[Al_U_Card]

Nothing inconsistent with previous actions.

You get what you pay for.

A banking supporter who will not "reform" anything.

Change for the same that you can rely on.

The saying here is "Quatre trente-sous pour une piastre." which translates as "four quarters for a dollar" and THAT is also change you can count...on.

p.s. the recent SS criticism about death threats et al....as long as he doesn't take on the bank(er)s he knows that he has nothing to fear.

[kenberg]

My reaction was visceral, I was not brought up to be a snitch. Can I defend my reaction with rational argument? I think so.

flag@whitehouse.gov is an anonymous site. Yes, I suppose it goes to "the White House", but that is more of a conceptual entity than a location. There is no indication of who gets this information, what they will do with it, who they are responsible to, and so on.

For example: I currently run a summer program that receives government funding. Will the people who decide on the funding have access to information reported to flag? Ridiculous? Well I think the existence of this site is ridiculous so that argument doesn't go far with me. Early in my career I was in a dispute with the University Vice-President who said something like "Gee, I wish I could think of a way to force you to do this". I still said no and survived, but there are some mean mfs out there. It's almost part of the job description for being a successful politician.

I prefer that there not be a website in the whitehouse where people are invited to send my name if they don't like what I say about Obama's healthcare plan. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue with me.

[Winstonm]

More change we can believe in....

Quote

WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties.

President George W. Bush, citing expansive theories about his constitutional powers, set off a national debate in 2006 over the propriety of signing statements

[Winstonm]

Who can argue with this logic?

The Onion.com

Quote

"For years, doctors have complained that the notion of practicing medicine with the patient's health as the number-one priority is not only outdated, but unfair. By putting the patient's welfare before cost considerations, doctors place themselves at risk of antagonizing HMOs, which pay for the bulk of medical bills under the current system. Every time a precautionary electrocardiogram is done on someone suffering from chest pain, it is the HMOs that truly suffer."

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Aug 8 2009, 09:49 PM, said:

Tracking emails is a great way to (eventually) identify the source of all this *****.

and once the source is identified? i think you are an incurable hypocrite... if that quote had come from the bush white house you'd have had plenty to say... imagine this quote:

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

would it still have been okay? would you have been equally as blase`, as less horrified? i doubt it

cherdanno, on Aug 8 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact I don't understand why you have a problem with that. This is very similar to what the Obama campaign did with the "fight the smears" website during the campaign. The e-mails just helps them judging which misinformation is so widespread that it warrants a public response.
Would you have less of a problem with this if this was handled by the DNC instead of the White House?

this isn't a campaign, this is the government, and the "misinformation" is labeled so by the ones with the power... my above reply applies equally to you

kenberg, on Aug 8 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

And who is it from? Who is at flag?

try here

[Winstonm]

Quote

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

would it still have been okay? would you have been equally as blase`, as less horrified? i doubt it

I believe you have made a false comparison between attempts to identify and discredit disinformation (Obama) and attempts to control the release of accurate information (Bush).

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Aug 9 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

Quote

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

would it still have been okay? would you have been equally as blase`, as less horrified? i doubt it

I believe you have made a false comparison between attempts to identify and discredit disinformation (Obama) and attempts to control the release of accurate information (Bush).

labeled disinformation by whom? labeled inaccurate information by whom?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 9 2009, 05:16 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 8 2009, 09:49 PM, said:

Tracking emails is a great way to (eventually) identify the source of all this *****.

and once the source is identified? i think you are an incurable hypocrite... if that quote had come from the bush white house you'd have had plenty to say... imagine this quote:

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

would it still have been okay? would you have been equally as blase`, as less horrified? i doubt it

cherdanno, on Aug 8 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact I don't understand why you have a problem with that. This is very similar to what the Obama campaign did with the "fight the smears" website during the campaign. The e-mails just helps them judging which misinformation is so widespread that it warrants a public response.
Would you have less of a problem with this if this was handled by the DNC instead of the White House?

this isn't a campaign, this is the government, and the "misinformation" is labeled so by the ones with the power... my above reply applies equally to you

kenberg, on Aug 8 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

And who is it from? Who is at flag?

try here

Obama versus Bush is completely the wrong lens to apply. Things might make more sense if, instead, you frame it as follows:

Who is telling the truth
Who is lying out their ass

If you'd like, I'd be happy to detail

1. The long list of lies that the Bushies provided about Gitmo and the detainees
2. The long list of lies that the Republicans are pushing regarding health care reform

[Winstonm]

Quote

labeled disinformation by whom? labeled inaccurate information by whom?

Disinformation is an anti-fact. Inaccurate information is determined by comparing it to the facts, not by labeling.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 9 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 9 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

Quote

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

would it still have been okay? would you have been equally as blase`, as less horrified? i doubt it

I believe you have made a false comparison between attempts to identify and discredit disinformation (Obama) and attempts to control the release of accurate information (Bush).

labeled disinformation by whom? labeled inaccurate information by whom?

This Washington Post, to start with:

BTW, quick hint: You might want to actually read the responses that people post.
Otherwise, you risk look really stupid...

For convenience, I'll repost a message one page page in the current thread.

Quote

There is an excellent piece in yesterday's Washington Post discussing a closely related issue.

http://www.washingto...9080603854.html

The opening paragraph reads as follows

Quote

As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don't agree. Today, I'm going to step over that line.

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

If you prefer, you could always look at the Tweet that kicked off this thread where Palin is talking about Obama's "Death Panel". David Brooks labeled this a "lie" not a minute ago on Meet The Press...

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Aug 8 2009, 04:24 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 8 2009, 12:18 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Aug 8 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 8 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 8 2009, 08:56 AM, said:

what is she talking about?

Government rationing of health care (taken to a (hypothetical) extreme).

From my days in Atlanta, I remember an Alabama bridge player sentenced to death because he could not pay for the transplant he needed to save his life. Area bridge players worked hard to raise the money (Grant Baze played a big part in this), but the player died before the full amount was gathered.

Personally, I'd like to see the government step in to regulate the health care rationing that already exists in the US.

You think he'd have gotten one in time under a government program? The main effect on rationing will be who gets to decide. The government's not going to be passing out free hearts to everyone who needs them.

For sure - he had close relative willing to donate the organ he needed for the transplant. He just didn't have the $275K.

Of course not every heart patient will get a free transplant, but otherwise healthy people will not die for lack of money when a crucial organ is readily available.

Sure people will no longer be sentenced to death just to increase the profits of an insurance company. But there will still be tough decisions to make, and we'll constantly be looking at (and arguing about) how the government makes those decisions.

A much better scenario, in my view. And, happily, I won't have to spend so damned much time dealing with employees' insurance.

People won't be "sentenced to death to increase the profits of an insurance company," but that doesn't mean they won't be sentenced to death to maintain the financial viability of the system. We'll see what happens, but I don't expect the government to be rubber-stamping the requests (especially the time-sensitive ones) of everyone who needs an operation, but is just short a few hundred grand.

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Aug 9 2009, 09:56 AM, said:

If you'd like, I'd be happy to detail


The long list of lies that the Republicans are pushing regarding health care reform

That would be great. Thanks.

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Aug 9 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 9 2009, 09:56 AM, said:

If you'd like, I'd be happy to detail


The long list of lies that the Republicans are pushing regarding health care reform

That would be great. Thanks.

http://factcheck.org/ has any number of germane articles

Here's a current list from the site's front page:

Quote

CPR Administers Bad Facts, Again
The group says premiums could nearly double for those who buy their own insurance. Experts we consulted disagree.

The latest ad from the group Conservatives for Patients’ Rights claims that “new rules could hike your health insurance premiums 95 percent.” That’s misleading. The claim in the ad refers to only 5 percent of Americans who have health insurance – those who buy it on their own. The claim comes from an analysis by a group that advocates for

Quote

Surgery for Seniors vs. Abortions?
Family Research Council says abortions will trump care for the elderly in public plan.

A new TV ad sponsored by an anti-abortion group shows a white-haired man fretting that under a federal health plan, “They won’t pay for my surgery, but we’re forced to pay for abortions.”

“Will this be our future?” the ad asks, merging the fears of seniors …

Quote

False Euthanasia Claims
The claim that the House health care bill pushes suicide is nonsense.

On former Sen. Fred Thompson’s radio show, former lieutenant governor of New York Betsy McCaughey said that the House’s proposed health care bill contained a provision that would institute mandatory counseling sessions telling seniors how “to do what’s in society’s best interest … and cut your life short.” House Minority Leader John Boehner made a slightly more measured …

Quote

Canadian Straw Man
More ads claim that Congress is pushing a Canadian-style health care bill.

Two ads from related independent groups make claims about an overhaul of the health care system, saying Congress wants a government-run health care system. One ad claims that “Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S.” But the health care bills moving through Congress don’t call for a single-payer system like Canada’s …

The website also has a critique of some of Obama's claims during his latest Town Hall meeting.

http://healthcarefactcheck.com/ is another site with a lot of useful information.

[PassedOut]

Lobowolf, on Aug 9 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

People won't be "sentenced to death to increase the profits of an insurance company," but that doesn't mean they won't be sentenced to death to maintain the financial viability of the system. We'll see what happens, but I don't expect the government to be rubber-stamping the requests (especially the time-sensitive ones) of everyone who needs an operation, but is just short a few hundred grand.

Agreed.

But everyone will be insured, and what is covered by that insurance will be known and standardized. Political pressure, not bottom-line profit pressure, will determine how extensive the coverage is.

In the bridge player's case that I remembered, if government insurance coverage didn't permit a young man to live because his operation would cost $275K, voters would react strongly and negatively.

[kenberg]

A sample from http://healthcarefactcheck.com/


MYTH: "Government-Encouraged Euthanasia"
House Republican Leader John Boehner claimed the House bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."

FactCheck.org: The claim is "nonsense."
The bill never requires anyone to discuss end-of-life care. Rather, the bill ensures medical professionals who do offer this type of counseling at the patient's request are reimbursed for their time, just as they would be for other types of counseling or medical services.


