Photo courtesy of Carlos at thinkingorsitting
Or should I say pre-school.
No grown-ups allowed in South Carolina apparently. Good luck getting re-elected you big baby.
See here.
See here.
Political Moms Unite - Where politics, religion, women's issues and anything else we want to talk about intersect..
21 comments:
I need to weigh in...because I agree for once. The outburst was uncalled for and although I'm a Republican and said the same thing while watching in my living room (you lie!) I would never have done this in as somber of a setting. I have a great respect for the office of the President.
A simple resounding "BOOOOO!!" would have been appropriate. I didn't think it was disrespectful for the Dems to do it to George Bush, and believe that if standing ovations are appropriate, Boos are equally as appropriate. And the "you lie" comment would have only been appropriate if the other side was standing up yelling directly at the president things like "you go Pres!" or "Right on man!" or "I love you President!"
But I didn't realize Obama was misleading about the illegal immigrant issue at the time. And I'll give him props because although his speech was pretty misleading, when you break down the words, he wasn't lying about anything. It is true, the bill gives no benefits to illegal aliens. But if that is the intention, why did Dems vote down an amendment that would require participants to verify their citizenship through S.A.V.E. the same way they have to with other entitlement programs? So while there is no provision for illegal aliens, there is no enforcement to ensure it doesn't happen. Also, Obama said "I will NOT sign a bill that adds one dime to the deficit..." He didn't claim the present bill is budget neutral, he just said he wouldn't sign one that isn't. So he won't actually be lying until he signs one that adds to the deficit. Even Pelosi said after the speech that they have some work to do on the bill since she knew the Pres wouldn't sign it in its present form.
The burning question I have that has NOT been answered is this: Why can't I buy the cheaper insurance available to Costco members in California ONLY? Why can I only buy from certain insurance companies in CO?
David Axelrod wouldn't even answer this question when O'Reilly asked him. By the way, you should have heard O'reilly shut Ann Coulter down the other night! He basically said the same thing I did...the President didn't "lie" he just explained what he expected to see in the healthcare bill. But we can't really expect this to be budget neutral. I'd like to hear from the person that really thinks Govt. can cut out fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid enough to offset the new healthcare bill. If they could do it, they would have done it a long time ago. Our govt, whether ran by dems or reps will always be full of waste.
On another note, I'd like to see a democrats point of view on the ACORN situation...should this group be disbanded and barred from any future federal grants? If you haven't heard, they're in two very big scandals...11 have been indicted on voter fraud issues, and there are now recordings from TWO different offices offering the same advice to a "pimp and prostitute" on how to set up a child prostitution ring and write it off on their taxes. They even referred to a special list of codes that cross referenced the career prostitute to a performing artist for purposes of obtaining a mortgage. My fear is that if this list of "codes" exists in two different offices in different cities, and these "gotcha journalists" were given the SAME advice at two different locations, this is standard operating procedure for an organization largely funded by tax dollars. But I'd like to see a post on this blog to get the other side of the story, if there is one...or perhaps this is just flat out wrong and there is no defense for it.
Lots of thoughts, so this will be long:
Health Care: I would have to say neither side is being truthful. I was downtown today and there was a rally and the guy said, "In every country where nationalized health care has been tried, they have failed." If that's not a flat out lie, I don't know what is. There are pros and cons to each side, and rather then coming together and having an honest discussion about key issues like pre-existing conditions, people show up at town hall meetings yelling and screaming and disrupting the entire democratic process. If we want to see positive change that both sides can agree on, BOTH
sides have to be willing to stop clinging to the far left or far right and be willing to talk to the other side.
Illegal Immigration and Health Care: This is an interesting topic. My personal thought (and this is 100% me- not any talk show guys or whatever) is that we have built our own monster. By that I mean neither the Reps. or Dems. are willing to do anything about illegal immigration reform. The dems won't because they want the vote, the reps. won't because they want the cheap labor. So we have this system in America where we just don't talk about it- we let them come in and don't really do anything to stop it. Because of this, I think we have a moral obligation to give them life- saving health care. I don't mean all of the services that citizens recieve- especially if the system does become nationalized. But, I do mean some kind of care. I don't know how that should look- special clinics for illegals or what, but if we are going to let them live here, I think we need to provide them that care. I don't mean they need all social services available-I am only talking about health care.
