Search forums

Forums

Export thread

American Healthcare Protests

Aug 11, 2009#1

BoringMetaphor

I just read this article.

Since I am merely a comrade of Soviet Canuckistan, I was wondering if any Americanos could tell me how true that is? Are the protests widespread? Well reported on down there? Do you know people who go to them?

Grassroots or astroturf? Real or fake?

Those are the questions being asked about the rash of protests taking place all over the country against the president's plans to reform the nation's healthcare.

Many Congressional Democrats are facing angry constituents at \"town hall\" meetings.

What is meant to be an opportunity to exchange views and listen has turned into something more like a bar-room fight.

At one such meeting, the police were called in to restore order. One Congressman has received death threats, another has faced an effigy hanging by a rope.

Placards warn of \"health rationing\" and \"socialised medicine\"; chants of \"Just Say No!\" are commonplace.

Democratic senators and representatives - who have just gone home for the summer - may now be wishing they had stayed in humid Washington instead.

Tiny rump?

So are the \"grassroots\" genuinely angry, or are the protests simply manufactured \"astroturf\"?

That depends largely on your politics - or whether you watch the liberal MSNBC or conservative Fox News.

If you are an Obama Democrat, you will find reason to be suspicious.

Why, for example, are the protesters filming the meetings and then posting video on the internet?

The Democrats say the protests are the reaction of a tiny rump of right-wing Republicans, still sore about losing the election.

The protesters, Democrats claim, are the same people who question whether Barack Obama was even born in America - the so-called \"birthers\". The whole phenomenon is a conspiracy of fringe protesters and wealthy special interest groups opposed to changing the status quo, liberals insist.

Democratic video targeting healthcare opponents - courtesy YouTube

A recent advert from the Democratic National Committee accuses the protesters of mob tactics.

Ryan Ellis, of conservative pressure group Americans for Tax Reform, says there are only two possible explanations for the protests.

Either they are a genuine response, or there is a \"secret, evil conspirator hiding somewhere in a mountain\" who is organising it all, Mr Ellis says. It is no surprise as to which one he thinks is true.

Republicans are genuinely opposed to healthcare reform. Their opposition is largely born of a belief that anything involving more government will lead to disaster: \"small government good, big government bad\" is the Republican motto.

Without much pressing, Ryan Ellis admits that his organisation is helping protesters by posting a list of town-hall meetings on its website, and suggesting possible questions for reform opponents to ask.

But he still insists the protests are fuelled by real anger and denies claims that some of the demonstrators are being paid.

Backfiring

Republicans will also make the point that \"organising\" protests is hardly anything new to the left.

Ryan Ellis points to the way that some trade unions will pay the homeless to chant outside offices and factories that employ non-unionised labour.

And then think of the anti-war movement. Genuine, yes. But completely spontaneous - no. You need to organise demonstrations.

And how exactly did Barack Obama defeat Hillary Clinton and John McCain? In politics organising the grassroots has always been a key to success.

Sarah Palin
Mrs Palin accused the president of attempting to set up \"Death Panels\"

There is no doubt that these protests have breathed new life into the Republican Party at a critical time.

It has largely been in disarray since losing the election, but now feels it has traction.

For the first time, a series of opinion polls suggest that President Obama is losing support.

But there is a recognition that some of the tactics might backfire.

In her latest post on Facebook, the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, says \"people must not get sidetracked by the tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation and harassment\".

That might sound a bit rich given that only a few days ago she denounced the Obama healthcare plans as \"evil\" and claimed that the president wanted to create \"death panels\" - doctors deciding which patient should receive treatment.

It is the rhetoric, as well as the tactics, that has shed more heat than light.

Phony war

President Obama and the White House are not entirely blameless either.

They have given credence to the claims that these protests have been orchestrated by a few disgruntled Republicans and by special interest groups with deep pockets.

The president has also added to the confusion about what his health reforms will actually entail.

He has set out broad principles - everyone should have access to health insurance, and costs must come down. But he has asked Congress to work out the all-important details.

The stakes are high for the president and the Republicans.

And the debate about whether these protests are \"grassroots\" or \"astroturf\" is just the phony war; the prelude to a vote which has not yet taken place.

But if President Obama and the Democrats lose this round, they might never recover.

Aug 11, 2009#2

T

The Messiah

Not too hard to figure out. The people ''against'' are the ones who read the actual proposed legislation. The ones ''for'' are the ones who have not read the proposed legislation. Seems pretty cut and dried.

Aug 11, 2009#3

Ravenpoe

The Messiah said:
Not too hard to figure out. The people ''against'' are the ones who read the actual proposed legislation. The ones ''for'' are the ones who have not read the proposed legislation. Seems pretty cut and dried.

Well, glad we got that cleared up then.

Aug 11, 2009#4

Mr_Chaz

Ravenpoe said:
The Messiah said:

Not too hard to figure out. The people ''against'' are the ones who read the actual proposed legislation. The ones ''for'' are the ones who have not read the proposed legislation. Seems pretty cut and dried.

Click to expand...

Well, glad we got that cleared up then.

Yeah, wouldn't want anyone getting confused thinking that the OP was about the protests/protesters rather than the contents of the bill.

Some might even think that debate about the bill would be a healthy thing. We couldn't possibly have people wanting that.

Aug 11, 2009#5

Krisken

If you're seriously looking for an answer BoringMetaphore, don't even bother. You'll just get crap like The Messiah dished out.

Don't look for rationale here, for it is forsaken in this place. :eek:

rly:

Mr_Chaz said:
Ravenpoe said:

\"The Messiah\":28dp7198 said:

Not too hard to figure out. The people ''against'' are the ones who read the actual proposed legislation. The ones ''for'' are the ones who have not read the proposed legislation. Seems pretty cut and dried.

Click to expand...

Well, glad we got that cleared up then.

Click to expand...

Yeah, wouldn't want anyone getting confused thinking that the OP was about the protests/protesters rather than the contents of the bill.

Some might even think that debate about the bill would be a healthy thing. We couldn't possibly have people wanting that.[/quote:28dp7198]

The protests aren't even about the bill.

Aug 11, 2009#6

@Li3n

The Messiah said:
Not too hard to figure out. The people ''against'' are the ones who read the actual proposed legislation. The ones ''for'' are the ones who have not read the proposed legislation. Seems pretty cut and dried.

Oh, so what you're saying is that very few people are against it then...

Aug 11, 2009#7

Krisken said:
Don't look for rationale here, for it is forsaken in this place. rly:

We love you, too.

Aug 11, 2009#8

Krisken

Edrondol said:
Krisken said:

Don't look for rationale here, for it is forsaken in this place. rly:

Click to expand...

We love you, too.

Ok, so my hyperbole should only be applied to the politics

Aug 11, 2009#9

Armadillo

There are no doubt people who've helped to organize protests at the town halls...the article even states that it's necessary. Even so, the vast majority are, IMO, everyday people who are sick of watching this administration spend money like it's going out of style, and aren't too keen on potentially losing a lot of personal choice regarding their health care. It's not that we don't think reform needs to happen, it's that we disagree about what form it should take. Myself, I think the first priority should be tort reform so that doctors needn't worry about being frivolously sued into oblivion.

But back to the main point, I think the Democrats are making a HUGE mistake by just dismissing the protesters as "fake" or "Astroturf" or whatever cutesy thing they come up with next. These people are their constituents, they're angry, and they probably won't take kindly to being insulted and marginalized by their elected officials.

Aug 11, 2009#10

Steven Soderburgin

Armadillo said:
These people are their constituents, they're angry, and they probably won't take kindly to being insulted and marginalized by their elected officials.

Then maybe their elected officials should stop expecting people to buy the massive amount of misinformation that is being spread about healthcare reform in order to get people to actively protest against their own best interests.

Oh, wait, you were talking about Democrats. Nevermind.

Aug 11, 2009#11

DarkAudit

When they're bussed in from out of town, or admit to the press that they're there to "bust up" the meeting, they are no longer constituents. They're thugs. Look at who is paying for these "recess rallies". Big Insurance. Big Pharma. The "Liberty Council" that allegedly provided that "line by line account" is wholly owned by two insurance companies.

When the goal isn't to discuss, but to scream and drown out any rational discourse, they have marginalized *themselves*. They don't take kindly to being called out for their thuggery? Too fucking bad. They chose the path of sheep courtesy of Palin, Gingrich, Beck, et. al. Calm down and act rationally or fuck the fuck off. Screaming and violence isn't going to get anyone to listen to you.

