The American Spectator

Big J| 8.12.09 @ 6:58AM

Mr. Lord,

Thanks for exposing these right-wing extremists (who are obviously organized by the insurance companies and riled up by talk radio) for who they really are - normal, everyday, average Americans, concerned for the future of our country.

Prior to April 15th, I had never attended a protest. I thought protest were for the Code Pinks and 9/11 truther's of the world. I was shocked to meet so many "normal" people. They were off-duty police officers, firemen, business men and women, stay at home moms, and small business owners just like me. No one pushed or shoved. When one bumped into another, they said "excuse me". We said a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Whatever the radicals that wish to "transform this country" say about us, we are ABSOLUTELY American. We are exercising our right to free speech, peaceful assembly, and our right to demand those that represent US (We The People) actually do their job.

And they just can't stand it. They want us to sit down, shut up and go along to get along.

Screw that!

log in or register to reply

Kitty| 8.12.09 @ 7:04AM

"Policies that however well-intended..."

There is nothing about Obama's plans for America, health care or otherwise, that is "well-intended." It's all about control and power.

...

log in or register to reply

Becky| 8.12.09 @ 8:01AM

Fox News cut into it live, followed almost all of it, and it was fascinating. Those people seemed just like the citizen from my community. They were certainly well prepared with notes, etc.

Obama is so silly at times. He talked about Fed EX and UPS being just fine, but the US postal service being a mess. Was it a slip? Or did he realize what he said and how it transfers to the health industry? And he wonders why it is such a hard sell.

log in or register to reply

Melvin| 8.12.09 @ 8:01AM

I think the larger issue here is not so much about Health Care Reform. The Health Care Reform Bill is really the spark that lit the fuse of a deep seated anger and distrust of government.
Not just the Federal Government, but all the way down to the state and local level. This anger that we are seeing from the media has been coalescing for a very long time, and if I was to wager since Bill Clinton was President.
Beltway politicians, who feel that they are full of suave diplomatic, elitist gravitas are totally aghast at the blast furnace heat that they faced at various town hall meetings.
Once again the polls, and the media have seriously misjudged or ignored many Americans, and its really ironic that two percent of the population that makes up Liberalism is trying to cram their agenda down the other 98% percent who want nothing to do with their fascist agenda.
This is one of the reasons that Nancy Pelosi looks like a stomped on Bullfrog when she faces the cameras, she hadn't a clue that 98% of Americans felt this way.
Someone needs to whisper into Ms. Pelosi's ear, that this Republic isn't the European Union, and Americans will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way.
"So Ms. Pelosi, you can take your suave diplomatic, elitist gravitas, sorry butt back to European Union and ask your EU masters, "What did I do wrong?"

log in or register to reply

Robert S. Rosencrans| 8.12.09 @ 8:05AM

The citizens were well informed and made good remarks. The classic was the lady (I think her name was Kim) reading directly from the bill and Spector dismissing what she read as a rumor.

These members of Congress should be ashamed of themselves for they way they are acting towards the public, but the fact that they could put forth such a bill and lie about it everyday shows they have no shame left. Scoundrels!

log in or register to reply

Tim| 8.12.09 @ 8:31AM

Here's one argument I've had some success presenting to Obamacare fence sitters in response to the leftist slogan; "Healthcare is a basic human right!"
Is it? Or is it a by product of our technological civilization?
People who actually own businesses know that they cannot hand out goods and services to all comers, including people from foreign nations who show up for a freebie.
Try going to the gas station and demanding free gas because you have a basic right. Try demanding free electricity. Try telling the government that owning property is a basic human right and thus cannot be taxed.

No, free healthcare is a government program, funded by taxes. No different from the the DMV or the zoning department. Once government runs it it will be staffed with disinterested union workers putting in their 40 hours, using product of the lowest bidder tools.

log in or register to reply

Bob| 8.12.09 @ 8:41AM

Let's see... here is what you said, Lord:

"She listened to Glenn Beck and "all of 580" --local jargon for the WHP radio affiliate that carries Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Someone else mentioned Mark Levin. But she wasn't out here to please a voice on the radio. She was here because she was mad. This was about her country, her health care, not about Fox News. "

So she hears about death panels, nazi's, racism, and she isn't affected? Does she listen to both sides? Beck was talking about how the health care plan is a Nazi plot. And besides, you fail to correct the statement that Pelosi called anyone a Nazi -- she didn't.

But then again, Lord, you are not about facts, you just wish to stoke the flames -- and in that sense, you are just like Beck.

The fact is that you, Beck, Hannity, Rush, etc., may get ratings among the already converted, but you hurt the Republican party because the mass of people will see you as right wing extremists.

You may want fiscally conservative, socially moderate people like me, Colin Powell, Frum, Brooks, Parker, etc., out of the party, but you don't have the votes to win without us.

I was at a party the other night with many of the friends I had in business. We are almost all Republicans and you, and others, make us ashamed to be affiliated with the party. You need to debunk the misstatements about the health care debate and concentrate on the true problem, we cannot afford unbridled health care for everyone. Furthermore, it is just dumb to oppose the many parts of the legislation upon which Republicans agree. You hear nothing on the pages of AmSpec and other right wing blogs that talk about the good portions of the bill.

This type of partisan hacking, attached to the racial comments, the hate against Sotomayor, and other actions which alienate the majority of the electorate, will not bring the Republican party back into control. And that is a loss for all of us since the baby of fiscal conservatism will be thrown out with the bathwater.

log in or register to reply

Louis Jenkins| 8.12.09 @ 8:47AM

Notice that Snarlin Arlin is looking at his watch in the picture. What message does this infer? I remember a presidential candidate that did the same and the newsmedia had a hey day.

"...poised to enact health care policies that are both distinctly un-brotherly and absent of love. " There is no love to be found in our government, and more importantly, no respect for opposing views.

log in or register to reply

Solo| 8.12.09 @ 8:56AM

The disconnect between what we are seeing on the news (and web) and the democrat party narrative we are hearing about these events is staggering.

Does the casual observer watching the news after a busy day at work consciously recognize the difference between citizens carrying home-made signs in protest of ObamaCare and those in support appearing on cue with professionally produced signs?

Does he/she notice that the democrat narrative describing these events does not match this imagery?

I think that, even if on a sub-conscious level, the electorate is slowly becoming more aware. More aware that they are being lied to and that those lies can carry consequences that will affect their lives in a very personal way.

If these feckless, lying democrats think the Town Halls are crowded-just wait until they see the "Mobs" at the polling places come next November.

log in or register to reply

Solo| 8.12.09 @ 9:21AM

"Bob" wrote:

"So she hears about death panels, nazi's, racism, and she isn't affected? Does she listen to both sides? Beck was talking about how the health care plan is a Nazi plot. And besides, you fail to correct the statement that Pelosi called anyone a Nazi -- she didn't. "

OMG, that's funny!

Glenn Beck NEVER said that health care reform was a "Nazi plot". EVER.

Funny how you jump to defend Nancy Pelosi against someone 'parsing' her words while you parse Glenn Beck's!

You're the most guilty of the very thing you are arguing against.

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 9:21AM

I can only echo Kitty's comment - there is NOTHING well-intended about this arrogation of power.

And yes, they are scoundrels. Moreover, their attitude toward the genuine hue and cry that emanates from ordinary Americans shows their utter contempt for us - and in a week when they're ordering up private jets.

We are nothing but grist in the power mill to these crooks.

I long for the days when soundrels were tarred and feathered and then ridden out of town on a rail.

If we still lived in those times, at least the tar, feather and rail industries would be booming.

log in or register to reply

Bob| 8.12.09 @ 9:27AM

Actually, Solo, Beck put the whole Nazi plot on his blackboard yesterday by comparing the health care plan with Nazi actions -- I watched it. Perhaps you should search for the truth before you post.

log in or register to reply

Robert Rosencrans| 8.12.09 @ 9:42AM

In a search for the truth one must weigh carefully what is truth and what is a lie. I hate to make a linked post that runs this long, cut the article carefully documents Barack Obama's lies.

And lying is what dictators do when they consider themselves special and better then the public they represent. And lying is what dictators are capable of when the Fourth Estate fails to do it's job.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/30/obama-health-care-reform-opinions-columnists-public-option-medicare.html

But when it comes to health care reform, with every passing day, Obama seems less God and more demagogue, uttering not transcendental truths, but bald-faced lies. Here are the top five lies that His Awesomeness has told--the first two for no reason other than to get elected and the next three to sell socialized medicine to a wary nation.

Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he repeatedly ripped Hillary Clinton's plan for proposing one. "To force people to buy coverage," he insisted, "you've got to have a very harsh penalty." What will this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to garnish their wages?" he asked Hillary in one debate.

Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for "making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and making employers share in the cost."

But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do to those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health care approach: It is called Tony Soprano insurance.

Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast bulk--if not all--of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."

Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's allegations, McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator's plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.

In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in history.

Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector.

Ignoring the reality that Medicare--the government-funded program for the elderly--has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to model a government insurance plan--the so-called "public option"--after Medicare in order to control the country's rising health care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs and overhead than private plans--to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal coverage.

But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised Medicare's lax attitude on this front. "The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach," it noted on page 93.

In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin--not improve--even the functioning aspects of private plans.

Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.

Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with a public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more options--not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer monopoly. As I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking given that government programs such as Medicare have a history of controlling costs by underpaying providers, who make up the losses by charging private plans more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare will greatly increase this forced subsidy, eventually driving private plans out of business, even if that weren't Obama's intention.

But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided to run for office--and even during the initial days of his campaign--Obama repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer system. What's more, University of California, Berkeley Professor Jacob Hacker, who is a key influence on the Obama administration, is on tape explicitly boasting that a public plan is a means for creating a single-payer system. "It's not a Trojan horse," he quips, "it's just right there."

But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public plan that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field and without "feeding off the public trough" as Obama claims.

At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit government guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would lose coverage. This guarantee would artificially lower the plan's capital reserve requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private plans. What's more, it is simply not plausible to expect that the plan wouldn't receive any start-up subsidies or use the government's muscle to negotiate lower rates with providers. If it eschewed all these things, there would be no reason for it to exist--because it would be just like any other private plan.

Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.

Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run system wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront under private plans. This is complete nonsense.

The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out an old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact of life because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But there is a big difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and champagne every night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real. Genuine rationing occurs when someone else controls access--how much of a particular good I can consume.

By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a scale unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits over $1 billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will evaluate the relative merits of various treatments. That in itself wouldn't be so objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board will then "direct financing" toward approved, standardized treatments. In short, doctors will find it much harder to prescribe newer or non-standard treatments not yet deemed effective by health care bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines of the British system, where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a new miracle drug, until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified managed care plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison with this.

Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health care debate. It is high time he started showing some.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and writes a biweekly column for Forbes.

log in or register to reply

Dan| 8.12.09 @ 9:43AM

Sorry, Pelosi, were pissed and were not going to shutup!

log in or register to reply

Northern Rebel| 8.12.09 @ 9:43AM

As someone who worked in machine shops with Jewish concentration camp survivors for years, I'm not sure if I'm sad or glad they are not here to witness what they lived through, reappearing here in America.

Will we have to have the mark of Obama, to get health care?

log in or register to reply

Jeffrey Lord| 8.12.09 @ 9:49AM

Bob...

I don't even know where to begin this is so ridiculously off base. I spent hours yesterday walking around talking to regular people. You should know that I have spent considerable time in this state talking to people like this. As a "yout" working for a US Senator I would help set up town meetings. It is very difficult to get people in these rooms in August - unless they are overwhelmingly upset about X. I know false crowds from real ones.

I specifically asked if anyone sent them. To a person they ridiculed the idea. A number of these people had copies - well marked up copies - of the bill in their hand.

Your resistance to opposing racism, to sticking to the principles of the GOP - of continuing to steer this country towards a colorblind America - is absolutely amazing. How many of your business friends were black, Latino or other, Bob? How many belong to all white country clubs? You guys have got to shake the intellectual cobwebs out of your head. When Democrats specifically oppose putting a Latino on the Court because he is - and I quote directly - "Latino" - this is continuing a racist thread that they have believed in from the get go. Bob, truly, my friend, the elitist, tip-the-minority-waiter $5 bucks and say "I've always supported you people" is a non-seller. "Minorities" are no different than you or me. We have to stick with equal rights and equal treatment - because it is right, even if it loses votes, as it always does somewhere. There is no point "winning" an election to hold office. Than what? Tried and tried again. And it fails.

"Socially moderate" - this is the biggest joke going. This is another term for being acceptable to the country club admissions committee. It is neither "moderate" (judging people by skin color, Bob, is not "moderate") nor right nor, brace yourself, Republican. We are the party of civil rights, those who opposed slavery, segregation, lynching (ever read those old party platforms Bob? You should!)...freedom, individual rights, the free market etc.

Bob..I love you..you're surely a great guy and a good citizen. But if you ran your business like you think politically you couldn't sell a lemonade on a hot day. Get out of the country club...read the legislation...talk to people outside your own social circle. These people yesterday are living real lives - they owned businesses, held private sector jobs, lots of them don't have time to listen to talk radio or TV because...yes..they work, have families to raise etc. They took time off to be there because they do not want any more government in their lives, are looking at the price tag, think they are overtaxed as is, believe - like you - in fiscal conservatism - and much less do they want some bureaucrat telling them that someone from the government should be counseling them on the end of their life. (That's in the bill, Bob.)

And last...you seem oblivious that "fiscal conservativism" is what had so many of these people upset. A trillion bucks? Are you kidding? One woman said to me "we're told we need to pay more for quality teachers - but less for quality health care? Somebody is lying."

Bob...get out. Talk radio and Fox News (which, by the way, are killing their competition, but that's another story) are not the world. The people outside (not to mention inside) Arlen's meeting yesterday were not - are not - automatons. They are sick of paying for all this - and you, for one, if you really believe what you say, should be damn pleased they were out there.

