Julie in CA Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I am in the same boat here. Right now the bean counters at the private insurance companies are calling the shots for my health care. The private health insurance companies have been very good at limiting what doctor's I can choose, what tests I can have done and what medications I can take. I have also had to deal with denial of payment for legitimate services rendered to me or my ds on at least 5 occasions. If a public option becomes available, I will be happy to pay for such an option, because the private health insurance that I have stinks. I'm curious though, doesn't it scare you a bit that whenever our government has tried organizing & controlling important programs, they have failed dismally? The USPS is basically going bankrupt. Look at Fanny Mae, Social Security, VA benefits, etc. What on earth would lead you to believe that the government would be better at managing health care than they are at those other programs? On top of that, we just don't have the money! How does it compute in your mind that we (as a nation) can spend that much more money that we don't have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theresatwist Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I'm curious though, doesn't it scare you a bit that whenever our government has tried organizing & controlling important programs, they have failed dismally? The USPS is basically going bankrupt. Look at Fanny Mae, Social Security, VA benefits, etc. What on earth would lead you to believe that the government would be better at managing health care than they are at those other programs? On top of that, we just don't have the money! How does it compute in your mind that we (as a nation) can spend that much more money that we don't have? With Medicare the government has hired a private company to do the work for them. Under Medicare that private company's administrative expenses are around 15%. The average amount a private insurance company spends on administrative costs? 30-40%. I believe that's the government getting it right. I do not believe our life expectancy in this country would be so high without Medicare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomofSeven Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I am no fan of Specter's, but I must give the man props for facing his constituency and allowing everyone to have a full voice. I appreciated the way the people's questions were numbered and allowing a large number of people to ask their question. There was no apparent pre-screening since he obviously had a lot of opposition there. He even waited patiently for people to get their entire question out. I was not impressed with most of his answers...he just kept regurgitating the same platform and did not back it up with actual facts. But he did at least listen respectfully and didn't appear easily "ruffled"...except for once when a woman stated that the bill would exclude the elderly. The point is, that much of the anger in this county would likely dissipate if people felt like they were actually being heard. That is what impressed me about this meeting. After seeing numerous news clips of congressmen and other government leaders trying to shout down the opposition or belittle it, Specter was at least giving the people a chance to talk. Treat us like we are grown up and intelligent and worthy of having a dissenting opinion, and you might find that this will smooth the way toward actually coming up with compromises that we can all live with. And I was really impressed with the number of people who were very well informed about the bill...more so than some of the lawmakers considering it. There is no way they could have been described as an "angry mob". Susu Being from PA, I'm working hard to defeat Specter next time around (he's nothing but an opportunist), however I do give him credit for facing his constituents. However, a part of me thinks "well do we give a congressman props for doing what they're supposed to do?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
readwithem Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Do you realize how loaded this question is? I'm for health care reform. But I'm against this health care reform. :iagree: It doesn't have to be either/or. And just because we agree it needs to change, not all "change" is created equal. Let's fix it but fix it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 With Medicare the government has hired a private company to do the work for them. Under Medicare that private company's administrative expenses are around 15%. The average amount a private insurance company spends on administrative costs? 30-40%. I believe that's the government getting it right. I do not believe our life expectancy in this country would be so high without Medicare. So, there is not one government employee involved in the administration of Medicare? I see that you put the "private company's administrative expenses are around 15%." If there is a government agency or employee charged with overseeing Medicare, how are the expenses associated with the employment of government employees accounted for? Could this explain the difference in administrative costs? I used to work for a government agency and I find it hard to believe we did the job more efficiently than our private counterparts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony'sMom Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) The WH has nothing to do with the bill yet. Only HR3200 exists. The White House has everything to do with this bill! Why else would President Obama be on TV so often promoting "his health care reform"? At this point the success of his presidency rests on this issue. One side note: (I hate when people just call him Obama or even worse Barack, as if they are friends. Whether I voted for him or not he deserves the respect of his office.) Edited August 12, 2009 by Tony'sMom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 :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. They may be speaking in freedom but by screaming and yelling they are impinging on the freedom of others to speak at these town hall meetings. I think that using decorum and politeness will give everyone a chance to be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FO4UR Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Didn't hear about the loaded gun guy. I'm surprised he was free to do interviews later. :001_huh::lol: 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. The man was upset b/c he went through all of the protocol to speak respectfully, still he was denied his voice. They may be speaking in freedom but by screaming and yelling they are impinging on the freedom of others to speak at these town hall meetings. I think that using decorum and politeness will give everyone a chance to be heard. Evidently, he didn't think it was too polite for the powers-that-be to hand out 30 tickets to cherry-picked constituants, denying him his right to speak. I don't think this man came into the room with a picket sign... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 With Medicare the government has hired a private company to do the work for them. Under Medicare that private company's administrative expenses are around 15%. The average amount a private insurance company spends on administrative costs? 30-40%. I believe that's the government getting it right. I do not believe our life expectancy in this country would be so high without Medicare. :iagree::iagree: I think Medicare is a success. There are some things that need to be tweaked a little like the give a way to big pharma that was done when they passed the Medicare prescription bill in the last administration. At a recent town hall meeting, Sen. McCasgill asked all of those who have Medicare to raise their hands. Then she asked all who wanted to give up Medicare to raise their hands. No one raised their hands in support of giving up Medicare. In regards to how is our government going to pay for, all of us are already paying for it. I will happily pay more in taxes instead of onerous health insurance premiums to have a public option available to all who choose it. IMHO the reason America is now having deficits was due to the tax cuts given in the last adminstration that mainly benefited the rich. I also think that the tax cuts did not cause anything to trickle down to me and many other Americans;). I think the tax cuts should have been rescinded a long time ago especially when the last administration decided to get us into the Iraq war. I also think that Social Security is a success as many seniors would now be in poverty without it as they were prior to instituting Social Security IMHO. I think we need to just stop borrowing from it in my humble opinion. lastly, I would ask how many of those opposed are set for retirement without Social Security and without Medicare. IMHO, I would suspect that not many of us are independently wealthy enough to be set for retirement without these programs. Just my 2 cents:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth in SW WA Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Being from PA, I'm working hard to defeat Specter next time around (he's nothing but an opportunist), however I do give him credit for facing his constituents. However, a part of me thinks "well do we give a congressman props for doing what they're supposed to do?" Specter's mantra yesterday: Next question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 :iagree::iagree: I also think that Social Security is a success as many seniors would now be in poverty without it as they were prior to instituting Social Security IMHO. I think we need to just stop borrowing from it in my humble opinion. lastly, I would ask how many of those opposed are set for retirement without Social Security and without Medicare. IMHO, I would suspect that not many of us are independently wealthy enough to be set for retirement without these programs. Just my 2 cents:) 15 years ago I went to a Financial Planner. Even then, we knew (and he agreed), that Social Security should NEVER be a part of ones retirement planning for people in my age group (then mid-20s). My own mother will qualify for full social security in a couple of years and even she is worried that she will outlive the system as her 401K has been left in shambles. Even after 35 years of working for a decent salary, my mother's full social security payment (at age 66) will not make for a great retirement, especially when you consider the inflation that we will be facing as more money is borrowed to pay for this expansion of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HollyinNNV Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 :iagree::iagree: I think Medicare is a success. I disagree. At its inception in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion a year. At that time, the Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives projected “conservatively†that the program would cost approximately $12 billion a year by 1990. In 1990, the cost of Medicare was actually $107 billion — nine times greater than the Ways and Means estimate." -- Hunter, NRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FO4UR Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 IMHO the reason America is now having deficits was due to the tax cuts given in the last adminstration that mainly benefited the rich. I also think that the tax cuts did not cause anything to trickle down to me and many other Americans;). I think the tax cuts should have been rescinded a long time ago especially when the last administration decided to get us into the Iraq war. I also think that Social Security is a success as many seniors would now be in poverty without it as they were prior to instituting Social Security IMHO. I think we need to just stop borrowing from it in my humble opinion. lastly, I would ask how many of those opposed are set for retirement without Social Security and without Medicare. IMHO, I would suspect that not many of us are independently wealthy enough to be set for retirement without these programs. Just my 2 cents:) I'm seeing a theme....:001_huh::lol: No, we can't expect a people to build their own wealth and be responsible for their own retirements when we tax "the rich" at obscene %'s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The White House has everything to do with this bill! Why else would President Obama be on TV so often promoting "his health care reform"?At this point the success of his presidency rests on this issue. One side note: (I hate when people just call him Obama or even worse Barack' date=' as if they are friends. Whether I voted for him or not he deserves the respect of his office.)