Aug 11, 2009#12

Fun Size

Actually, that right there is what's pissing me off about all of this. I don't mind the protests - protesting is an important part of our political process. Unfortunately, whatever actual concerns people might have are being ignored because of the active disinformation being distributed. So we get GOP thugs bringing in people to spread lies and we get dumb shit Dems writing the whole thing off as artificial, ignoring the actual concerns.

I say we burn the whole thing to the ground, collect the insurance, and move on myself, but I might be a little...out of sorts this morning.

Aug 11, 2009#13

strawman

There have been serious efforts in the US to nationalize or provide basic social healthcare to all citizens since at least 1912, if not earlier.

Thus far about all we have is medicare, which is essentially the healthcare counterpart to social security (ie, only available to 65 and above, for disabled, and others that benefit from social security).

US culture, to some degree, precludes a comprehensive healthcare plan.

1. The rich are afraid they are going to subsidize healthcare for the poor, and/or be unable to pay for better healthcare than what's gov't provided
2. Healthcare establishment is afraid that doctor's salaries will decrease and that they may be stuck with the bill since the gov't has a track record of starting programs without fully funding them
3. The middle class is worried that they may not have much healthcare choice at all - they won't be able to afford privatized healthcare (because they are paying taxes to cover gov't healthcare) and the gov't healthcare must necessarily have lower benefits (they have experience with other gov't social programs that suggests a lower overall efficiency)
4. Some are worried for religious reasons - are their tax dollars going to fund abortions? Ethically/religiously controversial treatments (ie, sex-change, stem cell treatments with viable embryos, Ashley treatment, etc)

It's a complex issue. It isn't that there's two sides, for and against, it's that this issue itself invites so many interpretations and affects so many groups with different goals that it's just not going to come together easily, if at all.

-Adam

Aug 11, 2009#14

Steven Soderburgin

steinman, you forgot about the private insurance companies who are afraid they won't be able to pull coverage based on technicalities after someone who has been paying increasing premiums for years gets sick with an expensive chronic, but treatable disease.

Aug 11, 2009#15

Espy

Man Kiss, that's one of my hot buttons right there. Just listening to those wormy CEO's up on capital hill talking about that practice made me want to go mad. :explode:

Aug 11, 2009#16

BoringMetaphor

I dont really care whether healthcare is good or bad for America.

Im curious about whether some of these protests are staged by some organisation or collection or organisations. Or if this is actually getting people angry enough to go out and act like that. I mean isnt this the level of social unrest you expect from the radicals arguing against globalization or yknow.. the Iraq war.

I suppose the motivation itself doesnt matter, as surely the "left" has done the same thing. But what is striking to me is that seems like the equivalent of your nut jobs who wear bandanas and throw rocks at cops in downtown metropoli. (metropolises?)

Is that an invalid comparison? Im coming from the outside so I really can't tell.

Aug 11, 2009#17

sixpackshaker

I don't want a bureaucrat between me and my health care... Wait I already do. He works at Blue Cross and he denies as many treatments as he approves.

Aug 11, 2009#18

Krisken

Egads, I was wrong. Some very good points are being made by just about everyone involved. Consider me embarrassed for underestimating how the discussion could go. :redface:

As for BoringMetaphore's actual question-
The yelling, screaming people, I think, are there at the Democrat Congressman town halls at the behest of the pharms and such disguised as "Think Tanks". I do think that it is a minority of people though. It just seems like more because they are the loudest and garner the greatest level of attention. The squeaky wheel and all that.

Aug 11, 2009#19

drawn_inward

The left loves to protest, but hates it when they aren't the ones protesting.

You're telling me that the left doesn't organize the same stuff? All that protest under the previous administration was completely grassroots, and they didn't try to disrupt events? Quit acting like the right is doing something new and vile.

As for the OP, all I have seen is probably the same as you. The news always sensationalizes everything. I don't know how organized the movement is, but apparently there are some folks who aren't willing to sit on the sidelines, expecting their representative has their best interest in mind.

Aug 11, 2009#20

Krisken

drawn_inward said:
The left loves to protest, but hates it when they aren't the ones protesting.

You're telling me that the left doesn't organize the same stuff? All that protest under the previous administration was completely grassroots, and they didn't try to disrupt events? Quit acting like the right is doing something new and vile.

You and I have very different ideas of what "protesting" is.

Aug 11, 2009#21

DarkAudit

drawn_inward said:
You're telling me that the left doesn't organize the same stuff? All that protest under the previous administration was completely grassroots, and they didn't try to disrupt events? Quit acting like the right is doing something new and vile.

When folks are going in packing heat, like that guy in Utah, or when a lady shows up with a trunk full of guns and ammo at a "FEMA internment camp" in response to the rantings of a Beck, A Gingrich, a Bachman, then it *is* something new and vile. Someone put the idea that Obama was coming to take the guns away from that guy in Pittsburgh. The result was three dead cops. Beck and the gang can plead innocence all they want, but the very next day there they are, calling for their sheep to "take this country back" and near-armed revolution.

This isn't any pot-kettle situation anymore. It's gone in a whole new direction. An ugly and dangerous direction. There will be more dead before it's all over unless the folks who claim to speak for the right reign it in.

Aug 11, 2009#22

Joe Johnson

As the adage goes, two wrongs don't make a right. Asshats on the dems side screaming at a meeting are just as bad as asshats on the reps side doing the same. Either makes an intelligent discussion impossible. Protesting is different. These people (on both sides) are just disrupting the meeting, never allowing any point to be made.

They are real life trolls/flamers/griefers.

Aug 11, 2009#23

Norris

drawn_inward said:
The left loves to protest, but hates it when they aren't the ones protesting.

The problem is the tenor of the protests. When the left protests, it seems like the words and phrases "impeachment", "civil rights", "take back congress", and "stop the war" come up a lot. Meanwhile, on the right it seems like the words and phrases "gun", "Real American", "destroying America", and "take back our country" come up a lot.

One at least sounds like it is trying to incite change using the system. The other sounds a lot like the prelude to armed rebellion.

Aug 11, 2009#24

DarkAudit

Dorko said:
drawn_inward said:

The left loves to protest, but hates it when they aren't the ones protesting.

Click to expand...

The problem is the tenor of the protests. When the left protests, it seems like the words and phrases "impeachment", "civil rights", "take back congress", and "stop the war" come up a lot. Meanwhile, on the right it seems like the words and phrases "gun", "Real American", "destroying America", and "take back our country" come up a lot.

One at least sounds like it is trying to incite change using the system. The other sounds a lot like the prelude to armed rebellion.

Yet the ones with TV and radio shows feign shock and dismay when they find people taking their messages seriously. The Tampa mob was a pack of Glenn Beck fans. The lady going after the "FEMA Camp" was as well.

I tell you again, unless they dial it back, more people will die as a result. And the real villains will lose nothing but a few advertisers.

Aug 11, 2009#25

sixpackshaker

Last week before these stories hit, Colbert got his hands on a memo that was sent to all the local Republican Party Headquarters laying out how to act in these protests. Then 2 days later the Town Hall Meetings start and there are people at each one doing exactly what was on the memo.

It is a higher level of organization that the Republicans pull off with these astro-turf movements. Just like the homo-erotic tea bagging that they gave to Obama months back.

It gets ridiculous how often you can catch the 'right' going on to the talk shows using the exact same talking points. It does look funny with 8 different guests on Fox News parroting each other on a daily basis. Especially the Death Panels that are (not) in the bill, Gingrich got called out for lying about those Death Panels. Stephenopoulus(sp) told Gingrich that there was no such measures, and all Gingrich could say is that it is a 1000 page bill. No apology for lying, just it is easy to get mislead because the bill is as long as a Harry Potter novel.

Will Rogers put it best.

I do not belong to an organized political party. I am a Democrat.

Aug 11, 2009#26

@Li3n

But, they're gonna send people to kill old people to save money... as soon as tehy have enough people for it that is... (hey Obama, sarcasm only works on crazy people if it's really mean spirited...)

Aug 11, 2009#27

strawman

A brief glance at some of the bill just blows my mind. http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

So, the gov't will REQUIRE that every American obtain health insurance at their own cost - even if they can't afford it. If they don't, they will be taxed for the gov't minimum health plan.

The gov't also sets the standards for what qualifies as a health plan that meets the requirement of having a health plan, for instance "Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors" - which means that I cannot choose a health plan which is cheaper due to my non-smoking, non-drinking, etc lifestyle. I get to subsidize everyone who chooses to have cancer, and subsequent cancer treatment, in their 60's by smoking in their 20's. Not to mention the whole religious aspect of this - there are religions that prohibit certain medical treatments/procedures/etc, will the gov't make a loophole for them, or force them to conform to the rules? How many loopholes are going to have to be created? How many people will slip through these loopholes? How will this be enforced? Are we going to have policemen start checking for "License, registration, proof of vehicle AND health insurance" now?

