Unparliamentary or un-American?
When Congressman Joe Wilson outraged some members of his own party, and delighted others, by shouting out "you lie!" during the president's speech, American commentators talked sniffily of the sort of behaviour you would expect in the British House of Commons, not Congress.
It is true that to American eyes and ears, our democratically-elected representatives are a rowdy lot. But "you lie" is clearly unparliamentary language and, if shouted from a sedentary position, the Speaker would probably stop proceedings to issue a warning and perhaps ask for an apology. If one was refused, the member could be expelled from the session.
If an MP wants to accuse someone of lying, she or he has to say something like "The right honourable member has involuntarily misled the house as to the facts of the case." Stuffy, but that's the point. The rules are intended to defuse potentially violent debate. After all, the distance between the government and opposition benches is said to be the length of two drawn swords.
In the United States, it has got physical. In 1856 Senator Charles Sumner made an anti-slavery speech, singling out two fellow members of the senate for vitriolic abuse. He said of one that he was like Don Quixote, who imagined himself a chivalrous knight but was devoted to his "harlot, slavery, who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him."
One fellow politician called it "Un-American and unpatriotic."
The abused senator's cousin, congressman Preston Brooks, went further. He went into the senate chamber and beat Sumner around the head with a heavy gold-topped walking stick until the cane broke in two and the unfortunate senator, blinded by so much blood, managed to get up, ripping his bolted desk from the floor and staggered off to collapse unconscious. The resulting brain damage was so severe that he did not return to the Senate for three years. Some were exultant: the governor of South Carolina rewarded Brooks with a silver goblet and new walking stick, and one southern paper declared his only mistake was not to use a horse whip. (For most of these details I returned to Doris Kearns Goodwin's superb Team of Rivals.)
Of course, within five years, Americans were at each other with more than heavy canes. The assault obviously graphically demonstrates how tempers were rising, but it also further inflamed the mood on both sides.
More recently, in 1964, Senator Strom Thurmond wrestled another senator to the floor in an attempt to stop a detail of civil rights legislation. As the Washington Post gleefully points out Wilson, Brook and Thurmond all hail from South Carolina.
This geographical oddity interested me less than the description of Sumner's speech against slavery as "un-American and unpatriotic". It is an oft-repeated charge in American politics. It happens elsewhere of course, but Americans seem particularly prone to suggesting their opponents are not only wrong, foolish or misguided, but treasonous to the ideals of their country.
It seems to me, in the current debate, it is partly the president's status, both leader of a political party and embodiment of the nation, that explains such vitriolic anger. Many, including the Republican hierarchy, seemed outraged by the disrespect inherent in Wilson's outburst.
But it works both ways. Those who dislike Obama aren't just against his policies, they feel that because the president stands for their country, his espousal of views alien to their vision of America amounts to an unpatriotic betrayal. Listening to the "tax-payers' tea party" in Washington on the radio over the weekend, it struck me that if I were reading a transcript blind of context, I would assume I was listening to a demonstration of a growing resistance to a brutal and undemocratic regime.
Indeed, in the four or five speeches I heard on the radio, details of tax rises and healthcare were hardly mentioned: the theme was "recapturing America" from "tyranny" and regaining "freedom". It sounded as though they were protesting against a coup, probably a violent one, rather than the natural consequence of losing an election less than a year ago.
But I am too new to this place to know if the debate is getting harsher, more strident, even uglier, or whether this is just the vigorous terms of debate that are normal. I'd like to know what you think. But it is why many see Congress as the last refuge of grown-up debate, and want to keep it that way.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~14~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mark,
New to the American way you may be, but you have gven us all alot to chew on in this posting.
It is ironic that after so many years of quietly laughing at the "outrageous" antics in the House of Commons, an American politician should so far lose control as to shout "You lie" at the President.
It is also ironic that for the most part the lies about Obama come from the right ... pernicious spin, flash-point words like "socialist" which are aimed solely to mislead a lazy public into not thinking about issues.
It was the same during the campaign - Obama put forward ideas, the GOP and its radio and ress mouthpieces put forth inflamatory diatribes. Obama, to his great credit, keep to politics, and duly won the election.
Perhaps if the GOP could get back to some policies, instead of simply shouting "lies and socialism" every time Obama speaks, then we could actually get somewhere.
Wilson is a disgrace to his position, his party and America.
Complain about this comment
Oh, I think Wilson did a brilliant job. Now nobody remembers whether Obama favours or opposes a public option, or how many times the poverty line will be subsidised, or anything else about healthcare reform, except maybe that there's some dispute about whether illegal immigrants will be covered. All that we talk about is 'civility' in Congress.
Yeah, he's taken a short term personal political hit, but anyone who wants to sabotage healthcare reform must be delighted; anyone from the civilised world should be depressed.
Complain about this comment
Mark ....
"Listening to the "tax-payers' tea party" in Washington on the radio over the weekend it struck me that if I was reading a transcript blind of context, I would assume I was listening to a demonstration of a growing resistance to a brutal and undemocratic regime."
Yes, the exaggeration is mind-boggling, as are some of the placards on display....
(from the linked article to the tea party)
"Carrying signs depicting President Obama as Adolf Hitler"
This would be enough to get you arrested in Europe. It is the cheapest of shots, and all the worse for it shows the immense ignorance of the protesters involved - 1936 Olympics, anyone?
Also the reaction of the government to this protest is interesting when compared to the reaction to anti-war marches in 2003 and later. Anyone who spoke out was branded "unAmerican" and the police harrassed marchers and protesters in the name of "security" of all things.
If being anti-war and pro-healthcare for the poor is un-American then I'm glad I was born in Great Britain.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
IMHO the fact that you are new to your position gives you a viewpoint of clarity. You write
"Indeed, in the four or five speeches I heard on the radio, details of tax rises and health care were hardly mentioned: the theme was "recapturing America" from "tyranny" and regaining "freedom". It sounded as if they were protesting against a coup, probably a violent one, rather than the natural consequence of losing an election less than a year ago."
To an outsider it does seem odd that these themes are championned by a party for which George W won the 2000 election with a minority of the popular vote, and then started a couple of wars and passed the patriot act.
Pot , meet kettle.
Also it is important to remember that these protesters are essentially trying to deny adequate healthcare to a large number of Americans in the name of .... what exactly? Greed looks likely; also ignorance - that's why the GOP spouts rhetoric, not ideas. There is an argument about big government ... but if America can't make it work like every other western democracy does (there are various models as diverse as the French and the Swiss systems), then shame on you for letting your people suffer.
It don't seem too charitable to me.
Complain about this comment
BBC's own report from an examply European-style welfare state, oil-rich Norway:
"Norwegians - who pay some of the highest taxes on the planet - have high demands of their public services and often complain about long hospital waiting lists for non-emergency operations and bad roads."
A sign (by no means unique) held at Saturday massive protest demontration in Washington, D.C.:
"I WAS BORN FREE, BUT HAVE BEEN TAXED TO DEATH" .
Complain about this comment
Bush was booed by Democrats during his 2005 State of the Union address, and the left was constantly raving about his right-wing dictatorship. Effigies and placards depicting Bush being hanged were a common sight at demonstrations during his presidency. The mainstream media rarely got worked up by any of that. In fact, there used to be a Bush/Hitler poster in one of the BBC's main newsrooms, so Mark would be well advised to tread carefully when asking if things are now "more strident".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
*Indeed, in the four or five speeches I heard on the radio, details of tax rises and health care were hardly mentioned: the theme was "recapturing America" from "tyranny" and regaining "freedom". It sounded as if they were protesting against a coup, probably a violent one, rather than the natural consequence of losing an election less than a year ago.*
Mark, I share the logic of your assessment. What I would expect as a next step from the political opponents of Obama will be a declaration about his lack of enough knowledge and competence in the *health care case*. Maybe some congressmen will soon open a debate about *an abuse of power*.
Obama definitely needs support, now!
Generalissimo Franco
Sofia, Sept. 14th 2009
Complain about this comment
Re #1
It is also ironic that for the most part the lies about Obama come from the right ... pernicious spin, flash-point words like "socialist" which are aimed solely to mislead a lazy public into not thinking about issues.
I haven't realised, until now, that the 'socialist' label is an insult.
Particularly to hard working Socialists.
Complain about this comment
One thing people have to remember the uncivility goes both ways.
Not excusing wilson who is a buffoon.
But here are some recent examples from the Dems
Barbara Boxers rudeness to a general testifying on the afghanastan situation.
Jim Webb rudensss to former President Bush when asked about his son
Nancy Pelosi calling the CIA liars
Maxine Waters refusing to call Bush her President.
Complain about this comment
This is pretty funny. Everything that is now happening to Obama - being heckled by congressmen while addressing Congress, being depicted as Hitler by nuttier opponents, being accused of tyranny and so on - happened to Bush in spades. Only now, apparently, is it newsworthy. Go figure.
Whoops - one small difference. Angry protests against and hyperbolic accusations of Bush were legitimate demonstrations of popular opposition. Angry protests against and hyperbolic accusations of Obama are stirring up hate, racist, and incitements to assassination.
Complain about this comment
Re#3 "Carrying signs depicting President Obama as Adolf Hitler"
This would be enough to get you arrested in Europe"
I recall seeing a sign "Jesus was Allah's slave!" held by a British subject during a demonstration in central London couple of years ago.
Police did not intervene and nor arrests were made, because,
as Scotland Yard explained later: "no laws were violated".
[yes, there IS a TV footage of that demo]
BTW Calling G.W. Bush a "Nazi" and his party "a bunch of fascists" in public fora has been quite popular in recent years.
But what in the name RomeStu, what's in the name?
"Sticks and stones can brake my bones, but words can never hurt me".
Complain about this comment
Thank you for an intersting and insightful blog. One pedantic point, Joe (actualy Addison Graves Wilson) Wilson is not a Senator but rather a member of the House of Representatives, a member representing the 2nd District of South Carolina.
Complain about this comment
"The rules are intended defuse potentially violent debate."
Proofreading not soo good @ BBC now, rite?
Complain about this comment
I personally being English have found the level of opposition to the healthcare plans slightly scary. I dont understand the level of hate for what is essentially trying to look after your fellow man.
Complain about this comment
6 duhbuh
I am shocked and disgusted by the link about the Bush/Hitler picture at the BBC .... however this does not justify it's repetion about Obama.
I do not seek to justify it, but the anti-Bush protests were in the most part against the war in Iraq, which has cost the US taxpayer way more than any healthcare reform, and has since been shown to have been prosecuted under false pretenses.
Also the hanging effigies, while shocking, were a direct parody of the number of people executed in Texas while W was governor.
There are ignorant extremists on both sides, so countering one shocking example with another from the opposition serves no real purpose except to score points.
This is about the healthcare options of an increasing number of Americans, and I have yet to see the right-wing commentators produce any rational plan - only to shoot at whatever Obama and the Democrats propose. Not constructive.
Complain about this comment
5. powermeerkat wrote:
"Norwegians - who pay some of the highest taxes on the planet - have high demands of their public services and often complain about long hospital waiting lists for non-emergency operations and bad roads."
What some people fail to understand is that this not about providing the absolute top of the range, on demand medical treatment for every elective or non-emergency medical service.
The idea is that no one isleft without basic healthcare, which optimally should be free at point of service (ie anyone can see a GP when you want)
All European countries have a dual system allowing people to either purchase insurance to give them a 5 star hospital, or can opt to pay on the nose for non-emergency care to avoid waiting.
I recently did just that to avoid a 4 month wait for a minor operation.
Just to give you an idea, the total cost was £3000 - overnight in a private room in a private hospital, surgeon of my choice, pre- and post-operative consultations, anaesthetist .... everything in. I wonder what a similar op would cost in the USA.
Nobody likes waiting, and yes Norwegians pay high taxes, but they also have cradle to grave care - and they keep their oil money rather sensibly "for a rainy" day in the future.
Also their country is enormous and has a low population, so simple economic economies of scale are against them in terms of road construction, building schools and hopitals etc etc.
Complain about this comment
9 meerkat
"I haven't realised, until now, that the 'socialist' label is an insult."
My dear meerkat, I know we've had our differences, but in this surely you cannot be serious. Did you think the GOP was complimenting Obama on his inclusive, socially-aware policies, and just wishing they could be more like him?
Or have you not heard that most Americans are a little bit scared of the "s" word?
Complain about this comment
11 beebleemoore
Extremists on both sides cause many people (yourself included)to miss the point...
The protests against Bush were against an ineffective, ill-thought-out war which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and cost the US taxpayer dearly to no real effect.
The protests against Obama are against finding the best way to allow the poorest people in the US to receive effective, affordable healthcare.
Please take a moment to objectively assess this idea.
Complain about this comment
Re #6 re Bush/Hitler poster in one of BBC's main newsrooms...
Just watched it. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY4umBmJHjg.]
Some might have been outraged. I, for one, am not even surprised.
How 'bout you Mark Mardell?
Complain about this comment
While I agree the level of opposition to Obama is rather silly, rather than talking abut the issue the opposition tend to just call him socialist, hitler, whatever in trying to make people against him. But the opposition during the Bush era was just as vehement, calling him hitler, facist, warmonger, etc etc. Howeverat least they did at least debate valid points rather than just call him names then entire time.
It does seem to have become commonplace in some circles to call anyone who you disagree with a nazi or hitler. Just to inflame the point and exagerrate things, indeed there is an unwritten rule on many internet forums nowadays that mentioning hitler/nazis/stalin/WW2 is not allowed simply because it is pointless and only serves to inflame tensions.
Complain about this comment
Very good blog although Congressman Wilson is not a Senator - thankfully - I think that would make it even more of a headline. One interesting side story is the huge contributions coming in for Wilson and his Democrat opponent for the mid-terms next year. Americans seem all too ready to call another unpatriotic, although I get the sense it is Republicans that do this too readily compared with the Democrats. It happened to an appalling level during the Bush years and post-911, and is a kind of McCarthyism that pervades in America - you're either with us or against us, there's no time for nuance.
Complain about this comment
12. powermeerkat wrote:
"Re#3 "Carrying signs depicting President Obama as Adolf Hitler. This would be enough to get you arrested in Europe"
I recall seeing a sign "Jesus was Allah's slave!" held by a British subject during a demonstration in central London couple of years ago.
