navigator

I am not asking him to do that. I am asking him to do what he said in his campaign regarding strict oversight panels. The evidence has shown that his implementation of these panels has failed. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Do you believe everything the Obama administration tells you? I am sure there is some truth in there, but what about the people who actually work in the panels, I wonder how easy it was for them to come forward and say woops, we screwed up? Don't you think if there was any possible excuse they would have jumped on it?

He did say that right after he stated the importance of "doing this fast", which was interpeted as urging. It appeared to me he was backpedaling when he continued saying "every bill is read through and understood by me before I vote". I don't know A. Spectors voting record, but that is a very profound statement I would be hard pressed to believe is 100% true. However, after watching it again my statements may not be completely accurate in the wording. But, in the context of this discussion, my point still stands. As soon as he said "doing this fast" people reacted, because it sounded very similar to what Obama said about passing the bill quickly, without reading it. Many conservatives are very upset about this, seeing it as hypocritical, because of the lashing he gave Bush for doing the same thing, so its a hot button issue. I am not condoning the behavior rather, trying to understand their position. People are genuinely scared because they do not trust the government. They see it as a huge bureaucrasy that wastes their money without a second thought and never addressing inefficiencies, just throwing more money at the problem. Their fed up and have decided to make a stand. While there was lots of shouting and outbursts, there was also aplause and cheering. People were allowed to voice their opinion without being assaulted or locked out of the town hall. Hopefully these events will serve as a wake up call to washington that people are tired of seeing their taxes going to expand government when they haven't shown the ability to effectively use the resources they already have. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Would you rather I ignore the posts directed at me? I am sorry you adhere to such strict personal guidelines that prevent you from seeing things from some one elses viewpoint, but people are entitled to their opinion however absurd you may think it is. If one of these committees decides not to provide you care, for whatever reason, in effect letting you die, a reasonable metaphor for the committee could be death panel. They refused you care, letting you die, get it? The government has no interest in customer retention. Are you saying that there will not be officials selected to committees to determine who gets care and how much of it, based on a set of guidelines? How else would you propose the government decide? Agreed, but there is merit in what has caused the behavior. Whether it is justified we can only speculate based on a few bits of evidence. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect it, although I disagree.

Death panels may not be accurate, depending on your perspective, but there will be officials placed in committees that will determine, based on certain guidelines, some of which are available funds, if you get health care and to what exstent . How many government health care plans, on the fed or state level, actually operate within their budget and do not make cutbacks in programs? Naturally, this makes it alot easier to think the worst.

My point was, how can Obama expect people to be patient with the stimulus spending, when the oversight committees have been unable to keep track of the Tarp money and addmitted to not knowing where much of it was spent? Also, Obamas real motivation could be waiting until the 2010 elections get closer, which would be disingenuous. Given his reputation for honesty and transparency it is a reasonable suspicion.

Are you intentionally being difficult or did you not read the rest of the thread? Copied from above... There are other videos of similar cars many poor people would have been very thankful for. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I guess your just not used to some one being honest. like I said destroying decent used consumer goods is counter productive to stimulating the economy.

How would you suggest they express their frustration to Obama for lieing to them? I thought thats what town halls are for, letting the rep know your concerns so he can take them back to washington and try to convey the message. Instead, A. Spector agreed with Obama by urging them to let the bill pass, without reading it. I do not understand why it is so hard to grasp that when A Spector came and said the same thing as Obama they felt like he was lieing to them also. I really think your enjoying this, honing your evasive tactics, while playing the "rigid rules of scienceforums.net" card...as long as it fits within your perspective and defends your position. I wonder if you would have the same opinion if the opponents didn't express their outrage the way they did. Why is it so hard to just acknowlegde that the opponents are not the only ones that may be guilty of your accusations?

You asked me if Arlen spector lied. He is propagating Obamas lie, so your answer is yes. Do I need to tell you why it is a red flag when a con man says "you must buy now!". I would hope my rep would have the integrity to say, "hey Mr. Obama, you said you were going to read this bill, I am uncomfortable telling my constituents, instead we want to rush this through". Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You accuse me of making off topic comments? Who asked you for an alternate plan? You still never answered my question regarding who was hiring people to attend the town halls in order to interupt and prevent the opposers from having their vioce heard.

How is it off topic? They are following the same course of action with the stimulus money as the did with the Tarp money, in the context of using the oversight committees to keep up with where the money goes, and expecting a different result.

And following the same course of action and expecting a different result has several definitions, insanity is one. Is it a logical fallacy that people learn from their mistakes? Obviously Obama hasn't, instead hes telling the people to just be patient.

How is this not deflection? It is completely irrelevant to the origin of the impatience due to the oversight committees not keeping up with how money is spent.

Do you deny that during the campiagn Obama stated he would invite senators and congress to the white house to read the bill? Is Arlen Spector not a member of his party and pushing the same bill? If I said Arlen Spector is propagating Obamas lie, would it be easier for you to comprehend?

What happened to intellectual honesty? Does it exist in this forum? Is this your idea of quality political discourse?

I am not going to search for lies from Arlen Spector. I do know that what upset the people was when he urged to rush this bill through without reading it, instead just believe in "the one":eyebrow:...ok I paraphrased, but you get the point. In other words expecting them to swallow Obamas lies.

My mistake, regardless, the point that continues to escape you is: The oversight panels are not keeping up with the money trail and the tax payers money is disappearing. One could objectively deduce that the same could possibly happen to the stimulus money, the longer they take to spend it the higher the chances. So people are growing ever impatient. Sheesh.

