The Worst of Conservative Talk Radio

“Kinder, gentler, machine gun hand.”

Well, I was expecting a much longer post, but yeah, that low even for that crowd.

I wonder how they could sleep at night. Still not as bad as the tea partiers who heckled and berated a parkinson’s victim. Ok maybe it is as bad. Seriously though, is this what Jesus would do?

I wonder if Beck has read Kant and realizes that his comment, offensive as it is, is actually an argument in favor of universal health care.

I think this merits another look inside the pundit’s psyche:
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_dont_even_want_to_be_alive

For the umpteenth time, it seems to me that these conservative bible-thumpers have thumped their Bibles so much that many of the most important pages by now have gone missing.

Kate Pickert:
.
Understanding of course the dishonesty and grotesquery of Limbaugh is your well-taken point, was what he mentioned true?
.
When Limbaugh says

I would say this to Marcelas Owens : ‘Well, your mom would still have died, because Obamacare doesn’t kick in until 2014.’”

, is he telling the truth?
.
Would the provisions that would have enabled Owens’ mother to pay for health care, and possibly saved her life, not actually been available until 2014?
.
Will the Senate’s (and Obama’s) CBO report-driven timetable for benefits in their bill be responsible for more denial of care until 2014, presumably resulting in the harm to and even death of folks like Marcelas’ mother?
.
Does this version of health care reform sacrifice the health and lives of people to meet the deficit commitments made by Obama?

just in case anyone missed it…
.

.

I feel bad for the kid getting drug into this but it’s a pretty illuminating situation because it shows you exactly where conservative are on this issue. At this point they’re so fixated on shutting down reform that they’re letting desperation drive them and not thinking about how this stuff looks. They’re just focused on not letting the Democrats get a big “win”.
.
I honestly think that conservatives think that this is all one big game, that the Dems are pushing for HCR entirely because it would be a big victory over the Republicans and not because it might actually help people. It’s completely valid to highlight stories like Marcel’s because this legislation would help stop things like that from happening again.
.
I don’t want to see Marcel hurt because he’s entered the maelstrom but I’m happy to let the leading lights of the conservative movement keeping right on yapping because the more they attack the kid the more people are going to see that their opposition is simply about stopping the Dems, They could care less about the people it helps.

There is a time when the MSM would have been all over the disgrace that are Beck and Limbaugh. But now they don’t dare mention that even non-rightwing conservatives are quite happy to let B and L speak for them.

Maybe Limbaugh is telling the truth, but I’ll tell you this: If the Republicans get their way, other families in situations like the Owens’ wouldn’t be getting any assistance by 2014 either. So was Rush advocating for more comprehensive healthcare reform that starts immediately? Seems unlikely to me. Arguing that the Democratic health care reform plan wouldn’t have helped her because it doesn’t kick in for four years isn’t exactly an argument for not passing the legislation at all.

Pretty classy.

The extreme right seems to believe that class is something conferred upon you by the neighborhood you live in or the size of your bank account.

As long as the right continues to behave this way decent people will continue to flee from them.

BTW – Here are a couple more examples of this kind of behavior:

o Teabaggers harassing a man with Parkinson’s disease (link). Their behavior brings to mind Limbaugh’s sleazy comments about Michael Fox.

o Malkin repeatedly publishing the home addresses and phone numbers of people she disagrees with so that they receive death threats from her army of knuckle draggers.

The Healthcare bill would not have kicked in soon enough to save the boy’s mother. But we have all seen how long it takes to get something through Congress. 2014 is coming fast. Think of all the people the bill will save. There is no excuse for any grown person for taking potshots at a child.
ps If Clinton’s bill had passed, there would be no need for this discussion.

Bleck and Fat Boy read the Bible???

Since it serves an important bodily function, calling Fat Boy and Bleck a__holes would be a term of endearment. To say nothing of their devout followers.

So now the Republican argument against the bill is that it’s too timid? That’s why my House representative (R) has been saying we need to scrap the bill and start over?

Stuart, I know you have serious objections to this bill and fair props to you for that, but this is really just an ignorant comment. Even if it’s true that the main provisions of the bill don’t come into place until 2014 what difference does that make for someone who passed away in 2007 – you are a bright guy and you must know that this is an example of the sort of people that this bill will help – even if it is after 2014. Now, if you really think that a woman in 2014 or thereafter in this woman’s position wouldn’t be assisted by this bill then fair enough (although I’d want an explanation why).

I don’t agree with much of what you say but I respect the way you’ve put your points. This comment is a bit beneath you in my view.

Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are the anti-Christs. They stir up fear and doubt in people. They stir up strife and assembles a multitude of great force of the faithless. They care for none but themselves, and are ready to attach a kid to make some bucks. It is hysterical that Rush Limbaugh is trying to project himself as a Christian. When was the last time he reads Matthew 25:31-46?

The health-care bill needs to be passed. It is for the ones who don’t have health-care. The ones who serve you food at the restaurant, clean your houses, do your nails, mow your lawn, work as cashiers at your grocery stores, your shopping malls… The bill is for the people who got laid-off, the olds and the unfortunates. Why do the ones who have health-care, oppose health-care bill? Don’t they care about their fellow citizens who don’t have health-care? Congress needs to do the right thing by passing the health-care bill.

The selfish ones are screaming about how expensive health-care bill is going to cost. The US government just have to prioritize where the money should go with the amount that they have. So what if health-care bill makes it more expensive. It is the right thing to do. We have spent so much money on stupid things so why people even question this. We have given Israel more than 114B and some to Palestine. What did we get in return? They are still trying to kill each other off.

It’s like those who lost loved ones to various diseases rallying to support research that’ll make it easier for others. Fat Boy’s implication that it wouldn’t work right away flies in the face of his own opinion that it wouldn’t work AT ALL. He and his ilk know that they can say practically whatever they want and the Clear Channels of the world will collectively say “heckuva ratings book, Limbie.”

What conservatives have completely missed in this debate is the proper role of charity in providing indigent care. In a free society, we ought to be able to make charitable contributions without fear that gun-toting tax collectors will come take our remaining wealth, funds we decide for ourselves are needed to provide for our friends & family & secure our own finances. Instead, the Democrats seek to make anyone’s health care everyone’s problem, without regard for those of us forced to subsidize people who abuse their own health by smoking, skipping exercise, skydiving, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, etc.

And this is also all part of the grand Democratic hoodwink, to first pass mandatory health care for all Americans, then follow it up with amnesty for illegal aliens, to guarantee a permanent Democratic majority far into the next century. These Democrats are lousy traitors, every one of them.

Thumping and reading are not the same thing. Likewise, reading and understanding.

It’s “everyone’s problem” already–DUH! When folks go to the ER for care they could get in a doctor’s office, it’s costing you, me, and every taxpayer far more $ than it should. And the “foot-in-the-door” argument went out with communism, Vietnam and, uh, Iraq.

Cripes, I doubt if Bleck reads the Book of Mormon, much less the Bible. The Quran would be heresy to him.

Jesus wouldn’t go around forcing people to pay for someone else’s healthcare, either. Forced charity is theft, and it is not a Christian concept.

So who cares if a couple of talk-show hosts say something “mean” when the people they’re opposed to are committing evil?

“And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” – Matthew 25:40

Would the provisions that would have enabled Owens’ mother to pay for health care, and possibly saved her life, not actually been available until 2014?
.
That’s not a valid argument against passing the bill, Stuart…that’s a distraction and you know it.
.
Maybe if Limbaugh and others hadn’t pulled the same sort of sh!t back in 1993 and 1994, Owen’s mother wouldn’t have died a decade and a couple of years later. Did you consider that?

Your claim that Dems will do anything to please immigrants and illegals would be more accurate if you agree that the GOP has already abandoned them both.

I disagree with stuart on passing this bill or not (I’m a reluctant “pass anything”-er) but won’t be as harsh as homerhk. I see approval / not as a highly subjective “value checklist” based on our own situations. I think doing nothing / starting over / keeping status quo is the absolute worst choice: people are already facing recissions / pre-existings, soaring costs, bankruptcies …and death, literally. Ask Karen’s brother if he likes the staus quo. At the absolute min., make pre-existings / recissions illegal. This is not currently happening. Thus, passing anything is better than status quo …but it’s not enough.
.
Lovely Karen and Kate wrote about incremental changes not being enough, but my hunch is Congress can pass needed incremental changes to this bill IF we stay on their asses. BTW, my top choice would be a single-payer primary HC system run like local police / fire, paid by Fed / state / local taxes (mostly Fed given costs), and with strict price caps / hardball negotiations with pharmas, etc. We can have a private secondary network for those who can pay. That’s my checklist. I also want to marry Sandra Bullock. Stuart (and his lovely bride?) no doubt has different priorities and a different checklist, as do others here. I won’t argue with that.

