US Marine puts US Congressman in his place.

[August]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

This Marine handled himself ok, but there are many examples of right wingers being disruptive at these townhalls over the past few months. O'Reilly et al are strangely silent about it. I wonder why.

Maybe they aren't but you have several other networks screaming from the rooftops about it as well as the President and members of Congress are repeatedly trying to cast objectors in a negative light. Note that I said President and members of Congress not some unofficial pundits.

Had Bush or the member of of the Republican congress used close to the same rhetoric the outcry from the media would have been immense.

Double standards dude.

[Aramike]

Typical right wing BS. Doesn't make sense, but it sounds tough, and that's all that counts.

Really? Made perfect sense, even though I didn't agree completely. But I understand what he said and his motivations for saying so.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. (Even though I actually do believe that you do understand it, but as a typical lefty you find your side to be "elite" and any other opinion must be labeled nonsensical garbage.)

He's a Marine vet, so whatever he says has to be extra-true!

There is a perception in this country by many people that those who serve have earned the priviledge of speaking, whereas everyone else just excercises their right. I have no problem with that perspective as it honors the individuals who serve us all.

I could say your point makes no sense, but it does and I disagree with it. I like to think of myself as intellectually honest. You should try it.

"Stay away from my children!" Dey ain't go no need for edjikation.

Umm, you did know the context of that point wasn't education, right?

Oh, and maybe you don't get this, either (not a surprise): The Congressman is part of the FEDERAL government. Education is handled locally. The Marine was talking to the Congressman. Ergo, he was telling the Congressman to keep the federal government away from his children.

It's amazing what a little thinking can do for you. The thick irony here is that you lefties were so worked up over Bush's FEDERAL No Child Left Behind, but when a guy tells the feds to stay out of his children's lives, well that must be just some hill-billy, crazy-folk talk, right?

He gets pissed off because the plan preserves the right that he cares so much about. Brilliant. Would he be happier if it didn't give him what he wanted?

Again, you don't get something that is so incredibly obvious. He's pissed off because he doesn't feel that the federal government has any authority to "allow" us to have any rights! I agree with him, because if we start allowing the government to allow us to do certain things, we have then ceded the authority to them to DISALLOW certain things.

Quite franky, even I find it offensive when politicians say that they will "let" me do something.

It may be semantics, but with the nationalization track record of liberals over the Obama presidency, why take the risk?

And yes, how dare this administration AND THE PREVIOUS REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION take drastic measures to try and stave off another Great Depression. It would have been much better to do nothing, and let unemployment reach 30%.

Considering that only around 5% of the stimulus has actually be spent, and the economy is stabilizing, it seems as though Obama's massive spending plan has been either a failure, or a waste of 95% (which to me is also a failure).

And the thing is, he actually had notes to read off of. He took notes, and that was the best he could do?

He did better than you've done in this entire post, and you have Google and the edit function to work with.

We conveniently don't know what the Democrat's response was, but I can imagine it was weak-kneed and pathetic. They have to start calling these idiots out on their BS.

I agree (and immediately said in this thread) that the rebuttal should not have been cut.

Also, note how I have nothing to comment on regarding his Nazi tirade. He may have just been making fun of the idiot Pelosi, but to be honest, I'm REALLY sick of hearing the Nazis come up EVERY freakin' time we have a contentious issue. But I can't help but wonder if you shared the same indignation when the left wing nuts were making similarly absurd accusations about Bush...

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

People are protesting loss of liberty, and intrusive government.

Fair enough, enough of that been going around lately. But where were you guys the last 10 years? I believe there was a somewhat minor expansion of government during that time.

PD

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Roads, police, fire, etc. are not socialism. They are common use items derived from the unwritten yet recognized social contract between taxpayers and government. There is nothing wrong with the concept of reasonable taxation for elements of common use. YOUR own healthcare is NOT common use. Nor is it any concern of mine. It is your personal responsibility.

