Sentor Spector's Town Hall

[Gretchen in NJ]

The White House is not asking for Americans to report to one another. They are only asking for any myths that should be addressed. You can check it out for your self on the link I provided earlier which is an allowed government web site per the rules of this board.

 

I also recommend googling the non-partisan web site factcheck.org.

I have been to the White House Website and saw what they were asking for with my own eyes. See below.

 

According to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President shall, “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.â€

 

The White House web site is not asking for names of individuals or the like. The web site states, "Tell us what myths we should address next." When you click on the link, it asks for your comments and your name only. The President is entitled to his free speech as well and has a right to dispel any misinformation out there and he would be foolish not to IMHO.

 

It is very basic. They are asking for information on the web to be forwarded to them. The web contains emails. Emails contain information that the White House is not allowed to ask Americans for.:D

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

No.... the White House release said

 

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

 

Now this would indicate that they are asking for web sites, blogs etc.

 

You really must stop spreading, how did you put it....oh yes "the un-truths regarding health care"

 

I quoted straight from the White House reality check web page. I cannot speak to the other page and I am certain that the President is only interested in dispelling myths and not collecting names. Are you implying that next, he will want to round them up because, frankly, that is over the top.

 

As the my use of the word 'un-truths", I am trying to be polite and not use the word 'lies." Believe it or not, there are both Republicans and Democrats and Libertarians in my dear family and I love them all.

 

I also take exception to your statement that I am spreading un-truths.

 

My 2 cents:)

Edited August 11, 2009 by priscilla
spelling

[DB in NJ]

:iagree:This is how it should be. I am so very glad that Fox aired it live for an hour. It wasn't a 30 second snippet. He even over ruled his handlers to let people speak.

 

DB it has been a long time. How are things?

 

Things are insane, Gretchen. I'm posting an update now (for anyone who may be interested). :D

[FO4UR]

One could argue that those against health care reform are biased and naive as well since many, not all, of those against healthcare reform have believed the mis-information put out there by conservative talk radio entertainers, private health insurance companies, and other powerful vested interests;).

 

 

 

Calling a thing "mis-information" does not make it so.

 

One might even be offended that their well-thought out concerns, after actually READING the bill is deemed "mis-information." :confused:

 

 

Do you realize how loaded this question is? I'm for health care reform. But I'm against this health care reform.

 

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

The insurance companies need an enema.....not more "fiber":001_huh: (sorry - BAD analogy there....but it's the best I got:lol:)

Edited August 11, 2009 by 3blessingmom
fixing quote

[johnandtinagilbert]

There is something I don't understand. Some people don't want others to control our healthcare. They don't want big government involved. Isn't it already like that (via the health insurance industry and other big business)? I certainly don't feel in control. I'm told how often I can go to the doctor and for what. Sure if I want to go more for things not covered I can pay for it. But not really since I can't afford it. I just keep paying and paying and paying for shoddy service. I'm in some serious need of healthcare and I can't get it because it is apparently reserved for the rich.

 

I do not support this bill, however I absolutely see a need to Reform healthcare, which would include the big business behind current availability and the lack of personal decision making that currently plagues all healthcare companies and providers.

 

Going from one bean counter to another, imho, is not the answer. I am not impressed with the gov't ability to run anything it currently runs. I wouldn't add a new school subject to our schooling if we couldn't handle what we were already doing.

 

I also support free enterprise. The Dems want everyone insured by the gov't. This is the end game...."one provider" I think were the words Mr. Obama used.

 

I also have to agree that I don't find the booing helpful, although I feel their pain. It makes me mad that people are referring to law abiding, tax paying citizens mobs, when yes, some are poorly behaved, but in truth, the People have had it and are trying to have their voices heard.

 

When was there this much public outcry in recent history. Politicians need to LISTEN UP!

[pqr]

Are you implying that next, he will want to round them up because, frankly, that is over the top.

 

 

I also take exception to your statement that I am spreading un-truths.

 

 

 

I am not implying anything beyond the fact that your information is demonstrably incorrect. To argue that, through my posts, I am charging the government with planning to round up people is an un-truth and is the type of fear mongering that supporters of this bill seem to be sinking to. Where did I ever make such a charge?

 

 

As to the umbrage that you take, I do not retract my comment as your posts contain un-truths.