Listen, you scumbag.
.
Tiffany Owens was 27 and had a job. Then she got sick. Then she couldn’t work. Then she lost her health insurance. Then she died.
.
She didn’t need your f—ing “charity.” She deserved health care.
.
That’s what most Americans want. You don’t like it? You don’t want taxes or social services? You don’t want government interfering with your life? You don’t want government? Go move to Somalia, the libertarian paradise.

BTW, this was addressed to azmaveth.

homerhk:
.
This comment is a bit beneath you in my view.
.
That’s interesting.
.
To what comment of mine are you referring?
.
I’m not making an argument, I merely asked questions.
.
I asked if a claim –regardless of who makes it– is true or false.
.
if it’s true that the main provisions of the bill don’t come into place until 2014 what difference does that make
.
What difference does it make?
.
I don’t know, what difference does it make to those who will have to wait until 2014 for the health care cavalry to arrive? What difference will it make to the next Marcelas Owens’ family?
.
The claim is either true or untrue, and I’d like to know whether it’s correct or not.
.
It seems as if you really have a problem with the answers to those questions, not my commentary, homerhk.
.
If the claim is true, then maybe you should take some time to explain how the wait until 2014, with all of the suffering and death that that implies (at least according to some Senate bill proponents), is justified, homerhk, instead of being angry at people who ask relevant questions.
.
Remember, at the moment, I’m not arguing for or against the passage of the bill. You don’t need to make a case for all of those who are helped after 2014 in response to me. To do so is to argue against strawman.
.
Right this very second, assume that I’m just as totally in favor of the bill’s passage as you are, and tell us all how the four long years of literally hundreds of thousands more Marcelas Owens’ mothers are justified, if the bill’s passage somehow does so.
.
Or don’t. Don’t argue that we need to pass a bill right now that kills people before 2014 so that we can save people after 2014, and maybe stay away from arguments for the Senate bill that rely on such rationales altogether.
.
You could just answer the question of whether the claim is true or false, and just leave it there, homerhk, because I’m not the one making arguments, you are.

What conservatives have missed is anything resembling human empathy. We all know that “Compassionate ConservativeTM” was just a marketing gimmick. If you had a clue what you were talking about, and were motivated by anything buy your own greed and sense of superiority, you would know that private charities cannot possibly deal with the misery in ours, “the richest country in the world.”

You will let us know when the heavily-armed IRS accountants show up to audit you, right? No doubt, it will be right after Obama bans all guns and the Black Panthers show up to confiscate them.

What an idiot.

The claim is either true or false.
.
To ask that question, and to then consider what that question implies, is not to make an argument for or against passing the bill as is.
.
If you think that the situations of the people who will be hurt before 2014 simply aren’t as important as those who will be helped after 2014, then there’s no argument to be made at all.
.
If you think that the situations of the people who will be hurt before 2014 are just as important as those who will be helped after 2014, then you might find the bill as is impossible to support, since that position depends on the belief that everyone’s lives are just as important as everyone else’s.
.
I’m not arguing a position, I’m just considering the question.

I understand opposition, but the reaction of beck, limbaugh and malkin is just pathetic.

It has to be a miserable world that they live in if that’s the tactics they feel they have to resort to.

deconstructiva:
.
Thus, passing anything is better than status quo …but it’s not enough.
.
Thanks for doing your best to describe the opinions of someone with whom you disagree honestly, I really mean that.
.
You’re correct, for lots of reasons (although single-payer is not one of them), I am not a PAN (a “Pass Anything Now” supporter).

Stuart, I went back and re-read your earlier comments in this thread, and I’d like to make two observations:
1) It is true that the current bill would not have been implemented in time to save Marcelus’s mother, but the point is that it will help to save others from a similar fate. And Rush Dingbat was an insensitive ass for saying that.
2) Liberals overwhelmingly wanted a single-payer, Medicare for all system that went into effect immediately. The “CBO report-driven timetable” you mention, as well as most of the objectionable aspects of the current bill, were introduced specifically in an effort to court conservatives – a fool’s errand.
That said, the bill as it stands is a significant improvement in many ways over the unsustainable status quo.

Is it just me, or is tacit in Rush’s comments that Obamacare would have saved the life of Marcelas’ mom if it had been enacted sooner?

Stuart: Whether true or not, there is no excuse for the language used by Limbaugh and Beck. Do you really think Limbaugh would say to that boy his mother would be dead anyway? Well, maybe he would.
What I despise about Limbaugh and Beck is their rhetoric that leads to the confrontation of the Parkinson man. Whether the man had Parkinson or not, whether the HCR bill is good or not, promoting that kind of incivility and hate is never productive except in a negative way.

durangodave:
.
1) thanks for answering the question
.
2) thanks for the explanation of your rationale
.
I think that there’s something wrong with the knee-jerk reaction of the press corps here. They’re somehow avoiding the substance of the claim, and focusing on “sensitivity,” which I don’t understand. Rush Limbaugh is an inveterate liar and perverter of the truth in the service of his agenda, but that’s not what’s being criticized.
.
In fact, I can’t quite figure out what Kate Pickert is criticizing, actually.
.
When she says:

Since Democrats are trotting Marcelas before the cameras, there’s nothing wrong with reporters or pundits checking out his story to see if it’s true. That’s fair game. But – right now – there’s no evidence that anything Marcelas or his grandmother have said was untrue.

What does that have to do with fact-checking the claim that the Senate bill wouldn’t have helped Marcelas’ mother?
.
What does that have to do with an analysis of whether or not the bill will leave X amount of people to suffer and die like Marcelas’ mother until 2014 rolls around?
.
It seems as if someone said “Rush is attacking a motherless kid!,” and now Kate Pickert feels confident in denouncing him without explaining how exactly Rush is attacking a motherless kid. I could care less if Rush Limbaugh –the scum who accused Michael J. Fox of faking Parkinsons– is denounced, but I don’t think journalists clowning outrage on our behalf is terribly useful.
.
It reminds me of many instances in which a public figure says something, their political enemies denounce them for saying it on the basis of some kind of “sensitivity” the press corps is supposed to stand up for on our behalf, and then the press corps get to ignore substance and report a controversy for a few days.
.
I also think that there’s an inherent weakness in the argument for this Senate bill in invoking the suffering and deaths of people who will be helped after 2014 while ignoring the fact that the bill deliberately fails people in the exact same way before 2014. Focusing on the tone of Rush’s claim allows that weakness to go unexamined.
.
By the way, I’m not a single-payer supporter. My arguments are with this: [the bill] stands is a significant improvement in many ways over the unsustainable status quo, because the 2.4 trillion dollars a year health care crisis in the United States will be just as unsustainable as the status quo the day after passage as it will be in 2014, when we spend even more than 2.4 trillion dollars a year, and we’re even more broke, and Republicans assume control of the Federal budget that supplies health insurance subsidies to people like Marcelas’ mother.

And this is also all part of the grand Democratic hoodwink, to first pass mandatory health care for all Americans, then follow it up with amnesty for illegal aliens, to guarantee a permanent Democratic majority far into the next century.
.
Right. And don’t forget the next steps, where the Democrats make a secret pact with the mole men who live underneath the earth’s crust and the pod people from the third moon of Saturn to drain all Christians of their precious bodily fluids.
.
Stop huffing the glue before the brain damage is irreversible.

Jon Stewart’s brilliant take down of Glen Beck:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Kate, thank you for posting this. So often the traditional media wave of Beck, Fox opinionators, and hate radio as merely amusing.
I don’t know if it is out of fear of becoming a target or sucking up to people they think are influential. There is nothing amusing about these people. It is 24 hours a day of generating fear and distrust. It has and will lead to violence.

Stuart: “Don’t argue that we need to pass a bill right now that kills people before 2014.”

But the bill won’t kill anybody. Lack of access to care kills people. The bill will expand access to health care, faster than no bill but slower than a (purely hypothetical) alternative bill.

Other options include:

- Don’t pass any bill.

- Pass a better bill.