What if you had a contagious virus and did not seek treatment? That would be a concern of mine and society. Or if you did not maintain your heath due to lack of access and became sick with an otherwise avoidable illness due to a weakend immune system and you spread that virus, thats a concern of mine because I could get sick, and becomes a concern of society since I would miss work depriving the customers of that establishment of our product and reducing my wages lowering the amount of income tax the goverment recives from me which also increases the burden on other tax payers.

Or if you had a physical injury that prevented you from working but was treatable should you be able to pay for it. In that case you would be draining the coffers of the goverment for the rest of your life on disablity while contributing less to the tax base (because you don't work and thus pay little in taxes) insted of reciving a one time treatment at the goverments expense that you end up repaying via your future income taxes.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe they aren't but you have several other networks screaming from the rooftops about it as well as the President and members of Congress are repeatedly trying to cast objectors in a negative light. Note that I said President and members of Congress not some unofficial pundits.

Had Bush or the member of of the Republican congress used close to the same rhetoric the outcry from the media would have been immense.

Double standards dude.

No, they didn't have to say anything at all as they roped all protesters into "free speech zones" miles away. Double standards indeed.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

No, they didn't have to say anything at all as they roped all protesters into "free speech zones" miles away. Double standards indeed.

I remember them doing that at the Democrats convention.

I'm still waiting for your justification for the comparison between the "don't tase me" dude and this Marine.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by August

I remember them doing that at the Democrats convention.

I'm still waiting for your justification for the comparison between the "don't tase me" dude and this Marine.

They did. But his outrage isn't for the activity, its for the people engaging in it.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

I remember them doing that at the Democrats convention.

I'm still waiting for your justification for the comparison between the "don't tase me" dude and this Marine.

Wasn't talking specifically against this guy. Just the town hall screamers in general.

Originally Posted by Aramike

But his outrage isn't for the activity, its for the people engaging in it.

Nice try, but no. I was making the point that the talking heads will get all in a tizzy about people disrupting political events unless it happens to be their favored people.

[Aramike]

Nice try, but no. I was making the point that the talking heads will get all in a tizzy about people disrupting political events unless it happens to be their favored people.

Fair enough, but then you clearly see how that can be a problem with an overwhelmingly liberal media, right?

Besides, some political event are designed for the very purpose of people giving their feedback. Conventions and rallies are not.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

No, they didn't have to say anything at all as they roped all protesters into "free speech zones" miles away. Double standards indeed.

Ummm Cindy Sheehan comes to mind. Dont remember her being roped off.

Remember her... "My god the president is on vacation while were at war overseas"...

Where are those cries now?

[ETR3(SS)]

I may be the only to see this being a vet but I can understand this Marine's...shall I say fervor, on this topic. As a veteran I took the Oath of Enlistment, like the Marine briefly described, to protect the rights of the Citizens of the United States of America. I've been called all sorts of names by people because I was a part of the military during a turbulent time. There were people that didn't like Bush and because I was in the military associated me with the now former President. Occasionally I would get a heart felt thank you form some people, but to be honest I don't think I even have to use my other hand to count how many. I, like many others, could handle the name calling by the very people we defended. What really hurts, what really buries the knife in your back, is when elected officials of this country try to undo, one piece at a time, the rights and privileges I and others fought and sacrificed to maintain. I salute this Marine, my brother in arms, for displaying the utmost professionalism while before an elected official of this nation. Semper Fi brother!

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Really? Made perfect sense, even though I didn't agree completely. But I understand what he said and his motivations for saying so.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. (Even though I actually do believe that you do understand it, but as a typical lefty you find your side to be "elite" and any other opinion must be labeled nonsensical garbage.)

First off, you don't know a thing about me. Second off, by no means do right wingers have a monopoly on stupidity. There are responsible Republicans who are rational. If they disagree with health care, bully for them. Only problem is, they seem to be a dying breed. Many Repubs today appear to be plunging to the bottom as fast as they can, to capitalize on the lowest common denominator with rhetoric similar to the BS this guy was spouting.

There is a perception in this country by many people that those who serve have earned the priviledge of speaking, whereas everyone else just excercises their right. I have no problem with that perspective as it honors the individuals who serve us all.

