Why are people so angry at the health care town halls?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

US citizens may want to meditate about these numbers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8201711.stm

And they may want to take into account this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/op...14krugman.html

The reason for the massive, collective spike of hysteric emotions imo is lacking understanding of what the reform plans to do, lacking understanding of how much insurance there already is and how much many of those being against it already benefit from it, and an agenda totally indepedant from the object being: discussed to do maximum damage to Obama for him not being Republican, and revenge for Republicans not having won the elections. Like Islam is deeply offended by everything not being Islam, Republicans are deeply offended by not being elected into power. For the Republican party, getting back to power or staying in power, justifies every means. EVERY means. And they have often proved that since WWII.

I don't necessarily disagree with you completely (even though I do somewhat), but I find your argument to be completely one-sided - the Democratic party is EXACTLY the same way.

I can cite liberal hypocrisies for hours (and the same for conservatives). Like Nancy Pelosi telling antiwar protesters that she's a fan of disruptors, then going on to attack healthcare critics for disruptions.

http://www.breitbart.tv/06-flashback...of-disruptors/

In the end, its all about power to these people - that's the one trait that crosses party lines.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I don't necessarily disagree with you completely (even though I do somewhat), but I find your argument to be completely one-sided - the Democratic party is EXACTLY the same way.

The far more serious and unscrupelous scandals in politics since WWII - have all been committed by Republican government and presidents, not Democrats. Demoicrats often may not be saints, but I fail to see any scandal that compares to Watergate, Contras/Irangate, Bush-Iraq-2003, and Reagan's betrayel of Carter over the hostages. And to me these are the major scandals, equalling high treason, of American politics since WWII. I have said and illustrated that repeatedly. As a matter of fact I really do not like the democratic party in general, and I often find myself agreeing more with conservative than democratic figures - but this is with regard to nindividuals, not paarties. As a party, republicans can go to hell, with Democrats in hot pursuit. But the record of serious failings, scandals and treacheries, as I see the latter, will forever make me opposing the Republicans. To me, as a faction, they are some of the greatest liars, most hypocritical zealots and most unscrupelous polit-gangsters on earth. What I also do not like is that they appeal so very often and so intensively to irrational emotions when having run out of arguments - several of Palin's statements jut being the latest but not the only example. But that is a problem with all american politics, and with politicians in general. It's just that I see Republiancs as being more competent masters of this "art" than others.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The far more serious and unscrupelous scandals in politics since WWII - have all been committed by Republican government and presidents, not Democrats. Demoicrats often may not be saints, but I fail to see any scandal that compares to Watergate, Contras/Irangate, Bush-Iraq-2003, and Reagan's betrayel of Carter over the hostages. And to me these are the major scandals, equalling high treason, of American politics since WWII. I have said and illustrated that repeatedly. As a matter of fact I really do not like the democratic party in general, and I often find myself agreeing more with conservative than democratic figures - but this is with regard to nindividuals, not paarties. As a party, republicans can go to hell, with Democrats in hot pursuit. But the record of serious failings, scandals and treacheries, as I see the latter, will forever make me opposing the Republicans. To me, as a faction, they are some of the greatest liars, most hypocritical zealots and most unscrupelous polit-gangsters on earth. What I also do not like is that they appeal so very often and so intensively to irrational emotions when having run out of arguments - several of Palin's statements jut being the latest but not the only example. But that is a problem with all american politics, and with politicians in general. It's just that I see Republiancs as being more competent masters of this "art" than others.

Again, you're being selective (in fact, some of your examples I wouldn't even qualify as scandals - mistakes, perhaps, but not scandals).

But let's look at the Democrats, shall we: "Landslide Lyndon" courtesy of George Parr, Vietnam (if you consider Iraq to be a scandal, how about the death toll there? And, that conflict was perpetuated and most expanded upon by DEMOCRATS), Carter's out and out betrayal of the Iranian Shah, Clinton's lying under oath (I don't give a damn about what he lied about, just that he lied), ACORN, etc. I honestly could go on for hours.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Again, you're being selective (in fact, some of your examples I wouldn't even qualify as scandals - mistakes, perhaps, but not scandals).

But let's look at the Democrats, shall we: "Landslide Lyndon" courtesy of George Parr, Vietnam (if you consider Iraq to be a scandal, how about the death toll there? And, that conflict was perpetuated and most expanded upon by DEMOCRATS), Carter's out and out betrayal of the Iranian Shah, Clinton's lying under oath (I don't give a damn about what he lied about, just that he lied), ACORN, etc. I honestly could go on for hours.

Obviously we have extremely different standards.Are your examples nuisances? Absolutely. Did they do so much damage and crime to the nation like the real blockbusters I mentioned? No way to answer that with a Yes.

And the president's motives for going to war in Vietnam and Iraq do not compare in any way. Vietnam was a mess, but for very different reasons than the adventure the neocon mafia and their attached economic lobbies pushed your country into. And of the two, Vietnam just let you lose your face, but Iraq has far more threatening strategic longterm consequences, but this just btw.

[Aramike]

And what do you base this on?


Is it your position that if this immeasurably small sample of the citizens who are bitchin at town meetings had not bitched, that this bill would have gotten through all the committees and garnered agreement in both houses of congress by now?

I don't think that is a reasonable assumption.

Demonstrations at a small number of town halls is simply not going to have that much impact on the House or the Senate.

You're right - perhaps MORE would have been added to the bill.

You'll never see a bill get skimmed without some kind of outcry. Ever.

And no, it's not my position that without the town halls and protests the bill would have gotten through congress by now - congress is in recess. It *IS* my position that, without this outcry, when they reconvene this bill would have been quickly pushed to the floor and passed because that's what Obama has been trying to do all along.

[Aramike]

Obviously we have extremely different standards.Are your examples nuisances? Absolutely. Did they do so much damage and crime to the nation like the real blockbusters I mentioned? No way to answer that with a Yes.

Using your list of scandals, I don't see them as much worse than mine.

George Parr tampering with the election of a Senator, who would ultimately become the democrat president who escalates the Vietnam War is not a mere nuisance. Carter's complete mishandling of Iran wasn't a nuisance. ACORN is not a nuisance (to me anything supplanting the democratic system of elections amounts to treason).

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Aramike

when they reconvene this bill would have been quickly pushed to the floor and passed because that's what Obama has been trying to do all along.

Fortunately, it is not up to the President but the individual houses of the congress.

The President ASKS congress, he does not tell congress. And that is a good thing.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Fortunately, it is not up to the President but the individual houses of the congress.

The President ASKS congress, he does not tell congress. And that is a good thing.

Umm, a heavily democratically controlled congress with listen to a democratic controlled White House, 99% of the time.

[Vacquero]

In the end what we in the US have is a Republican form of government. We're supposed to anyway. The People are in charge, not the President not Congress nor the SC. Therefore, if the People say "no", than "no" it should be. We have enough people pretending to know how our form of government works, that are in high positions within our government, to negate the need for people to bloviate on and on about the subject when they have not lived under the system.