 |
Right here: Liberty Counsel
Look at the wording and compare it to what you've read here.
Here's the kicker: the talking points assembled by the Liberty Counsel, a far-right religious group that's part of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University empire.
Here's the real ifo to counter the falsehoods: Get the facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform | Health Insurance Reform Reality Check
My outlook on it is that they are going to do what they are going to do and only time will tell. Government has a way of saying one thing and doing the complete opposite.
So I don't trust anything they say or do until we have the cold hard facts as the final result
Buy you'll accept distortions instead? Or what Chuck Norris says?
Oh, look, NeedKarma is an expert on where Conservatives get their talking points now. He must have taken a poll of Conservatives and they musth have pointed him to this website. Strange that he never asked me, though, even though he knows I'm a Conservative.
Actually, I get many of my "talking points" from here:
Amazon.com: Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto eBook: Mark R. Levin: The Kindle Store
Others are just plain old logic, common sense, and an understanding of both history and economics, as well as 40 years of life experience.
I've never seen the Liberty Counsel website.
Elliot
I'll pick Chuck Norris over the government any day. When was the last time the government didn't lie to us?
Exactly :DQuote:
Originally Posted by etwolverine
You don't even bother reading posts do you? It's just knee-jerk reaction all the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I mentioned that the same wording from that site appears right here in this forum.
Thanks for the heads up NK, I've never heard of Liberty Counsel. Another resource is always welcome... at least someone has read the bill.
It certainly fits your history of proliferating propaganda and untruths! Good little christian you are. :)
Yeah I'm a Falwell flunkie. The problem with your argument is that the Liberty sight you link to provides the section of the bill in question and I can read it myself.
The President's web site provides no such linkage and is propaganda itself.
As an example Veterans groups have been complaining about the bill because the plan wants to transfer the costs of care FROM the government to private insurance as a cost savings measure.They are afraid that the insurance companies will in turn bill the Vets for the care(including war related injuries) . So the section about Vets care on the President's blog is a distortion itself. If I think anyone deserves free health care it's our Vets. Yet it appears that they will actually be worse off under the President's plan.
I think there should be a reality check to counter the President's reality check .He is clearly shilling for a plan he has never read .
LOL ETW is JEWISH
So with one leg he is knee jerk reaction while with the other leg he is kickin'
With plain old logic, common sense, and an understanding of both history and economics, as well as 40 years of life experience.
You'll have to be more specific, try facts instead of propaganda and untruths.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Who cares if he's jeweish or gay or bald or fat?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Uh huh. And people don't use the same wording to talk about the same topic on the left?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I guess, by your logic, all the left wingers get their talking points from David Axelrod who was the first to say that the grass-roots movements to stop this health care reform bill was "astroturf" and now every left-wing blogger, politician and activist is using that term.
When a political term becomes popular, it gets picked up in the media and used over and over again. This is true on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. That does NOT mean that they are all taking their talking points from the same place. It just means that certain usages of terminology and phraseology have become popular.
I would be willing to bet that if you go through the terminology and phraseology used on the Liberty Counsel website and did a bit of research as to where those terms were first used, you would find that most of them pre-date any of the current issues on the table.
As a side note, although "astroturf" was first applied to the health care debate by Axelrod, the term "astroturfing" meaning creating a fake "grass-roots" movement actually dates back to the late 1980s or early 1990s when it was used by Senator Lloyd Bentsen. The actual practice of "astroturfing" dates back to the 1800s under King Leopold II of Belgium in order to justify his private colonialism and exploitation of The Congo.
So I'm afraid that Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod, who thought they were being creative, are anything but.
I suspect that the terminology used in Liberty Cousel's website and by us Conservatives here have their origins dating back to a much earlier era. The philosophy of Conservartism dates back to the founding of the Nation, so I suspect much of our phraseology dates back to that era, at the very least.
But of course, you know where we get our terminology because you've checked it out.
Elliot
Oh I thought you were lumping ET into this statementQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
No they don't, they refer specifically to the health care reform bill only.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Gee so you are saying that the health care reform is something so radically new that it has no socialism ties or anything?