And that's just one tiny small portion of this 1,018 page bill.

Ugh.

The current system isn't perfect, but I can't subscribe to a government controlled healthcare system. I don't want politicians to have that much control over my family's healthcare.

-Adam

Aug 11, 2009#28

Steven Soderburgin

stienman said:
A brief glance at some of the bill just blows my mind. http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

So, the gov't will REQUIRE that every American obtain health insurance at their own cost - even if they can't afford it. If they don't, they will be taxed for the gov't minimum health plan.

Hey, I made a whole thread about that bill! >:|

Aug 11, 2009#29

Covar

It gets ridiculous how often you can catch the 'right' going on to the talk shows using the exact same talking points. It does look funny with 8 different guests on Fox News parroting each other on a daily basis.

trust me its just as rediculous when the 'left' does it on CNN and MSNBC.

Aug 11, 2009#30

@Li3n

Covar said:
It gets ridiculous how often you can catch the 'right' going on to the talk shows using the exact same talking points. It does look funny with 8 different guests on Fox News parroting each other on a daily basis.

Click to expand...

trust me its just as rediculous when the 'left' does it on CNN and MSNBC.

Yeah, but as reality has a well known liberal bias they never seem as insane as the right...

Aug 11, 2009#31

Covar

@Li3n said:
Covar said:

It gets ridiculous how often you can catch the 'right' going on to the talk shows using the exact same talking points. It does look funny with 8 different guests on Fox News parroting each other on a daily basis.

Click to expand...

trust me its just as rediculous when the 'left' does it on CNN and MSNBC.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but as reality has a well known liberal bias they never seem as insane as the right...

Aug 11, 2009#32

Espy

Kissinger said:
stienman said:

A brief glance at some of the bill just blows my mind. http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

So, the gov't will REQUIRE that every American obtain health insurance at their own cost - even if they can't afford it. If they don't, they will be taxed for the gov't minimum health plan.

Click to expand...

Hey, I made a whole thread about that bill! >:|

Which devolved into inanity and those of us who actually tried to discuss it rationally were generally ignored.

It was really quite lovely. :smug:

@Li3n said:
Yeah, but as reality has a well known liberal bias they never seem as insane as the right...

Ok, maybe you were right Krisken... :eyeroll: I take back anything I thought or said about rational and well thought out discussion...

Aug 11, 2009#33

@Li3n

I guess now we know who goes to bed before 11:30...

Aug 11, 2009#34

Espy

Mmmmmm.... making a joke you were?

Aug 11, 2009#35

@Li3n

smoking baby needs more colbert report...

Aug 11, 2009#36

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... er-skelter

Aug 11, 2009#37

@Li3n

also, i was referring to how msnbc and fox are both partisan hacks, but from my limited experience mnsbc never made me go "are they nuts"?!

Aug 11, 2009#38

Espy

@Li3n said:
smoking baby needs more colbert report...

Let me know when he does something outside of his one note schtick. I'm a daily show man.
I do enjoy Colbert every now and then, but it's just not as funny as TDS to me, plus I HATE O'Reilly and since he's mimicking him it just annoys me.
Regarding Fox and MSNBC, yeah, they both just scream and yell their respective talking points, but in fairness to both of them, all cable news sucks donkey butt. :slywink:

Aug 11, 2009#39

@Li3n

But he's mocking O'Reilly... you're required to like it if you hate him... :aaahhh:

Aug 11, 2009#40

Espy

@Li3n said:
But he's mocking O'Reilly... you're required to like it if you hate him... :aaahhh:

I know he is, but he does such a good job that it annoys the hell out of me. There are few people as annoying as Bill O'Reilly. Keith Olberman is one of them, it's hard to know which one is worse.

Aug 11, 2009#41

The Lovely Boehner

Implying you have to watch Comedy Central in order to be up to date on important political issues reflects how terrible the state of politics/news media/etc is in this country

Aug 11, 2009#42

Shakey

If you're not jaded about our political process after this, I don't know what else could do it. Lobbyists are in every damn piece of the process. They send letters to politicians disguised as letters from constituents, pay for their campaigns, put out canned news stories, take them on vacations, and now pay people to break up town halls.

I'm sure a good chunk of these people are ordinary people trying to be heard, screaming and yelling isn't gonna do it though.

Aug 11, 2009#43

Krisken

@Li3n said:
also, i was referring to how msnbc and fox are both partisan hacks, but from my limited experience mnsbc never made me go "are they nuts"?!

Weeelllll, I wish I could say that. There are certain things I can watch, but Keith O and Chris Mathews drive me nuts.

-- Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:25 pm --

Charlie Dont Surf said:
Implying you have to watch Comedy Central in order to be up to date on important political issues reflects how terrible the state of politics/news media/etc is in this country

I tend toward public television for news or BBC America if I can find it.

Aug 11, 2009#44

Espy

Shakey said:
If you're not jaded about our political process after this, I don't know what else could do it. Lobbyists are in every damn piece of the process. They send letters to politicians disguised as letters from constituents, pay for their campaigns, put out canned news stories, take them on vacations, and now pay people to break up town halls.

I'm sure a good chunk of these people are ordinary people trying to be heard, screaming and yelling isn't gonna do it though.

See, what's funny about this to me is that people are acting like it's the first time it's ever happened and are freaking out. None of this is new. Both sides have been doing this so it's funny to hear people (thats a generic people, not anyone in particular) pretending like their parties shit don't stink.

@ Krisken: But C. Matthews is just a good old fashioned reporter who get "thrills up his leg" when Obama speaks! That's good straight to the point journalism saving the country!

Aug 11, 2009#45

@Li3n

Charlie Dont Surf said:
Implying you have to watch Comedy Central in order to be up to date on important political issues reflects how terrible the state of politics/news media/etc is in this country

No, i'm implying that a comedy show is a more impartial source then your regular news... it does reflect the same thing though.

@Krisken

I never said i could watch them (my brother does), but that they never cross over into "Obama had [strike:1dfuy6se]imported[/strike:1dfuy6se] owned by foreign companies beer, he's anti-America" territory... not from what i saw at least...

Aug 11, 2009#46

Krisken

@Li3n- I always thought Keiths "Worst Person In The World" shtick was a little grating and way over the top.

Espy- I'd call him the dumbest man in political commentary, but Tucker Carlson is still doing commentary.

Aug 11, 2009#47

Fun Size

Espy said:
Shakey said:

If you're not jaded about our political process after this, I don't know what else could do it. Lobbyists are in every damn piece of the process. They send letters to politicians disguised as letters from constituents, pay for their campaigns, put out canned news stories, take them on vacations, and now pay people to break up town halls.

I'm sure a good chunk of these people are ordinary people trying to be heard, screaming and yelling isn't gonna do it though.

Click to expand...

See, what's funny about this to me is that people are acting like it's the first time it's ever happened and are freaking out. None of this is new. Both sides have been doing this so it's funny to hear people (thats a generic people, not anyone in particular) pretending like their parties poop don't stink.

As someone who has for years been shunned from society because his own fecal matter in fact smells like roses, I take offense to that expression.

More to the point, is it that for whatever reason, the GOP seems to be able to rile up some, shall we say, really outgoing personalities that makes this more newsworthy? I mean, people protested the war, and Dubya with it, all the time, but I don't recall town hall meetings being shouted into uselessness. I recall similar situations during the election where people were shouting things like "kill him" during rallies, and that making the news more often that similar crowds from the other side.

Aug 11, 2009#48

@Li3n

Krisken said:
@Li3n- I always thought Keiths "Worst Person In The World" shtick was a little grating and way over the top.

I found his voice to be grating and way over the top...

Aug 11, 2009#49

DarkAudit

Espy said:
@Li3n said:

But he's mocking O'Reilly... you're required to like it if you hate him... :aaahhh:

Click to expand...

I know he is, but he does such a good job that it annoys the hell out of me. There are few people as annoying as Bill O'Reilly. Keith Olberman is one of them, it's hard to know which one is worse.

It's easy. Billo is the one who said ON AIR that a girl who was raped and murdered had it coming because she was dressed like a tramp. Billo was the one who said that the boy who was held hostage for *years* in Missouri liked that situation better than being at home with his parents. Billo is the one who kept railing against the abortion doctor, until said doctor was finally assassinated.

Aug 11, 2009#50

Shakey

Espy said:
Shakey said:

If you're not jaded about our political process after this, I don't know what else could do it. Lobbyists are in every damn piece of the process. They send letters to politicians disguised as letters from constituents, pay for their campaigns, put out canned news stories, take them on vacations, and now pay people to break up town halls.

