Page 107 of 143 FirstFirst ... 75797102103104105106107108109110111112117 ... LastLast
Results 2,121 to 2,140 of 2855
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2121  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    If it weren't so sad, it would be downright side-splitting laughable that the same who are so vehemently Tea-bagging against healthcare reform stood by as silent sheep (really? where were the protesters and presidential hecklers then?) when the banking and auto industry were bailed out under the previous administration. And those were industries that we couldn't afford to allow fail??

    online.wsj.com/article/SB122969367595121563.html

    boston.com/business/markets/articles/2008/09/25/bush_urges_bailout_unity/
    You should listen to the protesters. This isn't just about health care.
  2. #2122  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    You should listen to the protesters. This isn't just about health care.
    It's not? Then where were they back then? You remember, when we had a white president? Where were the socialism signs then? Who are you kidding, yourself?

    Tell you what....take a guess as to what percent of these raucous obstructionists voted for Obama and have changed their minds based on his policies, and are now out there mudslinging? Any bets on whether it's more than single digits?
    Last edited by davidra; 09/15/2009 at 10:32 AM.
  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2123  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    It's not? Then where were they back then? You remember, when we had a white president? Where were the socialism signs then? Who are you kidding, yourself?
    I was at home stitching up my white hood. Is that all you guys have? Really?
  4. #2124  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I was at home stitching up my white hood. Is that all you guys have? Really?
    Nope...but I noticed you didn't address the question. Where were they?
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2125  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    If it weren't so sad, it would be downright side-splitting laughable that the same who are so vehemently Tea-bagging against healthcare reform stood by as silent sheep (really? where were the protesters and presidential hecklers then?) when the banking and auto industry were bailed out under the previous administration. And those were industries that we couldn't afford to allow fail??

    online.wsj.com/article/SB122969367595121563.html

    boston.com/business/markets/articles/2008/09/25/bush_urges_bailout_unity/
    Apparently you are unaware that those bailouts are very unpopular amongst a wide range of folks--specifically conservatives. I'd also bet that many of the TEA party folks are not in support of that sort of bailout.

    President Obama (then Senator) voted for those bailouts as I recall, and continued those programs as President. He was in agreement with President Bush.

    In short--you are incorrect. Conservatives in general were opposed to that--sometimes referring to these bailouts as 'crony capitalism.' Your premise is deeply flawed.

    Perhaps your memory is deficient, but that all took place over a relatively short period of time--it was rushed through. The Healthcare debate has been going on for months, and people have had an opportunity to organize, whereas before there wasn't nearly that amount of time. Additionally, these people who you refer to as "tea-baggers" (a crude term, that moderators should take note of) don't tend to be ready-made protesters, and many of them have not participated in this sort of activity.

    So, you are just plain wrong. Conservatives as a whole look unfavorably on those bailouts, and many of these TEA party protesters are opposed to reckless government spending in general, and are not just protesting healthcare "reform." Anyone wishing to make a reasonable attempt to learn about the goals of these people would be able to understand this.

    I did a search just now and found this:
    Hot Air Blog Archive Video: GOP rep who voted for TARP booed mercilessly at tea party

    That's one example demonstrating the view these TEA party folks have in regards to those bailouts.

    Apparently you didn't make even a cursory attempt to verify the validity of the accusations you were making.

    KAM
  6. #2126  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I was at home stitching up my white hood. Is that all you guys have? Really?
    And yes, in fact, I admit to having suspicions that many of the most vocal protestors who have clogged up discourse and held Hitler signs and claims about the president lying have racist tendencies. Just a guess. I have no real data to confirm that, but apparently none is needed to sound profound in this thread.
  7. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #2127  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    It's not? Then where were they back then? You remember, when we had a white president? Where were the socialism signs then? Who are you kidding, yourself?
    Of course it's not about healthcare! It's about the continuation of the same self-serving, us-VS-them politics that only now serves obstructionists to progress. How does one form a more perfect Union without progressive change? Yesterday's dogma had more than its fair share of opportunity. By its very definition, a more perfect Union cannot exist without progress.

    Tell you what....take a guess as to what percent of these raucous obstructionists voted for Obama and have changed their minds based on his policies, and are now out there mudslinging? Any bets on whether it's more than single digits?
    Do you really think these people ever go on the record? For anything? They clearly lack that unique "skill-set".
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2128  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    It's not? Then where were they back then? You remember, when we had a white president? Where were the socialism signs then? Who are you kidding, yourself?

