If Fox called the psychos psycho, they would hardly have any guests. I think one reason TDS has so much influence today is that as a fake news show they were actually able to tell the truth about these nutjobs. It seems the MSM is using some of their collage tricks, and it is about time.
I always preferred the one about how “A liberal is a conservative who just got arrested. A conservative, of course, is a liberal who just got mugged.”
The good news is that it’ll all be over in 2012 according to the Mayans, Nostradamus, the Bible Code, and the fortune cookie given to Mrs. Olive Ziegler Jernigan of Fort Jefferson, Louisiana on 09/09/09.
The first time in recent history was Hitlers use of the Reichstag Fire. Some anarchist tried to burn the Riechstag bldg down. It was a very poor attempt but Hitler seized the opportunity to declare marshall type law and told the people he was the only one who could save them from the very dangerous anarchists. He made the best of his opportunity. The Nazis said the way to turning the people into sheep was to scare them . Then make them believe that you are the only one that can save them.
All politicians since then are well aware of the power fear can generate. It has become a technique. Terrorists claim they are the only ones who can protect the muslims from the evil American corporate conquerers.
If the republicans don’t stop using fear to motivate people to change their actions I’m going to blow up the moon.
In a phone conversation with my nephew on Labor Day, he broached the subject of how the President seemed to be associating with socialists and communists. I told him that we needed to talk about something besides politics.
This is the same nephew that had convinced my 96 year old mother that Candidate Obama was a Muslim.
Instead of changing the subject, maybe I should have pointed out to this nephew that from what I knew, he had associated with someone with socialist tendencies. (Moi) In fact, he was related to a card carrying member of the Young Socialist Workers Party at one time. (Not me, but someone else in the family.) Then I will remind him that his grandfather, while not favoring an overhrow of the government and not belonging to the Communist Party, had believed in the practice of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Then I will remind him that the job that he had held was a socialist concept. (He was a policeman.) Then I will close by accusing him of having too many socialist ties to be trustworthy.
He’s a fifty year old grandfather who doesn’t work and lives with his mother. He even forgot his own grandson’s name.
I am *so *stealing this. 
Yeah, you’re wrong. This, from an article about Democrats’ reaction to a similar speech given by George H.W. Bush in 1991. In part, it says:
*"But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. **Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush’s speech *– they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue."
[bolding mine]
So far as I know, nobody on the right is calling for investigations regarding Obama’s speech.
I think this is an excellent idea! (Provided that CNN truly picked people at random rather than cherry-picking people who were happy with their country’s government health care).
I’d love to see a year-long look into truly random patients coming out of and/or waiting for health care and see what they think about their experience. My guess, though, is that they will mention long waits and anxiety and fears about the quality of the care they’re getting, but will still favor their system over others because that’s what people do. If people buy Macs, they become Macintosh evangelists; if they live in Texas, they think the Cowboys are the greatest team in football; if they grow up under communism, they think communism is the best form of government; etc., etc.
The only way to truly judge how well government health systems operate is to contrast them with private care, and so far private care is vastly, vastly superior , with the primary complaint being that people who don’t have it, can’t get it. That is a substantial complaint, but it has no bearing on the quality of care private practice delivers to those who are covered by it.
So what it boils down to is this: Do you want mediocre care provided to everyone, or do you want to find a way to provide adequate care to those who aren’t covered while still allowing the vast majority to enjoy the superior care they have now?
So far it looks like what the government (and liberals in general) is trying to accomplish is to come up with a foot-in-the-door program that will become a fully-fledged, primarily (if not totally) govenment-operated health care system in fairly short order. This is evident in the constant harping about how great European and the Canadian health care systems allegedly are.
Thus the answer, in the final analysis is: “Yes, we think mediocre care, long waits, government dependency, and the potential for denial of care due to lack of funds is a superior system to one that provides excellent to good care for most but leaves others to fend for themselves as best they can like they do for other items necessary for human survival, like food, housing, clothing, cars, etc., etc., etc.”