I'm sure a good chunk of these people are ordinary people trying to be heard, screaming and yelling isn't gonna do it though.

Click to expand...

See, what's funny about this to me is that people are acting like it's the first time it's ever happened and are freaking out. None of this is new. Both sides have been doing this so it's funny to hear people (thats a generic people, not anyone in particular) pretending like their parties shit don't stink.

We have rules that all advertisements during an election have to have a message stating who they are paid for by. I don't see why this shouldn't apply through the whole political process. If a lobbyist is behind anything they should have to identify themselves. Too much crap on both sides gets pushed through as "news" or "the feelings of the American public" when it's just lobbyist propaganda.

Aug 11, 2009#51

sixpackshaker

Charlie Dont Surf said:
Implying you have to watch Comedy Central in order to be up to date on important political issues reflects how terrible the state of politics/news media/etc is in this country

Colbert and Stewart seem to do more research into the news for their 30 minutes than Fox does for its 24 hour cycle.

The best comedians tell the truth.

Aug 11, 2009#52

Shakey

sixpackshaker said:
Charlie Dont Surf said:

Implying you have to watch Comedy Central in order to be up to date on important political issues reflects how terrible the state of politics/news media/etc is in this country

Click to expand...

Colbert and Stewart seem to do more research into the news for their 30 minutes than Fox does for its 24 hour cycle.

The best comedians tell the truth.

But they just glaze over everything. There is no real depth in anything they "report". They also add just as much, if not more, bias as everyone else.

Aug 11, 2009#53

BoringMetaphor

Espy said:
See, what's funny about this to me is that people are acting like it's the first time it's ever happened and are freaking out. None of this is new. Both sides have been doing this so it's funny to hear people (thats a generic people, not anyone in particular) pretending like their parties shit don't stink.

So this has happened before? Obviously, protesting has occurred before, but with this level of vitriol? In my mind it only reaches these levels with something more important. Like race issues.

Aug 11, 2009#54

Shakey

BoringMetaphor said:
Espy said:

See, what's funny about this to me is that people are acting like it's the first time it's ever happened and are freaking out. None of this is new. Both sides have been doing this so it's funny to hear people (thats a generic people, not anyone in particular) pretending like their parties shit don't stink.

Click to expand...

So this has happened before? Obviously, protesting has occurred before, but with this level of vitriol? In my mind it only reaches these levels with something more important. Like race issues.

A lot of people are seeing this as Obama's slow push towards socialism, so it's got a lot of people scared. That combined with a whole lot of misinformation makes for angry people.

Aug 11, 2009#55

@Li3n

Shakey said:
sixpackshaker said:

Charlie Dont Surf said:

Implying you have to watch Comedy Central in order to be up to date on important political issues reflects how terrible the state of politics/news media/etc is in this country

Click to expand...

Colbert and Stewart seem to do more research into the news for their 30 minutes than Fox does for its 24 hour cycle.

The best comedians tell the truth.

Click to expand...

But they just glaze over everything. There is no real depth in anything they "report". They also add just as much, if not more, bias as everyone else.

But it's bias toward teh funny... so we're more forgiving.

Aug 11, 2009#56

Frankie Williamson

@Li3n said:
Shakey said:

sixpackshaker said:

\"Charlie Dont Surf\":1fmzyhhq said:

Implying you have to watch Comedy Central in order to be up to date on important political issues reflects how terrible the state of politics/news media/etc is in this country

Click to expand...

Colbert and Stewart seem to do more research into the news for their 30 minutes than Fox does for its 24 hour cycle.

The best comedians tell the truth.

Click to expand...

But they just glaze over everything. There is no real depth in anything they "report". They also add just as much, if not more, bias as everyone else.

Click to expand...

But it's bias toward teh funny... so we're more forgiving.[/quote:1fmzyhhq]

Yeah, honestly if Glenn Beck was actually funny funny and not terrifying psycho funny, I'd probably watch the fucking shit out of his show too.

Also, when he tries to be funny, he's about as funny as a burn ward.

http://www.cracked.com/video_17292_prev ... -tour.html

Aug 11, 2009#57

Covar

BoringMetaphor said:
Espy said:

See, what's funny about this to me is that people are acting like it's the first time it's ever happened and are freaking out. None of this is new. Both sides have been doing this so it's funny to hear people (thats a generic people, not anyone in particular) pretending like their parties poop don't stink.

Click to expand...

So this has happened before? Obviously, protesting has occurred before, but with this level of vitriol? In my mind it only reaches these levels with something more important. Like race issues.

american protesting has reached this level since 1773. We are not a peaceful people.

also you don't consider the state of our entire medical industry to be important?

Aug 11, 2009#58

AshburnerX

Whenever Americans protest (and aren't being lead by Dr. King) there is almost always violence and/or intimidation. We are very, VERY passionate about the things we believe in... which is probably why we take so much flack for our foreign policy.

Aug 11, 2009#59

Cat

pfft, we all know anyone protesting is just a silly racist

Aug 11, 2009#60

Shakey

Cat said:
pfft, we all know anyone protesting is just a silly racist

Nah, they're just anti-American.

Aug 11, 2009#61

BoringMetaphor

Im not american so Im really okay with not discussing the minutae of it in this thread. Just stickin to what I want to know here.

I guess vietnam protests were pretty violent.. But anything in recent memory? Say post 1980?

Im really curious about the state of the American political system, which has one side dissolve into these somewhat incredulous attacks (seeminglyone side? not sure if this statement is true..). Coming from a foreigner's perspective, I just dont understand why it is happening with such vehemence. How does it help anything or anyone except those committing the acts?

Aug 11, 2009#62

Le Quack

Republican's are angry with themselves that they were acting stupid and fucked up the United States for 8 years.

edit:

If the Republican Party had more people like Peter Schiff, and Ron Paul, I wouldn't mind elections so bad. I wouldn't matter what the outcome was, because I would know that the USA was safe from moral extremism. Schiff and Paul definitely got their shit down when it comes to economics.

Aug 11, 2009#63

Shakey

BoringMetaphor said:
Im not american so Im really okay with not discussing the minutae of it in this thread. Just stickin to what I want to know here.

I guess vietnam protests were pretty violent.. But anything in recent memory? Say post 1980?

Im really curious about the state of the American political system, which has one side dissolve into these somewhat incredulous attacks (seeminglyone side? not sure if this statement is true..). Coming from a foreigner's perspective, I just dont understand why it is happening with such vehemence. How does it help anything or anyone except those committing the acts?

I don't think it's as bad as you think. There aren't large amounts of violence. A lot of the frustration people are showing now come from the fact that they have no real say any more. Republicans are the minority in the House and Senate, and they don't have the White House anymore. They see the new health care program as a step towards socialism and their party has no say in it at all. This is one of the biggest shifts in government policy we have had in a long time. So while the issue right now is health care, underneath it's "where does it stop?"

Add to this we have lobbyists who are stirring up as much shit as they can. They have clients who have a lot to lose if this goes through, so they will do what they can to water it down as much as they can. They are trying to make it look like there is a huge grassroots campaign against it, when it's really just them starting it all.

Aug 11, 2009#64

Chibibar

the bill is so confusing....... I try to read it.. honest, but I can't get past first 10 pages

Aug 12, 2009#65

@Li3n

Frankie said:
Also, when he tries to be funny, he's about as funny as a burn ward.

Hihihi... burn ward...

Aug 12, 2009#66

BoringMetaphor

Shakey said:
BoringMetaphor said:

Im not american so Im really okay with not discussing the minutae of it in this thread. Just stickin to what I want to know here.

I guess vietnam protests were pretty violent.. But anything in recent memory? Say post 1980?

Im really curious about the state of the American political system, which has one side dissolve into these somewhat incredulous attacks (seeminglyone side? not sure if this statement is true..). Coming from a foreigner's perspective, I just dont understand why it is happening with such vehemence. How does it help anything or anyone except those committing the acts?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's as bad as you think. There aren't large amounts of violence. A lot of the frustration people are showing now come from the fact that they have no real say any more. Republicans are the minority in the House and Senate, and they don't have the White House anymore. They see the new health care program as a step towards socialism and their party has no say in it at all. This is one of the biggest shifts in government policy we have had in a long time. So while the issue right now is health care, underneath it's "where does it stop?"

Add to this we have lobbyists who are stirring up as much shit as they can. They have clients who have a lot to lose if this goes through, so they will do what they can to water it down as much as they can. They are trying to make it look like there is a huge grassroots campaign against it, when it's really just them starting it all.

That makes sense. I guess my next question would be what do Americans think about this tyranny of the majority which their political system seems to move towards? The republicans lost the elections this round.. So as you point out, they dont have say in it, but isnt that because the majority of Americans decided they shouldn't?

