Angry Mob of Racist Extremists Beats Black Man at Town Hall Meeting

[kokonut]

Have you experienced racism personally? I have not but I have been told by both of my hubbies that it is a terrible way to live. Having people judge them just simpily because of the color of their skins.

Not denying that. It does happen. Racism occurs in all colors. However, are you denying the fact that some do play the race card for expediency?

 

[shel90]

Not denying that. It does happen. Racism occurs in all colors. However, are you denying the fact that some do play the race card for expediency?

The lawyer for OJ Simpson did. Did you ever consider the fact if racism didnt exist, the race card wouldnt exist? Do you admit that the white man has ever taken advantage of having white priveledges?

 

[darkdog]

Bush hate is not everywhere in AD Forum but outside of AD Forum.

All what I see is the people are angry after learn that Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq and concocted the war in Iraq for political purposes. His lies lead people including children death and plus cruel to muslim/arabs in camp. I don´t blame the people for their angry toward Bush but Obama and his healthcare plan? :scratch:

The very fact that you're accusing Bush of intentionally lying about WMD indicates the level of hatred towards him. Every nation on the UN security council (including Germany) believed he had the WMDs. Every one of our intelligence agencies said he had them. Many prominent Democrats, including John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and President Clinton believed it years before Bush ever became President. It was conventional wisdom that turned out to be largely wrong. Even now, there's no doubt that Hussein had every intention to resume his WMD program when he had the money.

Obama, on the other hand, is blatantly lying about health care reform being necessary to solve the deficit problem. It is the exact opposite- it will make the deficit problem severely worse and all logic, evidence, and experience points to that. The Congressional Budget Office is saying that. So yes, I'm a bit angry that he's trying to sell his utopian vision based on a dishonest premise.

Oh yes, have you watch "Sicko" by Michael Moore?

Michael Moore is a propagandist who will literally slice up sound bits to make it sound like people are saying the opposite of what they're actually saying. Not a good source to turn to for credibility in the health care debate.

 

[darkdog]

If people dont want govt interference, then dont send your kids to the public schools, get off on Medicaid, dont drive on the highways that the govt built, and etc.

There are some things that government is necessary for. I am not an anarchist. However, I don't like the government monopoly on education. It's not exactly working brilliantly for us. I do support school vouchers, but unfortunately, our Congress and our President decided to take apart the DC school voucher program, despite strong evidence that the children enrolled were learning better. Washington DC spends more per child on education than almost any other school district and gets embarrassingly pathetic results. The vouchers were much cheaper and got superior results. There's no excuse.

As for Medicare, if it hasn't fiscally imploded by the time I'm eligible (which I have my strong doubts), then yes, I plan to take out of it only because I've been involuntarily paying into it all my working years. But I'm still going to whine about my crappy return on investment and how much better off I would have been if I could have put that money in my own account and invested it the way I wished.

The links are there and in the links, two of the groups have admitted to it.

I couldn't find anything about conservative groups intending to provoke violence. I read a lot about rowdy behavior, much of which is inappropriate, but all of which comes from sincere anger about the insane way Congress is handling this thing. I also read conspiracy theories about how it's all astroturfing. I also read about the smoking gun memo that proves the Republicans are behind it all, which was really written by one guy in Connecticut with no connection to the Republican party who emailed it to 10 people.

The Weekly Standard

Could you tell me which two groups you are referring to?

 

[kokonut]

The lawyer for OJ Simpson did. Did you ever consider the fact if racism didnt exist, the race card wouldnt exist? Do you admit that the white man has ever taken advantage of having white priveledges?

It has happened.

Now, let me rephrase what I said on what I was trying to say. Are you denying the fact that some do play the race card for expediency when race was never a factor?

