So I'm watching this town hall...

[Gotch]

I'll also continue to disagree on the race issue. It's far too easy and assumes far too much to simply label someone you disagree with a racist. It also energizes non-racists who are called racist to an astronomical degree.

The swastikas are not a symbol of support for the political ideology that the symbol stands for but an accusation that the targeted person supports that political ideology. They are uncalled for and it's a criminal act, but it does not, in this context, indicate racism.

I simply don't get the idea that the sign and the guy with the gun indicates racism either...that's an enormous assumption and stretch. It's never productive to try to dismiss those you disagree with by simply placing a negative label on them.

[TheBeast]

When it's a white dude packin' heat holding the sign outside of the president's town hall, and the message he clearly wants to convey is to "water the tree of liberty" with that black president's blood.

My point exactly you are the one putting race into that as an issue because that is what you want to see. You know me and would you say the same thing if I were holding the sign and wearing my pistol? It is of no consequence to me at all what color that fool is, (which I would bout gaurantee why the birth certificate hasn't been shown is because under race it has him listed as white/caucasian because of the time period and his mother is white) but what is of importance to me is his long associations with radical marxist/socialists. Play it off however you want there is no way on earth that you can possibly believe that he didn't know about and agree with these people's beliefs when there are so many of them that are admitted "close" acquaintances.

Never said that, not even close.

and the message he clearly wants to convey is to "water the tree of liberty" with that black president's blood. You may not feel that way, and others may not--but it's pretty obvious that's what message he meant to convey.

Now which is it? Your the one parsing the quote to say that without knowing anything about the man other than he is white. I haven't heard anyone else but you make that stretch form tyrant to because he's black and try to make it racial.

[CoeburnCane]

I haven't heard anyone else but you make that stretch form tyrant to because he's black and try to make it racial.

The bridge you're missing in this "stretch" is that the word "tyrant" refers to the person(s) in power, and the word "patriot" refers to those inciting revolution. If tyrant refers to the person in power (Obama), and the guy holding the sign is likely the patriot with the gun ready to spill his blood and the "tyrant's", then it's not a stretch if you understand the meaning of that credo and who was referred to in it originally--tyrant = Britain, patriots = US revolutionaries. It's using patriotism as an excuse to say he wants to kill the president. Very simple message to take out of that.

Let's flip it around--you know me. Would you think it'd be a bad message if during Bush's presidency that I held that same sign up while openly carrying a gun just outside of the venue in which Bush was speaking? Or would I have simply been a person exercising my 1st amendment rights in a peaceful, non-threatening manner?

How quick would I have been in Gitmo being waterboarded, regardless of if I was carrying my gun legally?

My point exactly you are the one putting race into that as an issue because that is what you want to see.

Maybe you don't want to see it b/c agreeing that race plays a role in what some of these protestors are doing really looks bad on that side of the debate.

The swastikas are not a symbol of support for the political ideology that the symbol stands for but an accusation that the targeted person supports that political ideology. They are uncalled for and it's a criminal act, but it does no, in this context, indicate racism.

I disagree on both counts. The swastika and other nazi symbols are sure-fire racist symbols have been for a long time. Especially in the south where swastikas are still symbols of white supremacy groups such as the KKK and have been for a long time. What did the Nazi party want to do? Purify the world race into an Aryan nation (i.e.--blonde haired/blue eyed whites). I only agree with you that it is uncalled for and is a criminal act.

So it's an accident or pure coincidence that Rep. David Scott is black, and has recently been receiving hate mail calling him a negro and other racial epithets? This isn't about race--are you 100% sure about that? It's all political and policy related?

[Gotch]

Didn't say it was all policy based. Just that the vast majority involved are doing so from a policy based standpoint. There are always a handful on any issue that are the exception.



Did you miss this? It explains the connections between proponents of the plan and the swastika in the minds of some protesters.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...-swastika.html

[TheBeast]

The bridge you're missing in this "stretch" is that the word "tyrant" refers to the person(s) in power, and the word "patriot" refers to those inciting revolution. If tyrant refers to the person in power (Obama), and the guy holding the sign is likely the patriot with the gun ready to spill his blood and the "tyrant's", then it's not a stretch if you understand the meaning of that credo and who was referred to in it originally--tyrant = Britain, patriots = US revolutionaries. It's using patriotism as an excuse to say he wants to kill the president. Very simple message to take out of that.