Police did not intervene and nor arrests were made, because,
as Scotland Yard explained later: "no laws were violated"."
There is an ongoing concern in England that the police do not intervene as often as they should in muslim marches, for misbegotten reasons of cultural sensitivity. Perhaps I should have written "This SHOULD be enough to get you arrested in Europe".
Technically the phrase about Jesus comes from the Qur'an and also the idea crops up in Galatian 4:1-7 where Paul makes the point that the son, although heir, is the slave of the father (God ... or Allah - apparantly they're the same). Although scriptural, it was obviously meant to be provocative and it worked. Shame on the police for not taking action.
Complain about this comment
The personal abuse of elected officials in govenment by other elected officials is typically British but definitely unamerican. This is not how elected officials are expected to treat the representatives of other citizens. It is not merely the insult to the individual which is reprehensible but to the office that represents the democratic will of other American citizens. They are only allowed to criticize their positions but not to deliver personal abuse to their faces as a public insult. The press can be even harsher...but only in print or on TV, not to their faces. This was Nick Robinson's transgression. It may be acceptable and the norm in the UK but not here. It was especially inexcusable coming from a foreign journalist.
Tea parties in protest of government are very American. There was a famous one in Boston once. The participants dressed up as Indians which we must now refer to as "Native Americans" to be politically correct. They dumped British tea in Boston harbor to protest the King's tax on it. It is also American to tar and feather British Redcoats and their sympathizers. I'd be careful of my wardrobe selection if I were you Mr. Mardell. Especially if you see a paving truck or roofer driving buy. You never know when they just might have some extra tar left over from a recent job.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell:
Simple it is both Unparliamentary and un-American in the comments by the Congressmen was to say in the Session with President Obama residing....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
I appreciate American political discourse. I know that I am able to speak my mind, relatively freely, and not fear retribution.
That being said...
When I'm defending a topic or ideal about which I'm passionate, my temper may flare, and harsh words may fall. But, I've learned, that the best argument is one which is free of emotion based in logic and full of factual references. Joe Wilson failed to do all of the above. That is why I have no respect for him. He's not my Senator and for that I'm glad. He, and the rest of our government and media, need to remember why they have been placed in their positions. To represent the desires and needs of their people. Not to hold disrespectful and fruitless debate.
Had he said something along the lines of "The right honourable member has involuntarily misled the house as to the facts of the case," he would have been far more effective not to mention set standard of some sort.
I am in favor of holding all people, regardless of their political or socio-economic standing, accountable, but do it in a mature and dignified manner...please.
Complain about this comment
16. RomeStu
"I do not seek to justify it, but..."
Followed by an attempted justification. Heh.
"I have yet to see the right-wing commentators produce any rational plan - only to shoot at whatever Obama and the Democrats propose. Not constructive."
Media myth. Read this.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu wrote:
11 beebleemoore
Extremists on both sides cause many people (yourself included)to miss the point...
The protests against Bush were against an ineffective, ill-thought-out war which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and cost the US taxpayer dearly to no real effect.
The protests against Obama are against finding the best way to allow the poorest people in the US to receive effective, affordable healthcare.
Please take a moment to objectively assess this idea.
No the Protest are giving the goverment controll of the healthcare system without providing any details. And distrust of the goverment to manage anything.
And I would say no attacks on U.S soil since 9/11 in Afghanastan was a positive benefit.
Complain about this comment
This article actually reinforces what I have been watching, on a continuum starting from mild bemusement and building to total incredulity,on the FOX news channel. The disconnect between Obama trying to make Healthcare available for 49 million Americans who don't currently have it and the claims of the Right that Obama is about to implement a Stalinist government, is huge.
I work with Americans, and almost always find them reasonable and generally pleasant people. I also love visiting the US. I cannot however understand how a lot of the country retains such fundamentalist views on "big" government. In the same way that the ideas of religious fundamentalists of all persuasions are rooted in a time that ignores the passage of time and the development of more tolerant mores so the political fundamentalists of the Right wing in US seem to be rooted in the early part of the 20th Century, from a McCarthyite tradition..
Now, there are plenty of clever people in the US so would it be too much to assume that actually a lot of good-hearted but easily persuaded people are being manipulated by cleverer people who are just protecting their own interests, supported by the like of FOX news? It is plainly the case and it can't be stopped. The trick for Obama will be whether he can get is healthcare reform, pretty much undiluted, despite the opposition of the "Machine" (sounding like an old hippy now...). If it gets implemented, the noise will go away , and posterity will show that it was a major force for bringing the country together, a landmark achievement. Failure would make him a lame duck at a very early stage.
Complain about this comment
Re#16 "I have yet to see the right-wing commentators produce any rational plan.."
Actually it's up to Mr. Obama to produce any rational plan since it was one of his main promises during the election campaign.
And he's the president.
Just is it up to Democrats to write a relevant health insurance reform bill and enact it, because they are firmly in charge, having solid majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress.
So far, however, as in the famous "Wendy's" commercial, we see a bun, lettuce, tomatoes, pickles, but no meat.
And as the elderly lady in the add we ask "WHERE'S THE BEEF?!"
But perhaps we shouldn't ask since no price has been posted on the board yet, so we don't know whether we could afford even pickles.
Complain about this comment
6. duhbuh: "Bush was booed by Democrats during his 2005 State of the Union address, and the left was constantly raving about his right-wing dictatorship. Effigies and placards depicting Bush being hanged were a common sight at demonstrations during his presidency."
******************
Some on the left were quite unpleasant. Slurs of Christians were made openly and often. I completely understand the offense taken. It certainly takes some getting used to and a while for it to become background noise.
Like many of Obama's problems, he sets himself up for them. He has spoken often about untruths and has encouraged people to "call out" those who speak them. He has, in effect, been calling opponents liars for a while. I think he should have been more responsive to the claim about the coverage of illegal immigrants. After all, the provision to verify citizenship was removed from the bill. It's a small point that he made larger because of his refusal to acknowledge it.
Before I am accused of wanting immigrants to be left to die in the street, I think the SAVE system should be used to verify citizenship, but we should also have a special fund for serving this population. They shouldn't be denied health insurance.
Complain about this comment
19. RomeStu: "The protests against Obama are against finding the best way to allow the poorest people in the US to receive effective, affordable healthcare."
**********************
No, they are protesting the public option, expansion of government, etc. There is a difference.
This is a specious claim. Like saying those opposed to the war wanted to see the US fail.
Complain about this comment
29. northstandwarrior: "I cannot however understand how a lot of the country retains such fundamentalist views on "big" government."
*****************
You do not understand it, still. The idea that Americans are being "manipulated" by those more clever and devious than themselves is another misconception.
Keep digging.
Complain about this comment
While I deplore Wilson's blurting out of anything during the president's speech (which in itself was pretty shabby tossing around accusations of lying at his opponents) this furore has overshadowed the fact the Obama was caught telling one of those little "lawyer's lies" his calling seems to have instilled in him.
While the current bill up for discussion may well make no special provision to cover illegals, the very fact that it is not permissable for hospital staff to ascertain the legality of someone who shows up means that they will indeed be covered.
Government has no more business providing healthcare to any except the military than it does providing food and housing.
Complain about this comment
No, Americans are not scared of "s" word (we are not easily scared of anything as our history shows). [We'll see in 2 weeks time whether Germans are just as scared of and "S" word as the French turned out to be during the last presidential election.]
It is also not true that Bush jr was maligned only because of the Iraq war. He was insulted just as much as, if not more, when he proposed to
save insolvent Social Security System, by letting the participats to choose a private option and allowing them a CHOICE, while not forcing anybody to abandon the current scheme if they wanted to stick to the traditional plan. A massive scare campaign had been launched implying that if even a partial privatization were allowed, "millions of people would loose basic social protection" and become paupers.
As a result last Congress did nothing re SS. And the problem only grew.
And finally... What you see now (growing mass protests) is not about plans to improve health care system per se.
It is about prospects of yet another extremely costly GOVERNMENT PROGRAM being created just after a bail-out of banks and major corporations (such as GM) with money of taxpayers who had absolutely no say in the matter.
And that at a time of a major recession and skyrocketing federal deficit and national debt.
For many, Regardless of their party afilliation (if any), this was simply a proverbial last drop whch overfilled the cup.
We'll see whether our president will make any clarifications regarding his plans, which are not clear at all even to quite a few Democrats in Congress and its Finance Committee judging by their statements.
Just as we wait&wait for the White House to finally explain what its policies vis a vis North Korean and Iranian nuclear proliferation and a terrorist threat emanating from both Afghanistan AND Pakistan are going to be.
Complain about this comment
It is interesting that you have chosen to talk about the level of the debate. I have found in almost 15 years in the US that there is seldom a debate. What you have is interested parties establishing the screaming points and then everyone, well, screams. Read Idiot America for an analysis of the level of debate in the US. in short, he who shouts loudest must be right. Nuance and subtlety are bad words and unless you can synthesise your ideas into a soundbyte, you cannot be heard.
Which is why the Wilson outburst is news and not the substance of the speech. One is a visceral reaction, the other is a complex policy structure demanding time and patience to understand it.
Given the choice, "You Lie" is a better headline.
Welcome to America
Complain about this comment
Expecting people to be civil when attending a Presidential speech is not asking for veneration and royal treatment, it's simply recognizing that heckling a President is sheer, childish rudeness. It's one further step in decline from deliberative democracy, proof that at the highest levels of government the idea of civil discourse is no longer valued, at least among one of the two major American parties.
In this particular case, the 'you lie' heckler was also wrong on the facts. It wasn't only mindlessly venomous, it represented an astonishing set of inverted priorities when forty-six million uninsured people, exploding health care costs, and an insurance industry that does everything it possible can to avoid paying out on its policies get placed behind some irrational fear of illegal aliens.
All it did was to distract from the one big cave to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries that Obama's speech amounted to, which was basically saying that the health industry owns enough Democrats to make sure that meaningful health reform can not pass.
Complain about this comment
#27 Duhbuh
The Republicans under Bush had 8 years to do something about healthcare and did, err, nothing.
Now we're all supposed to believe that the Republicans really want to address healthcare, err, riiiiight.
Complain about this comment
Thank you for a culturally perceptive post. Americans do pride themselves on being ruled by law rather than custom. Therefore, it is the job of elected lawmakers to call each other out as to lies and to prove their case before the people. After the whole Aaron Burr affair, we largely dropped the rules of chivalry and the duel. Coming to blows in the legislative chamber is un-American, because it violates our Constitution. Calling a person a liar and proving it is very American. Any moral implications should be left to one's clergyman.
Britain is at least mythically a kingdom run by lords under a God-appointed sovereign, who also sits as titular head of the church of the nation. Charges of immorality recently shook the prince, who ultimately remarried a non-Protestant. While the tradition of Britain's outlook may be changing, its legal life still is rooted in a very different society than that of the United States.
So you are quite right that our legislators need to look to their past and understand that the occasional protests against charges of lying are hardly un-American. In fact, President Obama called those who have criticized the details of his plan liars. Perhaps, he needs to offer more proof of his intentions, and his party needs to set forth a single, coherent plan with numbers that jibe with the General Accounting Office (GAO). There is an American saying that money talks and B***S*** walks. Lawmakers need to show us where the money is going to be spent and leave courtesies to our God-protected brethren across the pond.
Complain about this comment
Imagine if Joe Wilson was armed.
Maybe people who're citing him as their heroes would still do if he'd shot the president.
We could all see that this is not just about healthcare reform.
Complain about this comment
comment number 7 (now complained about contains a slander against a well respected author (who happened to like Obama).
there is not evidence provided and by calling the person a plagiarist without the evidence being provided the poster is engaging in slander..
this is a totally on topic comment because it is with in the rules of slander that MP in the UK have to work.
To slander the other side without back up is not cricket.
within UK law it is accepted that once uttered it is hard to put a lie back in the mouth of the utterer there for the utterer should be punished for that false witness.
Complain about this comment
Since I am spending these many months outside the US, it is interesting to read about events here. As a North Carolinian, I tend to view South Carolinians (especially the politicians) as hotheads, so am not surprised that this was a Congressman from our southern neighbor. I do not approve of the behavior, and especially of calling the POTUS a 'liar.' Regardless of party politics, this is quite unbecoming behavior and reflects a recent trend (last 30 yrs) in pedagogery. This may set off some of my fellow readers here, but I would bet that Mr. Wilson's pedigree as a member of the Republican party do not go very far back. One should also remember that when Strom Thurmond wrestled a fellow legislator to the floor, he was a Democrat.
On other subjects, I think people are not upset about the idea that everyone should have access to healthcare. They are simply upset about the PROPOSED way in which it would be accomplished. Having Calvanist (and other Protestant) roots, the American psyche likes best the idea of people benefitting as long as they contribute (remember the story about the early colonists in Virginia - 'if you don't work, you don't eat.')
And, for the record (not sure how Hitler gets dragged into every discussion), but the Austrian Corporal of whom so many speak was a Socialist. What do you think 'NAZI' stands for!?! He was merely offering German industrialists a more palatable system than the Communists of the day. See what happens when you settle for half-measures? ;-)
Complain about this comment
I recently moved back to the US from London. I have found that the political debate is much calmer here than before I left, which is especially striking since President Obama is trying to make some fundamental changes in the role of government.
The tenor of debate will change dramatically if the democrats try to use their majority to push programs that are widely opposed through without engaging the republicans in the process.
Wilson did his party a disservice by acting rudely. He moved the debate away from the widely unpopular Health Care bill. It will enable the Democrats to push through some sort of change.
Complain about this comment
32. At 1:14pm on 14 Sep 2009, AndreainNY wrote:
19. RomeStu: "The protests against Obama are against finding the best way to allow the poorest people in the US to receive effective, affordable healthcare."
**********************
No, they are protesting the public option, expansion of government, etc. There is a difference.
This is a specious claim. Like saying those opposed to the war wanted to see the US fail.
--------------------
which is exactly what you have said for years.
Complain about this comment
I think that he could have timed his statement better, such as not in the middle of the president's speech ( no matter how accurate it may have been ).
However, that aside, I find the hypocrisy amazing. In 2005, President Bush was booed and interrupted multiple times by many of the same people who were in that room, and yet it was seen as freedom of speach in practice.
Also, I seem to remember Bush being protrayed as Hitler, but when Obama is it's considered unheard of and disgusting. I would "Hope" that double standards wouldnt get in the way of logic.
Complain about this comment
Well, Joe Wilson's comments are disrespectful and outrageous, but it's not too unusual in American politics. Remember when Bush was the worst president ever, enemy of liberty and democracy, a right-wing fascist/nazi, essentially evil incarnate? And remember how Pelosi and other Democrat leaders, in this very healthcare debate, were likening opponents of reform to neanderthals, fascists, and the like?
So now, Obama (like Clinton before him) is the most left-wing liberal president ever, a socialist/communist, un-American, liberty-destroying big government incarnate.
While all this demonizing is beyond the pale, it's certainly all-American. Look at our founding fathers and this political debate seems tame.
Complain about this comment
Mark: welcome to the wide, weird and wonderful world of American fringe politics, where practically anything goes...and where being wrong at the top of one's voice is tantamount to being right if one repeats the lie long enough and loud enough.
The point about Representative Wilson (and, as you remarked, he comes from a tradition of South Carolina politicians behaving badly -- there was also John C. Calhoun, of late, unlamented infamy, who may have given us the politics of NO, just out of pure spite) is that until he demonstrated his lapse in public, in prime time and TO THE PRESIDENT'S FACE on the floor of Congress, all of this WAS just a la fringe and attempts to "fire up the base." Now, by forgetting he wasn't at a district town hall meeting with his own constituents, Wilson has not only made a grievous etiquette blunder for which he ought to be censured, but he's drawn very sharp attention (we've all seen the pictures) to the fact that his cheering section on the GOP side of the House is completely made up of Old White Men. That's not a growing demographic in this country, and it's not a demographic that is going to hang onto power very much longer if it continues to behave in the nasty way it is behaving currently.
Complain about this comment
35. powermeerkat, Thank you! Well said.
As someone who has been out of work for 9 months and without insurance for 6, I would love to have "affordable" insurance/healthcare. Those of us protesting against "Obama healthcare" are not protesting against affordable insurance for all, but rather any plan run and controlled by the GOVERNMENT! Yes, the system needs to be reformed, but the Government (regardless of Republican or Democrat controlled)is not qualified or capable of effectively running such a beast. Not to mention the fact, Constitutionally, the Government (Obama) does NOT have the Right to implement such a plan.
However, as george Bernard Shaw has pointed out: A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
Complain about this comment
Mark I think that you are missing the elephant in the room. That the three instances of notable incivility and violence acted out in the US Congress were done so by SC congressmen is noteworthy not for their statehood, rather it is noteworthy that these acts were all done in response to moves that loosed white politicians' grip on power via racism. Slavery, civil rights, and now a black president. These men are racists that have made it a career and unfortunately for South Carolinians (I am one of them) our cross - educationally, socially, and economically. We are poor because of our racism here, and Wilson and the ‘tea baggers’ and ‘town hallers’ are reflections of that poverty.
Complain about this comment
This kind of behaviour reflects poorly upon representatives of the people. In developing countries, we've often seen this sort of mud-slinging but somehow, the United States and Britain have always been looked upon as the perfect example to aspire towards. Wilson isn't helping build this reputation!
What would be interesting, is the effect that this incident has upon voters in Wilson's constituency. I'm more familiar with the British parliamentary system so I'm not sure whether America has a similar system. But will Wilson be successful in polarising this debate in the minds of people further or will they see through his attempt to grab eyeballs?
Complain about this comment
As always, I thoroughly enjoy opinions of American politics as observed by someone other than American democrats or republicans. Thanks Mark.
Was Rep. Wilson's outburst in bad taste? Of course! Was "you lie!" true? I, a native of South Carolina and believer of republican ideals, think so. Despite what I think, the whole focus of Wilson's remark will fall solely on its appropriateness rather than the truthfulness, unfortunately.
The American society embraces the shifting of focus all too often. It IS the backbone of our political system. And, to my great displeasure, is exhibited by republican politicians and supporters alike, as well as their counterparts. Thus, nothing big like healthcare overhaul, ever occurs.
The main problem that Rep. Wilson was trying to point out was: our system currently has no means of distinguishing between illegal immigrants and American citizens without the use of discrimination. Given such, when anyone needs the services provided by an emergency room, it is forcefully given due to laws. By default, illegals obtain "emergency healthcare" as paid for by the American citizen. Current healthcare reform does not provide solutions for this loophole. Democrats, I'm afraid, avoid this topic because of the American-Latino support to their party. It is true that healthcare reform includes terminology excluding illegals from healthcare, however, the process to determine legal status does not exist. Therefore, Rep Wilson cries, "You lie!".
Complain about this comment
Charles Schultz's acerbic character, Lucy Van Pelt, in his "Peanuts" comic strip once said, "If you can't be right, be loud."
It seems too many people in the U.S. have adopted the Van Pelt method of debate and very little true debate can take place amidst the shouting. We've become a nation of children casting stones at one another.
Complain about this comment
35. At 1:55pm on 14 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
No, Americans are not scared of "s" word (we are not easily scared of anything as our history shows). [We'll see in 2 weeks time whether Germans are just as scared of and "S" word as the French turned out to be during the last presidential election.]"
Really you had better start rewriting history - blacks, catholics, witches, commies, anarchists, union organisers etc all of these have terrified the Republic of Fear.
"It is also not true that Bush jr was maligned only because of the Iraq war. He was insulted just as much as, if not more, when he proposed to
save insolvent Social Security System, by letting the participats to choose a private option and allowing them a CHOICE, while not forcing anybody to abandon the current scheme if they wanted to stick to the traditional plan."
So the choice was either irrelevant or came with big strings.
" A massive scare campaign had been launched implying that if even a partial privatization were allowed, "millions of people would loose basic social protection" and become paupers."
Well it wasn't proposed simply to use up government paper and pens was it.
"It is about prospects of yet another extremely costly GOVERNMENT PROGRAM being created just after a bail-out of banks and major corporations (such as GM) with money of taxpayers who had absolutely no say in the matter."
But it seems to have worked. Hasn't it?
Don't taxpayers vote in the US.
"Just as we wait&wait for the White House to finally explain what its policies vis a vis North Korean and Iranian nuclear proliferation and a terrorist threat emanating from both Afghanistan AND Pakistan are going to be."
Hmm are you sure you wouldn't like him also to detail how is going to enable people to live forever and fly.
Obama's first and wisest policy has been to look at what Bush and his gang got up to and do the35. At 1:55pm on 14 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
No, Americans are not scared of "s" word (we are not easily scared of anything as our history shows). [We'll see in 2 weeks time whether Germans are just as scared of and "S" word as the French turned out to be during the last presidential election.]
It is also not true that Bush jr was maligned only because of the Iraq war. He was insulted just as much as, if not more, when he proposed to
save insolvent Social Security System, by letting the participats to choose a private option and allowing them a CHOICE, while not forcing anybody to abandon the current scheme if they wanted to stick to the traditional plan. A massive scare campaign had been launched implying that if even a partial privatization were allowed, "millions of people would loose basic social protection" and become paupers.
As a result last Congress did nothing re SS. And the problem only grew.
And finally... What you see now (growing mass protests) is not about plans to improve health care system per se.
It is about prospects of yet another extremely costly GOVERNMENT PROGRAM being created just after a bail-out of banks and major corporations (such as GM) with money of taxpayers who had absolutely no say in the matter.
And that at a time of a major recession and skyrocketing federal deficit and national debt.
For many, Regardless of their party afilliation (if any), this was simply a proverbial last drop whch overfilled the cup.
We'll see whether our president will make any clarifications regarding his plans, which are not clear at all even to quite a few Democrats in Congress and its Finance Committee judging by their statements.
Just as we wait&wait for the White House to finally explain what its policies vis a vis North Korean and Iranian nuclear proliferation and a terrorist threat emanating from both Afghanistan AND Pakistan are going to be."
Are you sure you would also not like him to tell you how to live forever and fly.
35. At 1:55pm on 14 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
No, Americans are not scared of "s" word (we are not easily scared of anything as our history shows). [We'll see in 2 weeks time whether Germans are just as scared of and "S" word as the French turned out to be during the last presidential election.]
It is also not true that Bush jr was maligned only because of the Iraq war. He was insulted just as much as, if not more, when he proposed to
save insolvent Social Security System, by letting the participats to choose a private option and allowing them a CHOICE, while not forcing anybody to abandon the current scheme if they wanted to stick to the traditional plan. A massive scare campaign had been launched implying that if even a partial privatization were allowed, "millions of people would loose basic social protection" and become paupers.
As a result last Congress did nothing re SS. And the problem only grew.
And finally... What you see now (growing mass protests) is not about plans to improve health care system per se.
It is about prospects of yet another extremely costly GOVERNMENT PROGRAM being created just after a bail-out of banks and major corporations (such as GM) with money of taxpayers who had absolutely no say in the matter.
And that at a time of a major recession and skyrocketing federal deficit and national debt.
For many, Regardless of their party afilliation (if any), this was simply a proverbial last drop whch overfilled the cup.
We'll see whether our president will make any clarifications regarding his plans, which are not clear at all even to quite a few Democrats in Congress and its Finance Committee judging by their statements.
Just as we wait&wait for the White House to finally explain what its policies vis a vis North Korean and Iranian nuclear proliferation and a terrorist threat emanating from both Afghanistan AND Pakistan are going to be."
Are you sure he shouldn't tell you how to live forever and fly?
Obama needs only one policy - do the opposite of what the bottle loving Bush and his gang did.
Complain about this comment
37. peterdough: "In this particular case, the 'you lie' heckler was also wrong on the facts"
******************
How so?
Complain about this comment
I think an important distinction between comparing Bush to Hitler and Obama to Hitler is that Bush's illegal war of aggression against Iraq and Hitler's illegal war of aggression against Poland were both in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928 which is United States Supreme Law under US Constitution article VI. The Kellogg-Briand Pact was one of the chief precedents used in the Nuremberg War Crimes trial against Nazis at the end of WWII to define "Crimes Against Peace".
When an argument in America is so entirely one-sided as the debate over public health care or the debate over slavery or the debate over the creation of public "socialized" schools or even the debate over whether the federal government has the right to levy tax to establish a national "socialized" US army for public security, those opposed must ultimately resort to shouting, lies, and violence as they have no chance at all of winning through reasoned argument.
It is the moral Christian duty to provide for the health and security of the poor as it is the moral Christian duty to abolish slavery and the north will win again. South Carolina can wave the terrorist traitor rebel flag and shout all it wants but the truth goes marching on.
Complain about this comment
AndreainNY # 33,
northstandwarrior wrote about "a lot"- "I cannot however understand how a lot of the country retains such fundamentalist views on "big" government." "
In a further paragraph than the one you listed, he questions "would it be too much to assume that actually a lot of good-hearted but easily persuaded people are being manipulated by cleverer people who are just protecting their own interests, supported by the like of FOX news? It is plainly the case and it can't be stopped."
Again "a lot", not all , and despite his reference to Fox news his assumption could hold true for representatives from parties of both sides. Dem + Rep and all media outlets.
Are you claiming that "The idea that Americans are being "manipulated" by those more clever and devious than themselves is another misconception".- refers to all Americans?
This 100% certainty is extremely doubtful which leads me to assume that either -
1 You are not one of the goodhearted ones?
2 You are one of the cleverer manipulators protecting their own interests ?
3 Not easily persuaded ?
4 An Independent who looks for fault in all?
5 You work for the media.
6 All or most of the above.
Isn't it fun to nit-pick postings here?
If your suggestion to northstandwarrior is to keep digging then he has his hands full until he reaches us both at the bottom of the holes we dig for ourselves.
Complain about this comment
Rep. Wilson's decision to call the President a liar was inapropriate during a joint session speach.
He should have just caned that liar after the speech.
Complain about this comment
All politicians lie. I am not trying to be cynic or fatalistic. It’s part of the job. It doesn’t even bother me. There are really only two things that make me angry about lying politicians: first, when politicians don’t even care to be subtle about it and just blatantly lie because they think voters are stupid. Second, political stunts during which holier-than-thou politicians accuse others of lying.
Complain about this comment
As several others have said, the fuss about signs depicting President Obama as Adolf Hitler seems rich coming after eight years of a total lack of fuss over signs depicting President Bush as Adolf Hitler. I can't recall anyone at the BBC worrying aloud about the latter. Can anyone else? The Bush-as-Hitler signs were by no means confined to anti-Iraq war demos either. Such low tactics are wrong is all cases (if regretably common) & the BBC should not stay quiet about one case while protesting loudly about another. This is double-standards.
Here are two more examples.
We've had Gavin Esler on 'Dateline: London' saying, "Those pictures of Obama with a little moustache on, I mean most Republicans I know, even though they would oppose him on healthcare, think that's despicable, to treat the president like that, and really counter-productive because it's just silly."
I'd like to know if Gavin said that to his colleagues in the BBC's Washington bureau who obviously didn't think it was either "silly" or "despicable" to display that now-famous Bush-as-Hitler poster in their office.
Then there was Carolyn Quinn asking a Republican congressman, "You say that but over the past month we've seen the debate descend to pretty low levels, for example seeing posters of President Obama portrayed as Hitler and the accusations that Obama is a fascist. What did you think of those sort of campaigns? Did you condone them?"
Did she attack opponents of George W. for doing exactly the same thing? She had eight years of opportunity to do so. Did SHE ever criticise her BBC colleagues for THEIR 'low level' behaviour?
Consistency and impartiality are all that's needed here.
Complain about this comment
The main problem seems to be party politics. Obama made himself vulnerable by committing himself to solve this issue, so it's logical the Republican Party fiercely opposes it. On a Republican win, nothing changes (so it's safe) and it will be harder for Obama to get re-elected. I do not doubt that if this would be any other issue, the Republicans would be fiercely opposing it as well.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
Congressman Joe Wilson
What he did, is Unparliamentary and he needs to be required to apologized to the Congress and Senate...
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
10 gherkin the CIA DID LIE.
really they did. and they are not the president.
then the jim webb comment you make.
another half truth or a total lie . I told another poster I thought words should retain some meaning and you are the perfect example of why. you use them as if you have the right to determine what they mean.