I bet you can find it in Fabianism and the book ETW referred to as well as other books on socialism
OK, then. You have now made a statement of fact, and I'm going to challenge it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Please name any term or phrase that is used on the Liberty Counsel website, and is applied to the health care bill, that has NEVER BEEN USED BEFORE THIS BILL WAS CREATED AND WAS MADE UP BY THE FOLKS AT LIBERTY COUNSEL.
If you cannot, I expect a retraction of the statement.
Actually, no I don't... not from you.
Elliot
Well there's a red herring argument eh ET? You want me to show you a new word there that was made up specifically for this campaign? You fail at trying to paint someone into a corner with spurious requests. Quit being so nazi and admit that the talking points such as:
- Government will have direct access to your bank accounts
- YOUR HEALTH CARE WILL BE RATIONED!
- No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “administrative of judicial review” against a government monopoly.
- Cancer patients and their treatment are open to rationing!
- Government tells doctors what/how much they can own.
- Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
And others have appeared here and all over the web.
Sweet...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Quote:
Actually the calling of people nazis is the domain of the uneducated i.e they have no argument. It's commonly referered to as Godwin's Law:
And each of those talking points come DIRECTLY FROM THE BILL ITSELF. We have demonstrated that over and over again. Been there, done that, already beat you at that argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Now, you made a specific statement: that the terms used by Liberty Counsel's website ORIGINATED with them, and have never existed BEFORE they were put on that website. And you used that as a PROOF that we are all getting our "talking points" from one source... Liberty Counsel's website.
I'm saying, prove it by showing us which terminology on that website is NEW to this health care debate, and must therefore prove that we are all getting our talking points from that single source.
Or retract your statement.
Elliot
And also why, when we debate about the healthcare bill, doesn't somebody that is for the bill ever give a link to the actual bill?
The links that we provide as what the actual bill is suppose to say are 'boo-ed' as right wing propaganda yet I don't see any links from the left on anything from the actual bill.
7 seconds of googling: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...0714/aahca.pdf
Facts are inconvenient things to them. But hey, NK can Google.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Oh the irony...Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Still working that pathetic "lying SOB" angle?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
If you can find it, then how come you have never once pointed to what the bill actually says in order to defend your statements?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
NoHelp4U's question is a good one.
Ever wonder where all those left-wingers get their erroneous talking points from?
Right here:
http://www.humanevents.com/downloads...Recessplan.pdf
Look at the wording compared to statements made by the media and by supporters of the bill.
'nuff said.
Elliot
You mean like I did here?: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1919024Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Yep... for the first time, you posted one today.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
After a month of debating.
Can you find another one where you posted something from the bill itself? Or are you going to rest on the fact that you managed to do it ONCE?
Once is more than you!
Here's another place they get their talking points from.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Really?
Something I don't understand about the Health Care Debate - Page 14
Something I don't understand about the Health Care Debate - Page 8
Something I don't understand about the Health Care Debate - Page 8
That's three times to your one. At a minimum.
Hello:
I don't know where they get their talking points. I don't care... But, they get 'em from SOMEWHERE... Cause they're all the same...
I say that, because they ALL say that end of life counselling means the government wants to kill you...
Now, it doesn't say that at all. It doesn't even come CLOSE to saying that... But, ALL the righty's say it does... That actually COULDN'T be, unless they have the same source...
So, it's simple logic... Which is lost on our righty friends.
excon
Ex, I haven't said "end of life counselling means the government wants to kill you." I have used simple logic based on what the bill says, and as I noted yesterday, 2 WaPo columnists in the past week have conceded we have a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You can line up as many dingbats from anywhere you like. You DON'T have a point. It's totally made up to scare people. The words don't say what YOU say they say... That's just so. If your LOGIC tells you something else, refer to my last post...
excon
No ;that's what you say we say.Quote:
because they ALL say that end of life counselling means the government wants to kill you
But I'll tell you where some of my "talking points "come from .
How about what Charles Lane of the Washington Compost editorial board says about Section 1233 :
washingtonpost.comQuote:
Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to "bend the curve" on health-care costs?
Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.
Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic.
Is Lane channeling Liberty University talking points too ?
Is Eugene Robinson carrying water for the Right wingers when he writes
??Quote:
.......the nut jobs and carpetbaggers are outnumbered by confused and concerned Americans who seem genuinely convinced they're not being told the whole truth about health-care reform.
And they have a point.
“ ...reform is being sold not just as a moral obligation but also as a way to control rising health-care costs. That should have been a separate discussion. It is not illogical for skeptics to suspect that if millions of people are going to be newly covered by health insurance, either costs are going to skyrocket or services are going to be curtailed.
The unvarnished truth is that services are ultimately going to have to be curtailed regardless of what happens with reform. We perform more expensive tests, questionable surgeries and high-tech diagnostic scans than we can afford. We spend unsustainable amounts of money on patients during the final year of life.
Yes, it's true that doctors order some questionable procedures defensively, to keep from getting sued. But it's a cop-out to blame the doctors or the tort lawyers. We're the ones who demand these tests, scans and surgeries. And why not? If a technology exists that can prolong life or improve its quality, even for a few weeks or months, why shouldn't we want it?
That's the reason people are so frightened and enraged about the proposed measure that would allow Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling. If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.
.”
Maybe I get my talking points from the NY State Democrat Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee who wrote to Waxman the following :
Letter to Congressman Henry Waxman re Section 1233 of HR 3200 | New York State SenateQuote:
Dear Congressman Waxman:
As Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, I am deeply concerned that a provision that targets senior citizens in Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 may preempt New York State rules and practices. This proposed federal health care legislation's impact upon the elderly citizens of New York State needs to be sensitive to what may be considered a “state's rights” issue, which may be best dealt with at the state level, and not imposed by Washington.
Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives. Each life must be cherished and regarded with reverence. This pending legislation does not necessarily provide for that guideline, and needs to be carefully reviewed with a full and open public debate.
It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen who resides in New York State or anywhere in the United States of America should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign.
I respectfully request that you advise me if and when there may be Congressional hearings on this matter, that you provide me with an opportunity to testify at such hearings, and suggest others who may also be qualified to testify.
Respectfully,
Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz
This is a nice propaganda campaign by the Dems to try to deflect honest concerns about the bill to the ravings of ideologues . But it is BS and it doesn't lend itself to a true honest debate of the plan.
Then tell me ex, what do I say the words say? You seem to think you know what I've said better than I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Oh, and I don't consider them dingbats...
Quote:
Charles M. Lane is an editorial writer for The Post, specializing in economic policy, trade, energy and globalization.
Lane joined The Post in 2000, first as an editorial writer and then as a Supreme Court reporter. He rejoined the editorial board in 2007. He served as editor and senior editor of The New Republic from 1993 to 1999 and was a foreign correspondent for Newsweek from 1987 to 1993. He contributed to the book “Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know,” edited by Roy Gutmann and David Rieff and in 1992 was awarded a Citation for Excellence from the Overseas Press Club.
Lane is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Quote:
Columnist & Associate Editor | Eugene Robinson is an Associate Editor and twice-weekly columnist for The Washington Post. His column appears on Tuesdays and Fridays.
In a 25-year career at The Post, Robinson has been city hall reporter, city editor, foreign correspondent in Buenos Aires and London, foreign editor, and assistant managing editor in charge of the paper’s award-winning Style section. In 2005, he started writing a column for the Op-Ed page. He is the author of "Coal to Cream: A Black Man’s Journey Beyond Color to an Affirmation of Race" (1999) and "Last Dance in Havana" (2004).
Robinson is a member of the National Association of Black Journalists and has received numerous journalism awards.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
When I speak of "you", I speak euphemistically of the right wing "you". Diverting the argument to say that YOU didn't say those words, is a diversion I'd rather not take...
Personally Steve, YOU are my favorite right winger... You, the euphemistic right wingers, STILL can't read.
excon
Euphemistically or whatever, I don't see that as what "we've" been saying here. And I'm pretty sure you have a suspicion of government that in another time would lead you to see what we're seeing. You'll get there...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:27 AM. |