And last, Bob. When the President talks about cutting costs - how exactly is he going to do this if this doesn't include withdrawing care from someone? Why in the world is the federal government getting into the business of advising people on end of life care?

And so on.

Thanks for venting, though!

log in or register to reply

Joe| 8.12.09 @ 9:49AM

BOB, just shut up and sit down. Oh, that is what the Obama thugs are saying. You kooks on the other side who trust these socialist need to wake up and get your head out of the sand.

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 9:50AM

Bob, I say this because I care:

Your raison d'etre isn't "reason" or "moderation" or striving to bring "objectivity" to us Neanderthal "right wingers."

Your raison d'etre is a strong emotional need to be above everyone and to lord what you mistakenly perceive as your superiority over people who, much to your consternation, refuse to bow before your "obvious" impartial omniscience.

You soooo badly want to gain the imprimatur of legitimacy by provoking one of the authors on this site into a dialogue that will validate what you think is your rightfully elevated position above we-the-rabble.

At bottom, it's actually a fairly banal adolescent emotional itch you want scratched.

And it is painfully obvious to we-the-rabble that you are as tendentious and ideological as anyone else; your ideology just leans a different way. You cannot escape the human condition, and you cannot convince anyone on this site that you have done so.

You don't seem to realize that you do not have a monopoly on The Truth or that "right wingers" often have valid points even if they're strident (and they will NEVER be as strident as the Alinsky-ized left - NEVER) or inarticulate or aren't as ready to silence folks with charts and graphs that are, themselves, tendentious, imperfect representations of a truth no one can ever fully grasp.

Additionally, you know what's pissing people off? It's what's IN THE BILL. And the fact that these lunkheads in congress don't even read the bills.

This entire episode has revealed the fact that these behemoth bills are written by armies of faceless staffers whose purview extends exactly as far as to where their own bread is buttered and no further.

Anyone who believes Obama and his minions' out-and-out whoppers on this topic is either corrupt or too damn stupid to operate any kind of machinery. People are outraged because outrage is what this travesty has justifiably earned.

Don't you realize that by your perpetual posturing as being the sole voice of reason on this site you are merely demonstrating what is obviously an overwhelming and pretty callow emotional need?

I'm guessing you feel irrelevant in your analog life, and this is your way of telling yourself you have what it takes to control the universe.

But the TRUTH is, your posts have NOTHING to do with what's going on and everything to do with your need to feel powerful. To feel you still MATTER.

In other words, the primal plaintive wail bleeds through your ostensibly unemotional mask and reveals an intellectual cuckold.

Sorry, mate. But you know it's true.

log in or register to reply

Big J| 8.12.09 @ 9:58AM

Mr. Lord and Grzmlyk:

Wow. Fantastic job calling Bob out for who he really is. I'm impressed, but have one correction for Mr. Lord:

Bob has never, nor does he own his own business.

Just thought I would let you know.

log in or register to reply

Informed Observer| 8.12.09 @ 10:05AM

Whoa back Bob; your poor reading comprehension is showing. Solo is correct in what he said.
Beck comparing the current administrations actions to historical fascist actions doesn't call anyone a Nazi. In fact it's a long way from Pelosi's "Brown Shirts" remark, which was not offered as a comparative analysis, but simply a derogatory label for anyone who disagrees with her.

log in or register to reply

John Navratil| 8.12.09 @ 10:05AM

Bob,

I take you at your word that you are a fiscally conservative, social moderate. Nothing wrong with that. Add a touch of anti-authoritarian to that and a drop or two more of social conservatism and you might well describe me.

I do think you should not be ashamed to be affiliated with the party, just as I think those more socially conservative should not be ashamed to have you in it. The undercurrent to your comment is that those who listen to Glenn Beck, et al, should not associate with the GOP. Is that how you feel? Do you really think that those who listen have no independent thoughts of there own? Could it be, that just a liberals read the Times and listen to NPR that they are simply associating with those of like beliefs? In fact, don't Beck, et al, exist precisely because they attract an audience? I'll bet Pelosi doesn't listen. In fact, I don't either, but not because I disagree with their message.

On the other hand, these people don't control the party; often to their discontent. If you think these protests are ginned up by Beck, et al, who no doubt support them, I think you give too much power to the media. If all it took was an excited media then the MSM would have us Socialist by now. NPR isn't exactly a bastion of moderation either. If all it took was a little "community organizing", all the world would look like Chicago :)

Having watched this grow since the time of the divisive political era of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, my take is that the nation is about as ideologically split as it has ever been. Even the reports of red/blue divide (what a politically obtuse color assignment provided by the MSM, by the way) note the diminishing "purple". The electorate is as excited as I have ever seen, as well.

There is a way forward for you however. In the 60's, conservative Democrats defected, en masse, to the Republicans because the party had been hijacked by the left and set about, with Wm. F. Buckley's "National Review" to purge the John-Bircher's and other "whack jobs". You could split from the Republicans for similar principals and reclaim the Democrat party. Of course, at the time, the Republican party was more of a shell thus you would have more of a challenge. If, as you seem to claim, the country is more "center" than the current GOP with all its "Astroturf", you will be banishing the Republicans to the hinterlands for another generation and returning the Democrats to the center. How can you lose?

log in or register to reply

Bilwick| 8.12.09 @ 10:07AM

I was reading on one of the other "wingnut" (i.e., pro-freedom) websites how George Soros is spending millions, if not billions, to help his boy "Il Dufe" get his health-care plan passed. You might think, "Why doesn't Soros just use all that money to buy people a nice Blue Cross package?" That's similar to what I think when I heard about Soros and all the other "limousine liberals" pouring billions into the Obama campaign: "Why don't they just give all that money to poor people--buy them modest homes, food, etc.--instead of to politicians?" The answer is simple: power and coercion, not amelioration, is what "liberals" actually get off on.

log in or register to reply

Steve| 8.12.09 @ 10:15AM

Hello Bob!! Long time no talk.

"I was at a party the other night with many of the friends I had in business. We are almost all Republicans and you, and others, make us ashamed to be affiliated with the party. "

Yeah, I was at a party the other night with my business friends -- all of whom are Republicans -- and we repeatedly expressed our shame at being affiliated with party that included simpering, compromising Northeast RINOs.

Will the Republican party go the way of the Whigs? Who knows? Bob, you assert that the Republicans can't win without the moderates; the Republicans ran a moderate (McCain) and lost. And correct me if I'm wrong -- I believe you joined a number of "moderate" Repubs in voting for Obama. So much for moderate solidarity. Yes, the moderates are such a reliable voting bloc.

But there is NO doubt, Bob, that the Republican party is toast without the great unwashed, the people the Northeast RINOs so badly disdain and despise. Around which group can a viable political entity coalesce; a handful of unreliable moderates or a vast group of reliable conservatives, however declasse they may be?

If I was to bet on who wins the struggle for control of the Republican Party -- the moderates or the unwashed -- I'll bet on the unwashed. They've got the numbers. And they're reliable.

Does the current confronting of naked statism by an angry citizenry make you uncomfortable, Bob? Ah, democracy!! You gotta love it, my brother.

log in or register to reply

Ryan| 8.12.09 @ 10:23AM

Hey Bob,

Don't worry, I won't be as harsh.

I DO take issue with one statement you made, "You hear nothing on the pages of AmSpec and other right wing blogs that talk about the good portions of the bill."

The problem here is that it almost doesn't matter WHAT good portions of the bill exist. It's still further government intrusion into health care without seeking free-market alternatives first. The principle of the bill is bad - bigger government - and it doesn't matter what gets attached to it. That's my biggest beef with the whole thing - not the over-simplified complaints of a maybe bill that hasn't gone to the floor yet. It's simply that it's bigger government.

I DO, in a sense, agree with you about Glenn Beck, but in a different manner. Beck is supposed to be taken with a grain of salt on both sides...or at least he was before he moved over to Foxnews. It looks like he's edging more toward being a funny O'Reilly (who I NEVER liked).

log in or register to reply

2Anglico| 8.12.09 @ 10:26AM

Bob: Pelosi DID say people were showing up at town halls with Swastikas and "other symbols like that". SHE started the Nazi comparisons. So Bob, why don't you bone up on history and examine the policies of the "NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY"? You will see striking BIG GOVERNMENT similarities to the donkey party's plans. Like cradle to grave nanny care. The Nazis were LEFT WING SOCIALISTS. This health abomination from the house is about CONTROL.

log in or register to reply

Tim| 8.12.09 @ 10:29AM

Bob if you're ashamed of us why do you keep coming back? I don't waste my time lecturing at blogs I politically disagree with.

log in or register to reply

Bob| 8.12.09 @ 10:31AM

Jeffrey, your assumption that I believe these are "false crowds" shows your bias. These crowds are a result of the distribution of false information and the contentiousness between the extreme right and extreme left. I actually listened to these town halls and at least half of the comments related to untrue statements propagated by the Becks and Limbaugh's of the world. We've got as divided an electorate as I've seen since the Vietnam war. We have a media that is split between right wing and left wing channels that stoke the flames of dissension by using "commentators" rather than news people. The electorate no longer gets objective news.

Regarding media, your expertise is in politics but I've spent much of my career placing media. In media, you measure programs basis reach and frequency. Fox News has limited reach but extremely high frequency, hence, the high ratings. The same is true for Limbaugh. In fact, Limbaugh reaches only 4.2% of the population at maximum. It is the frequency that makes those programs good for advertisers. Your argument here is a weak one.

Actually, Lord, a number of my business friends are minorities. How many of yours are minorities. Certainly they are, most likely, not Republicans. The racial issue with Sotomayor has nothing to with why YOU might disagree with her statements. It has to do with getting elected. Just as those people who attend town halls easily believe the lies they are told, Hispanics will believe that YOU are a racist whether it is true or not. I don't believe you are a racist in your own mind, but this will be played and will be a detriment to getting Republicans elected.

And Lord, Republicans are no longer the party of civil rights. They used to be, but if they were truly the party of civil rights, you'd see a high percentage of black and Hispanic Republicans -- you don't. The proof is in the final result, not the rhetoric.

Socially moderate? Yeah, I hate that term. I am libertarian when it comes to social issues. We should keep religious views out of the private lives of people when it comes to either abortion or gay marriage. I don't want government limiting me -- which is consistent with my positions as a fiscal conservative.

And let's get this straight -- I want people complaining with some level of intelligence about the spending in the health care bill. My point is that it hurts fiscal conservatism to have so many bogus scare tactics pushing the story. The story should be one of fiscal responsibility, not death panels.

By the way, I've read the House bill and the end-of-life counseling is just a payment scheme and not mandated as you seem to think it is.

Again, health care costs too much in this country and it is making us uncompetitive. I'm worried much more about health care moving manufacturing jobs overseas than I am about specific provisions. To me, this is about jobs -- because of we have a growing and prosperous society, then health care would not be a huge issue. That's why I am against cap-and-trade legislation and believe strongly in supporting more nuclear power. That's why I want incentives -- either through tax cuts, subsidies, or spending -- out of all legislation so the function of government is limited.

Last point, if you are against health care reform, you should be against Medicare. Medicare is bleeding us dry and it will just get worse. Rationing will occur in the future whether we have a health care bill or not -- and you know it. We cannot afford the current track. We need to reform health care -- and in that respect, Obama is right. But we need to concentrate on a rational way to get it done that will reduce Medicare costs and reduce the burden on business. People complaining about death panels only make this more difficult.

And by the way, I was successful in business because I recognized facts and did not take an ideological position. The kiss of death in a business plan is to rely on ideology -- and not market analysis, the creative process, and strong proformas.

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 10:36AM

Ryan, just to follow on, I simply cannot stomach Glenn Beck. Literally. I try to watch/listen and seldom make it past 90 seconds.

But I think he takes himself quite seriously; he just calculates that being a "rodeo clown" is the most efficacious way for him to get his message across.

I actually think a lot of his content is valid - I just cannot stand his brand of relentless, ostentatious, obnoxious emotional exhibitionism. His narcissism approaches that of Obama.

And O'Reilly is proof that ANYONE can make millions in America - even absolute idiots like O'Reilly (who is NO conservative, by the way). Oy.

I think all of Fox News has to be taken with a giant grain of salt. Kosher salt!

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 11:08AM

Note how Bob got Jeffrey Lord's attention (his REAL goal) and now ignores the myriad other posts. See? He's gotten the "teacher" to notice him and that is what he is after. That is ALL he is after. That makes him "somebody." Which, when you think about it, is pretty pathetic. Again, sorry, Bob. But it is.

He has actually convinced himself that he and he alone is objective, dispassionate and reasoned and is sooo far above we-the-rabble. His every post drips with this self-satisfaction (which is in fact a cry for attention).

Because if he is truly a paragon of reason, why does he assiduously angle for the attention of someone he perceives as beneath him? How reasonable is that? How dispassionate is that?

Isn't that a methodology that fairly reeks of emotional need (and, again, fairly immature emotional need at that) ?

It doesn't take a genius like Bob to figure out what he's really all about. The reason the old Comedia dell'Arte theater was so devastatingly farcical was because the cuckold always thought he was the master of his household, when in fact, everyone in the household but him knew it was he who was the fool.

Again, it's a hard sell when the class clown begs for the teacher's attention by shouting him down with rants of how superior his mature, reasoned and unideological viewpoint is! His very effort to usurp authority serves only to reinforce it.