Jim webbs "rudeness to GW bush " was
I quote
"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.
"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"
"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.
See the bit that seemed rude was the slightly bias written piece that you probably read where the "that's not what I asked" was left out.
No one is forced to swear an alliegence to the president unless they are serving military and then it is to the nation then the CiC.
Barbera boxer told a general to say "senator" not maam.
i do understand that the army use maam but I am sure that they should use senator
Again it seems that you are very conservative with the truth.
is that all the conservatives are.
Complain about this comment
your posts are very long - please keep them brief
Complain about this comment
RomeStu No.19 :
Extremists on both sides cause many people (yourself included)to miss the point...The protests against Bush were against an ineffective, ill-thought-out war which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and cost the US taxpayer dearly to no real effect.The protests against Obama are against finding the best way to allow the poorest people in the US to receive effective, affordable healthcare.Please take a moment to objectively assess this idea.
Thanks. You make my point most eloquently - for you it's not that Joe Wilson was wrong to heckle per se, but simply that he was heckling on the wrong side of the issue. Mr Mardell was commenting on the unparliamentary or unAmerican style of Joe Wilson's heckle, and whether or not it fits within the American political tradition. Mr Mardell's comments have nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with the particular policy that is being argued about. You distinguish the propriety of attacks on President Bush from the propriety of attacks on President Obama solely by reference to whether you approve or disapprove of the content of their policies, not by reference to whether you approve of the style of the attacks on each of them. But rest assured you are not alone. For you will find no blogs on here discussing the propriety of discourteous attacks on President Bush while he was in office.
Complain about this comment
I find it interesting that proponents of this type of poor behavior, fear mongering, and misinformation, can only defend themselves with a tired, "this is how the left treated Bush line." If we forget for the moment that this is untrue, as I don't recall major news channels (such as Fox) crying fascism and tyranny during the Bush years, we are left with an admittance that these tactics are unsavory, dangerous, and rooted in lies. The justification seems to be that it's alright because it's been done before, though in this moderate's view, new unexplored levels of decrepitude are being invented as we speak.
Obama won the election because he won the moderates, those of us with a history of voting on both sides of the isle. And though these antics make a good show for the unthinking public, in the long run, they are damaging to the Republican party if they have any hope at reclaiming the middle.
Complain about this comment
Stu from rome has said it very well. there is a difference between demonising someone who "mislead" congress to get a vote for a war that it is evident he chose.
That for the sake of political expediency and "small involvement" sent in too few troops in to secure the place (didn't want to look bad in an election) leading to many of the problems.
He then had his private army respond during Katrina.
(which he ignored)
all that and he refused to co-operate with the 9/11 committee or the Hamilton baker report that was ignored.
There were a hell of a lot of genuine reasons to complain. And none of those are the ones like.
tax rebates for big cars.
bankruptcy protecting removed houses foreclosed
health industry told "have at it "make money""
There were a lot of genuine reasons.
But I suspect Genuine gets lost in translation to the states.
Complain about this comment
1st generation. I assume you refuse to take gov run "unemployment insurance."
Complain about this comment
America has never been more divided! We are taking sides, calling names, hating, accusing, demanding our own way and blaming everyone else for our various plights.
Rep. Wilson shouted spontaneously. Later he apologized. Is the president an elected official or an emporer? Suddenly the world must stop until this horrible man is flogged and run out of town, after a talk-show apology tour.
Although truth may still be found if one digs deeply for it, most of the news programs focus on what they dislike and magnify the potential horrible ramifications.
Americans need to become unified again. We are Americans, not hyphenated Americans! I was shocked by the reactions to the Town Hall meeings in Auguest. They were presented as radical anti-American radicals ranting and raving. When in truth, they were mostly average Americans confused and concerned about the future in our country.
Well, I ramble on but will conclude with this reminder that if we do not find common ground on which to build new ideas in the USA, we will find ourselves on a sinking, crumbling foundation.
Complain about this comment
44. fluffytale:
"This is a specious claim. Like saying those opposed to the war wanted to see the US fail.
--------------------
which is exactly what you have said for years."
**********************
Whatever are you talking about? I never said this. Or is it that I "implied" it? Like I "implied" I have a dead mother?
Complain about this comment
Re#42 Yankatlarge wrote: when Strom Thurmond wrestled a fellow legislator to the floor, he was a Democrat.
Absolutely correct. He mellowed after becoming a Republican. :-)
BTW. America was involved in all major conflicts of the XXth century by Democrats: Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Clinton.
What does it prove? Not much, except that demagogy could be used by Republicans as well if they chose to use Democrats' pet tactic.
P.S. That Hitler was a national Socialist and that quite a few of his policies were Socialist in nature is not questioned by any expert on III Reich and its regime. And anybody who speaks even basic German knows what NSDAP acronym stands for.
P.P.S. I for one, am willing to listen carefuly and with open mind to what our president will say today about his plans.
Complain about this comment
With the increasing incivility demonstrated by Congress to the President (and others) now during two administrations, I believe the entire Congress should be recalled (both good and bad members) and new members elected. We could use some turnover.
Complain about this comment
"Constitutionally, the Government (Obama) does NOT have the Right to implement such a plan. "
Go read your constitution again.
as was pointed out a while back by a rare but amazingly thoughtful poster.
The constitution Guarantees health care.
if the person that wrote that post repeated it I'd know who but that post and the very relevant comment got lost in all the lies.
which is funny because one iof the biggest "fibbers" then complained that their "sensible arguments were being lost to the left wing rabble.
Oh how I say you say but then there normally was one that threw the first.
Complain about this comment
------
But I am too new to this place to know if the debate is getting harsher, more strident, even uglier, or whether this is just the vigorous terms of debate that are normal. ****I'd like to know what you think****. But it is why many see Congress as the last refuge of grown-up debate, and want to keep it that way.
------
Why not look here for clues, do some ***proper research*** Mark and really get into the head of a die hard libertarian! (*):
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
http://www.infowars.com/
(* Instead of being lazy and only showing an interest in "Centre-Left" politics, i.e. the politics that you are comfortable with. You'll never learn anything new unless you are prepared to step outside your comfort level!)
I'd start by reading Ron Paul's excellent "Revolution":
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252942871&sr=8-1
That ought to be a decent primer on the libertarian movement in the US, and the reason why these tea parties are happening. And hence why they are nervous of a growing authoritarian tyranny trampling over people's freedoms.
Complain about this comment
Joe Wilson's un-American outburst is clearly outrageous and disrespectful that represents the kind of resentful trend of protest with guns displayed to put fear and haunt.
Complain about this comment
57. kkbarrett: "Rep. Wilson's decision to call the President a liar was inapropriate during a joint session speach.
He should have just caned that liar after the speech."
************
Funny!
Complain about this comment
56. shortputt: Or maybe he should just keep trying to understand and not stop at simplistic interpretations. Not quite so complex or clever, after all.
Complain about this comment
28. At 12:38pm on 14 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
"No the Protest are giving the goverment controll of the healthcare system without providing any details. And distrust of the goverment to manage anything."
SO the protestors are not protesting on anything significant, but merely on matters of detail and communication and an ideological dogma about government.
Perhaps if they came up with alternatives, then theri position would bea little more plausible.
"And I would say no attacks on U.S soil since 9/11 in Afghanastan was a positive benefit."
No attacks on US soil since Robert Mugabe silenced his opposition as well. Maybe this is also a positive
If we are going to try and link non-connected events.
Complain about this comment
59. At 3:41pm on 14 Sep 2009, CraigMorecambe wrote:
Consistency and impartiality are all that's needed here."
Rubbish. Bush invaded countries killed and wounded hundreds of thousands. That is slightly different to saying that someone, whose healthcare plans you do not like is Hitler.
Only an idiot would see any paralell.
Clement Attlee introduced the NHS, only a moron would call him another Stalin.
Complain about this comment
Mark, welcome to America! As an American I think I can safely say that perhaps part of the larger issue is as Americans we can often be bunch of spoiled bratts. Honestly, when we don't get our way we resort quickly to name calling and punching people. I don't know why we do that, but we seem to have a long history of reacting that way.
Complain about this comment
There have always been groups like the "tea party" or the "birther" folks here. The John Birch Society was very similar back in the 60s. What is different is the sympathetic coverage they receive on what passes for "news" and the association of senior politicians with them.
Complain about this comment
10 gherkin the CIA DID LIE.
(Pelosi said they lied about her briefings, other in the room have backed the CIA)
really they did. and they are not the president.
then the jim webb comment you make.
another half truth or a total lie . I told another poster I thought words should retain some meaning and you are the perfect example of why. you use them as if you have the right to determine what they mean.
Jim webbs "rudeness to GW bush " was
I quote
"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.
"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"
"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.
See the bit that seemed rude was the slightly bias written piece that you probably read where the "that's not what I asked" was left out.
No one is forced to swear an alliegence to the president unless they are serving military and then it is to the nation then the CiC.
Barbera boxer told a general to say "senator" not maam.
i do understand that the army use maam but I am sure that they should use senator
(If you saw the tape Boxer said how she earned her psoition yada yada she was rude to him. And I would Barbara Boxer hasn't earned anything she is a hack)
Again it seems that you are very conservative with the truth.
is that all the conservatives are.
9Again I refuse to be classfied conservative and liberal. that is for those who less nuanced about such things)
The point which you missed is the outrage is one sided. Republicans will criticize their fellows Joe Wilson etc.
Democrats excuse tax cheats like Charlie Rangel
Complain about this comment
65. At 4:28pm on 14 Sep 2009, djmuth wrote:
I find it interesting that proponents of this type of poor behavior, fear mongering, and misinformation, can only defend themselves with a tired, "this is how the left treated Bush line." If we forget for the moment that this is untrue, as I don't recall major news channels (such as Fox) crying fascism and tyranny during the Bush years, we are left with an admittance that these tactics are unsavory, dangerous, and rooted in lies. The justification seems to be that it's alright because it's been done before, though in this moderate's view, new unexplored levels of decrepitude are being invented as we speak.
Obama won the election because he won the moderates, those of us with a history of voting on both sides of the isle. And though these antics make a good show for the unthinking public, in the long run, they are damaging to the Republican party if they have any hope at reclaiming the middle."
And of course Obama, being a master politician is aware of this and doesn't mind in the slightest if his opponents paint themselves as brain dead extremists.
His only real problem occurs if the opposition come up with a better plan, and there seems little hope of this, or an effective leader, and there seems no hope of this either.
Relying on radio shockjocks, blustering congressmen and assorted weirdos to carry the right-wing flag is ultimately going to see Obama gliding into his second term no problem.
Complain about this comment
Mark wrote: "But I am too new to this place to know if the debate is getting harsher, more strident, even uglier, or whether this is just the vigorous terms of debate that are normal."
I don't know that whether the vehemence has increased or diminished matters. from my point view, and that of some Americans I correspond with, the point is that it is "harsh", "strident" and "ugly" -- isn't that alone bad enough?--and that is depressing whatever the degree of harshness, stridency and ugliness.
Not only that, I am equally depressed, as I am sure many others must be by the implicit rracism against, and demonisation of people of Hispanic origin.
And so often that comes from people, having carefully avoided stating it in terms by trying to concatenate various racial 'characteristics' with 'illegality' then claim when challenged that they are referring not to the established population of those who originated from south America, but only to those who have entered the country illegally.
I have never read of any concerns as to what proportion of Chinese, or Canadians, in the USA may be in the country illegally and wishing to take advantage of 'free' emergency health care, for example. If the provision, or restriction of it, is an issue, then why mention Hispanics (or more often, Mexicans) in the same breath?
This has cropped up time and again in the threads on health care. And, before I am misunderstood, I have seen this on many supposedly health-associated websites, and not only from predominantly white but black pressure groups too. If I were a 'Hispanic' citizen of the US I think I would be becoming somewhat fearful.
I have gone through the US Census' 2008 figures. 1 in 8 people who describe themselves as 'white' are uninsured; 1 in 6 of those who describe themselves as 'Asian'; 1 in 5 of those who describe themselves as Black, and 1 in 4 of those who describe themselves as 'Hispanic'.
There is something obviously not equitable (or equal) about health care as it is currently provided in the USA here. And surely, whatever that inequity is should be addressed without spurious arguments about 'big government', 'States' rights' or immigration issues getting in the way.
Complain about this comment
Re Doris Kearns Goodwin's plagiarism pointed out in post #7 and subsequently challenged as slanderous...
I cannot possibly include all sources and extensive quotes pertaining to the scandal it caused due to their large volume and copyright laws. So, below I offer only several excerpts from Wikipedia.
Interested readers (including Mark Mardell) will easily find many other sources by simply googling 'Doris Kearns Goodwin's plagiarism'.
The January 28, 2002 issue of The Weekly Standard made a case for Doris Kearns Goodwin as a plagiarist, arguing that her book, The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys, used without attribution numerous phrases and sentences from three other books: Time to Remember, by Rose Kennedy; The Lost Prince, by Hank Searl; and Kathleen Kennedy: Her Life and Times, by Lynne McTaggart.[...]
Once this was made public — and questionable phrases from Goodwin’s book were placed in numerous newspaper and magazine articles side by side with the originals — Goodwin admitted that she had previously reached a large "private settlement" with McTaggart over the issue.[...]
An August 2002 Los Angeles Times story by Peter King reported that there were many passages in Goodwin’s book on the Roosevelts (No Ordinary Time) that were apparently lifted directly from Joseph Lash’s Eleanor and Franklin and Hugh Gregory Gallagher’s FDR’s Splendid Deception, as well as other books.[15] The allegations of plagiarism have damaged her reputation;[16], causing her to recall the book and to take leave of various positions.[17] [...]
She has attempted to rehabilitate her image by promising to print a correctly attributed version of The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys.
Complain about this comment
63. At 4:22pm on 14 Sep 2009, PARRISIA_GREECE wrote:
"your posts are very long - please keep them brief"
This is a blog, not Twitter. If something thoughtful and worthy of reading cannot be written in 140 characters, why should it not be written at all?
Brevity might be the soul of wit, but it is also often the product or the cause of ignorance or the excuse for posting of those who have nothing to say.
Complain about this comment
I have long been interested in hearing a few words about how Brits view the raucous behavior in the House of Commons--which you provided. Thanks.