[/quote'] I respect the office. I respect those that have legitimately held that office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 15 years ago I went to a Financial Planner. Even then' date=' we knew (and he agreed), that Social Security should NEVER be a part of ones retirement planning for people in my age group (then mid-20s). My own mother will qualify for full social security in a couple of years and even she is worried that she will outlive the system as her 401K has been left in shambles. Even after 35 years of working for a decent salary, my mother's full social security payment (at age 66) will not make for a great retirement, especially when you consider the inflation that we will be facing as more money is borrowed to pay for this expansion of government.[/quote'] Granted the amount you can get from Social Security is not that much, but it would be much worse without it IMHO. My dear parents would be in dire straights without it. Of course, my siblings and I have been helping them financially and they always have a place to stay with us as our duty and love for our parents:). I also believe in saving as much as possible for retirement, but at the present that has been difficult despite being very frugal (which I think is a good thing:)) for my dh and I due health problems that I have been having. However, I think that you can save and acquire a nest egg and still have it wiped out by the financial market or by catastrophic illness (which I hope is resolved with health care reform). This is why I think that Social Security is a good safety net and I think that there are ways to make sure that it continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I respect the office. I respect those that have legitimately held that office. I am confused by what you mean. President Obama is the legitimate president of our country even though there are some in our country who would like to believe that he is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth in SW WA Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The USPS is basically going bankrupt. Look at Fanny Mae, Social Security, VA benefits, etc. What on earth would lead you to believe that the government would be better at managing health care than they are at those other programs? On top of that, we just don't have the money! How does it compute in your mind that we (as a nation) can spend that much more money that we don't have? Well-stated, Julie. :iagree: We spend over $1000 per month/per employee for health insurance premiums at our family business. That's over $30 K per month on health care. If someone wants to opt out of our plan, great. Go for it. It will save us hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Then YOU all will be paying for my employees' health care. Sound appealing? Thankfully, our business can afford to pay for this benefit. Not all businesses can afford this. I certainly don't want the govt dictating how much $$ we need to spend per employee. A slippery slope that I don't want to go down. What next? We don't want to open the door for govt. telling small businesses HOW to do business in other areas. I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged. Very timely. I suggest all involved in our little "debate" here read it. Thank you, SWB, for providing this venue for a healthy discourse. See, no angry mob :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth in SW WA Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I am confused by what you mean. President Obama is the legitimate president of our country even though there are some in our country who would like to believe that he is not. No US birth certificate? (sorry, different debate for a different day) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony'sMom Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 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 . The older gentleman was upset! He cared enough to call the Senator's office and he was assured he would be able to attend the meeting and ask the Senator a question. He prepared for the meeting and he was not going to be given the opportunity to speak. I respected his passion. I think the Senator did too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) Well-stated, Julie. :iagree: We spend over $1000 per month/per employee for health insurance premiums at our family business. That's over $30 K per month on health care. If someone wants to opt out of our plan, great. Go for it. It will save us hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Then YOU all will be paying for my employees' health care. Sound appealing? Thankfully, our business can afford to pay for this benefit. Not all businesses can afford this. I certainly don't want the govt dictating how much $$ we need to spend per employee. A slippery slope that I don't want to go down. What next? We don't want to open the door for govt. telling small businesses HOW to do business in other areas. I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged. Very timely. I suggest all involved in our little "debate" here read it. Thank you, SWB, for providing this venue for a healthy discourse. See, no angry mob :) :iagree: I agree with thanking SWB for this wonderful forum. As a homeschooler it has certainly helped me to not feel alone:). My dh's company cannot afford to offer health insurance at this time and fewer and fewer small businesses are able to due to health insurance premiums going up and up and up every year. I agree that congress needs to think carefully how they handle businesses and health care reform. I am not sure what to think on this matter yet:). Edited August 12, 2009 by priscilla spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HollyinNNV Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 My dh's company cannot afford to offer health insurance at this time and fewer and fewer small businesses are able to due to health insurance premiums going up and up and up every year. Aren't you worried that he will soon be MANDATED to offer health insurance? Holly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony'sMom Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 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???? :lol::lol::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 No US birth certificate? (sorry, different debate for a different day) :) That myth and un-truth of no birth certificate has been thoroughly debunked. I suggest googling factcheck.org for the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Nice try. But utterly ridiculous. astrid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth in SW WA Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 That myth and un-truth of no birth certificate has been thoroughly debunked.I suggest googling factcheck.org for the facts. I'm not convinced. But for the sake of efficiency, we'll keep this thread focused on the socialization of health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 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. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5235445.shtml Then I heard him interviewed on CNN, I think it was (feeding dogs and folding laundry so not really sure where my channel-surfing stopped.) astrid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony'sMom Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I'm curious though, doesn't it scare you a bit that whenever our government has tried organizing & controlling important programs, they have failed dismally? The USPS is basically going bankrupt. Look at Fanny Mae, Social Security, VA benefits, etc. What on earth would lead you to believe that the government would be better at managing health care than they are at those other programs? On top of that, we just don't have the money! How does it compute in your mind that we (as a nation) can spend that much more money that we don't have? I just wanted to add PUBLIC SCHOOLS to your list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I am confused by what you mean. President Obama is the legitimate president of our country even though there are some in our country who would like to believe that he is not. I'm on the fence...I believe it's a legitimate question that has not been adequately answered with evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie in AR Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The White House government web site is non-partisan web site. :lol::lol::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5kidsforME Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The White House has everything to do with this bill! Why else would President Obama be on TV so often promoting "his health care reform"?At this point the success of his presidency rests on this issue. One side note: (I hate when people just call him Obama or even worse Barack' date=' as if they are friends. Whether I voted for him or not he deserves the respect of his office.)[/quote'] :001_huh: Are you kidding me?? Does, Dubya ring a bell?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The White House government web site is non-partisan web site. President Obama serves us all... Hysterical...absolutely hysterical that anyone REALLY believes this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony'sMom Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I believe I have a way to assure that this "Health Care Reform" would truly be reform....make it apply to Congressmen, Senators and the President. Make them live with the outcome of their "reform". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 :lol::lol::lol: The rules of this wonderful forum allow us to post from government web sites only which is a rule I honor since I am one to go by the rules:). So by your definition, I guess the Senate.gov website and house.gov websites are also partisan as well. The White House.gov website represents the executive branch of our government and as such is an acceptable site from my humble understanding to use in this forum per the rules. Now if I posted the Democratic Party website that would definately be partisan and a non-government website IMO as compared to an official government website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I believe I have a way to assure that this "Health Care Reform" would truly be reform....make it apply to Congressmen' date=' Senators and the President. Make them live with the outcome of their "reform".[/quote'] Thank you. Now if that could only be done without bias even there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5kidsforME Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The rules of this wonderful forum allow us to post from government web sites only which is a rule I honor since I am one to go by the rules:). So by your definition, I guess the Senate.gov website and house.gov websites are also partisan as well. The White House.gov website represents the executive branch of our government and as such is an acceptable site from my humble understanding to use in this forum per the rules. Now if I posted the Democratic Party website that would definately be partisan and a non-government website IMO as compared to an official government website. Priscilla, I think you missed my question earlier in the thread, so here it is again. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in FL Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 With Medicare the government has hired a private company to do the work for them. Under Medicare that private company's administrative expenses are around 15%. The average amount a private insurance company spends on administrative costs? 30-40%. I believe that's the government getting it right. I do not believe our life expectancy in this country would be so high without Medicare. If Medicare is so wonderful, why does my mom have to carry supplemental insurance (paying out 1/4 of her social security for it) that covers what medicare doesn't? My mom is very worried about the day she won't be able to afford the supplemental insurance. Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony'sMom Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 :001_huh: Are you kidding me?? Does, Dubya ring a bell?? Yes, Dubya does ring a bell. Again, I believe when referring to our President we should respect the office by addressing the occupant properly. Just as I taught my son to properly address adults as Mr., Mrs., Miss, Sir, or Ma'am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Hysterical...absolutely hysterical that anyone REALLY believes this. I also find it hard to believe that anyone takes the "birthers" seriously as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I also find it hard to believe that anyone takes the "birthers" seriously as well. Birthers? eh? Sounds like a slur against those with large families, only I believe they call us "breeders" ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Priscilla, I think you missed my question earlier in the thread, so here it is again. 