But I’m still waiting to hear how passing a better bill is feasible given the current makeup of the House and Senate. (Granting that the current Congress is less than ideal. So, go vote in 2010.)

btw, I understand that you’re not defending Limbaugh, and I think (I may be wrong) that your implicit point is that Limbaugh is a bit of red herring. With the GOP firmly in the “do nothing” camp, the real action is the debate among the blue dog, centrist, and progressive wings.

For better or worse, we’re at the point of either passing or not passing the bill that’s in hand. Whether the provisions kick in by 2011 or 2014 is a marginal issue, IMO.

apr2563:
.
Excuse for what language?
.
I don’t have a problem with Rush’s language, I have problem with his perverted ideas and bankrupt political philosophy.
.
I don’t think there’s an issue with “hate and incivility,” I think there’s an issue with the fact that the guy lies about the world.
.
It’s not Rush’s language that makes his climate change denial dangerous for our country (or the world), if he were as civil and respectful as George Will, he’d be just as much of a liar.
.
In some ways, George Will is much worse for his Beltway press corps-approved lies. Nobody would accuse David Brooks of attacking a little boy with a dead mother, but that isn’t really the point of why Brooks’ product has been so terrible, is it?
.
The tens or hundreds of thousands of dead innocent civilians in Iraq don’t cry out from their graves against “incivility” or hateful “language,” apr2563. To focus on the tone of Rush’s remarks is to play into his hands; it’s to make our discourse as shallow as whether or not “language” is appropriate, and to participate in a political performance piece.

I think (I may be wrong) that your implicit point is that Limbaugh is a bit of red herring.
.
No, that’s correct.
.
Thanks for your response.

The claim is either true or false.
.
Third possibility: it’s nonsense. The health care reform bill – even if in full effect today in 2010 – would not retroactively have saved a person from dying in 2007. Limbaugh’s statement is nonsense…or worse, when you consider the motivation driving that statement.
.
To ask that question, and to then consider what that question implies…
.
Serious consideration of nonsense? Other than maybe appraising nonsense for artistic or humorous quality, why would you waste your time legitimizing it?
.
…is not to make an argument for or against passing the bill.
.
Two thoughts:
.
1) Agreed, and my intent was to say that it wasn’t a valid argument on the part of Limbaugh, not you. I wasn’t clear about that. I’m with you that Congress coulda/woulda/shoulda done better…our split in opinon seems to be on whether or not this weaker bill should be made law.
.
2) I’ve about had it with serious consideration of nonsense statements about death panels, ‘socialist takeovers’, and life-saving treatments not being retroactive used when arguing against healthcare reform. There’s enough legitimate issues that can be debated without throwing nonsensical (and in this case kinda of hateful) crap into the mix.

Based on what I’ve read here, I don’t think anyone can claim moral or ethical superiority. You’d think after Elian Gonzales we’d have learned not to parade children out to advance political agendas.

If lack of access to health care kills people, then a bill legislating that the lack continues for X years kills people.
.
If a section of New Jersey were starving because they had no access to affordable food whatsoever, and we passed a bill into law that provided Federal subsidies for supermarkets starting in 2014, you wouldn’t simply say “The Supermarket Reform Bill doesn’t kill people –starvation kills people,” would you?
.
You’d say that, if we really cared about people starving, we’d pass a Supermarket Reform Bill that provided access to food for people starting tomorrow, wouldn’t you?
.
What I’m arguing isn’t even that the bill should or should not be passed, it’s that the rhetoric that PAN supporters are using is awfully, awfully weak, and depends on faux-controversies like Rush’s comments –remarks that a huge number of Americans who aren’t hardcore conservatives might not find outrageously insensitive– to be discussed in lieu of more defensible rationales.
.
This episode illustrates the weakness of our side’s rhetoric, which is much, much more important than dancing on Rush’s grave when the press corps decides they’d like to fulfill their language hall-monitor function –a function that works against liberal arguments the vast majority of the time, by the way.

homerhk:
.
instead of being angry at people who ask relevant questions
.
Well, I’ve re-read what I wrote, and I need to take that back.
.
You weren’t actually evincing any anger whatsoever, and so to imply that your arguments were made in anger is wrong, and untrue.
.
I apologize for that implicit characterization, homerhk.

Stuart, beyond the hate rhetoric there is also the megaphone that Limbaugh et al have.

Well … If a section of New Jersey had been starving since the Truman administration and we passed (etc), I might say, “well it’s about f___ing time,” even as I wished it went into effect sooner.

The Dems did a terrible job of framing the debate (as per their usual). The GOP + blue dogs outflanked the progressives, that’s for sure. But I think the current bill is a lot better than nothing.

apr2563:
.
beyond the hate rhetoric there is also the megaphone that Limbaugh et al have.
.
Beyond the definition of “hate rhetoric” there is also the fact that faux-controversies like these amplify that megaphone.

It’s easy to take out kids- ya just don’t lead ‘em so much…

Does anyone still care when the rules on pre-existing conditions come into play? According to the most recent analysis I’ve seen, insurers will be prohibited after the effective date of the law (probably the date POTUS signs it) from dropping children for pre-existing conditions. The prohibition on dropping adults becomes effective Jan 1, 2011. Marcelas lost her insurance because she lost her job (too sick to work), but under the bill that’s going to be voted on, she’d have been able to keep the insurance under Cobra – if she could afford it.
.
Okay, not a perfect world. But not one where four years pass before the problem of pre-existing conditions is ameliorated, if not completely solved.
.
Should Kate have answered this question rather than me? (SZ did ask her, not me.) That’s for her to tell us.

The Dems did a terrible job of framing the debate (as per their usual).
.
More and more, I’m beginning to think that this is the result of adopting the Dole/Daschle plan more than anything else.
.
The GOP + blue dogs outflanked the progressives, that’s for sure.
.
Well, that’s not true. Blue Dogs and New Democrats are more powerful than ever, even if –especially if, actually– they lose members in the fall.
.
Progressives outflanked themselves by negotiating from the most weak position imaginable:
.
But I think the current bill is a lot better than nothing.
.
That’s the weakest negotiating position imaginable. That’s why liberals come out of this with even less –if that’s imaginable– power and credibility than literally everyone else going forward. That means that the current bill will probably get much worse, not better, over time.

I don’t find anything wrong with it the PRESIDENT exploited the child… and lied his mother DID receive treatment.. but it was good press for the fools who believe everything the chosen one says.. Boy the progressives don’t like have FACTS add to the mix.. Guess what people are getting over this guilt the President is trying to lay on people.. it’s as useless as his race card..

bobell:
.
Thanks for answering the question.
.
In another thread, I might have asked you to provide links and quotes to the source for that information, but that’s not quite as important as this:
.
Should Kate have answered this question rather than me?
.
Should Kate have proclaimed that “The Worst of Conservative Talk Radio” is an episode involving potential insensitivity in discussing an unfortunate child, or should she have perhaps considered that the worst effect of rightist talk radio is the misinformation and outright lies that they spread amongst a confused and uninformed public –misinformation that her profession just can’t seem to get across to said public.
.
Is it Rush’s fault that sitting Senator Grassley gets to say “pull the plug on Grandma” to his Iowan constituents without a press corps unified in opposition to that false claim?
.
“The Worst of Conservative Talk Radio” isn’t “hateful language,” it’s misinformation. Why the political press corps can only seem to summon outrage at insensitivity is the real question for Kate Pickert.

Mr Zilchman is doing such a fine job with explaining how insane this bill is, I will simply post the “Surge” / rally planned for tomorrow by Tea Party Patriots.
.
Thank you,
.
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs082/1102546521477/archive/1103203572634.html
.
Hope to see those who want to “KILL THE BILL” there tomorrow!!
.

That should have been either
.
information that her profession just can’t seem to get across to said public
.
or
.
misinformation that her profession just can’t seem to clear up for said public

Rush said “Now this is unseemly, exploitative, an 11-year-old boy being forced to tell his story all over just to benefit the Democrat Party and Barack Obama”

And he was right.

This is a fundimental difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals quite often use young children as spokespersons. Conservatives never do.

Wow, you just can’t deal with liberal intellectual honesty when it smacks you right in the face, can you Rustyblog?