 

To say that the White House web site is non-partisan is an un-truth.

 

To say that the White House did not ask for blogs and web sites in an un-truth

 

To throw out your 71% and try to tie it to support for this plan is also an un-truth.

 

 

To suggest that I posted that the government wants to round up people is "frankly... over the top" and .....yes wait for it....an un-truth.

Edited August 11, 2009 by pqr

[dangerdad]

Are you implying that next, he will want to round them up because, frankly, that is over the top.

 

Not that long ago, it was over-the-top to say that the US gov't would nationalize banks or car companies.

 

It's certainly not over-the-top to consider the intimidation tactics that can be brought to bear against political foes. Especially since it's been done in the past.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I am not implying anything beyond the fact that your information is demonstrably incorrect. To argue that, through my posts, I am charging the government with planning to round up people is an un-truth and is the type of fear mongering that supporters of this bill seem to be sinking to. Where did I ever make such a charge?

 

 

As to the umbrage that you take, I do not retract my comment as your posts contain un-truths.

 

To say that the White House web site is non-partisan is an un-truth.

 

To say that the White House did not ask for blogs and web sites in an un-truth

 

To throw out your 71% and try to tie it to support for this plan is also an un-truth.

 

 

To suggest that I posted that the government wants to round up people is "frankly... over the top" and .....yes wait for it....an un-truth.

 

I never said that you posted that people would be rounded up. I asked are you implying it since the non-government web site you linked to in your post mentioned "big brother" several times in reference to President Obama trying to dispel misinformation (and I use the word "misinformation" trying to be polite). When I hear the words "big brother", I think of people being rounded up as was the case in the novel 1984. Since you posted that link, I felt it was fair to ask if that is what you are implying.

 

As for the White House web site, it meets the definition of a non-partisan in that it is an official government web site and is allowed per the rules of this board. I did not post to the Democratic Party web site, I posted to a government web site to the President who governs us all.

 

As far as statistics, I said as many as 71% since that was what I found when I was looking for some stats. I am sure there are many different stats out there. I went on what I found.

 

lastly, I never said that the White House never asked for blogs and web sites. I said I cannot speak to that since I did not see that. I saw and quoted what was on the White House reality check government web site.

Edited August 11, 2009 by priscilla
clarify, spelling

[justamouse]

I felt that the person screaming at the top of his lungs literally waving papers in front of the Senator was appalling behaviour. It certainly is not civil discourse nor was it at all helpful . This behaviour denigrates the political process and I believe that the manner in which he spoke denigrates our political process. It is just as convincing to calmly , quietly offer one's opinion. I think it is sad when people enjoy whipping others up into a screaming frenzy and call it a "grass roots" movement. I have read the bill and it is lengthy but suffice it to say that much of what is being said about the bill is merely conjecture about what the portions of the bill could mean not the plain language of the bill. I did not find it at all difficult to read just cumbersome. I strongly urge you to read the bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

If you lack the time to read this huge bill please read the portions being referred to on talk radio, the news etc and you will find that the bill as written is not being read aloud or discussed as written . Rather it is conjecture from the talking heads-all of them. Read for yourself and be ready to be stunned at the distortion all the way around. Big Pharma, members of AMA , insurance industry all corporate interests are driving the responses to the bill. I await comment from the Catholic church as regards health care as a social justice issue along with poverty . I am not holding my breath on a response that is anything other than political there either. It seems business as usual all the way around .

 

I think I love you. No, I know I do. :D

[Gretchen in NJ]

I never said that you posted that people would be rounded up. I asked are you implying it since the non-government web site you linked to in your post mentioned "big brother" several times in reference to President Obama trying to dispel misinformation (and I use the word "misinformation" trying to be polite). When I hear the word big brother, I think of people being rounded up as was the case in the novel 1984. Since you posted that link, I felt it was fair to ask if that is what you are implying.

 

As for the White House web site, it meets the definition of a non-partisan in that it is an official government web site and is allowed per the rules of this board. I did not post to the Democratic Part web site, I posted to a government web site to the President who governs us all.

 

As far as statistics, I said as many as 71% since that was what I found when I was looking for some stats. I am sure their are many different stats out there. I went on what I found.

 

lastly, I never said that the White House never asked for blogs and web sites. I said I cannot speak to that since I did not see that. I saw and quoted what was on the White House reality check government web site.