He reminds me of the man who was so intent on proving to his girlfriend that he is not violent that he beat her until she ceded the point.

log in or register to reply

John| 8.12.09 @ 11:10AM

Bob:
You are a left wing kool-aid drinker and you contribute nothing of any value to the discussions posted on this site. Go read the daily kos if that is your thing. Let's get one fact straight right now: The conservatives are intellectually honest while the liberals are NOT! How so you say? When a Republican strays from his conservative values, he gets hammered by conservatives (in addition to the usual 24/7/365 carping from the left) for his mistakes. However, one NEVER hears the so-called left wing media or philosophers criticize one of their own Liberal/Democrats (think Lanny Davis and his defense of Bill Clinton's reckless behavior). There is a difference between the hate-spewing, lying left wing propaganda sites, and the thoughtful, fact-pursuing conservative sites. Go home to your daily kos base Bob!

log in or register to reply

Pete| 8.12.09 @ 11:19AM

In case anyone is counting, this is a new one for Bob (at least that I have seen): "Regarding media, your expertise is in politics but I've spent much of my career placing media." I think we are up to at least 6 different indistries where Bob was an executive and therefore knows more than you and I. Tough to argue with that, eh?

log in or register to reply

Sue| 8.12.09 @ 11:20AM

Bob, I'm not a right wing extremist and I'm very much concerned about the Country. I listen to Rush, (have for 19 years now), but he didn't influence my conservative beliefs. As a matter of fact, he's not as conservative as I am and sometimes I turn him off because of it. I'm also not a "stick my head" in the sand conservative who denies that real issues exist and government can't play a role in solving problems. The last 65- plus years, though, government has not been interested in solving problems; the politicos have been interested in building a power base/structure that will dole out the resources of this Country to their political cronies thereby keeping themselves in power. Now that they have bankrupted the Country through their malodorous activities, they are asking us to "just take a pill" and everything will be okay.

The facts are, I have read H.R. 3200 and am greatly concerned that 27 persons get to decide what level of coverages I can purchase in the "free markets." Then, I continued to read it and found out that not only will they dictate the level of coverage, they will dictate the "price" I pay for this coverage. And, if that's not bad enough, for a "free market capitalist pig like me," I discovered that they will calculate some "ratio of expense paid out" and if the insurers don't meet this, fine them and/or require the money to be rebated! Now, I continued to read and discovered that yes, we can keep our current policies, etc., but guess what? The reserves on these policies will be depleted and then where will we go? The insurance companies will be prohibited from raising premium prices above a certain level.

It seems to me I remember Nixon placing price controls on healthcare in the early '70s and by the time he had finished "messing" with the markets, my single plan costs went from $23.00 per month to $40 per month in two years time.

The fact is this bill is intended to remake the insurance makers/providers into quasi-utility companies with the government controlling the products and the marketing. Yes, it's a slick snake oil salesman that gets this bait and switch passed.

Now, one thing can be said about "older" people, they have the smarts of experience, the critical thinking skills of a genius, and the survivor instincts of a lion. This, honey, is snake oil. I have read the Emanuel paper about "lives" and the scarce allocation of resources and am greatly concerned. Concerned mostly because no one should trust their government to do the morally right thing. The government is in the position of power and want to stay in power and they (whether they be the elites of the 1930s or the elites of the 2010s) will do anything to do this.

I'm also not too keen on having an unelected Health Care Commissioner appointed by the president to decide the cost/comparative effectiveness of coverages for my family and me.

I'm also not too keen to give up my rights of medical appeals - which I didn't see any judiciary involvement in this bill. Of course, from a government perspective, appeals couldn't possibly be done timely anyway, so why allow for them.

Americans have real concerns about this bill and their concerns should be addressed. We all know that spending has to be brought under control and we all know that entitlement spending especially has to be brought under control.

The government gives out billions of dollars on EITC to unwed mothers to raise them out of poverty. The government spends billions of dollars on medicaid/s-chip care for children and unwed mothers. But the government asks nothing of these people. The EITC monies do not go to purchase insurance in the free market because the government gives them free medical care; the EITC monies don't go to purchase food in the free-market because the government gives them food stamps; the EITC monies don't go to purchase houseing because the government gives them free housing. What society can continue to afford transferring "cash payments" to another segment of society, provide government programs for their "needs" and they get to spend their disposable income on their "wants?"

This is the real issue behine the government take over of health care. They want control and power. They don't want solutions. If they did, we would be having a debate about privatizing medicaid/medicare and free markets and true competition, not some government contrived "free market" as we all know that's a falsity because they are the primary purchasers now of health care resources (as well as the allocators).

So, I'll don my pink hat and my sign and attend my Congressman's town hall meetings and I'll thank you to not think that Mr. Beck, Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Hannity, and persons like them, put me up to it.

The least you can do is respect me for that.

log in or register to reply

Bilwick| 8.12.09 @ 11:22AM

I can well understand Republicans being ashamed of their party. It's full of panty-waist "me-tooers" and "Uncle Daves" (Brooks, Frum, et al--the tame "house" conservatives who love their Massa
'Bama and don't want themselves associated with "uppity" conservatives who threaten the Plantation.) With the Republicans you get moderate State-shtupping. At least with "Il Dufe" and his liberal fascists, the Mailed Fist is out in the open.

log in or register to reply

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.12.09 @ 11:24AM

Grzmlyk: Could you do me a favor Pal?,.. if you’re going to keep using these “Big” words?,.. that you obviously like to use a lot!!,.. like?: raison d'etre?, consternation?, imprimatur?, risible?, purview?, tendentious chimera?,.. could you do me one little favor?,.. and use them this way?,.. “It is risible (to provoke laughter) on its face”,.. I’m only asking this of you?,.. because it takes me twice as long to read your comments,.. for the fact that I have to keep looking all these words up in my dictionary,.. not that I don’t want to learn something new everyday?,.. that’s okay?,.. I don’t mind that at all!!,.. but?,.. I don’t want to have to learn something new every sentence!!,.. so could you just adjust fire a little bit?,.. but?,.. if I interpreted your comments correctly?,.. I think you were trying to tell Bob?,.. to stop being a pompous Ass!!,.. is that about right?

log in or register to reply

stephanie| 8.12.09 @ 11:37AM

Dear Bob,
Please give us the "good parts" of the bill. I truely would like to read them.
And as for Sotomayor, she is the one who hates with her racist and sense of entitlement attitudes.
I don't hater her. I don't think she can judge fairly with the "richness of her experience".

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 11:37AM

Lullabys, etc:

Guilty as charged. I'm a some-time professional writer, so I guess I "overcraft."

You are justified if you are tempted to defenistrate me (throw me out the window).

Yes, a less flowery way to say it would be, "Bob, get off you figgin' high horse. You swim in the same water as the rest of us."

:-)

log in or register to reply

gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com| 8.12.09 @ 11:39AM

Everyone can safely ignore anything Bob says. He admitted recently in another American Spectator commentary section that he establishes facts by analyzing unproven data, drawing his own conclusions, then asserting that his conclusions are themselves facts, simply on his say-so. He practically admitted that Social Security and Medicare prove how wonderful obumahcare will be. A laughable assertion at best. He may think he’s a republi-con, and based on the low standards set by colon bowel and john-boy mc-coin, maybe he is. But he is not a person I want to be associated with as he is just another d n c troll, but then I am not a republi-con, so if they want him, they can have him.

Yes, the sleeping giant has been awakened. His name is Atlas. He is about to shrug.

And for the benefit of all you psychophantic remoras out there just waiting to snitch on me to your nazi shark masters, I am Gill O’Teen ??, (gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com). Don’t Tread on Me!!

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 11:43AM

Pete:

Nice catch.

Yes, not only did Bob run IBM, Chrysler, Procter & Gamble, Apple Computer, Liberty Mutual Insurance and ABC, NBC, PBS and Universal Studios, he was also Chief Consultant on God's Earth Project.

If it hadn't been for Bob and his objective charts and statistics, it would have taken God at least three weeks to create the heavens and the earth, etc.

Creation: Brought to you through the beneficence of Bob.

log in or register to reply

Tony in Central PA| 8.12.09 @ 11:47AM

Kudos to Melvin for his " stomped - on bullfrog " description of Nancy Pelosi's facial expression. I had been using the term " wax - faced bewilderment ", but I think I'll now go with " stomped - on bullfrog ".
I will give Specter the credit for facing the voters. His ideas and ideology stink, but I'll at least give him the credit for doing the " Short Straw Tour ' 09 " for this Administration's rotten bill.

log in or register to reply

J.C.Eaton| 8.12.09 @ 11:53AM

LLL, lighten up on our very good friend Grzmylk. He uses the vocabulary he does because he repects his audience....something the supercillious Bob, does not. Best,

log in or register to reply

Dave| 8.12.09 @ 11:55AM

Bob,

If you have read the bill and are a social liberatarian and fiscally conservative, why don't these provisions in the House bill disturb you?

These are direct excerpts from the House version ....

Page 22: The federal government will be empowered to audit the books of any corporation that self-insures.

Page 29, Lines 4-16: All health care will be rationed based on age, the present health of any patient and the availability of health services and supplies.

Page 30, Sections 123: A government committee will decide what treatments or benefits will be made available under the health care that will be provided. It will be illegal to provide any medical benefits to
anyone that haven't been pre-approved by the committee.

Page 42: A Health Choices Commissioner will be appointed by the President and will choose what health services will be provided to each patient.

Page 50, Section 152: Healthcare will be provided to all Non-U.S. citizens within the borders of the United States , illegal or otherwise.

Page 58: The Health Choices Commissioner's Office will have real time access to every medical patient's financial records and all citizens will be issued and be required to have on their person at all times a National ID Health card.

Page 59: (Continuation of Page 58) The Government will have direct access to all bank accounts and electronic transfer accounts of patients.

Page 65, Section 164: Subsidization for retirees of Unions and groups like ACORN

Page 72, Lines 8-14: Brings all health care HMO and private insurance plans under government control.

Page 84: Section 203: All benefit packages for private health care plans will be under the control of the government.

Page 85, Line 7: The Health Choices Commissioner will specify what benefits will be allowable under private health care plans.

Page 95: Community Action Groups (ACORN and Americorps) will be authorized to sign up citizens for the Government Health Care Plan.

Page 102, Lines 12-18: All Medicaid eligible recipients will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. They will have no "choice."

Page 124, Lines 24-25: All government suppliers and contractors are exempt from price fixing lawsuits. "Judicial Review" is prohibited.

Page 127, Lines 1-16: The government will set salaries for all doctors.

Page 145, Lines 15-17: An employer will be required to automatically enroll all employees in the public option plan. The employee will not have any choice in the matter.

Page 146, Lines 22-25: Employers must pay for the health care for any part-time employees AND their families.

Page 149, Lines 16-24: Any employer with a payroll of $400,000 or more who does not provide a public option, will be required to pay the government 8% surtax on the payroll.

Page 150, Lines 9-13: Any employer with a payroll between $251,000 and $400,000 who doesn't provide a public option will be required to pay a 6% surtax on their payroll.

Page 170, Lines 1-3: Any non-resident Alien is EXEMPT from individual health care taxes.

Page 195: All officers and employees of the Health Care administration will have unlimited access to the financial and personal records of ALL American citizens without the necessity of a search warrant.

Page 203, Lines 13-18: (The following is a direct quote!) "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as a tax." (Presumably therefore it cannot be deducted on income tax returns)

Page 239, Lines 14-24: The government will reduce physician services for Medicaid, thereby rationing medical support for the poor.

Page 241, Lines 6-8: All doctors will be paid equally, with no regard to speciality of training required.

Page 253, Lines 10-18: The Health Care administration will decide the value of the time of physicians, professional judgment, etc.

Page 265 Section 1131: The Health Care administration will control and mandate productivity for private health care industries, nursing services, hospice, retirement centers, drug production, etc.

Page 268, Section 1141: The Health Care administration will regulate the rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

Page 272, Section 1145: The Health Care administration will determine what treatment will be provided at Cancer hospitals and will ration treatment based on type and the classification of a patient.

Page 280, Section 1151: The government will penalize hospitals if they exceed their quota of "preventable readmissions."

Page 298, Lines 9-14: If doctors treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission to the hospital, the government will penalize the physician.

Page 317, Lines 1-20: The government will be authorized to tell physicians what they can own and how much, and can audit their personal records without a warrant.

Page 317, Lines 21-25 & Page 318, Lines 1-3: Hospitals will not be permitted to expand their physical facilities.

Page 321, Lines 2-13: Hospitals wanting to expand may appeal for an exception to the expansion rule, but community approval is required through community action agencies (ie: groups such as ACORN)

Page 341, Lines 3-9: The government has the authority to disqualify Medicare supplemental plans, HMO, private insurance plans, etc., which will force all citizens into the government plan.

Page 354, Section 1177: The government will restrict enrollment of "Special Needs" patients (ie: Downs Syndrome, Speech Therapy, handicapped, etc.)

Page 379, Section 1191: The government will create a Telehealth Advisory Committee which will provide health advice by phone.

Page 425, Lines 5-12: An "Advance Planning Care Consultant" Department will be created. Think 'End of Life' for Senior Citizens.

Page 425, Lines 22-25: (Page 426: Lines 1-3): The Government will provide a list of end of life resources that will guide senior citizens to their death.

Page 427, Lines 15-24: The government will mandate orders for end of life actions. In brief, the government will decide how life ends.

Page 429, Lines 1-9: An "Advance Care Planning Consultant" will be used more frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429, Lines 10-12: The "Advance Care Planning Consultant" will include the authority for "End of Life" plans, on an order from the government.

Page 429, Lines 13-25: The government will specify which doctors will have the authority to sign an "End of Life" Order.

Page 430, Lines 11-15: The government will decide what level of treatment patients will receive at the end of their lives.

Page 469: Medical services and nursing for home-based patients will be provided by "Community-based organizations." (groups such as ACORN)

Page 472, Lines 14-17: Such community based organizations will be paid by the government once each month based on the number of patients they serve. Such organizations will not be required to employ registered or practical nursing professionals.

