1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Not true, the CIA told her to say these things. 😛
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6958488
I'd love for someone to explain to me why it's "un-American" to debate the healthcare issue, but was laudable democracy in action to criticize the war in Iraq.
Originally posted by MelanerpesIn fact, how can we trust them with our health care?
I'm also very concerned. How does the government hope to defend us against a terrorist attack if it hasn't been able to figure out how to deal with a bunch of disorderly shouters.
It boggles the mind doesn't it?
Originally posted by whodeyI heard on the radio that unemployment is really over 16 percent instead of 10. The people that are unemployed and have quit trying to find work are considered marginally attached to the work force. If the numbers are fudged on that then the question still remains, how do we trust govt on healthcare?
In fact, how can we trust them with our health care?
It boggles the mind doesn't it?
Originally posted by joe beyserwe cant trust them . they are too inept to even read the bills they pass but we are to trust them to reorganize the entire health care industry in our country? "cash for clunkers" is a perfect example on a much smaller scale that they totally screwed up.
I heard on the radio that unemployment is really over 16 percent instead of 10. The people that are unemployed and have quit trying to find work are considered marginally attached to the work force. If the numbers are fudged on that then the question still remains, how do we trust govt on healthcare?
Originally posted by joe beyserUnemployment rates are quite subjective, but as long as the criteria remain constant, you can at least compare the rates within a single country over time.
I heard on the radio that unemployment is really over 16 percent instead of 10. The people that are unemployed and have quit trying to find work are considered marginally attached to the work force. If the numbers are fudged on that then the question still remains, how do we trust govt on healthcare?
Employment rates are a bit more reliable if you want to compare countries.
Originally posted by utherpendragonEven if what you are suggesting is true (and I have read plenty to contradict your assertion), since he was referring to hooligans as those who "scream and shout continually in hopes of drowning out any rational efforts to discuss the healthcare bill", it doesn't matter whether they are 25 or 105 years old. The point was that their hooliganism, following tactics suggested by the leaked memo, takes the form of drowning out any attempt actually to discuss the issues at hand. But you've made it perfectly clear in other threads that you approve of this 'debating' tactic, and can't imagine you backing down from that now.
[b] She was referring to the hooligans
What ever you are smoking ,I want some of that! 🙂 The Majority of the people speaking out and attending are senior citizens. the gray hair and golf shirts was the first thing that should of tipped you off.
Hooligans?! did you type that out w/a straight face? LOL[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyThere was a time that the government could be trusted to win a major war like WW II. There was a time when government could be trusted to build an interstate highway system. There was a time when government could be trusted to put a man on the moon before the Russians did. There was a time when the government could be trusted to bring an end to the Cold War and help Gorbachev to "tear down that wall".
In fact, how can we trust them with our health care?
It boggles the mind doesn't it?
So I ask you -- what has changed? -- What can we do to create a government that can be trusted to do big things like these and do them well? Or were our fathers and grandfathers just more trustworthy than we are? Do we lack the character that they did?
Originally posted by MelanerpesNot much has changed. In all of those cases, political opponents thought things should have been done differently, I'm sure. I'm sure you had people that didn't trust those governments' actions either. Also, for every success story like those things, there's a failure; like the failure of the New Deal to pull the country out of the great Depression for so many years.
There was a time that the government could be trusted to win a major war like WW II. There was a time when government could be trusted to build an interstate highway system. There was a time when government could be trusted to put a man on the moon before the Russians did. There was a time when the government could be trusted to bring an end to the Cold W ...[text shortened]... rs and grandfathers just more trustworthy than we are? Do we lack the character that they did?
The one thing that perhaps has changed is overwhelming bureaucracy that slows things down because of special interests. For example, the interstate highway system would never be built nowadays because the environmentalist lobby would fight it tooth and nail. Thank God they didn't exist in the 50s. For proof, look at the defeat of the "Westway" project in New York.
Originally posted by sh76Code Pink ... and didn't the Clintons send a giant cigarette to disrupt Bush the elder's speeches? ....
I can't cite chapter and verse. But I recall plenty of yelling screaming crowds shouting incoherent things at a wide variety of fora in an attempt to disrupt the Bush administration. (Cindy Sheehan comes to mind.)
Originally posted by MelanerpesHas Pelosi in the past endorsed hooligans who were disrupting discussions about Iraq policy?
Pelosi was not talking about people who have a coherent concern or criticisim. She was referring to the hooligans who show up at the town meetings and scream and shout continually in hopes of drowning out any rational efforts to discuss the healthcare bill.
I agree - this sort of thing is very unAmerican (doesn't matter if the hooligans are left-wing, ...[text shortened]... ut Iraq policy? If so, then yes, she's being a hypocrite for failing to speak out back then.
2006 Nancy Pelosi: "I am a fan of disrupters. I am a disrupter!" In opposition to Bush and his war in Iraq.
Originally posted by utherpendragonI think you'll find it was a specific reference to Franklin Roosevelt.
[b]Has Pelosi in the past endorsed hooligans who were disrupting discussions about Iraq policy?
2006 Nancy Pelosi: "I am a fan of disrupters. I am a disrupter!" In opposition to Bush and his war in Iraq.[/b]
And I note that you doctored the quote to disguise that fact.
Originally posted by zeeblebotIn my view Code Pink (and) the disrupters who are against healthcare reform are pathetic losers.
Code Pink ... and didn't the Clintons send a giant cigarette to disrupt Bush the elder's speeches? ....
I'm consistent in saying that about BOTH.
Are you?
Didn't think so.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperQuite. We've had a lot of that: 'Well, some liberals behaved disgracefully in the past, interrupting and preventing reasonable discussion at other events and you don't think that's wrong, do you?'.
In my view Code Pink (and) the disrupters who are against healthcare reform are pathetic losers.
I'm consistent in saying that about BOTH.
Are you?
Didn't think so.
When we come back and say, 'Actually, I'm something of a fan of reasonable discussion, and rowdies preventing that are always to be condemned, whatever party they support', there's not much of a response.
Some people even find it difficult explicitly to condemn hanging democratically elected representatives in effigy, you know.
Originally posted by joe beyserhow can I possibly drive my car if I can't even ride a horse?
I heard on the radio that unemployment is really over 16 percent instead of 10. The people that are unemployed and have quit trying to find work are considered marginally attached to the work force. If the numbers are fudged on that then the question still remains, how do we trust govt on healthcare?
oh yes, because the two things are totally different, and there is no connection between the two.