    Tell you what....take a guess as to what percent of these raucous obstructionists voted for Obama and have changed their minds based on his policies, and are now out there mudslinging? Any bets on whether it's more than single digits?
    Are you really unaware of how unpopular President Bush (and Congressional Republicans) are amongst Conservatives in regards to government spending? You may not be aware of this, but a number of Republicans lost their seats in the house in conservatives districts, because of Republican dissatisfaction with their lack of fiscal discipline.

    Perhaps this isn't an issue you've delved into much, but as I said--there is wide discontent with Republicans failing to live up to their fiscal conservatism, and that's a major reason that Democrats have retaken the Congress. Of course that's a frying pan into the fire proposal, as we are seeing, but to pretend that this is due to President Bush being white is really an inaccurate accusation I think.

    KAM
  9. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #2129  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Apparently you are unaware that those bailouts are very unpopular amongst a wide range of folks--specifically conservatives. I'd also bet that many of the TEA party folks are not in support of that sort of bailout.

    Apparently you didn't make even a cursory attempt to verify the validity of the accusations you were making.

    KAM
    Thanks for your cursory, anecdotal attempt. Unfortunately, for the thinking amongst us, your assumptions are unfounded, where you "bet" this and, without evidence, state that "bailouts are very unpopular amongst ... conservatives". Where was their disapproval 1 year ago when it mattered?

    To find a proportional representation of today's Tea-baggers against healthcare reform to the bailouts of 1 year ago is obviously too tall an order for Google or Lexis/Nexis. But, thanks for whistling past the graveyard, for what it was worth.
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2130  
    Hello Everyone,

    What I see here is Davidra (someone I've been trying very hard to rebuild a constructive conversation with) and 1thing2add making a lot of accusations. I don't think they are based in fact.

    The argument is taking the form of accusing people of being hypocrites and/or racists because they are speaking out against policies being forwarded now by the President and Congress. Let's take a step back for a moment. Do we or do we not respect the right of citizens to protest and attempt to make their voices heard?

    Are these two people making substantive arguments against people or making accusations against them which are at a minimum broad-brush, and in many if not most cases inaccurate. Is there any evidence of fact to back these accusations up or are they simply here smearing people that disagree with their goals?

    If we want to look at hypocrisy, we might ask if these people denigrating TEA party protestors (including calling them names based on a sexual act), had similar accusations to throw at the host of protesters that regularly protest at G8 Summits, wherever President Bush went, the war in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan (yes there are those too). Did these people so upset about accusations of socialism protest the name-calling (nazi was a popular one, as well as facist, and war criminal) thrown at President Bush.

    Let me be very clear however. I don't believe that anyone has any obligation to justify their protesting by proving support of past protesters. That however is the basis of these accusations--that these protesters are dishonest, because of PRESUMED lack of former activity.

    The Truth is that what is happening here is that these posters are attacking people who they don't know much (if anything) about, painting them with a broad brush and a variety of accusations, without really having anything more than opinion to back them up. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but let's not pretend it is anything else.

    I'll just say that I am disappointed to see this sort of blatant smearing of people, based on false assumptions, accusations and in my view, rather childish denigration.

    I've done my best here to avoid making personal attacks on the posters who are posting things I think are unfair and inaccurate.

    KAM
  11. #2131  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Are you really unaware of how unpopular President Bush (and Congressional Republicans) are amongst Conservatives in regards to government spending? You may not be aware of this, but a number of Republicans lost their seats in the house in conservatives districts, because of Republican dissatisfaction with their lack of fiscal discipline.

    Perhaps this isn't an issue you've delved into much, but as I said--there is wide discontent with Republicans failing to live up to their fiscal conservatism, and that's a major reason that Democrats have retaken the Congress. Of course that's a frying pan into the fire proposal, as we are seeing, but to pretend that this is due to President Bush being white is really an inaccurate accusation I think.

    KAM
    Actually I don't disagree with what you wrote at all. I am sure that conservatives were appalled at what Bush has done. In fact, I suspect true conservatives, the few that are left, were appalled at the takeover of the party by the Christian Right and the nation-building excesses of the party, since since both are at odds with the basic tenets of conservatism. What I'm talking about are not thoughtful conservatives, but the people who have jammed up the town hall meetings with blatant disregard for people that actually wanted to learn something by having discussions. Sorry. I don't consider those thoughtful conservatives, I consider them obstructionist fearmongers.