Wow, just when you think the world couldn’t get any worse, you have Rush and Beck. You couldn’t beat that
pair with a full house! Rush wants to be a HERO, but we all know a HERO is a sandwich made of BALONEY.LOL

“But – right now – there’s no evidence that anything Marcelas or his grandmother have said was untrue”

Kate…nothing in your qoutes from Rush and Beck indicate that they are calling the boy a liar. They are making a point about the liberals that are using this boy for their personal gain. IF you were really concerned about this boy and his loss, you would be calling out his guardian (probably on welfare) for allowing this boy to be used by the likes of the washed up ballet dancer Rahm or the liar Pelosi. NO ONE on the liberal side of this debate cared a whit when his mother was dying. What did her representative do then???? Only when it directly benefits BO and his “boys” do they appear to give a rip…and the same goes for you, too.

Also, please check your facts. Pulmonary Hypertension is NOT all that rare…unless you are a Democrat with a bill to cram down decent America’s throats.

You are nothing but a liberal hack.

While I’m not a fan of Limbaugh or Beck neither one of them brought this child into the fray. Place the blame for this child’s exposure where it truly belongs… The democrats who used a child as a politcal prop !!!

probably on welfare
.
What would that possibility have to do with anything?

I have been trying to wrap my mind around this issue as I decide my stance, looking at both sides and refraining from calling anyone a jerk, idiot or four-letter word even if I disagree. I am in favor of health care reform, because I see it as a right for every American to be healthy.
.
I do understand the points made by opponents, that it’s not fair for everyone to pay a lot more to cover medical care for (point 1) those who are irresponsible with their health and make themselves unhealthy, or (point 2) those who could be working for their own insurance but don’t. However, those points are not enough for me to be an opponent. There are SO many Americans out there who (re: point 1) are taking care of their health perfectly but then get hit by a bus or develop cancer, and through no fault of their own are driven to bankruptcy because no one will help pay for their care, and also many many Americans who (re: point 2) are working hard at minimum wage jobs, unable to find better work, not lounging around asking for welfare so they can just mooch off of everyone. What of them?
.
As I try to understand the issue I keep referring back to the idea of cumpulsory public education. The government believes that every American should and must have a basic level of education (as I believe every American should and must have at least basic health coverage). Public schools are provided, and everyone must at least go there, no exceptions (as I believe everyone must at least sign up for basic cheap/free coverage – no excuses for not doing it). Those who want better or higher education than the government provides can pay for it (as anyone who wants premium coverage can pay for it). But at least everyone’s got some education. And the government does grant assistance to many gifted young adults who rightly deserve to get a higher education but can’t pay for it (as, re: point 1, there should be help for those who get hit by a bus and rightly deserve some help).
.
Wow, long post. Like I said, trying to understand all points! I guess it takes longer.

Right wilbrad Republicans would never exploit children.
Also, remember the hideous rumors started by Reps about McCain’s adopted daughter. Rush compared Chelsea Clinton to a dog when she was a chttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1281hild.

Typical liberal question, stuartzechman.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it…think of the free travel, free food, free everything this boy’s guardian is getting from turning him over to Rahm and the boys…motivation is everything here and it is key to why this boy is being paraded around rather than being in school…but wait…you liberals destroyed public schools a while back…you moved on to health care.

Can ANY of you liberal heathcare experts name me ONE significant medical advance to come from socalized medicine????? There hasn’t been one. Free enterprise drives business and medical advances. Why advance science when you cant recoup your costs?????

While I’m not a fan of Limbaugh or Beck…
.
Why is it I find this statement more than slightly questionable?

When you say you have a “right” to healh care, you are really saying that I have an obligation to pay for your healthcare.

I’d rather not.

Okay, I see the usual right-wing nutcases have shown up. It was a pretty interesting and thoughtful discussion while it lasted. See ya’ll later.

new rusty: I probably shouldn’t go if I have Parkinson’s or some other infirmity, huh?

Yeah, we get it… unfettered free markets and unbridled greed uber alles.
.
Okay, I see the usual right-wing nutcases have shown up.
.
Actually, durangodave, this is a slightly different crop of right-wing nutcases that have appeared.

Conservative Republicans would never in a million years literally hold up a baby as a spokesperson for their political positions:

.
link to LA Times piece “Arizona Republican gives voice to tiny healthcare overhaul foe”

”Pulmonary Hypertension is NOT all that rare.”
Prove Katie wrong … links please.
.
“…name me ONE significant medical advance to come from socalized medicine?????”
Everyone has access to it. Not everyone has access to private HC here as it stands now. What good is the latest fancy treatment if real people can’t afford it (or insurance cos. won’t let you use it, which amounts to the same thing, but I digress)? And no doubt the fewer sick / injured people out there – if they had full HC access – would in turn create less need for all those fancy treatments. Basic triage for everyone would cut down needs and costs for more drastic emergency care later, yes?
.
There are other countries with a highly regulated and cost-controlled private system – not socialized. Ask stuart for details; he’s posted them here before. Or don’t and just keep ranting away. But if you insist on ranting, please study rusty’s rants and learn how to be entertaining, if in a solemnly amusing way.

Doesn’t a lot of medical research get subsidized by government money? I don’t think the private sector can claim all of the medical field’s advances.
.
Also, how are we getting socialized medicine? Where in the bill does it say the government will be responsible for all medicinal advances? Is anything going to change at all in the way the private sector benefits from doing R&D and innovating new medicines/devices/etc?

Typical liberal question, stuartzechman.

You mean questioning apparent non sequiturs in an argument is typical of a liberal? I suppose so.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it…think of the free travel, free food, free everything this boy’s guardian is getting from turning him over to Rahm and the boys

Yes, just think of the fun of reliving this boy’s mother’s painful, unnecessary death day after day. What a motivation!

you liberals destroyed public schools a while back…you moved on to health care.

No, we instituted public schools. Conservatives opposed them. Something about a “free market” being capable of providing education for every family that truly worked for it, or something. I hadn’t realized that conservatives were now huge supporters of socialized education. Good to know.

you moved on to health care

No, we didn’t. I wish we had, but we didn’t.

Can ANY of you liberal heathcare experts name me ONE significant medical advance to come from socalized medicine?????

Yes.

Francis Harry Compton Crick OM FRS (8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004), was a British molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist, and most noted for being one of two co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953, together with James D. Watson. He, James D. Watson and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine “for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material”.[1]

Not that anyone is advocating for the British National Health Service, or the VA (two examples of socialized health care), but you asked.

Free enterprise drives business and medical advances. Why advance science when you cant recoup your costs?????

Sure free enterprise does so right up until it can’t recoup costs, which is why government support is so necessary to do that which can’t immediately return a profit.
.
Nobody’s discussing anything about capitalism, though. This is about the health care reform bill, which makes private health insurance mandatory, not socialized medicine (Britain), nor Medicare-for-all (what Canada has), nor a utility-regulatory system (like Germany, France, Japan) nor anything else.
.
I suppose this is the reason why I asked you that typical liberal question about non sequiturs in the first place.
.
So what does “free enterprise” have to do with anything?

It makes all of us, every American, look stupid when anyone uses a child to benefit their cause. Aw…that poor child. That’s a load and we all know it. It’s cowardly to hide behind the weaker and say look what will happen if you don’t do what we say. It’s truth that this kid’s mom would have died anyway and it wouldn’t have mattered because the health care wouldn’t kick in until 2014. What was she going to do if the bill didn’t pass? And if it does pass, who says she would have qualified for it? Not everyone will.

apr and Stuart…

That’s strike one and strike two.

I said “Liberals quite often use young children as spokespersons. Conservatives never do.”

I’m still waiting for an example of a conservative using a young child as a spokesperson.

We conservatives don’t brainwash ten year olds with political slogans and push them out in front of TV cameras to do our tallking for us. Only liberals do that.

The reason is that we conservatives take our responsibilities to our children seriously.

…you are really saying that I have an obligation to pay for your healthcare…I’d rather not.
.
Was wondering when we’d see that worn-out canard…no one seemed to care when I wanted to stop paying for Bush’s Iraq fiasco or the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives or secret prisons in Lithuania…
.
Regardless, we all do have an obligation to Love Thy Neighbor, and pitching in to keep them healthy is a good and moral thing to do. Whinging about not wanting to help your fellow American is selfish (which isn’t really a virtue) and doesn’t do a whole lot to promote good in the American society.

grape: Thank you for the link.
.
Next time, please provide some kind of warning, though. Something like: ‘Watching this video will cause you to lose faith in humanity.”
.
Now to wash my eyes and ears in boiling water…

Grape Crush

There’s a government program that can make us love our neighbors? I don’t believe you.

Those of us who love our neighbors give our time and money voluntarily.