I am not under the assumption that the opponents behavior has always been stellar at these town halls. But do you really think its theatrics and not true feelings? Isn't it obvious to you who has more to lose, the opponents of this health care bill or the politicians, Acorn and union members that are exempt from it? What do you expect from people who Obama basically lied to, to get their votes? How can you accuse one side of disruptive behavior, when the accusers have been found guilty of assault to the exstent of ending up in jail for sending someone to the hospital and still claim to be objective? How long do you put up with being lied to? Your welcome. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Not trying to derail the thread, just answering a question. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I agree, but when you lie to somebody about something as important as health care, a life and death matter, can you honestly say you can't understand their frustration? Then their rep comes to the town hall and starts regurgitating the same lie, your going to upset people. IMO their anger has merit. I agree, however, people will only swallow lies for so long. I understand the principle, but I am curious at what point does it become important enough for people to see for themselves, without it being handed to you? This is a life and death matter. If you choose to believe I am being dishonest, even in light of the facts I have already presented, thats your right.

The Health Care Freedom Plan

I haven't seen the opponents subvert an honest discussion. I have seen people upset and wanting answers that aren't being given. The town halls used to be a forum for the voters to share their concerns to their reps. so the reps could go to Washington and accurately convey the concerns of his constituents. The town halls lately have consisted of the reps telling the voters what their concerns should be. The voters are demanding to be heard and rightly so! Thats why I said some of you. My apologies if I offended anybody, that was not my intention.

I agree. My intention was to shed light on a possible origin of the impatience, the OP seemed to overlook. If the money is wasted/disappears I doubt there will be much benefit from it, just more waste of tax payers money. The govenments solution is always throw money at the problem. If there was a model from the past one could look at where this approach worked, I bet there would be more confidence and less impatience. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I substantiated my claim with an article from Yahoo. Do you read the thread before you post?

The OP accused the opponents of being the ones preventing the ability to properly discuss issues based on the merits of the proposal, no? That is simply not true. It should be pretty obvious which side was using tactics that prevent quality political discourse. There are several arguements by the opposition. I will stick to the ones that have merit based on Obamas own words. The opposition doesn't want a bill shoved down their throat, by the same people who exempted themselves from it. They also don't like the fact that Obama is going back on his word in regards to reading it. During his campaign he said he wanted Americans to have access to the same health care the politicians get. He also said he would invite senators and congress to the white house to read the bill. Those are very powerful positions that motivated people to vote for him. He was also critical of Bush for signing legislation that he never read. His hypocrasy on these issues is drawing alot of concern and rightly so! The main arguement I have heard is the bill takes away the voters right to choose which health care plan best suites his/her needs and puts it in the governments hands as a single payer system. Obama has been all over the map on this issue, the only correlation is based on who his audience is at that time. Also, if you have read the bill I doubt you failed to notice the number of times the word Acorn was used when the bill discussed who would head up the committees responsible for determing who was worthy to get what health care and how much. If the bill was presented as an option, I doubt their would be so much opposition, but its not. Its a single payer, socialized health plan that leaves the government solely in charge of your health care, unless you are a union member or a politician. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I included all the key words neccessary to make it a very quick and easy search. Does your ideology take priority over objectivity? Doesn't lend much credibilty to your scientific views on this forum.

You wouldn't consider the union members locking the main entry doors, to prevent the opposers from having their voice heard, while letting in other union members through the side "handicap" entrance, theatrics? What about Carnahans female employee arrested for assault after having a temper tantrum, knocking an opposers cell phone out of his hands breaking it? Or the black conservative who was beaten and sent to the hospital for peacefully handing out leaflets that opposed the health care bill? The facts are out there, I am not going to provide the links. Instead, I would encourage some of you to step out of the left wing bubble thats makes this political forum appear severely lacking in objectivity, which I thought was a central principle to all scientists.

I am not following you when you say, "the relationship between miles per hour and CO2 emissions"? Also, I guess I was unaware that emission improvements in the cars built today vs 10 or 15 years ago were that drastic. Maybe your right, just seems programs like these only help big corporations and unions while over looking those who need the help the most, IMO. EDIT: Had trouble removing the angry smile at the top, it does not reflect my feelings in this post.

Sure it is. It provides evidence as to motivation, which goes directly to the merits of the intentions of those who attended the town halls. Your thread title is "Opponents of US Healthcare Reform Lose Battle on Merits; Resort to Tantrums/Theatrics" I have already shown who was using theatrics and tantrums, its pretty clear when you look at who went to the hospital and who went to jail.

This program was an embarrassing boondoggle due to more than just an underestimation of its popularity. Many of the dealerships were not getting reimbursed by the government due to the bureaucratic way it was implemented. This caused a major back log in the application process for reimbursement. Many feared, after they destroyed the "clunker", whether the would see the money from the government or not. The environment was used as a guise as an added benefit from the program. What they overlooked was how many years a new car must be driven to offset the carbon footprint of its manufacturing process. The vast majority of the "clunkers" would have passed emission controls and you don't have to be a scientist to understand buying a used car will reduce your carbon footprint compared to buying new. While the program increased the demand and provided much needed revenue to the dealers and automakers, what about the poor who couldn't afford a new car even with the government incentive? The supply of used cars just dropped as well as the parts to repair your car, so those prices have went up. Why destroy decent used consumer goods? Thats counter productive to stimulating the economy not to mention a waste. Many poor people could have greatly benefitted from those "clunkers" that were crushed.

Ah, now we see some objectivity! It would be interesting to know how many of those PAC members, that attended the town halls, were either paid to or would directly benefit from opposing the health care bill. I provided evidence of both on behalf of the ones in favor of the plan.

Of course two wrongs don't make a right, can you show me where the opposers of this health care bill are hiring people to advance their opinion of it? Here is another one from those in favor of the bill... This listing can also be found on craigslist. I can think of no better way of reducing quality political discourse.