Page 489, Section 1308: Marriages and divorces will be subject to government marriage and family therapy.

Page 494-498: All Mental Health Services will be provided by the government including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

Page 501, Lines 17-25: Title IV QUALITY, establishes a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research which will mandate "the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically." (i.e. Comparative Effectiveness is used in other national health programs to establish a cost base line for health care based on life expectancy. In other words, the older you are or the sicker you are, the less health care expenditure you can expect to receive.)

And this only the first draft, the Federal gvernment is notorious for incrementally tightening the screws over time.

log in or register to reply

Sue| 8.12.09 @ 11:56AM

One more time: If Congress has a choice between 3 top of the line Gulfstream jets for $500,000,000 or performing 1,000 life-saving stents/bypasses for anybody, elderly, middle-aged, young, which do you think the nut-jobs in Congress will pick?

log in or register to reply

Sue| 8.12.09 @ 12:02PM

Love your post Dave. That took a lot of time and effort. It's what we need. Get the information out and let people see for themselves how intrusive and onerous this bill is for each and every one of us.

Snake oil, I say sold under the emotive disguise of "don't you feel for the uninsured?"

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 12:09PM

Dave:

THANK YOU. You have provided a great service.

This really is beyond a travesty - this bill is CRIMINAL - it's institutionalized tyranny (which is why its the lynchpin for Obama's entire presidency).

log in or register to reply

solo| 8.12.09 @ 12:22PM

Bob Wrote:

"Actually, Solo, Beck put the whole Nazi plot on his blackboard yesterday by comparing the health care plan with Nazi actions -- I watched it. Perhaps you should search for the truth before you post. "

LOl! Let me tell you something you disingenuous asshat....You show me the quote where Glenn Beck stated that the Health Care legislation is a "Nazi Plot".

Until then, you'd better take your own advice and know the facts before you shoot off your fat mouth!

log in or register to reply

golden oldie| 8.12.09 @ 12:25PM

Obama swears he isn't for rationing healthcare to senior citizens, he says there will be no counsellors every 5 years who at some point will decide we won't live another 5 years so we'll just get pain pills until we die. If he didn't say that, then where did I hear it? I don't know how he can deny saying so much liberal junk and get away with it. His administration has said that the H1N1 shots will go to senior citizens last!!! This man is up to his eyebrows in a mish mash of stuff he has said and then denied he said it! We need a flow chart just to understand him. How he can render people spell bound is a mystery. Some hear him, others don't.

log in or register to reply

jeff| 8.12.09 @ 12:37PM

The anger seems to have moved past healthcare and into a general sense of being fed up with government and congress in general. All of these people have sat around the dinner table for years complaining about how washington does not listen and the little guy gets taken for a ride. But, they like me and many others have never been pushed enough to act until now. I think the anger is just starting to build. Before this is over ever middle class complaint about intrusive government, indifferent employees, shoddy road repairs, bad schools, run away home owners associations and all the rest will be aired.

log in or register to reply

Truth to Power| 8.12.09 @ 12:38PM

3/5 Bob is such the troll. I think too many take him at his word. Lets look at what 3/5 Bob says.

He likes Justice Sotomayor and calls racists those who couldn't support her because of her liberal record, racial double talk and unimpressive record. This is the tack taken by liberals. Confuse legitimate criticism with racism.

Why does he like her. She will make her view on gay marriage the law if she can. Some other justice beat her to abortion with regard to forcing the elite view on the public. 3/5 Bob always mentions abortion as well but again this was decided in 1972 by the Supreme Court and has been a side show since. Where does this end? An oligarchy? This again is the liberal view. Let unelected judges do the heavy lifting and force their elite view on the public. President Obama can claim he supports the definition of traditional marriage. Liberals know that he is winking and so does 3/5 Bob.

On fiscal matters, 3/5 Bob has proposed the idea that taxes can do no harm. As Grzmlyk pointed out there is a reason there are 70,000 pages in the tax code. It does have an effect and obviously the effect can and will be bad sometimes. Unintended consequences of elite actions are almost always bad since they don't have the right view of human nature. 3/5 Bob wants Republicans to be tax collectors for Democratic programs. Every once in a while a Republican will get elected. Republicans do the dirty work on taxes and liberals take the credit for give aways. If we follow this recipe we will have just one party in a hurry. This is a liberal fantasy.

3/5 Bob repeats every liberal lie about nazis, racists, etc. You will recognize what 3/5 Bob says because you can hear it from liberals in the media. It sounds just the same. He then insists on purity from all Republicans. This again looks like the liberal double standard. Again 3/5 Bob's actions are just as any liberal would do.

3/5 Bob is a liberal troll. I wouldn't believe any of his bio either. He is a creation of convenience by a not so clever mind. Would anybody really invite such a tedious gasbag to a party?

log in or register to reply

JeffW| 8.12.09 @ 12:46PM

Dave,

Wow, is all I can say. Well that and thanks for posting all those points. I learned several things new that turned my stomach.

And Grzmlyk,

You sir are a treat to read (even if I have to break out the dictionary).

Great article Mr. Lord.

log in or register to reply

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.12.09 @ 12:50PM

When the truth comes out, you will find out the White House is trolling this board and others.

log in or register to reply

Dave| 8.12.09 @ 12:55PM

Thanks, but I didn't do the heavy lifting. I did some minor editing after comparing it to the actual bill. You can use it to find those points in the bill.

log in or register to reply

louis tully| 8.12.09 @ 12:56PM

Jeffrey Lord, "What About Bob" is not a moderate, he just plays one on this site. He wouldn't be caught dead at a country club. He is an Axelturfer assigned to post leftist talking points at your blog while claiming to be a GOP centrist.

log in or register to reply

Tony in Central PA| 8.12.09 @ 1:01PM

Dave, where did you read about H.R. 3200 for those provisions you listed ? I went on both the Congress and Senate official sites. The bill has sections, not page numbers on both sites. I could not locate the provisions you posted here.

log in or register to reply

Dave| 8.12.09 @ 1:14PM

Here is the bill at OpenCongress.org

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show

log in or register to reply

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.12.09 @ 1:21PM

Grzmlyk for President: I wasn’t trying to be defenistrative (?) to you!!,.. as J.C.Eaton said!!,.. Damn!!,.. I hope I didn’t just conjugate (Grammar: to give the different forms of a verb) that verb wrong?,.. but oh well?,.. I’m just having a hard time keeping up,.. that’s all!!,.. no insult from me!!,.. and as you can tell by my over use of the comma and the period?,.. and the never ending run on sentence?,.. that I’m obviously no English Teacher,.. but all I was trying to say was?,… I think that maybe?,.. I may possible have agreed with you?,.. to some sort of various degree!!,.. or as you so politely put it?,.. get off you friggin’ high horse Bob!!,.. Yeah!!,. that’s what I’m talkin’ about!!,.. screw you Bob!!
From just another?,.. We the Rabble Mob!!

log in or register to reply

Bob| 8.12.09 @ 1:39PM

Dave, did you actually read the bill or did you just copy and paste this from a lobbyist based activist?

For example, here's what you said:

"Page 50, Section 152: Healthcare will be provided to all Non-U.S. citizens within the borders of the United States , illegal or otherwise. "

Here's what Section 152 actually says:

"SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

3
(a) In General- Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

(b) Implementation- To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."

Gee, Dave, if you could read you might be dangerous... I'm not going to go through each of your misstatements, but they are NOT quotes from the bill. I see from the responses, that there are a lot of lemmings here who don't check out the facts.

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 1:40PM

Lullabys:

No problemo whatsoever. I took your note in the spirit in which it was given. Absolutely no offense taken.

I know I can be guilty of guilding the lilly on occasion. It really does come from a love of words.

Jeffw: Thank you. This site does provide an outlet for me, since I live an a real world that is populated exclusively by liberals. I reveal myself at my mortal peril.

I felt so alone on election day as all of my peers and colleagues and even friends were drunk with self congratulation, so pleased with themselves that they were evolved to such a rarefied extent that they were able to pull the lever for - gasp - an African American. Nothing else mattered.

I pointed out to one (my girlfriend at the time and yes, that was the end of that) that I feared he was unqualified, a Chicago thug and an IDEALOGUE (capital letters for you, Bob). I think the last eight months have proven me right.

So this site is a nice respite from the Kool-Aid drinkers I have to associate with normally.

As for Bob, well, again, if you read his posts over a period of time (and I have), what you come up with is a hodge-podge, all-over-the-map stew of contradictory, contrarian diatribes and not a holistic, cogent philosophy of life (example: He doesn't mind government's overarching control over our lives, but he's against spending we can't pay for - huh?).

Above all, he believes he's the Chosen One: The sanctified high priest of objectivity. The hubris is absolutely amazing.

And yet, the few threads of coherent world-view I can piece together show me quite plainly that he's as much a reactionary idealogue as those he wants so badly to grind underfoot.

But, like the cuckold of Comedia dell'Arte, Bob will be the last to figure that out.

log in or register to reply

Sue| 8.12.09 @ 1:40PM

There is a Duke University professor who has analyzed the bill. Maybe we can find his analysis. It was everything I read. Trust but verify.

log in or register to reply

Bob| 8.12.09 @ 1:42PM

"Truth" is simply a liar. I said that tax cuts are not stimulative and proved it with charts and data. Besides, AmSpec knows who I am and can verify my background. If you are dumb enough to believe people like "Truth" or "Grzmlyk", you deserve what you get.

log in or register to reply

Sue| 8.12.09 @ 1:44PM

John Lewis is the professor and you can read it at WeStandFirm.

log in or register to reply

Sue| 8.12.09 @ 1:46PM

Who cares whether tax cuts are "stimulative" or not. The point is don't give the government your money. You keep it. Then, we won't have to fight this fiscal and monetary policy that they've bludgeoned us to death with for the last 60 years.

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 1:49PM

Well, then, Bob, I invite you to pick up your toys and go home.

But you insist on making a fool of yourself. And therefore, you deserve what you get.

What, the AmSpec people looked over your impressive CV and didn't nominate you for patron saint of the Right Thinkers?

And you threw charts and graphs and still the unwashed thought you were full of malarkey?

Philistines! Pearls before swine!

log in or register to reply

Bob| 8.12.09 @ 1:51PM

Perhaps Grzmlyk will one day revive to consciousness and realize that KoolAid has been his favorite drink....

And by the way, Grzmlyk, my philosophy of life is far more consistent that yours. I only want enough government to protect and run the country. I don't want you and your ilk to tell me who I can marry, whether I can have an abortion, or believe you can spend without paying for it. The reason I have a problem with cutting taxes is that we NEVER cut spending and only incur debt.

I also believe that we only achieve a better union through a search for facts -- and the only way to achieve that is to promote higher levels of education.

Inconsistent? That seems to be your mantra....

log in or register to reply

Ryan| 8.12.09 @ 1:52PM

Medicare DOES need an overhaul. I'm not its biggest fan, and one wonders if it's the most efficient use.

And the bill is STILL BIGGER GOVERNMENT. Period.

log in or register to reply

Bob| 8.12.09 @ 1:54PM

Sue, you miss the point. It doesn't matter whether you give money to the government or not, they still spend it. If you really want to stop the spending, make people pay for what the government spends, and then you will see a real uprising and an acceptance of budget cuts.

Here's a chart of federal spending over time:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetChartbook/Federal-spending-increased-steadily-regardless-of-congressional-leadership.aspx

Reagan and Bush cutting taxes DID NOT CUT SPENDING. The belief that cutting taxes actually works is infantile.

log in or register to reply

gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com| 8.12.09 @ 2:00PM

bob, I read your wonderfully well thought out 1:39 PM comment which you concluded by writing, “Gee, Dave, if you could read you might be dangerous... I'm not going to go through each of your misstatements, but they are NOT quotes from the bill. I see from the responses, that there are a lot of lemmings here who don't check out the facts.” If you read what Dave wrote and compare it to all the confusing babble of your quoted text, you will note that there is nothing you cited that prohibits illegals getting free health care. Dave’s point exactly. You would be much more effective if you could understand what you read.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Don’t Tread on Me!!

log in or register to reply

JeffW| 8.12.09 @ 2:03PM

Bob,
Do you always have to have the last word? Don't you realize that the more you respond to Grzmlyk, the more you prove his point about your need for attention? Just state your case and be done with it. The hell with any one else's opinion. You have the same problem my wife does. Your worried about other people's opinion of you. At least she is man enough to admit it to herself.

I don't want goverment run healthcare. It is not a "right". The goverment does not have that power according to the constitution. If the plan is so great why do they exempt themselves? Do not forget their threat of changing the plan after it is passed by using reconcillation.

Those are my opions. Like them or not. All your hot air will not change them. You can piss on my thoughts all you want but don't be surprised if I don't believe your lies about it raining.

log in or register to reply

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.12.09 @ 2:06PM

“Funny” Bob says?,.. “Dave, did you actually read the bill or did you just copy and paste this from a lobbyist based activist? For example, here's what you said:”(referring to Dave’s post)

And then Funny Bob?,.. he goes on to cut and paste the next 183 words of his post after that (I used my word counter to figure that out!!),.. before he gets back to his own thoughts,.. and his own words again!!,.. you’re very funny Bob!!,.. but just not to me!!,.. to me?,.. you are one of those big words,.. that I don’t really know the meaning to?,.. but I wish I did!!,.. but Grzmlyk probably does?,.. and he’ll probably call you “that” word,.. the next time he decides to stoop down to your level,.. but talk about the Pot calling the Kettle something?,.. you can’t accuse Dave of cutting and pasting?,.. and then do it yourself,.. at least be original after you accuse somebody else of not being original!!,.. Oh?,.. I got the word I was looking for earlier?,.. you’re a dumbass!!

log in or register to reply

Bob| 8.12.09 @ 2:09PM

Gill, illegals get health care now at emergency rooms. But the point was that the specific section of the bill talked about discrimination based on personal characteristics. That section also doesn't prevent parakeets from getting health care. Nor does it prevent aliens from other planets to get care. Do you want a specific section in the bill that prevents parakeets from being covered under the plan?

log in or register to reply

Jeffrey Lord| 8.12.09 @ 2:13PM

Bob.......