    Oh....and no, I don't support protestors who obstuct intelligent discussion and learning, regardless of what side they are on. If someone wants to hold a sign, more power to them. When they want to interfere with the natural order of things, regardless of what banner they are carrying, I think they hurt their own cause.
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2132  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Thanks for your cursory, anecdotal attempt. Unfortunately, for the thinking amongst us, your assumptions are unfounded, where you "bet" this and, without evidence, state that "bailouts are very unpopular amongst ... conservatives". Where was their disapproval 1 year ago when it mattered?

    To find a proportional representation of today's Tea-baggers against healthcare reform to the bailouts of 1 year ago is obviously too tall an order for Google or Lexis/Nexis. But, thanks for whistling past the graveyard, for what it was worth.
    Well, if it is so easy--go ahead and post the data. I notice you are always pushing others to follow your demands. YOU are making accusations. YOU support them. If you are so interested in seeing that information and it is so easy to find--then why aren't you posting it?

    Where is your evidence? Your hypocrisy is staggering. You blather on making any sort of accusation without any regard to fact, and when someone disagrees you demand THEY produce evidence. You are never required to do this, only others. You don't have to follow your own rules, just others.

    Your dishonesty is nearly impossible for me to comprehend. Do you really think that you are fooling anyone--that this transparent nonsense isn't seen for what it is?

    KAM
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2133  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Actually I don't disagree with what you wrote at all. I am sure that conservatives were appalled at what Bush has done. In fact, I suspect true conservatives, the few that are left, were appalled at the takeover of the party by the Christian Right and the nation-building excesses of the party, since since both are at odds with the basic tenets of conservatism. What I'm talking about are not thoughtful conservatives, but the people who have jammed up the town hall meetings with blatant disregard for people that actually wanted to learn something by having discussions. Sorry. I don't consider those thoughtful conservatives, I consider them obstructionist fearmongers.
    Well, naturally you can consider them however you want.

    I would agree that Goldwater type Conservatism is not as active as it once was, and that other elements have come into the Republican party (Again--I don't belong to that or any other party).

    Of course, the same could be said of the Democrat party. A party which was once largely a labor-type party is now controlled by other elements too--often far to the left of the rank and file. Environmental groups, anti-globalization, and sometimes anti-capitalist factions have grown in influence.

    I disagree with your view on the town-hall meeting people--because I think it is too broad a brush. Certainly there are those who preferred to yell, and I'm not generally in favor of that sort of thing. However, again--this sort of protesting is somewhat irregular for conservatives, whereas it is much more common amongst liberals.

    The TEA party protesters may include many of the same people, but I don't think you can rightfully put them in a box either. I don't know what the party affiliation is amongst them, but I'd believe that there are more Republicans than democrats, although they might also include a large independent block.

    I've been called a fear-monger, obstructionist as well, but knowing myself...I'm not. I hope that my attempt to discuss issues (even those we have major disagreement on) with you has demonstrated that--even after a very rough start.

    I'm continuing my attempt to talk reasonably with anyone who is willing to do the same. I've been pleased that we've been able to move our discussion to a more constructive level.

    KAM
  14. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #2134  
    Within argument, one is not expected, nor required, to prove the other person's point for them. I don't carry your water, nor does anyone else. Either sustain a valid argument or don't.

    When you originate a claim ("Apparently you are unaware that those bailouts are very unpopular amongst a wide range of folks--specifically conservatives. I'd also bet that many of the TEA party folks are not in support of that sort of bailout.") which cannot be sustained, there is no one else, but yourself, to turn to for support. The proof of their consistent judgment, over the past year or more, is not my burden to prove.
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2135  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Nope...but I noticed you didn't address the question. Where were they?
    Not that it will matter, but the Tea Party theme began in 2007 with Ron Paul. But why are you conflating a protest, in your eyes, against a black President with a protest, in your eyes, against health care reform? And why do you ignore the message on the signs in the pictures you posted yourself?
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2136  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Do you really think these people ever go on the record? For anything? They clearly lack that unique "skill-set".
    Care to go on the record for being wrong about your claim regarding the presidents new numbers of uninsured?
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2137  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Within argument, one is not expected, nor required, to prove the other person's point for them. I don't carry your water, nor does anyone else. Either sustain a valid argument or don't.

    When you originate a claim ("Apparently you are unaware that those bailouts are very unpopular amongst a wide range of folks--specifically conservatives. I'd also bet that many of the TEA party folks are not in support of that sort of bailout.") which cannot be sustained, there is no one else, but yourself, to turn to for support. The proof of their consistent judgment, over the past year or more, is not my burden to prove.
    That is a RESPONSE to your claim (see below). Apparently you are very confused about the word "originate."