In most of America, interrupting a speech by a VIP (which is expected to be a monologue and not a "discussion") with one's own views is considered "heckling" and rude, and if the proceedings have people qualified to physically remove such a person, they would remove the heckler if he tried to continue the interruption for more than a few minutes. (How the speech-giver responds to the heckling affects this.)
Blurting "You lie" is a step worse than this. It is considered a "personal attack," more than a rude interruption. In nearly any context, you may expect an apology to follow the next day. When the heckler does not apologize, it is, in essence, a statement by the heckler that he considered and continues to consider the speaker his "enemy" (usually, "political enemy").
Greg J. -Michigan, USA
Complain about this comment
Fluff
You know what they say about assuming...and since you know nothing else personal about me, with all due respect, myob.
I have worked and paid taxes (no, seriously, actually paid taxes) for 29 years. I won't/don't take anything back that I have not paid into.
Might I point out, the disrespect shown by Mrs. Boxer (she's not my Senator) to General Walsh was greater than his calling her "Ma'am". Many of us were raised to say "Sir" and "Ma'am" as a term of initial respect. I say "initial" as respect is earned, not given. Being a politician does not mean you have my respect.
Complain about this comment
65. djmuth: "I don't recall major news channels (such as Fox) crying fascism and tyranny during the Bush years"
Clearly you never watched Olbermann. (Yes I know you said "major news channels" and Olby only appears on the ratings-challenged leftie outfit MSNBC, but I couldn't resist)
Complain about this comment
68. Masters. Well said. Sadly, I believe it will take a major tragedy to shock us all back on to our senses.
Complain about this comment
72 Fluff
Show me where and I will retract my statement.
Complain about this comment
70. At 4:39pm on 14 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Re#42 Yankatlarge wrote: when Strom Thurmond wrestled a fellow legislator to the floor, he was a Democrat.
Absolutely correct. He mellowed after becoming a Republican. :-)"
Not according to his black constituents.
BTW. America was involved in all major conflicts of the XXth century by Democrats: Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Clinton."
SO the Korean war and the Vietnam wars don't count? Wow
"What does it prove? Not much, except."
That you do not have much of a grasp of history.
"P.S. That Hitler was a national Socialist and that quite a few of his policies were Socialist in nature is not questioned by any expert on III Reich and its regime."
Really like who? Certainly not the trade unionists, socailists etc who were murdered by his regime.
"And anybody who speaks even basic German knows what NSDAP acronym stands for."
And we all know that PDRC means People's Democractic Republic of CHina. But we also know that nice names may not mean much.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
81. At 5:39pm on 14 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
10 gherkin the CIA DID LIE.
(Pelosi said they lied about her briefings, other in the room have backed the CIA)"
You must admit yourself you are on very very weak ground trying to claim the CIA is truthful.
You must be the only person in the world that takes this view.
"I quote
"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme."
"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"
"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.
See the bit that seemed rude was the slightly bias written piece that you probably read where the "that's not what I asked" was left out."
No one is forced to swear an alliegence to the president unless they are serving military and then it is to the nation then the CiC.
Barbera boxer told a general to say "senator" not maam.
i do understand that the army use maam but I am sure that they should use senator
(If you saw the tape Boxer said how she earned her psoition yada yada she was rude to him. And I would Barbara Boxer hasn't earned anything she is a hack)"
As are we all old son, but she is still a Senator and entitled to be addressed as such.
.
"9Again I refuse to be classfied conservative and liberal. that is for those who less nuanced about such things)"
Your opinion of yourself is not relevant. You are defined by your extreme right views.
Hitler claimed to be the voice of non-bolshevik civilisation - but that wasn't true was it.
Someone who steals is called a thief, no matter what they call themselves.
Complain about this comment
For the benefit of those commenters playing the race card, here's a photo from Saturday's protests.
Complain about this comment
ref #93
I will take a CIA operatives' word over Nancy Pelosi's any day.
In fact I would take a convicted Ponzi schemer over Nancy Pelosi's.
Complain about this comment
93 LOL simon.
I really got to point out that though I may write some very confusing posts you definitely trump me.
It is hard to tell who said what.
Any chance of "quotation marks" or maybe some attempt to differentiate between gherkins, yours, and my views?
pretty please. after all serious debate was thrown out the moment Obama was born.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell, you are making a very good point. To interrupt a President's speech is beyond rude and disrespectful. Joe Wilson should be kicked out of office by his fellow Congressmen and women. Many people disliked George Bush, when he was President, yet no one ever interrupted his speeches, because everyone had class. Joe Wilson has no class or taste. He is a disgrace to Americans. He can say whatever he wants after President Obama's speech, but to interrupt during his speech is a violation and he should be punished accordingly. I am embarrassed by this man's actions, as every American should be. Most of us Americans are bright and optimistic, we love to look for the positive, hopeful aspects of life and how we can make things better for others. But there is a dark side in America, mostly by the Republican extremists who are angry that a liberal Democratic African-American man has been elected. These Republican extremists do not think logically, much like the Taliban, and are very dangerous, as they resort to violence easily. I would beware any Repub extremists, as they carry many guns and much like an abusive spouse, think that they are always the victim. I may not always agree with everything President Obama says, but he is our President and I would never interrupt him. Joe Wilson is rude and disrespectful, he makes Repubs and Congress look bad. I hope that Europeans realize that Americans are not all like Joe Wilson and his Repub extremists followers. Many Americans want peace and for this war to be over. Many Americans love President Obama and want him to do good things for the people here and overseas. Many Americans are nothing like Joe Wilson, who is an extremist. We just want this war to be over and for our economy to stabilize. America does not want to fight with anyone. We have a new President now with good intentions. Europeans, please give us a chance and do not think we are all like Joe Wilson, because we are not. We voted for Obama, because we want America to be a peaceful country, a good force in the world.
Complain about this comment
1st gen american.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_general_welfare_mean
OK 1st
I await that retraction and the general disbanding of the tea baggers if you have any influence.
It was not me that noted and pointed this little phrase but another who I cannot find the post from.
Sorry I'm not wasting any more time they were correct and I wish I had taken greater notice of their name.
I waited to see if any others picked up on it but as usual because they presented the evidence straight away it was ignored by the right totally. and most of the left.
But I did take note and now you owe me a retraction.
Do not try to weasel your way out of what general welfare could include if it doesn't include health care.
that would only be another example of how americans think words only mean what they in their uneducated opinion thinks they mean.
The opposition to the health care that could be provided is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore illegal .
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat pointed out: "America was involved in all major conflicts of the XXth century by Democrats: Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Clinton."
Simon[21]says: "the Korean war and the Vietnam wars don't count? Wow"
poermeerkat: Korean War had began and continued when Harry Truman (Democrat) was U.S. president #33 [1945-1953].
American involvement in war in Vietnam was initiated by pres. John F. Kennedy (Democrat) and expanded by Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat).
That involvment was ended by Richard M. Nixon (Republican).
HOW EMBARRASSING! HOW EMBARRASSING!
Complain about this comment
You are right on target, Mark, the harshness has increased in the last four decades. Once the major parties were no longer perceived to be cut from the same cloth, the rancor between the factions has pushed itself into the nation's highest office. There is now an expectation that after a Presidential address there will be a rebuttal provided by the opposition. This creates a credibility gap between the public and the official. Since the credibility gap exists there is no longer a desire to seek a common ground in Presidential remarks. Anything goes and no one must be believed. The perception now is that everyone is a liar. And that slope becomes more slippery every day.
Complain about this comment
"But I am too new to this place to know if the debate is getting harsher, more strident, even uglier, or whether this is just the vigorous terms of debate that are normal."
Mark, you're very generous to call shouting, name-calling, and the dropping of buzz-words "debate." These substitutes for thinking do seem to have become steadily more *obvious* in the last 10 years or so, but I don't know whether that's because they're actually more prevalent or because they're more accessible via blogs, You-tube, etc.
Certainly, more people on each side seem to be impassioned and involved than was the case, say, 30-35 years ago--but then, my first memories of politics are of Watergate and the disillusionment and cynicism that followed in its wake. But from "impassioned" to "harsh, strident, and ugly" shouldn't be as small a step as it has been. Here are 3 things that may (or may not) be to blame:
1) The rise of the "religious right" in the 1980's--party affiliation became a badge of morality. Emotional wedge issues turned into litmus tests for politicians on both sides, and, since the issues were about "absolutes" of right and wrong, discussion, compromise, and openness took the back seat to fear, anger, and resentment. This has not given us good habits.
2) The hugely critical (and polarizing) issues facing the country/world, e.g. the Iraq war, climate change, globalization, and the economy (not to mention health care). The stakes are high; individual power is low; people scream.
3) The ready availability of secondhand information via the internet. All these buzz-words are coming from somewhere, and it's (mostly) not network news. Rather than looking to primary sources--calling one's Representatives to answer questions about provisions in a bill, say, and/or reading the bill for oneself, or finding out what the NHS actually does *before* deciding to bash it--it is easier to take mass-distributed e-mails and their ilk as gospel truth. When your opinions are shallow (no matter how firmly held), you do your best to stop people from plumbing their depths.
I suppose it's all healthier than apathy...
Complain about this comment
Re#94. Thanks duhbuh. I haven't seen that one myself.
I've seen: "Born free and taxed to death".
BBC has also reported that an immigrant from Ukraine held a sign:
"I had enough socialism in USSR".
Complain about this comment
92. fluffytale: "ninny you are well named."
***************
Why not stop your stupid nonsensical attacks, for everyone's sake?
Complain about this comment
Fluffy.
Thank you for posting that. I agree we need not waste anymore time on arguing the point. Not to weasel, but I do disagree that "general welfare" = paying your medical bills/providing healthcare. If so, we would have had general healthcare 200 years ago.
Complain about this comment
What is missing from this blog post about Joe Wilson's outburst during the joint session of Congress is that he was, in fact, the one lying. Independent of his accusation against Obama (to whom I am very far to the left, by the way), the legislation under discussion clearly does not allow for undocumented workers to receive the benefits of the healthcare reform under discussion. There is even a specific section with a title to that very effect. Far too many of the commentators on U.S. television and abroad have focused on the uncivility of Wilson's action without mentioning what is most salient -- that the debate, especially from those opposed to healthcare reform in the United States -- is riddled with outright lies. "Death panels" is only the beginning of the lies.
Mardell asks whether "this is just the vigorous terms of debate that are normal." The answer is no. While U.S. politicians have a long history of lying, the kinds of prevarication currently taking place is rather new. There was a time when there were "adults in the room" in the Republican Party, for instance, who would call out those on the far right, the religious zealots, for the ridiculous statements they make (e.g., the Congressman who claims that God will take care of global warming, or just about anything Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota says). The adults no longer speak up.
Complain about this comment
Oh come on Illinoisan! "most Americans are bright and optomistic"!? Most Americans are financially irresponsible, overweight, and generally don't know what's good for them. Oh yeah, and they're horrible drivers! Back me up Great Britain! LOL.
Complain about this comment
ref #97
The Republicans have condemned Joe Wilson's outburst. But Maxine Waters disrespect to President Bush was far worse. And the DNC did nothing.
Let her apologize to the House first.
Complain about this comment
#104 1stGenAmerican
"Not to weasel, but I do disagree that "general welfare" = paying your medical bills/providing healthcare. If so, we would have had general healthcare 200 years ago."
And if we intended women to have the right to vote, we would have done so 200 years ago as well? Or maybe if we intended blacks to be considered whole people? Or maybe if we intended there to be a public education system? What about public water sanitation?
Confederate traitors have tried these tactics over and over again. It didn't work during the civil war and it won't work now.
It is our moral Christian duty to fight for human rights and help the poor. If you disagree with Christian moral values then so be it but don't try to hide immorality behind the excuse of tradition.
Complain about this comment
#99. powermeerkat: "That (Vietnam )involvment was ended by Richard M. Nixon (Republican).
HOW EMBARRASSING! HOW EMBARRASSING!"
You omitted to mention that America lost: HOW EMBARRASSING! HOW EMBARRASSING
Complain about this comment
Re Maxine Waters (#107)
Please remind me who was the congressman who kept $70,000.00 in his fridge? And almost got away with it?
And what' the name of that congresswoman from California who co-owns (with her husbund) a golf-club which, reportedly, does not admit African Americans?
Complain about this comment
Wilson's outburst during a presidential address to Congress and the American people was an aberration and an embarrassment. Had something like this happened during a speech delivered by Presidents Reagan or Bush this South Carolinian would have been picking cotton by now.
The anti-healthcare reform protests this weekend were a manifestation of the worst a civilized society has to offer. The exclusive focus on personal responsibility ignores the most fundamental teachings of religious belief and are devoid of a sense of humanity.
As you pointed out, anyone watching this three ring circus would have thought the US government was proposing the implementation of a sequel to the Patriots Act or another war. Instead, our ire is directed at a President and a party for their audacity of suggesting that every citizens should have access to affordable healthcare, that no exclusions should exist or be considered when a personal needs medical care, and for attempting to rein in the greed of a segment of our industry that is bankrupting our country and impairing our ability to compete and meet the challenges of the 21st century.
The worse part of what is taking place is that it makes it difficult to have a desperately needed debate on how to implement a more effective and efficient healthcare system. Ideology, greed, ideology, political opportunism, a desire to inflict damage on a popular President and a complicit media more interested in sensationalism than responsible journalism dominate the agenda and is likely to impose its will on our society once again.
Complain about this comment
Re 109.
Nope, America hasn't lost. Vietnam lost.
Particularly South Vietnam, when Hanoi invaded South violating Paris Agreement it signed and retributions began.
Have you been to Vietnam...lately?
Some people stop you in Saigon streets (nobody I met called it Ho-Chi-Minh City except for communist party aparatchiks), look around and then ask with lowered voices: "Are you ever coming back"?
Complain about this comment
For what it's worth, I don't think you'll be well-served by assuming that any American Congressman, on either side of the aisle, ever has an unplanned emotional outburst in the chamber. The same, of course, applies to the English Parliament. Of course it must happen from time to time, but these people are professionals, so I think it's very rare. I believe that most of the things that appear to be mere emotional outbursts there are decided well in advance and chosen very carefully for their effect on the parties' agendas and the careers of those involved.