There’s not much love in the Government confiscating money from one person, spending half of it on infrastructure, and giving the remaining fifty sents to another person.

If the mother lost her job, she was eligible for Medicaid. If she chose not to take advantage of that, why does it become Limbaugh’s or Beck’s fault that she died? Then, if some health care lobbyist pays to drag the child across-country, why should its exploitation of the child be off-limits to political criticism?

There’s a government program that can make us love our neighbors? I don’t believe you.
.
Oh yawn; yet another wingnut with reading comprehension issues whinging about Teh Gubbamint. What do they teach in homeschool these days?
.
Those of us who love our neighbors give our time and money voluntarily.
.
And when that time and money isn’t enough?
.
There’s not much love in the Government confiscating money from one person, spending half of it on infrastructure, and giving the remaining fifty sents to another person.
.
Funny! Now get off my roads, stop eating my regulated and inspected food, don’t call my ambulance or fire department, stay out of my legal system…tell el Rushbo to stop snorting Oxycontin and popping Viagra, both of which had to pass FDA muster before he could send his housekeeper out to score them.
.
Take all of your teabagger pals and go Galt, preferably in a place where y’all can re-enact Lord of the Flies to your heart’s content without bothering the majority of us. Somalia might be to your liking.

I know I’m late posting but I just want to remind people that it was just a few months ago that none other than Time magazine had a very flattering cover story on one of these jerks, Glen Beck. Where was Kate then? As long as the main stream media like Time defend and promote jerks like this we can expect more of this behavior not less. I doubt we will see an apology from Time for their story on Mr. Beck anytime soon.

I’m still waiting for an example of a conservative using a young child as a spokesperson.
.
…Sarah Palin.
.
She uses most of her kids as props and spokeskids. Piper was a poster girl for Alaska Right to Life. Poor Trig. Not only has he been dragged all over the country on Sarah’s book tour, no one can still find his birth certificate. Bristol speaks on behalf of abstinence (after the fact, but I digress). Remember the RNC convention, etc. with the Partridge Family, oops, I mean, Palin? Remember Bristol holding Levi’s hand and keeping him in check? He looked like he was waiting in the lingerie dept. at Nordstrom’s with a bunch of pink shopping bags while she was trying on things. Only Track and Willow have avoided most of Mom’s resume-padding.
http://palingates.blogspot.com/2010/03/sarah-palin-using-her-children-as.html
.
Now apologize to apr and stuart already. Or maybe we just add you to rusty’s long list of broken apologies.

We conservatives don’t brainwash ten year olds with political slogans and push them out in front of TV cameras to do our tallking for us.
.
AH HA HA HA HAaaa!
.
*wipes tear of laughter from eye*
.
Y’all are just cracking me up! Never? You seriously said never?
.
Aside from using babies as props, which all politicians seem to do at one time or another, conservatives stuff their kids’ heads with stock right-wing nonsense and present them to the world with pride. One sad case is Jonathan Krohn, who, at the tender age of thirteen, spoke at CPAC and wanted to be known as a “political analyst and not just a kid…”
.
http://gawker.com/5169507/the-gops-little-superstar
.
And when you Google “child evangelists”, you get more results than you can shake a pacifier at.
.
That’s strike one and strike two.
.
AND IT’S A GRAND SLAM HOME RUN! GAME OVER!

Y’all have no – nada, nil, zip-zilch-zero – argument. None.

Have we really reached such a low-point in intellectual debate that we’ve resorted to entirely ignoring substance instead zeroing in only on tone or linguistic sensitivity? I am in entire agreement with Stuart in that to expend all this energy in denouncing Beck or Limbaugh because of their use of terms such as “vomiting blood” or “would still have died,” is a frivolous waste of time. I, personally, find nothing wrong with the language that was employed. The point being made, or the factuality of that point, however, is where the focus should be, not on such intangibles as sensitivity.

Way to completely miss the point, stuartzechman.

More unfortunate people will die IN THE FUTURE if Republicans have their way.

How deliberately self-deluded do you have to be to overlook something that obvious? And how cruel and evil are you to be so smug about it?

Jesus wouldn’t exploit a child who lost his mother in order to try to vilify good people and uphold a bad bill designed to subvert the Constitution of the most free nation the world has ever seen in order to increase the political power of the most evil political party our nation has ever seen.

…at least this is a change of pace from arguing about Israel and AIPAC.

Decon~
.
Rest assured. I’m still quite active on Jk’s recent Middle East threads. I will not waver!

Grape Crush

I’m sorry to say it, but I have to concede the point. That link you posted, about the 13 year old kid being pushed out in front of a microphone at CPAC, is disgraceful.

I’d never heard of a conservative group using a child in this way.

Let’s all agree to condemn this kind of child exploitation, whenever anyone is guilty of it.

Jesus wouldn’t exploit a child who lost his mother in order to…blah blah blah…
.
The Republicans did all that? Got a link?

Stuart Zechman, you wrote the following in response to Art Pepper (#21 et al. above):
.
But I think the current bill is a lot better than nothing.
.
“That’s the weakest negotiating position imaginable. That’s why liberals come out of this with even less –if that’s imaginable– power and credibility than literally everyone else going forward. That means that the current bill will probably get much worse, not better, over time.”
.
How do you think “the current bill will probably get much worse, not better, over time”?
.
What if the current bill, with all of its flaws, changes the ground beneath our feet in such a way that future progress on restructuring our health care system could be accelerated?
.
What if people realize that what was touted as “government-controlled health care” is–again, with all of its flaws–not actually a disaster but (surprise!) an improvement?
.
Could this not lead to better, and dare I say more liberal advances in health care reform?
.
Because if this bill fails, then I fear that health care reform of any meaningful kind will be dead for at least the short term.

Gee this bill is going to subvert the Constitution!? Really! I could have sworn there was something in there about the “common good.” Oh, and what’s with all the Jesus quoting? I have heard anything he had to say about the health insurance reform. Oh, and speaking of quoting Jesus, did anyone get around to the “Give unto others….”. Oh, yeah, Republicans believe in keeping it all for themselves.

Shakespeare in GA:
.
How do you think “the current bill will probably get much worse, not better, over time”?
.
The people whose vision of government and economics is very different than the people who created the New Deal –the program which created a vast American middle-class, and transferred power and wealth away from elites– won an important political and policy victory with their version of health care reform.
.
Here’s Joe Klein this evening telling us what “fixes” are to come:

…it is the first step in what will undoubtedly be a continuing process to rationalize the American health care system.
.
Medicaid…should be abolished–Medicaid recipients should receive their health care through the exchanges (as should senior citizens for that matter, but that may come in time, too).

That’s how the bill will probably get much worse, not better. The same people who wanted this policy still aren’t satisfied until the health care system becomes even more “rational,” i.e. market-based.
.
What if the current bill, with all of its flaws, changes the ground beneath our feet in such a way that future progress on restructuring our health care system could be accelerated?
.
“Changes the ground beneath our feet?”
.
I don’t think you understand. I’m suggesting that “future progress on restructuring our health care system” will be accelerated. It just won’t be the kind of change that liberals would see as progress. It will be more of everything that liberals think of as counter-productive about this bill and its process of passage.
.
To the people who like this bill’s policy, who see it as a great step forward, who are quite happy that there’s no public option, no single-payer waiver, no price controls, “market-based” fixes cemented in place, this is great victory. They don’t see it as flawed in the same way that we do. The things we want to fix are the things they love about the system.
.
Those people won. The beat establishment Republicans and Movement Conservatives, and they beat liberals. They beat the crap out of liberals. That’s the ground that changed beneath our feet.
.
What if people realize that what was touted as “government-controlled health care” is–again, with all of its flaws–not actually a disaster but (surprise!) an improvement?
.
What if it’s not an improvement for most people? What if their lives go on as normal, i.e. getting worse economically? What if, when people lose their jobs and employer-based insurance, they don’t qualify for enough of a subsidy not to feel significant economic pain? What if the quality of employment-based coverage worsens on its current downward track? What if the cost of drugs keeps going up by %5 every year?
.
What if fears of disaster fade, but are replaced with resentment and dissatisfaction?
.
Could this not lead to better, and dare I say more liberal advances in health care reform?
.
What if the blame for that state of affairs is placed on the Democrats who insisted primarily on the welfare provisions of reform? What if liberals are ultimately found to be to blame for “trying to cover everybody”?
.
After liberals’ massive defeat, after having been literally called “f*cking retards” by the White House, after having walked away with less than nothing in credibility, and after having folded on every single demand, who would ever play poker against liberals in Congress not expecting to win? Who would be afraid of the liberal netroots’ threats ever again? Who wouldn’t just call them “f*cking retards,” tell them to get in line, and dare them to walk away from the tiniest legislative crumb?
.
“liberal advances”?
.
Who will negotiate for those?