    Originally Posted by 1thing2add POST NUMBER 2307
    If it weren't so sad, it would be downright side-splitting laughable that the same who are so vehemently Tea-bagging against healthcare reform stood by as silent sheep (really? where were the protesters and presidential hecklers then?) when the banking and auto industry were bailed out under the previous administration. And those were industries that we couldn't afford to allow fail??

    The post of my that you just quoted is post number 2314. Again, My post was a RESPONSE to yours. Yours was the original post which included no data.
    Again--you are attempting to not only hold me to a standard that you refuse to live up to, but are outright lying about the origination of this exchange.

    You posted an opinion-based accusation, and then demand that others provide data to back up their opinion based response.

    You are very quick with your accusations, distortions and now outright lying, and I suspect you rely on this. I'm not sure what children you are used to bullying, but the posts are here to see, exactly who responded to what and what the origination point is, despite your false claims to the contrary.

    It is clear that you have absolutely zero intention on engaging in any sort of honest discussion.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 09/15/2009 at 11:35 AM. Reason: clarification
  18. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #2138  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Care to go on the record for being wrong about your claim regarding the presidents new numbers of uninsured?
    I'm already on the record for dismissing your errant, false argument where the numbers of uninsured and uninsurable are concerned. The president does not have "new numbers of uninsured".

    To clarify something you've obviously wrongly assumed about my position, the 30+M accounted for as "uninsurable" includes those undocumented immigrants who cannot obtain private plans. Those numbers are estimated at somewhere around 5+M, according to OMB.
  19. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2139  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    To clarify something you've obviously wrongly assumed about my position, the 30+M accounted for as "uninsurable" includes those undocumented immigrants who cannot obtain private plans. Those numbers are estimated at somewhere around 5+M, according to OMB.
    I'm having a hard time keeping track of these different stories, but I'll try. Who mentioned "30+M accounted for an 'uninsurable'"? Nobody mentioned "uninsurable" except you. I don't get how that relates to what the President is saying. Are you saying he now is including illegal immigrants in the 30 million number?
  20. #2140  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Well, naturally you can consider them however you want.

    I would agree that Goldwater type Conservatism is not as active as it once was, and that other elements have come into the Republican party (Again--I don't belong to that or any other party).

    Of course, the same could be said of the Democrat party. A party which was once largely a labor-type party is now controlled by other elements too--often far to the left of the rank and file. Environmental groups, anti-globalization, and sometimes anti-capitalist factions have grown in influence.

    I disagree with your view on the town-hall meeting people--because I think it is too broad a brush. Certainly there are those who preferred to yell, and I'm not generally in favor of that sort of thing. However, again--this sort of protesting is somewhat irregular for conservatives, whereas it is much more common amongst liberals.

    The TEA party protesters may include many of the same people, but I don't think you can rightfully put them in a box either. I don't know what the party affiliation is amongst them, but I'd believe that there are more Republicans than democrats, although they might also include a large independent block.

    I've been called a fear-monger, obstructionist as well, but knowing myself...I'm not. I hope that my attempt to discuss issues (even those we have major disagreement on) with you has demonstrated that--even after a very rough start.

    I'm continuing my attempt to talk reasonably with anyone who is willing to do the same. I've been pleased that we've been able to move our discussion to a more constructive level.

    KAM
    I liked Goldwater and Buckley, actually. I respected them for their intelligence and rational thinking. As I recall, both ended up feeling like the party had deserted those ideals. Yes, the other party changed too. While it gained more on the far left, it also lost the segregationist Dixiecrats to the republicans. Some would consider it well worth the trade.

    The fact is that I don't consider those idiots (whether at G9 conferences or town halls) who obstruct clarity to be representing either you or me. While I suppose it's possible that Clemgrad or some others on this board might actually make a sign and go down and yell and suppress discussion, the fact is I doubt it. And I don't feel like European Communists who disrupt global economic conferences represent me either. So you share the concerns of some tea-baggers (sorry, that name just feels so right), and I share some concerns of radical protestors. That doesn't mean we are them. There's a big difference.

    But the fact is that none of this has much to do with health care, and I care much more about that. And it sounds from the talking heads this morning that there may be some movement in a positive direction by the gang of six. I will wait to see what happens.

    Gang of six nears closure

Posting Permissions