In this case the Republicans (who are working, in this instance, mainly on behalf of the insurance industry, which would lose money if this proposal passes) needed something outrageous to happen that would focus attention away from any substantive points the president made in his speech by the Democratic President. On this issue, the Democrats are working mainly on behalf of hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, who might make more money if the proposal passes.
Wilson comes from one of the most deeply racist states in the union. He was elected by a solid majority of Republicans, in a state where the Republican party is almost entirely white. South Carolina's demographics are unusual among the racist states of the deep south, because it has a solid white majority -- 68.7% white - whereas in most of those states blacks outnumber whites, so for Wilson, almost alone among all Republicans, there is essentially no chance of a black or non-racist majority recalling him in an election. Those who might oppose him on the grounds that he is racist were already opposed to him on the grounds that he is a Republican, so there is no change in his electability.
In short, he was elected by and represents a constituency which will not be offended by anything at all that he accuses a black man of doing, nor by any rudeness at all he displays toward a black man. And, in this case, conveniently for the Republicans, the President happens to be a black man. So Wilson, among everyone who could have caused the moment of outrage, was the one who was in no danger of losing his position by doing it.
And so we are here debating the rules of discourse, which serves essentially no one, instead of the substantive matter at hand, which would serve the Democratic agenda. The effect could scarcely have been planned better by the Republicans. I suppose that there is some slender chance this could have been a random emotional outburst, but hearing it from the mouth of exactly the representative with least to lose by it does not really support that idea.
Of course the Republicans are not the only ones to employ such tactics, but racism, in particular, is a powerful tool whose use is these days pretty much out of reach to the Democratic party.
If Wilson's outburst was unplanned, then it was stupid and rude and unprofessional. If it was deliberate, then it was dishonest and unethical tactics to try to divert attention from the issue. Further, if it was in fact his deliberate plan to use the racism of his constituency, of all things, as a safe haven from which to launch an attack, then in my opinion that borders on criminal.
I can only hope that continued abuse of tactics like this eventually causes those who use them to turn against each other, just as, in so debasing themselves, they have already turned against the nation.
AngryPatriotUSA
Complain about this comment
It would be disaster enough if the American health care system started to resemble the UK's NHS but America will really be on the rocks if our Congress begins to resemble the British House of Commons because the demeanor of our elected representatives degenerates to the point where they show as little respect and decorum as the UK's MPs do.
It is a sad reality that it took this degree of uproar and this kind of incident to bring a fact into play that should have been addressed BEFORE the speech. That fact is that President Obama played fast and loose with the truth the way he often does (Reverend Wrong comes immediately to mind.) It is true that there is language in the bill that prohibits illegal aliens from benefitting from the proposed government program but every attempt to put any teeth into it by requiring proof of eligibility was thwarted by the Democrats. As is typical, they could hardly wait to give the store away at American taxpayer expense. Finally they've had to relent AFTER the incident. In a way, they are as responsible for this incident as Congressman Wilson was.
Complain about this comment
108 thuning
I respectfully suggest your attack on me does not fit the topic discussed. Fluffy feels the Constitution covers healthcare, I disagree. The points you listed are/were covered in Constitutional Amendments. They were added because times had changed and they were needed. (13th, 15th and 19th to address your points)If you want to add Health/Medical Coverage to the Constitution, by all means, let's get the process rolling and get it ratified. (I am not aware of water sanitation being spelled out in the Amendments?)
I resent your emotion-driven personal attack on me. I have NEVER said there should be no help or rights for the poor. My point (belief based on educational training) is, under the Constitution as it stands, there is no Constitutional Right to being medically supported by the Federal Government. Until it is added, or the Supreme Court says otherwise, anything not spelled out specifically in the Constitution falls (10 Amendment) to the States.
You are certainly welcome to immediately follow what ever morals guide you.
Complain about this comment
105. smcooper: "What is missing from this blog post about Joe Wilson's outburst during the joint session of Congress is that he was, in fact, the one lying."
So why did the White House and congressional Democrats feel the need to change the provisions concerning illegal immigrants following Wilson's intervention?
The controversy over Republican Rep. Joe Wilson's shouting out "You Lie!" at the President over his claim that illegal immigrants wouldn't benefit from health-care reform apparently sparked some reconsideration of the relevant language. "We really thought we'd resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President's speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again," said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.
Could it be that Wilson, for all his incivility, was correct?
Complain about this comment
Good people, you miss the point completely. Yes, Mr. Wilson was out right rude in his outburst. There is no denying that. What is missing here is the growing discontent of the American people with their elected officials who are more focused on keeping their jobs than doing what is right by their constituents. The budget in this country is out of hand, with this group of nitwits spending money on art work when there are people out of work worrying about where their next meal comes from. As a previous blogger mentioned, the healthcare bill is just another straw on a broken camels back.
Pay attention citizens of the world... What happens to the global economy when one of its largest members goes bankrupt, unable to secure additional funding to pay its bills?
With respect to the healthcare bill, there are numerous proposals put forward by others that would increase insurance access, lower the cost of healthcare and not cost the taxpayer a dime. The American tort law system is out of hand. This adds tremendous cost to healthcare in the form of medical malpractice premiums and defensive medicine. States have mandated certain coverages, like acupuncture, that I'll never use but am forced to pay for as the citizen of Wisconsin, while an Idahoan does not so they pay less. I want an Idaho policy at half the price of the Wisconsin policy. How about we clean up the fraud, waste and abuse in the current government run program - medicare? These suggestions have fallen on deaf ears, interestingly enough, the media's as well. None of these ideas cost any money but we can't go there first? We have to jump to the mother of all government programs. While I'm sure that other world governments are the models of efficiency, the US government is not. It is riddled with cronyism and fraud, inefficiency and waste, and just plain stupidity. Examples: post office, Amtrak, Medicare, education, social security and many more that the US taxpayer is all too familiar with. Now they propose to run all of healthcare!! good golly!!
If you world citizens haven't figured it out yet, the US government spending levels will have an impact on the world's supply of investment capital. Our government will suck it up and effectively raise interest rates everywhere, monetize it (as they have been lately)eventually causing runaway inflation for currencies pegged to the dollar. Giving more money to these people for any purpose, the US Congress and President, is like giving money to heroin addicts, irresponsible, certainly until they bring their common sense to work with them.
A US Taxpayer and proponent of healthcare reform not run by the US government.
Complain about this comment
116. duhbuh: "Could it be that Wilson, for all his incivility, was correct?"
********************
There is a disconnect between what Obama says and what is getting put into those bills -- or not put in, in the case of Wilson's accusation.
Complain about this comment
#112. powermeerkat: "Re 109. Nope, America hasn't lost."
Apparently you cannot tell the difference between a glorious victory and a dismal failure. Tell us what did Americans die for in Vietnam? Regardless of how it started - under Eisenhower in fact - America came out of it with egg on her face. From this distance in time it appears that the young were right and the government was wrong.
Complain about this comment
What people from the GOP seem to not understand lately is that just because you believe in democracy in all it's full glory does not mean that you can deny it to others. Democracy is based on civil discourse by ALL interested parties, not just a shouting, bullying atmosphere. Such use of these techniques are more in the line of dictatorships and wholly un-democratic.
Complain about this comment
Wilson was perfect. Obama was lying then and continues to lie.
What a huge mistake Americans made in voting this guy in. Americans had better continue waking up and start praying. He hangs
out with crooks, his administration is crooked. He makes the Clintons
look like saints.
Complain about this comment
thing;
"It is our moral Christian duty to fight for human rights and help the poor. If you disagree with Christian moral values then so be it but don't try to hide immorality behind the excuse of tradition."
You go fight for them then but leave me, my money, and that of other Americans who don't agree with you out of it. There is no constitutional guarantee for government paid health care. Not in the federal constitution and not in the constitutions of any of the states AFAIK. Massachusetts' experiment is merely a law it enacted which can be repealed. And if the state goes broke it may have to be. The liberal Robin Hood rob from the rich and give to the poor, Christian there but for the grace of god go I syndrome is bankrupting America. Charity begins at home. Save your money. Get a job. Start paying your own way in life. Even President Obama's program requires you to BUY your own insurance.
Complain about this comment
115 1stGenAmerican
Your argument was that because America wasn't a certain way 200 years ago, it shouldn't be that way today. I said such an argument was typical Confederate traitor's propaganda.
We don't need a constitutional amendment to establish federal public health care for the same reason we don't need a constitutional amendment to establish public education but of course your desire to create propaganda to that effect makes sense.
There is no way you honestly think that it's not the duty of the government to protect the lives of its citizens. A Republican would ask us to give our very lives to protect the lives of others in this country but if we ask that they give even a single nickle to protect the lives of those we should die to save, Confederate traitor Republicans like Joe Wilson of South Carolina would call us "communists". If it's a bullet or bomb, it's our moral duty to sacrifice to protect other citizens lives but if it's a microbe, it's immoral to sacrifice even a single nickle? But that is unless that microbe was released by terrorist hands?
It is either moral to protect our citizens lives or it isn't.
It is either the duty of the government to protect citizens lives or it isn't.
Public health is public defense.
Public health is logical, pragmatic, religiously moral.
Confederates cannot address any of these points but instead try to appeal to "tradition" or "Confederate Christianity" just as they did with the issue of slavery.
Anyone who would ask me to sacrifice my life to protect the citizens of this country when they are unwilling to give even a nickle deserve nothing but contempt.
Complain about this comment
bravenewalcoholic;
"What people from the GOP seem to not understand lately is that just because you believe in democracy in all it's full glory does not mean that you can deny it to others. Democracy is based on civil discourse by ALL interested parties, not just a shouting, bullying atmosphere. Such use of these techniques are more in the line of dictatorships and wholly un-democratic."
You are absolutely correct. Have you ever seen PMQT at the British House of Commons? I suggest you see it, it's a real eye opener for those who haven't. It's broadcast on C-Span every Sunday evening when Parliament is in session. These people shout each other down, hurl insults at each other left and right. What was most remarkable to me though was in seeing other proceedings, they do exactly the same. The ones with the loudest voices bully and drown out the others. Not my idea of democracy at all.
Complain about this comment
Ref 110, Power
"Please remind me who was the congressman who kept $70,000.00 in his fridge? And almost got away with it?"
Corruption is, sadly, one of a few truly bipartisan "attributes" in Washington, State and local governments.
The list of corrupt Republican and Democratic politicians is endless and ranges from a Senator having his house re-modeled in exchange for political favors, to a California Congressman buying a mansion and yacht as a quid pro quo for political favors, a Congressman chasing male pages throughout Capitol Hill, others engaging in extra curricular activities in men rooms and, yes, some stashing their loot in the fridge. And let's not forget the long list of Presidents whose fidelity to marriage vows was defined by an affinity to physical diversity.
It seems to me that the problem is not the clowns in government, but our inability to discern the difference between an honest candidate and a scumbag.
Complain about this comment
124. At 9:53pm on 14 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
bravenewalcoholic;
"What people from the GOP seem to not understand lately is that just because you believe in democracy in all it's full glory does not mean that you can deny it to others. Democracy is based on civil discourse by ALL interested parties, not just a shouting, bullying atmosphere. Such use of these techniques are more in the line of dictatorships and wholly un-democratic."
You are absolutely correct. Have you ever seen PMQT at the British House of Commons? I suggest you see it, it's a real eye opener for those who haven't. It's broadcast on C-Span every Sunday evening when Parliament is in session. These people shout each other down, hurl insults at each other left and right. What was most remarkable to me though was in seeing other proceedings, they do exactly the same. The ones with the loudest voices bully and drown out the others. Not my idea of democracy at all."
But you watch it. Like you went to see an animal tortured to death and called it "interesting".
Seems you specialise in doing things you purportedly despise.
Like someone who watches certain types of pictures and films but assures us "I hope you realise I am not enjoying this."
I think the reply is yeh right.
Complain about this comment
Some commenters here :
Illinoisan (97) : Many people disliked George Bush, when he was President, yet no one ever interrupted his speeches, because everyone had class
and
saintDominick (111) : Wilson's outburst during a presidential address to Congress and the American people was an aberration and an embarrassment. Had something like this happened during a speech delivered by Presidents Reagan or Bush this South Carolinian would have been picking cotton by now
seem to be living in a parallel universe, where if you go to youtube and search for
“democrats boo bush during 2005 sotu”
you don’t find Democrats booing (and heckling) Bush during the 2005 State of the Union.
In this universe, however, that is what you will find.
Complain about this comment
thing;
"There is no way you honestly think that it's not the duty of the government to protect the lives of its citizens."
It depends on the circumstances. Protect its citizens from foreign attack? Yes! Protect them from dangerous criminals? Yes! Protect them from tax and spend liberals who would control every aspect of their lives and turn America into a Euro-hell like the one on the other side of the pond? Without even a shadow of a doubt!
Complain about this comment
123 thuning
No, my argument is that it is not a POWER granted to the Federal Government. What is your fixation with "Traitor Confederates"? How old are you, 145?
FYI I was born in OH and live in MN. Does that make me a traitor, Yankee, propagandist? (oh, did I mention my family are all Welsh Socialists?)
My point is, as the Constitution stands, the Federal Government does not have the RIGHT to formulate a health plan and FORCE it on U.S. Citizens. (I grant you, many other administrations have breached the Constitution, as well. I am not defending them) You might not need an Amendment to establish public health care, but you do (legally) have to have one to require the public to take it, "or else we will fine you". Do you advocate providing food, homes, clothes, cars, college education and burial Rights to everyone as well? Where do you draw the line?
For the last time, I believe health care for all is important, but the GOVERNMENT has no Constitutional RIGHT or the fiscal track record to create and run such a beast. Morality in Government is important, but I do not want the Government moralizing.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#121. grannylaf: "Obama was lying then and continues to lie."
Care to back that up with some examples - a link or two perhaps?
"What a huge mistake Americans made in voting this guy in. Americans had better continue waking up and start praying. "
I guess you voted for the elderly contender!
"He hangs out with crooks, his administration is crooked."
More specifics, please. Unsubstantiated accusations are not worth the paper on which they may be written. So many of you staunch right-wingers attack this way without reading anything more than The New York Post or watching O'Reilly and Hannity.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
See mark what is very american is straight up "economy with the truth"
also a complete inability to say. "Um you are right".
