I wonder how Sarah Palin feels about this

[Isaac]

pants brain!

Epic.

[woodchip]

TC, think real hard on what you just posted.

[Bet51987]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/pal ... es-wealth/

Bee

[woodchip]

Perhaps, in regards to Palins \"Death Panel\" comment, one should consider a liberal commentators view:

Camille Paglia \"As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a \"death panel\" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished.\"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/200 ... own_halls/

Actually her whole article is a interesting read on what even liberals are thinking of Obama's health care attempt and the way Democratic leadership like Pelosi is handling the firesturm (yes I know how \"firestorm\" is spelled )

[woodchip]

To further the Death panel belief on Obama's part:

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.

“I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost,” Obama said in the interview. “I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother.”

Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill. \"

So come on TC and Bee, kindly tell why you believe Obama \"Mengeles\" Obama, once he is in control of your health care, that when faced with cost controls he will not just throw you a vial of pain pills and say, \"Have fun\".

[Bet51987]

So come on TC and Bee, kindly tell why you believe Obama "Mengeles" Obama, once he is in control of your health care, that when faced with cost controls he will not just throw you a vial of pain pills and say, "Have fun".

Because you still believe Sarah Palin should be president. How could I ever make sense to you.

Bee

[CUDA]

So come on TC and Bee, kindly tell why you believe Obama "Mengeles" Obama, once he is in control of your health care, that when faced with cost controls he will not just throw you a vial of pain pills and say, "Have fun".

Because you still believe Sarah Palin should be president. How could I ever make sense to you.

Bee

OH PAHLEESE

[woodchip]

So come on TC and Bee, kindly tell why you believe Obama "Mengeles" Obama, once he is in control of your health care, that when faced with cost controls he will not just throw you a vial of pain pills and say, "Have fun".

Because you still believe Sarah Palin should be president. How could I ever make sense to you.

Bee

You know Bee, responses like this to specific questions show us all what a complete and unmitigated airhead you are turning out to be.

[Bet51987]

Yes, I'm an airhead.

Palin The Wealth Spreader: Gov. Imposed Oil Windfall Profits Tax To Allow Alaskans To ‘Share In The Wealth’

Bee

[CUDA]

Yes, I'm an airhead.

Palin The Wealth Spreader: Gov. Imposed Oil Windfall Profits Tax To Allow Alaskans To ‘Share In The Wealth’

Bee

I would have figured you'd be in favor of that. it's right out of the DNC hand book

[Bet51987]

Yes, I'm an airhead.

Palin The Wealth Spreader: Gov. Imposed Oil Windfall Profits Tax To Allow Alaskans To ‘Share In The Wealth’

Bee

I would have figured you'd be in favor of that. it's right out of the DNC hand book

I am. I just wanted to point out that Sarah Palin is guilty of the very thing she is against.

Bee

[CUDA]

Yes, I'm an airhead.

Palin The Wealth Spreader: Gov. Imposed Oil Windfall Profits Tax To Allow Alaskans To ‘Share In The Wealth’

Bee

I would have figured you'd be in favor of that. it's right out of the DNC hand book

I am. I just wanted to point out that Sarah Palin is guilty of the very thing she is against.

Bee

since your having an impossible time following this topic, would you please explain to us how Palin resigning because the law suits are costing Alaskan's money can be against giving Alaskan's money from oil profit windfalls.

I has to be a younger generation thing because I'm just not understanding that logic

[Birdseye]

So let me get this straight. Palin resigns her job and gets vilified. Yet Hillary quits her Senate job and no big deal. Obama quits his senate job and no big deal. Am I missing something?
I await now your arguments that Hillary and Obama quit to go on to bigger and better things or can we rephrase and say they quit really for personal self gain and are praised for it. Palin quit for altruistic motives of saving her state tax money and is lambasted.
Nice eh?

Typically, a governor only resigns mid-term due to a scandal or another office being open. It's not a normal thing. It's not usual. You don't have to be right, left, or whatever. You don't even have to talk about hillary or obama. It was comepletely unexpected.

[Foil]

Bet, Woody, Cuda: Come on, can't you discuss a topic without taking potshots at each other?

[Birdseye]

Bet, Woody, Cuda: Come on, can't you discuss a topic without taking potshots at each other?

