John Kerry, the richest person in congress, believes the media should not give coverage to the Tea Party (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/05/john_kerry_media_has_responsibility_to_not_give_eq ual_time_to_tea_party.html):


Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Friday that the media has the responsibility to not give equal time or credence to the Tea Party's views:

S
EN. JOHN KERRY: "And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it's exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual."

"It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what's real, of who's accountable, of who is not accountable, of who's real, who isn't, who's serious, who isn't?"


If the media needs stop giving equal time to absurd notions, they need to begin with you, Lurch. Who the hell are you to decide what's legitimate?

{Mod Note: Title edited from Liberal ignorance and intolerance, since this appears to be an attack on one person and shouldn't be used as a general attack. <>}

I don't see anything wrong with Kerry's statement. Isn't he entitled to his opinion? Shouldn't the media verify facts before posting inaccuracies? Should absurdities be promoted as reasonable ideas?

I don't see anything in Kerry's statement that is trying to dictate what the media does. Only a call for responsibility in reporting. Explain to me what is wrong with that?

How can each media possibly give equal time to all politics? Impossible. Of course they choose. Of course they aren't always going to be impartial, and of course they are going to ignore what they want to ignore. The media is controlled against monopoly. You pick what you want to read and watch and listen to. NPR or Fox, New York Times or some Murdoch paper. If you started a newspaper, would you give equal coverage and act impartial? I doubt it.

Your first 'quote' isn't a quote from Kerry, and in fact there is nothing in his text that even mentions the Tea Party, so whose words are those? Someone you choose to believe and then pass on their little finagling of what someone said.

John Kerry, the richest person in congress, believes the media should not give coverage to the Tea Party (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/05/john_kerry_media_has_responsibility_to_not_give_eq ual_time_to_tea_party.html):




If the media needs stop giving equal time to absurd notions, they need to begin with you, Lurch. Who the hell are you to decide what's legitimate?




As far as the media is concerned a legitimate view should be a view put forward by a person, person's, organization whereby that person or organization is prepared to take responsibility for said view.

The media should know that it is not all right to say whatever they like, whenever they like. Their modus operandi should not be freedom of speech with no responsibility.

"We report, you decide" type of approach doesn't work when it comes to politics. I think this is obvious.

When it comes to politics many people don't bother to sort the wheat from the chaff.


Tut

Tut How can you expect the media to be unbiased and non sensationalist. It just doesn't make good copy. You know that on the local front we have had biased media for years reporting all sorts of rubbish, both imported and local, with no responsibility taken because they have limited ability to check their source. Here's a good example
Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=media-bias-presidential-election)
Agendas and bias on the media trail - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-07-29/agendas-and-bias-on-the-media-trail/924584)

Tut How can you expect the media to be unbiased and non sensationalist. It just doesn't make good copy. You know that on the local front we have had biased media for years reporting all sorts of rubbish, both imported and local, with no responsibility taken because they have limited ability to check their source. her's a good example
Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=media-bias-presidential-election)
Agendas and bias on the media trail - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-07-29/agendas-and-bias-on-the-media-trail/924584)


Hi Clete,


Jonathan Holmes who wrote the article you highlighted 'Agendas and Bias on the Media Trail'- is biased himself.

I have absolute no problem with that.

He says the ABC's impartiality should be called into question because it missed broadcasting Tony Abbott' press conference live. Is Holmes prepared to take responsibility for this claim? My guess is that he is because it is probably a matter of fact this happened. Because we are dealing with politics people will put a variety of 'spins' on the reason for this. No problem here.

Holmes also reports that Gavin Morris, head of the ABC's Continuous News says that Morris stated in relation to Abbott, "Let's ignore the Tory bastard". Let's look at this carefully.

Did Holmes make this up because he can say whatever he likes when ever he likes? As Morris is part of the Australian Media I feel confident that Morris actually said this. Why? Because if Holmes made it up then all hell would break loose.

Bias is not the issue here. I am critical of people such as Beck who think they can come out with some outlandish statement- dress it up in the guise of news and then walk away from what they have said. No analysis, no questions. Oh! Well! That was yesterday's sensationalist nonsense.

Besides, isn't, 'The Drum' and ABC programme anyway? They are being critical of themselves?

Tut

Kerry's statements and others in the progressive ranks is part of a coordinated campaign to attack the TP as a prelude to next year's campaign.

Kerry's comments are mild compared to the "TP=terrorist" comments that have come from VPs current and former .


Biden's office initially declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session, but after POLITICO published the remarks, spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said: “The word was used by several members of Congress. The vice president does not believe it's an appropriate term in political discourse.”
Sources: Joe Biden likened tea partiers to terrorists - Jonathan Allen and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html)
That didn't stop the VP from saying that Republican leaders “put guns to our heads.”

The major media took the cue and there are plenty examples like the one below by Joe Nocera's op-ed in the NY Slimes that smears the TP as terrorists
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/opinion/the-tea-partys-war-on-america.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them.

These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people...

For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They'll have them on again soon enough. After all, they've gotten so much encouragement.



Thomas Friedman of the Slimes says the TP is the Hezbollah faction of the Republican Party ready to take the GOP on a suicide mission.
He accused them of “raw extortion” and “blackmail” .

CNN host Fareed Zakaria deplored the “hijacking” of the nation" .He called the TP “fundamentally anti-democratic.”..“The Tea Party has an agenda,” ... He said they cannot get their agenda through the democratic process ...he said that the TP's attitude is "we'll blow up the country if you don't listen to us. ” He compared them to "hostage takers" and accused them of treason: “They were not elected dictators of the United States.”
Tina Brown, editor-in-chief of Snoozesweek, told MSNBC that Republicans “are the suicide bombers in all of this.”
Chris Matthews said Republicans were willing to “risk economic Armageddon” in the name of their religion. “The GOP has become the Wahhabis of American government, willing to bring the whole country down.”

