Letter From a Conservative
Posted by Joe Rivett on 08.22.2009
Not all conservatives are psychotic town hall protesters...
Here is a letter I received from one of my conservative friends and former 411 Politics writer Joshua White...
Town Hall Protesters,
I'm writing to you as not only an American, but one who voted for John McCain. When it comes to most political issues, I'm sure that we agree. And I can assure you that I'm no fan of what President Obama is suggested as a reform to the health care industry.
The health care debate is truly amazing. It is an issue that is not only bringing the Republicans together around a central oppositional theory, but it is forcing independents (and a few on the Left) to rethink Obama and his positions. I have talked to several people who have voted for Obama, expecting great things, who are not fans of his health care plan. All of this makes this a wonderful opportunity to show these people that fiscal conservatism makes sense. It is a time to secure the Blue Dog Democrats as our allies in at least one respect.
Now is an excellent time to recapture the good name that the Republicans once had and should have again. Whether we deserve it or not, our good name has been sullied and now it the chance for the party to show the country that we have feasible ideas. It is our ideas that can keep this country as the best in the world. It is we who are right, not them. And we have the country's attention to prove it.
This cannot happen if you continue to yell, scream, threaten, and generally act like fools at town hall meetings.
When I listen to conservative radio I hear the hosts saying that it is the Republicans who use logic and reason to convey their thoughts. It is those in the Democratic party who use emotion to make the public agree with them. This doesn't seem to be the case at all with regards to the current debate.
As you out-yell your elected official they stand there stoically and answer you with nothing but respect. As you burn your congressperson in effigy they meet with your townspeople knowing that you are going to act like complete fools. And as you express your emotions in the most base of ways, the officials look all the more intelligent and respectable.
I agree with all of you that this "Obamacare" will be nothing but bad for our country. I do not want it to pass. But my parents raised me to respect people. I was told to fight only in defense, and you didn't have to scream to get your point across. I understand that you are passionate about the debate. However, I think that you can maintain some amount of respect in all of this. Your representative has honored you by giving you the chance to ask your question. And when you ask it I want you to do so with force, conviction, and passion. However, to raise your voice and to get so mad as to look like a mad man (or be pulled out of the meeting) only hurts our side. It makes us look like the crazies.
Lastly, can we please refrain from comparing Obama, or any of his policies, to anything having to do with Hitler. Nothing that Obama has done or imaginably will do can be comparable to what made Hitler infamous. Let's not forget that it was only a few years ago when we ridiculed those on the Left for comparing Bush to Hitler. It is unfair and, like the other actions, it makes the right look wrong.
The longer that this debate continues the less people like it. We should take advantage of this in any way possible if we want to defeat the bill. However, you are only giving the opposition needed ammunition when you throw your temper tantrums. I think that if we remain steadfast in our beliefs on this reform bill and show the country the consequences of it, we can come out of all this victorious.
i may not agree witht his guy on his views of healthcare but damn it if i dontsay THANK YOU for pin idiocy of the republican part atm i mean some reepbulican econ theories make since the only thing that turns me away from them is there ignorant social conservatism
Posted By: mikemazzacare (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 03:51 PM
Dear Mr. White, as a left leaning moderate I would like to throw out this piece of constructive criticism to your letter - you might want to throw in something about the people showing up at these meetings with loaded guns. I don't care what the second ammendment says or was meant to imply, but people showing up at Town Hall meetings that they're elected representatives are speaking at with LOADED SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS just reinforces the belief that Republicans and Conservatives are extremist nutcases that needed to be voted out of office under any circumstances. You're not gonna win over any fans that way.
Posted By: BlackoutCreature (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 04:04 PM
Your friend is a fucking genius, Joe. He's what's right with this country. Thus sayeth a Democrat.
Posted By: AdamS (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 04:36 PM
Not all conservatives are psychotic town hall protesters...
^^^ and that right there is why we don't you seriously Rivett.
Posted By: Miky Man (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 04:41 PM
While we do not agree on the basic question of health care reform, I believe an attitude like this is the essence of the frequently stated, but rarely meant, phrase disagreeing without being disagreeable. It is only with a tone such as the one you used in this post that any real debate can be practiced and any real progress achieved.
Posted By: The Riverbottom Nightmare Band (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 05:11 PM
White, you're such a sad, pitiful little man. The fact is that incendiary radicalism is the only form of political dialogue the Republican Party has left, because it's pretty obvious you guys have absolutely zero IDEAS.
Posted By: EPIC CAT (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 05:39 PM
Yet so far the people who have been the most adamant on portraying Obama as Hitler have turned out to have supported a former Democratic presidential candidate...
Posted By: ??? (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 05:48 PM
I consider myself a democrat, but I too have to applaud your sensible words. I think too often people think of the nutcases you described -- whether on the very edge of the right or left -- as the typical conservative/liberal or whatever, and that is never the case. Like it or not, we are all in this together and need to learn to respect the viewpoints of one another without resorting to screaming and yelling or calling others stupid names. But its the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, its the loudmouth retard that gets the publicity (I'm assuming this spurred from the recent town hall where the woman shouted this sort of hate, which was everywhere in half an hour, while any intelligent arguments for or against the health care plan are pushed aside).
