Health Care Speech to CongressFollow

He was applying negative labels to anyone and everyone who did not join in making the Democrat bills succeed. Let's stop with the strawman here. The very language you are using is the same sort he used.

Are you saying that everyone who opposed the Democrats proposed health care bills were lying? Are you saying that everyone who showed up to a town hall meeting to state their opposition to said proposals was also lying?

If not, then don't they count? Don't their voices have some weight? You're doing the same thing Obama did: Dismissing an entire "side" of the debate because some of the things said by some people on one side are interpreted by you as "lies". How convenient to just label the other side liars and ignore them.

When you do it, it's just a random person on an internet forum being a nutter. When the President of the United States does it, it's disrespectful to the office he holds and to the people he serves. When Obama was elected, I made a point to state that regardless of whether I agree with his policies, he is my president. That statement still stands. But let's flip this around. Obama is my President. He does not just represent the Liberals in this country. He represents the entire country. That includes us conservatives. Now, I don't demand that this means he must adopt my position on everything political, but I do expect that he not join in calling people who share my position liars, and fear mongers, and the whole gallery of unflattering descriptions he lumped into that speech.


He should show a little respect for those who's opinions differ from his. He failed utterly to do that yesterday. That's why I have a problem with the speech. It should have been presidential. It should have (or could have) risen above the fray of partisan politics and sought real solutions. Instead, he's just polarized politics even more and ensured that whatever cooperation he might have gotten has just vanished.




WTF is wrong with you? Republicans were not allowed to work on any of the bills. Period. Three Republicans were allowed to join a group to discuss the bills in question, after the fact, but not a single Republican was invited or allowed to actually write any significant portion of any of the bills much less be involved even in discussions about the goals and objectives of the bills.


It's the height of lunacy to deliberately shut out one party in the process of writing a law, ignore their suggestions and recommendations on the bits they do learn about, and then call them partisans for not agreeing with the result. I get that most of you are hard core liberals. You want the Dems to succeed here. That's wonderful. But I expect that most of you are also at least somewhat intelligent and capable of grasping simple concepts. You can't all be so freaking stupid as to think that Republicans are the ones being partisan here.


Which leaves me to assume that for some reason you feel you have to lie about what the Dems are doing. As if maybe if you just insist that they aren't doing what you want them to do really loudly, we'll stop opposing them and it will happen? What does it say about what you want that you believe you have to lie to people to get it to happen? I've asked this before, but I keep coming back to it. I see far too many liberals willfully lying about what their own positions are apparently solely to try to convince conservatives not to oppose them.


But we're the ones lying, right? Lol... Amazing!

Actually, sweetheart, that's what you're saying by demanding the entire speech was laced with partisan jabs.

I didn't really bother reading anything else you wrote about this because, to be frank, it bored the living sh*t out of me. Do try to be more concise when replying to my posts. Thanks.





You seem confused, allow me to continue to disregard everything you say as nonsense.



I actually am Obama and I am here to garner support for health care by calling you an idiot. You caught me!



Citation that people leave their home country just for the sake of making more money in a medical field. Come on, this isn't that hard!

Edited, Sep 10th 2009 10:03pm by CBD

Heh.. I just read on Politico that the DNC has taken in over a million dollars in unsolicted donations since the Wilson flap. And Wilson's 2010 opponent, who had taken in $100k this morning, now has over $350k in donations.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the real reason why the GOP spazzed out over Wilson's remarks. Not because they give a dry fuck for the "office of the President" but because they knew it made them look like complete douchebags on national TV and needed to spin some damage control post haste.

What the fuck does that have to do with my point?



The way the political system works is "We don't like that because the other party proposed it!" The GOP has made this more and more obvious over the past year or so. I didn't like it when the Democrats made it so obvious with Bush, I don't like it now. Sorry.



You clearly watched a different speech.



Analyzing speech statements is nothing like discussing wartime strategy. Here's how the last few months of health care discussion have gone, as a recap for you:

Democrats: Ok guys so here's some ideas, let's get talking!
Republicans: WE DON'T LIKE IT.
Democrats: Why?
Republicans: BECAUSE.
Democrats: ...ooooook then. Well. Since you don't have anything for us to work with here...
Republicans: WHY AREN'T YOU WORKING WITH US? THIS ISN'T BIPARTISAN.
Democrats: You kinda refused to tell us what to do.
Republicans: Well now we aren't going to work with you AT ALL! That'll show you!
Democrats: ...right.
Sarah Palin: OMG DEATH PANELS.
Everyone but Republicans: What an idiot.
Republicans: OMG DEATH PANELS.
Everyone but Republicans: You mean people actually believed that sh*t?
Obama: Now some people have been lying about this bill. One example is this death panel nonsense.
Republicans: OMG PARTISAN JAB HOW DARE YOU.