I suppose I am asking all these questions because as of late when I have been watching the news I have a hard time combining two of the most treasured American values: democracy and individualism. It seems like on the one hand, they want to uphold the spectre of the best, first and strongest democracy, yet at the same time decry the loss of their voice - their individualism - when they lose an election, a loss which is mandated by the very democratic system which they uphold. The majority rules. In fairness, the Republicans do have a voice, and they can express it in November. Why get all riled up now?

I think this could easily be turned around against Democrats in another election as well. I'm just at a loss to explain this apparent contradiction in values. Again - I am not American. So, any help here?

Aug 12, 2009#67

DarkAudit

They're overly bitter that Rove's "permanent Republican majority" failed so miserably. And a good portion are just plain racist.

Aug 12, 2009#68

Shakey

BoringMetaphor said:
That makes sense. I guess my next question would be what do Americans think about this tyranny of the majority which their political system seems to move towards? The republicans lost the elections this round.. So as you point out, they dont have say in it, but isnt that because the majority of Americans decided they shouldn't?

Yeah, but the majority may only be 51%, that leaves 49% of the population unhappy. Those aren't exact number though, and it could be closer to 60/40. People have a right to show they are unhappy, and make it be known. That's what they are doing. Personally I think it can be a problem when one side controls the House, Senate, and the Pres. The other side tends to feel ignored and marginalized, and to a point they are.

BoringMetaphor said:
I suppose I am asking all these questions because as of late when I have been watching the news I have a hard time combining two of the most treasured American values: democracy and individualism. It seems like on the one hand, they want to uphold the spectre of the best, first and strongest democracy, yet at the same time decry the loss of their voice - their individualism - when they lose an election, a loss which is mandated by the very democratic system which they uphold. The majority rules. In fairness, the Republicans do have a voice, and they can express it in November. Why get all riled up now?

I think this could easily be turned around against Democrats in another election as well. I'm just at a loss to explain this apparent contradiction in values. Again - I am not American. So, any help here?

Why not get riled up? Something is happening that they do not agree with. What's the point in having free speech if you sit there and say "well, we lost the election so they can do what they want for 4 years."

Aug 12, 2009#69

AshburnerX

It's actually usually closer to 1-2 years, as I'm pretty sure Senators and Representatives have elections on different schedules and they usually have more effect on the actual legislative process than the President. The President may be the face of the nation, but Congress is where everything gets done.

Aug 12, 2009#70

Shakey

AshburnerX said:
It's actually usually closer to 1-2 years, as I'm pretty sure Senators and Representatives have elections on different schedules and they usually have more effect on the actual legislative process than the President. The President may be the face of the nation, but Congress is where everything gets done.

Yeah, they are staggered every 2 years.

Aug 12, 2009#71

Covar

DarkAudit said:
They're overly bitter that Rove's "permanent Republican majority" failed so miserably. And a good portion are just plain racist.

oh joy. the race card has been played again.

Aug 12, 2009#72

Terrik

I have to agree, I think the "racist card" is a cheap way to deflect real criticism by putting your opponent on the defensive without having any real substance to the argument (not saying your arguments don't have substance DA, this is just a general comment). And yes, this is nothing new. The 'vitriol' coming out of these protesters is seems fairly benign compared to the vitriol directed at Fuhrer Commissar Grand Servant of Khorne (Blood for the Blood God!) Bush II. Same shit, different color. Welcome to American politics.

Aug 12, 2009#73

Espy

Covar said:
DarkAudit said:

They're overly bitter that Rove's "permanent Republican majority" failed so miserably. And a good portion are just plain racist.

Click to expand...

oh joy. the race card has been played again.

Well, if you would stop being so racist he wouldn't have to play it now would he? :humph:

@boringmetaphor
Regarding "majority rules"?
The "majority" is not supposed to rule. We are a democratic republic, it's not supposed to be "Party 1 got 51% so they get to do whatever they want for X number of years". It feels like that sometimes, but that's why we have checks and balances.

Aug 12, 2009#74

DarkAudit

Covar said:
DarkAudit said:

They're overly bitter that Rove's \"permanent Republican majority\" failed so miserably. And a good portion are just plain racist.

Click to expand...

oh joy. the race card has been played again.

Wah fucking wah. It happens to be true.

You've got Dick Morris on Fox saying Democrat Congresspeople need to be "terrorized". Just what the fuck is wrong with you people?

Aug 12, 2009#75

BoringMetaphor

Espy said:
Covar said:

DarkAudit said:

They're overly bitter that Rove's "permanent Republican majority" failed so miserably. And a good portion are just plain racist.

Click to expand...

oh joy. the race card has been played again.

Click to expand...

Well, if you would stop being so racist he wouldn't have to play it now would he? :humph:

@boringmetaphor
Regarding "majority rules"?
The "majority" is not supposed to rule. We are a democratic republic, it's not supposed to be "Party 1 got 51% so they get to do whatever they want for X number of years". It feels like that sometimes, but that's why we have checks and balances.

Whats supposed to happen to Party 2 and its supporters when they are not in power?

re: DarkAudit Dont you think its even more dangerous to dismiss the republicans like that? Obviously they arent all racist. At some fundamental level aren't they all just upset that their voice is not being heard and the country is not going in the direction they want it to? I mean, you can demean what direction they think is right, but ultimately they are simply angry at the fact that their voices arent being heard or heeded.

Which is what I am trying to talk about, the contradiction between strong american democracy versus strong american individualism. It just seems like it causes a lot of problems, particularly right now when you the Democrats controlling everything. It's not just 51%, its senate, congress and presidency, right? I am thinking my concept of american democracy might be off here though.

Soo.. doesnt really matter what each side thinks, let alone offering vast generalizations about them.

Aug 12, 2009#76

strawman

BoringMetaphor said:
I guess vietnam protests were pretty violent.. But anything in recent memory? Say post 1980?

Just like those that opposed the Vietnam war attacked military recruiting offices, those that oppose Roe v Wade (abortion) attack abortion clinics and doctors, the most recent being a murder 10 weeks ago.

But keep in mind that the violence of the protest closely matches the perceived threat. People were dying in Vietnam, so the protesters believed that causing violence was reasonable.

While there are a few unreasonable people out there doing crazy things, most people honestly aren't going to get worked up enough about economic reform to start bombing banks.

-Adam

Aug 12, 2009#77

Espy

Are we comparing "violent protests" to people yelling (i.e. PROTESTING) at a town hall? Maybe I missed something but have people been planting bombs or stabbing people at these things? I mean, to hear it from the media you'd think people were dying...

Aug 12, 2009#78

SpecialKO

I dunno about before then, BM, but IMHO the roots of America's modern tyranny of the political majority problem started around the Vietnam War leading into Nixon's practical codification of the Culture War to gain political support. I'm skeptical that he ever thought of it as anything more than political rhetoric designed to hold on to key constituencies for the next couple of decades, but it kind of took on a life of its own as each side of it painted the other side in increasingly extremist colors.

By now, certainly, its taken on such an extreme that when one political party is in power, it acts like a total asshat to the other party, pushing its agendas as hard as possible without the slightest real intent of working with the other aside unless they bow to their worldview. The weaker party says, "God, these guys are total asshats" and refuses to work with them. On the contrary, they go out and denounce the party is power as The Worst Thing Ever, and essentially refuse to get involved in any kind of process which could make the power party's proposals any better.

Then, the political spectrum inevitably shifts, and then the new power party says, "Yay! All our worldviews are justified!" and then go on to be total asshats. The weaker party says, "God these guys are total asshats" and so on ad infinitum.

This process has absolutely nothing to do with the actual direction the country is going, whether the White House is right or wrong, or whether an idea is good or bad.

Aug 12, 2009#79

AshburnerX

stienman said:
BoringMetaphor said:

I guess vietnam protests were pretty violent.. But anything in recent memory? Say post 1980?

Click to expand...

Just like those that opposed the Vietnam war attacked military recruiting offices, those that oppose Roe v Wade (abortion) attack abortion clinics and doctors, the most recent being a murder 10 weeks ago.

But keep in mind that the violence of the protest closely matches the perceived threat. People were dying in Vietnam, so the protesters believed that causing violence was reasonable.

While there are a few unreasonable people out there doing crazy things, most people honestly aren't going to get worked up enough about economic reform to start bombing banks.

-Adam

They were more than willing to beat up and threaten economists (who directly caused) and rich people who benefited from the old policies though. It was pretty scary to be making more than 100k a year there for awhile.

