats reviewing this stuff for patients and rating their worth to live. That is pretty close to the term used, that being "death panels."

So, if the situation is completely different than it actually is today or was projected to be under the bill, the term 'death panels' MIGHT be more appropriate.

But you call using it to describe our ACTUAL situation only 'a bit strong?' It's an out-and-out lie. A pure lie, wholly made up, which had nothing to do with what's in the bill. But it sure as **** scared old folks, didn't it?

The length which you and others are willing to go to protect lies and downright dishonesty... it's just mind-boggling sometimes.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I think your ilk are the liars in all of this, cyclops. Obama even admits now it is going to cost us more than he expected. He claimed it would not cost us anything almost, but I knew he was lying then, and I think he is lying now when he says he is surprised about it. One thing sure, he is either lying or he is even dumber than I thought.

The Tea Partiers are tired of being lied to.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think your ilk are the liars in all of this, cyclops. Obama even admits now it is going to cost us more than he expected. He claimed it would not cost us anything almost, but I knew he was lying then, and I think he is lying now when he says he is surprised about it. One thing sure, he is either lying or he is even dumber than I thought.

The Tea Partiers are tired of being lied to.

You admit though, that the phrase 'there are Death Panels in this bill!' is an out-and-out lie, one that was constantly repeated by your party?

Please don't change the subject to something else, and instead focus on what we are actually talking about.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

The Tea Partiers are tired of being lied to.

If the tea partiers were capable of living up to their campaign promises, they would be impeached before their terms were served. fortunately their rhetoric is all bluster with zero possibility of seeing the light of passed legislation. Typical of populist movements, valid complaints perhaps but totally irrational solutions. In essence the tea partiers are attempting to study darkness by turning the lights on. Think about it Okie.

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

Think about it Okie.

Ha, that's a good one! Thinking is not his strong suit. He is much better at blind faith and stupidity. In fact, I don't believe he's ever had a thought of his own his whole life.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

Quote:

The Tea Partiers are tired of being lied to.

dyslexia wrote:

If the tea partiers were capable of living up to their campaign promises,
they would be impeached before their terms were served.

OK: for the sake of argument, suppose that thay took over the Congress,
so that "the tea partiers were capable of living up to their campaign promises";
thay 'd have to IMPEACH THEMSELVES, if thay were to get impeached, Dys.

U r telling us that, like lemmings, thay 'd commit political suicide by voting to impeach themselves ?????????
(More precisely, it woud be a motion to EXPEL THEMSELVES from the House, rather than impeachment.)

I don 't think so.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

for the sake of argument, suppose that thay took over the Congress,

for the sake of argument David, suppose a meteor/asteroid collided with the earth totally destroying the entire north american continent, would the tea party still exist? btw David, what's today's status on ear marks?

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
for the sake of argument, suppose that thay took over the Congress,
for the sake of argument David, suppose a meteor/asteroid collided with the earth totally destroying the entire north american continent, would the tea party still exist?

Yeah, we have some secret (well armed) orbiting satellites, but keep it under your hat.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I keep everything under my hat David, I wear a Stetson. I don't wear it indoors because that would just be rude.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You admit though, that the phrase 'there are Death Panels in this bill!' is an out-and-out lie, one that was constantly repeated by your party?
Please don't change the subject to something else, and instead focus on what we are actually talking about.
Cycloptichorn

They weren't called "death panels" in the original bill, and I think that provision for reviews of end of life choices was taken out, I'm not sure? So Death Panels, that term not being universally accepted, was in the original bill as interpreted by many of us, even if it is not now under the new legislation. Cyclops, you must admit that intent is a huge component of what happens in Congress, so I think its fair game, so I do not agree it is an out and out lie at all. In fact, some of the statements that Obama made about the legislation are more demonstrably shown as out and out lies.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You admit though, that the phrase 'there are Death Panels in this bill!' is an out-and-out lie, one that was constantly repeated by your party?
Please don't change the subject to something else, and instead focus on what we are actually talking about.
Cycloptichorn

They weren't called "death panels" in the original bill, and I think that provision for reviews of end of life choices was taken out, I'm not sure? So Death Panels, that term not being universally accepted, was in the original bill, even if it is not now under the new legislation.

No, it was not. You are lying and you know it. Nothing resembling a 'death panel' was in the bill at all. Just admit it instead of this bullshit hedging.

Quote:

Cyclops, you must admit that intent is a huge component of what happens in Congress, so I think its fair game, so I do not agree it is an out and out lie at all.

Well, you're simply incorrect. It's not a matter of opinion and you aren't required to agree; the facts don't support your contention.

You just don't give a ****, because the point of the statement was to scare old folks into voting against Democrats - and it worked very, very well. So you think it was appropriate, no matter whether it was true or not.

Quote:

In fact, some of the statements that Obama made about the legislation are more demonstrably shown as out and out lies.

Why don't you show us those statements, then? I'm sure that by using YOUR standards, if he said anything that was even remotely close to the truth or was even true about the bill at the time, you'd agree that he wasn't lying. I mean, if you were interested in not appearing a total hypocrite, that's what you would do. Right?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

As I have already partly explained, it had to do with a provision that set up the mandate of "advanced care planning consultations." If Obama should ever attain single payer universal health care, as he has said he wants, then the payment for a person's health care would be by or through the federal government, who would have the records of those advanced care planning consultations. Obviously, under a government system, decisions are made about whether the government will pay for various treatments. I think it is already done under Medicare. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that bureaucrats would become involved in prioritizing who to spend the money on and when to let a patient die, thus the fear of something resembling a death panel, arising from the original Obama legislation.

As I have said, perhaps it is a term not exactly perfect, but it is not manufactured out of thin air. It is instead a wholly honest appraisal or fear that conservatives have of government having involvement in all of our health care decisions. Such a fear is not only wholesome, but it is one that we share with the founders of this country. Much of the Bill of Rights has to do with protecting us from the government. Surely you would know this, and hopefully you would also share some of those same fears. Sadly however, you seem to not have any fear of government being too big and overbearing, as you are clamoring for more.

1 Reply

@okie,

Before we get to the rest, this -

Quote:

As I have already partly explained, it had to do with a provision that set up the mandate of "advanced care planning consultations."

- is absolutely incorrect. Nothing in the bill mandated this at all. It merely authorized Medicare to PAY for such meetings - if the doctor or the patient request them.

So, no. Your phrase isn't even close to correct, and it had nothing to do with the bill in question. It was an idiotic lie from day one - and here you are defending it, twisting yourself into knots to defend lies.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know