I do not accept that. Holding to that perception opens the door to the notion that the truth value of speech rests more on who is speaking than on what is being said, which this guy took advantage of.

I could say your point makes no sense, but it does and I disagree with it. I like to think of myself as intellectually honest. You should try it.

That's rich coming from you. Feigning incomprehension to try and score a cheap point is one of your favorite tricks. I don't use it, but I believe you cannot honestly say the same.

I see no mention of his constitutional oath crap. Do you accept it or not? Do I have permission to find it nonsensical?

Umm, you did know the context of that point wasn't education, right?

Oh, and maybe you don't get this, either (not a surprise): The Congressman is part of the FEDERAL government. Education is handled locally. The Marine was talking to the Congressman. Ergo, he was telling the Congressman to keep the federal government away from his children.

It's amazing what a little thinking can do for you. The thick irony here is that you lefties were so worked up over Bush's FEDERAL No Child Left Behind, but when a guy tells the feds to stay out of his children's lives, well that must be just some hill-billy, crazy-folk talk, right?

No @#$% Sherlock. Since when does being a member of the Federal government prevent you from talking generally about certain topics? As soon as it provides an opportunity to make political hay, I guess.

Again, you don't get something that is so incredibly obvious. He's pissed off because he doesn't feel that the federal government has any authority to "allow" us to have any rights! I agree with him, because if we start allowing the government to allow us to do certain things, we have then ceded the authority to them to DISALLOW certain things.

Quite franky, even I find it offensive when politicians say that they will "let" me do something.

It may be semantics

DING DING DING DING! It's all meaningless semantics, distorting the intention behind the original language to create a talking point. I'm reminded of another Marine, Zell Miller speaking at the 2004 Republican Convention, who got wild applause for criticizing Democrats for referring to the occupation of Iraq, rather than its liberation. It's that kind of pointless macho posturing BS, based on nothing but the distortion of words, that I'm going on about. The fact that this guy pulled that trick using language describing a part of the plan which he would be in favor of, made it even dumber.

but with the nationalization track record of liberals over the Obama presidency, why take the risk? Considering that only around 5% of the stimulus has actually be spent, and the economy is stabilizing, it seems as though Obama's massive spending plan has been either a failure, or a waste of 95% (which to me is also a failure).

Listen to what he actually says. He wasn't talking about the stimulus package, he was talking in part about the National SOCIALIST TAKEOVER OF THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY!1!!!1 Too bad the present day "takeover" began under Bush, and was initiated by die hard free marketers. But hey, what are facts to right wing nuts?

He did better than you've done in this entire post, and you have Google and the edit function to work with.

I beg to differ.

Also, note how I have nothing to comment on regarding his Nazi tirade. He may have just been making fun of the idiot Pelosi, but to be honest, I'm REALLY sick of hearing the Nazis come up EVERY freakin' time we have a contentious issue. But I can't help but wonder if you shared the same indignation when the left wing nuts were making similarly absurd accusations about Bush...

I thought the Bush-Hitler stuff was idiotic back then, just as I think the Obama-Hitler crap is stupid, thank you very much.

To sum it up: if you're against health care because you have reason to believe that it'll be too expensive, or that the government has the anti-Midas touch, or that collective action is inherently wrong, or that it's every American's god given right to have the opportunity to have their coverage dropped at the worst possible time, or that it's a good and righteous thing that the US pays far and away the most for health care as a percentage of GDP while receiving average care, with a sixth of the country having no care at all, then great, we can have a debate.

This guy didn't bother with actual reason, though. He just got up there with the same old BS rhetoric which we've heard for months, most of which doesn't even make sense as I've shown, and he got praised for it.

Apparently you feel that your points are so weak, you must buttress them with insults. I initially answered in kind, but then decided to remove them. I'm ending this conversation before you turn it into a flamewar.

[Aramike]

First off, you don't know a thing about me.

Wrong. I know exactly what you show me through your writings. Unless you're lying, communicating poorly, etc., that's what I know and the extent of what I know. And that's the position my commentary comes from.

