Really?

Post #4,283 by Brandioch 8/8/01 5:09:37 PM Reply	Really? "When so called "liberals" propose a social program, these same talking heads/etc never question the purity of their motives or what strings are attached." Universal Health Care. It seems you aren't replying to my post so I re-posted it. Notice, I am not "warmachine". Reply to my post, not his. You said that none of the "talking heads" question the purity of motive or the strings attached. I seem to recall LOTS of questioning. If you'll also notice, it is NOT a reality yet.
Post #4,294 by screamer 8/8/01 6:24:48 PM Reply	Really And I thought it was ASSUMED that I was replying to you, Brandioch, because I was linking to the '96 election spin on Clinton's Universal Health Care proposal during '93... What I was referring to by quoting Warmachine is that the revisionism has already happened, ie those awful Republicans. I think it is extremely important to remember that the House and Senate were Democratically controlled during the '92-94 session when Clinton tried to pass his health care reform package. You are saying that this is proof that the press is not biased (correct? ie, the package didn't pass)... I am pointing to this same event and saying that even foreigners have bad or selective memory (or no memory at all in this case) of what happened. How could he if he uses health care as an example of why Republicans are not compassionate... which is what this sub thread is actually about. Getting back to your direct question, I remember "at the time" those questions (about purity of motive or strings attached) being asked by the press, the same way I remember the press asking hard questions about Clinton's sex life during the height of the scandal. What does history record now? An invasion of his personal life or the epitome of double standard and hypocracy? History is in the eye of the beholder. What I precisely am referring to is the spin... Katie Kouric and Bryant Gumball have an extra eyebrow raised whenever questioning Republicans. I didn't really notice it until I became an independent (as a result of 92-94 and the Clinton White House). That's the subtle part, the in your face part is the poll that showed over 90% of the journalists in this country are registered Democrats. I'd like to say that they were good enough to at least try to be objective. What caught my ire, is the assumptions that one must make to say Republican does not equal compassionate... I don't assume that people are any certain way. I seem to remember from my Democratic days that STEREOTYPING is not a good thing... It's especially true to me as a true liberal. In summary, I seem to recall LOTS of questioning myself and have noticed that it is NOT a reality yet... But is that a result of Republicans not being compassionate? Really? Just a few thoughts, Screamer "Putting the fun back into funatic"
Post #4,337 by Brandioch 8/9/01 8:17:09 AM Reply	Really. "You are saying that this is proof that the press is not biased (correct? ie, the package didn't pass)" No. "The press" is biased. Because "the press" is made up of individuals. Who work for companies. What I'm saying is that you were incorrect in stating that the "talking heads" (can Rush be counted among them?) wouldn't care about any strings attached to "liberal" programs. And Republicans can be extremely compassionate. Historically, they have been extremely compassionate to big business and less so to individuals. Of course, we always end up back at Clinton's sex life. Of course, no Republican has ever cheated. Of course, no one has ever lied about sex. Which is why the public didn't seem to CARE that much. Yes, he lied under oath. Of course, Republicans NEVER lie. So, Clinton didn't do anything that hasn't been done over and over and over in DC and it's "The Liberal Press" that is going easy on questioning him. And I believe Larry Flint proved that with his bounties on information regarding past sexual escapades by Republicans. Of course, what the fuck does this have to do with the ORIGINAL statement? The one about "talking heads" never questioning the strings attached to "liberal" programs of which my universal health care was a counter example? Let me see.......... Nothing? You make a statement. I provide a counter that disproves your statement. You provide an example that "proves" your statement. So, I say "all apples are red". You show me a green apple. I show you a red apple. Do you see why my showing you a red apple is meaningless? Feel free to obsess about Clinton's dick some more.
