Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
iNow

Opponents of US Healthcare Reform Lose Battle on Merits; Resort to Tantrums/Theatrics

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I can understand their frustration, and maybe their anger is merited, but that does not excuse their actions. Just because you are anger is merited does not mean you get a pass on yelling and disrupting a debate. If they are angry and feel they are being lied to then they should vocalize their way in a civil manner, just like they must in every other social interaction.

 

I have done the research to support my opinions, but my research cannot support your opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Please clarify for us all when Alren Specter lied to any of them. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please clarify for us all when Alren Specter lied to any of them. Thanks.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

So, again you are just making stuff up so you can continue arguing your preconceived notion, despite its lack of alignment with reality.

 

What's that, you say? Your comments ARE aligned with reality? Okay... Then show us the evidence, of STFU. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

You were arguing that the fact the people were lied to justified their yelling and screaming. Senator Specter explaining his process of splitting the bill up into sections with his staff is not a lie, well I don't think it is one. So if they were not being lied to their yelling was not justified by your argument, and this makes your argument moot.

Edited by DJBruce
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, again you are just making stuff up so you can continue arguing your preconceived notion, despite its lack of alignment with reality.

 

What's that, you say? Your comments ARE aligned with reality? Okay... Then show us the evidence, of STFU. :)

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

That's all a red herring which has nothing to do with the thread, nor does it justify the behavior of these people at these town halls.

 

Also, I have asked before, and will ask again. Please stop with the invective. I am beginning to suspect that you are simply trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's all a red herring which has nothing to do with the thread, nor does it justify the behavior of these people at these town halls.

 

Also, I have asked before, and will ask again. Please stop with the invective. I am beginning to suspect that you are simply trolling.

 

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
All you have done is to take this thread further off-topic, but there's always this:

 

Health Insurance Consumer Protections

  • No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
    Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
  • No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
    Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
  • No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
    Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
  • No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
    Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
  • No Gender Discrimination
    Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
  • No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
    Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
  • Extended Coverage for Young Adults
    Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
  • Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
    Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Perhaps a mod can delete navigator's off topic comments, or at least move them to their own thread?

 

You accuse me of making off topic comments?

 

Who asked you for an alternate plan? :rolleyes:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You asked me if Arlen spector lied.

 

He is propagating Obamas lie, so your answer is yes.

Obama is not at these town hall meetings, so I find your assertion that people are growing riotous and unruly as a result of lies told by Obama to be spurious. If nothing else, it shows just how plainly these people are expressing their outrage at the wrong targets and in the wrong manner.

 

 

Do I need to tell you why it is a red flag when a con man says "you must buy now!".

No, as that would be wholly irrelevant to the discussion taking place, would not support your arguments, nor would it counter the points being made by others in this thread.

 

 

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".

Except, it will be read, as the blue dog democrats forced this by mandating that nothing move through before the end of August (and, in fact, we likely won't see a bill move through until December anyway). Again, you are making things up by suggesting it will go unread. Further, that STILL doesn't justify the actions being taken at these town halls, nor are these actions at the town halls a meritorious form of argumentation.

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama is not at these town hall meetings, so I find your assertion that people are growing riotous and unruly as a result of lies told by Obama to be spurious. If nothing else, it shows just how plainly these people are expressing their outrage at the wrong targets and in the wrong manner.

 

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.

 

Except, it will be read, as the blue dog democrats forced this by mandating that nothing move through before the end of August (and, in fact, we likely won't see a bill move through until December anyway). Again, you are making things up by suggesting it will go unread. Further, that STILL doesn't justify the actions being taken at these town halls, nor are these actions at the town halls a meritorious form of argumentation.

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

You mean the ones making up stories about Obama having death panels?

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-St-Louis-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m8d10-The-myth-of-Obamas-supposed-Death-Doctors

 

No, of course not, clearly the liberals who support healthcare reform are the only ones at fault.

 

So in your head, there is no truth to the idea that conservative PACs are organizing the disruption of town hall meetings, disseminating misinformation about what Obama is trying to do, and in turn negatively impacting political discourse?

 

Perhaps it's time you evaluate yourself within the same lens of accusations and distrust with which you see others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it so hard to just acknowlegde that the opponents are not the only ones that may be guilty of your accusations?