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? It would be an acceptable government website to use per the rules of this board and in that sense would be non-partisan. Frankly, I am only trying to honor the rules of this board. I would be willing to listen with an open mind to such a website since I do not believe that every Republican is a liar who is out to deceive me just as I do not believe that every Democrat is out to do the same. For heavens sake, there are many Republicans, Libertarians and democrats in my family and I love them all:). One of the myths that the White House website debunks is the "euthanasia" myth. Honestly, I think that the belief that health care reform will lead to death panels and euthanasia is clearly not true and there are many Republicans who agree with that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) Birthers? eh? Sounds like a slur against those with large families, only I believe they call us "breeders" ;) No "birthers" is the term the media has used to describe people who believe that President Obama is not an American citizen and the term is not directed at you or any poster. I am also not one to call others names nor laugh at them just for the record;) I would be mortified to offend another person:) Edited August 12, 2009 by priscilla clarify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretchen in NJ Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 I only watched a few snippets. Was this the man that just wanted to leave and was being held back by another? He was being held at one point. I was cleaning my dishes and had my back to the TV, so I am not sure if he was trying to leave. 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???? It was how the meeting was organized. KWIM;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtroad Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) 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 I don't mean to be paranoid or overly suspicious & I haven't read all the details of this today due ot school work. However, so many things have been orchestrated over the years to get media attention, bring in drama, change the direction of the conversation, etc..... and to know that NO living Soul has access to anything that Obama (insert any modern president) comes near..... this could have all been planned. Notice this... no "swastikas" appeared anywhere until Pelosi's ludicrous comments (drama queen or to be insulting & inflammatory to honest concerned citizens)... now suddenly one shows up on a guys sign in atlanta. Smells like day old fish to me.... To the severely limited THINKERS in the media... something can be against an issue... or against an idea generated by the President & not mean a (BLANK) thing about his skin color or even him personally. (I keep hearing this from places like NBC and am shocked at how quickly they assume any protest is about color... perhaps they have the skin color issues) Edited August 12, 2009 by Dirtroad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) No "birthers" is the term the media has used to describe people who believe that President Obama is not an American citizen and the term is not directed at you or any poster. It wasn't? Certainly sounded like it. Birthers is still a slur. As offensive as if you called me an injun or my sil a flip. How about "concerned citizens wanting to make certain the Constitution is being followed"? Surely something as PC as that should natural to the liberal media. So a birther is someone who believes he isn't a citizen...what about those that simply believe it's a legitimate question? Evidence for him not being a citizen: #1 family members that say they were at his birth in Kenya Evidence for him being a citizen: #1 a digitally doctored image on a website...and definitely not the long form Evidence missing: #1 mother that died just prior to the election #2 actual long form that has been fought tooth and nail to be kept from presentation Edited August 12, 2009 by mommaduck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretchen in NJ Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 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 I haven't heard anything about that. I have just re-check all of the major news websites: Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Drudge, ABC, and CBS. There is no mention of this on any of those sites. They are all talking about Senator Specter's town hall meeting. 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. If this happen, he would be free to do interviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretchen in NJ Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 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. This is a great point, Julie. This is why we study history.;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PineFarmMom Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 So a birther is someone who believes he isn't a citizen...what about those that simply believe it's a legitimate question? Evidence for him not being a citizen: #1 family members that say they were at his birth in Kenya Evidence for him being a citizen: #1 a digitally doctored image on a website...and definitely not the long form Evidence missing: #1 mother that died just prior to the election #2 actual long form that has been fought tooth and nail to be kept from presentation :iagree: This is definitely a question that has not been properly answered and DESERVES a good, thorough, fully detailed list of evidence to prove where he was born. Since it is one of the important qualifications for actually BECOMING a president, I don't feel we've been adequately informed on this matter, nor do I think we ever will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theresatwist Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) :iagree: This is definitely a question that has not been properly answered and DESERVES a good, thorough, fully detailed list of evidence to prove where he was born. Since it is one of the important qualifications for actually BECOMING a president, I don't feel we've been adequately informed on this matter, nor do I think we ever will be. Oh please! It was his grandmother who died shortly before the election. I have no idea what you believe his grandmother's death proves. She was 86 years old. I can't imagine rumors about a white president's birth place persisting like these. The Enquirer is not believed by most to be a worth news source. Edited August 12, 2009 by theresatwist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Oh please! Good answer...we'll list that one under "lack of evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts