As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Politics] Julia Hall: Obama's Possibly Planted Question and Reactions

123457»

Posts

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    If pointing out flaws means that you use actual data points, and not misleading and outright misinforming talking points, then thats totally fine. Those arent things the majority of the people making news are doing.

    Of course there is bound to be angry ranting, what do you expect when the most extreme of plans considered involve the government pretty much running the whole show? Most simply don't want a government expansion, or tax dollars being stripped from their wallets or more important institutions. Yet that doesn't change the validity of those who point out even the obvious things like "How the hell we are going to pay for this?" and "Why the hell should we cover this freak's sex change?"

    Ignoring your homophobia, most of the people I've seen quibbling with the numbers have proffered alternatives and so apparently shouldn't be included in your data-set. They also recognize that dollars are being stripped from wallets at an exceptionally fast rate due precisely to the lack of reform in the health insurance industry.

    It's also rather hilarious that having government services come closer in line with the rest of the industrialized world, which the bills don't even propose, is somehow extreme.

    moniker on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2009

    Do you not understand the difference between these two?

    One of them means that the adminsitration is using dirty tricks to gain public support.

    The other means that one random campaign contributor is a bit of a toolbag, with absolutely no involvement from the administration.

    You're equivocating the impact of the two when they are nowhere near the same thing.

    The administration is using dirty tricks to gain public support? Say it ain't so. The administration might have been involved. They might not. The mom may have done it all on her own. That is unknown. I would not put it past our current administration however.

    everything else

    How about this. The girl may, or may not have been a plant put in place by the administration and coached by her parents of what they wanted her to say. It may have just been done by her parents in order to further the agenda of the current administration that they agree with.

    Detharin on
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Detharin wrote: »
    How about this. The girl may, or may not have been a plant put in place by the administration and coached by her parents of what they wanted her to say. It may have just been done by her parents in order to further the agenda of the current administration that they agree with.

    You're just pulling a FOX though.

    "Barack Obama, a Muslim Terrorist...?"

    Adding nothing to the conversation while at the same time making a baseless accusation in the form of a question/what if?/maybe in a parallel universe... remark.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • KingLampshadeKingLampshade regular
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Ignoring your homophobia, most of the people I've seen quibbling with the numbers have proffered alternatives and so apparently shouldn't be included in your data-set. They also recognize that dollars are being stripped from wallets at an exceptionally fast rate due precisely to the lack of reform in the health insurance industry.

    It's also rather hilarious that having government services come closer in line with the rest of the industrialized world, which the bills don't even propose, is somehow extreme.

    Sorry if I offended all of your cross-dressing friends for wanting my tax dollars to go towards a more worthy cause. Yet you are dancing around the point. We should be saying "we shouldn't pay for these things." We should be asking "How we pay for this? Does the government have concrete proof that this will cost the government and our wallets less in the long run? Why are we giving coverage for illegals? And so on.

    We don't want to follow the Western European or Canadian examples, as there are many pitfalls involved there. In a country like the United States having the public option and nothing else would be extreme.

    KingLampshade on
    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
    British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The difference is there is enough stuff with this little girl's question to make the statement "something is not stirring the kool aid here." Frankly the least likely theory is she came up with the question on her own, with no prodding, or help from her parents.

    You say the accusation is baseless, I say the situation stinks.

    Detharin on
  • KingLampshadeKingLampshade regular
    edited August 2009
    Suriko wrote: »
    If pointing out flaws means that you use actual data points, and not misleading and outright misinforming talking points, then thats totally fine. Those arent things the majority of the people making news are doing.

    Of course there is bound to be angry ranting, what do you expect when the most extreme of plans considered involve the government pretty much running the whole show? Most simply don't want a government expansion, or tax dollars being stripped from their wallets or more important institutions. Yet that doesn't change the validity of those who point out even the obvious things like "How the hell we are going to pay for this?" and "Why the hell should we cover this freak's sex change?"

    So extreme the entirety of the rest of the first world has it.

    So we should follow Western Europe and Canada for the hell of it? For the sake of economics we shouldn't simply copy the UK or Canadian scheme.

    People who are paying their taxes want to be assured that they will benefit and not just people living off the system. People also want to see that key responsibilities of the government like defense aren't cut for this. Finally people don't want to see the plan cover procedures they view to be wrong, or include countless layers of government bureaucracy. The government does not have a positive record when it comes to most entitlement programs, which we are spending a massive amount on these days. People should be damned skeptical.