Acknowledged. Now, let's move on, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Senator Specter never urged the crowd to allow the healthcare reform bill to pass without reading it. He said, "Every bill is read through and understood by me before I vote." Senator Specter did not anywhere in the event in question say I wanna pass this bill without reading it.

 

People in this thread have acknowledged that the supporters of the bill have acted poorly and have disrupted a civil debate on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the ones making up stories about Obama having death panels?

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-St-Louis-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m8d10-The-myth-of-Obamas-supposed-Death-Doctors

 

No, of course not, clearly the liberals who support healthcare reform are the only ones at fault.

 

So in your head, there is no truth to the idea that conservative PACs are organizing the disruption of town hall meetings, disseminating misinformation about what Obama is trying to do, and in turn negatively impacting political discourse?

 

Perhaps it's time you evaluate yourself within the same lens of accusations and distrust with which you see others.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this is off-topic...


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Death panels may not be accurate, depending on your perspective,

No. "Death panel" is inaccurate regardless of perspective. It's a completely manufactured falsehood being used in yet another example of scare mongering... precisely as I was drawing attention to with the OP.

 

 

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 .

You mean, exactly like private health insurance companies are doing now? Fancy that.

 

I encourage you to review the clip I shared yesterday from THIS WEEK where the relevant portion of the bill is articulated. All that the bill says is that they will cover a visit for the elderly to their doctor to discuss end of life options... if they choose to make that voluntary visit.

 

That is being spun into... "OMG!! Obama wants to kill your grandmother, chop off her arms, and boil her to power his socialism ray which he is going to shoot at you while the democrats sodomize your infants in the other room!"

 

 

 

Naturally, this makes it alot easier to think the worst.

And still... none of that justifies the behavior being witnessed across the nation at these town halls, nor is any of it a valid reason to prevent us from moving forward. Again, you have exemplified yourself as part of the problem I am discussing here in this thread.

Edited by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senator Specter never urged the crowd to allow the healthcare reform bill to pass without reading it. He said, "Every bill is read through and understood by me before I vote." Senator Specter did not anywhere in the event in question say I wanna pass this bill without reading it.

 

People in this thread have acknowledged that the supporters of the bill have acted poorly and have disrupted a civil debate on the issue.

 

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
All of this is off-topic...


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Would you rather I ignore the posts directed at me?

 

 

No. "Death panel" is inaccurate regardless of perspective. It's a completely manufactured falsehood being used in yet another example of scare mongering... precisely as I was drawing attention to with the OP.

 

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?

 

You mean, exactly like private health insurance companies are doing now? Fancy that.

 

The government has no interest in customer retention.

 

I encourage you to review the clip I shared yesterday from THIS WEEK where the relevant portion of the bill is articulated. All that the bill says is that they will cover a visit for the elderly to their doctor to discuss end of life options... if they choose to make that voluntary visit.

 

That is being spun into... "OMG!! Obama wants to kill your grandmother, chop off her arms, and boil her to power his socialism ray which he is going to shoot at you while the democrats sodomize your infants in the other room!"

 

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?

 

And still... none of that justifies the behavior being witnessed across the nation at these town halls,

 

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.

 

 

nor is any of it a valid reason to prevent us from moving forward. Again, you have exemplified yourself as part of the problem I am discussing here in this thread.

 

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect it, although I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

First, I am going to ask you YET AGAIN to refrain from the personal comments and invective. You are losing credibility at an alarming rate with your continued comments like this.

 

Second, everyone is welcome to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

 

Third, you continue with your off-topic posts, and I am beginning to wonder what your intentions are here.

 

 

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?

And if leprechauns were real they'd get erections from purple unicorn farts.

 

We can make up all kinds of things to support our arguments, but that does not mean our comments are representative of reality. Your argument resides purely on specious fantasy and empty hearsay.

 

 

 

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?

No. I am saying that your comments continue to be off-topic and wholly irrelevant.

 

 

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.

See, I disagree. I feel that we as a nation should all hold ourselves to a higher standard. I can appreciate feeling upset, and worried, and angry. I can also appreciate the need to have our voices heard. However, I don't agree with the manner in which our populace gets worked up into a frothy rage, and the way that rage is used for political theater.

 

That's what this thread is about. Read post #14 if you're struggling to understand this.

 

What is happening at these events is objectively and without question inappropriate and out of line. It's more like a witch hunt or a lynching than an intelligent debate.