Of course they've got it 100% wrong. There was no compromising by the Dems. They stood firmly against responsible debt reduction.
Rep Mike Doyle sums up the Dem's operating philosophy in a nutshell... spend other people's money :
“This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

The most recent one came from the despicable former VP Al (the Goracle) Gore.
He said the US needs an 'American Spring' in an interview with his flunkie Keith Olberman (bobbing his head approvingly).
He said there needs to be a grass roots revolution in the country . That of course is a somewhat definition of the TP even though I call the TP a counter-revolution against the 70+ years of progressive damage the American Fabians have wrought. We just increased our debt to over 16 trillion,topping 100% of GDP , and it's impossible to spend money?
This is all part of that 'civility ' in public discourse the President promised after Tucson.

I don't see anything wrong with Kerry's statement. Isn't he entitled to his opinion? Shouldn't the media verify facts before posting inaccuracies? Should absurdities be promoted as reasonable ideas?

I don't see anything in Kerry's statement that is trying to dictate what the media does. Only a call for responsibility in reporting. Explain to me what is wrong with that?

Who is he to determine what is an "absurd notion" that doesn't deserve coverage? Who is he to determine what is "legitimate" that does deserve coverage? He's entitled to his opinion, but as an elected official ESPECIALLY he needs to embrace first amendment rights like the one's he's expressing.

He lied in the video in saying "what we had was a group of people who were completely unaware or didn't care about the consequences," before saying those people didn't deserve equal coverage. That's rich coming from a guy who goes on to complain about covering things that aren't "factual." Apparently, only coverage about those "terrorist" "hostage takers" deserved coverage and nothing about those not so radical congressmen (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273583/un-radical-freshmen-robert-verbruggen#).

He's a lying, intolerant, hypocrite that has no business posturing about media responsibility. That's what's wrong with it.

How can each media possibly give equal time to all politics? Impossible. Of course they choose. Of course they aren't always going to be impartial, and of course they are going to ignore what they want to ignore. The media is controlled against monopoly. You pick what you want to read and watch and listen to. NPR or Fox, New York Times or some Murdoch paper. If you started a newspaper, would you give equal coverage and act impartial? I doubt it.

If I were a senator, I wouldn't try to squelch the first amendment.


Your first 'quote' isn't a quote from Kerry, and in fact there is nothing in his text that even mentions the Tea Party, so whose words are those? Someone you choose to believe and then pass on their little finagling of what someone said.

So tell me who he was talking about.

You took one person's statement and turned into a thread titled: "Liberal ignorance and intolerance"

Yea, I think I know who the ignorant one is.

You took one person's statement and turned into a thread titled: "Liberal ignorance and intolerance"

Yea, I think I know who the ignorant one is.

Is he a liberal? I'd say it's indisputable that he is. Is is his statement ignorant and intolerant? In my opinion and based on the evidence, yes it is. Now, stop insulting me. Or as you would call it, your "internet courage" is showing.

Kerry's statements and others in the progressive ranks is part of a coordinated campaign to attack the TP as a prelude to next year's campaign.

Kerry's comments are mild compared to the "TP=terrorist" comments that have come from VPs current and former .


Sources: Joe Biden likened tea partiers to terrorists - Jonathan Allen and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html)
That didn't stop the VP from saying that Republican leaders “put guns to our heads.”

The major media took the cue and there are plenty examples like the one below by Joe Nocera's op-ed in the NY Slimes that smears the TP as terrorists
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/opinion/the-tea-partys-war-on-america.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss



Thomas Friedman of the Slimes says the TP is the Hezbollah faction of the Republican Party ready to take the GOP on a suicide mission.
He accused them of “raw extortion” and “blackmail” .

CNN host Fareed Zakaria deplored the “hijacking” of the nation" .He called the TP “fundamentally anti-democratic.”..“The Tea Party has an agenda,” ... He said they cannot get their agenda through the democratic process ...he said that the TP's attitude is "we'll blow up the country if you don't listen to us. ” He compared them to "hostage takers" and accused them of treason: “They were not elected dictators of the United States.”
Tina Brown, editor-in-chief of Snoozesweek, told MSNBC that Republicans “are the suicide bombers in all of this.”
Chris Matthews said Republicans were willing to “risk economic Armageddon” in the name of their religion. “The GOP has become the Wahhabis of American government, willing to bring the whole country down.”

Of course they've got it 100% wrong. There was no compromising by the Dems. They stood firmly against responsible debt reduction.
Rep Mike Doyle sums up the Dem's operating philosophy in a nutshell ....spend other people's money :
“This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

The most recent one came from the dispicable former VP Al (the Goracle) Gore.
He said the US needs an 'American Spring' in an interview with his flunkie Keith Olberman (bobbing his head approvingly).
He said there needs to be a grass roots revolution in the country . That of course is a somewhat definition of the TP even though I call the TP a counter-revolution against the 70+ years of progressive damage the American Fabians have wrought. We just increased our debt to over 16 trillion,topping 100% of GDP , and it's impossible to spend money?
This is all part of that 'civility ' in public discourse the President promised after Tuscon.


Hi Tom,

I can sympathize with what you are saying.

The problem is the media itself. It is not a healthy situation when the media has obviously picks sides before the battle. It becomes a situation whereby,"all is fair in war". A very unhealthy approach to news dissemination. The media is looking for this type of garbage to print.

Tut

Is he a liberal? I'd say it's indisputable that he is. Is is his statement ignorant and intolerant? In my opinion and based on the evidence, yes it is. Now, stop insulting me. Or as you would call it, your "internet courage" is showing.

If you're christian then that mean you're a pedophile. This is your thinking.

I don't see anything wrong with Kerry's statement. Isn't he entitled to his opinion? Shouldn't the media verify facts before posting inaccuracies? Should absurdities be promoted as reasonable ideas?

I don't see anything in Kerry's statement that is trying to dictate what the media does. Only a call for responsibility in reporting. Explain to me what is wrong with that?

Yes they should verify, but what we are running into today is a one sided media that tries to push the same agenda that Kerry is a part of. It seems that when the truth does come out it is labeled as absurd. But when the lies come out its placed out there as truth. Lets just look at one recent push by an agenda based media.