 

 

Link, please? I had asked in a previous post for a link to where you obtain the 71%. When dealing with statistics, it is important to know WHERE the information came from, HOW was the question worded, WHAT were question asked before this one, HOW MANY people were polled, WHO did the polling.

[pqr]

I never said that you posted that people would be rounded up. I asked are you implying it since the non-government web site you linked to in your post mentioned "big brother" several times in reference to President Obama trying to dispel misinformation (and I use the word "misinformation" trying to be polite). When I hear the word big brother, I think of people being rounded up as was the case in the novel 1984. Since you posted that link, I felt it was fair to ask if that is what you are implying.

 

As for the White House web site, it meets the definition of a non-partisan in that it is an official government web site and is allowed per the rules of this board. I did not post to the Democratic Part web site, I posted to a government web site to the President who governs us all.

 

As far as statistics, I said as many as 71% since that was what I found when I was looking for some stats. I am sure their are many different stats out there. I went on what I found.

 

lastly, I never said that the White House never asked for blogs and web sites. I said I cannot speak to that since I did not see that. I saw and quoted what was on the White House reality check government web site.

 

 

...but you have still been shown to be wrong on every point that I mentioned.

 

To remind you, in your words "The White House web site is not asking for names of individuals or the like"....now to me this means that you stated they are not asking for blogs and alike.

 

The White House web site is partisan. It boggles the mind that anyone with a straight face could argue anything else.

 

As to the rounding up of people, when coupled with the "over the top comment', it became a rhetorical question.

 

The statistic was wrong, will you now admit that it is more like 50/50?

 

 

Anyway it is late in Europe. Good night.

[5kidsforME]

The White House government web site is non-partisan web site. President Obama serves us all, both Republican and Democrat and third party.

 

I do not see a problem with the White House dispelling the un-truths regarding health care since they have been numerous and over the top.

 

Would you have felt the same way if this site was given out during the Bush administration? Would you have felt it was non-partisan?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Would you have felt the same way if this site was given out during the Bush administration? Would you have felt it was non-partisan?

Yes based on the strict definition of a government web site that is allowed by the rules of this board.

[5kidsforME]

Yes based on the strict definition of a government web site that is allowed by the rules of this board.

 

Uhhh, :001_huh: My question had nothing to do with this board. :confused:

 

My question is: Would you find a Bush administration website non-partisan? Would you take a Bush administration, White house website, a website for George W. Bush to dispel un-truths, at its word?

[Gretchen in NJ]

Uhhh, :001_huh: My question had nothing to do with this board. :confused:

 

My question is: Would you find a Bush administration website non-partisan? Would you take a Bush administration, White house website, a website for George W. Bush to dispel un-truths, at its word?

 

Would you find a Senator's website non-partisan? After all, they are representing everyone from their state: not just the people from his party.

[Dirtroad]

Passions rise on such occassions. I have greatly enjoyed seeing Americans awakened and speaking out.... informed, well read, and asking tough questions.... not just slogans, rehearsed questions, and infatuations.

 

As for being uncivil and should not yell... Oh my.... we may need to revisit our history books & read about the HARSH tones & lack of civility of our early leaders and others.

 

Also, the arrogant tone of "these common people" is really not helping these leaders who are looking down their noses. I keep seeing the English aristocracy at the appalling idea of the common, business or farm class of people even thinking they could be involved in the "government process". It was for the elite.

 

When Sen. Spector said "he didn't have to be there... not in his job description"...oooooo, I think he signed his ticket home on that one. :lol:

 

Wahoo! I am glad to see real people asking real questions about a bill that they HAVE read & leadership hasn't. I am glad to see anger & passion... and not tears and begging the gov't to save them from hardships, etc. Voices need to speak (but keep the fist out of it - I feel for the poor black man handing out flags the other day) It is rather revealing & refreshing! Both parties should be afraid! This crosses all ideological lines & is great to observe.

[Mommyof4ks]

One could argue that those against health care reform are biased and naive as well since many, not all, of those against healthcare reform have believed the mis-information put out there by conservative talk radio entertainers, private health insurance companies, and other powerful vested interests;).