 

 

Now, please... for the love of Thor... stop making all of these personal comments laden with invective and vitriol, stop poisoning the well, and start making arguments based on merit and evidence... and keep those arguments on topic. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can make up all kinds of things to support our arguments, but that does not mean our comments are representative of reality. Your argument resides purely on specious fantasy and empty hearsay.

 

Which tells me you haven't read the bill and your contradicting yourself regarding facts and opinion.

 

No. I am saying that your comments continue to be off-topic and wholly irrelevant.

 

Do you ever answer a question, or is diversion your standard MO?

 

 

See, I disagree. I feel that we as a nation should all hold ourselves to a higher standard. I can appreciate feeling upset, and worried, and angry. I can also appreciate the need to have our voices heard. However, I don't agree with the manner in which our populace gets worked up into a frothy rage, and the way that rage is used for political theater.

 

That's what this thread is about. Read post #14 if you're struggling to understand this.

 

That would be the same standard that has had so much difficulty acknowledging who was causing the worst of the disruptions to the extent of being criminal causing personal injury?

 

What is happening at these events is objectively and without question inappropriate and out of line. It's more like a witch hunt or a lynching than an intelligent debate.

 

I wonder if you walked in their shoes, would you have that same perspective.

 

The only activities likened to a witch hunt or lynching came from the supporters of the bill.

 

Now, please... for the love of Thor... stop making all of these personal comments laden with invective and vitriol, stop poisoning the well, and start making arguments based on merit and evidence... and keep those arguments on topic. Thanks.

 

Stop with the diversionary tactics and it will be much easier for me to stay on topic and know whether you are being intellectually dishonest or really having a comprehension issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you ever answer a question, or is diversion your standard MO?

Please stop with the personal attacks.

 

 

Stop with the diversionary tactics and it will be much easier for me to stay on topic and know whether you are being intellectually dishonest or really having a comprehension issue.

Please stop with the personal attacks.

 

 

 

The only activities likened to a witch hunt or lynching came from the supporters of the bill.

Now, this one I can honestly and unequivocally call a bald faced lie. I'll post some video clips supporting this tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Death panels may not be accurate, depending on your perspective

 

Yes, "depending on your perspective", what? You're saying that "death panels" are an apt description of anything in the proposed legislation?

 

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 .

 

Okay, so here you are complaining that the proponents of healthcare reform are the ones negatively impacting the political discourse, and you're here talking about death panels, awesome.

 

Discussion over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things seem to be moving a bit slow on the mod board at the moment. Navigator, I need to explain a few things to you with my mod hat on. You're not allowed to level personal invective. You're required to back up factual assertions. No, you're not allowed to argue about these rules (not here anyway). You need to get with the program, or you're going to find yourself staring at a login screen very, very shortly.

 

Our purpose here is to have a higher level discussion. Something that rises above the level of partisan spin and assertions. You yourself have spoken of the value of this in another thread, I think you're just frustrated at being challenged. Great -- channel that into some fact-finding and sourcing for your statements. The ones you can't support, rephrase as opinions and try to be more congenial and open-minded about those of others. If and when you are attacked for your opinion, you'll be supported too.

 

If you have any questions you can talk to me about it in private. Thanks.

Edited by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Things seem to be moving a bit slow on the mod board at the moment. Navigator, I need to explain a few things to you with my mod hat on. You're not allowed to level personal invective. You're required to back up factual assertions. No, you're not allowed to argue about these rules (not here anyway). You need to get with the program, or you're going to find yourself staring at a login screen very, very shortly.

 

Our purpose here is to have a higher level discussion. Something that rises above the level of partisan spin and assertions. You yourself have spoken of the value of this in another thread, I think you're just frustrated at being challenged. Great -- channel that into some fact-finding and sourcing for your statements. The ones you can't support, rephrase as opinions and try to be more congenial and open-minded about those of others. If and when you are attacked for your opinion, you'll be supported too.

 

If you have any questions you can talk to me about it in private. Thanks.

 

Understood.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Yes, "depending on your perspective", what? You're saying that "death panels" are an apt description of anything in the proposed legislation?

 

When a panel decides, for whatever reason, to deny you care and the result is terminal, people in that situation feel the death panel term is apt.

 

 

http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html

 

SPRINGFIELD, Ore. - Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time.

 

"I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."