Thanks for the kind words, and take care.
Posted By: Deathpool (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 07:13 PM
Hey Josh (I know you're reading this...)
Thanks again for renewing my faith in conservatives.
Posted By: Ray Church (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 08:08 PM
The letter is well-intended, but why is it necessary? I've seen liberal protestors riot in Seattle, shout down and chase speakers off stages at universities, interrrupt hearings on Capitol Hill, try to hit politcal figures with pies, and compare Bush to Hitler, and I have never read another liberal apologizing for their actions or telling them to back off. It's civil disobediance, exercising their free speech rights, etc.
It's become their strategy to turn all questioners of the reform policy into nutcases. Now, if you have to spend all your time convincing people that you are a rational person with legitimate dissent, you don't have any time to discuss that dissent. So, I guess it's a good strategy. I think the country just isn't used to conservative protestors, so in their mind, I guess it can't be real.
And for those people who bring guns to these meetings, as long as the laws allow them to carry them, they are within their rights. But, they better be ready to accept any consequences of bringing them anywhere near where the president is. Just because you're allowed to do something, doesn't mean you should do it.
Posted By: Duke (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 08:09 PM
Well said Duke, I am from the Seattle area and saw the left wing loons trash my city when it came to WTO and all I saw is positive reports from the left wing pundits. Do as I say....not as I do. Typical of liberals.
Posted By: John (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 09:39 PM
Blackout,
If these people are not violating any state or local laws, they can carry when, where and what they want.
Posted By: Jim (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 09:47 PM
Blackout,
If these people are not violating any state or local laws, they can carry when, where and what they want.
Posted By: Jim (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 09:47 PM
I'm not saying they can't. I'm just saying it makes them look like nutcases and they're not gonna get any support for there cause that way. It's the same as Mr. White's letter above. The protesters can yell and scream and say stupid things and "throw tantrums" all they want. That's there right. The letters just saying it's not gonna help them.
Posted By: BlackoutCreature (Guest) on August 22, 2009 at 10:46 PM
The town hall protesters are for the most part not necessarily anti "Obamacare", just anti Obama. And anyone pretending the man's race has nothing to do with it is kidding themselves.
Posted By: Sobchak (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 01:04 AM
One of my bones of contention with the entire Health Care Debate is that all I have heard from opponents of the Bill is nay-saying and I have not seen any viable alternatives presented. We all agree the system is broken or in disrepair (as are things like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid etc.) Status quo is not an answer. You say "Obamacare" is the wrong answer. What is the right answer? The status quo certainly is not. Someone explain this to me please.
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 03:04 AM
Sobchak = idiot
with no defense of bad ideas just dismiss those who disagree with derisive name calling.
When Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, etc espoused the same ideas I didn't like them. Do I also hate white people?
Posted By: Guest#0257 (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 04:39 AM
MydniteSon - you're obviously not paying attention beyond the "liberal media". Republicans have offered a slew of alternatives. From amendments that the Democrats will not allow a vote on to the multitude of proposals that conservative elected representatives and talking heads have put forth there are plenty of alternatives that have been put forth. Do a little research, suck it up and watch Fox, whatever, but do something before making such uninformed statements straight out of the Dems talking point memos.
Posted By: Guest#7306 (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 04:47 AM
mydnite... I'll turn it around on you, because there are no alternatives at the moment because Obama, Pelosi and the democrats made it a point to shut conservatives/republicans out of the debate altogether. Pelosi went so far as to tell fellow democrats to do as such.But the bigger question is not the alternative, because that isn't what is being debated. The bigger question is why is this bill so great, when everyone from the CBO on down to the majority of americans, don't like this bill. Perhaps, if folks that support it like the good folks like EPIC CAT, Rob Zimmer, and David, could explain the greatness of the bill and sell it, maybe more people might be on board. As it stands, the only thing they ever come up with is to slam Bush, or Palin, or whichever republican might be on their mind. As I've said before... the inconvenient truth is everyone knows this bill sucks. Anyone who supports it is just simply someone who will support it because it's Obama's plan and he's the messiah. You see, instead of selling the great merits of the bill, democrats and folks on the left have decided to demonize the american public, calling them racist, or nazis. I mean if it's such a great bill, then tell us why, because like I said... a republican alternative won't be on the table to be voted on this fall. It's gonna be this pile of crap, so tell us why this isn't changing a dirty diaper with another dirty diaper. There have been several articles with health care as a topic, and I've yet to see one of you Obama supporters come on here and talk about why this bill is great.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 10:40 AM
@Mydnite Son - There are a lot of conservative ideas out there (in fact, the "death panel" was sponsored by a Republican). I don't know that many of them will actually solve the problems healthcare will be facing over the next decade. They seem to be conservatism for conservatism's sake. There *are* ideas, though.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on August 23, 2009 at 10:41 AM
The town hall protesters are for the most part not necessarily anti "Obamacare", just anti Obama. And anyone pretending the man's race has nothing to do with it is kidding themselves.
