BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 10:47 PM

The madness deepens:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_protesters_guns

The Supreme Court recently upheld the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms. Don't such protesters realize that whatever their Second-Amendment rights are, this particular behavior gives cover to individuals with far less peaceful agendas?

I really don't care to think too hard about that question.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Aug 09 - 11:10 PM

Be it Father Flanigan, Joe McCarthy, Limbaugh or Beck, most people will eventually wake up with a hangover from the harangue of these hateful blowhards. But do not pity these propogandists.

Look at Bill O'Reilly's paycheck and all your questions about why he "believes" as he does will become perfectly clear. Sure it takes a souless bastard to sell themselves that way, but they are as common as dirt and as perky as Palin.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: DougR
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 01:02 PM

Wow! I didn't see the Glenn Beck show that prompted Donuel to launch this thread, but he sure (Glenn not Donuel) struck a chord didn't he.

George P.: I don't know you. You don't know me. Yet you are emboldened to pose some very personal questions that one could consider none of your business. My private beliefs, my private listening habits, etc. are just that! Personal.

However, since you seem to be such a likable fellow, I will accommodate you with a reply to each of your intrusive questions:

"Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh and believe/agree with what he says?
Answer: Yes, I listen to Rush, and have done so for about the past ten years. If I am in the car and his program is on, I likely am listening to him. As to believing or agreeing with what he says, I know of no one that I believe EVERYTHING he/she says, but I think it would be fair to say I agree with probably 95% of what he says.

"Do you think Obama was born in the United States?"
Answer: I haven't the foggiest idea. It is beyond me why he has not produced an acceptable birth certificate that would put this idea to rest one way or the other. The same with his University records.

"Do you think the Obama administration resembles Nazi Germany.
Answer: No. I do believe that the president would favor converting the United States to socialism from the representative republic which it is now though.

"Do you think Universal Health Care is socialism?"
Answer: Yes.
"Medicare?", No. Medicare is a federal program that is not available to the whole population of the U.S. until he/she reaches the age of 65, and even then, the citizen must have participated in funding the program during their working years. Otherwise, they are not eligible.
"Fire Department?" (That's kind of a reach isn't it?) Answer: No.

"Do you think it is appropriate that the richest nation on earth has millions of people who cannot afford to go to a doctor?"
Answer: No one in the United States may legally be turned away from America's hospital emergency room without receiving care (not FREE care though)for illness, injury or any other malady that requires treatment.

I do realize what you are getting at with your last question, though. Am I so heartless that I rejoice that some of my fellow citizens cannot afford health insurance.
Answer: No, I do not rejoice. I wish they could afford health insurance.

I also wish that I owned a summer home in Ireland, or maybe Scotland, or even Colorado. I also wish that everyone else could afford one too. I wish that all diseases in the world could be eradicated, that there never would be another war, oh so many other things.

There, I think I have addressed your questions. Now that we know each other so well, it's my turn.

Did you have sex with your wife last night? Your girl friend? Your partner? Your boy friend?

Did you attend church last Sunday? If so, did you believe everything that was said from the pulpit?

Have you ever told a lie?

Have you ever cheated on your wife? Girlfriend? Boyfriend?

Do you think you will go to heaven when you die?

There, I think that about does it. I'd ask more but it's time for me to leave for the YMCA to walk the treadmill. Yep, you're right, it's time for the Rush Limbaugh show on radio. I always listen to Rush while walking the treadmill. He won't be there today, though, but Mark Stein is filling in and I like him too!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 01:51 PM

Now, follow in your books and repeat after me as we learn four new words in English:

puerile: adj. 1: Juvenile 2: childish, silly.

puerilism n. C childish behavior, esp. as a symptom of mental disorder.

vacuous: adj. :1:emptied of or lacking content. 2: marked by lack of ideas or intelligence : stupid : inane

nugatory adj. : of little or no consequence: trifling: inconsequential

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 01:58 PM

No one in the United States may legally be turned away from America's hospital emergency room without receiving care...

And another:

lie n. : an assertion of something known to be untrue with intent to deceive 2: an untrue or innacurate statement 3: something that misleads or deceives.


NB: what IS America's hospital emergency room, and where is it located, in case I need to aqvail myself of its services?

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 02:39 PM

Greg F

Please provide the documentation about the so-called "lie".

As far as I am aware, the emergency rooms in the local hospitals ARE required to treat anyone who comes in, regardless of whether they can pay or not. They can be billed, but the treatment is ALWAYS provided.