Second off, by no means do right wingers have a monopoly on stupidity. There are responsible Republicans who are rational. If they disagree with health care, bully for them. Only problem is, they seem to be a dying breed. Many Repubs today appear to be plunging to the bottom as fast as they can, to capitalize on the lowest common denominator with rhetoric similar to the BS this guy was spouting.

Judging by the fact that Obama's popularity is waning, and most polls show the nation is heading towards the right, I'm going to suggest that your making a biased statement with no actual basis in fact.

You're entitled to your opinion. Just like me, and my opinion is that you're wrong.

I do not accept that. Holding to that perception opens the door to the notion that the truth value of speech rests more on who is speaking than on what is being said, which this guy took advantage of.

Whether or not you accept it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Furthermore, no one has a right to have their speech be of any value whatsoever. It's up to people to decide such things. However, people can also decide to respect a certain type of individual with listening a little closer when they speak.

That's rich coming from you. Feigning incomprehension to try and score a cheap point is one of your favorite tricks. I don't use it, but I believe you cannot honestly say the same.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I specifically said that I *DO* comprehend what you're saying, but disagree with it.

I see no mention of his constitutional oath crap. Do you accept it or not? Do I have permission to find it nonsensical?

Dude, its called political rhetoric. From some perspectives, the congressman has not kept his oath. From others, he has. But the bottom line is that it was an opinion, and I can understand why the individual has it (even though I do not agree).

Political rhetoric is about accentuating a point, not making one. So yes, it makes perfect sense in context. I don't agree with him, but it makes sense.

No @#$% Sherlock. Since when does being a member of the Federal government prevent you from talking generally about certain topics? As soon as it provides an opportunity to make political hay, I guess.

Wow, go back and read my point again. You really missed it. Badly.

DING DING DING DING! It's all meaningless semantics, distorting the intention behind the original language to create a talking point. I'm reminded of another Marine, Zell Miller speaking at the 2004 Republican Convention, who got wild applause for criticizing Democrats for referring to the occupation of Iraq, rather than its liberation. It's that kind of pointless macho posturing BS, based on nothing but the distortion of words, that I'm going on about. The fact that this guy pulled that trick using language describing a part of the plan which he would be in favor of, made it even dumber.

Are you kidding? Do you even live in this country? Do you have ANY idea how it works?

The reason the language is being picked over so much is because you have a judiciary that answers to no one. So, while there may be no intent for, say, Death Panels, someone could easily later say that that's what the bill means. A judge could easily then interpret that to be correct, should it be challenged and brought to court. So while the bill specifically doesn't say certain things, it can be (clearly) interpetted in certain ways.

And really, have you even known ANY politician or bureaucrat to not interpret things in the way they WANT them to mean?

Listen to what he actually says. He wasn't talking about the stimulus package, he was talking in part about the National SOCIALIST TAKEOVER OF THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY!1!!!1 Too bad the present day "takeover" began under Bush, and was initiated by die hard free marketers. But hey, what are facts to right wing nuts?

Seriously, you should stop and try to read my points carefully, in context, before you respond. You're not doing yourself any favors.

Read my point again, in the context of what I was responding to. I even made it easy for you, using the "quote" function.

I beg to differ.

Keep begging.

I thought the Bush-Hitler stuff was idiotic back then, just as I think the Obama-Hitler crap is stupid, thank you very much.

Fair enough. To be honest, somehow I doubt that you've expressed such indignation over it (which is actually what I wrote, anyway), but I have no reason to believe that you supported it, either.

To sum it up: if you're against health care because you have reason to believe that it'll be too expensive, or that the government has the anti-Midas touch, or that collective action is inherently wrong, or that it's every American's god given right to have the opportunity to have their coverage dropped at the worst possible time, or that it's a good and righteous thing that the US pays far and away the most for health care as a percentage of GDP while receiving average care, with a sixth of the country having no care at all, then great, we can have a debate.