 

[saywhatkid]

Higher gas prices = higher prices on products you WILL have to pay for.
Cap and trade = higher prices on the services you WILL have to pay for.
Fiscal responsibility is not in Democrats vocabulary. And certainly not in a lot of those Republicans, either. If you actually understood and believe in fiscal responsibility you'd understand just how mind boggling a $1.8 trillion dollar running deficit is going to do over the short and long term of things. We simply do not have the money. We're borrowing money from 10 to 12 different countries just to help pay the deficit (difference over the budgeted amount allocated by Congress) with China being the biggest bond holder of nearly $1 trillion dollars. What parts you do not understand? Give this administration a chance? WE...DONT....HAVE....THE....MONEY!! So, how are we going to pay for nationalized health care for everybody? Why expand the govt when we don't have the money for it? Expanding the govt means more programs which means more money spend. Money we don't have. It has gotten ridiculous.

Increasing taxes on the rich has never worked. The rich simply do not have that enough of a money to pay, for example, for socialized medicine/healthcare. Even if you tax 100% of the rich it won't even come close to help pay healthcare. So, that means money is going to come from some place else and that wuld be the middle class.

Your logic is that maxing out on several credit cards is the answer to solve a debt problem? That's exactly what this administration is doing right now.

And yet again, the Iraq thing is just a blip on the debt scale. Lives and so much money down the drain for no reason, and it continues. I notice how you sidestepped that issue YET AGAIN. As I said, you don't read replies to learn; you read them to find your spot for attack. Why should anyone listen to you, when you never listen to them? Feel free to get the last words in. Sorry I revisited this topic.

 

[shel90]

It has happened.

Now, let me rephrase what I said on what I was trying to say. Are you denying the fact that some do play the race card for expediency when race was never a factor?

A perfect example would be is your posts bringing up race so the answer would be yes.

 

[kokonut]

There are some things that government is necessary for. I am not an anarchist. However, I don't like the government monopoly on education. It's not exactly working brilliantly for us. I do support school vouchers, but unfortunately, our Congress and our President decided to take apart the DC school voucher program, despite strong evidence that the children enrolled were learning better. Washington DC spends more per child on education than almost any other school district and gets embarrassingly pathetic results. The vouchers were much cheaper and got superior results. There's no excuse.

As for Medicare, if it hasn't fiscally imploded by the time I'm eligible (which I have my strong doubts), then yes, I plan to take out of it only because I've been involuntarily paying into it all my working years. But I'm still going to whine about my crappy return on investment and how much better off I would have been if I could have put that money in my own account and invested it the way I wished.


I couldn't find anything about conservative groups intending to provoke violence. I read a lot about rowdy behavior, much of which is inappropriate, but all of which comes from sincere anger about the insane way Congress is handling this thing. I also read conspiracy theories about how it's all astroturfing. I also read about the smoking gun memo that proves the Republicans are behind it all, which was really written by one guy in Connecticut with no connection to the Republican party who emailed it to 10 people.

The Weekly Standard

Could you tell me which two groups you are referring to?

Indeed. Obama played the hypocrite he is by killing off the school voucher system when it was proven to be highly successful and at the same time send his kids to a private school.
Hit & Run > Reason.tv: Barack Obama & The DC School Voucher Program—The president says he wants to do "what's best for kids." So why won't he save a proven program that helps low-income students? - Reason Magazine

How about accept the factor that there are millions of people who genuinely concerned about where Obamacare would go and how we don't even have the money to pay for it.

Bottom line. It's money we don't have. That's the most simplest reason we have on how we cannot pay for this. Plus among other things.

Would you be strongly in favor of or strongly opposed to the provision on Page 435 of the Democrat health care bill that allows the government to garnish your bank account to pay for medical procedures?

Would you be strongly in favor of or strongly opposed to the provision on Page 401 of the Democrat health care bill that mandates end-of-life government counseling every five years for those 65 years and older?

Would you be strongly in favor of or strongly opposed to the provision in the health care bill that allows the government computer access to your bank records to transfer money from your account to their account to pay for whatever they think you owe?

Are you strongly in favor or strongly opposed to the provision on Page 16 of the bill that would force you out of your private insurance plan?

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf - read the 1018 page health bill designed for increasing control and the aim to regulate the private insurance industry out of existence.

