White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

JD,
This sounds a little harsh to even me. Sounds almost like a "Death Panel". Are you advocating for the provision that you are arguing was never in the bill?

The whole "Death Panel" fabrications made up by the Right is centered around end-of-life care.

My opinion is that I don't want my tax dollars going to help people that refuse to help themselves. If you're an alcoholic without health care and your liver is failing and you refuse treatment for your alcoholism, then I very honestly don't want tax dollars going towards saving that person. Same goes for the heroin addict that needs thousands of dollars in HIV meds every month.

They did it to themselves, now they should deal with the consequences.

My very blunt opinion. The public should not be paying to extend the lives of people that are a waste of oxygen and choose to never contribute to society.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The whole "Death Panel" fabrications made up by the Right is centered around end-of-life care.

My opinion is that I don't want my tax dollars going to help people that refuse to help themselves. If you're an alcoholic without health care and your liver is failing and you refuse treatment for your alcoholism, then I very honestly don't want tax dollars going towards saving that person. Same goes for the heroin addict that needs thousands of dollars in HIV meds every month.

They did it to themselves, now they should deal with the consequences.

My very blunt opinion. The public should not be paying to extend the lives of people that are a waste of oxygen and choose to never contribute to society.

I don't like to see my tax dollars wasted either JD. That's why I don't like Obama. But I sure don't want people thrown aside just because they are fighting a very tough battle with addiction. Hell, we give Pat Kennedy endless second chances. Some of what you speak I agree with. Lets just start with no FREE health care for "undocumented" alians and go from there.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

I don't like to see my tax dollars wasted either JD. That's why I don't like Obama. But I sure don't want people thrown aside just because they are fighting a very tough battle with addiction.

I'm not talking about people fight addiction. That's why I said "if they refuse treatment for their addiction". I feel the same way about someone that's 400lbs - don't want to change your diet? No health care for you.

People that refuse to contribute to society should not be allowed to benefit from society. Even you have said before, people should not be getting handouts - and that carries over to health care.

I feel as though people should be allowed to make their own decisions in life. The government shouldn't tell me what I can or cannot do in my own home if it has no effect on others in society. If you want to pump drugs through your veins, it's fine by me. But don't expect me to pay the bill when you have no job, HIV (or some other disease) and are dying of pneumonia.

But I'm just a crazy liberal.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

But I'm just a crazy liberal.

You're a good man, JohnnyD and certainly no "liberal." I would feel confident if you were steering the ship of state. I would probably wince, often, when you chastised your allies for lack of precision and correctness, or for "interpretations" of text, while being soft on those you oppose. Perhaps, you might win over some enemies, more often than not, you'ld be rolled. It is amazing how the views of "right wing radio" and "conservative" politicians agree with yours and how you constantly excoriate them while their "liberal" counterparts get little of your attention. Is it a love/hate relation? It is honorable to correct your own, for their own good as well as the good of society, but their is also realistic politics. The dunderheads of talk radio are responsible for the bulk of reaction against the "healthcare" bill you hate. Their reaction to it is based on the same animus. Much as you despise "right wing talk radio," it is more effective than your heartfelt statement on this thread. In the end, the "liberals" ("progressives") may disregard the "rile" and pass the bill, as is, but a more UNITED stand against it, might stop it.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You're a good man, JohnnyD and certainly no "liberal." I would feel confident if you were steering the ship of state. I would probably wince, often, when you chastised your allies for lack of precision and correctness, or for "interpretations" of text, while being soft on those you oppose. Perhaps, you might win over some enemies, more often than not, you'ld be rolled. It is amazing how the views of "right wing radio" and "conservative" politicians agree with yours and how you constantly excoriate them while their "liberal" counterparts get little of your attention. Is it a love/hate relation? It is honorable to correct your own, for their own good as well as the good of society, but their is also realistic politics. The dunderheads of talk radio are responsible for the bulk of reaction against the "healthcare" bill you hate. Their reaction to it is based on the same animus. Much as you despise "right wing talk radio," it is more effective than your heartfelt statement on this thread. In the end, the "liberals" ("progressives") may disregard the "rile" and pass the bill, as is, but a more UNITED stand against it, might stop it.

Haha... Nice one detbuch.

"Those at the fore front feel the most heat." Right-wing radio and conservative news stations get the criticisms from be because they are the loudest and most obnoxious. While I share *some* political ideologies with them, I do not share the level of irrationality and what I perceive as complaining because "he's on the other team."

I find that the extreme Conservative views are the ones more often reported by stations like Fox and conservative radio, and those views I do not agree with - most of these people leave a nasty, bitter taste in my mouth. While CNN is the ying to the Fox yang, there isn't really a similar counterpoint on the radio.

The reason I joke and say "I'm just a crazy liberal" is because if you disagree with a conservative's opinion then you "must be a liberal". Political discussion in this country doesn't allow a Moderate's point of view because, in the words of George W., "you're either with us, or your against us."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Right-wing radio and conservative news stations get the criticisms from be because they are the loudest and most obnoxious. While I share *some* political ideologies with them, I do not share the level of irrationality and what I perceive as complaining because "he's on the other team."

You may "perceive" right wing news as louder and more obnoxious, but I don't see evidence that they are more so than other sources. Nor higher levels of irrationality. Anyway, I don't think the volume, nor obnoxity, nor the LEVEL of irrationality, to be what is important. What is important is what is true and what is good.


I find that the extreme Conservative views are the ones more often reported by stations like Fox and conservative radio, and those views I do not agree with - most of these people leave a nasty, bitter taste in my mouth. While CNN is the ying to the Fox yang, there isn't really a similar counterpoint on the radio.

Are you saying that moderate conservative, moderate, and liberal views are reported less than EXTREME conservative views on Fox, etc. I don't think a count has been taken, nor has there been, as far as I know, a study been made as to which conservative views are extreme, moderate, low grade, or normal. There is a similar counterpoint on the radio, but it is so unpopular, and UNNECESSARY, as most "mainstream" media fills the need for a slant to the left.

The reason I joke and say "I'm just a crazy liberal" is because if you disagree with a conservative's opinion then you "must be a liberal". Political discussion in this country doesn't allow a Moderate's point of view because, in the words of George W., "you're either with us, or your against us."

I suppose, then, that "conservatives" who disagree with each other, many do, are, by your definition, "liberals". I believe, btw, that the reason Republicans like to refer to liberals as liberal is, as Spence has pointed out, that most people in this country identify their views as being "conservative". So it is politically smart, I guess, to refer to your opponent as being "liberal", ergo, opposed to your "conservative" views. Simple as that. Moderate points of view are abundant in political discussion. As far as "you're either with us, or your against us"--that was about a specific instance, not a general admonition.

[spence]

You know right wingers are getting really catty when they start dropping the "L bomb" on party mates.

-spence