Post #4,366 by bepatient 8/9/01 11:24:38 AM Reply	C'mon now... ...Universal Health Care was not implemented. Its motives were NOT questioned by Republicans. They weren't looking for strings. They (as well as most of the Democrats that were in control) questioned its proposed implementation. And after it was done...noone made a concnerted effort to portray Clinton as an uncaring bastard who cares more for the HMO than he does for the uninsured children. Sorry bud...this one won't play. Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,388 by Brandioch 8/9/01 12:44:13 PM Reply	Well, you're right on one thing. It wasn't implemented. "Its motives were NOT questioned by Republicans." Yes they were. "They weren't looking for strings." Yes they were. "They (as well as most of the Democrats that were in control) questioned its proposed implementation." Okay, right on two things. "And after it was done...noone made a concnerted effort to portray Clinton as an uncaring bastard who cares more for the HMO than he does for the uninsured children." Ummmmm, wouldn't that be because Clinton was the one that was pushing for the uninsured children to have universal coverage? He was pushing for coverage for children so he couldn't have been against coverage for children.
Post #4,390 by wharris2 8/9/01 12:53:02 PM Reply	There is no argument so dubious as.... "We're doing it for the children" Of course if you're against whatever "x" is, you're anti-children and you just want to see them all die, right? (well, that's essentially the PR campaign after anything "for the children" fails.) French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #4,414 by bepatient 8/9/01 3:03:56 PM Reply	Well thats my point Ummmmm, wouldn't that be because Clinton was the one that was pushing for the uninsured children to have universal coverage? He was pushing for coverage for children so he couldn't have been against coverage for children. Press coverage of the Republicans have them as corporate mongers who have no regard for the "poor downtrodden masses"...even though they have proposed programs that would help...and those programs were not implemented. Besides...you seem to be putting the horse about 3 paces behind the cart on the questions raised about UHC. All of the Rep concerns that I heard were about removing choice from people in order to insure the uninsured. That is not a question of motive but rather a question of implementation. That and the fact that it created a huge federal infrastructure which goes directly against the conservative mindset of "smaller is better". Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,418 by Simon_Jester 8/9/01 3:37:18 PM Reply	Not that I want to get involved..but a timeline that might be of interest. [link\|http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page2.html\| link ]
Post #4,434 by Ashton 8/9/01 7:17:26 PM 8/9/01 7:25:03 PM Reply	Heh, amidst the noise (then).. Never so clear a portrayal of at least many of the significant events, and certainly: none of the info in real time re these (only now tranparent) tactics of the insurance-medico astroturf. (Not that anyone would have imagined there weren't such plans.) Maybe this recap illustrates well enough, the utter poverty of the system we've allowed to entrench - the financing of all government members' election / reelection costs by the bottomless pockets of Corporate. Quid pro quo on this part which affects My company.. and that part which.. - - want reelection money next year, Bub er Bob? Naive to imagine that non-Corporate funded counters to this system, amount to anything more than feelgood mental masturbation about matters beneficial to, "The Murican Peepul": a phrase already coopted by the minority in actual control. And it works! those blab phrases. So we continue as the world's richest banana republic - descended from some of the wisest principles yet - all observed in the hype only. And often in the name of er Morality! Goebbels would be proud to see how his Ministry of Propaganda has survived his death. (That was also about er 'Morality' too IIRC) Oh well. It was a splendid dream - but who could have imagined! a Rush Limbaugh 'worth' $125M$ (even correcting for inflation) in 1776) ? Ashton (wrote 250M$ first, cache fault) Edited by Missing User 70 Aug. 9, 2001, 07:25:03 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #4,423 by Brandioch 8/9/01 4:49:53 PM Reply	And the Republican's alternative was? "Press coverage of the Republicans have them as corporate mongers who have no regard for the "poor downtrodden masses"...even though they have proposed programs that would help...and those programs were not implemented." I don't recall any Republican alternatives that would have provided universal health care.