Didn't you get the memo? Discussing politics is all about proving the 'other side' 'wrong'

[CUDA]

Bet, Woody, Cuda: Come on, can't you discuss a topic without taking potshots at each other?

To have a discussion, you need to have at least 2 people to participate. Bee isn't even making the effort. she's run off is so many different directions I think she'd get lost with GPS

[Foil]

...And that's another potshot, Cuda. All three of you are firing them.

[Bet51987]

Bet, Woody, Cuda: Come on, can't you discuss a topic without taking potshots at each other?

To have a discussion, you need to have at least 2 people to participate. Bee isn't even making the effort. she's run off is so many different directions I think she'd get lost with GPS

My GPS works fine.

I just don't see any serious discussion that doesn't turn into a predictable Obama ("Mengles") name calling event.

I've reduced myself to picking on republicans now.

Bee

[CUDA]

...And that's another potshot, Cuda. All three of you are firing them.

I'm sorry I didnt realize this was a grade school. its no wonder they started .Com

[CUDA]

Bet, Woody, Cuda: Come on, can't you discuss a topic without taking potshots at each other?

To have a discussion, you need to have at least 2 people to participate. Bee isn't even making the effort. she's run off is so many different directions I think she'd get lost with GPS

My GPS works fine.

I just don't see any serious discussion that doesn't turn into a predictable Obama ("Mengles") name calling event.

I've reduced myself to picking on republicans now.

Bee

you dont see a discussion here because you refuse to participate, ANOTHER POT SHOT you've reduced your participation in threads to 1 line posts. I posted in another thread for you to show me where the flaw in my post was. and while I KNOW you've seen it, you continue to ignore it.WHY? again a LACK OF PARTICIPATION (another pot shot) on your part. like I said in a different thread I have a lot of respect for TC. I seldom agree with her, but at least she MAKES THE EFFORT (another pot shot) to partcipate

[Foil]

Next time, somebody remind me about the futility of trying to stop a partisan bicker-fest.

[CUDA]

is it partisan, hell it's politics. we all start these threads to discuss a topic. now while it might not seem like it. I am totaly open to be proven wrong. but to be proven wrong it would mean that someone would need to partcipate and present fact to correct me, and that doesnt seem to happen much anymore.

Foil accept my appoligies, it was not my intent to pick a fight with you.

[Bet51987]

I posted in another thread for you to show me where the flaw in my post was. and while I KNOW you've seen it, you continue to ignore it.WHY? again a LACK OF PARTICIPATION (another pot shot) on your part. like I said in a different thread I have a lot of respect for TC. I seldom agree with her, but at least she MAKES THE EFFORT (another pot shot) to partcipate

Ok Cuda, you said:

I've always found than when someone is losing an argument they tend to lose their cool and start calling people names.

/me points to Nancy Pelosi and some other Democrat leaders. recently calling people that are is disagreement with the way they are governing and regarding the health-care bill NAZI's

You rolled your eyes as if the democrats were the only party calling people names yet Sarah Palin and a host of other republicans are doing exactly the same thing, and in fact, inciting others to go out and do it.

I consider that a major flaw in your argument.

Bee

P.S. I'll participate with more than a few lines when I see something that's written seriously.

[CUDA]

You rolled your eyes as if the democrats were the only party calling people names yet Sarah Palin and a host of other republicans are doing exactly the same thing,

first off you made the ASSUMPTION that I thought it was ONLY the Democrats that were doing it, that was your first mistake.

second off, my post was pointing out the Hypocracy of the left screaming about about how those on the right that question the government are UN_AMERICAN and Nazi's while forgetting that while GW was president they did EXACTLY THE SAME THING. and yet you missed that fact. that was your second mistake.

and in fact, inciting others to go out and do it.

proof???
because all I've seen is the left accusing the GOP about that without a shred of evidence. show me proof and I will conceed.

P.S. I'll participate with more than a few lines when I see something that's written seriously.

So when you post something like this

Because you still believe Sarah Palin should be president. How could I ever make sense to you.

why should I take you seriously in ANY thread in the E&C. it is OBVIOUS, that your blind hatred for Sarah Palin has clouded your ability to clearly and objectively hold any conversation where she has entered the topic.