 

Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.

 

Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.

 

"I told them, I said, 'Who do you guys think you are?' You know, to say that you'll pay for my dying, but you won't pay to help me possibly live longer?' " Wagner said.

 

I don't have to walk in some one elses shoes to understand their perspective. Allowing compassion and empathy to guide my conscience helps me understand their opinion whether I agree or not.

 

Okay, so here you are complaining that the proponents of healthcare reform are the ones negatively impacting the political discourse, and you're here talking about death panels, awesome.

 

I am not complaining, I have also stated that I don't think the term is completely accurate. What I am trying to do is show a perspective of life that you have been lucky enough to avoid, but some have not. Until you walk in their shoes, you cannot justify your judgement of their opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When a panel decides, for whatever reason, to deny you care and the result is terminal, people in that situation feel the death panel term is apt.

Do you agree, then, that all private insurers already have these "death panels?"

Can you explain why nobody has been talking about that all of these years?

 

Also, can you also acknowledge that the government is likely not to refuse life saving care, but even if they did, the individual will still have the ability to seek private coverage on their own?

 

It's just scare-mongering, navigator. It's disingenuous of you not to admit it.

 

 

Until you walk in their shoes, you cannot justify your judgement of their opinion.

Yes, I can justify it, since their opinion is so obviously rooted in misinformation and falsehoods. I'm not judging them as a person, I'm showing the fallacious nature of their stated premises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went back and read several of your posts iNow, and am trying to understand your position on the actual healthcare reform itself.

 

I wholly understand the disgust you expressed in your first post at the barbaric actions of some people in this country when attempting to "argue" their points.

 

My questions are...

 

1) What is the motive of the citizens who disagree with "Obamacare"? Do they feel as if their politicians aren't recognizing their opinions and they feel as if they are being ignored? Or is it that they simply hate anything that liberal democrats propose and support?

 

2) You mentioned in your first post the 'Embarrass your Congressman' website, I agree that things like that would be used to fuel the theatrics of certain individuals who oppose "Obamacare." I'll quote what you stated about the website...

 

"On their website, they have a section called "The Battle Plan" which includes tips like tracking congress persons itinerary, finding ways to yell and shout and draw attention, and how to video tape it so it can be shared and made to look like the country doesn't want healthcare change... Basically, to ignore the merits and focus on the theatrics."

 

Now, my question has to do with the statement you made about such things depicting the nation being against healthcare reform (I agree with that statement also) . What evidence do you have to support the claim that most Americans actually support Obama's plan for healthcare reform? Could you please list the sources you used when you made that statement.

 

I have the opinion that in actuality most Americans are not for "Obamacare." I have not been able to verify if this is correct or not, it is based on general observation and talking to people in everyday life. Most people I know, are not in support of specific aspects of his proposed plan.

 

What sources do you have that can identify on a nationwide scale, the people's feelings on this plan?

 

Please excuse any bad grammar or misspelling.

 

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What evidence do you have to support the claim that most Americans actually support Obama's plan for healthcare reform? Could you please list the sources you used when you made that statement.

My source was linked in my post, and there are others.

Further, you're misrepresenting me a bit. I did not say that the majority of citizens support "Obamas plan," so note that.

 

 

I have the opinion that in actuality most Americans are not for "Obamacare." I have not been able to verify if this is correct or not, it is based on general observation and talking to people in everyday life. Most people I know, are not in support of specific aspects of his proposed plan.

And, as I already described for you personally back in post #14, that's not relevant here.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
The only activities likened to a witch hunt or lynching came from the supporters of the bill.

Now' date=' this one I can honestly and unequivocally call a bald faced lie. I'll post some video clips supporting this tomorrow.[/quote']

As promised... I'm going to go ahead and leverage work already done by others to bring these together. Be sure to watch these videos to see just how plainly false navigators assertion was that the only witch hunt or lynching style activities are coming "From supporters of the bill."

 

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-10-2009/healther-skelter

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-10-2009/healther-skelter---obama-death-panel-debate

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-10-2009/moment-of-zen---george-w--bush-town-hall-meeting

 

 

I am referring specifically to the video clips within the clip itself. The first few are more humorous jabs at people being afraid of Obama, but later my point is supported robustly with clips specific to the quote unquote "debate" taking place. The final clip in the first video is especially telling.

Edited by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.