Then there is that language problem where every american takes it to mean what they think. in the case of Joe wilson
what he meant was "hear hear" it just sounded like an insult to those of us that take "liar" to mean liar.
It is our problem for not knowing the personal way in which Joe interprets the meaning of the word.
Complain about this comment
124 all that AND they have a health sytem. they must be better at multi tasking than their american counterparts.
Oh 1st generation I'm still waiting for that retraction. or does retraction mean "frame silly attack in another manner"
Complain about this comment
125. At 9:55pm on 14 Sep 2009, saintDominick wrote:
It seems to me that the problem is not the clowns in government, but our inability to discern the difference between an honest candidate and a scumbag."
Its more complicated than that.
The problem is the electorate. As one congressme said years ago: "You want lavish services, but don't want to pay for them, you want the parades and glory of war, but get upset at the casualties, you expect your reps to be scrupulously honest, but don't mind being paid in cash etc yourselves.
You get the reps you deserve.
Personally I think rep democracy is coming to its end. It was set up for much smaller societies then we have now and large parts of the electorate are simply not bothering to vote any more.
Complain about this comment
Since a lot of people here seem to be invoking Christianity as a reason for one set of arguments or the other, I feel it necessary to point out that Yeshuah of Nazareth was, by all accounts, more concerned with mercy toward the sick, injured, and hungry and providing for their needs of healing, food, etc, than he was with any of the agendas or causes invoked by opponents of the president's plan.
I'm not Christian myself, but if his opinion is important to you, then remember what opinions he expressed by his actions. On multiple occasions, he told rich people to give away money to the poor, healed the sick, and fed the hungry.
I cannot recall him ever arguing or acting against big government and taxation. In fact I recall him as having shared a meal with an unpopular tax collector on one occasion. And when someone argued against paying taxes on the grounds that it was the heavenly rather than the earthly king that deserved loyalty, didn't Yeshuah of Nazareth say something like, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto Heaven that which is Heaven's"?
It does seem clear from these precedents, both positive and negative, which side of this debate he'd be on if he were with us today.
Food for thought, if you care about that sort of thing.
Complain about this comment
protect them from the toxins put into their environment by the industry that makes all them bombs.
protect against the illnesses caused by having no regulations that make industry protect it's work force(under funded Osha).
Circular arguments. that non on the right never address.
come on all you GOP supporters why should workers poisoned at work be sacked and left to die.
why should work be a death penalty for some.
Complain about this comment
112. At 8:46pm on 14 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Re 109.
Nope, America hasn't lost. Vietnam lost."
So the frantic scramble to the helicopters and the callous brutal abandonement of the SV collaborators wives and children etc didn't happen?
"Particularly South Vietnam, when Hanoi invaded South violating Paris Agreement it signed and retributions began."
When Hanoi reunited the country after US attempts to destroy it.
"Some people stop you in Saigon streets (nobody I met called it Ho-Chi-Minh City except for communist party aparatchiks)"
Does that include the US state department which also calls it Ho CHi Minh City, Coca Cola, which also calls it Ho Chi Minh City -GM, Microsoft. Are these communist aparatchicks?
"look around and then ask with lowered voices: "Are you ever coming back"?
Because if you are would you mind paying reparations for butchering my family.
A recent new study has ben written about US atrocities in Vietnam. Apparently they were far worse than is generally supposed, particularly the rapes.
Complain about this comment
Ref 127, Beeb
“democrats boo bush during 2005 sotu”
Republicans did the same to Clinton in 1995, and some left the chamber while the President was speaking.
There is a difference between expressions of disagreement, which members of both parties usually demonstrate by not showing emotion or approval, and a congressman calling the President of the United States a liar during a speech to Congress on national TV for the world to see and hear.
I honestly do not recall anyone ever showing such lack of respect for the Office of the Presidency in my lifetime.
Complain about this comment
Americans had better continue waking up and start praying. "
they were so busy preying that they forgot to carry out the orders of Christ.
to help others as the angry patriot points out.
Complain about this comment
Ref 121, Granny
"Wilson was perfect. Obama was lying then and continues to lie.
What a huge mistake Americans made in voting this guy in."
Did you, perchance, vote for the man that told us we had to invade Iraq because they posed an imminent threat to our security and that of our allies? The man whose cabinet members showed the world pictures of warehouses where Saddam Hussein was hiding his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and showed us the pictures of trucks that were, allegedly, being used to transport them?
Yes, I know, bad intelligence which is factual if applied to the miniscule amount of grey mass between Dubya's ears.
President Obama may not be perfect, but as opposed to those whose priority was the advancement of their political careers and the welfare of their patrons, he is trying to correct the multitude of problems he inherited.
Don't forget President Bush's speech last year when he told the nation that the US economy was on the verge of collapse...
Complain about this comment
129 "For the last time, I believe health care for all is important, but the GOVERNMENT has no Constitutional RIGHT or the fiscal track record to create and run such a beast."
Still doesn't sound like the retraction there 1st.
you are very weasselly. It does good to show the people outside of america what it is like discussing this in the USA.
they see that despite your comments you have no backbone and can't admit it.
"Show me where and I will retract my statement."
" "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.""
"Fluffy feels the Constitution covers healthcare, I disagree. "
"I agree we need not waste anymore time on arguing the point."
"promote the general welfare"
I would contest that there is little else that promotes the general welfare of the people than access to a doctor.
again industry poisons the planet and people. there is no safe drinking water in many areas because of mining activities.
Kids are born with birth defects(preexisting?
but you also said you were not being a weasel then several posts later.
"104. At 8:02pm on 14 Sep 2009, 1stGenAmerican wrote:
Fluffy.
Thank you for posting that. I agree we need not waste anymore time on arguing the point. Not to weasel, but I do disagree that "general welfare" = paying your medical bills/providing healthcare. If so, we would have had general healthcare 200 years ago."
Just because you start with "thank you does not make you politre.
You have lied.
The point to you that there was a lot of stuff left out was lost on you. the point that welfare means the well faring of the people.
you seem to think the constitution only deals with 18 century ideas.
you ignored the point that they had no women voting or black people voting or any examples that show you to be wrong.
Deceiver you are .. as Yoda would say.
true right.
Complain about this comment
1st the reason I have carried on a bit at you is because it is quite relevant to the topic today.
How is politics to contine to better america is they reach the stage where they are today with the drunken arguments against healthcare reform.
It was very un american for him to shout there. so he appologised.
but then he went and made an add defending himself and straight on with the same old rubbish.
JUST like you.
Complain about this comment
130, 133 Fluff
Of course I did as you predicted. Your response did not negate my point. "General welfare" does not mean health care. If it did, those far wiser than you and I would have made health care available many years ago.
I cannot say "you are right", because you are not. I really do not understand why you and thuning need to resort to name calling and insulting me. I have not disagreed that the concept is important. I guess this just shows why this country is so divided. Fortunately, my vote counts just as much as yours. I look forward to meeting you on the field.
Complain about this comment
139. At 10:59pm on 14 Sep 2009, saintDominick wrote:
"There is a difference between expressions of disagreement, which members of both parties usually demonstrate by not showing emotion or approval, and a congressman calling the President of the United States a liar during a speech to Congress on national TV for the world to see and hear.
I honestly do not recall anyone ever showing such lack of respect for the Office of the Presidency in my lifetime."
I think it just shows how disorganised and chaotic the republicans are, no discipline.
But you are right about the difference. It is one thing to disagree with the policy, another to suggest the person proposing it is being deliberately dishonest.
After all there is the fairly obvious fact that the new plans and ideas are being openly discussed, that is an odd way to try and decieve people.
Complain about this comment
I can't think of anything to say about Mr. Wilson, except to say.. his party wants Obama to fail.
If one thinks that they, the Republicans, will not repudiate anything these right wing extremists say, well, these nut-jobs ARE the Republican party.
These are the most dictatorial people and since they lost the popular vote so much that they lost any control of Congress, they are very Bitter.
But, right now, Democrats are running scared.
How odd can that be? If the vote goes thru and the economy bounces back, no one will bemoan what Obama has done. I say wait, till the economy bounces back... statistically...then announce the plan, then go ahead.
But, to say that Obama is anything like ANY Republican is to lie or to fiddle with the truth.
So, I'll take Obama over any Republican like Bush who let Katrina's aftermath go unnoticed by the President ("you done a hell of a job, Brownie") Remember that Mr. Bush didnt much care about Louisiana because that state had not voted for him?
That, I remember, was when Bush's approval numbers fell to 34 percent and stayed there. They never recovered, so why do we care what a few looney-tunes-Republicans say?
They have approval ratings that are near bottom since the elections and have no power to do good, just ..BAD.
It is hard to be anything but emotional when I look at these Republican loonies. Bitter, worn out, ideologically unsound, and most of all hatefilled,... that is what I see in Republican rants about Health Care.
Complain about this comment
It is always both frustrating and amusing to read the misinformed opinions of both our British friends and our fellow Americans. It seems that too many rely on emotion to form their opinions, and rarely let facts get in the way of those opinions. It probably is a universal human condition, but there really is no excuse for such ignorance in this day of instant, and sometimes overwhelming, communications.
Wilson's shout-out was not "unAmerican", whatever the heck that is supposed to signify, but it most certainly was against accepted Chamber decorum, no matter how correct his acessement was. His frustration in being ask to sit and silently listen to lie after lie is the same frustration that the majority of Americans have had to put up with for too long.
Americans are tired of being told to "leave it to us, we know what we are doing", when the exact opposite is obvious to anyone who takes the time to research what they are doing."Trust", "competant" and "government" are oxymorons to most Americans today.
What the Left seems to not ever grasp is that Americans, on both sides of the political aisle, DO want health care "fixed", but while they may not agree on what "fixed" means precisely, they do not want it done poorly or in a manner that will either make it worse, or break the bank.
Unfortunately, the party in control at this moment is totally out of control and has zero desire to act with bipartisanship, outside of the 3 Democrats in the Gang of Six.
The media wants you to believe that the Republicans are being obstructionist "do-nothing"ers and don't want to fix health care. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Republicans have submitted over 800 separate items to be considered, yet the Democrats have not let a single one get past the committee.
Republicans have again and again stated their willingness and desire to sit down and talk face to face with Obama, butObama has yet to invite them.
No, the "obstructionist" lable can only be applied to the Democrats in this debate so far.
Obama himself has yet to author a single line of health care reform. So much for "leadership" that you can believe in. He's left it up to the House and Congress so far (sort of a continuation ofhis voting "present" all the time), and the Dems so far have shown zero desire to include the Republicans.
While some of the rhetoric from the Right has been over the top, it seems that the only way that you can get the Left to change anything nowadays is to resort to over the top statements that in fact have a ring of truth to them.
Sarah Palins "death panels" quote finally brought some mainstream media attention to that part of the bill, and while there were no "death panels" as such in the bill, the language was such that they could have easily been formed at some point - witness the pamphlet that the VA was handing out that councils vets to do in with themselves if they were a burden to their family! Guess what? The Dems FINALLY read what they wrote and decided that they better change the language!
The same goes for the gov't-paid-for abortion assertion. Guess what? After the hue and cry, it was "discovered" by the Dems that yes indeed it was possible, and in fact highly probable, that taxpayer money was going to pay for abortions, so once again the language got changed to make sure that wasn't the case.
Ditto taxpayer-paid healthcare for illegal aliens, While the bill has a provision forbidding such, the fact is that there was no way to make sure that the provision was indeed followed. So guess what? The language is being re-written.
The single-payer otion is dead because of the repurcussions it could bring about with small businesses as well as the unknown and unfunded costs. But it was only after both Republicans and mmoderate Democrats shouted enough about those problems that anyone on the Left finally read what they wrote.
Obama says he won't sign a bill that increases tax costs "one dime", yet every analysis of every provision so far shows massive increases to the deficit. So just WHERE is this money going to come from to cover all these extra people and unfunded mandates? The tooth fairy?
Medicare is already in debt (never mind Social Security - both massive ponzi schemes that would be illegal if you or I were to try it), yet we are to somehow believe that all these new requlations will somehow magically work as they say this time?
Just where are all these savings supposed to come from if fraud and defensive-medicine practices are not brought under control?
Just how are premiums going to come down any substantial amount unless through LESS healthcare? Rationing is how the Brits, Canadians, French, and everyone else does it (but something that you will never hear them admit), yet somehow WE are still going to allow million-doller treatments to be handed out like candy without the costs going up?
No, the American health care system costs so much just because SO MUCH IS OFFERED AND NOT REFUSED. Health care is not "free" ANYWHERE in the world - it is ALWAYS your taxes that pay for it. Just how much in taxes are you willing to pay or sluff off on to your kids?
If the Dems are serious, let them start with reducing fraud and waste. Let them start with Tort reform so that doctors do not have to perform so many unneeded test just to cover their buts against lawsuits , and so that they do not have to pay $100000+ malpractice insurance premiums every year.
Let them get the States to open their markets to more insurance companies being able to sell premiums in more states. You want "competition"? Let all 4000+ insurance companies compete against all 4000+ insurance companies in every state rather than just 4 or 5 companies in whatever state they are licensed in.
In other words, the Dems (WITH the Republicans input) need to first fix what is wrong with the current system before they start experimenting with an entirely new and unproven system.
Mr. Mardell:
THIS is what Americans want to see - the system worked on in a LOGICAL and FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE manner, NOT the helter-skelter, regulate-it-to-death mishmash of incoherant crud that the House and Congress have presented so far.
We DO NOT want the constant lying and smearing by members on both sides of the aisle and by the President.
We DO NOT want to see debates degenerate into shouting matches or people be imtimidated by special interest groups (Acorn and a few unions come to minds for recent Left actions at the townhalls around the country).
No. We prefer our public discourse to be done in a civil manner, and with forethought and facts. Unfortunately, we don't get that luxury ofetn enough.
Instead, our "public servants" and too much of the media prefer to muckrake and lie instead in order to harm their opponents any way they can - after all, another election cycle keeps coming up and they need to continually smear their opponents as "unstable", "un-American", "hypocrits", "dangeous", and so on.
Which brings us back to the only recourse we sometime feel we have - bringing the stupidity and corruption of our public servant to the forefront through outrageous acts of sometimes un-civil behavior.