Ref:

Newsvine - Harry Reid says 8 million jobs lost during George W. Bush's years in office (http://stoneyt.newsvine.com/_news/2011/08/05/7269599-harry-reid-says-8-million-jobs-lost-during-george-w-bushs-years-in-office)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/03/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-8-million-jobs-lost-during-george-/

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/)

If you're christian then that mean you're a pedophile. This is your thinking.

Are you resorting to verballing. There is nothing here that suggests that and your connection between christians and pedophiles is offensive

As far as the media is concerned a legitimate view should be a view put forward by a person, person's, organization whereby that person or organization is prepared to take responsibility for said view.

The media should know that it is not alright to say whatever they like, whenever they like. Their modus operandi should not be freedom of speech with no responsibility.

"We report, you decide" type of approach doesn't work when it comes to politics. I think this is obvious.

When it comes to politics many people don't bother to sort the wheat from the chaff.


Tut


It seems that the party that Kerry is associated with doesn't want to take responsibility for anything. They want glory until it comes crashing down. According to their train of thought it is still Bush's economy. They push for fighting between the peoples in the form of class warfare. They mandate programs that can't possibly be paid for and the list keeps going. If the TP or anyone else says something they try to get it dismissed even before it can be proven. Kerry and others are living in some kind of dream world and they can't believe that they lost in the last set of elections so they show their extreme bitterness.

Are you resorting to verballing. There is nothing here that suggests that and your connection between christians and pedophiles is offensive

Speech contents that one man's actions speaks for all liberals. Then we can assume that one man's actions speaks for all of his group. Many priests have been caught sexually molesting young boys, just recently:
Church child protection chief caught with 4,000 child porn pictures - mirror.co.uk (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/31/church-child-protection-chief-caught-with-child-porn-pictures-115875-23308972/)
So by speech's reasoning we can safely assume that this is something all christians do.

You only find it offensive now because you now now involved in the "painting with the wide brush".

If you're christian then that mean you're a pedophile. This is your thinking.

Not that I should even respond to your pathetic nonsense, but mt title doesn't indict all liberals, it's descriptive of one - but I made that clear in my last post to you. You are the only here making wild leaps and avoiding the topic to attack me again. Enough of your obsession with stalking and insulting me.

but mt title doesn't indict all liberals, it's descriptive of one
Nope. Your title is Liberal ignorance and intolerance, that's not one guy and you know it, you've done this before.

Speech contents that one man's actions speaks for all liberals. Then we can assume that one man's actions speaks for all of his group. so by speech's reasoning we can safely assume that this is something all christians do.

You only find it offensive now because you now now involved in the "painting with the wide brush".

Again already? The key word in your post is assume. I described one man, you're painting the broad brush and insulting me in the process. ENOUGH already.

It seems that the party that Kerry is associated with doesnt want to take responsibility for anything. They want glory until it comes crashing down. According to thier train of thought it is still Bush's economy. They push for fighting between the peoples in the form of class warfare. They mandate programs that can't possibly be paid for and the list keeps going. If the TP or anyone else says something they try to get it dismissed even before it can be proven. Kerry and others are living in some kind of dream world and they can't believe that they lost in the last set of elections so they show thier extreme bitterness.


Hi dad,

I am not involved in American politics so I am happy to take your word on the above.

My criticism was direct at your media and the way they lap up and disseminate the drivel from politicians.

Tut

Nope. Your title is Liberal ignorance and intolerance, that's not one guy and you know it.

I've explained myself enough and I really don't give a crap what you say. Just stop stalking me.

I've explained myself enough and I really don't give a crap what you say. Just stop stalking me.You should stick with your friends at FreeRepublic at least they are all of the same mind and do not like opinions that differ.

Hi dad,

I am not involved in American politics so I am happy to take your word on the above.

My criticism was direct at your media and the way they lap up and disseminate the drivel from politicians.

Tut

That is where we agree wholeheartedly. The media is out of control at this point. Im not sure how we can reign it in nor how long it will take but in today's world of fast news and breaking stories minute by minute we may never reach an equal and balanced approach to reporting.

That is where we agree wholeheartedly. The media is out of control at this point. Im not sure how we can reign it in nor how long it will take but in todays world of fast news and breaking stories minute by minute we may never reach an equal and balanced approach to reporting.


Yes I agree, and the politicians know that the more outlandish their statements the more likely the media is to run with it.

In my opinion Kerry is talking a load of nonsense for the most part. But he is right about one thing. The media needs to take more responsibility. I don't think this will ever happen because there is no way around the First Amendment as it applies to the Media.

Tut

Yes I agree, and the politicians know that the more outlandish their statements the more likely the media is to run with it.

In my opinion Kerry is talking a load of nonsense for the most part. But he is right about one thing. The media needs to take more responsibility. I don't think this will ever happen because there is no way around the First Amendment as it applies to the Media.

Tut

Yes, but what Kerry means by taking responsibility is 'favorable to Democrats'.

Yes, but what Kerry means by taking responsibility is 'favorable to Democrats'.

Hi Speech,


I am sure that is what he means.


Tut

Who is he to determine what is an "absurd notion" that doesn't deserve coverage? Who is he to determine what is "legitimate" that does deserve coverage? He's entitled to his opinion, but as an elected official ESPECIALLY he needs to embrace first amendment rights like the one's he's expressing.

...

He's a lying, intolerant, hypocrite that has no business posturing about media responsibility. That's what's wrong with it.

If there is one thing I detest its hypocrisy. Which is why I responded to your thread when I normally don't get involved in such discussions.

He is an american citizen and, as such, can exercise his right to express his opinion. What you don't seem to understand is the first amendment is a double edged sword. You can't say that he is not embracing the first amendment by expressing his opinion! THAT IS HYPOCRISY!!

He was not being hypocritical, but you are.

If there is one thing I detest its hypocrisy. Which is why I responded to your thread when I normally don't get involved in such discussions.

He is an american citizen and, as such, can exercise his right to express his opinion. What you don't seem to understand is the first amendment is a double edged sword. You can't say that he is not embracing the first amendment by expressing his opinion!! THAT IS HYPOCRISY!!!

He was not being hypocritical, but you are.

Really, Scott? I just got through saying to you "He's entitled to his opinion (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/kerry-questions-media-over-tea-party-coverage-591333.html#post2866363)." You made a huge assumption in the first place that I didn't think he had a right to his opinion, and then ignored me agreeing that he does.