For what there is no excuse is Democrats constantly using kids for props in order to advance their insane socialist agenda.

Rush is right. The left constantly use kids as props. Sarah Palin wasn’t using her kids to pass some crazy bill down our throats.

Also, Rush never said Chelsea was a dog. Some technician on his TV show put a picture of Chelsea on the screen when he mentioned a dog.

will: This is for the conservatives on this site who have a religion of convenience. Thanks for pointing it out.
//
I gave up religion a long time ago. However, I was raised as a Catholic and remember enough about the catechism and what I was taught concerning the poor. These tenets have held me in good stead.
//
http://www.christian-wisdom.com/money/0/quote-category.html
//
For all those on this site that claim to be religious, you might look at what Jesus had to say about the poor.
2 of my favorite are:
//
…whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.
//
…If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possesions and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven.

Of course, I know that Beck, Limbaugh and Fox and hate talkers on radio love the attention they get. And of course they will continue to foment and lie.
However, having lived through the McCarthy era I understand what happens when you say nothing. After years of McCarthy and HUAC destroying peoples lives it took Edward R Murrow, Joseph Welch and a few others to take them on. Ignoring them was not an option.
To get into teacher’s training in college, I had to take a loyalty oath. Books by Hemingway, Steinbeck, and Faulkner were banned at my school. There were 2 teachers at my school (2 of the best) who were fired because the school board determined they were pinkos.
It took people in the media and in power to speak out and show the hatefulness of the witch hunters.
At first McCarthy liked the attention. But by the time of the Army-McCarthy hearings the country could see what a destructive bully he was.

crdvis16 you are right.
///
http://www.nih.gov/about/NIHoverview.html
///
The National Institute of Health, part of Health and Human Services traces back to 1887.
The support research in every state. 28 billion in medical research. 83% funding awarded through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 350,000 researchers.
///
Among things accomplished:
Brought down death rate from heart disease
Increased survival rate of childhood cancer
Brought down death rate from AIDS and SIDS
Promoted vaccines that have saved millions of lives
Work on sequencing human genome
Research on bio terrorism
Study of immune system
///
This is an agency who works with the private sector to improve our lives. Now who on this site would want to do away with NIH and depend on the private sector alone?

So the left wing propaganda machine that has been spewing lies 24/7 regarding the takeover of our once great health care system by the inept, incompetent, wasteful, and fascist federal government uses an 11 year old boy as a propaganda tool and then whine when they are called on it?
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

BTW, if you want to see and hear hate, tune in to one of the many left wing blogs or network or cable news shows other than FOX. There is a reason why Marxist states fail or are overthrown by freedom seeking citizens.

Folks, in the immortal words of Rodney King, “can’t we just all get along?” After reading the various blogs in this posting, what surprises me the most is how angry some of you are about something that largely affects the poor and middle classed, disenfranchised, unemployed and chronically ill (many through no fault of their own). For those of you out there wealthy enough with the funds to pay for your private health care or who have employers who pay or partially pay for your insurance, congratulations. One day, you could lose a lot of your wealth because your business goes bad, or your employer may decide it can’t afford to pay for your insurance and you’ll either be paying for your own. If you can’t afford it because it’s a choice between putting food on the table and gambling on the chance that no one in your family will get sick enough to need constant medical attention, what happens when you lost your bet? One day when your spouse or child gets cancer, will your attitude then be “oh well, since I made the decision not to carry health coverage because food and shelter were more important, they’ll just have to be made as comfortable as possible (assuming you can afford the medications to make them comfortable) and die?” Doubtful.

Even if you don’t believe in Christ as a religious icon, please at least have the intelligence and intellectual curiosity to actually read the words attributed to him before you decide that Christ was a political conservative and didn’t believe in paying taxes, or having that wealth redistributed among those in need. Matthew 25:36-41 would be a good start. The Pharisees tried to trick him into saying something politically incorrect about Caesar concerning the payment of taxes (instead of making monetary homage directly to God) to persuade the Roman government that he was a political insurgent; but he didn’t bite. He asked to see a coin, and asked the Pharisees whose name was on the coin. They replied “Caesar’s”. Christ responded, “then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” Keep reading – you’ll find the parable of the sheep and goats which states that giving unto the least of those was like giving to God and that to whom much is given, much is expected.

Okay, now for those of you who think that the government shouldn’t tell you who to give your money to by taking it in the form of taxes. Let’s see…how many of you are going to be willing to donate funds regularly for highways, bridges, schools, water supply, sewage systems, electrical plants, police, fire and EMT services, prisons (and the people to run them), disaster funds when hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes strike (it could happen to you), scientific study to improve our overall quality of life with new medicines and technologies, a well trained army to defend our country here and around the world – I could go on, but you get the picture. Probably not many of you. This attitude of “I work hard for my money and I shouldn’t have to pay a dime in taxes for the government to decide how to spend it – let everyone fend for themselves” is just astounding to me. This country pulled together in World War II to defend the world from three madmen who decided they had a better idea we didn’t necessarily think was better. Taxes were necessary then (as was deficit spending) to do that, and taxes will always be necessary to maintain an infrastructure that feeds a great society. Why is it so appalling to some of you that tax money would be used to fund programs like health care, Medicare, Medicaid, social security and others like it which (other than health care) took care of your parents and grandparents when they got old so you didn’t have to go broke supporting them and taking care of them when they became elderly and disabled?

Is it a great system without flaws? Of course not. No societal system is perfect. But I’ll take the one we have over any other in the world. If you don’t like the system here and think you can find one where you can make all the money you want and not pay taxes, you’re going to have to locate a time machine and go back to the Industrial Age when the rich were rich, there was no (or a very small) middle class, the poor were destitute and practically slaves to the rich who made their fortunes literally on the backs of women, children and poor, uneducated immigrants to whom $.05 cents an hour (about $.70 per day for a fourteen hour day seven days a week) was better than what they received where they came from. Some of them rose above it and became more successful. However, most did not. Not all of us come here equally blessed with a sharp intellect, the power to persevere or by random chance of being in the right place at the right time.

The American Dream. Some of you seem to believe it should only for the hard working, the inventive and the lucky. Back then, it was solely the lack of government programs, taxes and regulation that made life very good for a fortunate few – the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Rockefellers, Winchesters and others like them – and everyone else was just supposed to suffer or work for those dynasties at poverty wages to make them richer. The hard working didn’t get very far. Just the lucky and those willing to exploit others to become wealthy. Kind of like our banking, insurance and finance CEO’s along with their other highly paid staffers who today are receiving more in annual bonuses than the average American makes in seven or eight years. Even government regulation didn’t stop that. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 was just the beginning. We cannot be a great society if only a few benefit from regulations specifically designed to allow the ridiculously wealthy to avoid taxation for the most part under the guise of “trickle down economics” which will ostensibly make life better for their employees and give only those people access to the best health care available while others die or suffer needlessly because they can’t afford to buy a new liver to beat cancer like Steve Jobs did (and jump to the head of the line in front of others who had waited longer and may have died because he had cash and was potentially able to donate a wing to the hospital which allowed him to do that). Remember what happened when the Russian Czars and their wealthy patrons had all the money and the other millions in that country were hungry, cold, and sick? The Bolshevik revolution occurred and the wealthy were killed or run out of the country and “true” socialism set in for nearly 70 years. While the “tea party” groups are scary because they’ve morphed from a grass roots group constitutionally protesting government policy to a political machine with leaders getting paid handsome salaries to “coordinate” those efforts, they’re really no different than the Bolsheviks – they just have a conservative instead of a communist agenda.