It appears to me that you are the liar in this case. Or maybe I am not in the same "United States" that you are in...

Subject: Custom Cartoon for this topic
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 03:01 PM

New cartoon Beck's Brigage

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: John P
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 06:56 PM

DougR,
First of all, my name is John, not George.

Asking you questions about whether or not you listen to Rush Limbaugh seemed appropriate, since you were mocking people for listening to him, and mocking Donuel for starting this thread. If you don't want to be part of the conversation, don't join in. Since it's a thread about whether or not Limbaugh et al are liars, pretending that asking you about it is getting into personal territory is dumb. Maybe as dumb as thinking that means you get to ask me about my sex life.

You and I pay for the health care of all those people who go to the emergency room because they don't have insurance. It's a huge waste, and part of the reason our health care system is broken. Deciding that only the wealthy get to have health care outside of the emergency rooms that you and I pay for is, indeed, heartless. I don't think you are rejoicing about that, but it is terribly selfish of you.

If you don't believe the president was born in the United States you're an idiot. Do you really think the Republican Party didn't check it out? Do you really think all the websites that are displaying images of his birth certificate are presenting fake evidence? Do a Google image search. It turns up 579,900 hits.

If you believe that the president wants to do away with our representative government, you're an idiot. Do you have any evidence of that, other than Rush Limbaugh? Besides, a representative republic could just as easily be socialist as capitalist. The two aren't really related in this way.

If you believe 95% of what Rush Limbaugh says, you're an idiot. Willful ignorance is MUCH worse that plain old normal ignorance. I'm curious as to how you put up with his being a drug addict and lying about it.

If you don't see the analogy between the members of our society joining forces to fight fires and members of our society joining together to send sick folks to the doctor, you're an idiot. Here's a good one for you: if universal health care is socialism, so is the United States Army. Anything we pay for as a group is a degree of socialism. Most of us call it civilization.

The reason I asked you those questions is so I could maybe find out -- and encourage you to proclaim to the world -- how much of an idiot you really are. Thank you for the illumination. Now we know how much your opinion on this subject is worth. I know I sound harsh, but you bastards are trying to ruin our country and I'm tired of it. Is maintaining a collection of easily proven lies really more important to you than honesty and honor? I know, I know, we all tore down Bush while he was in office. News flash: Bush started a war based on lies, killed thousands of people (WAY more than the terrorists of 9/11), endorsed torture as a tool of American statecraft, and trashed the Constitution by inviting religious folks into the government and by spying on us in ways that were specifically named as illegal. Don't you think you should wait until Obama does something almost as bad before you start disparaging his patriotism and truthfulness?

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 07:23 PM

BB: check the "Nationalized Health Care Thread where this has been dealt with, and been proven to be Douggian Bullshit several times over.

I'm not going to copy it here for you; do your own homework for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 07:33 PM

"You and I pay for the health care of all those people who go to the emergency room because they don't have insurance. "

So you think Greg F. is a liar, too.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: John P
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 07:56 PM

No, BB, I don't thing GregF is a liar. I also don't think a trip to the emergency room is viable or cost-effective health care.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 08:06 PM

Then his statement that the emergency room refuises to treat pepole is true?

I thought you stated ""You and I pay for the health care of all those people who go to the emergency room because they don't have insurance. "

I agree it is not cost effective- but it implies that they ARE treated.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: John P
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 08:13 PM

BB, you don't seem to be able wrap your brain around the concept of a statement not being accurate and also not being a lie. I'm so sorry for your disability. Is it really important? Is it in some way pertinent to this discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 08:19 PM

Greg F stated
18 Aug 09 - 01:58 PM

which is stating that DougR is lying in his statement "No one in the United States may legally be turned away from America's hospital emergency room without receiving care..."
It appears to me that your statement supports DougR, and the facts as I know them ( thaqt emergency rooms treat all who come in).

Greg F. is great at attacking anyone who disagrees with him, but often fails to support his views with facts. In this case, he is lying in his accusation that DougR is lying.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 08:22 PM

"the concept of a statement not being accurate and also not being a lie."

Yet you allow GregF to suffer with the same disability , and call peopel who state the truth liars without comment. That seems to indicate that you have little claim to being either fair or open-minded.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 08:44 PM

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/contact

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 08:49 PM

"I will NOT be mocked!"
SNL 1988

What! I was mocked? By my dear friend Doug R? Unbelievable.