On top of that, I'm guessing it was you who edited my title based on another erroneous assumption by another user. Add to that the recent removal of one or more of my legitimate posts and I'm beginning to think it's AMHD that's the hypocrite.

Just close the thread, Scott. Apparently the idea here is to attack me for expressing my opinion on a current event, even by the mods. Oh, and I'm keeping a screen shot.

Really, Scott? I just got through saying to you "He's entitled to his opinion (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/kerry-questions-media-over-tea-party-coverage-591333.html#post2866363)." You made a huge assumption in the first place that I didn't think he had a right to his opinion, and then ignored me agreeing that he does.

On top of that, I'm guessing it was you who edited my title based on another erroneous assumption by another user. Add to that the recent removal of one or more of my legitimate posts and I'm beginning to think it's AMHD that's the hypocrite.

Just close the thread, Scott. Apparently the idea here is to attack me for expressing my opinion on a current event, even by the mods. Oh, and I'm keeping a screen shot.

You can type the words "he's entitled to his opinion", but the whole thread and several of your posts show you neither believe or agree with that.

You don't have to guess it was me who edited the title. I used my symbols (<>) to sign the Mod note. If you feel I have overstepped, report it.

Nor is anyone attacking you for expressing your opinion. We have, however, disagreed with that opinion and shown why. Also your oiriginal title was to bash a group of people over what one person said. That's why I changed the title. You started this thread and throughout the thread, attacked kerry for voicing his opinion. If you want to disagree with that opinion fine, but you ned to respect his right to express it. You have not don that in this thread.

Yes they should verify, but what we are running into today is a one sided media that tries to push the same agenda that Kerry is a part of. Hello dad:

I STRONGLY disagree... Oh, not that the print media is liberal, but that print media encompasses the ENTIRE media.

From MY standpoint, it's about EVEN... Clearly, the right wing DOMINATES talk radio from coast to coast, where not a liberal voice can be heard. And, let's not forget about FOX news who reminds us constantly, that they kick the liberal network, MSNBC's butt all the time. The blogosphere is about evenly divided, in my view.

The GOOD news for right wingers, is that PRINT media, if it IS liberal, is dying in any case.

excon

Hello dad:

I STRONGLY disagree... Oh, not that the print media is liberal, but that print media encompasses the ENTIRE media.

From MY standpoint, it's about EVEN... Clearly, the right wing DOMINATES talk radio from coast to coast, where not a liberal voice can be heard. And, let's not forget about FOX news who reminds us constantly, that they kick the liberal network, MSNBC's butt all the time. The blogosphere is about evenly divided, in my view.

The GOOD news for right wingers, is that PRINT media, if it IS liberal, is dying in any case.

excon

Sure there is left wing radio but they can't seem to make enough money to stay on the air.

Sirus has them.

Progressive Talk - Political Talk - News/Talk - SiriusXM Left - SiriusXM Satellite Radio - SiriusXM Radio (http://www.siriusxm.com/siriusleft)

Randi Rhodes&#039; Suspension and the State of Left-Wing Radio - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/694345/randi_rhodes_suspension_and_the_state.html)

Executive Summary (http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2010/realradiohatemongers/ExecSumm.aspx)

Sure there is left wing radio but they can't seem to make enough money to stay on the air.Hello again, dad:

I think you made my point.

excon

You can type the words "he's entitled to his opinion", but the whole thread and several of your posts show you neither believe or agree with that.

So your assumptions carry more weight than my direct statement? Specifically, show me where I have ever let on that certain people don't have the right to speak their opinion. Assumptions don't count, Scott. I in fact have many, many times defended Fox News' first amendment rights against those who would have it silenced. I have many times defended the right of those I disagree with to express their opinion.

I LOVE free speech as indicated here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/us-rep-gabrielle-giffords-d-az-541924-9.html#post2661852), here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/gop-congressman-apologizes-bp-20-billion-shakedown-480724-2.html#post2399323), here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/constitutionality-universal-health-care-405829.html#post2030847), here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/free-speech-free-sperm-393114.html#post1960494), here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/free-speech-370520.html#post1828038) and here. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/wapo-free-speech-aint-free-speech-329965.html#post1608025)

Should I go on showing how completely and utterly wrong you are? I shouldn't have to, while you were making assumptions that I didn't believe Kerry had a right to his opinion, I was saying as a representative of the people of this country, he should RESPECT the first amendment' and I quote, "He's entitled to his opinion, but as an elected official ESPECIALLY he needs to embrace first amendment rights like the one's he's expressing."


Nor is anyone attacking you for expressing your opinion.
I'm sorry, but NK implying I'm ignorant is an attack (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/kerry-questions-media-over-tea-party-coverage-591333.html#post2866367). YOU called me a hypocrite (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/kerry-questions-media-over-tea-party-coverage-591333-3.html#post2866425) based on an asinine assumption, that's an attack.


We have, however, disagreed with that opinion and shown why. Also your oiriginal title was to bash a group of people over what one person said.

That's nonsense Scottt, the thread was an example of "Liberal ignorance and intolerance," not "liberals are ignorant and intolerant." Go change the titles on "Tea party Morons," "Tea party hypocrites," "Who is the most biggoted Republican presidential candidate?," "Why does the right wing HATE Elizabeth Warren?," or "Stupid Democrats." For some reason you decided to single me out today and that's pathetic for a moderator.


That's why I changed the title. You started this thread and throughout the thread, attacked kerry for voicing his opinion. If you want to disagree with that opinion fine, but you ned to respect his right to express it. You have not don that in this thread.

Really? Again? Twice now I've made it clear that "he's entitled to his opinion," and twice now you've told I don't respect his right to his opinion. Which of us is correct?

NK implying I'm ignorant is an attackBut your thread title was "Liberal ignorance" - you just attacked 250 million people! Half of your fellow Americans! It seems to be OK in your world to use that wording on people who will never see your thread but when the same wording is used on you you cry bloody murder - that my friend is hypocrisy.