Aug 12, 2009#80

Espy

Regarding why people are upset with their "representatives"?
Well, I think this gives a pretty good example of how much those who "represent" actually care about their contituants:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L3FnWNkIzU:1l65u1gs][/youtube:1l65u1gs]

Lovely.

Aug 12, 2009#81

Krisken

Espy said:
Are we comparing "violent protests" to people yelling (i.e. PROTESTING) at a town hall? Maybe I missed something but have people been planting bombs or stabbing people at these things? I mean, to hear it from the media you'd think people were dying...

Yelling over people who disagree with you at a town hall isn't protesting. It's being rude. It's preventing them from expressing their ideas and thoughts. Those people are encouraged and invited, no matter who they are, to come to the forum and express their ideas, not intimidate and shout down those who disagree.

Bringing signs calling Obama a nazi or a new Hitler isn't protest. It's meant to instill fear, prevent discussion.

Bringing a gun to a presidential rally with a sign that says "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." isn't an act of protest, but of terrorism. Period.

When Democrats did it years ago at Republican rallies, it was wrong. It's still wrong.

Aug 12, 2009#82

WolfOfOdin

Well, the problem is that although each side has rather nice, personable individuals that are willing to compromise and come together to make an issue work. I'm one of them, and my best friend is too. I'm almost to the left of Lenin on most issues and he's a Goldwater conservative thru and thru.

The problem isn't that kind of person though, because they're quiet and don't cause enough of a ruckus to get ratings. The problem is that each party has a hard base of 'true believers' who are absolutely impossible to have a reasonable debate with. Take Gas and ramp his views up to the point where it seems like gross parody, and that's they operate at all the time. Liberal or conservative, the true believer sees anything that isn't in lock-step with his or her worldview as either laughable or a vile and evil threat that needs to be eliminated.

As that level of view gains more and more people. it becomes harder and harder to have any kind of discussion that doesn't result in two groups trying their best to verbally eviscerate each other. Worse still, it's become common to paint anyone who's willing to compromise and deal with their opposition in a fair way as 'weak' and 'lacking conviction in his or her ideals'.

I'm very sorry, but compromise is not something that makes you weak in politics, it's the damned nature of the beast.

As for Health Care?

Right now, in terms of 'Government healthcare for all" the Dems want a Yacht and the Republicans want a row boat. Hopefully they both meet somewhere around speed-boat or schooner so people can get what they need without becoming absolutely dependant.

Aug 12, 2009#83

Krisken

Well said, Odin.

Aug 12, 2009#84

Espy

I think you have a very narrow view of what protesting is Krisken.
I'm not saying it's "good" protesting but it is protesting.
Seriously though, why are people acting like someone kicked them in the junk here?
We had 8 years of poo like this:

And things like the code pink peace lovers blocking the Marine Recruiting station in Berkeley: http://tinyurl.com/r4typ7

THIS is the current state of political discourse. It's convenient that everyone wants to get all huffy about it now but I'm sorry if after 8 years + of this I find people's outrage to be a little late to the game and rather convenient.

Aug 12, 2009#85

Krisken

Wait, did I not say they were wrong Espy?

Aug 12, 2009#86

Espy

Krisken said:
Wait, did I not say they were wrong Espy?

You did. My last comment was a general statement, not necessarily at you. My point to you was that protesting isn't a love in. It's a wide variety of things, including shouting down people. Like I said, it's not "good" protesting, or "effective" but it is protesting.
My general point is that it's really cute how upset people (thats not just forumites) are getting over this, as if it's something new.

Aug 12, 2009#87

strawman

Espy said:
Krisken said:

Wait, did I not say they were wrong Espy?

Click to expand...

You did. My last comment was a general statement, not necessarily at you. My point to you was that protesting isn't a love in. It's a wide variety of things, including shouting down people. Like I said, it's not "good" protesting, or "effective" but it is protesting.

Totally. I mean, even Ghandi used more active tactics from time to time.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfvLcozLwtE:3lb4ff3d][/youtube:3lb4ff3d]

-Adam

Aug 12, 2009#88

Espy

Whelp. You just won Adam.

Thread over.

Aug 12, 2009#89

BoringMetaphor

TeKeo said:
I dunno about before then, BM, but IMHO the roots of America's modern tyranny of the political majority problem started around the Vietnam War leading into Nixon's practical codification of the Culture War to gain political support. I'm skeptical that he ever thought of it as anything more than political rhetoric designed to hold on to key constituencies for the next couple of decades, but it kind of took on a life of its own as each side of it painted the other side in increasingly extremist colors.

By now, certainly, its taken on such an extreme that when one political party is in power, it acts like a total asshat to the other party, pushing its agendas as hard as possible without the slightest real intent of working with the other aside unless they bow to their worldview. The weaker party says, "God, these guys are total asshats" and refuses to work with them. On the contrary, they go out and denounce the party is power as The Worst Thing Ever, and essentially refuse to get involved in any kind of process which could make the power party's proposals any better.

Then, the political spectrum inevitably shifts, and then the new power party says, "Yay! All our worldviews are justified!" and then go on to be total asshats. The weaker party says, "God these guys are total asshats" and so on ad infinitum.

This process has absolutely nothing to do with the actual direction the country is going, whether the White House is right or wrong, or whether an idea is good or bad.

This is what I'm getting at.. Doesnt this seem like a problem? Interesting to know its roots from the Nixon era.

Espy: Im not trying to lay blame on either side here, as you note both sides had the same reaction - Im honestly asking how this came about and how anyone expects this to help government. You have these two juxtaposed ideals, which in their extremes seem to contradict each other. Sure, everyone can vote, but that means they have to accept the outcome of their vote. But given the rise of the individual in the last say, 20 years, it seems less and less that the majority is willing to accept contested ideas.

What path is being followed here? Where does this lead?

Aug 12, 2009#90

drawn_inward

Espy said:
Krisken said:

Wait, did I not say they were wrong Espy?

Click to expand...

You did. My last comment was a general statement, not necessarily at you. My point to you was that protesting isn't a love in. It's a wide variety of things, including shouting down people. Like I said, it's not "good" protesting, or "effective" but it is protesting.
My general point is that it's really cute how upset people (thats not just forumites) are getting over this, as if it's something new.

This was what I was trying to point out on page 2.

Where were all the news broadcasts and folks condemning this type of activity during the previous administration? Again, it's a bit hypocritical.

I can't speak for other conservatives on this board, but I can speak for the majority of conservatives that I know around here. We feel cheated. Not because Obama won, but b/c Bush lied. He sold himself as a conservative, but did nothing that I can think of that was conservative. Being a fiscal conservative means you cut government and spend less, not go on a coke-induced spree. After all of his shit who do we get as candidates? Palin and McCain.

So, now, the conservatives feel like they have no voice. Zero. No one is representing them. The republicans have left them. The blue dogs have left them. The libertarians and independents have no power. It's a lame position to be in.

That's why I am bitter and angry. I don't know if the asshatery lately is due to this same sentiment. I don't condone violence, but disrupting a town hall meeting and telling a senator or a congressman to stick it is fine with me.

Aug 12, 2009#91

Espy

Eloquent statement DI. That's how I feel too, I feel in no way represented by anyone in government right now in either party.

Aug 12, 2009#92

Krisken

drawn_inward said:
Espy said:

Krisken said:

Wait, did I not say they were wrong Espy?

Click to expand...

You did. My last comment was a general statement, not necessarily at you. My point to you was that protesting isn't a love in. It's a wide variety of things, including shouting down people. Like I said, it's not "good" protesting, or "effective" but it is protesting.
My general point is that it's really cute how upset people (thats not just forumites) are getting over this, as if it's something new.

Click to expand...

This was what I was trying to point out on page 2.

Where were all the news broadcasts and folks condemning this type of activity during the previous administration? Again, it's a bit hypocritical.

I can't speak for other conservatives on this board, but I can speak for the majority of conservatives that I know around here. We feel cheated. Not because Obama won, but b/c Bush lied. He sold himself as a conservative, but did nothing that I can think of that was conservative. Being a fiscal conservative means you cut government and spend less, not go on a coke-induced spree. After all of his shit who do we get as candidates? Palin and McCain.

So, now, the conservatives feel like they have no voice. Zero. No one is representing them. The republicans have left them. The blue dogs have left them. The libertarians and independents have no power. It's a lame position to be in.

That's why I am bitter and angry. I don't know if the asshatery lately is due to this same sentiment. I don't condone violence, but disrupting a town hall meeting and telling a senator or a congressman to stick it is fine with me.

Maybe it's not noticed and covered in the news because Democrat leaders don't encourage Code Pink types? Not only that, but those people were removed when they disrupted those events. And rightly so.

Aug 12, 2009#93

Le Quack

stienman said:
Espy said:

Krisken said:

Wait, did I not say they were wrong Espy?