 

As far as agendas, the only reason the health care reform is a so-called "agenda" at all is because of the millions of Americans, businesses, and state and local governments who are suffering due to the onerous health insurance premiums. I think the fact that as many as 71% of Americans want health care reform is the reason that it is an agenda and not for any sinister reasons at all.

 

We are all fellow Americans and all love our country:). Democrats may have different ideas than Republicans, but that does not make us the bad guys.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing against healthcare reform, but rather about what that will look like. Both parties have a plan, but we are only seeing the one side because of where the majority lies at the moment. It seems like congress is going about this backwards. 'We' need to define what we are hoping to accomplish with health insurance and healthcare reform and then put a bill together that accomplishes that goal. There have been too many mistakes made with the cart before the horse mentality so far this year. I have still not heard how much the premium will be for this 'single payer system'. Will it really be cheaper than what we have now and can I be guaranteed the same incredible coverage that I have now and be assured that my son will be granted a bone marrow transplant in the event that he needs one (or will he be seen as a drain on the system that needs to be given palliative care). I am still waiting on answers to these questions, but all I hear are crickets.

 

Yes, the WH site is very partisan as it always has been depending on who is in the WH. If I hear one more time that we can keep our ins. if we want it I will scream, because even the docs that I have talked to agree that is not at all what the bill that we have seen says. I hear there are two other bills floating around, but I have yet to find them.

[5kidsforME]

Would you find a Senator's website non-partisan? After all, they are representing everyone from their state: not just the people from his party.

 

Exactly! No I would not. Regardless of the fact that they are representing everyone from their state, or in case of BO the country, they ran on a certain ticket, Rep. Or Dem.

[LizzyBee]

If I hear one more time that we can keep our ins. if we want it I will scream, because even the docs that I have talked to agree that is not at all what the bill that we have seen says. I hear there are two other bills floating around, but I have yet to find them.

 

Just the other day, I saw the President on TV talking about healthcare. I told my dh it doesn't matter what he says on camera; what matters is what the bill says, and the two are not the same.

 

I think there is a link to one of the bills on Richard Burr's website.

 

ETA: Link to the Patients Choice Act: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s1099is.txt.pdf

Edited August 12, 2009 by LizzyBee

[Kari C in SC]

I felt that the person screaming at the top of his lungs literally waving papers in front of the Senator was appalling behaviour. It certainly is not civil discourse nor was it at all helpful . This behaviour denigrates the political process and I believe that the manner in which he spoke denigrates our political process. It is just as convincing to calmly , quietly offer one's opinion. I think it is sad when people enjoy whipping others up into a screaming frenzy and call it a "grass roots" movement. I have read the bill and it is lengthy but suffice it to say that much of what is being said about the bill is merely conjecture about what the portions of the bill could mean not the plain language of the bill. I did not find it at all difficult to read just cumbersome. I strongly urge you to read the bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

If you lack the time to read this huge bill please read the portions being referred to on talk radio, the news etc and you will find that the bill as written is not being read aloud or discussed as written . Rather it is conjecture from the talking heads-all of them. Read for yourself and be ready to be stunned at the distortion all the way around. Big Pharma, members of AMA , insurance industry all corporate interests are driving the responses to the bill. I await comment from the Catholic church as regards health care as a social justice issue along with poverty . I am not holding my breath on a response that is anything other than political there either. It seems business as usual all the way around .

 

I couldn't agree with you more. Well written. Thank you for taking the time to write this.

[Marylou]

The White House government web site is non-partisan web site.

 

My eyes have popped at a lot of posts on this forum, but with this one I can't get them to go back in my head :tongue_smilie:

[theresatwist]

I thought the yelling and waving of papers in Senator's Specter's face showed a lack of tact to say the least. I think meeting with a senator calls for a different standard of etiquette than a protest. When people treat sales clerks that way I'm embarrassed on their behalf.

 

I think the notion that people need to yell and scream to be heard is ridiculous. I watched the entire meeting. Specter responded to the folks who addressed him in a civil manner and said little to nothing to those who didn't.

 

I'm not suggesting that people don't have the right to express their disapproval. They absolutely do and should. But I wouldn't teach my children to disagree in the manner that some of the folks at that town hall did.