But your thread title was "Liberal ignorance" - you just attacked 250 million people! Half of your fellow Americans! It seems to be ok in your world to use that wording on people who will never see your thread but when the exact same wording is used on you you cry bloody murder - that my friend is hypocrisy.

Whatever.

How about this? My apologies to my liberal friends who I adore, and reasonable liberals everywhere. In no way was the original title of my thread meant to disparage all liberals.

On the other hand, Jonah Goldberg would like to exercise his first amendment rights (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273444/hell-you-people-jonah-goldberg#).

I will say this one more time. I don't want to get into an arguments with you. I stand by what I said. I believe people reviewing the thread will see that you are railing against Kerry for expressing his opinion, an opinion you claim to believe he is entitled to. My assumptions do not carry more weight, but your actual words do. You started this not disagreeing with what he said but disagreeing that he should have said it. If you are comfortable that my interpretation is erroneous, then people will judge me accordingly. I'm comfortable with that.

I did not single YOU out I singled this thread out because it attracted my attention. You have a point that it may have been unfair of me to single this thread out. So I will say that if you feel there are other threads where the title merits editing, please feel free to report them. As a moderator I cannot review EVERY post. To call my actions "pathetic" because I can't be everywhere is unfair.

So the other titles Speech mentioned were conveniently overlooked . What is amazing is how often discussions are edited or removed . I thought the discussion forums were set up for a more free and open exchange .

As for Kerry ;he is openly promoting censorship of his political opponents in his rant. The very idea that the media did not uniformly attack his comments proves they already take his advice to heart. One has to wonder why he fears the Tea Party message ? Or is it that he fears that Americans inherently embrace their constitutional message ?

In the video he never once refers to the Tea Party. His opinion is generic. Not sure how the tea party got involved in this.

That's true... but Kerry was talking about Tea Party . You know it and I know it.

That's a lot of assumptions - something Steve frowns on. Kerry's opinion isn't even radical. Not sure what the fuss is about.

Do your research then .It is not an assumption. It was the topic of the discussion that the video was clipped from .

We go by what was posted and there is no mention of the tea party which is the whole basis of the thread.

I will say this one more time. I don't want to get into an arguments with you. I stand by what I said. I believe people reviewing the thread will see that you are railing against Kerry for expressing his opinion, an opinion you claim to believe he is entitled to.

Yes and? So what the hell is the problem then? He has the right rail against the Tea Party, I have the right to rail against him.

I have also defended this site numerous times as having the right to set rules and moderate content. But what you don't - or shouldn't - have the right to do is apply those rules unfairly and unequally. I don't care that you don't review every post, we as members see what behavior has been consistently allowed and act accordingly. Your acts today were arbitrary and inconsistent with what we see on a daily basis
As I just showed with the titles I listed. I'm not interested in your excuses, I'm waiting for the rules to be applied equally. I don't think that's asking too much.

Of course he was talking about the Tea party, and the extreme right wing, and right wing TV, and radio. So what, he is on the other side of the coin, a democratic liberal. That's his job to jump on the other side.

The right takes no prisoners in there assault on anything they see as against what they believe.

True conservatives have always been able to negotiate and compromise, but the extreme right holds its own party hostage, and that's what Kerry was railing about.

We go by what was posted and there is no mention of the tea party which is the whole basis of the thread.

What was included in the post was a link to the source. While you and Scott assume and posture and imply, I furnish evidence and sources. RCP is NOT a conservative source, they supplied the headline and the video is clear about who Kerry is referring to.

RCP about us (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/about.html)

Tal you won't hear us calling for censorship. I'll take anyone to task (take no prisoners etc).. but would never do things or suggest things that would suppress a free and open exchange .

Tom, I neither consider you a TPer, nor a right wing extremist. We don't agree on some things but we love to debate our points. If you are my age, you remember when reaching across the aisle was a practice, not an indictment. That's what makes this country great, that's what made it the greatest. I understand fear, and what it makes us do, and it brings out the worst, but where is our courage? What happened to it? That was our only advantage over our enemies, and now that seems to be gone. Or lack of outside enemies, maybe we have become our own worst enemy.

Hope not.

What happened to reaching across the aisle? Ask all those progressives that spent years fear mongering about Bush and plans for a theocracy. Ask Pelosi, she was the one that instituted the 'party of no' philosophy after the 2006 election. Ask Obama, who after trying to offer ideas told Eric Cantor 'I won'. Ask all the Dems that locked Republicans out of the health care talks and then rammed the legislation through against clear public opposition.

The truth is politics is ugly, but at the end of the day most of us can still get together and battle it out in a friendly fantasy league. Ok, so me kicking y'all's butt isn't much of a battle, but it's still friendly.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts!!



QUOTE by speechlesstx;
What happened to reaching across the aisle? Ask all those progressives that spent years fear mongering about Bush and plans for a theocracy.
That wasn't the issue with BUSH. Political back and forth is always going to be present, so of course this compassionate conservative was going to have a problem with the left, and if you recall both parties went along with his tax cuts, wars, housing bubble, deregulations, unfunded educational programs, and an expensive drug program for seniors, and in return, the same guy who screwed up the Rangers, failed at over seven businesses, and became president through controversy TWICE, and took a projected surplus to a very real deficit, made worse by accounting tricks designed to hide the true costs, and through all of this, I can't remember anything about his turning things into a theocracy. Now if you mean privatizing social security, and giving tax breaks to charities, and churches to help the poor in place of government, yeah I was mad too, just because it should have been done in addition to government, and not yet another loophole to the rich, and called philanthropy. Is that a theocracy, know, that's an oligarchy.


Ask Pelosi, she was the one that instituted the 'party of no' philosophy after the 2006 election.
Somebody had to reign in Georges wars, spending, the greatest wealth distribution the world has ever seen. The people spoke, in 2006, 2008, and 2010, and they will speak again in 2012, and we have to see what they say. That's how it works, and Pelosi must have done something the electorate liked, because the success of '06, was followed by the success of '08.

2010, only got the house, some governors and some state legislators, many are under fire now already, for crazy over reaching policy that brought people to the streets, from both parties. WISCONSIN, is the perfect example of reaching across the aisle we have seen in years.