Costco: I don't know much about Costco, but I believe what you are referring to specifically is competition to lower prices? I know this is somehow part of the gov't program as well, and this idea does worry me a little bit. The reason it does is because I worry that if they have to lower prices but still make profits (as is currently required by law), the only way to do that is to deny even more services to us- because Heaven forbid CEO's only make millions instead of billions off of us getting sick. That, to me, is a scary thought.
Acorn: Obviously, if they are involved in some sort of prostitution ring they should be punished.It seems, however, Acorn is often accused of various charges that end up being dropped or they are found innocent. Insofar as voter registration fraud, this came up during the presidential campaign. People charged that Acorn was turing in applications for Mickey Mouse and such. In actuality- this is true. They did turn in applications like that. However, the reason they did is because BY LAW they have to turn in every application that is filled out- even if it appears to be completely bogus. But, if they believe it is bogus there is a way to flag it so the attorney general or whoever looks over the applications will review them before registration cards are handed out. So, in cases where Mickey Mouse applied, they were doing exactly what they were required to do by law: turn in the application, but flag it. There were some other cases of people who turned in 10 applications for 1person. I think that goes to show that no matter what you do, there will always be untrustworthy people looking to take an easy route out. I know when Acorn has found these people, those people are immediately fired and Acorn has been found innocent of purposeful tampering in that regard (at least they were last year during the campaigns).
I don't know much about the current cases, but based on trumped up charges brought up against them in the past, I am simply hesitant to believe these things are true until they are found guilty, then certainly they deserve to be punished. But until then, I will consider them innocent.
These are just some thoughts- I haven't been keeping up on politics lately because, frankly, it's too tiring for me right now. So if anybody else has thoughts, that would be good!
Yes, you're right there are people on both sides misrepresenting. however, the people on the left that are misrepresenting are elected officials. the people on the right are rightwing nuts holding signs downtown. I believe what the protester classifies as "failed" is different than what you would consider as "failed." For example, sure the UK has free healthcare...but look at the rest of their economy? High taxes, high everything.
We already have "life saving" healthcare for illegals...Emergency Rooms. They do not turn away anybody. This adds to the cost of healthcare.
And NO, the govt. plan DOES not allow for the type of competition I'm talking about between health insurance companies. It provides competition between the US Govt. subsidized plans and themselves which are only subsidized by their own profits. I'm talking about letting ME buy a plan across state lines that currently is only available in CA or WA or OR, or some other lower cost state. There are over 5,000 health insurance companies in the US...and we can only buy from a handful of them here in CO. If you let them all compete nationwide, costs WILL come down. They will make themselves more efficient and lower their own overhead costs to compete. It would be just like what happened to airfares from DIA...they dropped 30% on average when Southwest Airlines began servicing Denver! Competition lowers prices in any industry, if it didn't we would have left Microsoft alone, right?
Govt. subsidized insurance doesn't really lower profits for consumers...it's a subsidy...their profit levels remain the same, it's just that a portion of those profits will come from taxpayer subsidies and a smaller than normal portion from their own premiums. So either way, they make Billions and we pay the same...it's just moving dollars around. The only way to reduce costs WHILE improving care and not increasing taxes on ANYBODY is to allow insurance companies to compete nationally if they so desire.
Here's an idea for dems...allow insurance providers to offer a low cost emergency plan to illegals! If they can compete nationally I guarantee there will be a few companies who find this somewhat profitable. And the illegals will be contributing somewhat to the costs. I obviously don't agree with that...but I think outside the box from both sides of the spectrum. Anyway, Obama is allowing Republicans to include their ammendment that would require verification of citizenship...which makes me more inclined to believe he's trying to work w/ republicans. He never should have put this big thing in the lap of Princess Pelosi and Harry Reid. He should have took the reins and led it from the beginning!
Now hold on. Let's remove the double standard from this discussion. I'm tired of you saying no Republican officials are being misleading. Because I think that's a load of crap! All of them have an agenda. Some of them are lying their pants off. So I guess it just depends on which political side of the fence you're sitting on. It's all a matter of perspective. Both sides have issues. Let's not play the holier than thou game here. It's hard for me not to get defensive and have a descent conversation when you start on with a high school kind of argument like - but my side is better than your side.
I don't agree.
And not including anyone in this discussion I guess, but other people who keep reading this site and are to chicken to comment here - I wish you'd just quit reading the posts if what they say are just too "illogical" for you. You're just way too smart for us. You're way too intelligent to understand our illiterate, uneducated dribble, so please, go elsewhere, and quit dumbing yourself down.