Edited August 12, 2009 by theresatwist

[dangerdad]

I believe the incivility from constituents is a response to the incivility of the government. It was Specter who told a different group "we have to make decisions very fast", etc. If health insurance reform is so important, it should be deliberative instead of being rammed through. And we citizens often feel ignored when we make polite comments, and when gov't officials lie about what's in the bill. If they would slow down, I think things would be more civil, but no less resolute.

[theresatwist]

I believe the incivility from constituents is a response to the incivility of the government. It was Specter who told a different group "we have to make decisions very fast", etc. If health insurance reform is so important, it should be deliberative instead of being rammed through. And we citizens often feel ignored when we make polite comments, and when gov't officials lie about what's in the bill. If they would slow down, I think things would be more civil, but no less resolute.

 

I was taught that yelling and screaming doesn't make it any more likely that you'll get what you want and that, indeed, it often has the opposite effect.

[Mommyof4ks]

Just the other day, I saw the President on TV talking about healthcare. I told my dh it doesn't matter what he says on camera; what matters is what the bill says, and the two are not the same.

 

I think there is a link to one of the bills on Richard Burr's website.

 

ETA: Link to the Patients Choice Act: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s1099is.txt.pdf

 

Thank you for that link. This proposal sounds more encouraging than the house bill I read a couple of weeks ago.

[theresatwist]

Here's a link to an interesting interview with the Republican Senator who introduced the living will provision of one of the current bills that has been renamed "Obama's Death Panel"

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html

[elizabeth]

Here's a link to an interesting interview with the Republican Senator who introduced the living will provision of one of the current bills that has been renamed "Obama's Death Panel"

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html

Thank you . Section 1233. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200: I think it is a wonderful idea as I cannot tell you how many times we have been called at 6 am because someone wants a DNR form or living will or advanced directive or will . We go immediately to help but often are unable to agree to these requests due to a lack of lucidity , due to severe pain or periods of unconsciousness. At the last minute, under duress is not the way to approach final matters. It is much better if people take time to really answer all the questions on the Living Will form and do their other planning, not when they are in pain and unable to think clearly. It makes all the sense in the world to have people contemplate, think and pray about what efforts they do or do not want taken to prolong life in the most tragic of circumstances. No one wants to discuss these matters but on more than one occasion I have seen families ripped apart because there was no legal direction from the person who is facing death and the next of kin are at odds over what their beloved relative would have wanted. It is always painful and sad to discuss these things but it is far better than having your loved ones making a decision based on their guess as to your wishes in these private and ultimate matters. There is nothing so intimate, painful and wrenching as to watch people struggle to discern what their loved one's wishes are as they are dying. It is a privilege to serve as an attorney to produce the paperwork needed to abide by the client's wishes but the responsiblity and enormity of guiding clients through these difficult times can be crushing. Maybe that is a good thing.

[Blessedfamily]

.... I'm for health care reform. But I'm against this health care reform.

..........

 

 

 

This is my opnion in a nutshell. I most certainly want healthcare reform, but not THIS. I get tired of people in DC using the *tactic* of accusing those who don't want THIS bill of being against healthcare reform, and suggesting that to oppose it is being selfish and/or uninformed.

[Hockey Mom]

I wish my reps would take the time to listen to us. My congresswoman won't, she sorta held one where she spoke and then left without taking questions or hearing comments. The next day she said the protesters made her feel that it was more important than ever that this pass. What????? Senator Nelson (D-FL) will vote however he is told to by his party, he represents NO one but his party. And then Senator Martinez (R-FL) isn't going back to DC, he's quit!! So, I've lost the only rep that will actually talk and listen to the people who vote for him and pay his salary! The governor is planning on running for the Senate next year, so he's going to end up replacing Martinez with some lame duck! Frustrating when you feel you have no one who represents you in DC!! Vent over.

Melissa

 

This is as far as I've read in this thread.

 

Melissa, I'm in Florida, and I couldn't agree more with you! I email our rep at least once a week and all I ever get from him is a standard reply letter. I loathe Crist with the heat of a thousand suns! I wish Jeb was back in office. :(

[Bee]

of a new nation I believe they disagreed and shouted and probably got angry when others didn't agree completely with them. They were not escorted out by police officers because they raised their voice(s).

[CookieMonster]

I felt that the person screaming at the top of his lungs literally waving papers in front of the Senator was appalling behaviour. It certainly is not civil discourse nor was it at all helpful . This behaviour denigrates the political process and I believe that the manner in which he spoke denigrates our political process. It is just as convincing to calmly , quietly offer one's opinion. I think it is sad when people enjoy whipping others up into a screaming frenzy and call it a "grass roots" movement.