Ask Obama, who after trying to offer ideas told Eric Cantor 'I won'.
Well he did win, so what makes you think Mr. Cantor will dictate the rules to everyone just because some in the House are TPers? The rookies will learn though, rest assured (progressive rhetoric!! ).


Ask all the Dem's that locked Republicans out of the health care talks and then rammed the legislation through against clear public opposition.
You mean debating for months and putting the ideas of Republicans into bills that they filibustered (obstructed), voted against, all for an agenda to defeat the president, at the expense of the country? Hey fact is that's how George got his tax cuts, through the process of reconciliation. You ram we ram, such is the way to get things done LEGALLY, so I guess you guys don't like it when its your turn to get it rammed down your throat, as you call it. (right wing rhetoric?? ).


The truth is politics is ugly, but at the end of the day most of us can still get together and battle it out in a friendly fantasy league. Ok, so me kicking y'all's butt isn't much of a battle, but it's still friendly.
We agree completely, and I am honestly enjoying Fantasy Baseball, and look forward to it every day. Almost as much as debating with you righties. Since no ones mind gets changed, we can never know who's butt gets kicked, but for all the INTENSITY, its still friendly. Nothing personal. From me at least.

Since no ones mind gets changed, we can never know who's butt gets kicked, but for all the INTENSITY, its still friendly. Nothing personal. From me at least.Hello tal:

Oh, I don't know. I used to be a screaming right winger until I started reading your posts.;)

excon

You mean debating for months and putting the ideas of Republicans into bills that they filibustered (obstructed), voted against, all for an agenda to defeat the president, at the expense of the country? Hey fact is thats how George got his tax cuts, thru the process of reconciliation. You ram we ram, such is the way to get things done LEGALLY, so I guess you guys don't like it when its your turn to get it rammed down your throat, as you call it. (right wing rhetoric??????).

Do you really think that it is in any way responsible to pass a bill by stating that you have to pass it to find out what is in it? The tax cuts you had spoken of weren't under the table as the health care bill. It was irresponsible legislation and for that we all will suffer.

That's funny, I have been following the changes, amendments, and the whole this through committee since 2009, online, and on cspan. I knew what was in the bill, its been on white house .gov since march, '09, so not knowing what's in it by a member of congress is really hard to believe. Unlike the tax cuts, EVERYBODY, followed this one, and its still online, but what's bad about it? You do know that what he ran on and won on it. Plus it enjoyed public support.

http://www.ibx.com/pdfs/about_ibc/health_care_reform/timeline.pdf

Is it irresponsible to rein in rising costs to one of the biggest drivers of our budget? The biggest knock on it was it doesn't go far enough, nor included single payer. And how could you pass up the fact private insurers were raising rates, and shedding customers for any reason.

Like I asked, how is it turning out to be bad legislation?? Give me facts, not talking points. The greatest growth industry during the current economic downturn, is in health care if you haven't noticed, fueled by the Obamacare bill, and the money for Pell grants and loans, as well as additional funding for hospitals doctors, clinics, AND insurance companies, and drug companies. AND tax credits for having private health insurance, AND no penalties for not having insurance, other than losing a deduction that's roughly a third of what you paid.

You are entitled to your own opinion...

I said that and a moderator that can't seem to grasp the fact that my starting a thread means I'm seeking opinions from others, basically called me a liar.


Well he did win, so what makes you think Mr. Cantor will dictate the rules...

Speaking of having your own facts, trying to add input is not dictating, and shutting Republicans out is not reaching across the aisle.


We agree completely, and I am honestly enjoying Fantasy Baseball, and look forward to it every day. Almost as much as debating with you righties. Since no ones mind gets changed, we can never know who's butt gets kicked, but for all the INTENSITY, its still friendly. Nothing personal. From me at least.

Need at least one more for fantasy football. Anyone? Your chance to virtually thrash a conservative...

I said that and a moderator that can't seem to grasp the fact that my starting a thread means I'm seeking opinions from others, basically called me a liar.
As I read it, your question was modified, to get opinions, and not backlash, and he did come back to explain himself. If I didn't know you so well I would have thought you were picking an argument, not looking for opinions, but get beyond that, and don't take it personally. If you only knew how many reddies I get (can't get any on this forum though, LOL! ), and PM's cussing me out as being harsh and insensitive, edited for "letting people have it", and various other things it would blow your mind. Don't take it personally. I never do. Comes with being on a public forum.

Speaking of having your own facts, trying to add input is not dictating, and shutting Republicans out is not reaching across the aisle.
Now back to issues, Republicans are never shut out, they draw a line, and leave. Its been there MO since this president came into office. They have been in every negotiation and debate, and always back away and run out in the middle of them, obstruction, and they have stated their goal is to make Obama look bad, and have succeeded with much help.

Republican Obstructionism Measured & Confirmed | Mirror On America (http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/2010/02/republican-obstructionism-measured.html)

Today in Childish Republican Obstructionism - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/03/24/today-in-childish-republican-obstructionism.html)

This is an old well used strategy by repubs,

NEWS ONLY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET: REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTIONISM A PLANNED AND SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY (http://alsinterestingstories.blogspot.com/2010/04/republican-obstructionism-planned-and.html)

Despite the growing specter of political violence, the Republicans appear set in their determination to foment as much disruption as possible between now and the November elections, and thus reap expected gains, with hopes that they can win back the House and Senate and then further neutralize Obama.



Inside-Outside

While some Washington pundits see the Republicans as captives of the extremism on the Right – unable to dismount a dangerous tiger – the counter-analysis would be that the GOP and the Tea Party/militia crowd are just two parts of the same political movement, one inside the system and the other outside, but both working toward the same goal, a restoration of Republican/Right control of government.


In their view, only then would political comity and governmental normalcy be restored, because the Democrats always seem eager to get along and do what’s necessary to make government work.


The Pattern Continues

So, the Republicans have never been made to pay a political price for their scheming to undercut sitting Democratic presidents -- and to grease the GOP’s route back to power. Whenever a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans believe they are free do whatever they want to block him from solving national problems, making him look weak and ineffectual.