Post #4,425 by Fearless Freep 8/9/01 4:54:20 PM Reply	So doing something stupid is better than doing nothing? Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #4,436 by Ashton 8/9/01 7:41:12 PM Reply	Unclear your referent - Is the idea, universal health care deemed now and evidently, "something stupid"? despite its presence in the civilized countries of the world (all of whom are less wealthy that we, overall and per capita). Or then do you mean: it would have been stupid for the Repos of both parties - to actually converge on a graduated solution? Or to make it real easy: test runs with time limits, as costs/benefits are observed and discussed? Or some thing signifying a direction and a beginning. What we got: was 0 nada zippo. What we are unable to even debate in Murica is: why.. the insurance middle-man (Corp) is a Murican necessity - ever for there to be such coverage. Insurance welfare, no less. Tacitly accepted? (Must I find the Insurance PAC - merely visible - amounts contributed, for this to be an er 'issue', or will the rough #s in the NPR summary do?) A.
Post #4,438 by Brandioch 8/9/01 7:48:59 PM Reply	If I may quote Bill. again... "And after it was done...noone made a concnerted effort to portray Clinton as an uncaring bastard who cares more for the HMO than he does for the uninsured children." And quote you: "So doing something stupid is better than doing nothing?" Now, how to convey the concepts....... I don't know if I can. Clinton's plan is not implemented, we still have un-insured children, but that's okay because the possible alternative MIGHT be stupid. So, HMO's are making more money -AND- Children are still un-insured That sounds like a great philosophy to me.
Post #4,469 by bepatient 8/9/01 10:47:19 PM Reply	Earth to Brandioch The entire point of this thread has been that even though Republicans offer programs...and these programs are rejected (with no alternatives offered by the Democrats...much like your UHC example)...the press and the DNC continue to portray the Repos as uncaring, unfeeling bastards who care more for corps than they do for people. (and you can read the post I initially responded to to notice that this campaign is worldwide...since they even have the brits thinking it) In your UHC example that is akin to saying that Clinton is an uncaring bastard who cares more for HMOs than he does about insuring children. However, you'll notice that that did not occur....because maybe...just possibly...one side doesn't play the same game as the other....as if you'd recognize or admit that fact. Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,548 by Brandioch 8/10/01 4:31:37 PM Reply	Earth here, send transmission. "In your UHC example that is akin to saying that Clinton is an uncaring bastard who cares more for HMOs than he does about insuring children." Ummm, again, Clinton proposes a plan to provide such care and it doesn't pass so Clinton doesn't care? I'm not seeing that. Are you mixing your general and your specifics in this example? Now, to help you out, if Clinton veto'ed a Republican plan to provide such care to those same children, you would be right. Which is totally different from the original topic of "talking heads" and such. But, so what?
Post #4,599 by bepatient 8/11/01 12:46:17 AM Reply	I did...your decoder ring is set to the wrong frequency. The republicans offer programs to help the poor. The democrats reject these plans. They then call the Republicans uncaring bastards with no regard for the poor. The democrats offered UHC. The republicans rejected this plan. They did NOT...however call Clinton an uncaring bastard with no regard for the uninsured. Any clearer and I'd have to stamp it on your forehead. Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,625 by Brandioch 8/11/01 12:40:19 PM Reply	Message decoded. Please confirm. "The democrats offered UHC. The republicans rejected this plan. They did NOT...however call Clinton an uncaring bastard with no regard for the uninsured." Clinton seeks to help uninsured. Republicans seek to stop such help for the uninsured. Republicans do NOT say Clinton has NO regard for uninsured. ------------Is that what you're trying to say?------------------- The republicans offer programs to help the poor. The democrats reject these plans. They then call the Republicans uncaring bastards with no regard for the poor. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Why, those nasty Democrats. Have they no shame? Will they stoop to anything? Would it be possible for you to name one of these programs that the Democrats have rejected and which they vilified the Republicans about? Not that I would ever doubt your word.