Too bad you have no idea who you're talking to. I'm not a "right wing nut". In fact, I'm fiercely independant. Furthermore, I have stated, time and time again, that I'm in favor of healthcare reform and even nationalized healthcare. Frankly, I believe we already have a foolish, incredibly inefficient version of that.

However, the Obama plan is simply STUPID. No way around it. I've actually made suggestions to the kind of plan that I think would work in other threads. Obama's plan will not work.

No large nation has efficient nationalized healthcare ... but in my opinion, that doesn't mean it is impossible.

This guy didn't bother with actual reason, though. He just got up there with the same old BS rhetoric which we've heard for months, most of which doesn't even make sense as I've shown, and he got praised for it.

I praise anyone who stands up to elected officials for the right reasons.

By the way, you really should research topics more prior to engaging in debate on them. You DO know why the marine was pissed at Congressman Baird, right? Hint: Google "Baird Brownshirt".

Apparently you feel that your points are so weak, you must buttress them with insults. I initially answered in kind, but then decided to remove them. I'm ending this conversation before you turn it into a flamewar.

Wasn't trying to be insulting, but oh well. Some people don't have thick skin.

And no, my points aren't weak. Judging by your replies, you just never bothered to read them.

[Frame57]

What a classic example of what an entitlement society has become. It really boils down to the socialist=gimme everything for free+big government. The conservative=you get what you pay for+you get what you earn.

Since when has healthcare become a right? Tough monkey spunk! If you can not afford it, then die. That is life. But that is MO. The reality is you can still go to any ER and get care just like the illegals and not pay for it too. Then complain about the cost of HC being too high.

The way to lower HC costs is too kick the friggin illegals out of the country. Then cap all medical lawsuits. In a couple of years our premiums would probably be half of what they are today.

Every dime the government spends is money the taxpayer provided. So once again, Freddy the freeloader takes from those that have and give to the street bums that zombyfy frisco. I hope the Marxists Obama gets everything he wants because until the American people get out of their entitlement mindset nothing will be done to get this communist bum out of the white house and send him to Moscow.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

What if you had a contagious virus and did not seek treatment? That would be a concern of mine and society. Or if you did not maintain your heath due to lack of access and became sick with an otherwise avoidable illness due to a weakend immune system and you spread that virus, thats a concern of mine because I could get sick, and becomes a concern of society since I would miss work depriving the customers of that establishment of our product and reducing my wages lowering the amount of income tax the goverment recives from me which also increases the burden on other tax payers.

Or if you had a physical injury that prevented you from working but was treatable should you be able to pay for it. In that case you would be draining the coffers of the goverment for the rest of your life on disablity while contributing less to the tax base (because you don't work and thus pay little in taxes) insted of reciving a one time treatment at the goverments expense that you end up repaying via your future income taxes.

Lots of what-ifs there. And like I said, these type of arguments are based on fear of what-ifs. I say we quarantine you if you become some viral plague infected sop. Like we currently would. And as would be the case if a nanny state solution was in place. Do you think viruses or contagions couldn't/don't happen where there is nanny state health care like the UK or Canada? If so, stop fooling yourself. This is mere deflection of the main argument. Who's domain does your personal healthcare belong to. I guess you can make these same tax base draining arguments for some sort of government sponsored single payer universal auto insurance as well. Right? As too many collisions among uninsured motorists could drain the taxpayers coffers all the same. Right? In effect, you can make the same nanny statism argument for many things. But where does it end TLAM? You're almost saying that individual's personal healthcare is some sort of "right" that you're "entitled" to receive. Of course there's issues there.

The bottom line in health care is, in order for you to receive health care services, someone has to provide you with that service. This means that someone has to expend time, energy, intellectual property etc. to provide you with YOUR health care. Usually this health care provider is compensated for their time and property. But if healthcare is a "right", or could cause undue "burdens" on the taxpayers dole, and is provided by the "government" "free of charge", then that would mean that you are legally entitled to the healthcare provider's time and property. Sorry, but your own personal healthcare does not belong to me or any physician. Nor do I feel compelled to pay for you.