If your “luck” or your job runs out or your business fails because “trickle down economics” hasn’t trickled down enough to allow those customers who are your target market to afford your product, and you can’t find another job, how many of you will shun the unemployment line to obtain benefits to help care for your families? I don’t mind my taxes going to help you one bit. You are my neighbor and a fellow American who is temporarily down on his or her luck. I don’t mind my taxes going to pay for medical care for those who can’t afford it – one of the reasons my medical insurance is so high now is to help pay for the billions of dollars hospitals write off each year for those who don’t qualify for Medicaid and can’t afford to pay their hospital and medical bills when a medical disaster strikes. What difference does it make what mechanism pays for that? I don’t mind my taxes paying for educating our children, to provide for the common defense and to keep our streets safe. To whom much is given, much is expected. I have been given more than I deserve in my lifetime and while I am not even close to wealthy by American standards, to those in third world and other countries, I live like a king. It’s very little to ask to return a portion of those blessings to others (and I give to private charities as well).

Can’t we all just get along? For pity’s sake, Rush, Glen and others like you – is there no compassion for those who haven’t made their living the way you have, exploiting the worst fears of a gullible and myopic public (that thrives on the misery or perceived misery of others – reality television is proof positive of that) and defaming people with whom you disagree? Is that the best you can do? My debate teacher in high school told me that resorting to finger pointing and name calling meant only that you had lost your perspective and that your arguments had not been well researched or thought out. My law professors in my clinical trial and appellate classes reiterated the same thing (and it’s unethical to boot). It’s easy to call people names, insult their character and spew vitriol at people when you can’t think of anything intelligent to say. Is the view good from the cheap seats, gentlemen? Better enjoy those seats while you’ve got them. If the Christians are correct, you may have a long time after you leave this earth to rue the fruits of your labors here.

…condemn this kind of child exploitation…
.
And, having failed to make her point in the previous round, wilbrad moves the goalposts even further back.
.
Unless you can prove that the kid is being used against his or her will – or parent or guardian’s – it’s hard to make a charge of exploitation stick.
.
Of course, it’s not the first time the likes of Limbaugh have ginned up fake outrage by falsely charging Dems with ‘exploitation’ of young people, is it? Seems to pop up pretty frequently when the right-wing blowhards go on the offensive against a kid. The get called on being the big meanies that they are and then the claims of exploitation are trotted out.
.
If anything, it’s Limbaugh, et al. that are exploiting the kids for bashing the Dems.

Boy what a liberal fest on this cite. All kinds of progressives and liberals in one place patting each other on the back with “witty” posts. “Good one” Liberal Bob!! “Oh thanks…” “Yours wasn’t bad either Progressive Pete.” I caution you though, you’re rants are going to split this country in two: red-vs-blue. Oh on second thought it wouldn’t be much of a civil war, half the blue citizens would defect to Canada, the other fourth will just protest the war, and the last bunch would run to their computers and post “witty” comments denouncing Fox News, talk show hosts, and those blasted citizens from the red states that are marching towards your cities. Keep your chin up though, I’m sure your white flag factories would be buzzing…but keep a close eye on fires, one fire in your white flag factory would effectively paralyze your army. Have nice day lefties…

The left wants to obfuscate the issue by manipulating a very sad situation; but, when it comes down to it…. Limbaugh and Beck make excellent points.

First off, quit assuming that any of you know what I would do. A country that would pull women and Mothers away from their children to fight a false war, is not getting any help from me on a stupid health care reform bill.

It is very sad that Politicians who are leading our Great Country have to use a grieving child and his grandmother to push forward their politican agenda. Oh how sad and deplorable this exhibition of the crookled agenda politicians or fronting. Equally both of the politican journalists are equally as guilty.

NewYork Times
PRESIDENT OBAMA “We are this close to the summit of the mountain. We need to try one more time.” The president has told associates that health care will be his legacy.
: A Legacy our childrens children will pay for. A guy who never worked in any thing but the public sector. No buisness experience what a joke.

Now, I see how the Republicans remarks can be considered harsh, but they are harsh towards the Democrats that they believe are exploiting the boy. The quotes used in this article do not demonstrate in any way how either Beck or Limbaugh is entertaining the idea that they believe the boy’s story is overplayed or untrue. Essentially, the quotes in this story are about how the Obama administration is selecting one story to gloss over all the glaring problems with the health care reform bill, intead of using solid facts about the bill to let it speak for itself and let the American public decide. This then implies to anyone watching that the Democrats don’t even have faith in their own healthcare bill, and are relying entirely on sympathy votes now. This should raise a red flag, folks. Miss Pickert could have had a better choice in quotes to back up her arguement. If her arguement were valid, I’m sure there were waaaay more incriminating quotes she could have used. Editorial and Opinion Writing 101.

And for the record, I think those Tea Partiers in that video were PRICKS. I understand when people want to make a point, but there are lines that should never be crossed if you want to win people over to your way of thinking. There is presenting valid facts, which the best and most respectful way to present your argument to your audience. There is relying on sob stories when you know your facts are not strong enough, which is deceptive. And then there’s the idea that being crass, cruel and childish is the way to both crush your enemy and win people to your side. The last idea, I believe, is the most disgusting and stupid way to go about things, and it disappoints me when I see any group, either pro-choice or pro-life, conservative or liberal, acting that way.

Mathew; Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Mark: “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Luke; “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

…and on top of that, Jesus HEALED the sick…uh, HEALED them. Healing and helping poor people – kinda a big deal to him. Don’t say he wouldn’t ask people to pay for others health care – cause he did. He wasn’t flipping MERCHANTS tables in the market for his own good (obviously)

Wow – Freaking “far rightys” (my own term) don’t even understand their own rule book. Jesus was socialist as they come – its what he preached ALL EQUAL under God, give to the poor, heal the sick…on and on. You might want to READ the rule book you are hitting everyone over the head with again…(dont lie though, most of you never have)

Faith is not an excuse for blind ignorance. Religion does not give you a right to look down at others opinions or beliefs.

My oh my, How one subject has brought out both the kooks, and the well-thinking all at the same time. i believe though, I have found more thought provoking statements here, than any other place in which I have been reading about this subject. I believe it all comes down to one thing: The Golden Rule.

If I were a poorly educated , unemployed mother (or father), divorced (or simply abandoned) and had no health insurance – then my son or daughter were suddenly taken ill with a serious disease – what could I do? How would I want my neighbors to respond?

Can you, just for a moment, put yourself into the place? What would you want? What would you need? What would you think of the unthinking jerk who just told you that your problems are not his? There was such a hue and cry from the right, when Mrs. Clinton said that “it takes a village to raise a child”. Where did you sand on that? Have you ever depended on others to help with your family? NO? How about the teacher at school? The policeman down the street? The Scoutmaster you drop little Johnny or Sally off with on Monday night? The fireman who dropped everything at work and immediately came out when you called in the middle of the day that your kitchen caught on fire, from your forgetting to turn off the stove? Or the volunteer rescue squad who came at 2:30 AM when your mother suddenly stopped breathing (or maybe just a broken hip when she tried to get out of bed to go to the bathroom?

Those people ARE your village. Want to do without them? Go ahead! Remove the phone from the house. Take care of it yourself, when the two kids break in at midnight, or you set the house on fire. Sounds sill doesn’t it? Well, helping your neighbor get common, decent medical care for a sick child is not silly either. Nor is allowing them to have insurance to pay for a simple case of sniffles, instead of waiting until it has turned into a full blown case of something for which the child my die.

Yes- do unto others IS the whole question here. Where will you stand, when its your grandchild?

Exactly, and no matter what religion or lack there of you have, or which Party or God** you follow – The Golden Rule is the bottom line.

(**Disclaimer; Please note, Party official rules allow the term “Republican stance” to mean and or replace “word of God” in all matters, even ones that have almost nothing to do with religous faith, such as solid waste removal or cutting ones grass. “Republican stance” may also be used to overrule such things that the New Testament say are right to do. Examples of previously accepted over rulings of Bible from, GOP – A Handbook for Dummies, page six through sixteen…12. DO NOT help the poor, like ever, they are POOR for a reason. 15. DO NOT treat everyone equal, and if you are not Christian you are worthless anyway…oh, wanna convert? 23. DO NOT help the poor and sick, they need to get a third job, forget about them and worry about yourself. 28. DO NOT listen to anything that people who do not think exactly like you, say. 45. DO NOT heal the sick, just pray for them, they will come around, uh, or they die. 46. If you get sick go to hospital even if you cant afford it, you are GOP and must live…even if you cant afford it in this country you get care, cool hu – we should totally do away with that or make it harder. 47. DO NOT ever accept others as your brother, in fact, use your influence in politics, tv, or radio to insult them every chance you get and tell people how stupid, wrong, evil and bad they are – cause you are a perfect island of light, GOP are better than the word of Jesus, and everyone else is wrong wrong stupid and wrong. So Spake the GOP*

(*Disclaimer 2: ok, that was made up, although there probably is a GOP handbook for dummies. By the way their official site, is trashing the Dems for using Reconcilliation as rule bending, a rule they BENT all the time when they were in charge… amazing, and stupid as always)

To Rightrong:

Yes, Jesus preached the message to give to the poor and heal the sick.