Actually what is unbelievable is Doug having or being a dear friend.


I will soon present a series of actual Beck video stills showing thousands of Nazis as he speaks of Obama Health care reform.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 08:53 PM

I larger version of Pistol Packin Palin Pals - say it don't spray it

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: DougR
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:22 PM

Gee, John P., I guess I won't be getting a Christmas card from you this year.

The law, requiring America's hospital emergency facilities to treat anyone who shows up for treatment was passed, I believe, in 1986. I'll check it out and post the date and info.

I believe John P. is aware of that law because he admits that tax payers have to shoulder much of the cost for those hospitals treating patients without health insurance.

Since the law was passed in the early to mid 1980's, I am not surprised, Beardedbruce, that Greg F. is unaware of it. He probably wasn't born until several years later, say ...1996? I'm just judging by the maturity of his posts.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:26 PM

Emergency Room rights in the US.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/KnowYourRights/KnowYourEmergencyRoomRights.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:29 PM

Wikipedia article here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:31 PM

For those like Greg F. that think if they repeat a lie often enough it will be believed:

"Fortunately, a federal law passed in 1986 to prohibit a practice commonly known as "patient dumping" gives you the right to emergency care regardless of your ability to pay. The federal law applies to hospitals that participate in Medicare -- and that includes most hospitals in the United States. However, the patient-dumping law does not give you carte blanche.

What you're entitled to
In a nutshell, the federal patient-dumping law entitles you to three things: screening, emergency care and appropriate transfers. A hospital must provide "stabilizing care" for a patient with an emergency medical condition. The hospital must screen for the emergency and provide the care without inquiring about your ability to pay"

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:35 PM

Lord knows Doug and I have had more than a few go-arounds on Mudcat. I would point out however that he's never been anything but a gentleman. True, sometimes I feel like banging my head against a wall but that's my choice, not his. The enemy in this are insurance companies who insist on premasticating the information we get; congressmen/women who have theirs and screw everyone else, and lobby groups who have lots of money available. That in itself should alert people in the US to the alarming influence self-serving companies have over US government policies and efforst to help those who need the help most--but likely won't get that help until/unless they are informed to take their offers elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:37 PM

Thank you, Peace.


There is a lot of good to be found in the goals of reform, but it is the "unintended consequences' that will be with us for many generations. The use of lies, such as Greg F. presents, have no place in a civil discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:47 PM

I'd also point out howvever that Greg F is also a damned good guy. Thing is, I know most of you to a greater or lesser degree and don't find any of you objectionable, or nuts, or rude, etc. People express themselves differently and stuff does seem to get lost in translation. I think maybe we've all said things we didn't mean in "the heat of the moment". But, it doesn't have to last forever. Nor should it.

In the process of ripping each other apart for one thing or another, we have lost sight of the real problem (which in my opinion) is a wasted expenditure to protect their stock holders' interests--read their own interests, because most CEOs of large insurance companies could retire right now and have enough blood money to last the rest of their lives. It is about greed in high places, not a few posts in which a few of us lose our cool.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 10:50 PM

Many here that I disagree with are great people, who I would pay to hear perform- but that does not mean that I will allow false statements and deliberate lies to go unchallanged just because they may "support" the popular view.

I treat Greg F. far better than he has been treating others posting here and on other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 11:07 PM

It is a really insensate stretch to say that the proviso you have cited above constitutes medical care. It constitutes emergency care only. "Appropriate transfer" means to a place you cannot afford without insurance. What am I missing here?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 11:18 PM

Amos,

Since you can't or won't read, let me post this:

"Hospital obligations
Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.

[edit] Amendments
Since its original passage, amendments to this act have been passed by U.S. Congress that either add or remove various obligations. Additionally, state and local laws in some places have imposed additional requirements on hospitals. These amendments include:

A patient is defined as "stable," therefore ending a hospital's EMTALA obligations, if:
The patient is conscious, alert, and oriented
The cause of all symptoms reported by the patient or representative, and all potentially life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening symptoms discovered by hospital staff, has been ascertained to the best of the hospital's ability.
Any conditions that are immediately life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening have been treated to the best of the hospital's ability to ensure the patient does not need further inpatient care.
The patient is able to care for themselves, with or without special equipment, which if needed, must be provided. The required abilities are:
Breathing
Feeding
Mobility
Dressing
Personal hygiene
Toileting
Medicating
Communication
Another competent person is available and able to meet the patient's needs following discharge.
All patients have EMTALA rights equally, regardless of age, race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, residence, citizenship, or legal status. If patient's status is found to be illegal, hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to completion of care, though law enforcement and hospital security may take necessary action to prevent a patient from escaping or harming others. Treatment may only be delayed as needed to prevent patients from harming themselves or others.
Overloaded hospitals may not discharge a patient unable to pay to make room for a patient who is able to pay or is otherwise viewed by society as a more valued citizen. If the emergency room is overloaded, patients must be treated in an order based on their determined medical needs, not their ability to pay.
Hospitals may not deny or provide substandard services to a patient who already has outstanding debt to the hospital, and may not withhold the patient's belongings, records, or other required services until the patient pays.
Hospitals and related services cannot receive a judgment against the patient in court filings made more than 36 months after the date the patient was discharged, or the last partial payment the patient made to the hospital, contractor, or agent. After that period, the patient may not be threatened with legal action if payment is not made, and may not be denied future outpatient services from the same company/agency that a patient is able to pay.
If a patient has been awarded monetary damages against the hospital or any related or affiliated services by a court of law, or has settled out of court on damages, the hospital and related/affiliated services may not withhold monies due to lack of payment, or count the money toward the bill in lieu of making payment to the patient. Voluntary consent for such an arrangement is permitted only if initiated by the patient. Hospitals may not threaten or coerce a patient into such a settlement, or mislead the patient into believing such an arrangement is required or recommended.
Patients cannot face criminal prosecution for failure to pay, even if the patient came to the hospital aware of inability to pay. Hospitals and third-party agents may not threaten patients with prosecution as a means of scaring the patient into making payment. Patient can be prosecuted under existing federal, state, or local laws for providing false name, address, or other information to avoid payment, receiving bills, or to hide fugitive status.
A hospital may not perform a credit check on a patient either before, during, or after stay. The patient cannot receive a negative credit mark for failure to pay the hospital or any related services, or any third-party agent collecting on their behalf. Such services may not threaten patient with credit reporting to scare them into paying.
Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.
Hospitals are required to sufficiently feed patients unable to pay at a level equal to those able to pay, while meeting all physician-ordered dietary restrictions.
Hospitals are not required to provide premium services to the patient not related to medical care (such as television) when failure to provide this service does not compromise patient care.
Hospitals and affiliated clinics are not required to provide continued outpatient care, drugs, or other supplies following discharge. In the event such services are recommended, but a patient is unable to pay, the hospital is required to refer the patient to a clinic or tax-funded or private program that enables the patient to pay for these services, and to which the patient has reasonable access. Hospitals must reasonably assist patients as necessary to obtain these services by providing information the patient requests. "

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Aug 09 - 11:25 PM

A word or two in the defense of emergency rooms. Last year I developed severe pain overnight - didn't sleep a wink because I couldn't hold still - and went to the emergency room in the morning.

I told them I thought I was having a gall bladder attack, even though I had never had symptoms. However, I knew several of my relatives had had pain the night before and had the gall bladder out the next day or so. So I thought...

Anyway, I lay there for a number of hours while tests of all sorts were run. I couldn't understand why they didn't take me upstairs and hustle me into the operating room. At that point, I would've been willing to do it without anesthetic and I couldn't understand why so many doctors examined my abdomen and why they ran everything from EKGs and ultrasounds on me. Hey! I'm in pain here! I've got a gall bladder that needs to come out!

Early in the afternoon, the main doctor came to me again and said they don't think it's my gall bladder but that I have a strangulated intestine. He added, I think we should take you upstairs and fix it, OK?

OK! I said.

Which they did. I'll never bad mouth an emergency room again. I am mightily impressed with the care I received there.

That said, I agree that an ER is NO substitute for one's own doctor and ongoing health care.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 07:46 AM

...for a patient with an emergency medical condition.

read it one more time, BB - you may comprehend, yet,(tho I doubt it) why this, as Amos and others have repeatedly pointed out, is not adequate medical care.

Also , lets review from up-thread:

lie n. : an assertion of something known to be untrue with intent to deceive 2: an untrue or innacurate statement 3: something that misleads or deceives

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 09:09 AM

I'd also point out howvever that Greg F is also a damned good guy.

Why, thank you, kind sir. And many happy returns to you.

...the real problem (which in my opinion) is a wasted expenditure to protect their stock holders' interests...

That's certainly one of the problems, Bruce, and a major one- but that's also inherent in the driving force behind capitalism: unbridled greed. Until we turn things around in the US so that providing medical care instead of generating profits is the objective, we're screwed.

