Obama's health care plan will soon be dead in the water.....

[Adam]

Not that they want to. The fact that they'll have the ability to. You don't have a problem with that?

I don't want the government to have any more power over me than the private sector does.

[Magox]

I don't want the government to have any more power over me than the private sector does.

Sounds like something that should be on a bumpersticker

[pBills]

Fixed.

 

"well trained and competent staff" from the gubmint.

 

 

See and it's morons like you that will not let people have their own opinion. Sorry if I don't agree with you 110%.

 

And for you... "Honestly I do not have a problem with that because I am so f---ing stupid that I actually believe any and all right wing / anti-Obama / pro-Rush Limbaugh / pro-Glen Beck propaganda out there. I will never listen to anyone that has an opinion different than mine. I'll be back later on after I get into my footie pajamas and watch Fox News."

 

 

Don't you have to go shout over some people?

[Wacka]

You just do what your union boss tells you to do. Why aren't you outscaring some grandmothers at a "town meeting".

[DC Tom]

See and it's morons like you that will not let people have their own union steward's opinion.

 

Fixed.

[Kelly the Dog]

I just actually read the column that Norris wrote, as well as the actual bill he refers to (which he references himself by page number, I can only assume because he thought no one would read it). He says "the dirty little secret" about the health care bill is the government is going to come and tell you how to teach your kids in your home. Except the bill actually says "THE VOLUNTARY PROGRAM" is for states who want this to apply for a grant from the government to pay for the voluntary visits.

 

This is the dirty little secret of the health care reform. if you live in a state that applies for the grant, and you want the service, and ask specifically for it, these people will come and talk to you in your home.

 

Jesus friggin' Christ.

[Delete This Account]

Jesus friggin' Christ.

socialist!

 

jw

 

(that'll get a rise out of people, oh, by the way, how you been K?)

[pBills]

Fixed.

 

 

Good job Tom. Glad you have gone down to their level.

 

Oh and by the way, I don't have a union steward.

[/dev/null]

Oh and by the way, I don't have a union steward.

 

Yeah get it right Tom. The Union has bosses, under-bosses, and cappos

[pBills]

Yeah get it right Tom. The Union has bosses, under-bosses, and cappos

 

 

And again the ill-informed speak. Bravo.

[Kelly the Dog]

The guy who disrupted the Arlen Specter town hall was interviewed just now on live TV. They asked him what his problem was with the health care plan and what he wanted to say to Specter. The first thing he said that his problem is that the President had to get two oaths on inauguration day, and then immediately named 31 czars, and called them czars, which betrayed his oath of office and now he can't trust anything he says.

 

Yeah, these people are just everyday Americans.

[Fingon]

Actually, the bill's dirty little secret is that it will cost enormous amounts of money. It will be money that we will be continually borrowing, and sooner or later we will have to either cut the program or inflate our currency.

[pBills]

Actually, the bill's dirty little secret is that it will cost enormous amounts of money. It will be money that we will be continually borrowing, and sooner or later we will have to either cut the program or inflate our currency.

 

 

 

THAT is truly the biggest question. Reform is great, but it needs to be paid for in a responsible way and it seems as though no one knows how that is going to happen yet.

[finknottle]

The guy who disrupted the Arlen Specter town hall was interviewed just now on live TV. They asked him what his problem was with the health care plan and what he wanted to say to Specter. The first thing he said that his problem is that the President had to get two oaths on inauguration day, and then immediately named 31 czars, and called them czars, which betrayed his oath of office and now he can't trust anything he says.

 

Yeah, these people are just everyday Americans.

 

I would argue otherwise. Why people become wacko is a pet interest of mine. I don't believe they start out with goofy beliefs. Rather, they typically start with legitimate mainstream concerns. It is when they see their concerns stifled and ignored by social institutions that they become radicalized, and seize on the goofy ideas floating out there as the only tools they have.

 

Take immigration. Does an 'average moderate' think the north american highway is some plan to flood the nation with illegal immigrants? Probably not. But when a person is concerned about the money spent on illegal immigrants at the expense of citizens, and his concerns are ignored by the political class and branded a racist by the media, he begins to get frustrated and angry. His only allies are on the fringe, and he begins adopting their arguments and ideas because there are no moderate voices to represent him. Before you know it, he is bringing up the highway and half a dozen other fringe talking points he wouldn't have even heard of a year ago.

 

People are worried about what health reform will mean. That's a mainstream concern. Reform is being fashioned behind closed doors (several sets, ironically), with no public discussion - just a rushed timeline and the hard sell. The frustration and sense of railroading is getting to people, but the media has refused to aknowledge it. As their alienation and anger grows they are beginning to grab on to whatever rock they can throw - whether it be about the czars, the bonuses, or whatever. In other words, these are not all simply nutcases - there is a class of 'mainstreamers' who are being alienated and radicalized by the heavy-handed process being adopted.

[Kelly the Dog]

I would argue otherwise. Why people become wacko is a pet interest of mine. I don't believe they start out with goofy beliefs. Rather, they typically start with legitimate mainstream concerns. It is when they see their concerns stifled and ignored by social institutions that they become radicalized, and seize on the goofy ideas floating out there as the only tools they have.