To the members of church for them to give willingly and cheerfully to the causes the church was established for, which were to care for the poor, the sick, the widowed and the orphaned. Not to the government as permission for them to tax the crap out of civilians to pay for hugely ineffective and easily cheated social wefare programs.

HUGE difference.

That passage, which is the same story that was repeated in three out of the four gospels, was about a young man who wanted to follow Jesus, so Jesus told him to give up all of his possessions and to follow Jesus with all his heart, soul, mind and devotion. This was NOT a story about a man asking how to help people through Caesar’s welfare and healthcare program.

Are you kidding me? This is the message of the Son of God.

His message is not meant for one man, at one time, its meant for ALL people, all the time.

Or, is it inconvenient for this to be a message to all men on this subject?

Was it just meant for one man who Jesus, you know, just for the heck of it, wanted him to do this – to follow him just then, at that one time?

Is that how it works?

Cause Jesus said – those who have, give unto to those who do not – a lot.

Maybe later, on a different subject, not health care, maybe on abortion or gay rights – we can start using His word to be a message to all people, as in everyone on the planet, now and forever, all the time again –

Thats how the game is played, right?

To the person who commented that Jesus would be against forced charity to pay for this health care bill, I suppose you also have objections to anything else that forced charity- a.k.a taxes- pays for????? Yes, I greatly doubt you use the interstate, or public schools, or public parks. NOT! If you are going to use that lame argument, you can’t just pick and choose when to apply it.

Ok, let the first person who actually did what Jesus said to do–i.e. give up all you own and follow him–speak. Oh, that would be me.

I did that, gave up all I owned five or six times, shut the door and walked out into the world to see what God the Father would have me see. But I differ from the masses in that I truly wanted to know the Father Jesus knew, the one he spoke of time and again.

Yes, I went hungry, very hungry. Yes, I slept under overpasses and toted a change of clothes and a Bible and no more. Yes, I had to learn to have faith–in God the Father and in the people he put in my path, that I would not starve or freeze to death. Once I lost my only pair of socks to a thunderstorm on a beach in Surfside. Only after I walked a few miles without socks did I learn to appreciate even socks with holes in them. There is more than a lot to be learned from suffering, which is, perhaps, why Jesus advised each and every one of his followers to give up all they own and follow him. But I have yet to meet anyone else who has actually, consciously, made the decision to do so and then followed through.

Not once did I read or learn in either the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus said render unto Caesar so that Caesar may render unto all. Jesus never looked to Caesar to solve any problem. Jesus never wanted Caesar to take care of all those poor pitiful folks so he didn’t have to look at them, or continue to care. Jesus never once said Caesar should be providing for everyone to spare each of us the decision, the choice if you will, of whether to spare a dime for them. Sometimes, you can’t spare the dime and that is God’s will. Sometimes, the person asking for the dime isn’t worthy, but these are choices you make, out of your own free will, not because Caesar mandates not only taking your dime but where your dime should then go.

If you truly follow Jesus, and you do what he said, you’ll find the Father. If you truly knew what Jesus knew about the Father, you wouldn’t be asking all those little Caesars in Washington DC to do jack for you because you would know that just the asking, in and of itself, is an insult to the Father.

Personally, knowing what I know now, what I learned the hard way like Jesus recommended, I’m not in the habit of pissing off the Father for Caesar’s sake. But, to each their own–this is what our God-given free will is all about. Still, don’t sit there and spout verses, one liners to support your position or refute another’s, until you actually earn the props to speak. And don’t be trotting out your small victims to speak for you either. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that victimizing and exploiting children to sell anything, especially a plan designed to give more power to Caesar, is the greater sin here, way beyond what Rush or Beck might say AFTER THE FACT.

Messiah’s message, and the message of both the Old and New Testaments is this: what I want and claim for myself is what I must work to achieve for others.

Where did you come up with that? From what book, what life experience, what personal sacrifices?

The real message is to learn not to want. Once you don’t want anything, everything becomes a blessing and you want for nothing.

There goes another false prophet refering to Ceasar – as if Jesus meant for his message to ONLY apply at that time, to the people in his immediate area…Thats so bizzar and scary considering its the word of God, speaking through His Son. He wasnt talking about then, before, or tomorrow – He was talking about forever and always, for all people everywhere, yesterday and today. Do you think God really cared about the tax situation then or now, he doesnt like people being taken advantage of through sin, but taxation is NOT sin, its the basic foundation of how our whole country works, and always has…so if its sin, this nation was hosed from the start, or you accept it as part of your civic duty as an American to pay taxes and allow the government to distribute them as needed…

So lets review, the message is – those who have, give unto those who dont – thats all…quit trying to change it.

Accept it – and those who have – give unto those who dont –

Through whatever system, method or charity you can. Including social services created by men for men, like government. Sorry, thats how it works – everyone needs rules (see Bible for that too) and currently unless you are living in some utopian society I am not aware of, those rules are made by the government we elected. Thats how it works. Hey the good news is you are more than welcome to not accept that, and wander to another country…but I bet all of Jesus’s rules would not apply there either, no matter how much anyone wants them to.

As for your own “sacrifice,” please – Jesus died. You obvioulsy got a new pair of socks, a computer and the internet when you finished all that soul searching. If you check out the rest of the world, uh, officially a computer and internet are not ‘required’ to survive, so you live in luxury. I assume said computer is in your apartment or home…which in the US is probably pretty nice, has water and stuff, electric…probably have some food in your fridge…I guess it worked out for you. As for me, I guiltlessly type away – never claim to be pius. I am simply pointing out the madness of how this arguement is twisted to prove a political agenda, rather than accept that socialist values preached by Christ, are the foundation of Christianity, and for some reason it seems most right wing “Christians” are against it. Very odd.

‘He asked to see a coin, and asked the Pharisees whose name was on the coin. They replied “Caesar’s”. Christ responded, “then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s”‘

As an atheist who has taken numerous college classes on the Bible, read it more than most Christians I know and have talked to people who can read it in Hebrew:

“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars’…” (my Bible actually has it as “Emperor” but it’s the New Oxford Annotated Bible New Revised Edition with the Apocrypha so the translation differs a bit).

Belongs to God: Everything of value.

Belongs to Caesar (a false god): Nothing of value.

So render unto God EVERYTHING of value, render unto Caesar NOTHING of value. I.E. Give God everything, give the government nothing because they are charlatans. Money is pointless, something created by people not God.

This was a clever way of not sounding seditious while telling people in “the know” that Caesar was a tyrant who claimed to be divine but that this claim was a lie.

That’s why “When they heard this, they were amazed; and the left him and went away.”

Is that the thread of thought you were pursuing?

You government huggers really are something.

Consider this:

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. Government has had 235 years to get it right and it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935. Government has had 75 years to get it right and it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938. Government has had 72 years to get it right and it is broke.

War on Poverty started in 1964. Government has had 46 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and they only want more.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. Government has had 45 years to get it right and they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970. Government has had 40 years to get it right and it is broke.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. Government had 33 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

Government has FAILED in every “government service” they have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.

AND GOVERNMENT WANTS AMERICANS TO BELIEVE THEY CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?

“Democrats are using Marcelas”

Who commits the greater sin? The sinner, or the one(s) that call out the sin?

/sigh ;( “false war”… first off, this article is not about a war, secondly what is a “false war”? one that does not exist? one that does not send troops over seas? one that does not endeavor to bring to justice those that destroyed the lives of thousands of Americans on 9/11? BTW, since this IS about health care… how much will those dead be getting. You “false war” people need to visit the front line for a day… please.

What no democrat mentions is that Marcels mom applied for Medicaid but didnt get it because the medicaid system is flawed that is one of the key points Beck pointed out. That the medicare system need fixing instead of what the current bill is attempting to fix.

Yes, exactly. I’ve never seen it spelled out quite so succinctly, but there it is. Thank you.

well said jkhamlin however, the small one-sided minds will not understand

again … well said wish someone was listening in washington

thank you admin nice postmp3 dinlespeaks only Dutchmp3 indirhard to trust anythingdizi izle