Its depressing to note that the US went thru a similar situation of unbridled capitalism screwing the country over during the Gilded Age a century ago & it was a hard fight for progressives like Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican, by the way, back when the Republican Party wasn't the reactionary joke it has become today) to get things back on track & rein in the "malefactors of great wealth".

This entire history has apparently been forgotten by (or never taught to- but the failures of the educational system is a whole different problem) a substantial portion of the population. Just as the generation who remembers the 1920's, the Great Depression and how things actually were before the New Deal has pretty much died off & the reality of that era has been replaced by more bullshit and invented "memory". But I digress...

Worse than the 'rule of greed', opponents of a decent health care ( which care the rest of the civilized world has somehow managed to provide its citizens with for some deacdes) realizing that there's no way in hell thay can win the arguement on the merits & on the basis of factual information, have resorted to lies, half-truths, invention and absolute fantasy to scare the livin' crap out of ignorant & uninformed individuals. Demagogic control by unending bullshit. I hope some of the posters here recognize themselves. That way lies fascism.

This I find inexcusable in a country with pretensions to democratic government. And if the spewers of bullshit take offence at my calling them on their spew - well, screw 'em.


In a sordid slime harmonious Greed was born in yonder ditch,
With a longing in his bosom and for others' goods an itch.
As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich
Our god is marching on.
   
                        -   Mark Twain, 1900


Plus ça change ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: bobad
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 10:09 AM

It's a coincidence (or maybe not) that you should post that verse of Mark Twain's song as Bruce used to sing a version of it back when.

The lyrics had relevance back in the sixties as, sadly, they still do today. As you say: Plus ça change.

The Battle Hymn Of The Republic, Updated
Mark Twain

    Mine eyes have seen the orgy of the launching of the Sword;
    He is searching out the hoardings where the stranger's wealth is stored;
    He hath loosed his fateful lightnings, and with woe and death has scored;
    His lust is marching on.

    I have seen him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps;
    They have builded him an altar in the Eastern dews and damps;
    I have read his doomful mission by the dim and flaring lamps --
    His night is marching on.

    I have read his bandit gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
    "As ye deal with my pretensions, so with you my wrath shall deal;
    Let the faithless son of Freedom crush the patriot with his heel;
    Lo, Greed is marching on!"

    We have legalized the strumpet and are guarding her retreat;
    Greed is seeking out commercial souls before his judgement seat;
    O, be swift, ye clods, to answer him! be jubilant my feet!
    Our god is marching on!

    In a sordid slime harmonious Greed was born in yonder ditch,
    With a longing in his bosom -- and for others' goods an itch.
    As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich --
    Our god is marching on.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: 3refs
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 03:38 PM

The word inspiration doesn't do the song justice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GCfM60RriM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFh0oy6vIt4

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: bobad
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 03:54 PM

The Chad Mitchell Trio's version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9_DIjr2zY&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: John P
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 03:54 PM

Why has emergency room care become so important to this discussion? It's there, it's inadequate, it's a stupid way to take care of people, and if you need something the emergency room can't give you, you're still screwed. Is there anything more that needs to be said? Are we talking about it just because BB wants so badly to prove that Greg is a liar? Earth to BB: Words are tricky, and people both can and can't get care in emergency rooms, depending on the care needed. Also, a lie requires intent. Can we move on now?

DougR and beardedbruce, this is a thread about people who have big microphones and who tell lies about the President and his policies. The problem is that so many people believe the lies that it impedes the process of discussing the issues on their merits. You are both apparently taking the other side -- or so I assume, since neither of you have really said anything substantive on the subject, other than DougR admitting that he believes 95% of what Rush Limbaugh says and thinks Obama ought to engage the birthers by producing a birth certificate. Would either of you be willing to explain some of these issues from the conservative side? On the surface, it appears that the birthers are trivializing any conversation, and marginalizing the conservative movement to the point where it has become an international laughing stock. Is there another way to look at this?

All of the Hitler references, the socialist references, the death squad lies, and the astroturf protests seem to many of us to be irresponsible and dangerous. News organizations are more interested in sales than in accuracy, and even some members of Congress are repeating the lies. Can one of you tell us why this is all going on, and why it's appropriate to behave in this manner? Someone who sounds like Rush Limbaugh would normally be considered a whacko fringe conspiracy theorist, but instead he seems to have the Republican party at his beck and call. Is there really no one over there on the right who values truth and honesty over liberal-bashing and winning?