 

Take immigration. Does an 'average moderate' think the north american highway is some plan to flood the nation with illegal immigrants? Probably not. But when a person is concerned about the money spent on illegal immigrants at the expense of citizens, and his concerns are ignored by the political class and branded a racist by the media, he begins to get frustrated and angry. His only allies are on the fringe, and he begins adopting their arguments and ideas because there are no moderate voices to represent him. Before you know it, he is bringing up the highway and half a dozen other fringe talking points he wouldn't have even heard of a year ago.

 

People are worried about what health reform will mean. That's a mainstream concern. Reform is being fashioned behind closed doors (several sets, ironically), with no public discussion - just a rushed timeline and the hard sell. The frustration and sense of railroading is getting to people, but the media has refused to aknowledge it. As their alienation and anger grows they are beginning to grab on to whatever rock they can throw - whether it be about the czars, the bonuses, or whatever. In other words, these are not all simply nutcases - there is a class of 'mainstreamers' who are being alienated and radicalized by the heavy-handed process being adopted.

That's a decent theory and I can agree with a large portion of it. That said, no matter how alienated you are, you're a nutcase if you think that because Obama had two oaths, and used the term czars, that violated his oath as President and is illegitimate. I had never even heard that one before.

 

You're not frustrated in this case, you're fruitcake.

 

Besides, this clearly started day one, not after watching what the President was doing. He later said all politicians are criminals although he only named Democratic leaders.

[pBills]

I would argue otherwise. Why people become wacko is a pet interest of mine. I don't believe they start out with goofy beliefs. Rather, they typically start with legitimate mainstream concerns. It is when they see their concerns stifled and ignored by social institutions that they become radicalized, and seize on the goofy ideas floating out there as the only tools they have.

 

Take immigration. Does an 'average moderate' think the north american highway is some plan to flood the nation with illegal immigrants? Probably not. But when a person is concerned about the money spent on illegal immigrants at the expense of citizens, and his concerns are ignored by the political class and branded a racist by the media, he begins to get frustrated and angry. His only allies are on the fringe, and he begins adopting their arguments and ideas because there are no moderate voices to represent him. Before you know it, he is bringing up the highway and half a dozen other fringe talking points he wouldn't have even heard of a year ago.

 

People are worried about what health reform will mean. That's a mainstream concern. Reform is being fashioned behind closed doors (several sets, ironically), with no public discussion - just a rushed timeline and the hard sell. The frustration and sense of railroading is getting to people, but the media has refused to aknowledge it. As their alienation and anger grows they are beginning to grab on to whatever rock they can throw - whether it be about the czars, the bonuses, or whatever. In other words, these are not all simply nutcases - there is a class of 'mainstreamers' who are being alienated and radicalized by the heavy-handed process being adopted.

 

 

I agree with a lot of that. They do have legit questions. I believe that the problem is where they look for answers.

 

Let's face it, there are a lot of lobbyists/groups on both sides doing whatever they can to pass or have reform fail. I think their anger grows when they are fed information about people coming into their homes and telling them what to do, death panels, being viable to society, etc. Those ideas are frightening the hell out of a lot of people including me. Fact is that they aren't true and most people don't realize it. The talking box tells them they are true so that's what they believe no matter what.

[pBills]

That's a decent theory and I can agree with a large portion of it. That said, no matter how alienated you are, you're a nutcase if you think that because Obama had two oaths, and used the term czars, that violated his oath as President and is illegitimate. I had never even heard that one before.

 

You're not frustrated in this case, you're fruitcake.

 

Besides, this clearly started day one, not after watching what the President was doing. He later said all politicians are criminals although he only named Democratic leaders.

 

 

Didn't he place some republicans into certain roles? example: Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation

[DC Tom]

Good job Tom. Glad you have gone down to their level.

 

Oh and by the way, I don't have a union steward.

 

It's not "their" level, by any means. There's a difference between "their" reflexive anti-union stance, and my questioning of your reflexive slavish devotion to All Things Union.

[DC Tom]

That's a decent theory and I can agree with a large portion of it. That said, no matter how alienated you are, you're a nutcase if you think that because Obama had two oaths, and used the term czars, that violated his oath as President and is illegitimate. I had never even heard that one before.

 

Obama did take two oaths - because the justice administering the first one screwed up the verbage, and Obama (or more likely one of his senior advisers) wanted to avoid any claims of "his presidency is illegitimate because the oath of office was screwed up". There's nothing wrong with that...but you can't claim he wasn't sworn in twice.

 

And as much as I hate the title "czar" (unless someone wants to make me the national czar in charge of breast fondling, which I could live with), arguing that naming someone a czar violates the president's oath of office (which is apparently inviolate anyway because he took it twice) is just looney.

[pBills]

It's not "their" level, by any means. There's a difference between "their" reflexive anti-union stance, and my questioning of your reflexive slavish devotion to All Things Union.

 

 

You should know that I am not all things union. I have said countless times that unions themselves need change. Am I pro-Labor Movement? Hell Yes!

 

I also wouldn't call it anti-union stance. I would call it hatred of unions, or anti-union blanket statements which roll every union member or pro-Labor person into a negative light. In other words, BS.