Post #4,657 by Ashton 8/11/01 6:15:44 PM Reply	Unfair.. The Republicans are compassionate, and are simply misunderstood. Their perennial inaction is perfectly reasonable. See - Since words can be so easily misinterpreted - especially by the Liberal Press (all four.. three? remaining Press Corporations, that is) - Naturally the Republicans do not wish to commit their compassionate feelings for the poor, to actual proposed legislation with words and clauses and ummm.. er funding.. and such small details. (Call this a conservative prescience: someone would be sure to twist their words! So the best thing is not to propose anything in writing. Safer.. and we know how important safety is, when you are tryin to conserve everything. As much as you can get, 'to conserve', anyway.) See? they really mean well, and it's mean of you - to put words in their clamped-shut mouths. Prove! they don't mean well. Show me in their detailed proposa-- Uh.. Never mind. Ashton Congressional Record enough words to reassemble any way ya want - as is most often done
Post #4,660 by bepatient 8/11/01 6:21:27 PM Reply	look up Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,665 by Brandioch 8/11/01 7:13:19 PM Reply	I see.... my ceiling and a spider web w/spider and my light. Hmmm, so, you're saying that the spider is a metaphor for Republican compassion? Not that I'd ever doubt your word.
Post #4,675 by boxley 8/11/01 9:00:58 PM Reply	block grants for welfare to the communities Gingrich proposed and Clinton no noed. Gotta have that federal bj^H^Hoversight. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,873 by drewk 8/13/01 1:15:50 PM Reply	Wow, and you say that's not a straw man Clinton seeks to help uninsured. Republicans seek to stop such help for the uninsured. By "help uninsured" do you mean the Universal Health Care part of the Clinton Health Plan that went to Congress? Because there were quite a few other things covered in that package. And even that part wasn't universally supported. There are still arguments raging over the effectivenss of the Canadian style of socialized medicine, so I don't think nationalized health care is a clear winner. But even if a particular congressperson supported the particular form of Universal Health Care codified in the Clinton Health Plan, there could still be critical flaws in other parts of it that would cause the congressperson to vote against the package. I guess I'd be tilting at windmills to even bring up the concept of a poison pill. This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #4,881 by jb4 8/13/01 2:17:24 PM Reply	Re: Wow, and you say that's not a straw man There are still arguments raging over the effectivenss of the Canadian style of socialized medicine[...] Boy, I'll say! One such aspect of this debate is the "effectiveness" of having Canadians paying something like 1/8th of the cost for a given prescription medication as Merkins do. I suppose that debate would be between the large 3 or so multinational pharmaceutical producers, and ...consumers? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,891 by drewk 8/13/01 3:21:32 PM Reply	No, it'd be ... From the people who have to wait until some bureaucrat decides you're "sick enough" for the procedure. Unless you're wealthy enough to just come to the U.S. and pay to have it done. But then socialized medicine would seem to be good enough only for those who can't afford to make their own decisions, which seems pretty much like non-socialized medicine anyway. This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #4,520 by Fearless Freep 8/10/01 12:01:26 PM Reply	Red Herring If the discussion was... Clinton: "Insure the children" vs Republicans: "No plan at all" ...you might have a point. But you said the Republicans had no alternative to "Universal Health Care" and Universal Health Care, at least as proposed by Clinton was about a lot more than just about insuring children. That's the point to wish I said (by making the reverse point sarcastically) that no plan is sometimes better than a bad plan. In other words, equating opposition to Clinton's plan as opposition to insuring children is a strawman argument that attempts to dodge the issue with an emotional ploy Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #4,522 by wharris2 8/10/01 12:03:52 PM Reply	Red Herring part 2 Not to mention that the Clinton health care plan was developed behind closed doors in secret meetings, against the law. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #4,523 by Simon_Jester 8/10/01 12:08:37 PM Reply	Hmm...behind closed doors.... Sort of like Cheney's energy policy?