Booooooooooobbbbbbbbbbbbb......

You say the following, chastizing Dave:

"Page 50, Section 152: Healthcare will be provided to all Non-U.S. citizens within the borders of the United States , illegal or otherwise. "

Here's what Section 152 actually says:

"SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

3
(a) In General- Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

(b) Implementation- To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."

Is that not Dave's point exactly? You cite the language...it says exactly what Dave says it says...to say:

Dave's version: "Healthcare will be provided to all Non-U.S. citizens within the borders of the United States , illegal or otherwise. "

and...

The Bill's Version: " (a) In General- Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services. "

"Without regard to personal characteristics", Bob, means it's OK to be an illegal alien....

Dave is correct.

log in or register to reply

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.12.09 @ 2:18PM

Ya'll quit beating up on ole' 200 year old Bob. He must be that old to have had so many careers, and "expertises". Heh!

He is just another BS artist hidiing behind his computer. scroll button is best. ignore the idiot.

log in or register to reply

Bob| 8.12.09 @ 2:19PM

Jeffrey -- as I said to Dave, it also doesn't say that health care will not be provided to parakeets. Therefore, under your logic, parakeets will be covered. Besides, the point is moot -- illegals get their care covered in emergency rooms.

Perhaps you can show me the Republican alternative that prohibits giving heath care to illegal aliens. Please, provide the link. This is a red herring and you know it.

As for me, I would specifically prevent illegal aliens from even getting emergency room treatment without paying. If you really believe in what you say, you'd agree with that. Right?

log in or register to reply

angry liberal| 8.12.09 @ 2:19PM

It's easy to understand their anger. After all, conservatives owned this country until recently. But it seems like they are just shouting incoherently. Take their claim that Obama is a Socialist. MSNBC anchor Carlos Watons wonders whether this is just code for the N-Word. http://thestimulist.com/listen-up-lou-dobbs-socialist-and-the-n-word/

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 2:21PM

Bob:

I don't have an ilk.

I am ilkless.

Maybe that puts me in a victim group on whose behalf I can claim a grievance and, through community organization, transmogrify that grievance into a right and then bully my local feckless respresentative into creating a government program whereby by my "right" never to have my ilkless group be offended is legitimized and special consideration is paid for by you.

But then again, if the ilkless form a group, that's sort of like an ilk of its own, isn't it? Sort of like the merry band of individualists like yourself or the goth crowd who think they're unique even when they're cookie-cutter, assembly-line, conventional thinkers. Who make the very same judgments and ideologically-fuelled stereotypes they accuse others of making. I don't believe I have ever shared my views of abortion on this site. But why let facts get in the way of a good rant? You know all, after all.

At least I have the ilk of human kindness in me. All you got is the pernicious need to be right. And to be genuflected toward.

How's that working out?

log in or register to reply

Todd| 8.12.09 @ 2:29PM

Haven't felt the need to tell Bob he is a pompous jackass lately but couldn't pass this one up. Grzmlyk gave him a serious beat-down and I can't possibly do it better than him with his outstanding grammar and verbiage along with coherent truthful argument which is never to be seen from Bob. I have often referred to Bob as a sophist because his arguments are always misleading and untruthful and he always is self-aggrandizing and boastful. In short, he is a lying prick.

Here is what Bob wrote: You may want fiscally conservative, socially moderate people like me, Colin Powell, Frum, Brooks, Parker, etc., out of the party, but you don't have the votes to win without us.

Bob, we don't need you or your so-called moderate RINO's that you read in the NYT and the Washington Post. Why don't you compare what David Frum's latest crap book sold (which you were undoubtedly one of the few morons to read) to Mark Levin's Liberty & Tyranny? I don't think Frum has sold even 10,000 copies while Levin will exceed more than 1,000,000 soon enough if not already. Frum is a pathetic joke and so are you. Like Jeffrey Lord made clear, the anger is real and there is going to be hell to pay and we will not be stopped by the Obama Statist bootlickers from the MSM, Acorn, Unions and phony Republicans like you and Colin Powell.

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 2:33PM

Angry liberal, do you have a stand-up act to match your sit-down act?

Talk about intellectually untenable garbage - socialist the new "n" word? Please. That doesn't even make sense at the sentence-diagram level.

FYI, watching MSNBC and expecting to get intellectual succor is like eating nothing but twinkies and wondering why you're a pasty milksop.

And conservatives have owned this country until recently? Harrrrrdy har har.

Bush was a conservative? Ummm. Don't think so.

And, let's see, who was president before Bush? Oh yes. It was Clinton. And before him, Bush the senior. A conservative? Really? Whatever you're smoking, would you break me off a piece?

Conservatives have never owned this country.

More is the pity. True conservatives are classical liberals. And we don't need Colin Powell (who is such a model Republican he endorsed Obama) in this party, or David Frum or any of the other weasels Bob fans with palm fronds.

We nominated one of YOUR guys for president in 2008. I forget, did he win?

The Republican party is indeed a joke - but conservativism is the mainstream of this country, and that would be glaringly obvious if the mainstream media weren't 100 percent liberal lickspittles.

There. I said it.

log in or register to reply

Sue| 8.12.09 @ 2:34PM

What we are up against is an uneducated public, despite billions and billions spent on secondary and higher education, who still have no critical thinking skills.

I have a friend who is appalled at the "cash for clunker" program because she believes it creates a "false market" fo negotiating the price of a car. You see, she believes that without government intervention (or payment) she can get even a better deal for herself than with the government money. The government money "tainted" the transcation she thought.

I then tried to broach the subject of a public option healthcare plan and she would have none of it. The government is right about everything when it came to health care, but right about nothing when it came to a $4,500 clunker payment.

I didn't even try to discuss the earned income tax credit.

She's a die-hard Obama supporter and hopefully, she'll not need new knees or stents.

log in or register to reply

JeffW| 8.12.09 @ 2:36PM

Bob,

Your false argument aside. Yes, I want a provision specifically barring illegals from recieving care. Same goes for the parakeets

log in or register to reply

Sue| 8.12.09 @ 2:41PM

I would like to know HOW rationing will occurr under this bill? The resources will still be the revenue stream for health care (private premiums, taxes on private premiums, or government funding), the expense outlays will be controlled by the government (costs), so where's the rationing?

Is the rationing due to how the payment system for procedures and the penalties incurred for inefficiencies?

Any takers on this one?

log in or register to reply

Jeffrey Lord| 8.12.09 @ 2:42PM

Bob...

The subject at hand was illegal aliens. Being an illegal alien is a "personal characteristic" not a health care problem. That's what you challenged...
You are not correct.

I'm still reading this bill. But there are GOP alternatives out there. Several, as I understand it. Lots of people on our side have worked seriously at this issue for a long time. Check in with Jim DeMint, Heritage, others...see what's up.

log in or register to reply

Sue| 8.12.09 @ 2:44PM

I understand the cost/comparative effectiveness theories and the Health Care Commissioner having all the power with no judicial review, so is this HOW rationing will occur? The government bans procedures based up "best practices" methodologies and or costs, and we don't get the health care we've had in the past - or something else? Is this why the Health Benefits Advisory Committee will consist of 9 non-federal, 9 appt. by Comptroller General, and 9 federal employees/people on the Committee?

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 2:49PM

I'm gonna take a wild guess that Bob thinks illegal aliens shouldn't get health care - but that there is no such thing as an illegal alien. No doubt a view that the ever-so non-racist Sotomayor believes.

Who can resist all of those cute, non-ideological new voters for whom there is a shiny new government program just WAITING?

Just spitballing. I apologize, Bob, if you do believe illegal aliens exist. Kudos to you in that event.

But what the hell does Bob have against parakeets? Are they lesser creatures than humans? How human-centric can you be? Who says humans should take precedence over our colorful feathered friends? Many species are endangered, you know.

Yes, by all means, free health care for parakeets. Why discriminate against them? We can teach them to say, "Crawk! Bob's the smartest guy on the planet! Crawk!"

Right after we teach them to say, "Crawk! Obama want a cracker!"

log in or register to reply

Sue| 8.12.09 @ 2:53PM

I heard Mr. Obama talk about a hip replacement for his 86 year old terminally ill grandmother and his saying that it shouldn't have been done.

Does anyone have any proof that this occurred? Also, did she have the hip replacement before they discovered the cancer? It is very painful when one has bone- on- bone movement, and I'm not sure about the cost he quoted.

The issue is one of emotive behavior by the president. If the woman was a very active woman, then became inactive because of the cartilage wearing out, and they decided that she still had a quality of life (maybe 10 or 12 years) why shouldn't she be given a hip replacement?

If the cancer diagnosis came after, so what? One always errors on the side of the patient. To do otherwise is immoral!

log in or register to reply

Angel| 8.12.09 @ 2:58PM

I love my fellow Conservatives to bits, but dang--we're too friggin' nice. Bob's an Axelrod troll, a libtard and an azzhat; and he's sure as hell NOT worth your effort.

I've loathed him from the beginning for his cold disregard for human life and his creepy, voyeuristic obsession with Sarah Palin.

But I must say, it is an honor to be part of an august bunch of American folks such as you.

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 3:07PM

Angel:

Alas, you are right.

It is the arrogance, I think, that strikes a nerve; if Bob were to offer his opinions as, you know, an equal human being, that would be one thing. But that's not what he's about. He's here to urinate on people. And he expects to be respected for it.

I kinda wish Jeffry Lord didn't get inveigled into the marshes. Bob's tactic is to attack in general terms, then parse the argument into ever smaller sections; whenever you make a point that successfully refutes him, he simply divides your point into pieces and attacks one of those until he's fighting over an infinitessimal piece of intellectual turf. But gosh darn it, he is never going to admit he's an idealogue.

Its the MO he follows every time. Generally, about half way through, he'll toss out some conservative flotsam as flak to confuse his opponents into thinking he has conservative leanings. This is untrue.

It really is simple. To paraphrase Reagan: Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

log in or register to reply

2Anglico| 8.12.09 @ 3:10PM

Bob: The media and donkeycrats always say "tax cuts" because they want to play the class envy card. It OBVIOUSLY works. Reagan did not cut taxes OR reduce marginal tax rates, the congress did. However, Reagan provided the LEADERSHIP to get TAX RATE REDUCTIONS passed.
TAX RATE REDUCTIONS change behavior.
By taxing my time on Earth, the income tax is immoral anyway, not that it matters.

log in or register to reply

2Anglico| 8.12.09 @ 3:15PM

Lastly, the government has PROVEN it is NOT worthy of trust. Exactly how much money is in the Social Security "Trust" Fund???????? You know, that place where the government stores up the money it confiscates from workers to "provide" them with retirement income?
If you answered "they spend it before the ink is dry..." go to the head of the class.

log in or register to reply

Jeffrey Lord| 8.12.09 @ 3:22PM

Grzmlyk..

Thanks for the wisdom about not wading into the marshes. Be that as it may, I do think readers need a crack at me and, when possible, I engage.
It isn't always possible...hey, if I'm going to get everything typed out before the ObamaCare people try and put me down I need to keep working! - but I try as time avails.

But I do read the comments...whether I get a chance to comment or not. So thanks....keep it coming!

log in or register to reply

Campy| 8.12.09 @ 3:30PM

Grzmlyk,

Would that I was as eloquent at you!

"True conservatives are classical liberals."

This was exactly my intention in a post last week to BrianS., though I did a poor job:
"We are lucky to have been born in the most unique, free country in the world and one that used to represent the pinnacle of liberal, yes liberal, western enlightenment, but with respect for the individual and fear of central government (pretty 'conservative', yes?)

How in the world did the concept of (classical) liberalism get morphed/bastardized/hijacked to mean current social liberalism?

log in or register to reply

Solo| 8.12.09 @ 3:32PM

Hey Bob......

I'm still waiting for that quote from Glenn Beck!

Are you not able to access "the facts"? You can post and quote all manner of dubious statistics and claim all manner of expertise and yet can't manage to find one simple quote!

Amazing!

Sorry, dude. I couldn't resist!

Let me spell it out for you.

You claim all manner of extremism and lack of being properly informed from people who listen to rush, Hannity and Glenn Beck.
Part of your objection is rooted in some having attributed an accusation of "Nazi" issued by Nancy Pelosi against detractors of the democrat's Health Reform bill when, in matter of technical fact, she never (actually) said "Nazi".

What she said was that people were showing up at these Town Hall meetings with "Swastikas".

You're right! She said "Swatiskas" , not "Nazis".

Now...if making this transposition is indicative of being ill-informed and extremist- thus rendering them somewhat undesirable within the venue of informed debate- then that rule must be applied consistently across the board (as it were).

Then...in the same paragraph, you proceed to accuse Glenn Beck of claiming a "Nazi Plot" is behind the Health Care legislation.

Just as Nancy Pelosi never used the term "Nazi", Glenn Beck never used the term "Nazi Plot".

You first describe the parameters under which you would consider a person's point of view as unworthy of consideration due to being extreme and ill-informed.....and then (in the very next sentence) you proceed to commit yourself to that EXACT same condition.

"What's good for the goose is good for the Gander", Bob.

You can't have it both ways depending on which best serves your world view at a particular moment.

Maybe it's YOUR opinion that is woefully ill-informed and not worthy of inclusion in the debate . At least, that would seem to be your own conclusion.