Click to expand...

You did. My last comment was a general statement, not necessarily at you. My point to you was that protesting isn't a love in. It's a wide variety of things, including shouting down people. Like I said, it's not "good" protesting, or "effective" but it is protesting.

Click to expand...

Totally. I mean, even Ghandi used more active tactics from time to time.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfvLcozLwtE:3ipss5rp][/youtube:3ipss5rp]

-Adam

Say what you want about Ghandi and his peaceful protests in India. What many people don't realize is that he tried and failed to do the same thing in South America for 18 years. He gave it his best, but in the presence of a racist regime, his tactics just didn't work.

Nelson Mandela is a much better candidate to watch how to successfully change a nation for the better.
Peaceful protest for 15 years, then violence, then back to peaceful negotiations and forgiveness. When the other side meets your peaceful demostations with violence, that is the time for violence.

Aug 12, 2009#94

DarkAudit

Espy said:
I think you have a very narrow view of what protesting is Krisken.
I'm not saying it's \"good\" protesting but it is protesting.
Seriously though, why are people acting like someone kicked them in the junk here?
We had 8 years of poo like this:

And things like the code pink peace lovers blocking the Marine Recruiting station in Berkeley: http://tinyurl.com/r4typ7

THIS is the current state of political discourse. It's convenient that everyone wants to get all huffy about it now but I'm sorry if after 8 years + of this I find people's outrage to be a little late to the game and rather convenient.

Oh fuck you Espy. Just FUCK YOU.

You want to know why we had that? Because we got lied into an unnecessary war to satisfy the ego of Captain Fucking Texas, and all we got was over 5000 of our best and brightest killed for nothing. NOTHING.

Never mind that there's not one person in this country with the balls to bring those responsible up on charges, but that's another thread.

(and in case you failed to notice, that first pic isn't even in the US)

Aug 12, 2009#95

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
Oh fuck you Espy. Just FUCK YOU.

Ladies and gentlemen - I give you, the enlightened Progressive.

You want to know why we had that? Because we got lied into an unnecessary war to satisfy the ego of Captain Fucking Texas, and all we got was over 5000 of our best and brightest killed for nothing. NOTHING.

Never mind that there's not one person in this country with the balls to bring those responsible up on charges, but that's another thread.

Ah, we see. It's ok what they did because it was in the name of YOUR supported political beliefs. After all, when you're the super duper good guys, the ends always justify the means, and your shining idealism can never be tarnished by the reprehensibility of your methods.

(and in case you failed to notice, that first pic isn't even in the US)

Fair enough, here's some that were in the US. (a good amount of NSFW in that link)

Aug 12, 2009#96

T

The Messiah

drawn_inward said:
.... but b/c Bush lied. He sold himself as a conservative, but did nothing that ANYONE ANYWHERE can think of that was conservative. ...

So, now, the conservatives feel like they have no voice....

Ed Zachary!

The tenets of a conservative policy can be summed up in one sentence; ''That which governs least, governs best.'' The government has no place expanding at all, evar, much less in the middle of a fiscal meltdown.

I'm all for balkanization myself. FLORIDA FTW ! ! !

EDIT: I should explain better. See, the new guy (Your duly elected savior) has done nothing but expand government and spend like crazy since day one. You know, JUST LIKE BUSH. And at some point, the nation will reach a breaking point. We just won't allow the penis to slide into our rectal cavities for much longer before we cry out in unison ''Ouch! That hurts!''

So it isn't ALL about the health care thing, it is more about shit coming to a head, also about people who are just so unbelievably stupid that they are just now seeing the problems with [strike:cajpfd2l]socialism[/strike:cajpfd2l]-- oops, I mean Obamacare, and are starting to get pissed,too. My aunt and my sister both voted for him, now they are ashamed to admit it. It gets better: They both voted for ol' Buttcrack because they wanted ''change'' and ''hope.'' :rimshot:

Also, Dark Audit, you bastion of clear thinking, you, I have seen animated gifs of Bush being sodomized by Cheney, people wearing shirts with Bush being hanged etc etc and far worse. Go tilt at windmills somewhere else.

Aug 12, 2009#97

Espy

DarkAudit said:
Oh smurf you Espy. Just smurf YOU.

Alright. I've ignored you until now since you just troll around here. But now you want to make it personal?

For the record then, since you didn't bother to read me and Krisken's discussion:
I made the point that protests have been incendiary for quite some time.
That was my point. I never said jack shit about Bush or the war or anything, just posted a few pics to prove that the level of discourse has been intense for some time. It was a nice little CALM discussion

It had nothing to do with your little hateful political grudge bullshit.

You got anything else there? You obviously paid ZERO attention to anything I wrote and just inserted your stupid little "I HATE ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME" bullshit and I'm not going to stand for it.

Why don't you go outside for awhile and cool the smurf down. Go smells some flowers and have a beer.

Aug 12, 2009#98

MindDetective

drawn_inward said:
I don't condone violence, but disrupting a town hall meeting and telling a senator or a congressman to stick it is fine with me.

Except the stupid things those people are saying definitely do not represent my feelings either. Yes, my solitary view is not represented in the government (few will find that theirs is!!) but I am not going to applaud idiots (on the right or the left) for yelling idiotic things just so I feel like they are sticking it to the man.

Aug 12, 2009#99

Krisken

MindDetective said:
drawn_inward said:

I don't condone violence, but disrupting a town hall meeting and telling a senator or a congressman to stick it is fine with me.

Click to expand...

Except the stupid things those people are saying definitely do not represent my feelings either. Yes, my solitary view is not represented in the government (few will find that theirs is!!) but I am not going to applaud idiots (on the right or the left) for yelling idiotic things just so I feel like they are sticking it to the man.

I used to frequent a couple left leaning sites, but got tired of the rhetoric by those who were over the top and dominating discussion. Any time I tried encouraging reason, I was written off as some "secret GOP'er". For real.

Both sides have crazy.

Aug 12, 2009#100

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
*pictures*

Shit...
Its a damn good thing I've never seen anyone with signs like that, or I'd (attempt to) open a can of whoopass on them.

Aug 12, 2009#101

Le Quack

Yeah GasBandit, I think you lumped liberals together with Jew haters on that devil Bush one.

Aug 12, 2009#102

Espy

The point to all those pics isn't about republican or democrats are "insert whatever you want".
The point is that THAT is the level of political protest these days. It's been going on for ages. Look at the anti-war folks, the anti-abortion folks, etc.
The protesting at the townhalls is nothing new nor any more or less outrageous despite what the nightly news would like you to think.

Aug 13, 2009#103

Krisken

Espy said:
The point to all those pics isn't about republican or democrats are "insert whatever you want".
The point is that THAT is the level of political protest these days. It's been going on for ages. Look at the anti-war folks, the anti-abortion folks, etc.
The protesting at the townhalls is nothing new nor any more or less outrageous despite what the nightly news would like you to think.

No, the point is what is presented as acceptable behavior by those who are supposed to be leading those groups.

People do stupid shit, no matter which of these two groups we are talking about. The leadership, openly anyways, take very different stances when discussing the fringe elements of their groups.

Aug 13, 2009#104

Espy

I agree. Anyone encouraging this level of discourse isn't helping.

Aug 13, 2009#105

@Li3n

Espy said:
The protesting at the townhalls is nothing new nor any more or less outrageous despite what the nightly news would like you to think.

Except the part where they're protesting against imaginary policies...

Aug 13, 2009#106

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Ah, we see. It's ok what they did because it was in the name of YOUR supported political beliefs. After all, when you're the super duper good guys, the ends always justify the means, and your shining idealism can never be tarnished by the reprehensibility of your methods.

You've just wrapped up the Dubya years in one nice little package there. Never mind the lies. Never mind the torture. Never mind the murders by the private army of the new "Crusaders". He thought he was charged by God Himself to wage war on Iraq.

This isn't some "I hate the other side!" vendetta. They wrapped themselves in the flag and committed unspeakable acts in the name of the People, then called anyone who said "hey, wait a sec, is this really the right thing to do?" the equivalent of Nazi appeasers or "morally confused" (Donald Rumsfeld, August 2006)

And what do the Democrats do now that they have the keys to the kingdom and have the power to call those responsible for these egregious acts to account? NOT A GODDAMNED THING. They've gone so far as to rapidly change the subject whenever it comes up. Some flat out admit they won't do anything about it.

One side sycophants, the other base cowards. Meanwhile we have 4300 and counting of the best and brightest of American and Coalition men and women dead for absolutely nothing. Friends. Neightbors. Sons and daughters, Mothers and fathers. As dead as if they were just rounded up and deleted over the course of six years.