 

I would heartily agree that under normal conditions that standing up, yelling, chanting, and getting into a frenzy is poor behavior indeed.

 

But these people feel that their liberties, their property, and their right to be heard are under direct attack. Under those conditions, I call their reaction quite mild (Shays' Rebellion, anyone?).

 

While one may not agree with how they see the situation, dismissing them as impolite is unfair.

 

What if there had not been loud, angry protests the past week?

What if there hadn't been a 'frenzy'?

Would we even be having this discussion right now?

 

The people of the government of the people, for the people, and by the people have made themselves be heard.

[Hockey Mom]

I thought the yelling and waving of papers in Senator's Specter's face showed a lack of tact to say the least. I think meeting with a senator calls for a different standard of etiquette than a protest. When people treat sales clerks that way I'm embarrassed on their behalf.

 

I think the notion that people need to yell and scream to be heard is ridiculous. I watched the entire meeting. Specter responded to the folks who addressed him in a civil manner and said little to nothing to those who didn't.

 

I'm not suggesting that people don't have the right to express their disapproval. They absolutely do and should. But I wouldn't teach my children to disagree in the manner that some of the folks at that town hall did.

 

What do you do when the politicians refuse to listen to you? How do you get your point across? People are angry, afraid, and frustrated. You have Pelosi labeling anyone who disagrees with this bill "an angry mobster". You have the liberals discounting our voices publicly. Where was the outrage when Code Pink was protesting? Most of the people protesting at these town hall meetings have never protested in their lives. Conservatives are generally letter-writers. If our behavior seems uncouth, it's because we've learned it from watching 8 years of liberal protests and civil unrest.

 

I'm sorry, but politicians are no better than any other tax-paying citizen. In fact, I'd say on average, politicians are a step below the regular American. They've done nothing to earn such respect. We should respect them because they're wealthy enough to run to office?

 

Obama took six months to decide on a dog for his kids. And he expects us to get on board with his healthcare plan in 6 weeks. I think he's being unrealistic.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

What do you do when the politicians refuse to listen to you? How do you get your point across? People are angry, afraid, and frustrated. You have Pelosi labeling anyone who disagrees with this bill "an angry mobster". You have the liberals discounting our voices publicly. Where was the outrage when Code Pink was protesting? Most of the people protesting at these town hall meetings have never protested in their lives. Conservatives are generally letter-writers. If our behavior seems uncouth, it's because we've learned it from watching 8 years of liberal protests and civil unrest.

 

I'm sorry, but politicians are no better than any other tax-paying citizen. In fact, I'd say on average, politicians are a step below the regular American. They've done nothing to earn such respect. We should respect them because they're wealthy enough to run to office?

 

Obama took six months to decide on a dog for his kids. And he expects us to get on board with his healthcare plan in 6 weeks. I think he's being unrealistic.

 

but I feel he says it the best...

 

"Community organizers cannot b*tch when communities organize."

 

K

[Hockey Mom]

but I feel he says it the best...

 

"Community organizers cannot b*tch when communities organize."

 

K

 

Exactly. :iagree:

[momzilla333]

:iagree: I also felt that some of the behavior at the town hall was atrocious. Since when is booing, screaming, and interrupting polite or civil disourse?

I also felt that some of the participants were uniformed.

 

I recommend the following government web site to get the facts:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

 

 

Just my 2 cents:).

 

 

I thought it was rude and not a constructive way to present a logical argument. It even appeared to be intended to halt the discussion which was the purpose of the meetings. It makes people appear out of control and paranoid. Behavior like this only makes it harder to be taken seriously. When I want to be heard, I make an effort to speak calmly and logically. And I teach my children to do the same! If you can't use logic and self control, how can I trust you to be responsible?

[Gretchen in NJ]

Just the other day, I saw the President on TV talking about healthcare. I told my dh it doesn't matter what he says on camera; what matters is what the bill says, and the two are not the same.

 

I think there is a link to one of the bills on Richard Burr's website.