That was true of Johnson, Carter, Clinton and now Obama

Need at least one more for fantasy football. Anyone? Your chance to virtually thrash a conservative...
Count me in, PM me the details and show me where to sign.

8 weeks left in FBB anything can happen... it isn't over until it's over.
We could see a 1964 Phiilies ;a 2007 Mets ,a 1978 Red Sox ,a 1969 Cubbies ,a (dare I say it ) 2004 NY Yankees here . Keep hope alive!! Speech lost 2 pts yesterday . The collapse is imminent!

8 weeks?? We better get busier, heck I been trying to break 20 points longer than that!!

It ain't over yet!!

Is it irresponsible to rein in rising costs to one of the biggest drivers of our budget? The biggest knock on it was it doesn't go far enough, nor included single payer. And how could you pass up the fact private insurers were raising rates, and shedding customers for any reason.

Like I asked, how is it turning out to be bad legislation?? Give me facts, not talking points. The greatest growth industry during the current economic downturn, is in health care if you haven't noticed, fueled by the Obamacare bill, and the money for Pell grants and loans, as well as additional funding for hospitals doctors, clinics, AND insurance companies, and drug companies. AND tax credits for having private health insurance, AND no penalties for not having insurance, other than losing a deduction thats roughly a third of what you paid.

Ok, Lets start with here.
&#x202a;Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To)

Pelosi: We need to pass ObamaCare so that the public can find out what's in the bill Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/09/pelosi-we-need-to-pass-obamacare-so-that-the-public-can-find-out-whats-in-the-bill/)

A new Congressional Budget Office report shows premiums will increase
for some Americans with individual coverage. However, most people
who get insurance through their employer won’t see a big difference in
premiums.

This was a lie from the beginning. Health care costs have almost tripled for many employers and their workforce since its passing.


October 14 Independent analysis commissioned by the Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association through Oliver Wyman Inc., an international management
consulting firm, also shows that the current health bill in Congress will
not reduce costs. Its research indicates the legislation will actually lead to
50% higher premiums.

October 12 Americas Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) announces a new study it has
commissioned through PriceWaterhouseCoopers that shows how current
legislation will actually raise health care costs, not reduce them.


And there are penalties for not buying into the system. The IRS will be making sure of that. They also wish to tax people for "premium plans". That's like saying rather then drive what we can afford we all have to drive the same car.

There is a start for you.

As I read it, your question was modified, to get opinions, and not backlash, and he did come back to explain himself.

There's more to it than meets the eye, tal. I can take the backlash from anyone, but what I don't tolerate is for the rules to be applied unequally. When that happens and the facts are on my side, that's when I pick a fight.


Need at least one more for fantasy football. Anyone? Your chance to virtually thrash a conservative...
Count me in, PM me the details and show me where to sign.

I'll get back to you tomorrow. I'll get it set up but we'll still at least need one more team to have head to head games so ask your buddies here.

A new Congressional Budget Office report shows premiums will increase
For some Americans with individual coverage. However, most people
Who get insurance through their employer won’t see a big difference in
Premiums.

Premiums were rising dramatically anyway,

Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States)


October 14 Independent analysis commissioned by the Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association through Oliver Wyman Inc. an international management
Consulting firm, also shows that the current health bill in Congress will
Not reduce costs. Its research indicates the legislation will actually lead to
50% higher premiums.

October 12 Americas Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) announces a new study it has
Commissioned through PriceWaterhouseCoopers that shows how current
Legislation will actually raise health care costs, not reduce them.

An study by the insurance industry? Really? No I mean REALLY?

Study the CBO scoring,

Congressional Budget Office - H.R. 4872, Reconciliation Act of 2010 (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11355)


And there are penalties for not buying into the system. The IRS will be making sure of that. They also wish to tax people for "premium plans". That's like saying rather then drive what we can afford we all have to drive the same car.

None of that is in the bill. If you don't want in get a waiver, or forget the tax deduction.

I can only guess that this is the type of coverage more to Kerry's liking:

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/bachmann-newsweek.jpg

Exactly when has Bachmann "raged" abut anything? Did Newsweek crown anyone king or queen of rage for calling Republicans terrorists or the Hezbollah faction of the GOP? Or as Ed Morrisey put it, "When Barack Obama told an audience in June 2008 that “if they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun,” did Newsweek crown him the King of Rage"?

Good thing Newsweek is relegated to subscribers consisting solely of Democratic Underground members.

hZxQZMSl-o0

10 Of The Craziest Things Michele Bachmann Has Ever Said | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/16/246618/bachmann-craziest-quotes/)

(1) BACHMANN WARNED ‘THE LION KING’ WAS GAY PROPAGANDA: At the November 2004 EdWatch National Education Conference, Bachmann said the “normalization” of homosexuality would lead to “desensitization”: “Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of ‘The Lion King’ for instance, and a teacher might say, ‘Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?’ The message is: I’m better at what I do, because I’m gay.”

(2) BACHMANN CLAIMED ABOLISHING THE MINIMUM WAGE WOULD CREATE JOBS: While testifying in front of the Minnesota Senate in 2005, Bachmann said, “Literally, if we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.” This isn’t remotely true. Even simply reducing the minimum wage would, as Paul Krugman noted, “at best do nothing for employment; more likely it would actually be contractionary.”

(3) BACHMANN CLAIMED THAT SCIENTISTS ARE SUPPORTERS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN: During a 2006 debate, Bachmann said, “There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.” This was, and is, not true.

(4) BACHMANN CLAIMED TERRI SCHIAVO WAS ‘HEALTHY’: Not long after Terri Schiavo died, Bachmann said she would have voted for the Palm Sunday Compromise because Schiavo “was healthy. She had brain damage — there was brain damage, there was no question. But from a health point of view, she was not terminally ill.” An autopsy found that Schiavo had suffered irreversible brain damage and her brain, said the medical examiner, was “profoundly atrophied.”

(5) BACHMANN LIKENED VISITING IRAQ TO VISITING MALL OF AMERICA: In 2007, Bachmann returned from a junket to Iraq and told her colleagues, “[T]here’s a commonality with the Mall of America, in that it’s on that proportion. There’s marble everywhere. The other thing I remarked about was there is water everywhere.” As ThinkProgress documented at the time, the comparison was preposterous.

