Hate

[mrsl]

Hopefully, very short replies to some of the previous comments.

Rohanaka: Regarding government regulated insurance - We have had it for the past 4 years. Anyone covered by Medicare, back in 2004 was told that they HAD to have another insurance to work with Medicare to pay for regular monthly medications, it was called the Part D system, and it really hurt a lot of people. Up til then our meds had been included in our monthly medicare payments, suddenly with no addition to our SS benefits, we had to come up with money for our meds, plus money to pay for this new insurance. The total of the monthly bill, and the meds, came to double what I would pay for the meds alone, but the Part D insurance was mandated. Therefore,if Obama chooses to insist on insurance, it won't be the first time the President did so.

Personally, I think the plan to trade clunkers for low emission cars is a great one.

People become haters after being led to such a belief by reporters who preach hate in their diatribes against the President and his cabinet.

Obama made campaign promises about taxes - yes - but he also said it would get worse before it got better. Have you ever heard the phrase "It takes money to make money". That is very true as most old wives tales are. But don't forget the debt Obama walked into. You can say Clinton started it, that seems to be a favorite slogan, but the fact remains that Bush got us well over our heads, and Obama is doing his best to 'fix it'.

Thanks ken123 for your mention of the Big Brother syndrome. I felt someone looking over my back just walking to the grocery store.

Anne

[ken123]

Congress is the branch of government that is OKing the spending. Mr Bush started the big bailouts with Tarp and such, which was forced down the throats of the American people as polls showed opposition to these bailouts was overwhelming. IMHO if President Obama follows silentscreens view on spending ( the stimulas - cash for clunkers ) we will be in worse shape. It will just be Herbert Hoover all over again.


Governments " force their ideology " on the people all the time. Elections have consequences. Did Bushs ideology prevent his adminstration from acting in a swifter fashion in regard to the victims of Katrina ? Again IMHO the conservatives look at the world in a " Social Darwinist " way - " Survival of the fittest ".


Pallin is lying about "Obama's death panel " - are liar patriots ?

[jdb1]

And (jdb1) to answer your question regarding why people can’t afford healthcare, (and/or other things) many of us are only in need (or have lost jobs, or are fighting to stay afloat, etc) because of the way our economy has become so ridiculously overrun with heavy tax burdens and an embarrassing dependency on foreign goods and services. And our current system of slap on another government program for a "bandaid" is not going to fix that. It is not the government’s job (nor their responsibility, nor even their right) to fix every little problem that comes down the pike for us.

After all, our most valued document, the US Constitution, clearly states: “ We the people, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,” etc. etc. Nowhere does it say “We the GOVERNMENT of the United States in order to better and/or improve the lives of its people, etc, etc.” The government is to be more of an agent OF the people, rather than FOR the people. WE are the ones who keep IT afloat, but it is not mandated or designed to keep US that way. Yet that is what is happening now, and our tax dollars are being used for purposes they were not ever designed to be used for. So when I see government officials looking for even MORE money from me to fix someone else's problems, it is a bit upsetting.

And again, just to reiterate, I am not without compassion. I DO understand that there are real people out there with real needs. But it is NOT going to get better by adding even MORE debt to our national budget and even MORE government run programs.

And going back to (or at least close to) the original topic, I respectfully disagree with the insinuation (whether accidental or intended) that those who oppose the "popular" administration are hatemongers or attempting to incite a riot. Since when is it suddenly HATEFUL (or even disrespectful) to ask our elected officials to account for how they vote (supposedly on our behalf)?

While it is true that there are some "hotheads" out there, most conservatives who are now questioning the tactics of many in the present administration are simply speaking their mind. Yes, one can and should do that in the voting booth, but we are also guaranteed a voice by our founding Fathers in many other ways too. Is Congress or the President , or even the Supreme Court above scrutiny? Should they NOT be questioned and asked to account for the many decisions they make on our behalf? (no matter whether we agree OR disagree with them) Congress is supposed to represent the voters, not "make decisions in place of the voters" If they truly believe they are doing right by their constituency and are representing the TRUE will of those they serve, they should not hesitate to make themselves available for private and/or public discussion with their voters. And they certainly should not discount any attempt by those voters at open debate or a free exchange of ideas.

I suppose those who are carrying those signs at today's tax tea parties would like the our water supplies to be un-fluoridated? Back in the day, their parents were calling that phenomenon "socialism."

And again, with respect, I feel you do not have a clear view of what the Tea Party movement is truly all about. It is not enough to rely only on one sided reporting from those opposed to Conservative causes. I have watched and read a LOT of comments about this movement and I can tell you from personal observation and experience that most of the cable news commentators and newsreporters have no interest in showing the true nature of these events. But rather, they pick and choose a select few to represent all those in attendance. And they usually only show those who match up to their own preconceived notion or personal bias of what a “tea party person” is like.