Posted By: Sobchak (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 01:04 AM
Especially when racists like you equate dissent with the President's skin color.
That liberal mantra is going to run it's course before the next election.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM
The town hall protesters are for the most part not necessarily anti "Obamacare", just anti Obama. And anyone pretending the man's race has nothing to do with it is kidding themselves.
Posted By: Sobchak (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 01:04 AM
Bullshit. If it was about his race, then where were the protesters during the campaign? Where were the protesters when he was chosen as the "Chosen One" at the DNC? The protests have nothing to do with the color of his skin. The protests have to do with his policies and the direction he is wanting to take this country. There are people protesting him that voted for him last November. Have they all of a sudden become racist? No. Barack Obama promised to rescend Bush's Execuative Orders, but has kept almost all of Bush's Execuative Orders that he promised to rescend. His views on healthcare have changed from the campaign trail to a healthcare that Hillary wanted (Universal, socialized healthcare).
People are starting to see what his "spread the wealth" comments are really meaning and the people (even those who voted for him) don't like it.
He is losing the far left, he is losing the middle left, he is losing the LGBT support. Obama has shit on almost every group that supported him.
He has to have weekly photo-ops where he is photographed in burger joints buying food for his staff, so he can look like an everyday Joe, but he has to vacation at Martha's Vinyard with his elitist friends costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. The people are suffering due to the economy but Obama is vacationing like a madman. The taxpayers have spent several million dollars since May just for the president and his family to have vacations. A week in Paris (the kids were flown in after school was over), a week in Italy, two weeks in Africa (Including closing a very popular tourist spot so the Obama's can have a private tour), a weekend at the Grand Canyon and now Martha's Vinyard for 10 days.
Posted By: Jim (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 12:10 PM
One of my bones of contention with the entire Health Care Debate is that all I have heard from opponents of the Bill is nay-saying and I have not seen any viable alternatives presented. We all agree the system is broken or in disrepair (as are things like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid etc.) Status quo is not an answer. You say "Obamacare" is the wrong answer. What is the right answer? The status quo certainly is not. Someone explain this to me please.
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 03:04 AM
By the same token, you don't pass something just to say you passed it. The Obama Health Care 'plan' is no good. Not that anyone else has a better idea right not, but sometimes doing nothing is the mark of wisdom. Wait until you have a GOOD plan...one that helps the most and hurts the fewest, THEN move forward. Don't just do it to be doing it, which is what the Democrats seem to be doing. There are several alternative plans extant (I don't think ANYONE thinks some things about our health provider don't need to change), but if you haven't noticed, if Obama's not behind it, the press won't cover it, so we don't know what those proposals may be.
Posted By: MydniteUncle (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 01:56 PM
Both sides act like nutcases. For every conservative loon that shows up at a town hall meeting, you have your Cindy Sheehans or your Think Pink (or whatever they were called) showing up and disrupting meetings.
The sign of the true intellectual, be they on the right or left, is the person that condemns BOTH sides for this type of behavior rather than justifying their side's vile actions.
Unfortunately for today's conservatives, their leaders (be they elected, selected, or self-appointed) *ENCOURAGE* this behavior. The same people that condemned this type of behavior from liberals not a couple years ago, calling it treasonous, now encourage it.
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 02:08 PM
To be fair, only 48% of the country now approve of the President now. You can blame Republicans or some boogey man for that all you want or TRY in vain to pin it on racism, but that's not working anymore. People don't want to have the government intruding in their lives when it comes to health care. They see how the government runs the cash for clunkers program and how they screwed it up. People didn't vote for Barack to have him give GM and Chrysler over to the unions. People didn't vote for a man who said he was post-racial, then turns around and embraces the race-card whenever he feel politically motivated.
Saul Alinksy's vision for America is coming crashing down on Obama right now and there's no follow-up for "Rules for Radicals" to deal with what the Democrats are doing right now.
Posted By: SteveC (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 04:37 PM
I most certainly don't agree with your friend, but it is nice to see a Republican who is sensible atleast in some regard... but at the same time though it's hard to think of someone who casted a vote for John McCain & Sarah Palin after 8 years of George W. Bush as sensible. All he seems to be really is is a Republican who understands that the way other Republicans are acting at these townhall meetings only gives the Democrats ammo in the future... I just get the feeling if he thought that these protests weren't damaging to his party he wouldn't really care. He talks about how Obama's health care plan is only going to be damaging for this country, but refuses to realize the damage George W. Bush did to this country... he led us down this road with his rediculous military spending which helped erase the surplus President Clinton had left him which was created to pay down the deficit. One thing I find fascinating about Republicans is how worried they seem now about deficit spending and their "children's future" when us Democrats were screaming it from the rooftops for 8 straight years watching Bush enter us into an unjust war against the wishes of other countries, spend billions of dollars a month on it and proceed to deregulate companies and lower taxes on the wealthy elite... but NOW all of a sudden Republicans are worried about THE FUTURE when President Obama is trying to introduce health care that will save money for Americans and ultimately put money back into our pockets which in turn leads to a stronger economy. Will it be hard at first? Of course. It will take some getting used too... but just like anything else... nothing good comes easy... and health care is no exception.