Wilson acted like a cry baby. It's not the media's fault. Each side has their yah-hoos, and if you can't be a grown-up and agree on that then QUIT READING THIS SITE and stick with everyone that agrees with you on Glenn Becks blog!
Sheesh..
Curt - There is hope for you, you're trying to be civil, and it's killing you I can tell, so I'll cut you a little slack if you'll so the same.
Some of what you said made sense. I agree about the crossing the state line thing. That would be a great start. Will it happen? Doubtful, because the insurance industry has a powerful lobby.
My main issue, as I've said before is I don't believe a person with a pre-existing condition should be discriminated against by being denied coverage or having to pay an insane amount for a premium. Mandy heard on Fox news the other day, a guy compared having a pre-existing condition to having a DUI and how that would affect his auto insurance. Like it's their fault they have this health issue, and therefore they should pay more. That's the most assinine comparison I've ever heard.
It that supposed to be logical?????
Acorn -
I agree with Christina. Obama did work for them in the 90's. So, I guess I don't get why this affects him now? They get the vote out to poor people. Is that a crime when done the right, legal way? Seems like maybe they've done some good too. Or do poor people not have the right to vote? You say radical. I say liberal.
Health care and illegal immigration -
We differ much on this, I can tell. I don't view illegals as the harbinger of doom. I view them as an absolute fact in this country. The Spanish population is exploding. Their birthrate is much higher than ours. If we don't do something to help these people now, be it health care, education, other resources, etc., to succeed in life, what will America be in the next generations? We will be behind the curve. About health care, I've read some about this, and experts agree that this kind of fraud is rare in Medicare - a program very similar to what Obama is proposing. So instead we pay extra to enforce it? That just seems unnecessary to me.
I was not referring to you, OkBushman, if you still read any of this. Your comments on this matter were much more unemotional than mine. Sorry..liberal rant. Comes with the territory.
;P
Wow, I feel nice today! What's up with that? Hmm...
Of course I still try to keep up with your website. I don't feel I am as well read as I want to be before throwing my two cents in. Babies do that to you. And it is easy for me to remain unemotional, because like the majority of conservatives, I don't have any feelings. But here goes my first impressions of the issues you are discussing:
Health care: I completely agree with the pre-existing issue, now being included in the exclusive group! However, I feel the entire remaking of the h.c. industry isn't necessary to solve this problem. I have heard other interesting free-market solutions that would bring down costs. Imagine that, a conservative with ideas! For example, subsidising medical school loans to help lower one of docs highest expenses. Or malpractice reform. Or giving docs tax incentives for donating their services to the uninsured. My biggest argument against govt run health care is, it should be done at the state level.
ACORN: Get out the vote, great! Advise someone on how to run their prositution business, horrible! They should not receive federal funds, and I'm glad they are not conducting the 2010 census. However, corruption is not exclusive to ACORN. If we crack down on them, we need to crack down on everyone receiving fed. funds.
Double standards: If anyone can't recognize double standards on their own side of the issue, they are living in a dream world. Both sides have double standards, both sides have corruption, both sides have idiot radicals that embarrass those of us who are reasonable, both sides have villians, and both sides have hard working, well meaning representatives. I don't want to sound like I'm giving a soap box speech, but why not? It's been a while.
So thank you Lula for the shout out, which I read as an invitation to give a lengthy and probably sporadic response.
Whoops, I commented under my sis's blog. That last comment was mine.
...wait, maybe I don't want to take credit for that!
I dont know, that kindof sounded emotional to me...
I was trying to remember who the heck Rachel was. I thought it might be your sister-in-law, you know the one that thinks I'm a bit wacko. (Not the one in Idaho. I think she likes me because I'm Glenn Beckish: Here(on this site) I'm a raving, lunatic liberal. Everywhere else I'm supposedly nice) :D
For the most part I agree with you.
See I can be civil and level-headed! I must be experiencing the quite lull that occurs right before that time of month. You know that time, the irritating calm before the raging storm.
Now THAT, should stop Curt in his tracks, or any other male for that matter that's thinking about commenting. I'm sure the list is sooooo long.
dang it I just wrote a response that was very good and many of you would have liked it...unfortunately it wouldn't let me post it for some reason and I lost it...oh well.
Point taken Lula...I agree there is a double standard.