 

[kokonut]

And yet again, the Iraq thing is just a blip on the debt scale. Lives and so much money down the drain for no reason, and it continues. I notice how you sidestepped that issue YET AGAIN. As I said, you don't read replies to learn; you read them to find your spot for attack. Why should anyone listen to you, when you never listen to them? Feel free to get the last words in. Sorry I revisited this topic.

Still complaining? You certainly listened and decided to "re-attack" again. Either debate on the merit of the argument itself and not the person or just don't even bother the next time.

Sheesh.

 

[kokonut]

A perfect example would be is your posts bringing up race so the answer would be yes.

And let's go further.

Do some blacks play their own race card as a matter of expediency even though race was never a factor?

 

[shel90]

And let's go further.

Do some blacks play their own race card as a matter of expediency even though race was never a factor?

I already stated...OJ Simpson's lawyer..Johhny Conchran.

 

[kokonut]

I already stated...OJ Simpson's lawyer..Johhny Conchran.

Lawyers will do that. I'm talking about those outside the courts.

Also, is there such a thing as a racist black in America?

 

[kokonut]

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4658/beelerjefferson.jpg

Never in the history did this sort of thing happened earlier by attacking citizens who are sincerely concerned about Obamacare and doubt that it'd be the answer. They get trammeled by a sitting president, the House Speaker, and Senator almost at the same time.

And this "death panel" or something similarly creepy is nothing other than an attempt to save money (not save money but to cut back on spending money) by convincing the sick and the elderly not to seek life-saving medical treatments but instead think about end of life measures. Ironically, in Barack Obama’s own words, Section 1233 is where government says, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.“

It comes down to rationing our...no, YOUR health care as you get older. On page 6, and guess who wrote this, too:

considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had a few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern the disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable….When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.

Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel"

 

[darkdog]

In the bold, THAT's EXACTLY what my hubby and his family members were saying yesterday at the birthday party. A group of them had a LONG discussion about this topic and talking about how BIG business determines who gets health care and who doesnt. I would rather ALL get quality health care because getting care for our health SHOULD NOT be a priveledge!

I forgot to add- I actually would prefer a big business make such decisions than a mammoth government. It's not because big business is any less soulless and aloof than big government. It's because of incentives. Granted, the profit motive gives them the incentive to keep costs down, but government has that same incentive. Entire bureaucracies are set up for that purpose. However, the profit motive also provides incentives to maintain a good reputation and not piss off too many customers or providers. Government bureaucracies don't really have that incentive, especially if they're the only game in town. It's not perfect, but in a country where the vast majority say they're happy with their current coverage, there's something to be said about the profit incentive.

Did anyone ever consider that perhaps government intervention is largely responsible for the spiraling costs of health care?

 

[darkdog]

A few corrections for the sake of accuracy.

Would you be strongly in favor of or strongly opposed to the provision on Page 401 of the Democrat health care bill that mandates end-of-life government counseling every five years for those 65 years and older?

It's not mandated. However, as Charles Lane points out in the Washington Post, it's not purely voluntary either.

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic.

...

Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life's end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it's good to have a doctor's perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.

washingtonpost.com

Are you strongly in favor or strongly opposed to the provision on Page 16 of the bill that would force you out of your private insurance plan?

Here's the way I understand this. You can continue buying private insurance after the bill comes into effect. The only catch is that the private insurance must meet the standards the government sets up. You can only have insurance that doesn't meet the standards if you had it before the bill came into effect.

Problem is, who knows what the standards will be?

 

[kokonut]

I forgot to add- I actually would prefer a big business make such decisions than a mammoth government. It's not because big business is any less soulless and aloof than big government. It's because of incentives. Granted, the profit motive gives them the incentive to keep costs down, but government has that same incentive. Entire bureaucracies are set up for that purpose. However, the profit motive also provides incentives to maintain a good reputation and not piss off too many customers or providers. Government bureaucracies don't really have that incentive, especially if they're the only game in town. It's not perfect, but in a country where the vast majority say they're happy with their current coverage, there's something to be said about the profit incentive.