;)

log in or register to reply

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.12.09 @ 3:32PM

Jeffrey L: Great Article!!,.. but?,.. Bobs been off this site now for over an hour,.. probably eating his lunch?,.. so you do know what you just did right now by posting again?,.. don’t you?,.. that’s right!!,.. here comes Bob!!

log in or register to reply

Wankel| 8.12.09 @ 3:42PM

>>Notice that Snarlin Arlin is looking at his watch in the picture. What message does this infer?

He doesn't care. Like he said, he didn't have to be there, he wasn't getting paid to be there...

Regardless of what he hears at these town halls, I imagine he will vote the way he wants to.

log in or register to reply

cuban pete| 8.12.09 @ 3:48PM

I cannot add to the aphoristic responses to Bob, but Grzmlyk's "ilkless"post at 2:21 is a keeper.
As a man searching for his ilk I found it very helpful.
"If we keep troubling ourselves with imbeciles,we run the risk of becoming imbeciles ourselves."
G.Flaubert

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.12.09 @ 3:55PM

Thank you, Campy. I guess it's my only outlet currently. I agree that terminology has become very skewed. I don't ever think of myself as a "conservative" because even I get an image in my mind that's not entirely flattering. My god, I'm in the arts! Believe it or not, I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy. But we live in polarized times.

I just believe that "the establishment" - i.e., government - is the enemy. I thought that's what the hippies used to think - until they took the reins of power.

Mr. Lord (I have no idea what the best way to address you would be):

I know you read the comments, and I respect and admire that tremendously. And of course I like your point of view.

I guess there are several kinds of trolls, and if he were here for an honest exchange, or even to vent and leave, that would be one thing. But as I say, that's not the psychological motivation.

Like most folks, I come to this "comments" thread essentially to commisserate with like-minded people, since in my real life that isn't possible. If those who are of a different ideological bent want to make a practice of showing up and taunting and throwing rocks, and bullying, well, of course, nothing's stopping them. But it can never be confused with a constructive attempt at dialogue or common understanding.

And of course you are well able to pick your own battles. I just think there's a hunger there with Bob that is utterly insatiable - and never has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Now I hope you don't mind, but I have to go and report you to Mr. Obama's Web site as a "fishy" Enemy of the State. I trust you'll understand that the Messiah is only destroying the body politic in order to save it. :-)

log in or register to reply

Jeffrey Lord| 8.12.09 @ 4:05PM

Grzmlyk...

"Now I hope you don't mind, but I have to go and report you to Mr. Obama's Web site as a "fishy" Enemy of the State."

Too late. Linda Douglass has somebody named Big Fish coming over shortly....I'm told I'll recognize his White Sox insignia on the brass knuckles...

And a simple "Jeff" will do....

log in or register to reply

Big J| 8.12.09 @ 4:16PM

To All That Will Listen:

While I have to admit that sometimes I get sucked into the adrenaline rush brought on by arguing with and imbecile, I have to agree with a couple of the earlier posts: IGNORE BOB (emphasis, mine). One Bob is a "fiscal conservative". Another Bob is convinced that tax cuts are not stimulative. One Bob is a "social moderate" (keep the government out of my personal life). Another Bob wants the government involved in decisions that you and your doctor should be making. Scary, but I am having flash backs regarding some girls I dated in high school. Hot, cold, hot, cold. I like you, I don't like you, etc.

He's clueless, confused and seems to have no moral grounding whatsoever. Why waste otherwise valuable time on this clown? There have been some fabulous posts here today, bringing up very relevant points regarding our freedoms as citizens of this great nation, and the central planners' plot to destroy them.

Instead, consider joining the T.E.A.M.

Forget Bob and his ivy league rhetoric, false claims and narcissism.

The time for action is now. Enough talk about what is wrong. Let's do something about it.

p.s. I must say however, I enjoyed the smack-down on Bob by Grzmlyk (I'm gonna figure out the acronym one day) and Jeffery Lord.

:)

log in or register to reply

Angel| 8.12.09 @ 4:22PM

Grzmlyk, I came across a quote by G.K. Chesterton that rang true with me: "He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative."

Only a true rebel would be an active pro-lifer these days. This conservative girl will never cut and run.

log in or register to reply

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.12.09 @ 4:26PM

I’ve never been to a protest in my life,.. and I don’t exactly know what one’s supposed to do at a protest!!,.. but?,.. I’m going to be back in the States for a few weeks,.. and I’m going to use one of those days (in between getting in a few rounds of golf),.. to attend my first protest,.. on 12th September in Washington D.C.,.. I probably should just “shut up”,.. and do as I’m told!!,.. and let my Representatives vote “Yes” for me on a Bill they haven’t read,.. or understand yet!!,.. but?,.. I’m tired of watching from a distance as I have for most of my life (sorry but that's what I was doing!!),.. as America sinks deeper and deeper,.. into a future that offers us nothing but financial ruin!!,.. I think we all have to pick our sides in this Battle!!,.. and I know what side I’m on now!!,.. I’m not going to be watching this from the sidelines anymore!!!,.. now I don’t know if I’ll make a difference or not by being there?,.. but?,.. I feel that I’m being called there?,.. and not by Glen Beck I must add!!,.. now?,.. I hope a few of you will come along too,.. so I’m not standing out there all alone!!,.. I mean really?,.. what type of protest would that be?,.. I’d just look like a wacko with a sign!!,.. very fishy!!

log in or register to reply

Angel| 8.12.09 @ 4:31PM

Big J, you'll never figure out Grzmlyk's acronym, but maybe he will explain it to you like he did for me if you ask.

Right, Grzmlyk?

log in or register to reply

Angel| 8.12.09 @ 4:39PM

Uh, LLL--trust me, you won't be alone. I think the "Silent Majority" is awake now.

I'm bringing my pepper spray when I go to my town hall meeting. Stupid Union goons: What a bunch of thick necked knuckle-draggers. I don't think they'd hesitate to hit a woman in the face. Ugh!

log in or register to reply

Robert Rosencrans| 8.12.09 @ 4:40PM

Here's an excellent critique of Obama and both parties by a liberal. Read of the day.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/
Case in point: the administration's grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform, one of the most vital issues facing the nation. Ever since Hillary Clinton's megalomaniacal annihilation of our last best chance at reform in 1993 (all of which was suppressed by the mainstream media when she was running for president), Democrats have been longing for that happy day when this issue would once again be front and center.

Rate this story with Reddit:
Submit
More

* Buzz up!
* Digg
* Facebook
* StumbleUpon
* Reddit

But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.

You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.

I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.
Quantcast

With the Republican party leaderless and in backbiting disarray following its destruction by the ideologically incoherent George W. Bush, Democrats are apparently eager to join the hara-kiri brigade. What looked like smooth coasting to the 2010 election has now become a nail-biter. Both major parties have become a rats' nest of hypocrisy and incompetence. That, combined with our stratospheric, near-criminal indebtedness to China (which could destroy the dollar overnight), should raise signal flags. Are we like late Rome, infatuated with past glories, ruled by a complacent, greedy elite, and hopelessly powerless to respond to changing conditions?

What does either party stand for these days? Republican politicians, with their endless scandals, are hardly exemplars of traditional moral values. Nor have they generated new ideas for healthcare, except for medical savings accounts, which would be pathetically inadequate in a major crisis for anyone earning at or below a median income.

And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.

But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.

log in or register to reply

defeated pigs| 8.12.09 @ 4:45PM

Americans are taking to town hall meetings across the country to vent frustration at the $11 trillion federal deficit, the health care fight and just about anything else that happens to spark their outrage.

Why the vicious tone? Some of the nation’s rowdiest town hallers say it feels therapeutic — and that at least they were accomplishing something. But according to anger management experts, the relief that screaming matches offer is only temporary.

“It’s like taking speed or amphetamine or a big Starbucks. It gives you energy and temporary confidence,” said Compassion Power founder and anger expert Steven Stosney, who points out that primates and human beings, especially men, were designed to roar at the sign of danger. “But it’s meant to warn, threaten and intimidate a saber toothed tiger, not express opinions about health care reform.”

log in or register to reply

Smitty| 8.12.09 @ 5:10PM

Defeated pig, don't cry--you fascist liberals have had your chance and the American people have found your scurrilous efforts wanting.

You may go back under your slimy rock now.

log in or register to reply

gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com| 8.12.09 @ 5:21PM

bob, I do not want the government dictating to me what health care options are available for my parakeet. Keep your bloody hands off my bird!

Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Don’t Tread on Me!!

log in or register to reply

Rubicon| 8.12.09 @ 5:27PM

On counseling on death, I think the bill called for every five year reviews of one's choices if something happens. There was no mention of establishing an end of life date or time period.
Could it lead to that? Who knows?!?
For me, the real issue is, each & every issue w/ health care that we have problems w/, could easily be resolved or at least eased, with targeted legislation to deal with it. Cross state line competition was limited by state governments, not the feds. But allowing it would seriously reduce premiums. Not sure how to deal w/ pre-existing conditions. I know they drive up premiums for all due to costs associated with them. So, I am open to ideas on that one.
I just do not want the huge new federal bureaucracy that will employ thousands upon thousands of new federal employees, plus add reams of new federal register regulations, policies, procedures, etc. The entire system would grow exponentially as would the costs to maintain it! Great Britain's health care system is the world's third largest employer. Imagine how big America's system would grow to! And would those new employees join the federal employees health care system, or the rest of us in the 'public option' that eventually drives all private competition out of business w/ the exception of those servicing the plans elites & fed employees use.
IN Switzerland, they have no public option & no real health care bureaucracy, other than an agency that mirrors our current HHS. There all they have is private plans available to all citizens.
They all enjoy coverage since every citizen gets tax credit from the government to help cover or completely cover premiums. From what I have learned, its the most inclusive system in the world, plus its the most cost effective since private companies compete w/ each other, & supposedly, all love the plans!
Maybe we should be insisting Congress look at this plan rather than a new fed bureaucracy?

log in or register to reply

Orion| 8.12.09 @ 5:28PM

Actually, dpig--a saber tooth tiger and ObamaCare are both threats to our lives or the lives of our loved ones. Both elicit the same response.

You and Stosney missed the point and both of you are morons.

log in or register to reply

Janice| 8.12.09 @ 5:32PM

Rubicon, I think the counseling starts at 65 years of age and is to be repeated every 5 years after that.

log in or register to reply

defeated pigs| 8.12.09 @ 5:46PM

American has spoken? lol. you and your six buddies have spoken. How does it feel being in the minority?

log in or register to reply

Smitty| 8.12.09 @ 5:52PM

53% of Americans are AGAINST ObamaCare: That's a majority in anyone's book--except yours, moron.

log in or register to reply

Campy| 8.12.09 @ 6:10PM

I was a bit 'preoccupied' when Nethercutt was in office, but this story caught my eye at Politico:

The Whining Class
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26024.html

log in or register to reply

Thom| 8.12.09 @ 6:21PM

Grzmlyk, I do appreciate your knowledge and use of language…. Sometimes it is simply better to conserve energy and cut to the root of the problem. When I call “liberals” Marxists they typically respond by trying to demonstrate they aren’t Marxists as if there is some objective test for such. Calling a Liberal/Marxist a “socialist” or even worse a “Communist” brings out the worst in a Liberal/Marxist and usually one of the many pointless academic arguments as to what constitutes one or the other levels of Marx’s theory. “Bob” even has gone as far as to say he studied socialism and decided “it wouldn’t work here”. You know you are dealing with an academic nitwit when they have to actually study Marx to understand it goes against the very fiber of human nature and of course, “it wouldn’t work here”. Obama said yesterday that a single payer system would not work here after saying that is what he wanted in the past. Same mindset for both Obama and “Bob” who voted for a Marxist and now expects respect the same way Benedict Arnold did before and after he defected to the enemy. Everyone knows what the “Bobs” of the world are and Judas is just a warm up pitch on that.

My parents taught me early in life that a “liar” is the worst kind of person, even worse than a murderer, rapist, bank robber, etc…. Took me 20 years (and some experience in life) to finally come to grips with what I considered a contradiction in terms. It finally dawned on me that the first crime any criminal commits is to lie and usually long before they end up with a “rape sheet”. Thus to that standard people who make a living out of lying (deception, half truths are the same thing) and people who vote for said liars are one in the same at the end of the day. Robbing one person to give to another as an act of compassion is in and of itself a lie and that is Liberalism’s central tenet.

log in or register to reply

Chris| 8.12.09 @ 6:45PM

Bob, I was going to smack you down also but I see that most of others have already taken care of you.

As far as the Republican alternative to health care for illegals, E-Verify is their answer. If Congress were to make E-Verify mandatory then that would be the first step in sending illegals home. If you need some information about illegals, health care, and verification and the failure of the Democrats to embrace verficiation then go to the link below.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/july-30-2009/house-committee-votes-against-preventing-health-care-benefits-illegal-aliens.html

log in or register to reply

Dort| 8.12.09 @ 6:51PM

To you all...except perhaps Bob (as he sorta scares me)...wow. I'm in love. Such incredible debate. I always wondered what it would have been like to sit among the first congress of this nation back so long ago. How delightful to have heard those men (alas, no women) parry words back and forth in their creation of our founding government. Although, now our current gov't would probably have them turning over in their graves {sigh}.
I think that reading this blog...I might have experienced a moment of that time and so delicious of a taste.
Onward, my friends. I will look to tomorrow's subjects for my next cup of Joe. :)

log in or register to reply

The Anti Christ has come| 8.12.09 @ 7:05PM

THE ANTI-CHRIST

In our study of prophecy we lay much stress on the "Second Corning of Christ," forgetting that there are two other comings of "individuals" that are just as momentous as Christ's coming. The first is that of the Antichrist, and the other is that of Satan.