I know exactly what the quote reffers to and how it was said and intended. Find me anything at all that says this guy is a racist and anything more than someone that see's their freedoms being threatened by a tyranical leader. Still you are the only person I have heard trying to make it a racial issue.

Let's flip it around--you know me. Would you think it'd be a bad message if during Bush's presidency that I held that same sign up while openly carrying a gun just outside of the venue in which Bush was speaking? Or would I have simply been a person exercising my 1st amendment rights in a peaceful, non-threatening manner?

How quick would I have been in Gitmo being waterboarded, regardless of if I was carrying my gun legally?

Nice try but there were far more people with signs like that and wanting to kill Bush at one venue than there has been at all of the mesiahs.
Ok let's put that guy at one of Bush's venues with that sign and open carrying and make him a black guy. That is clearly racially motivated and the guy is just doing it because Bush is white.

You seem to forget your party was the one that was for and promoted slavery.

[R13]

individuals can shop for insurance—a process made all the easier by a Dutch government web site “where consumers can compare all insurers with respect to price, services, consumer satisfaction, and supplemental insurance, and compare hospitals on different sets of performance indicators.”

PolitiFact | Create a National Health Insurance Exchange - Obama promise No. 52:


"One of Obama's promises was to create a national health insurance exchange.He envisioned people being able to one-stop shop for health insurance, with benefits and coverage spelled out in clear, standardized language."



Isn't the National Health Insurance Exchange exactly that?


Establishes a Health Insurance Exchange (HIE) within a proposed Health Choices Administration, to provide individuals and employers access to health insurance coverage choices. The HIE would contract with various insurers to offer benefit plans at competitive prices, by establishing a risk-pooling mechanism. This will allow individuals and small companies to band together to bargain for lower rates.


That's in the House bill right now, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

But it would be wrong to say that the Dutch health care system is some sort of conservative utopia where the invisible hand of the market reigns. Just as in Dr. Emanuel’s plan, insurers operate under many regulations and restrictions. Most importantly, “they are legally obliged to accept each applicant for basic insurance” and they cannot charge someone more because of pre-existing conditions.

Two things in the bill I've seen...

Prohibits pre-existing condition exclusions.
Prohibits premium variances, except for age, geographic area, or family (vs. individual) enrollment.



Are you really in that disagreement with it as you thought you were?







I really don't know how that 1 comment two years ago could be seen as a flip-flop now? He never campaigned for it, it was never in his healthcare proposal during the campaign and then changed it. This has been the plan he proposed and it hasn't changed, I don't see the flip or the flop.





Race does play an issue in some of these, but it's not that much of a driving factor. I think the Hitler/nazi/socialist **** is equally ridiculous though.

[Gotch]

"Race does play an issue in some of these, but it's not that much of a driving factor. I think the Hitler/nazi/socialist **** is equally ridiculous though."

I think you are actually on to something there. A lot of these people do believe it's a major push towards socialism, that's what's got them so worked up. Not race......

[TheBeast]

Isn't the National Health Insurance Exchange exactly that?

Not exactly:

1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.

2. Small businesses?with say 8-10 employees?will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government ?option.?

3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.

4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.

5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government ?option? will have no place else to go.

Prohibits pre-existing condition exclusions.
Prohibits premium variances, except for age, geographic area, or family (vs. individual) enrollment.

How is that any different than what's in place now other than the pre-existing conditions? And the pre-existing conditions would be controlled by this wouldn't they:

1. This section amends the Social Security Act

2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an ?applicable [medical] condition.?

3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

[R13]

Well copied and pasted that in the search bar and found these...

What The Health Care Bill Actually Says | Sweetness & Light

And...

A Duke Professor Explains What the Health Care Bill Actually Says

and...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2315420/posts





______________________

Taking it too far again with a "Death to Obama and Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids" sign at a town hall.

'Death to Obama' sign holder in Md. detained

[Gotch]

There were death to Bush signs and even a poster here who suggested that Bush be publicly executed. It's was wrong then and it's wrong now. Bringing the family into it is ten times worse.

Do you have a link for that?

Also, without reading all these links, can I ask how these people are telling us what is in the bill when there isn't a bill yet?