Anyway... I would like to see you ask your friend for another letter explaining why he thinks Obama's health care will be bad for the country since President Obama has no real health care plan... all he has is what he wants to accomplish and can't get anyone to agree on it since he is trying to include everyone. All this is is Republicans trying to position themselves... testing Obama to see if they can break him so if they do they can say "Obama lied... he didn't follow through on health care." I digress though... I'm very interested in seeing what your friend's response is to that because what I have found is that Republicans can't say why it won't work and why they disagree with it without completely contradicting themselves.
Posted By: Greg Ziggler (Registered) on August 23, 2009 at 05:01 PM
Scott, that wheel spins both ways. Each group justifies bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. The conservatives who are encouraging the behavior now, condemned it years earlier. However, the same liberals that condoned the behavior previously are now screaming that protestors are all domestic terrorists.
What happens then is the debate/discussion is about everything else besides the issue.
All I was pointing out was the double standard. Read the comments above from all the left-leaning posters saying (paraphrasing) how refreshing it is that someone is trying to inject some sense into this, then pretending that none of the other incidents I mentioned didn't happen. As if this debate is the first incident of disruption.
It's hypocritical, and I was just pointing it out. I wasn't condoning anything. Until the realization of the hypocritical nature is admitted, it's impossible to have an intellectual discussion. It degenerates into a schoolyard pissing contest of "you did it", "oh yeah, you did it first", and the related bullshit that goes with it.
But that pissing contest makes for good television, and maybe that's the answer.
Posted By: Duke (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 05:58 PM
Duke -
My post wasn't aimed at you. I hadn't really even done much more than skimmed the other comments.
You're right when you say it makes great television. That's what our political landscape has been reduced to - what I call the "Jerry Springer-ization" of the modern media.
I mean, let's take a step back and look at the things said by Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore and their respective cohorts. It's garbage spewed out to get a reaction. It's half-truths or bald-faced lies that the faithful grab and regurgitate while writing a check for the next book, movie, etc.
Personally, I'm of the mind that neither side - Dems or Repubs - gives a damn about us. They just want to keep us fighting amongst ourselves with this stupid bullshit while they continue reaping the rewards of power.
Bread and circuses, my friends, bread and circuses.
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 07:18 PM
You hit the nail on the head, Scott B. Any Democrat posting on this board is really more of a Democrat than Obama, Clinton, etc., just as any republican on this board is more of a republican than Bush, Palin, etc.
Obama, Clinton, Bush, Palin... they're politicians who will say anything to get more time in office and/or more money for themselves and their friends. Most of them probably don't believe half of the shit they say but they know there are plenty of people who will believe them and help spread their propaganda and lies (I'm looking mostly at MSNBC and Fox News for this; throw in Rush Limbaugh too). And as far as getting a straight, concise honest answer for anything out of any of them, well... we're screwed.
People like to point out how Obama is so different than Bush but at the end of the day, neither Obama nor Bush are Democrats or Republicans, they're politicians--and we know how trustworthy and responsible they are.
Sarah Palin is a fucking moron though. That's still true.
Posted By: Zingy (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 08:05 PM
Mr White I applaud you on your clear sightedness as far as the issue of your peers behaviour goes. However, you still present no argument as to why some people don't deserve health care. I am a Canadian and see first hand how much if not everything Republicans say about our health care system is flawed. Canadians are as proud of our health care as we are hockey or maple syrup, and can not even comprehend not giving health care to all citizens. I suppose we wacky Canadians just value human life as more important than money. Eh?
Posted By: Common Sense (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 08:46 PM
The reason Liberals see their protest as civil and Conservative protests as terrorism is because Liberals aren't protesting against giving people what should be basic human rights.
Keep fighting for the right to bare arms, and the right to not treat the sick. That will win you sympathy.
Posted By: Common Sense (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 08:56 PM
I bare my arms all the time, Common Sense, like when I roll up my sleeves or wear a t-shirt.
Posted By: Zingy (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Zingy got his 11 inch pythons out brother!!!!!!!!!
Posted By: Terry Bollea (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Where were the protesters during the campaign? At the Sarah Palin rallies. Duh
Posted By: Kobe (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 11:24 PM
If you truly believe the reason for dissent on this issue is so conservatives can deny American citizens health care, I don't think there's a point discussing it with you.
But again, you make my point by saying Liberals protest good causes, and conservatives only protest against human rights. Of course that's not true, but if I have to spend time convincing you of that, I never get to the actual issue.
Posted By: Duke (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 11:35 PM
"When Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, etc espoused the same ideas I didn't like them. Do I also hate white people?"
No, but I'm willing to bet you didn't show up at town hall meetings comparing Kennedy et al. to Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc...
Clinton, Carter, no other democrat in recent memory has brought about such venom from rural white people...what sets him apart from those other left leaning politicians?
"Bullshit. If it was about his race, then where were the protesters during the campaign?"
Do a quick Youtube search for "McCain/Palin rally" and you'll have your answer, their venom was obvious at that time as well.
Sorry but to deny that conservative voices such as the one brought up in this column isn't a minority at these "town halls" is to be disingenuous.