Post #4,524 by Fearless Freep 8/10/01 12:13:56 PM Reply	Doesn't bother me too much in this case... ...as I'm more objecting to the logical bait-and-switch than the particulars Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #4,553 by Brandioch 8/10/01 6:13:15 PM Reply	Narrowing the focus. "But you said the Republicans had no alternative to "Universal Health Care" and Universal Health Care, at least as proposed by Clinton was about a lot more than just about insuring children." Yep, but that was the example I used. Yep, there was more to it than just children. But children make such an easy emotional target. "That's the point to wish I said (by making the reverse point sarcastically) that no plan is sometimes better than a bad plan." Ah, but is that true in this specific instance? "In other words, equating opposition to Clinton's plan as opposition to insuring children is a strawman argument that attempts to dodge the issue with an emotional ploy" Yes and no. It is an emotional ploy. It is not a strawman. And it doesn't dodge the issue. Universal Health Care was proposed. By a Democrat (I can't say "liberal") and defeated. The Republicans have not offered any counter plan. Children are still uninsured. Again, the easy emotional tie is that CERTAIN PEOPLE are INSENSITIVE to the NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN. While CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE are CARING about the NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN. Of course, in theory, a bad plan could be worse than no plan. But this is the real world, not a theoretical construct. So, in theory, does not apply. Actions and results are all that matter. Those poor, poor children. sobs Who will care for those poor, poor children? sobs
Post #4,379 by boxley 8/9/01 12:18:43 PM Reply	swung left and had scabs on it :) Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,398 by screamer 8/9/01 1:51:21 PM Reply	Watch out now, you may just get this moved to the Flame Forum... Sorry, I forgot who I was dealing with... we'll go point by point this once... You write: No. "The press" is biased. Because "the press" is made up of individuals. Who work for companies. To which I have already said, 90 percent of those individuals are registered Democrats... What I'm saying is that you were incorrect in stating that the "talking heads" (can Rush be counted among them?) wouldn't care about any strings attached to "liberal" programs. First, no Rush can no longer be a talking head, because they are only found on television (hence the term "talking head"), Second what you are saying is that it is your bleeding opinion that I am incorrect in stating the talking heads wouldn't care about any strings attached, because neither you nor I have at this point of our debate, adequately determined who they are or if they would or wouldn't care. Now have we? I think they (UPI and AP)tend to not ask as many hard questions about motives or strings attached to other Democrats, seeing as how they are mostly Democrats (fact) and there is a strong probability that their personal biases would get in the way of them being "fair" to non Democrats... And Republicans can be extremely compassionate. Historically, they have been extremely compassionate to big business and less so to individuals. Unless, of course, those individuals are SLAVES.... Unless you want to revise that history too? Dumb cheap shot... You know it too... Of course, we always end up back at Clinton's sex life. Yep, just to piss you off.... How in the fsck did you get that: I said: I remember the press asking hard questions about Clinton's sex life during the height of the scandal. What does history record now? An invasion of his personal life or the epitome of double standard and hypocracy? I am using that as an example to prove that the press did jump all over Clinton when the scandal first hit (bolstering your argument ;-> ), but then they slacked off. In fact, depending on whether you are a democrat or a republican, you would see this as an invasion of his personal life or the epitome of a double standard... I couldn't care less about his dick... You're the one who seems obsessed with it... Of course, no Republican has ever cheated. Of course, no one has ever lied about sex. Which is why the public didn't seem to CARE that much. Yes, he lied under oath. Of course, Republicans NEVER lie. So, Clinton didn't do anything that hasn't been done over and over and over in DC and it's "The Liberal Press" that is going easy on questioning him. And I believe Larry Flint proved that with his bounties on information regarding past sexual escapades by Republicans. Not only strawmen but an insult to any thinking person... Of course, what the fuck does this have to do with the ORIGINAL statement? The one about "talking heads" never questioning the strings attached to "liberal" programs of which my universal health care was a counter example? Let me see.......... Nothing? To which I humbly admit that my syntax may have been a tad better had I said rarely question as opposed to never... My bad... I stand corrected... You make a statement. I provide a counter that disproves your statement. You provide an example that "proves" your statement. So, I