In both the Old and New Testament we are told of a "Mysterious and Terrible Personage" that shall be revealed in the "Last Times." He is described under different names and aliases, and it is only by a careful examination and comparison of these names, and the Person they describe that we see that they refer to one and the same individual. These names are-

In the Old Testament.
Ezekiel 28

"Prince of Tyrus" and "King of Tyrus"

Daniel 7,8,9,11

"The Little Horn.", "A King of Fierce Countenance.", "The Prince that Shall Come.", "The Wilful King."

In the New Testament.
2 Thessalonians 2,

"The Man of Sin.", "Son of Perdition.", "That Wicked."

1 John 2:18,

"Antichrist"

Revelation 13

"The Beast."

Jesus also made a prophetic reference to him. John 5: 43 when the Jews rejected Jesus is their Messiah, when the Antichrist comes they will accept him.

43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

His Personality.

The Apostolic Church believed that Antichrist was to be a "person," the embodiment of human blasphemy and wickedness, but toward the close of the Twelfth Century many began to look upon the Pope as Antichrist, and this view has been largely advocated by Protestant commentators. The arguments in favour of this view are ingenious and plausible, but they are hard to reconcile with the Word of God. This view makes Antichrist a "System" rather than a Person, and would see in the "Papal System" the Antichrist. But this is disproved by the Word of God. The Papal System although it plays a major part in bringing the Anti-Christ to power, is NOT the Anti-Christ.

The Apostle John says in 1 John 2:22 and 1 John 4:3;

22. Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
3. Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in THE FLESH (His Deity) is not of God; and this is that spirit of Antichrist.

Judaism has denied that "Jesus is the Christ," and Unitarianism that He has "come in the flesh," but the Papacy never. The Church of Rome has always confessed "I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord."

All Protestant commentators insist that the "Papal System" is described in Revelation 17: 4, 5.

4. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5. And upon her forehead was a name written, mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.

This is undoubtedly true, but this "Woman," the "Mother of Harlots," is represented as riding upon a "Beast," universally admitted to be the Antichrist. If the "Beast" is the Antichrist, the "Woman" cannot be, and that they are separate and do not signify the same thing is clear.

Again the Antichrist, as the "Man of Sin" is described in Daniel 11:36,37 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as follows;

36. And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

However false and impious the claims of the Papacy, it always recognises its subordination to God, and the Pope's highest claim is that he is the "Vicar of Christ." Following on we must also look at Revelation 13:3-4.

3. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

The Papal System worships the Virgin and the Saints, but it is not true that it worships the Devil. Now look at Revelation 14:9-11.

5. If any man worship the Beast and His Image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall; drink of the wine of the Wrath of God.....and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone;......and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever…and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the Beast and His Image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

If the Papal System is the Antichrist, it follows from the above that all its worshippers, instead of being saved, are doomed to eternal torment. Again, the Lord, who destroys Antichrist at His Coming, comes to Jerusalem, not to Rome, the seat of the Papal System.

While there are many things in the history of the Church of Rome, and in the conduct of her Popes that foreshadow the Antichrist, yet it is clear from the preceding scriptures that the Papal System is not the Antichrist, and that these scriptures can only be fulfilled in the person of some Individual yet to appear.

The Antichrist is not a Rival or Counterfeit Christ, he is an Opposing Christ. This is clearly seen when we compare him with Christ in a series of Contrasts.

Christ came from Above. John 6: 38
Antichrist comes from the earth. Revelation 13: 1.

Christ came in His Father's name. John 5: 43
Antichrist comes in his own name. John 5: 43.

Christ Humbled Himself. Phil. 2: 8
Antichrist Exalts himself. 2 Thessalonians 2: 4.

Christ Despised. Isaiah 53: 3; Luke 23: 18
Antichrist Admired. Revelation 13: 3, 4.

Christ Exalted. Philippians 2: 9
Antichrist cast Down to Hell. Isaiah 14: 14, 15; Rev. 19: 20.

Christ to do His Father's will. John 6: 38
Antichrist to do his Own will. Daniel 11: 36.

Christ came to save. Luke 19: 10
Antichrist comes to Destroy. Daniel 8: 24.

Christ is the Good Shepherd. John 10: 4-15
Antichrist is the Idol (evil) Shepherd. Zechariah 11: 16,17.

Christ is the "True Vine." John 15:1
Antichrist is the "Vine of the Earth." Revelation 14:18.

Christ is the "Truth." John 14: 6
Antichrist is the "Lie." 2 Thessalonians 2:11.

Christ is the "Holy One." Mark 1: 24
Antichrist is the "Wicked One." 2 Thessalonians 2: 8, (R.V. says Lawless)

Christ is the "Man of Sorrows." Isaiah 53: 3
Antichrist is the "Man of Sin." 2 Thessalonians 2: 3.

Christ is the "Son of God." Luke 1: 35
Antichrist is the "Son of Perdition." 2 Thessalonians 2: 3.

Christ, "The Mystery of Godliness," is God manifest in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3: 16
Antichrist, "The Mystery of Iniquity," will be Satan manifest in the flesh. 2 Thessalonians 2:7.

log in or register to reply

JimE| 8.12.09 @ 7:30PM

Bob is a weak willed useful idiot who grovels at the anus of teleprompter messiah.

log in or register to reply

Jewish Bankers Destroy USA| 8.12.09 @ 7:41PM

The Judenfrei Jew Review
News and Views on Jews (beta version)Home » Jews and Money » An Introduction to Money
The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America
Submitted by Administrator on Sat, 04/18/2009 - 22:16
The Money Masters video, by Patrick S. J. Carmack and Bill Still, is by far the best documentation of the history of the money changers or bankers as it pertains to America. In over 10 years since its production, its arguments haven’t been successfully challenged; the producers made only two minor mistakes:

They got the exact numbers of Congressmen voting for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 wrong.
They said that Jews were the victims of the money changers during the lifetime of Jesus. The correct statement is that Judahites or Judeans were the victims of the money changers. Before the time of Jesus, there was a time when a Judean, a resident of Judea, was a Judahite or member of the tribe of Judah. In 125 B.C., the Judahites conquered their southern neighbors, the Idumeans, a Canaanite-Edomite people, and made the Idumeans citizens of Judea in 121 B.C. Thus the later definition of Judean, for outsiders, came to include both Judahites and the Idumeans that had been incorporated into Judea. It would be the Idumeans that would go on to become the Middle Eastern Jews a few centuries later, basing Judaism on their Pharisee sect. Judahite or Judean can’t be translated as Jew (#1, #2).
Everyone needs to see the Money Masters video for a brief introduction to where money comes from and how international bankers (mostly Jews) manipulate us for the worse. Whereas this video extensively mentions Jewish personalities, it doesn’t describe them as Jews, which makes the video suitable for a wide audience.

We produce the video transcript below. Some people have borrowed from the transcript and produced their own history of bankers; e.g., Andrew Carrington Hitchcock (#1, #2). But Hitchcock tries to make it look like a small number of Jewish personalities are responsible for our money woes, whereas the Jewish community in general acts in concert, and a lot of Jews are working together to leech our wealth.

The Money Masters Video Script
Produced by Patrick S. J. Carmack
Directed by Bill Still
Royalty Production Company 1998

The Money Problem
Media Control and the International Bankers
The Money Changers
The Money Changers in the Roman Empire
The Goldsmiths of Medieval England
Interest, Banking and Moral issues
Tally Sticks as Money
The Bank of England
The Rise of the Rothschilds
The American Revolution
The Bank of North America
The Constitutional Convention
First Bank of the United States
Napolen’s Rise to Power
Death of the First Bank (of the United States)/The War of 1812
The Battle of Waterloo
Second Bank of the United States
Andrew Jackson
Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War
Return of the Gold Standard
Free Silver
J. P. Morgan & the Crash of 1907/Rockefeller
The Meeting at Jekyll Island
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913
J. P. Morgan/World War I
Elements of Monetary Reform
(↑) 1. The Money Problem
There was a time in this country when to ask someone for whom he worked was considered somewhat insulting, as it implied he was an incompetent, incapable of gainful self–employment.

But now, property ownership (net wealth) is not a general feature of our society, as it was before the Civil War, and largely was still until the Great Depression. Rather, net debt and complete dependence on a precarious wage or salary at the will of others is the general condition.

Since the exercise of freedom often includes using material objects such as books, food, clothing, shelter, arms, transport, etc., the choice and possession of which requires some wealth, we are forced to admit that the general condition of Americans is one of increasing dependence and limitations on our freedom.

Since the turn of the century, there has occurred throughout the world a major increase in debt and a major decline in the freedom of individuals, and of states, to conduct their own affairs. To restore a condition of widespread, modest wealth is therefore essential to regaining and preserving our freedom.

What’s going on in America today? Why are we over our heads in debt? Why can’t the politicians bring debt under control? Why are so many people – often both parents now – working at low–paying, dead–end jobs and still making do with less? What’s the future of the American economy and way of life?

Why does the government tell us inflation is low, when the buying power of our paychecks is declining at an alarming rate? Only a generation ago, bread was a quarter and you could get a new car for $1,995!

Are we headed into an economic crash of unprecedented proportions,

log in or register to reply

Mike| 8.12.09 @ 7:49PM

Why is it someone always posts crazy stuff about the Jews an this site?

log in or register to reply

Thom| 8.12.09 @ 7:57PM

"Why is it someone always posts crazy stuff about the Jews an this site? " Because some people get paid to plant hate filled provocative crap on any site that opposes the ruling elites...... Its all part of a campaign to taint the discussions....

log in or register to reply

Thom| 8.12.09 @ 7:58PM

Mike, if you needs some shoes stay tuned....

log in or register to reply

defeated pigs| 8.12.09 @ 8:04PM

53%? Most polls have 60% plus for Obamas health care plan. Does it matter? It's what your elected representatives want. It will pass and if it doesn't, they will make changes so that it will. This isn't Bush care.

log in or register to reply

defeated pigs| 8.12.09 @ 8:05PM

Anti jew remarks? Must be Ben Stein on the down low. because in his mind, Obama wants his death panel to kill all jews.

log in or register to reply

Thom| 8.12.09 @ 8:11PM

defeated pigs, put your faith in polls..... about a third of the Colonists the formed this nation fought for it. How did that work out so wrong if two thirds of those able to fight either didn't support building a separate nation or fought against it? The people paying for their health care are actually quiet against giving even more "free care" to people who don't life a finger to support themselves let alone those they are responsible for. Just keep putting your faith in your "polls"..... right to the end.

log in or register to reply

Interested Conservative| 8.12.09 @ 8:54PM

Time to paraphrase a classic observation - Only in America is the lower class democrat, the middle class republican, and the upper class communist. This report summarizes what happens when the former two see what the latter is up to.

log in or register to reply

Thom| 8.12.09 @ 9:07PM

"former two see what the latter is up to." Without regard to labels, when has the upper class (3-5%) not tried to rule over the rest?

log in or register to reply

Satan has arrived US deceived| 8.12.09 @ 9:32PM

THE ANTI-CHRIST

In our study of prophecy we lay much stress on the "Second Corning of Christ," forgetting that there are two other comings of "individuals" that are just as momentous as Christ's coming. The first is that of the Antichrist, and the other is that of Satan.

In both the Old and New Testament we are told of a "Mysterious and Terrible Personage" that shall be revealed in the "Last Times." He is described under different names and aliases, and it is only by a careful examination and comparison of these names, and the Person they describe that we see that they refer to one and the same individual. These names are-

In the Old Testament.
Ezekiel 28

"Prince of Tyrus" and "King of Tyrus"

Daniel 7,8,9,11

"The Little Horn.", "A King of Fierce Countenance.", "The Prince that Shall Come.", "The Wilful King."

In the New Testament.
2 Thessalonians 2,

"The Man of Sin.", "Son of Perdition.", "That Wicked."

1 John 2:18,

"Antichrist"

Revelation 13

"The Beast."

Jesus also made a prophetic reference to him. John 5: 43 when the Jews rejected Jesus is their Messiah, when the Antichrist comes they will accept him.

43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

His Personality.

log in or register to reply

Baddogdoug| 8.12.09 @ 9:37PM

Bob
I hate to parse your words... but "And I Quote"

"i" "am" "a" "nazi" "and" "Want" "to" Control" "you" "all".

log in or register to reply

defeated pigs| 8.12.09 @ 9:57PM

How come righties don't go to work instead of screaming at Town hall meetings? Screaming about how the gov is taking their money and they don't even work. Trailer parks from here to the Mississippi are empty while Town Halls are filled with angry red neck inbreeds. It's crazy.

log in or register to reply

Jeff| 8.12.09 @ 10:05PM

As a passionate anti-Specter conservative I still have to give Specter credit for showing up when everyone else went and hid . Just when I was nursing a good old-fashoined grudge against the old turncoat he goes and does something that makes me respect him even if I would not vote for him if he were running against Satan.
At least with Satan you know he is always against you.

log in or register to reply

Campy| 8.12.09 @ 10:49PM

Jeff,
Re: Specter showing up, true enough—but—isn't that his job?

log in or register to reply

Lonnie| 8.12.09 @ 11:01PM

dpig, you sound crazy--having a down day today? Oh, you're lying about ObamaCare polls--the scum sucking piece of trash is losing in ALL of them.

Now go take your meds.

log in or register to reply

The Hieropahant| 8.12.09 @ 11:29PM

Did you just try to disguise your very bad fanfic as journalism? Wow. This is top ten pathetic. GG.

log in or register to reply

Grzmlyk| 8.13.09 @ 12:04AM

Hello Angel! Nice to cross paths with you again, even if we keep missing each other in real time.

Yes, I'd be happy to explain the acronym to anyone - as you know, it's not all that exciting - but it does recall my misspent youth.

And mystery is certainly not my goal. Just a moniker I figured wouldn't already be taken back when I first started having screen names & everything I tried was already taken.

BTW, Angel, I love the Chesterton quote. It's so true, especially today.