What do bringing your birth certificate in a plastic bag to prove your citizenship, showing up with weapons, screaming socialism, fascism, Hitler this, Stalin that...what does ANY of that have to do with Health Care?
I've no doubt there are reasonable, good faith arguments from well meaning conservatives, unfortunately they're drowned out by the racist pricks scared to death of their fabricated Muslim/Fascist/Socialist/Pedophile/Gun Hating/Hippie/ and worst of all INTELLECTUAL POTUS.
Posted By: Sobchak (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Sobchak, what did trashing the city of Seattle have to do with protesting the WTO? Were the vandals and theives progressive and nuanced?
As for the current conservative backlash against Obama, I will remind you of what the current secretary of state said while New York senator"we have the right to speak out against any administration"
Short memory for you.....or a selective one?
Posted By: John (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 12:47 AM
WHO EXACTLY is being burned in effigy? Please point out specific names, photographs, news stories, etc, please? BTW, when your liberty is being stolen, why wouldn't you be upset about it? The LEFT is much more violent, yet the Right is criticized when we so much as raise our voice?
Posted By: Patriot (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 01:15 AM
Fiscal conservatism IS a good idea.
Unfortunately, it comes hand in hand with that odious social control conservatism.
If we could break them up, I'd be all for it.
Posted By: Q:? (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 02:08 AM
'Fiscal conservatism IS a good idea.
Unfortunately, it comes hand in hand with that odious social control conservatism.
If we could break them up, I'd be all for it.'
Social liberalism IS a good idea.
Unfortunately, it comes hand in hand with that odious social control and lack of fiscal responsibility liberalism.
If we could break them up, I'd be all for it.
Posted By: The Man (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 05:55 AM
"Fiscal conservatism IS a good idea.
Unfortunately, it comes hand in hand with that odious social control conservatism.
If we could break them up, I'd be all for it.
Posted By: Q:? (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 02:08 AM
'Fiscal conservatism IS a good idea.
Unfortunately, it comes hand in hand with that odious social control conservatism.
If we could break them up, I'd be all for it.'
Social liberalism IS a good idea.
Unfortunately, it comes hand in hand with that odious social control and lack of fiscal responsibility liberalism.
If we could break them up, I'd be all for it.
Posted By: The Man (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 05:55 AM"
Vote Libertarian.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on August 24, 2009 at 11:34 AM
It's great to see the elderly out in full force protesting Obama care, but the only problem is these will be the same people protesting if we try to move the system more towards a free market one, because then Democrats will come up with their own "death panel" talking point to scare seniors into believing free market reforms will decimate their Medicare. Neither side is going to win if they undertake a full scale reform effort. Obama is discovering this now. Government has become so entrenched in health care today because the commies who want single payer were smart enough to realize an incremental approach was the way to go. Obama saw the goal line as within reach after his comrades have moved the ball all these years, but he took off on his dive from the ten yard line instead of the two and now, in mid-air, realizes he is nowhere close to the goal.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 12:10 PM
I've no doubt there are reasonable, good faith arguments from well meaning conservatives, unfortunately they're drowned out by the racist pricks scared to death of their fabricated Muslim/Fascist/Socialist/Pedophile/Gun Hating/Hippie/ and worst of all INTELLECTUAL POTUS.
Posted By: Sobchak (Guest) on August 23, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Really? Have you seen what that man can do without a teleprompter? It's breathtaking. He and his 57 states make
W look like a Rhodes Scholar. He's a puppet, man!
Posted By: Slobchak (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Funny thing. Mr. Obama inherited 8 years of fiscal retardery, and now that he hasn't fixed it in 9 months, the naysayers are shouting "See! See! we told you he was no good!"
I think what conservatives really need is to tell the hardcore evangelicals "thanks, but no thanks," stop making abortion the #1 platform of the party, and cut the "family values" B.S. (especially since so many are caught in adulterous scandals), and maybe, just maybe the voters will start coming back.
I don't care what your stand is on abortion......it's a non-issue, and should be reserved for families, not government. Whether or not my neighbor's daughter has an abortion has no bearing on national defense, good roads and safe schools.
I walked away from the GOP when guys like Falwell, Robertson and Hagee hijacked the party and started pressuring voters and candidates to bend to their agendas. And I consider myself a faithful person.
Oh, and any conservative with a brain needs to tell Sean Hannity to shut up. That kind of stupidity only hurts the party, and he displays it nightly.
Posted By: MDG (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 01:06 PM
I don't care what your stand is on abortion......it's a non-issue, and should be reserved for families, not government. Whether or not my neighbor's daughter has an abortion has no bearing on national defense, good roads and safe schools.
I walked away from the GOP when guys like Falwell, Robertson and Hagee hijacked the party and started pressuring voters and candidates to bend to their agendas. And I consider myself a faithful person.
Oh, and any conservative with a brain needs to tell Sean Hannity to shut up. That kind of stupidity only hurts the party, and he displays it nightly.
Posted By: MDG (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 01:06 PM
Well MDG, with this new great goverment health care, there will be abortions payed for by goverment. This will be great. Just imagine how progressive it will be to take tax payer dollars and use them to mutilate fetuses.