I’d like to add that it is an oversimplification to compare sociliazed medical care with provate medical care. Both Belgium and the Netherlands have socialized health care; still they are rather different. In the Netherlands, quality of medical care is great, and care is affordable for everyone. But there are (for non life threatening procedures only) rather long waiting lists, and most people agree that there is too much middle management in Dutch health care. Belgium’s system has other strenghts and flaws.
It seems to me (and I mean this sincerely; you are one of the posters here who I think most highly of :)) that this is the central question with regard to determining the relative benefit of a government health care system. If we are being asked to give up private care in favor of government care, why would we not compare the quality of the two in making our decision? Are we only to look at the fact that everyone would be covered and not concern ourselves beyond that?
Plus, like you say, health care systems vary among countries in Europe. They aren’t the same even from one country to the next, so why are we to assume (and I’m speaking in generall terms here and not to anything you’ve said, Maastricht) that government health care in the U.S. is ipso-facto going to mirror the health care systems that exist in a group of other countries when they aren’t the same even among themselves?
Starving Artist, you won’t get a debate from me there, I completely agree with you. The design of something as complex, large, expensive and interactive as an public health care system should not be put in simple black and white terms, and it is regrettable that US public debate is so black and white.
Still, when all is said and done, I do think that it is better for society as a whole that fear of illness shouldn’t be worsened by fear of bankruptcy. That is the biggest advantage of the system in most European countries. All other pro’s and cons are debateable.
Thank you.
I, too, wish that things in this country could be discussed dispassionately and reasonably rather than in the contentious black-and-white way that they are now. Unfortunately, I don’t see anything changing for the foreseeable future. People in this country have largely abandoned the standards that once led to civil discourse and I don’t see us going back any time soon, if ever. Look at how conservatives and Republicans are reviled and demonized on this board and how liberals and Democrats are reviled and demonized on right-wing boards and you’ll see what I mean.
I believe that if we are ever to get to the point in this country where social matters are debated honestly and with an eye toward what is truly best rather than what benefits this side or that, we’re going to have to do away with the practice of demonizing each other, and in order to do that we’re going to have to adopt standards of behavior that people will be expected to abide by. A sort of counter cultural-revolution, if you will.
Ma! Ma! Where’s my Pa? Gone to the White House, Ha Ha Ha!
Never happen, kid. Have a daisy.
True, and this is an excellent example to look at, thank you for remembering it. While they both deal with a president speaking to students about education, there are a few important differences to note. Bush’s speech was broadcast on TV, and Democrats jumped on him for it being “paid political advertising” (Gephardt’s words)
Obama wasn’t being jumped on for this reason, but because he’s trying to indoctrinate children with his evil socialist agenda. People don’t want their children to hear the President speak to them, because he’s somehow the enemy. I looked up the Bush speech, and didn’t notice anyone being upset that their kids were being encouraged to hear his speech, merely that the medium (and funding) was inappropriate.
The Bush complaints were typical political sparring, the Obama complaints are much deeper, and I think highlight the way discourse has changed.
Regardless of the subject (School speech, health care debate, birth certificate, etc.) one side seems to be quite comfortable using the techniques of fear and falsehood to try to gain an upper hand. It’s about winning at any cost. And this is happening in an organized fashion from the party thought leaders.
I would submit that one would be hard pressed to find the same model of techniques being used by the other side in our recent past.
Why is the hysterical fringe given any voice at all when such important national matters require rational discourse and the very best information?
Who gives the fringe a voice?
And the timing - it wasn’t that Bush was talking to schoolkids, it’s that Bush was giving a televised speech on the public dime in the run-up to a re-election campaign (late 1991).
A libertarian is a liberal who got mugged, then arrested when he reported the mugging for having a dime bag of pot.
An anarchist is the libertarian, above, after he finds out his insurance has been cancelled.
Except we’re not. The President wants to give a choice. The Right wants to prevent choice.
Don’t you get tired of having to repeat yourself?
Let’s try some more. But Johnny, this is all a scheme. The government “option” will force private insurers out of business, leaving you with government controlled health care only. The government funded program will be so horrible, that it will force the competition out of business. Respond to that!