Obama saying "some people have been lying" is only a partisan jab because, facts are facts, the Republican party has been spreading lies left and right. My example will never work for you because you want to pretend they haven't been. I don't know why and I don't care as to guess why, maybe you could share.

Actually, please don't. It'll just end up as dull as all your other bull.

Edited, Sep 10th 2009 10:28pm by CBD

Wow, I reiterate... Gbaji is completely clueless. Let's give him a hand folks, I'm sure he'll be here all week whether we want him to or not.

If by clueless you mean "says stuff I disagree with", I suppose you're correct.


How about instead of just insisting I'm wrong, you actually pick a point and argue it? Why bother to post otherwise? "Me too" is kinda pointless IMO...

Huh? I don't follow pigeon-logic. Perhaps you could explain how one has anything to do with the other, cause I'm not getting it.



How about you try to actually say something? I get the extremes here, but it's pretty useless for you to just spout some claim with no explanation as to how you arrive at that conclusion. The statement above is a great example of this.



No. You seem to lack reading comprehension. Did you just ignore all the sentences around the two you quoted? See. Those other sentences explain exactly what you are confused about.


Let me give you a simple example. An author writes a book. Inside the book sleeve you might see quotes of reviewers of the book. Usually, they're good, since the publisher gets to pick which ones go on the sleeve, right?

The Democrats are the author and publisher of the book. The Republicans are allowed to review it, but only the good reviews are put on the sleeve. Do you see how this isn't the same as "working on the book"?


Does that clear it up? I hope so. I could use construction paper and crayons for you if that would help...

I know you aren't getting it. I'm actually loling right now about that. Literally!



You want me to logically support that you bore the **** out of me?

Ok. I realized my toe nails needed clipping. How's that?



Oh no, I read them. I laughed (again! literal loling!) about how you made an alarmist ******** claim, and then followed it up with "Well, all except those three. BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!"



So you're saying that bad ideas should be added to the bill, just because they were Republican ideas and that's what you need to make something bipartisan?

Sounds like a load of nonsense to me.



Even your insults are pitiful.

I already said that he doesn't refer to them by name.




Is anyone unsure who he's talking about here?

Whether we're talking about the Republican Party, or conservatives in general, this is a pretty offensive dismissal of those who disagree with his position. I'm sorry. When exactly was the "honest debate" on the issue being presented by the Democrats? If they want to complain that opposition took the form of angry folks showing up at townhall meetings, maybe they should have involved the other side in the planning and writing stages of the bills in question first. Those townhalls went down that way because that was the *only* debate possible. It's not like the Democrats sat down with Republicans to hammer out details of health reform.


And hey. Maybe if the Dems hadn't already ignored questions and concerns about two previous big bills by insisting we "wait until the bills is written", then literally slip them under the doors late at night and call for a vote the next day, people would be more willing to engage is such debate, or even trust the democrats that if they wait for debate, it'll happen. Cause the last two times, the Dems just pushed the votes through and didn't let anyone talk about it first.

So yeah. Third time is the charm. Third time, the public said "enough is enough". It really does come down to partisanship. You can't ram this stuff through, prevent any discussion or debate prior to a vote, and then complain when people ignore you and start yelling and screaming before you can do it to them again.

Boy who cried wolf, right? You can get away with it so long, then it stops working. So yeah. Obama and the Dems has kinda worn out the whole "let's debate this" position. They lost that when they abused it to push through the stimulus and omnibus bills, chock full of stuff that Obama personally promised he wouldn't allow. And hey! What happened to Obama not signing bills without allowing public comment as well. Funny how that open attitude disappeared as soon as he actually got into office.



When you leave the people no opportunity to be heard except by screaming and yelling, don't be surprised when they scream and yell.

I'm pretty sure I said this before, but no, he's not bashing all Republicans, he's bashing people who chose to resort to shady tactics.

He's not calling out the people who have brought up issues, he's calling out the people who have brought up blatant fabrications and those who preyed on people's ignorance and fears to push their private agenda. I really doubt that All Republicans or the entire Republican Party fall into that group; surely there are many who are reasonable and willing to discuss their opinions and issues in a respectful manner.

Personal experience tells me that there exist many who are not included in that group. Maybe that's why they don't get into politics.

They wouldn't be able to call themselves the Religious Right if they didn't spend all their time up on the cross.