If you think Limbaugh and gang are telling the truth, can you offer any evidence that supports what they say?

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 04:01 PM

You sure know how to stop a thread, John.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 04:08 PM

Guess I'll start it up again.

AP, via Yahoo a few minutes ago:

DARTMOUTH, Mass. – Rep. Barney Frank lashed out at protester who held a poster depicting President Barack Obama with a Hitler-style mustache during a heated town hall meeting on federal health care reform.

"On what planet do you spend most of your time?" Frank asked the woman, who had stepped up to the podium at a southeastern Massachusetts senior center to ask why Frank supports what she called a Nazi policy.

"Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it," Frank replied.

He continued by saying her ability to deface an image of the president and express her views "is a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated."

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 04:31 PM

I watched the video. THe woman seemed pleasant enough until she opened her mouth; turned out the brain had not been put in gear before engaging the jaw. Frank handled her well, in that he refused to be drawn in to a nonsensical dialog.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 05:21 PM

First of all, Obama has produced a birth certificate so those that don't believe it are
merely repeating a lie.

Second, the US has been practicing a socialist policy for some time now as the Veteran's Adminstration, Medicare, the US Postal service, Medicaid and formerly food stamps.
The roads are built by the government (national and local) so the "socialist scare" is
a canard.

What we are seeing are protests without any substantial proof of their allegations but
more to the point, a tie-in with insurance companies who are masking their lobbying efforts as public demonstrations.

The bottom line is this. Racism. Those who are protesting are racists, pure and simple.
They are mostly white beligerent people and the issue is not about health care. This goes for many of the so-called blue dog democrats as well. These people just can't stand the idea of an African-American president.

That said, I think Obama is making a huge mistake for giving up on the public option
and whitewashing his decision with the idea of a paper tiger such as an insurance co-op which will be considerably weaker than a public option. This will impair any future political ambitions he may have.

If Republicans reclaim the White House, this country is doomed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 05:29 PM

Just to brighten your day, Frank, think Palin in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: DougR
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 05:32 PM

Me thinks John P. is a very angry man.

Peace:Thanks for posting that information about required emergency room care.

You, too, Beardedbruce, for your contribution.

I must sign off now because I know Greg F. is trying to reach me to apologize for calling me a liar. I'm confident that he will ...well, I think he will, er, ah, oh, maybe he won't. I guess I won't hold my breath waiting.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: John P
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 05:42 PM

DougR,
If you think Limbaugh and gang are telling the truth, can you offer any evidence that supports what they say?

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 05:47 PM

BTW, that beardedbruce guy is another one of my good friends here. He has been for more than a few years now. He and I agree on many things (amongst them that the name Bruce is absolutely wonderful). We disagree on others. But, I will tell you this: he is tenacious. And another darned good guy.

I wish we could all disagree without getting into it with each other. If I had one wish that would be it.

Looking and reading that the "White House" (Obama?) had already made agreements with various pharmaceutical companies gave a whole new light to some stuff for me. And I've begun to see that maybe Sawzaw, bb and Doug have some valid points. Although I lean more to the 'left' than bb and Doug, and a bit more to the 'right' of Sawzaw, and camp just about where Greg F is, I still like all the people involved.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 05:48 PM

Not only have I no intention of apologizing, Douggie, but I'm happy you've provided me with the opportunity to call you a liar once again, because by either originating or promulgating the sort of "vile, contemptible nonsense" as you consistently do, a liar is precisely what you are.

And if I may quote Congressman Frank:

"...trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it."

Only difference being the table can't lie.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 06:07 PM

... maybe Sawzaw, bb and Doug have some valid points...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, Bruce.

I don't think even Doug can be wrong 100% of the time, tho he tries pretty hard & comes damn close.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Peace
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 06:10 PM

Well, Doug was sure right about one thing: the sky IS falling.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 07:51 PM

Informative:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fact_check_health_poll

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: DougR
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 08:12 PM

Peace: I'm glad you said that. That's absolutely correct! The sky is definitely falling.

Greg F: Oh shoot, no apology? That's okay Greggie, I forgive you.

John P: There you go again with the questions?

Can you provide evidence Rush is wrong?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 08:29 PM

Can anyone provide evidence Rush is correct? Its obvious he's Right.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hilter=Obama campaign
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Aug 09 - 08:49 PM

This isn't really evidence of anything; just one way of expressing an opinion.