say "all apples are red". You show me a green apple. I show you a red apple. Do you see why my showing you a red apple is meaningless? Feel free to obsess about Clinton's dick some more. Talk about meaningless strawmen, you provided dick squat....other than your usual tiresome didactic rhetoric. Your counter was weak, at best, and I'm talking about the frigging apple, not it's color... You can't prove to me or anyone with 100% certainty that the press is NOT biased any more than I can prove with 100% certainty that it is... No matter how many times you and a room full of likeminded sheep chant "four legs good, two legs bad" it just don't make it so... So if I am full of shit, you must be too... So where's the argument? Just a few thoughts, Screamer "Putting the fun back into funatic"
Post #4,440 by Brandioch 8/9/01 8:14:13 PM Reply	And the part you're skipping over..... "To which I have already said, 90 percent of those individuals are registered Democrats..." And they work for editors, who work for the owners. And those owners (fewer and fewer each year) are conservative. "First, no Rush can no longer be a talking head, because they are only found on television (hence the term "talking head")," I'll disagree. "Second what you are saying is that it is your bleeding opinion that I am incorrect in stating the talking heads wouldn't care about any strings attached," Well, I count Rush as a "talking head" and he was against Clinton's plan. "because neither you nor I have at this point of our debate, adequately determined who they are or if they would or wouldn't care." True. The same as "the press". "I think they (UPI and AP)tend to not ask as many hard questions about motives or strings attached to other Democrats, seeing as how they are mostly Democrats (fact) and there is a strong probability that their personal biases would get in the way of them being "fair" to non Democrats..." And you are free to believe that. I, on the other hand, don't see that. "Unless, of course, those individuals are SLAVES.... Unless you want to revise that history too? Dumb cheap shot... You know it too..." What are you talking about? "Yep, just to piss you off.... How in the fsck did you get that: I said: .......Clinton's sex life....." Ummmm, from your post where you specifically mentioned "Clinton's sex life". "I am using that as an example to prove that the press did jump all over Clinton when the scandal first hit (bolstering your argument ;-> ), but then they slacked off." So, "the press" jumped all over a sensationalistic story about a Democrat. As you said, this bolsters my point. Eventually, the story was not "new" anymore and it was left to Starr to rabidly pursue it. I'm not seeing your point, except that your facts seem to support my position. "In fact, depending on whether you are a democrat or a republican, you would see this as an invasion of his personal life or the epitome of a double standard... I couldn't care less about his dick... You're the one who seems obsessed with it..." Strange, you brought it into this conversation, but I'm the one obsessing? Again, your point is eluding me. "Not only strawmen but an insult to any thinking person..." Nope. These are the reasons the story wasn't much of a story after the first few months. IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE. The press didn't let up because they were sympathetic to a fellow Democrat. The press let up because they got the story. Politician has extra-marital sex and lies about it. The novelty just isn't there. "To which I humbly admit that my syntax may have been a tad better had I said rarely question as opposed to never... My bad... I stand corrected..." And when we move to that statement, well........it depends upon what each person defines as "rarely". How many examples would I have to provide to counter the rarely? Would it then become "uncommon"? Why would that be worth the effort I put forth? "Talk about meaningless strawmen, you provided dick squat...." That's your opinion. You made a statement, I provided a counter. You then defined "talking head". Hey, this isn't Bryce, is it? "...other than your usual tiresome didactic rhetoric." Yep, but at least mine is supportable without re-defining terms. "Your counter was weak, at best, and I'm talking about the frigging apple, not it's color..." Nope. In the example, it was the color. "You can't prove to me or anyone with 100% certainty that the press is NOT biased any more than I can prove with 100% certainty that it is..." Again "the press". "They" are biased. No, neither of us can prove anything about "the press". But that's not going to stop you from making statements about them, is it? "No matter how many times you and a room full of likeminded sheep chant "four legs good, two legs bad" it just don't make it so... So if I am full of shit, you must be too... So where's the argument?" Gotta love that logic. "So if I am full of shit, you must be too..." You're the one obsessed by Clinton's dick and your fantasies about "the press" and what "they" believe. So I must be also. Whatever.
Post #4,400 by screamer 8/9/01 2:02:24 PM Reply	and by the way... Really. ;-> Just a few thoughts, Screamer "Putting the fun back into funatic"

Welcome to IWETHEY!