If anyone has a problem with that statement, then I will turn you in at flag@whitehouse.gov.......wait that went away..DAM!!! Bush bad, war bad
CHEERS!
Posted By: Rivett Dunn (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 01:48 PM
I wonder how many civilians have actually read and understood the entire bill?
I have not read it, but so many people are up in arms about it. I should take a serious look at this.
Posted By: Ant-LOX (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 01:51 PM
People with a right-to-carry license can carry a firearm ANYWHERE...even a town hall! Anywhere except a school, a bank, or a bar. So, from the bottom of my heart, would all you 2nd amendment hating people SHUT THE FUCK UP! You have no argument!
Posted By: swoltz (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 03:01 PM
When someone says abortion is a non-issue, it's not a surprise that we're heading down the road of euthanasia.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 03:33 PM
"When someone says abortion is a non-issue, it's not a surprise that we're heading down the road of euthanasia."
This COULD be one of the dumbest things i've ever read in the comments section...
and that says alot!!
Posted By: billy (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 04:07 PM
"Were the vandals and theives progressive and nuanced?"
No, they were chuckleheads. Ignorant douchebags exist on both sides of the political spectrum. If you were expecting me to argue with that, you failed.
Fortunately that has nothing to do with what I'm discussing in this thread so nice non-starter.
"Short memory for you.....or a selective one?"
Neither, I'm all FOR dissent. The letter that prompted this discussion is a fine example of someone disagreeing with the administration thoughtfully and critically and should be encouraged.
As noted by someone already, however, fiscal conservatives would do well to completely distance themselves from the Sarah Palin loving mouth-breathers that seem to bark the loudest at the town hall gatherings. I stand by my assertion that a large chunk (though obviously not all) of the most vocal people at these recent townhalls are simply Obama haters...and anyone trying to pretend the man's race has not engendered a particularly venomous type of oppposition is fucking kidding themselves.
If Republicans want to stand a chance of winning over moderates like myself and many others its time to cut the chord and let these ignorant socially conservative ass clowns form their own party, let Sarah Palin be there candidate in 2012 and let the GOP run an intelligent fiscal conservative who in 4 years stands a VERY solid shot of limiting BHO to one term. Sadly, this just doesn't seem like something that will happen.
Posted By: Sobchak (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 04:33 PM
"Just imagine how progressive it will be to take tax payer dollars and use them to mutilate fetuses."
That will be pretty awesome. But how does one prepare a fetus after it's mutilated? Broil it?
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on August 24, 2009 at 04:36 PM
Sobchak,"Fortunately that has nothing to do with what I'm discussing in this thread so nice non-starter"
Actually Duke brought it up earlier in the comments section, it shows how the left will trash a city and have no issues with it but complain when someone raises their voice at a town hall at their almighty leaders.
"...and anyone trying to pretend the man's race has not engendered a particularly venomous type of oppposition is fucking kidding themselves. "
Wrong. I hate Obamas plan. I work for a small company and it would much easier for the owner just to pay the fine and bag it. Why deal with goverment beuarocrats deciding whether or not our plan is "good enough".After I get kicked off, it says on page 16 that no "new" private policies are to be issued. Whats my choice then.....the goverment plan I want nothing to do with. Do my concerns make me a racist? Well if you think so then its you with the issues. I wont be beaten into false guilt by your catch words....it doesn't work.
By the way look into the polls, people see it my way, of course you will call us names if we don't agree with you. Sounds really MODERATE to me.
Posted By: John (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 05:59 PM
Really? Have you seen what that man can do without a teleprompter? It's breathtaking. He and his 57 states make
W look like a Rhodes Scholar. He's a puppet, man!
Posted By: Slobchak (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 12:21 PM
You forgot "happy cinco de cuatro", Billy Jean Kings 12 grand slam titles(39 actually) and his uncle liberated Auschwitz ( it was the Russians)
Great we have a intellectual POTUS.
Posted By: John (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 06:12 PM
The bill is losing popularity by the minute. MAYBE, liberals should explain why the bill is good and sell it to the american people. Still have yet to see one lib on here, and there are a bunch... do that. I've seen many arguments against the bill, starting with the bi-partisan CBO. The argument "it's a human right" is cute and makes you blush, but it doesn't explain why this bill is the answer.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 06:59 PM
"Great we have a intellectual POTUS."
Yeah, Harvard Law...what does that guy know.
Posted By: 411manialurker (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 07:51 PM
It's really sad that the Town Halls politicians and protestors started referring to each other as Nazis. I knew Obama's popularity would fade pretty fast because I never saw how a first-term senator could accomplish all he wanted in such a short amount of time. However, I didn't think it would get his bad this quickly. Let's hope the economy improves some more.
Posted By: Alex (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 08:33 PM
I agree that everyone has a right to healthcare. By that I mean the government shouldn't deny anyone the right to purchase a healthcare option that suits them. The problem is most people would do very well with a basic insurance option and it wouldn't be too costly. But most state's Dept of Insurance mandate that health insurance companies cover all sorts of things like infertility and breast implant removal and alcholism treatment (I'm going off a list that was emailed to me by the Illinois Dept of Ins). If private companies didn't HAVE to cover these treatments just to offer any coverage at all, then costs would drop.