Have you actually walked THROUGH a Tea Party and spoken w/ more than the few outlandish and ridiculous folks that always seem to get chosen by the media (out of a LARGE crowd of otherwise thoughtful and well spoken, concerned, taxpaying citizens)? I have, and on more than one occasion. And I can tell you these people are neither hatemongers, nor idiotic. And they are not “anti government“ nor even necessarily “anti-fluoride”. (to use your description) But they are concerned voters. They are concerned taxpayers. And they do have a Constitutional right to their political opinion. (and also a right to express it publicly).

Many, if not most, of these people feel they are not being heard, nor represented in and by their government. So having this deeply felt opinion, is it right or wrong for such people, such taxpaying citizenry, to speak up or stay silent?

You are fortunate to have met people whose protests are well-reasoned a civil. I have spoken quite a few tax protests here in NYC, and what I hear is primarily a garbled repetition of rhetoric from right-wing sources, mostly television commentators. I have no problem with civil exchanges of ideas. I do take exception to mindless repetition of slogans and taunts, calculated to shout down, rather than convince.

Back in the time of organized anti-war demonstrations, there was of course a lunatic fringe, as there always is when crowds gather. But for the most part, I really feel that people understood what they were talking about, and had thought out their positions. In those days, everyone was "political," and people read books and knew what they were talking about. That goes for both sides of the issue. I am not seeing that now. The sad fact is that people are not in general as well educated as they were 30 or 40 years ago, they do not read very much, and they tend to believe everything they see on TV, just because it is on TV. I simply do not have the impression that most people in this country are willing to think for themselves, and I therefore do not really trust any mass movements of any political stripe.

I'm not the one who calls this hate. I am calling it willful ignorance. I don't mean you; I'm very happy to engage in debate about what our country is all about. That's one of the priviges of living here. I am talking about America generally. If this were a reasonable, thinking country, very little of the programming on television today, and the poorly-written and under-conceived books published on politics and history, would be there. Oh, how I miss Wm. F. Buckley!

[ken123]

Last night William Kostric, the gentlemen with the gun in the holster near President Obamas" Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire, appearred on the Chis Matthews MSNBC program " Hardball ", on which Mr Kostric was decrying the rights lost or about to be lost because of Mr. Obamas Presidency. Lets see ? Carrying a gun at a Presidential event & NOT having been arested, but appearring on a TV news - talk show. Yep hes' lost a lot of rights.

[mrsl]

I admit I am one of the members who spoke most vehemently about GWBush, I called him (and still do), every name in the book that could be published here on our mature board, so I agree we must be free to say whatever we care to say about and for whomever we wish. However, when it gets out of hand like the papparazzi does or even just the regular media, then it is no longer a right but an abuse of a right. These stupid town meetings are irrelevant just now because there is NO government medical care program in place, or even nearly in place. It is still fragments of four or five packages suggested. These same people were still trusting Bush when he allowed the war to continue beyond any need, why can't these people trust Obama to be absolutely sure when he signs an agreement for the melding into one package?

What has he done to evoke such distrust? Food prices are lower, people are able to purchase cars with a great deal to get rid of their old one. Most of all, this is a family man which these 'town hall' people screamed they wanted during the campaign, a man who actually goes to church with his family. So where does this hate come from? As I said earlier, from Republican congressmen who are still smarting from having lost the election to a partly black man instead of their ancient soldier. So they go to these meetings and rile the crowds up with lies and half truths as they did for 8 years, yet those people actually listen to them and allow themselves to become unstrung and hinge on becoming lynch mob mentality.

Anne

[silentscreen]

It may be that the honeymoon is over.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Edi ... 1-sun.html

[jdb1]

I don't think there's any doubt that it is over -- as this article points out, it's the same with any new president. Now it's down to work in earnest.

My most fervent, and oft-repeated prayer these days is that Bar doesn't pull a Jimmy Carter on us. I want positive and effective action from the White House, and plenty of it.

[ken123]

I believe that Mr. Obamas ratings are back to 58 % positive. With liars such as Pallin, Gingrich,Grassley, Limbaugh, Beck, and DeMint leading the way the GOP needs fear in order to get back into power. Senators DeMint ( R - SC ) & Mr. Limbaugh have repeatedly said that they WANT the President to fail. Some patriots they are !If Obama fails the country will be in worse shape. Shouting down Congressmen is NOT adding to the dialogue about health care, its just wrong & fanning the flames for something outragous to happen.


Oh yes Senator Lisa Murkowski ( R - Alaska ) has callen Sarah Pallin out on her liars in regard to " Obamas death panels " . To be fair & accurate Ms Murkowski is an opponent of Ms Pallin from way back. Ms Pallin defeated Ms Murkowskis' father in the 2006 GOP primary for Governor, Mr Murkowski was the incumbent and under a corruption cloud.