Aug 13, 2009#107

JCM

DarkAudit said:
GasBandit said:

Ah, we see. It's ok what they did because it was in the name of YOUR supported political beliefs. After all, when you're the super duper good guys, the ends always justify the means, and your shining idealism can never be tarnished by the reprehensibility of your methods.

Click to expand...

You've just wrapped up the Dubya years in one nice little package there. Never mind the lies. Never mind the torture. Never mind the murders by the private army of the new "Crusaders". He thought he was charged by God Himself to wage war on Iraq.

This isn't some "I hate the other side!" vendetta. They wrapped themselves in the flag and committed unspeakable acts in the name of the People, then called anyone who said "hey, wait a sec, is this really the right thing to do?" the equivalent of Nazi appeasers or "morally confused" (Donald Rumsfeld, August 2006)

And what do the Democrats do now that they have the keys to the kingdom and have the power to call those responsible for these egregious acts to account? NOT A GODDAMNED THING. They've gone so far as to rapidly change the subject whenever it comes up. Some flat out admit they won't do anything about it.

One side sycophants, the other base cowards. Meanwhile we have 4300 and counting of the best and brightest of American and Coalition men and women dead for absolutely nothing. Friends. Neightbors. Sons and daughters, Mothers and fathers. As dead as if they were just rounded up and deleted over the course of six years.

Pretty much this.

Aug 13, 2009#108

JCM said:
DarkAudit said:

GasBandit said:

Ah, we see. It's ok what they did because it was in the name of YOUR supported political beliefs. After all, when you're the super duper good guys, the ends always justify the means, and your shining idealism can never be tarnished by the reprehensibility of your methods.

Click to expand...

You've just wrapped up the Dubya years in one nice little package there. Never mind the lies. Never mind the torture. Never mind the murders by the private army of the new "Crusaders". He thought he was charged by God Himself to wage war on Iraq.

This isn't some "I hate the other side!" vendetta. They wrapped themselves in the flag and committed unspeakable acts in the name of the People, then called anyone who said "hey, wait a sec, is this really the right thing to do?" the equivalent of Nazi appeasers or "morally confused" (Donald Rumsfeld, August 2006)

And what do the Democrats do now that they have the keys to the kingdom and have the power to call those responsible for these egregious acts to account? NOT A GODDAMNED THING. They've gone so far as to rapidly change the subject whenever it comes up. Some flat out admit they won't do anything about it.

One side sycophants, the other base cowards. Meanwhile we have 4300 and counting of the best and brightest of American and Coalition men and women dead for absolutely nothing. Friends. Neightbors. Sons and daughters, Mothers and fathers. As dead as if they were just rounded up and deleted over the course of six years.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

Yet completely irrelevant to the current discourse. Yes, the right are being dickwads and using underhanded techniques, but the left has been doing the same FOR WHATEVER REASON for some time. DA, you need to stop being blind about the actions of your own party's actions.

Aug 13, 2009#109

WolfOfOdin

I'm the first to admit that I'm not too fond of what the democrats are doing right now, but then again I'm a registered socialist

But we're getting into the same problem that I spoke of before.

Gasbandit, I am the first to admit that Socialism, that while a beautiful and wonderful ideal does in fact have a number of glaring flaws such as creating a possibly permenant welfare state and the horror that would be if the central government collapsed and took the economy with it. These flaws however can be complimented and smoothed by working together with fiscal conservatives who one would hope, have a natural knack for money and finance. In working together, two diametrically opposed people could and should pool their talents and resources to sacrifice their wants for the GOOD OF THE NATION.

However, the other side has to admit it has flaws as well, left or right, for that to work. Though conservatives do have their heart in the right place, the ideology at times comes off as harsh, cold and cruel to people who's circumstances may prevent them from shining the way they can and should. You must also admit that our current economy is heavily geared towards a bubble/burst system that results in a constant series economic sectors collapsing. That has to change and must be fixed, which it could be by nationalizing industries which cannot and should not operate on a per-profit basis (Health care, Food, Housing, Transportation and National defense). With the current definition of debate though, that seems almost completely and utterly impossible.

Aug 13, 2009#110

Le Quack

Edrondol said:
JCM said:

DarkAudit said:

GasBandit said:

Ah, we see. It's ok what they did because it was in the name of YOUR supported political beliefs. After all, when you're the super duper good guys, the ends always justify the means, and your shining idealism can never be tarnished by the reprehensibility of your methods.

Click to expand...

You've just wrapped up the Dubya years in one nice little package there. Never mind the lies. Never mind the torture. Never mind the murders by the private army of the new "Crusaders". He thought he was charged by God Himself to wage war on Iraq.

This isn't some "I hate the other side!" vendetta. They wrapped themselves in the flag and committed unspeakable acts in the name of the People, then called anyone who said "hey, wait a sec, is this really the right thing to do?" the equivalent of Nazi appeasers or "morally confused" (Donald Rumsfeld, August 2006)

And what do the Democrats do now that they have the keys to the kingdom and have the power to call those responsible for these egregious acts to account? NOT A GODDAMNED THING. They've gone so far as to rapidly change the subject whenever it comes up. Some flat out admit they won't do anything about it.

One side sycophants, the other base cowards. Meanwhile we have 4300 and counting of the best and brightest of American and Coalition men and women dead for absolutely nothing. Friends. Neightbors. Sons and daughters, Mothers and fathers. As dead as if they were just rounded up and deleted over the course of six years.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

Click to expand...

Yet completely irrelevant to the current discourse. Yes, the right are being * and using underhanded techniques, but the left has been doing the same FOR WHATEVER REASON for some time. DA, you need to stop being blind about the actions of your own party's actions.

I think he's saying its not the same as when we protested because our side isn't an evil regime, unlike the Bush Administration.

Aug 13, 2009#111

DarkAudit

Edrondol said:
Yet completely irrelevant to the current discourse. Yes, the right are being dickwads and using underhanded techniques, but the left has been doing the same FOR WHATEVER REASON for some time. DA, you need to stop being blind about the actions of your own party's actions.

I'm sorry, but it's not the same. You don't and didn't have the main media figures on the left calling for violent action. You didn't have folks going on MSNBC telling viewers to "terrorize" Republicans.

When the kettle starts arming itself, the pot has every right to call attention to it.

(and ninja'd by LeQuack... yes, there are actual crimes that may have been committed by the Bushies, in spite of legal hacks like John Woo may have told them. The right is complaining about imaginary parts of a bill they were read to by an insurance lobbyist)

Aug 13, 2009#112

strawman

Le Quack said:
I think he's saying its not the same as when we protested because our side isn't an evil regime, unlike the Bush Administration.

-Adam

Aug 13, 2009#113

JCM

Le Quack said:
Edrondol said:

JCM said:

DarkAudit said:

You've just wrapped up the Dubya years in one nice little package there. Never mind the lies. Never mind the torture. Never mind the murders by the private army of the new "Crusaders". He thought he was charged by God Himself to wage war on Iraq.

This isn't some "I hate the other side!" vendetta. They wrapped themselves in the flag and committed unspeakable acts in the name of the People, then called anyone who said "hey, wait a sec, is this really the right thing to do?" the equivalent of Nazi appeasers or "morally confused" (Donald Rumsfeld, August 2006)

And what do the Democrats do now that they have the keys to the kingdom and have the power to call those responsible for these egregious acts to account? NOT A GODDAMNED THING. They've gone so far as to rapidly change the subject whenever it comes up. Some flat out admit they won't do anything about it.

One side sycophants, the other base cowards. Meanwhile we have 4300 and counting of the best and brightest of American and Coalition men and women dead for absolutely nothing. Friends. Neightbors. Sons and daughters, Mothers and fathers. As dead as if they were just rounded up and deleted over the course of six years.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

Click to expand...

Yet completely irrelevant to the current discourse. Yes, the right are being * and using underhanded techniques, but the left has been doing the same FOR WHATEVER REASON for some time. DA, you need to stop being blind about the actions of your own party's actions.

Click to expand...

I think he's saying its not the same as when we protested because our side isn't an evil regime, unlike the Bush Administration.

Define "evil"

Aug 13, 2009#114

strawman

JCM said:
Le Quack said:

I think he's saying its not the same as when we protested because our side isn't an evil regime, unlike the Bush Administration.

Click to expand...

Define "evil"

-Adam

Aug 13, 2009#115

DarkAudit

stienman said:
JCM said:

Le Quack said:

I think he's saying its not the same as when we protested because our side isn't an evil regime, unlike the Bush Administration.

Click to expand...

Define "evil"

Click to expand...

-Adam

FTFY

Aug 13, 2009#116

Espy

Forums