Carlos always finds the most interesting stuff over at the thinkingorsitting site. I found this article there: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=dowd&st=cse
It asks a serious question about Wilson's (who is a white man from South Carolina) outburst. Was it because Obama is a smarty pants black man telling him what to do and he just wasn't going to take it anymore?
Perhaps an attempt to de-validate him as President?
Interesting question.
Curt - I hate it when that happens.
That Maureen Dowd "opinion" article is chock full of fallacies and poor circumstantial characterizations of southern white males.
So his comment "You Lie!" all of a sudden becomes "you lie, BOY!" ??? First of all, when did "boy" become a race based slander?
I agree...what he did was entirely inappropriate for the house floor. And I think he should apologize to the entire house on the floor since the act was committed there. Although, Obama agrees w/ conservatives that everyone should move on apology accepted, no need to have a session of congress to hold a vote about it.
Also this quote bothers me....
"But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it."
Democrats voted largely to go to war (whether you believe it was based on lies or not, they voted for it)! So of course they wouldn't speak out against Bush for it, they agreed with him. When Dems didn't agree with Bush they most certainly did speak out against him...referred to him as a liar and all sorts of stuff. AND on the house floor.
I'm a white conservative male and have lived in the South...I'm not a racist. But I believe racism exists and I also believe radical negros help to keep it a live!
QUOTE:
"...no more Bush, no more Iraq, no more white lies, my president is black!" --JayZ (as though black presidents are incapable of mishandling the truth)
Jimmy Carter even is accusing all who oppose Obama are racially motivated. When will people stop crying wolf on the "race" issue? Conservatives don't disagree with Obama's healthcare or any of his policies because he's black! They disagree with him based on fundamental conservative principles. Many of them VOTED for him because they disagreed with Bush Admin. spending and leaving the conservative principles!
Interesting discussion, Lula. Since you graciously posted my graphic I thought I'd add a comment or two. In skimming the comments, what jumps out at me is the refrain that "govt.-run" should be a pejorative. Tell that to seniors who love their govt.-run social security and Medicare. Didn’t we go to the moon in record time on a goct-run program? What about the Manhattan Project? It was a govt.-run project of Pharaonic proportions, and it changed the world forever.
My point is, the notion that the government can’t run complex systems efficiently and better than a for-profit private option is a myth perpetuated by people who would profit financially from it.
Recently, I watched a McCain town hall in which an elderly gentleman, WWII veteran, stood up to say (paraphrasing) "We live in the world's greatest country! I'm 83 years old and I get great SS and Medicafre benefits, much more than I ever put into the system. How great is that!" Etc. Then he echoed the line that the "government" should stay out of his benefits. I wish I could jump into the TV and materialize at that town hall, because this is what I'd tell that gentleman:
"Excuse me, sir. First of all, I honor your service. Your commander-in-chief was FDR, right? He gave us social security, the 40-hour work week, collective bargaining, the banking and market regulatory system which served us so well, enriching the middle class, until Republicans decided to roll back those New Deal banking regulations. It's for these reasons, among many others, that historians place FDR in the top three of our greatest presidents, with Lincoln and Washington.
If you're a Republican, I'll just ask you to consider this. It was the Democratic Party under FDR, not the Republicans, that gave you social security. It was the Democratic Party under Kennedy-Johnson, not Republicans, that gave you Medicare. It was the Democratic Party, against its own political interests, that passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. Not Republicans. Sure, at the time there were a number of Republicans who voted with Democrats, back when the Republican Party was not controlled by its right wing and bipartisanship was possible.
But these were ALL Democratic Party initiatives. Social security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Civil Rights/Voting Rights are the three columns of a four-column platform that supports the great liberal social agenda of the Democratic Party. The fourth column is universal healthcare. For me, this platform represents the very best of American politics. That’s why I’m a proud FDR-Bobby Kennedy liberal.
I’m good that you’re a Republican who loves your social security and Medicare. It’s just that, to me the last great Republican president, the last to truly represent the "Grand Old Party" of Lincoln, was Teddy Roosevelt, a president I greatly admire. So I'll just ask you this: Please give credit where credit is due. If you're talking about social security and Medicare, credit the Democratic Party, sir, and don't listen to pied pipers like Gingrich, who wanted Medicare to "wither on the vine" or W. who campaigned to privatize social security. Where would your benefits be had they succeeded?