Did anyone ever consider that perhaps government intervention is largely responsible for the spiraling costs of health care?

I would disagree slightly on the idea that big, out of control govt expansion has an incentive to keep cost down. The govt is not interested in making a profit. They're interested in greater and greater control. And if their program is a money eater, no problem, just print up more money.

 

[kokonut]

A few corrections for the sake of accuracy.

It's not mandated. However, as Charles Lane points out in the Washington Post, it's not purely voluntary either.


washingtonpost.com


Here's the way I understand this. You can continue buying private insurance after the bill comes into effect. The only catch is that the private insurance must meet the standards the government sets up. You can only have insurance that doesn't meet the standards if you had it before the bill came into effect.

Problem is, who knows what the standards will be?

First off, the idea is that it shouldn’t be the government’s business in the eventual attempt to effectively regulate the private insurance industry out of business; hence, private insurance MUST meet the standards the govt sets up. All this shows how getting the government involved in your health care reduces your privacy and your rights to individual choice. That's where I'm getting at. Pandora's Box will open once this gets passed. Secondly, the govt is not in this to make a profit and can easily wipe out the private insurance industry by offering cheaper insurance that has the same restrictions and less-quality as the HMOs of the past. If this turns out to be a sinkhole, which it will, they can always print more money. The private insurance industry does not have that option. They're in it to make money like any other business but they do have the incentives to offer quality insurance and care. Though no one system is perfect, restriction shouldn't be placed on the private insurance industry when the govt won't follow through in some instances on their own words on quality care. If this is such a good deal then I will wait until Senators take up this insurance option for themselves.

 

[darkdog]

I would disagree slightly on the idea that big, out of control govt expansion has an incentive to keep cost down. The govt is not interested in making a profit. They're interested in greater and greater control. And if their program is a money eater, no problem, just print up more money.

Experience of government-run health care around the world shows that they do try to keep costs down by using comparative effective research to decide what procedures, drugs, etc. are worth the cost and what's not. They will try to keep costs down by refusing services. It's just like when the President said you may be better off just taking the painkiller instead of getting the surgery. That's the sort of decisions they'll make.

Of course that won't keep them from operating in the red and adding trillions to the national debt.

First off, the idea is that it shouldn’t be the government’s business in the eventual attempt to effectively regulate the private insurance industry out of business; hence, private insurance MUST meet the standards the govt sets up. All this shows how getting the government involved in your health care reduces your privacy and your rights to individual choice. That's where I'm getting at. Pandora's Box will open once this gets passed. Secondly, the govt is not in this to make a profit and can easily wipe out the private insurance industry by offering cheaper insurance that has the same restrictions and less-quality as the HMOs of the past. If this turns out to be a sinkhole, which it will, they can always print more money. The private insurance industry does not have that option. They're in it to make money like any other business but they do have the incentives to offer quality insurance and care. Though no one system is perfect, restriction shouldn't be placed on the private insurance industry when the govt won't follow through in some instances on their own words on quality care. If this is such a good deal then I will wait until Senators take up this insurance option for themselves.

No disagreement there. If it's not interstate commerce, they have no constitutional right to regulate it. If it is interstate commerce, it's unwise to regulate them out of business. But given the demagoguery we've already gotten on this issue, I don't trust they won't use regulation for that purpose.

 

[shel90]

Just as white people take advantage of white priviledge every single day of their lives and think it is perfectly acceptable, some of the African American race will play the race card when it is to their advantage. If it is acceptable for white people to take advantage of white privilege, why is it unacceptable for blacks to play the race card to their advantage? You are proposing that we have 2 different standards…one for blacks and one for whites. That is the stuff that racism is made of. Once again, if racism didn’t exist in this country, there would be neither the race card to play, nor white privilege to take advantage of. You don’t like the system that racism has created, then work to rid this country of that plague. All you are doing is perpetuating by playing on it yourself.

 

[shel90]

Lawyers will do that. I'm talking about those outside the courts.

Also, is there such a thing as a racist black in America?

See my post #59