But what about all those poor people who can't afford to buy insurance and have health problems? If state and federal govt's can't fund existing Medicaid and Medicare programs effectively, what makes anyone think they'd do any better in funding the "public option" for everyone?
Posted By: Steven Xavier (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 09:11 PM
Great we have a intellectual POTUS."
Yeah, Harvard Law...what does that guy know.
Posted By: 411manialurker (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 07:51 PM
Bush has degrees from both Yale and Harvard yet you on the left call him stupid correct?
Were is Obamas college thesis?
Posted By: John (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 10:03 PM
I love how anyone who dares disagree with you MUST be a leftist. Newsflash John boy, there are those of us out there that can't be pigeon holed into your simple Left/Right categorizing.
I've already conceded that irrational douchebags can come from EITHER side of the political spectrum, one wonders if you've got the stones to concede that many people at the townhalls are giving conservatives a black eye. Or is Obama truly a Demon hybrid of Stalin and Hitler?
Posted By: Sobchak (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 11:11 PM
I've already conceded that irrational douchebags can come from EITHER side of the political spectrum, one wonders if you've got the stones to concede that many people at the townhalls are giving conservatives a black eye. Or is Obama truly a Demon hybrid of Stalin and Hitler?
Posted By: Sobchak (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Other than a couple of people( gun toters and the dumb bitch calling him a nazi) all I have seen is a bunch of middle america and old people. if these people are hurting the conservative cause, then why are the polls overwhelmingly against Obamacare?
As for Stalin and Hitler, it is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Stalin was responsible for killing close to 20 million of his own people, Hitler was Hitler. Last I checked comparing a american president such as Bush or Obama to these evil mongers is deplorable. (evil monger, thats what Harry Reid called town hall protestors) people who say that did not pay attention to history class.
Posted By: John (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Well MDG, with this new great goverment health care, there will be abortions payed for by goverment. This will be great. Just imagine how progressive it will be to take tax payer dollars and use them to mutilate fetuses.
Posted By: Rivett Dunn (Guest) on August 24, 2009 at 01:48 PM
Well, you just displayed the exact reason I turned my back on the current model of the conservative party.
I spoke of the religious right hijacking the party, and the only word you chose to comment on was "abortion." Thanks for proving my point.
I was saying that the GOP needs to regroup. Otherwise you get Palin 2012 and that will be the final nail in the Republican coffin. I have already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that my iguana is smarter then she is.
Seriously, I am one of those people caught in a health care nightmare. I have a disabled wife. She is on SSI, but I make "too much money," so she does not receive her Medicaid benefits. I have to have her on my employer's insurance.
Unfortunately, most of the medicine she needs is not yet available in generic, so I pay premium prices for "outside network" drugs, and $55 for every doctor visit, since she sees mostly specialists.
To top it off, I ended up in the emergency room while between jobs four years ago. I was there for 3 hours, got an MRI, a shot of painkiller and saline drip, and my bill was $5000!
I would LOVE a government option that could help. We are swimming in medical debt, and we have no credit cards or unnecessary expenses.
So maybe my circumstances are unusual compared to the average joe, but I know many people struggling with outrageous medical costs not covered by their insurance, and I'm willing to see what a new healthcare plan could offer.
But unlike many I hear on the airwaves, I'll read the damn thing before I start crapping on it.
Posted By: MDG (Guest) on August 25, 2009 at 02:41 AM
"I've seen many arguments against the bill, starting with the bi-partisan CBO."
The CBO actually says a public option will save $150 billion over ten years.
"After I get kicked off, it says on page 16 that no "new" private policies are to be issued."
I know that you know that's not what it says. Don't you have *any* shame?
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on August 25, 2009 at 10:50 AM
"If state and federal govt's can't fund existing Medicaid and Medicare programs effectively, what makes anyone think they'd do any better in funding the "public option" for everyone?".
Let's be clear about this, the problem is not the amount of money America spends on health care. The US already spends approximately twice the proportion of GDP on health care as the European Average (here are the US stats :http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/25_NHE_Fact_Sheet.asp ).
The US spends $2.2tn on health care each year, if it spent the same proportion of GDP as Europe that would be $1tn less. In return for this extra $1tn, the US life expectancy is actually shorter than many European countries now (76 years vs 78 in the UK for example) and health outcomes are broadly similar for most illnesses.
Furthermore even if the system is not changed the amount spent is projected to vastly increase so you'll be spending the money anyway under the current system.
There is plenty of evidence that public funding or a hyrbrid of public and private funding can maintain a perfectly good health system with universal access and health outcomes in the same region as the US. There are also plenty of different funding options - as most countries have different combinations of tax, insurance and co-payer funding.
Of course the problem is that to provide universal access, provider costs need to be driven down. There are plenty of ways to achieve this (price controls on drug companies, using generics rather than branded drugs, removing the profit system from the system through support co-ops, introducing competition to current insurance providers).