Granted, they're better than Democrats at scaring seniors and telling lies. Democrats won’t apologize for govt.-run programs that transformed the lives of millions of our seniors, not to speak of a VA program that got its most robust funding and a 21st century GI bill under a Democratic president and Congress. It’s so much a part of our DNA that we can’t conceive of seniors believing things like "death panels."
Woo-hoo Carlos!! I love it when you guys come over here. Please, do it as much and as many times as you want!
When I see that stuff on tv, I mainly want to materialize and slap them around a little. Your response is much better. In fact, it's perfect!
Hello Mandy,
Long time no see/talk/discuss ect. I just had to quickly weigh in on this because I find the double standard amusing.
Although I do not think yelling "you lie" to the President is appropriate especially at a congressional speech, where was all this indignation when the left would boo and shout things during the Bush administration regarding the war, and yes it did happen and I'm sure there are thousands of youtube videos to prove it. Oh, wait that was OK because he was lying. So is Obama.
Hello, Kartch whoever you are. No time for pleasantries apparently so let's just jump right in.
True, both sides have issues, but I'd love to see the link on YouTube of someone yelling out-of-the-blue during a congressional speech, something other than "boo" by either side of the political line. What's next - "You suck Mr. President" or "I hate you Mr. President and your mother too" or "Your kids are ugly Mr. President."
Soon, we'll be like Korea, and I don't mean we'll be eating lots of rice and enjoying really spicy food. Wilson crossed the line and added to the rancor. Find something equal to that and prove it. Then we'll talk.
Oh, and if Bill O'Reilly said he didn't lie then it must be true, don't ya know.
Easy there tiger--maybe you need to slow down and re-read the post. Although I do believe it is classless and inappropriate to yell things at the President while he is speaking no matter the party or political issue, the question is again--Where was all this indignation when Bush was booed and heckled during his State of the Union addresses? I think if you are trying to tell me that booing and other such heckling behavior is OK, but shouting what you are thinking (however inappropriate) is not, then you should reexamine your political axioms. I don't see much difference in the intent. Sorry, but I am conceding that the conservative was wrong and actually moved the party back a step. I wish he would have kept quiet, but am honestly amused at the red faced fury I see among the left and the mainstream media. I remember hearing some of the things said about Bush on forums, blogs, supposedly reputable newscasts and couldn't believe people thought it was OK to talk about any President like that. Sure, I could dig up some post or video, but i have better things to do particularly when I don't really think it get a concession from you. I'm, just saying, my indignation goes both ways and I think yours should too. You should read my blog-I think you would enjoy it.
www.circling-the-proverbial-drain.blogspot.com
And to clarify, I was good friends with Mandy during college-thought this was her blog.
Well, I am assuming this is Ben?? Not quite the "hey, how are ya doing" I would have expected after 7 years but I'm glad to know you survived med school. Hope all is well.
I will leave the argument at that. I don't like arguing with friends.
I've watched a lot of presidential speeches to joint sessions of Congress and I don't recall anything as disrespectful as yelling "YOU LIE!" to the President. Veteran journalists have said the same thing.
I've seen the jeering, rolling of eyes, sitting on hands, Bronx cheers, etc., from both sides. But nothing like this. A lot of times Bush would smirk at the Dems. It was par for the course. The nature of Wilson's outburst was unique in this setting and very ugly.
Regardless of our President turning the other cheek, he's got policy to move, I certainly think there's a racist component to this. Wilson was expressing his genuine self. Then take a look at all those white people on the D.C. Mall carrying hideous signs showing Obama as a witch doctor, Hitler, a Muslim, a communist, questioning his citizenship, folks packing heat to presidential events, and pretty soon a pattern begins to emerge.
The reaction from the blogs, and Lula's (what "tiger," where? - that itself is disrespectful and condescending, it's her blog and you're a guest) has been measured, considering. I imagine a lot of people may feel a sense of discomfort examining their racist attitudes, when forced to look in the mirror, and the natural tendency is to overreact.
That's their problem.
You're my new blog hero Carlos.
But I not surprised by his comments, as it's hardly the first time I've been treated like I'm the crud stuck to the bottom of one's shoe by a Republican. Living where I do, I'm used to the lecturing and the condescension. For some that seems to be what they do best. I doesn't bother me, because frankly, I just don't care, and last time I checked I could read adequately at the appropriate speed. Something like, oh I don't know - the facts - don't throw me for a loop.
So thanks for coming to my defense,
and now I need to go test out some catnip and sharpen my claws in preparation for my next slaying...;p
Post a Comment