(6) BACHMANN CLAIMED THAT CARBON DIOXIDE IS ‘HARMLESS’: In 2008, a Stanford scientist revealed “direct links” between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and “increases in human mortality” — globally, he found that as many as “20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.” The next year, Bachmann, who is not a scientist, said that “carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”

(7) BACHMANN CALLED FOR A CONGRESSIONAL WITCH HUNT: Pivoting off the news of Barack Obama’s alleged relationship to former Weather Underground member William Ayers, and his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bachmann accused the candidate of having “anti-American views.” She then suggested that Congressional liberals — including Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid — ought to be subject to “an exposé” by the media because of their views. “I think people would love to see like that,” she told a stunned Chris Matthews.

(8) BACHMANN SUGGESTED GAY SINGER SHOULD REPENT AFTER GETTING CANCER: Bachmann saw Melissa Etheridge’s cancer as a teachable moment: “Unfortunately she is now suffering from breast cancer, so keep her in your prayers,” she said in November 2004. “This may be an opportunity for her now to be open to some spiritual things, now that she is suffering with that physical disease. She is a lesbian.”

(9) BACHMANN BOASTED ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW: In advance of the 2010 national Census, Bachmann told The Washington Times that she would break the law by not completing the forms. “I know for my family, the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home,” she said. “We won’t be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.”

(10) BACHMANN CLAIMED THAT GLENN BECK COULD SOLVE THE DEBT CRISIS: During a February trip to South Carolina, Bachmann told a South Carolina audience, “I think if we give Glenn Beck the numbers, he can solve this [the national debt].”

Hello Steve;

It's not what she said. It's how she looks.

excon

Hello Steve;

It's not what she said. It's how she looks.

excon
Now, now ex, republican like their woman politicians perty, it diverts from the content that they say and makes the base vote with the other head.

10 Of The Craziest Things Michele Bachmann Has Ever Said | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/16/246618/bachmann-craziest-quotes/)

I didn't see any rage there, NK. Where was the rage? I have never see her rage.

Now, now ex, republican like their woman politicians perty, it diverts from the content that they say and makes the base vote with the other head.

How totally inappropriate on so many levels, but I'm sure you'll get away with it no problem.

How totally inappropriate on so many levels, but I'm sure you'll get away with it no problem.Should I have used your sarcasm font?

I didn't see any rage there, NK. Where was the rage? I have never see her rage.Rage can take many forms, I think she has the more passive-aggressive form of it. But no, she doesn't froth at the mouth if that's what you are aiming at.

Rage can take many forms, I think she has the more passive-aggressive form of it. But no, she doesn't froth at the mouth if that's what you are aiming at.

In other words, she doesn't rage.

Ok. She just says nutty things which is unfortunate for a presidential candidate.
I guess you won't be subscribing to Newsweek. I'm sure there are other more right-wing magazines you can endorse.

Ok. She just says nutty things which is unfortunate for a presidential candidate.
I guess you won't be subscribing to Newsweek. I'm sure there are other more right-wing magazines you can endorse.

No one is subscribing to Newsweek any more (easy to see why) and I'm more a Sports Illustrated guy.

There you go - the free market cures all.

Premiums were rising dramatically anyway,

Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States)



An study by the insurance industry?? Really? No I mean REALLY??

Study the CBO scoring,

Congressional Budget Office - H.R. 4872, Reconciliation Act of 2010 (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11355)



None of that is in the bill. If you don't want in get a waiver, or forget the tax deduction.




I was just quoting your sources. And there will be penalties. Again your source shows the IRS will be involved.

Heading: Payments of Penalties for Being Uninsured Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (April 22, 2010)


Among those who are subject to the penalty, many will voluntarily report on their tax returns that they are uninsured and pay the amount owed. However, other individuals will try to avoid making payments. Therefore, the estimates presented here account for likely compliance rates, as well as the ability of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to administer and collect the penalty. In total, about 4 million people are projected to pay a penalty because they will be uninsured in 2016 (a figure that includes uninsured dependents who have the penalty paid on their behalf).
CBO and JCT estimate that total collections from those penalties will be about $4 billion per year over the 2017–2019 period. The attached table shows the distribution of payments that are projected to be made for being uninsured in 2016 (which the IRS will actually collect in 2017) by income measured as a percentage of the federal poverty level (FPL). In general, households with lower income will pay the flat dollar penalty, and households with higher income will pay a percentage of their income. In 2016, households with income that exceeds 400 percent of the FPL are estimated to constitute about one-third of people paying penalties and to account for about two-thirds of the receipts from those penalties.




Take note that at a minimum they will be trying to collect 4 billion a year in penalties.

Actually the penalties that will be levied in 2017 are in line with what most states already have, and seems to be a standard according to income as seen in Massachusetts,

TIR 09-1: Individual Mandate Penalties for Tax Year 2009 (Updated) (http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=dorterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Individuals+and+Families&L2=Health+Care+Reform+Information&L3=Health+Care+Reform+Regulations+and+TIRs&sid=Ador&b=terminalcontent&f=dor_rul_reg_tir_tir_09_1&csid=Ador)

It's a choice, and a responsibility, much like car insurance, and seat belts. Yes and many do pay the penalty as Mass. Has a 97% compliance. But the presumption is there will be enough options that EVERYONE has access to affordable health regardless of income. As you know every state can have its own plan, as long as it complies with the guidelines set by the Federal government. No doubt they will do as as Mass. Does, so if your Governor says so, you won't have to pay that penalty.

I think your rush to label this bad legislation, fails to acknowledge facts that are already made apparent as many of these reforms in the Affordable Care Act have already gone into affect, and has been received tremendously already. I mean from what's already been started what do you object to that makes this "bad" legislation. Be specific Dad!! I mean not having seat belts is 75 bucks a pop, and since most people I know, especially with kids, see insurance as a necessity.

Obama has made it plain that he is open to ideas, and tweaks.

Take note that at a minimum they will be trying to collect 4 billion a year in penalties.

Sounds like a very effective way to raise taxes and call them penalties.