Unfortunately very few of these options seem to be in the proposals which means what is left is an attempt to provide wider access to health care without undertaking the supply side reforms needed to make it work.
The political problem is that its very hard to make the case for reforms without sounding like you are saying "they do things better in Europe and Canada" which is a suidical tactic. Even worse, if Obama tries to take on big Pharma which he needs to, he'll have a another bunch of companies lobbying against him.
I think you're screwed - I just can't see the system changing unless the Republican party is reduced to a religous rump and a geniune compasionate / reformist conservative alternative appears which is willing to sensibly engage on the issue.
Posted By: bemused brit (Guest) on August 25, 2009 at 02:17 PM
After I get kicked off, it says on page 16 that no "new" private policies are to be issued."
I know that you know that's not what it says. Don't you have *any* shame?
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on August 25, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Here is the exact statement from page 16 of the bill.
Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
My policy would remain the same, provided in the first five years of Obama care the beaurocrats approvate of my coverage. I can not change it, If I leave work, I can not get a new policy. Some have argued that you can get a new policy provided the goverment approves of it. Thats still bullshit and you know it. The language is pretty clear.
Obama made statments in 2003 and 2007 where he stated that he is a fan of a single payer, universal health care system. Why do you libs try and hide the mans intention? You have the votes in the house and senate. Pass it. I triple dog dare you.
On the CBO, god your pathetic. Wahington Post July 17th
Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured
Nice try. LIAR
Posted By: John (Guest) on August 25, 2009 at 06:17 PM
After the last 8 years I have no sympathy for Republicans at all. Screw 'em.
So health care reform is "nothing but bad"? Not one single good thing about it? Yeah, that position sounds rational. You realize you're the minority party, right?
If Republicans have ideas, what are they? Name one. I double dog dare you.
Looking forward to seeing y'all lose again in 2010! Keep up the good work.
Posted By: quillini (Guest) on August 25, 2009 at 06:48 PM
Well I have two ideas right off the bat Quillini.
First allow individuals and businesses to form pools and buy insurance anywhere in the country, not just in the state where they live.
Second, TORT reform. That has been taken off the table for some insane reason.(well the left is protecting the ambulance chasers)
neither of those things increase the rapid increase of the size of goverment the left is shooting for. Go ahead and pass your plan lib. Wait until 2010 and you will lose 60 seats in the house. The polls support me, not you.
Posted By: John (Guest) on August 25, 2009 at 09:49 PM
I think John got you there, J.D. That was such uber-pwnage.
Posted By: Pwned (Guest) on August 26, 2009 at 01:05 AM
And here I thought this was going to be a comment section filled with friendly debate and understanding between opposing viewpoints. My bad.
Posted By: Deathpool (Guest) on August 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Has anyone else noticed that the left will try to compartmentalise any white conservatives who dare to impune the savior of all mankind as a racist. Obama is in over his head and the poll numbers show it. The honey moon is over and now Obama has to put up or shut up. You are not on the campaign trail anymore so do us a favor, spend more time doing your job and less time telling David Letterman and Oprah Winfrey what you want to do. balls in your court champ, you have the biggest senate and congressional majority since jimmy Carter. You should have already ushered in the Norvis order seclorum that every under educated voter believed would happen. Unemployment has shot up to 10% or higher in some states. DiDnt we all worry that if your stimulus bill wasnt passed that the number could shot as high as 8%..LOOKS TO ME LIKE THAT DIDNT WORK..OBAMACARE IS HEADED FOR THE TOILET..and as soon as november 2010 hits obama will be the biggest lame duck in U.S. history.....IF YOU SMELLLLLLLLL WHAT BARACK IS COOKING
Posted By: jeff albertson (Guest) on August 26, 2009 at 11:04 AM
"On the CBO, god your pathetic. Wahington Post July 17th
Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured
From the same Post:
"...preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimates suggest that a "strong" public insurance option would save $150 billion over 10 years."
Not surprisingly, you lied again by challenging something that I didn't say. I didn't say a particular bill. I said the CBO estimates $150 billion could be saved with a strong public option. In fact, that's exactly what it says. Again, I ask if you have *any* shame.
"My policy would remain the same, provided in the first five years of Obama care the beaurocrats approvate of my coverage. I can not change it, If I leave work, I can not get a new policy. Some have argued that you can get a new policy provided the goverment approves of it. Thats still bullshit and you know it. The language is pretty clear."
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on August 31, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Dunn, you want to talk about shame, you ignore the whole article to cherry pick on instance were that lame stat is mentioned.
For context, seeing that you like to bend the facts, from the article
I'm going to really put you on the spot," Conrad said. "From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?"
Elmendorf responded: "No, Mr. Chairman." Although the House plan to cover the uninsured, for example, would add more than $1 trillion to federal health spending over the next decade, according to the CBO, it would trim about $500 billion from existing programs -- increasing federal health spending overall.
Some provisions of the bill have the potential to trim spending further, Elmendorf said, but "the changes that we have looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary, to offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals."
Game, set, match. I would bring up the fact you should feel shameful, but libs feel no shame.
Posted By: John (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 05:26 PM
STAY CURRENT