    KingLampshade on
    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
    British publisher and writer Ernest Benn [1875-1954]
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Suriko wrote: »
    If pointing out flaws means that you use actual data points, and not misleading and outright misinforming talking points, then thats totally fine. Those arent things the majority of the people making news are doing.

    Of course there is bound to be angry ranting, what do you expect when the most extreme of plans considered involve the government pretty much running the whole show? Most simply don't want a government expansion, or tax dollars being stripped from their wallets or more important institutions. Yet that doesn't change the validity of those who point out even the obvious things like "How the hell we are going to pay for this?" and "Why the hell should we cover this freak's sex change?"

    So extreme the entirety of the rest of the first world has it.

    So we should follow Western Europe and Canada for the hell of it?

    Or you know, because it works.

    I mean if you're happy to be ranked between Costa Rica and Slovenia in healthcare more power to you?

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    The GOPers and their apologists/ water carriers will say alot of things about Obama and healthcare, but you know what they won't talk about? Any sort of alternative solution, because they don't have one.

    All they've got left is pissing in the face of the people trying to do something about the current untenable situation. And if they DO offer something, it won't be any more grounded in reality than Mccain suspending his campaign when the economy crashed, or the 2 page mockery of a budget bill they offered to get things back on track when they tried obstructing the stimulus.

    So if you don't have a plan of the own you shouldn't be allowed to point out the sheer idiocy and flaws in other people's plans?

    The Republicans said the EXACT same thing about Democrats in regard to Iraq (even though they HAD a plan). As the saying goes, "turnabout is fair play". Besides, if this is the best the opposition can come up with, then why should we trust their judgement on a good or bad plan?
    So no alternative means we should go ahead with the full original plan with tax dollars paying for abortions and sex changes?

    Since those are legal procedures, then yes, they should be covered under a universal health plan.
    moniker wrote: »
    Ignoring your homophobia, most of the people I've seen quibbling with the numbers have proffered alternatives and so apparently shouldn't be included in your data-set. They also recognize that dollars are being stripped from wallets at an exceptionally fast rate due precisely to the lack of reform in the health insurance industry.

    It's also rather hilarious that having government services come closer in line with the rest of the industrialized world, which the bills don't even propose, is somehow extreme.

    Sorry if I offended all of your cross-dressing friends for wanting my tax dollars to go towards a more worthy cause.

    Like killing brown people half-way across the world?
    We don't want to follow the Western European or Canadian examples, as there are many pitfalls involved there.

    Like not being ranked Costa Rica by the WHO?
    In a country like the United States having the public option and nothing else would be extreme.

    Good thing that's not part of the plan, then, now isn't it?
    So we should follow Western Europe and Canada for the hell of it? For the sake of economics we shouldn't simply copy the UK or Canadian scheme.

    A healthy populace has economic benefits, you know.
    People who are paying their taxes want to be assured that they will benefit and not just people living off the system. People also want to see that key responsibilities of the government like defense aren't cut for this. Finally people don't want to see the plan cover procedures they view to be wrong, or include countless layers of government bureaucracy. The government does not have a positive record when it comes to most entitlement programs, which we are spending a massive amount on these days. People should be damned skeptical.

    Where do I begin?

    1. They WILL benefit. If they don't, it's because they don't WANT to.
    2. So if some wackos think that vasectomies and coronary bypasses are "wrong", then the government shouldn't cover it? People thought the Iraq War was wrong, but that didn't stop the government.
    3. The insurance companies you love so much already have massive layers of bureaucracy, mainly to find ways to get out of covering their customers.

    Zython on
    Switch: SW-3245-5421-8042 | 3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | PSN: Zaithon
    Steam: pazython
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    If you want to come out and say "I like the current system I think we should stay with it," then fine, criticize all you want. Only no national republican is saying this, because they are smart enough to realize that one in six or seven of their constituents doesn't even have insurance, nevermind the ones that have terrible insurance. They are all saying they want "reform," while naysaying any attempt at reform that gets put on the table, and not offering any of their own.

    This is because they are taking a bunch of money from people who like the health care system very much the way it is.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Also because they definitely don't want a healthcare win under a dem government.

    electricitylikesme on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Detharin wrote: »
    How about this. The girl may, or may not have been a plant put in place by the administration and coached by her parents of what they wanted her to say. It may have just been done by her parents in order to further the agenda of the current administration that they agree with.

    Or it may have been her own question. Its not like it was that wonkish of a question, just because the right wing whack jobs have been acting like infantile pre-adolescent assholes with personality disorders and terrible parents doesn't mean a bright 12 year old can't ask a fairly simple and civil question.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Sign In or Register to comment.