I thank god that I never had to deal with an abortion when I was young - I was certainly as promiscuous as my very modest looks allowed me to be. Had I gotten a woman pregnant, I'm sure back then I would have begged her to have an abortion. And I know many, many women who have been in that boat. My own mother had an abortion (no, Bob, it wasn't me).

I have sympathy for SOME women who find themselves in the situation. But it is true that you can't get around the fact that you're killing something. Even pro-abortion types have got to concede that. I mean, if you cut out a tumor, you're trying to kill it, no? So a fetus, even at 2 weeks, is at least as alive as a tumor.

And that's my problem with it - and I freely admit I have no earth-shattering insights. But it's not just the woman's body we're dealing with. And even if it were, we still don't allow doctors to perform amputations just because some people want them. (I saw a documentary once on people afflicted with THAT disorder. WOW.)

Then we get to the whole "when is life viable" debate, and that's the slippery slope I'm sure Bob, in his infinite capacity for sophistry, favors.

All I know is that most of the women I know who've had abortions had so much more than a bunch of cells ripped from their bodies; the physical scars pale in comparison to the emotional scars. It's not as if you make your "choice" and then move on to the New York Times crossword puzzle with nary a backward glance the rest of you days (although it wouldn't surprise me if one clue the Times gave was for five-letter word meaning, "mistake easily taken out with the garbage." - FETUS).

There's a whole secret world of regret out there that the left doesn't want to talk about. And that says alot about the wisdom of abortion.

BTW, I'm at a disadvantage because I had to leave my computer at 4:15 and take care of some business (no, I wasn't tracking Bob down). I agree with many of the posters here that this has been a vigorous thread. And Thom and BigJ, thanks for your point(s) of view; I think you are both right and the best way to deal with Bob - who is dishonest, I agree (as EVERY liberal is, at root, dishonest), and yes, morally, intellectually and philosophically muddled at best (and that's giving him an enormous benefit of the doubt) - is to ignore him.

But he gets his rocks off by cowing people with his facade of omniscience and his charts (and it's always the same three charts). I don't like being urinated on and I don't like to see other people being urinated on. And that's why I go after him.

Jeff (Lord), all I can say is this: Sorry I had to report you.

I'm from Chicago originally and have been to Wrigley FIELD (not Comiskey FIELD per Obama) many times.

I get down on my knees every night and thank the almighty that Obama doesn't pretend to be a Cubs fan instead of pretending to be a White Sox fan.

The man doesn't have a genuine bone in his body.

log in or register to reply

PETA| 8.13.09 @ 12:07AM

Ben Stein loves dogs? What? Lets keep this page clean, no bestiality, please.

log in or register to reply

OHHH YEAHHHHH| 8.13.09 @ 12:13AM

I have sympathy for SOME women who find themselves in the situation. But it is true that you can't get around the fact that you're killing something. Even pro-abortion types have got to concede that.

No, not at all. Go concern troll somewhere else. WE KILL NOTHING= YOU ARE A TROLL. Every time I have an abortion I throw a party.

log in or register to reply

MD in NC| 8.13.09 @ 12:26AM

Just a note about the wonderful Medicare system which all liberals cite as a great government program. Does anyone realize that seniors pay $96 per month for Medicare Part B. Part A is "free" if you paid FICA taxes for enough quarters (more than 40, i.e. 10 years). See: http://www.medicare.gov/MedicareEligibility/home.asp?dest=NAV|Home|GeneralEnrollment|PremiumCostInfo&version=default&browser=Firefox|3|Windows+Vista&language=English The average cost per Medicare beneficiary is close to $10,000 per year. ( I'm not including prescription coverage- Part D in this.) So unless there's another side to this that I'm not aware of, this means that 90% of Medicare expenses are born by everybody else who is still working, INCLUDING PEOPLE MAKING ONLY MINIMUM WAGE! As a group, the over 65 demographic is the wealthiest isn't it? How do our beloved Congresspeople who are sooooo concerned for the poor and those making minimum wage and the "working families" - how do they sleep at night? Of course this doesn't include the fact that seniors pay out the wazoo for supplemental insurance to cover what Medicare doesn't. But my point is that Medicare is an even bigger Ponzi scheme than Social Security! And the Dems think it's a model for how the whole system should be run. What a crock! If I have miscalculated this, would someone please let me know? I wouldn't want to be starting any "vicious" or "malicious rumors and lies."

log in or register to reply

clothing shopping online | 8.13.09 @ 3:25AM

a admire this kind of man, one who can engage in something so hard..i should do like this

log in or register to reply

wayne| 8.13.09 @ 4:24AM

Obama lies BOLDLY, Glenn Beck questions BOLDLY!!!!!!!

log in or register to reply

richard | 8.13.09 @ 9:11AM

Jeff, the real generational theft took place over the last eight years when US manufacturing was shipped abroad, wages and salaries stagnated, the hucksters on Wall Street sold worthless paper to idiotic pension fund managers, and culminated with the ultimate looting of the taxpayers' pocket by the tycoons through the Administration of President George Bush to the tune of $3 trillion of America's debt. The tycoons did such a good job stealing from the taxpayer that they awarded themselves the highest bonuses on record before the clock ran out on 2008.

log in or register to reply

Richard Baker| 8.13.09 @ 1:32PM

FYI. In German the word for swastika is hakenkreuz, or literally, hook cross. Heard this while stationed in Germany in the early '70s. Regardless of the translation, Pelosi was clear in it's use. Seig Heil, Nancy!

log in or register to reply

Lonnie| 8.13.09 @ 2:01PM

That's Nazi Pelosi.

log in or register to reply

Jeremy| 8.13.09 @ 3:42PM

To say that health insurance reform isn't needed is naive. And that's what this plan is. Health insurance reform. The democrat's plan is not a socialized health care plan. It is a government reform of the health insurance industry. Because as 2008 showed us, regulation is necessary.
Anyone who says we should leave everything up to the free market never read the second chapter of any economics textbook. Health insurance problems, like the housing and banking collapses, were the result of market failures (specifically moral hazard and asymmetrical information).

The public option is a government run health insurance plan. Much like the police or the fire department the idea is to make basic protection available to people. But unlike the police or fire department which run on taxes the public option is paid into like a normal insurance company. Realistically its premiums might be higher but you will be unable to reject people, and because the higher premiums of the public option will absorb risk from the rest of the market, premiums for insurance companies will drop making it more affordable.

log in or register to reply

Richard Baker| 8.13.09 @ 8:55PM

Jeremy:
I suggest that you read any of Milton Friedman's books on the system of capitalism. Might clear up your confusion regarding the system you think needs "reform". "Reform" is the Kenyan's word for removal of that system with him in control of the replacement. Sieg Heil, mein Fuhrer!

log in or register to reply

Texas Dar| 8.13.09 @ 11:23PM

Texas Dar| 8.13.09 @ 11:03PM
Obviously, you aren't old enough to remember the national trauma/shock after JFK.

"Shock-&-Awe".......................... !

I was in 6th grade back then. I reamber that people just walked around wondering what to do next.

They had no guidance. They dident know what to say much less what to do next. The one they trusted was dead..............................................

All he wanted to do was Take Down The Monster. He knew what we dident. And tryed and payed for it with his life.

Ron Paul is getting very close to joining him. "God Bless His Sole" for standing up for us.

This fall will be close to the death of JFK. The goverment has a bag of tricks just waiting for us.

Be it a sleeper-cell with 10-15 Suitcase-Nukes. Swine-Flu Shot. Collaps of the dollar. The One Hour Melt-Down ( Google-It ) or just a bag-full-of-Shit, burnning on your front porch step.

Only a few reamber. Many will know what it feels like, and very soon.

Its all in the Bible, and the weather forcast aint far off too......................................!

Its the feeling you get comming out of the mall day after "Turkey-Day" and you have no clue WhAer-TF Yr car is.

Yes, I can reamber seeing men cry becouse thier life-line was gone.

Now "The Wizzered of "O-BamaOz" is just like JFK, but this time he comes with Fork-Toung.

After you watch The Obama Decption, you will under stand whats realy going on "Behind the Curtin" in the land of Oz.................................!

If the sheeple dont wake up, and soon, there will be nothing to wake up for.

Check-It-Out ! "Kick Them All Out.Com" The Real Answer-2-Change in 2010.

If were still here. God, we need help down here, and "Quick".........................................

My Wife is a "Red-Head"................Right now the Country is a Red Head & Pissed-as-Hell..........

Dont Fuck With-a-Red Head................ The Pain last's a very long time. YES, It hurts in the morning, and leaves a Mark................. !

log in or register to reply

JoeCollins| 8.13.09 @ 11:56PM

I have never protested in my 50 plus years of living. Until now. If I stay on the couch and do nothing, I get what I deserve. Keep at them, folks. They are running scared. We just might have a chance to beat this socialist thing. IF not, there is the ballot box in 2010.

log in or register to reply

Brian H| 8.14.09 @ 12:45AM

A "little" government funding and control of any service, including health care, is like a little bit of pregnancy. It rapidly short-circuits the natural market balances and random conflicts and influences that explore and optimize a wide range of possibilities -- both technical-scientific and economic. Trying to substitute bureaucratic and technocratic rule-by-fiat for these "invisible hand" effects just leads into dead ends.

The fundamental problem with such central management is that its rule is "there must be no failures or errors". In effect, that means no learning, no advancement, no improvement. Which means the whole system collapses at once, instead of having small failures and incremental improvements using lessons learned.

log in or register to reply

sisyphus| 8.14.09 @ 12:52AM

The following is from a 90 year old man.
(reprinted w/permission

To: Whitehouse Snitch Brigade (Speech Police)

You say you are compiling an enemy list of citizens who oppose the "health care" plan.

Know this, brown shirts:

I oppose this plan.

I oppose your plan to murder me by withholding essential madical or surgical treatment.

I oppose your plan to kill old people by decree of committee.

I oppose your plan to make me pay for treatment denied to my by your commissars.

I oppose your plan to prevent me from paying for treatment with my own money.

I oppose being forced into a single-payer plan.

Is that fishy enough for you, speech police? Try this:

I own my life. I value liberty. I value the right to own property. I value the right to seek my own happiness.

Now put this in your Executive Permanent Data Base:

I am the "manufactured mob" who will never bow to the serfdom you are trying to impose. I say NO to tyrannical government.

I am the one who goes to the window every night and shouts, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!"

These fishy comments by:
(a 90 year old man) name removed
A very small fish

log in or register to reply

Jeremy| 8.14.09 @ 3:11AM

First, as a Jewish American I find it laughable that people have sunk into obeying Godwin's Law within the first few months of Obama's presidency. When you make remarks suggesting that Obama has brown shirts or that he is a new Hitler people are going to take you about as seriously as the people who called Bush a new Hitler, or Clinton a new Hitler, or Bush Sr.

It's really old by now, and it shows a complete lack of perspective or understanding when you call anybody a Nazi or Hitler. It also doesn't help that you listen to the ramblings of the birthers.

Sisyphus I really hope that you have a personal understanding of the absurd hyperbole in your post. I have no doubt that these protestors are not mobs. I am sure they are concerned citizens. But they are concerned about issues of legislation that have been twisted from helpful stipulations with bipartisan support into something that they are not. Much as the people who said Bush was establishing concentration camps for American citizens in the event of a national crisis you will not be taken seriously because you speak loudly and obnoxiously on a topic you know nothing about.

This idea that Obama is compiling a list of enemies is also absurd, this is spilled out of the White House's attempt to inform the public by allowing people to email in questions.

Now, Brian H voices a legitimate point. And it is one worth discussing. But that's the problem. This issue is not being discussed in a reasonable way because people like sisyphus and Richard Baker turn the argument from what should or should not be included in a health care bill into a pissing match over who can call the other one Nazi first.

log in or register to reply

Lonnie| 8.14.09 @ 4:04AM

Nice try, Jeremy; but ObamaCare is dead. Many of us have read the bill and we know what's in it. Bottom line--it won't work.

Sorry, you're going to have to get a job after all.

log in or register to reply

Jeremy| 8.14.09 @ 5:08AM

Lonnie: I would love to see those passages that you are referring to because every single republican that has picked out the passages has either deliberately misquoted them or has invented false irrelevant evidence to twist their meaning.

log in or register to reply

William L | 8.14.09 @ 8:56AM

What liberals want us to do is keep quiet and play dumb to their badgering and lies. Well it isn't happening and they can't shut us up. Knowledge is power. Silence, acceptance, and complacency leads to corruption and control. Speak out, question lies, and take action and you are free.
Keep up the attacks and let the left squirm

log in or register to reply

Jeremy| 8.14.09 @ 12:29PM

William L: That simply isn't true. Let's look back to the Bush administration. Where dissenters were fired from the justice department, where a CIA agent's life was endangered when the administration outed her identity. I really wish people would speak out and question lies. The left has leveled heavy criticism at Obama on several of his decisions. Yet the republicans lap up anything Beck or Limbaugh say as ultimate truth and don't question.

log in or register to reply

Richard Baker| 8.14.09 @ 1:06PM

Jeremy:
Valerie Plame wasn't covert, Richard Armitage disclosed her name, her job at CIA did not fall under the applicable law, and her life was not in danger. Considering the fact that she and her husband were everywhere on the media getting their 15 minutes of fame also says that this was a pose, at best. Nice try, though.

log in or register to reply

Richard Baker| 8.14.09 @ 3:56PM

Jeremy:
I forgot. Why did Bill Clinton fire all 93 US attorneys as he came into office? Hmmmmm?

log in or register to reply

robert w| 8.22.09 @ 10:59PM

You said her Queen Bee-ness Pelosi didn't call anybody Nazis. Please be honest enough to acknowledge that what she actually said was: The town hall attendees were showing u carrying swastikas. That's the truth!

log in or register to reply