[Bet51987]

and in fact, inciting others to go out and do it.

proof???
because all I've seen is the left accusing the GOP about that without a shred of evidence. show me proof and I will conceed.

But Palin did exactly that on Friday by suggesting that Obama's new health care plan would result in the creation of a "death panel" that could, in theory, deny medical care to children with Down syndrome. As ABC's Jake Tapper points out, that claim seems to be a fictional creation, more likely to incite mob behavior rather than tamp it down.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/10 ... calm-down/

"It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels," Murkowski, said, according to the paper. "Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08 ... ts/page/2/

I have more of her tactics if you want them.

Bee

[woodchip]

Yes, I'm an airhead.

Palin The Wealth Spreader: Gov. Imposed Oil Windfall Profits Tax To Allow Alaskans To ‘Share In The Wealth’

Bee

Lets see if you can understand what the difference between what Palin did and what a real socialist like Obama wants to do.

A socialist would have imposed the same windfall profit tax, but instead of passing the largess out equally to the states citizens, he would of kept the money in the govt. coffers and used it for social programs and probably would have created another bureaucracy to handle how the money was doled out.

Once the socialist saw that the oil company was still raking in the profits, he would of nationalized the company and put bureaucrats in charge. The oil company under new management, would become bloated with inefficiency, waste and too many people working there that the profits would dwindle and soon the windfall profits would disappear. In the end the citizens would be taxed more to help keep the company afloat with the govt. ultimately selling the oil company back to a private company.

At this point the oil has been all sucked out of the ground with everyone wondering where all the money from the profits went. Of course the socialist press doesn't want to report on it so nothing is ever found out. Glorious Leader exclaims the whole process a success and pictures of grateful children thanking him are taken without anyone being the wiser that the children's parent are private donors to Glorious Leaders campaign fund.

To even think that Palin's giving money earned from the states resources directly to it's citizens is socialism is beyond the pale. Good socialist take "your" hard earned money and give it to those who do not wish to work. Look around the world and tell me what form of socialism has been a resounding success?

Lets see Bee if you can make a honest intellectual reply without copying some article from the Huffington Post.

[woodchip]

and in fact, inciting others to go out and do it.

proof???
because all I've seen is the left accusing the GOP about that without a shred of evidence. show me proof and I will conceed.

But Palin did exactly that on Friday by suggesting that Obama's new health care plan would result in the creation of a "death panel" that could, in theory, deny medical care to children with Down syndrome. As ABC's Jake Tapper points out, that claim seems to be a fictional creation, more likely to incite mob behavior rather than tamp it down.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/10 ... calm-down/

"It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels," Murkowski, said, according to the paper. "Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08 ... ts/page/2/

I have more of her tactics if you want them.

Bee

Let me repost what I did earlier in this thread to counteract your post (just in case you missed it:

Perhaps, in regards to Palins "Death Panel" comment, one should consider a liberal commentators view:

Camille Paglia "As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a "death panel" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished."

[CUDA]

But Palin did exactly that on Friday by suggesting that Obama's new health care plan would result in the creation of a "death panel" that could, in theory, deny medical care to children with Down syndrome. As ABC's Jake Tapper points out, that claim seems to be a fictional creation, more likely to incite mob behavior rather than tamp it down.

good your now debating thank you.

OK first off your confusing personal attacks with a policy attack. Nancy Pelosi made personal attacks against anyone that disagreed with the Presidents Policy by calling them Brown shirt Nazi's, while Palin made a policy attack.

As ABC's Jake Tapper points out, that claim seems to be a fictional creation,

SEEMS??? this is his OPINION, not a fact, just as Sarah Palin gave her OPINION on the Presidents policy it was not fact

I have more of her tactics if you want them.

Bee

again this is politics and policy attacks, it has been and always shall be fair game IF your in the political forum. this was no different then when the Republicans were in power and proposed their new budget, and all the while the democrats were screaming that the republicans were cutting vital services. and do you know why they said that?? because the republican didn't want to spend as much as the democrats. they still increased spending for those services, just not to the amount that the DNC wanted, so they DNC started screaming the GOP was cutting the budget. it was a pure bald faced Lie, there were inciting mob behavior by doing so. that is what politics is! you try to rule by fear. you try to scare the uneducated un-informed sheep into following you.