[mrsl]

I could be wrong here, someone please correct me with the true facts, in answer to my question.

Why was that man who had the gun, allowed to appear on a TV show shortly after the meeting. Isn't it against the law to carry a lethal weapon into a public gathering, whether or not he had a license for it? It seems to me that he should have been held, questioned, and arrested for questionable actions during a public meeting. Why was he carrying the gun in the first place, was he a policeman, or a detective? I cannot conceive of any reason for him to be carrying it under any other circumstances, other planning to cause trouble.

Anne

[jdb1]

I could be wrong here, someone please correct me with the true facts, in answer to my question.

Why was that man who had the gun, allowed to appear on a TV show shortly after the meeting. Isn't it against the law to carry a lethal weapon into a public gathering, whether or not he had a license for it? It seems to me that he should have been held, questioned, and arrested for questionable actions during a public meeting. Why was he carrying the gun in the first place, was he a policeman, or a detective? I cannot conceive of any reason for him to be carrying it under any other circumstances, other planning to cause trouble.

Anne

Gail Collins has a column in today's NY Times Op-Ed about this, and apparently in every instance of gun-toting at these recent meetings the activity has been perfectly legal in the states in which they occurred.

Feeling the need to bring a firearm to a meeting on health care just goes to illustrate how helpless and frustrated some of these protestors must be feeling (it seems that most, if not all of the ones caught with guns were seniors). Since they seem to think some kind of right is being taken away from them by the proposed health care bill, they are making sure they can exercise another right, like bringing a loaded gun into a crowded meeting hall. Maybe they thought they'd have to shoot their way out of a Death Panel review. Something is very wrong here, when not only are these spurious rumors being circulated, but people are actually believing them. It makes me very sad to see such a dearth of common sense.

[silentscreen]

I don't think there's any doubt that it is over -- as this article points out, it's the same with any new president. Now it's down to work in earnest.

My most fervent, and oft-repeated prayer these days is that Bar doesn't pull a Jimmy Carter on us. I want positive and effective action from the White House, and plenty of it.

I couldn't agree more. We all want that from our President, no matter who he may be. And he does have a lot on his plate. I pray for him as well.

[mrsl]

[i]"jdb wrote: Now it's down to work in earnest." [/i]

I believe this president has been 'down to work' since his day one in office. I may have read you wrong Judith, perhaps you meant 'we the people' have to get down to work, which we most definitely do need to do.

As to the seniors bringing guns to the public meetings, as I've said before, I rarely listen to the news because it is so full of junk, but I did look for something in relation to my questions, before I asked, but I missed that report you mentioned. In any case if the explanation you gave, using one violent right to prove another is so ridiculous those people should not be allowed out on the streets alone. Do people really believe there will be some form of choosing who will live and who will die other than the now in place HMO's who refuse to pay for operations because meds could possibly hold the illness in check? THAT is a death panel as far as I'm concerned. I wonder if most people are aware that 90% of the insurance programs in place right now willingly pay for Viagra and its subs, but still do not pay for birth control pills. How does that make sense? Let me tell you. If people get pregnant, they have to see the doctor, they have to have ultra-sounds, the have to go to birthing classes held by the hospital, and etc., and etc., and etc. I recall the uproar that Mike Moore raised with his film Sicko, and people are finally finding out that he was making a lot of sense.

Well, I'm a senior, and I'm pretty much out of it, but if people don't wake up soon and smell the coffee (truth), they will just make themselves sick for no reason.

Anne

[jdb1]

The Prez has been trying to stay out of this on a personal level, but I think he might do well to remind people, as he did during the campaign, of the battle his dying mother had to wage with her insurance carriers, from her hospital bed, to get coverage for her cancer treatments. I had a similar experience when I was seriously ill, and I'll bet many other Americans, or members of their families, have had such difficulties as well.

When you are ill, you should be the last person to have to fight for your health care rights. How can you, when you barely have the strength to get through each day? In fact, I don't even know why anyone in this country who has private insurance of any kind would need to be reminded of this; we've all had to fight for the very things we are paying for. How can anyone say that the current system does not need to be revised? If we wait for the providers themselves to make improvements unasked, not only would those revisions likely be inadequate from our point of view, but we would probably all be long dead before they get around to it.

[charliechaplinfan]

Well it seems that your politics has got our hackles rising. I'm talking about the adverts about how bad our NHS is and how we only have so much money available per person etc. I fear you are getting a very slanted view, the NHS isn't perfect but it does treat everyone and we may have to wait a little longer than if we had a private plan but I'm so glad we have it, it's one of the best things about being British and I'm no socialist.

[mrsl]

Really sorry for causing your people any trouble CCfan. The UK is always used as an example of good NHS except when trying to make the whole thing look bad as these fools do with their lies to the 'common' people.

Anne