Alternatively, here is a piece from one of the editorial staff at the Washington Post (not normally seen as a source of rightwing insanity):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9080703043.html
I found this more useful.

I hope that the supporters of the Obama health plan will consider the following: Most of us want this to end well. We are capable of dismissing Sarah Palin's formulation as quackery but that is not the same as saying that we have complete faith in Mr. Obama. At the site http://www.whitehous...tubborn-Things/
suggested earlier, it is said that Linda Douglass will "addresses one example that makes it look like the President intends to "eliminate" private coverage, when the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.". What she does is to replay some of Mr. Obama's statements. For those of us who are not so sure things are quite as simple as Mr. Obama makes them sound, this repetition of sound bites doesn't help.


As I understand it, the "health care plan" is still a work in progress and there have been some notable efforts from the center to create something that could muster at least some Republican support. The Post has put out several articles and op-ed pieces, many with concrete ideas and a minimum of histrionics.

Generally I am very pessimistic about large scale changes with very powerful interests at play. My first thought when I heard that Harry and Louise were supporting this was uh oh, where is the catch that we missed? But maybe this can be done well. If so it will be a very great accomplishment by a number of people, and I expect we will have some courageous Republicans to count among those deserving our thanks.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on Aug 9 2009, 08:03 PM, said:

Alternatively, here is a piece from one of the editorial staff at the Washington Post (not normally seen as a source of rightwing insanity):

The Post has a decent news division, however, the editorial board is start raving mad:

Hiatt, Krauterhammer, Kristol, Kagan...

The Neo-Con nut jobs just keeping going, and going, and going

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Aug 9 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

Quote

labeled disinformation by whom? labeled inaccurate information by whom?

Disinformation is an anti-fact. Inaccurate information is determined by comparing it to the facts, not by labeling.

winston, having read most of your posts for the past year or two i honestly think you, as well as richard, would have had a lot to say if the bush w.h. had come out with

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

if the actual quote from an administration official doesn't bother you, so be it... disinformation and untruths abound on all sides, but asking for names (by the gov't, no less) is at least a little bit scary... i'd still like to see a big grassroots push demanding that fed gov't employees, including the congress and administration, have whatever health care they presently have substituted for the final version congress passes... wanna bet you never see that? why not, do you think?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 9 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

if the actual quote from an administration official doesn't bother you, so be it... disinformation and untruths abound on all sides, but asking for names (by the gov't, no less) is at least a little bit scary...

On the subject of disinformation: Linda Douglas (the spokeswoman for said program) has been very adamant that they are not tracking the names of individuals who are posting information. Then again, its not like we actually expect you to fact check any to the crap you parrot...

This isn't something I agree with. I think that these names should be tracked (I believe that the source of information has a major impact on its credibility)

As for the following:

Quote

i'd still like to see a big grassroots push demanding that fed gov't employees, including the congress and administration, have whatever health care they presently have substituted for the final version congress passes... wanna bet you never see that? why not, do you think?

I agree. We'd never see anything like this. The main reason is that the health care reform acts that are currently being pushed doesn't specific a single type of health care.

What type of health care are you going to require that the congress critters take?

A health care co-operative?
Private plans (Still allowed)
The "public option"? Who knows if this will even make it into the plan?

Moreover, given the amount of money most members of congress make, I don't think any of them have to worry about health care, regardless of what silly little perqs they might get

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Aug 9 2009, 12:56 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 9 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

Quote

labeled disinformation by whom? labeled inaccurate information by whom?

Disinformation is an anti-fact. Inaccurate information is determined by comparing it to the facts, not by labeling.

winston, having read most of your posts for the past year or two i honestly think you, as well as richard, would have had a lot to say if the bush w.h. had come out with

"There is a lot of disinformation about service done to our country by the troops at Gitmo, spanning from insensitivity to outright torture. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web, [or hear something in casual conversation] about our fight against terror that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

if the actual quote from an administration official doesn't bother you, so be it... disinformation and untruths abound on all sides, but asking for names (by the gov't, no less) is at least a little bit scary... i'd still like to see a big grassroots push demanding that fed gov't employees, including the congress and administration, have whatever health care they presently have substituted for the final version congress passes... wanna bet you never see that? why not, do you think?

It appears to me this attempt at comparison between Obama and Bush with its either/or overtones is somewhat like a variation on false dilemma.

It seems your argument is that Richard and I do not object to the current situation simply because it is Obama and not Bush, which if not false dilemma is surely close to creating a straw man argument.

[Al_U_Card]

Chains you can be left in....

Partisanship creates a polarity that causes the breaking of parity in equitable relationships.

Maintaining the status quo when that means allowing a polarized situation to endure is not being equitable.

Taking advantage of the situation to promote an agenda or create a false sense of security (indignation etc.) is similar.

Turns out the "new" sheriff in town is just the same boss, different lackey. A nice, polished, intelligent lackey, but lackey nontheless.

Homeland security.....from who and what exactly?