[Foil]

Ah, now it's a debate once again. Carry on.

[Stroodles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Ad hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument

[woodchip]

Link for Palins own explanation on her death panel comment:

http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=24718773587

[Bet51987]

OK first off your confusing personal attacks with a policy attack.

I disagree because instead of saying "The Democratic Death Panel" she incites the base by saying "Obama's Death Panel" mentioning Obama by name so that makes it personal.

Link for Palins own explanation on her death panel comment:

http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=24718773587

Hmmmm.... what happened to this...

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

She defends it here.... (sorry I don't adhere to the forum favorite.. FOX NEWS.)

http://blog.taragana.com/n/palin-stands ... ns-138855/


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/13 ... 0009.shtml

To even think that Palin's giving money earned from the states resources directly to it's citizens is socialism

is beyond the pale.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/1048 ... rica_gets/

Bee

[CUDA]

OK first off your confusing personal attacks with a policy attack.

I disagree because instead of saying "The Democratic Death Panel" she incites the base by saying "Obama's Death Panel" mentioning Obama by name so that makes it personal.

you need to keep in mind this is a Political forum and the rules that apply to you and I do not apply there. it is almost impossible to get sued for slander when talking about a politican. that is not the case IRL.

What she is saying by "Obama's death panels" is that Obama's Policies "could" lead to death panels. that is not a personal attack. it is a valid political argument. because by some of the wording I've read she could be correct !!! some of the presidents polices "COULD" allow heath care to be denied for older or terminaly ill people based on economic reasons alone. so what she is saying "MIGHT" be correct.

[Stroodles]

One of the major premises that Obama was elected on was his ideas on health care.

Palin was talking about the bill the Obama is spending vast quanities of time promoting. There are democrats in Congress who don't agree with this bill, as evidenced by it not passing yet.

Therefore, it is Obama's health care plan, regardless of whether he wrote it himself. (Or, apparently, read it).

So Palin's coment is indeed a policy attack.

[Bet51987]

What she is saying by "Obama's death panels" is that Obama's Policies "could" lead to death panels. that is not a personal attack. it is a valid political argument. because by some of the wording I've read she could be correct !!! some of the presidents polices "COULD" allow heath care to be denied for older or terminaly ill people based on economic reasons alone. so what she is saying "MIGHT" be correct.

Sorry Cuda. You're as wrong as Sarah Palin if you believe this is a valid political argument. She stands in front of a camera holding her children for effect and spreads misinformation on health care for the sole purpose of creating fear.

Try this link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 56486.html

Don't like Huffington Post? Try here.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false- ... ia-claims/

Bee

[Gooberman]

Factcheck.org has a well known liberal bias

[CUDA]

What she is saying by "Obama's death panels" is that Obama's Policies "could" lead to death panels. that is not a personal attack. it is a valid political argument. because by some of the wording I've read she could be correct !!! some of the presidents polices "COULD" allow heath care to be denied for older or terminaly ill people based on economic reasons alone. so what she is saying "MIGHT" be correct.

Sorry Cuda. You're as wrong as Sarah Palin if you believe this is a valid political argument. She stands in front of a camera holding her children for effect and spreads misinformation on health care for the sole purpose of creating fear.

Try this link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 56486.html

Don't like Huffington Post? Try here.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false- ... ia-claims/

Bee

your getting your info from the Huffington post

Bee the facts are what the facts are. websites like the huffington post lying about them because it fits their agenda will never change the facts.

with the current wording in the legislation, elderly people "could" be, I did not say would be, denied health-care for economic reasons. believing that will not happen is short sighted and foolish.

[Spidey]

I just heard FOX news debunk Sarah Palin’s remarks…sorry CUDA, I have to call them as I see um.

EDIT… of course they are also promoting it.

[CUDA]

I just heard FOX news debunk Sarah Palin’s remarks…sorry CUDA, I have to call them as I see um.

EDIT… of course they are also promoting it.

been without a TV for 8 weeks now I'm gleaning what I can while at work and my limited time at home. I've read the section in question. it could be perverted to do what Palin accused it of.

[Spidey]

Perverted is a pretty good word for this so called reform…oh you said “could be” perverted.

I would go with…”would be”.

But then I’m a cynic.