 

ETA: Link to the Patients Choice Act: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s1099is.txt.pdf

 

True, I have to agree with you here. Yesterday during his town hall meeting, President Obama said that AARP is in support of his health care reform. AAPR released a statement saying that they were in support of health care reform, but not President Obama's health care reform.

[Gretchen in NJ]

My eyes have popped at a lot of posts on this forum, but with this one I can't get them to go back in my head :tongue_smilie:

 

:lol:It was quite a statement.:001_huh: Wasn't it? I almost fell off my chair when I read it.;)

[Gretchen in NJ]

I thought the yelling and waving of papers in Senator's Specter's face showed a lack of tact to say the least. I think meeting with a senator calls for a different standard of etiquette than a protest. When people treat sales clerks that way I'm embarrassed on their behalf.

 

I think the notion that people need to yell and scream to be heard is ridiculous. I watched the entire meeting. Specter responded to the folks who addressed him in a civil manner and said little to nothing to those who didn't.

 

I'm not suggesting that people don't have the right to express their disapproval. They absolutely do and should. But I wouldn't teach my children to disagree in the manner that some of the folks at that town hall did.

 

The gentleman of whom you are speaking called the Senator Specter's office and asked to have a meeting with his Senator. He was told by Senator Spector's office to come to the town hall meeting. If he did, he would be able to speak with his Senator. The man was upset about not being given the opportunity to do so.

[Kari C in SC]

Here's a link to an interesting interview with the Republican Senator who introduced the living will provision of one of the current bills that has been renamed "Obama's Death Panel"

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html

 

Thank you for posting that.

[PineFarmMom]

Also, the arrogant tone of "these common people" is really not helping these leaders who are looking down their noses. I keep seeing the English aristocracy at the appalling idea of the common, business or farm class of people even thinking they could be involved in the "government process". It was for the elite.

 

When Sen. Spector said "he didn't have to be there... not in his job description"...oooooo, I think he signed his ticket home on that one. :lol:

 

Wahoo! I am glad to see real people asking real questions about a bill that they HAVE read & leadership hasn't. I am glad to see anger & passion... and not tears and begging the gov't to save them from hardships, etc. Voices need to speak (but keep the fist out of it - I feel for the poor black man handing out flags the other day) It is rather revealing & refreshing! Both parties should be afraid! This crosses all ideological lines & is great to observe.

 

It is precisely like the aristocracy. I don't think the senators are liking that real people are taking a stand on this. Senator Spector really aggravated me when he said that. YES, he does have to be there. All the other senators that are supporting this thing need to be in front of the PEOPLE WHO VOTED THEM IN and answering their questions as well. They are there to serve us!

[Elaine]

The White House government web site is non-partisan web site. President Obama serves us all, both Republican and Democrat and third party.

 

I do not see a problem with the White House dispelling the un-truths regarding health care since they have been numerous and over the top.

 

:lol:

 

Oh, wait, were you serious?

[Elaine]

I thought the yelling and waving of papers in Senator's Specter's face showed a lack of tact to say the least. I think meeting with a senator calls for a different standard of etiquette than a protest. When people treat sales clerks that way I'm embarrassed on their behalf.

 

I think the notion that people need to yell and scream to be heard is ridiculous. I watched the entire meeting. Specter responded to the folks who addressed him in a civil manner and said little to nothing to those who didn't.

 

I'm not suggesting that people don't have the right to express their disapproval. They absolutely do and should. But I wouldn't teach my children to disagree in the manner that some of the folks at that town hall did.

 

I agree with you. Instituting yelling and screaming during a Town Hall meeting to find common ground is like trying to drive a car by honking the horn.:001_smile:

 

I do, however, understand the frustration of the people. I have been to many a protest in the past few months, and I know first hand the deep frustration that comes with voicing your feelings to your elected official only to have them parrot back their standard lines. It's maddening to know that you are being ignored by the very people who are elected to represent you. So while I don't agree with the yelling and screaming, I understand it. The majority of people in this country are fed up with this administration and its one way train to complete control of our lives.

[lionfamily1999]

The gentleman of whom you are speaking called the Senator Specter's office and asked to have a meeting with his Senator. He was told by Senator Spector's office to come to the town hall meeting. If he did, he would be able to speak with his Senator. The man was upset about not being given the opportunity to do so.

I only watched a few snippets. Was this the man that just wanted to leave and was being held back by another?

 

I'm just surprised that Obama's town hall meeting was so positive, what are the odds that he would end up with an audience that mainly agreed with him????

[Debbie in OR]

I'm just surprised that Obama's town hall meeting was so positive, what are the odds that he would end up with an audience that mainly agreed with him????

 

 

Yeah...THAT wasn't planned AT ALL. :glare: It's all about control. Control, control, control. This is why there's yelling...

[astrid]

I only watched a few snippets. Was this the man that just wanted to leave and was being held back by another?

 

I'm just surprised that Obama's town hall meeting was so positive, what are the odds that he would end up with an audience that mainly agreed with him????

 

The guy who brought the loaded gun certainly wasn't in agreement with Obama. Later I saw him interviewed. He's against Social Security, Pell Grants, student loans and Medicare too.

 

astrid

[lionfamily1999]

The guy who brought the loaded gun certainly wasn't in agreement with Obama. Later I saw him interviewed. He's against Social Security, Pell Grants, student loans and Medicare too.

 

astrid

Which is why I said "mainly," because at one point he did search the deep dark recesses of his audience to find the one or two carefully waffling detractors.

 

Didn't hear about the loaded gun guy. I'm surprised he was free to do interviews later.

[Just Me]

I haven't read all the replies yet, but I will tell you what 'got my goat' about this whole debacle so far. The female senator (I am not sure of her state) who threatened to pull out her "mom voice"?? because people were disagreeing with her. Is it rude to yell and jeer? Yes! However, for one adult to tell another adult that they are going to pull out their mom voice - are you kidding me? How is that not just as disrespectful? LISTEN to your constituents! To me, it is like when we see frustration in our children and they act out to get our attention. Do we then ignore them, or listen to them and see what we can change in order to help? And these are our ELECTED officials - put into power by us, for us! Who exactly do they think they are?

 

I have moved from discourse to rant, so I will just move along now...;)

[Julie in CA]

I was taught that yelling and screaming doesn't make it any more likely that you'll get what you want and that, indeed, it often has the opposite effect.

It may be true with your mama, but if you look at history, it hasn't been true that citizens are more likely to get what they want by being quiet and docile. Sometimes it has taken an angry mob yelling and screaming, especially when the rulers/government have become so deadened to the sound of their constituents' voices.

[theresatwist]

What do you do when the politicians refuse to listen to you? How do you get your point across? People are angry, afraid, and frustrated. You have Pelosi labeling anyone who disagrees with this bill "an angry mobster". You have the liberals discounting our voices publicly. Where was the outrage when Code Pink was protesting? Most of the people protesting at these town hall meetings have never protested in their lives. Conservatives are generally letter-writers. If our behavior seems uncouth, it's because we've learned it from watching 8 years of liberal protests and civil unrest.

 

I'm sorry, but politicians are no better than any other tax-paying citizen. In fact, I'd say on average, politicians are a step below the regular American. They've done nothing to earn such respect. We should respect them because they're wealthy enough to run to office?

 

Obama took six months to decide on a dog for his kids. And he expects us to get on board with his healthcare plan in 6 weeks. I think he's being unrealistic.

 

Liberals have behaved in ways I do not approve of. But, I do think that meeting with a senator (when he is standing next to you and you've got a microphone in your hand) is different from a protest where people are simply marching down the street trying to attract attention. I'm also shocked the the ages of some of the folks who were treating Specter with such disrespect. Teenagers are known for behaving like idiots sometimes, but adults should know better.

 

The Democrats are trying to pass this legislation now because they know that politically it will be impossible to do so later. This is simply a reality of our political system. Plenty of legislation was rushed through during the Bush administration too (the war in Iraq, for one).

 

I think the town hall meetings are a pretty wonderful opportunity for folks to get their voices heard. When liberals were protesting the war, you were denied entrance to Bush's speeches unless you could prove you were a Republican.

[PineFarmMom]

It may be true with your mama, but if you look at history, it hasn't been true that citizens are more likely to get what they want by being quiet and docile. Sometimes it has taken an angry mob yelling and screaming, especially when the rulers/government have become so deadened to the sound of their constituents' voices.

 

:iagree: The hubbub in that meeting was people speaking from freedom. They are standing for their rights now, in freedom, before our govt. becomes so big that we all live in fear of speaking our voices.