Complain about this comment
141. At 11:08pm on 14 Sep 2009, saintDominick wrote:
"Don't forget President Bush's speech last year when he told the nation that the US economy was on the verge of collapse..."
I am of the opinion that unappreciated Cicero he undoubtedly was, Not many people remember Mr Bush's speeches.
It is unlikely he does either.
Complain about this comment
The "You lie" outburst is a dead horse, but just for gits and shiggles (& it still seems to be the topic of discussion), let's beat it a little more:
The lack of an illegal immigrant clause in Obama's plan was not the only lie in his speech; it was just the last straw in an enormous bale that crushed the proverbial camel.
One thing I really hate is to be lied to. It's an insult that I will not stand for, anyone who is stupid enough to do so, loses my respect.
If I were in that forum, near to the Right Honorable Gentlemen from South Carolina, he would never have seemed rude, because I would be standing there calling the Obama a liar.
Maybe Madam Pelosi would have me ejected from that session, but a year later she WILL be in the minority (if not gone), and the president would be seeking my support for real reform of American Health care that actually REDUCES government spending
UStaxpayer (117): Common sense is not common, and among the democratic party, very rare.
I recently saw a protest sign that read:
“You can't fix stupid. But you can vote it out.”
In this case the Stupid persons who need to be voted out, are Congressional Democrats (like Nancy Pelosi) who have, ignored every amendment and alternative bill that Republicans have proposed. The left like to pretend that Republicans aren't doing anything about health care, but that's not true. Republicans in congress will not be ignored much longer.
The clear majorities for the Democratic party in the House of representatives will disappear next year and in the Senate two years later.
Then Obama will have a chance to sign into law Health Care reform, certainly not the huge government takeover he was hoping for but he will, He will find a way to benefit politically, like Bill Clinton did in when republican balanced the Federal budget for the first time ever back in the 1990's. That is how the checks and balances which are built into our constitution are supposed to work.
Complain about this comment
By the way, also, I don't know where the Vietnam argument came in, but I remember the Americans losing that war. And everyone said uh ohhh, Americans are going to be afraid to go to war.
Voila, enter Reagan, and that changed. And we have never looked back, yuk. Spend, spend, spend as long as it is for war, is the impression I get from Republicans...
we didn't make Vietnam capitalist, the Chinese, and the Pacific Rim countries caused that ..odd result. (tho I was not unhappy).
But, I bet they are not so stupid, nor are the Chinese, to spend all their money on defense.
It said in a recent Economist article that America spends 10 times what the Chinese spend on defense. So, whom is paranoid, us or the so-called Socialists?
Complain about this comment
The general welfare mentioned in the contitution does not mean that congress is supposed to provide EVERYTHING for the people, other wise every aspect of our lives would be ruled by our government, & we would not be free but slaves. That phrase was meant to to point out that British rule of Americans took taxes from us but gave no benifit to us.
Complain about this comment
1st Generation,
Maybe it is your unwillingness to go thru self examination about the causes of the Republican losses in the last election. Do Republicans have not such a thing? (self insight or self examinating abilities)
Until Republicans ask themselves why they lost, they won't bounce back..to having a Republican president.
Also, it is hard to see how anyone would vote them into the majority of Congress, because they are so far of the right of center--which means they won't have the ...votes to win.
Complain about this comment
Mark-
No offense intended and I don't know where in the US you are posted but does "listening to the radio" last weekend qualify you to talk about the 9/12 DC rally? I noted there were 4000 comments on the BBC article on covering this- why weren't you there?
When are you going to comment on the ACORN candid camera tapes? The silence on this subject from the BBC is deafening. Even if you don't like the way O'Keefe slammed them THREE times, the story has amazing entertainment value.
I gave up on Justin Webb- he was just not capable of fairly covering the opposition to Obama during the election. I note that now Obama is elected, and Webb's mission accomplished, he has taken off back home. Why not get off on the right foot, get out, travel and see a representative sample of what this country is really about, and cover both sides.
As an aside, I really don't appreciate your mentioning Belgium and the US together in your last installment, as if they were comparable in any meaningful way. This does not bode well for this blog...
Complain about this comment
Mr. Enzo...,
If you want to convince anyone of your ideas, your comments must be readable.
If you look at other's comments ..that ARE readable, you'll see that they put spaces between many of their statements, so that they are easier to read.
When there are no line spaces, it looks like one big unreadable post.
Welcome to this blog, truly, just noticing that I couldnt read it very well and I figured out why.
One assumes you wrote your opinion to be read.
Im not trying to be snarky.... since we probably disagree politically,
I'm just giving you tips (from my Business Writing course in college) and the "good looking tips" from that class did help me (tho here there are no choices for "Bold" or "Italics," and we are stuck with CAPs instead.)
Complain about this comment
"I WAS BORN FREE, BUT HAVE BEEN TAXED TO DEATH" .
I wasn't born free. I was born with an obligation my ancestors, who came to this continent as illiterate, or near illiterate, dirt farmers, nurses aides, labourers and the like. These humble people were able to improve their lot, by their own hard work surely, generation by generation, to the point where my own daughter can honestly and truly "choose to be anything she wants."
But I am not arrogant enough to imagine that the progress of my family's fortunes is something any of us have achieved alone. We have progressed, because our society has progressed. Our rising fortunes have been inextricably entwined with the rising fortunes of all our fellow citizens. Without reforms to labour and education policy, social security and healthcare, to a whole lot of things we in the 'socialist hell' (as some might put it) of Canada I would not enjoy the quality of life I enjoy today.
So I recognize my debt to the past, and my obligation to the future. If the good life I lead now is to continue, there are taxes to be paid. And though I may quibble about how those tax dollars I pay are to be spent, I never object to the principle.
Complain about this comment
Also, (sorry for so many posts), forgive me BBC, but for conservatives that like to read other conservative opinions, believe it or not, guardian.co.uk has many conservative comments after articles along with many many extreme left comments.
And to conservatives, lets see how does one say this, if you want to know what extremist left of center people write, guardian.co.uk is the place to go. Just being friendly.
Also, a good place is [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] for mainly well written opinions, both conservative and liberal,
Complain about this comment
re: 27 "I have yet to see the right-wing commentators produce any rational plan - only to shoot at whatever Obama and the Democrats propose. Not constructive."
Media myth. Read this.
Ok, so I read it. How do any of those ideas solve the problems associated with insurance portability, claim denials, pre-existing conditions, and above all, cost?
Just a bunch of piecemeal amendments either impractical (to end the employer mandate if unemployment reaches 10%??!! ... or if it imposes layoffs or 'hardships'???!!!! ... now there's a 'reform' that is going to mean exactly squat) or driving hard on the usual wedges (abortion, e.g.).
Where's the big picture thinking. Where's the proposal that's going to make health care available, affordable, and efficient? Obama's seems closest to that mark, by a long mile, right now.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
152 Stellar,
I had promised myself I would close this tab and no longer feed the trolls.
You seem to have some issue with me, but for the life of me, based on what I have been discussing, I have no clue what you are on about. I am not asking you to clarify, I just don't want you to think I cut and ran.
"Maybe it is your unwillingness to go thru self examination about the causes of the Republican losses in the last election." Is that a complete sentence?
"Do Republicans have not such a thing? (self insight or self examinating abilities)" I don't know. (is examinating a word?) I always thought most people did, but I will be sure to ask the next Republican I meet.
"Until Republicans ask themselves why they lost, they won't bounce back..to having a Republican president." As we realistically only have a two Party system, unless the current President finds a way to "pull us all together" I think you will be surprised in 2012.
"Also, it is hard to see how anyone would vote them into the majority of Congress, because they are so far of the right of center--which means they won't have the ...votes to win." Just how old are you? You may want to catch up on your history for the past 30 years. It is all cyclic, as 2010 will prove.
What is clear to me is despite the balanced, calm and factual post made Enzo, you chose to attack his writing style. I am guessing it is because you cannot break his arguments with fact.
Anyway...good evening and good luck to you.
Complain about this comment
re: 147 enzo Rationing is how the Brits, Canadians, French, and everyone else does it (but something that you will never hear them admit), yet somehow WE are still going to allow million-doller treatments to be handed out like candy without the costs going up?
No, the American health care system costs so much just because SO MUCH IS OFFERED AND NOT REFUSED.
Ok, enzo. I wade through all that turgid prose, and get to this -- . Look, this rationing argument is very odd. We don't 'admit' to it because we don't do it.
If anything, the US system is much more like 'rationing,' done -- wait for it -- on the basis of being able to pay. Need a new knee -- sure, step right up. Oh, wait, you can't pay for it? No insurance? Insurance won't cover that? Sorry ... no knee for you.
Complain about this comment
re: 151 The general welfare mentioned in the contitution does not mean that congress is supposed to provide EVERYTHING for the people, other wise every aspect of our lives would be ruled by our government, & we would not be free but slaves.
Odd notion of slavery. Last I checked, master didn't provide none to well for the slaves. Worked them hard, fed them peanuts, and just let 'em die if they got sick.
Saaaay, maybe you have a point. Though you would be wage slaves, surely.
Complain about this comment
It's as though Obama is articulating his vision of how health care should work, but the democrats are off creating something slightly different. Thus, Obama finds himself being accused of "lying".
People like to accuse opponents of the public option of "not reading" or "not knowing" enough. On the contrary, it's when you start reading that you begin to have questions.
This Wilson incident is a perfect example of Obama's saying one thing and democrats doing another. The "lie" accusation, with which I don't agree, arose because the republicans tried to put in an amendment that required verification steps, and the dems stripped them out (there were 2). So, there was definitely a disconnect between what the president said and what was in/not in the bill.
I don't think it's too much to expect that the president's statements accurately reflect what's in the bills. And if there's a dispute, he might want to verify before wagging his fingers.
147. enzo111: "You want "competition"? Let all 4000+ insurance companies compete against all 4000+ insurance companies in every state rather than just 4 or 5 companies in whatever state they are licensed in."
Yes, Obama has some peculiar ideas about how competition works. Would love to leave my insurance company for another in any state. It's interesting to think about which benefits I'd purchase if it were truly a choice-driven market.
159. 1stGenAmerican: Enjoyed your posts.
Complain about this comment
I found in an old, old book the following, written by a retired general, which seems to have the flavor of these times, and of this blog.
Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal supporter; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question incapacity to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting a justifiable means of self defense.
The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries. In short, to forestall an intending criminal, or to suggest the idea of a crime where it was lacking was equally commended,
until even blood became a weaker tie than party, from the superior readiness of those united by the latter to dare everything without reserve; for such associations were but formed by ambition to overthrow them; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction than on complicity in a crime.
The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more account than self-preservation. Oaths of reconciliation, being only offered on either side to meet an immediate difficulty, only held good so long as no other weapon was at hand; but when opportunity arose, he who first ventured to seize it and to take his enemy off guard, thought this perfidious vengeance sweeter than an open one, since, considerations of safety apart, success by treachery won him the prize for superior intelligence. Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first.
The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention. The leaders in the cities made the fairest professions: on the one side with the cry of political equality of The People, on the other of a moderate aristocracy; but they sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish and, stopping at nothing in their struggle for ascendancy, engaged in direct excesses. In their acts of vengeance they went to even greater lengths, not limiting them to what justice or the good of the state demanded, but by making the party caprice of the moment their only standard, and invoking with equal readiness the condemnation of an unjust verdict or the authority of the strong arm to glut the animosities of the hour. Thus religion was in honor with neither party; but the use of fair phrases to arrive at guilty ends was in high reputation. Meanwhile the moderate part of the citizens perished between the two, either for not joining in the quarrel, or because envy would not suffer them to escape.
Thucydides, book 3.82,[4]-[8]; in the fifth year of the Pelopennesian War.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
stellarBeloved:
My apologies for the lack of spacing. For whatever reason, the preview showed it, but it obviously didn't make it through. Unfortunately, there is no Edit function!
I generally don't bother with writing to blogs such as this - the lack of factual knowledge by the majority of posters is beyond comprehension at times.
chronophobe:
If you do not belive that there is rationing in England, etc, then just why were a group of British doctors punished for "overspending" their monthly allotment for a particular treatment last year?
Rationing based on money available.
Just why do you have to wait so long for so many treatments?
Rationing based on money available.
Just why are you stuck with old and mostly ineffective drugs for certain cancers when the new (and much more expensive)drugs work so much better?
Rationing based on money available.
Why does England allow the purchase of private insurance and the existance of private hospitals (but is illegal in Canada)?
Rationing based on money and services available in the "free" health system.
Just why do so many wealthy people from all over the world (Placido Domingo as a well known example) come to the US for advanced treatments that their "free" health care systems won't pay for?
Rationing based on money and services available.
Why do Canadians come to the US to get treatments that their government says they have to wait 6 or more months for? When that 6 month wait quite often means that they will probably die?
Rationing based on money and services available.
Why can a pet dog get better access to an MRI than a human in Canada?
Rationing based on money and services available.
Yes, there most certainly IS rationing going on in your "free" health systems that you think are so perfect and all-encompasing.
Please keep believing that - your politicians love your sort.
And Yes, there is "rationing" going on right now in the US , and on the basis of being able to afford it just as you say. That will continue even with every sort of reform you can dream up, including a single payer system.
The sad fact is that the ability to treat health issues far outstrips the ability to pay the costs, not only in the US, but all over the world as well, including the countries with "free" health care, and it will only get worse as medicine advances even more.
So, I assume that your stance is that EVERYONE should get treatments of every sort imaginable, no matter what the cost? While it is a great humanitarian sentiment, there is the sad reality of affordability - something that the party in powere at the moment doesn't seem to understand.
And if that is your stance, just how do you think it will get paid for?
Tax dollars. Tax dollars, and more tax dollars.
And if the poorly thought out (so far) new programs don't work as dreamed?
MORE tax dollars.
No. We would prefer that our elected officials actually try putting some thought into their jobs when it comes to something of this magnitude - the deficit is rediculous enough as it is.
Complain about this comment
155. At 00:53am on 15 Sep 2009, chronophobe wrote: ... :If the good life I lead now is to continue, there are taxes to be paid. And though I may quibble about how those tax dollars I pay are to be spent, I never object to the principle."
great post.
It was some English gentleman who said "I enjoy paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."
KScurmudgeon
must find a way to find the attribution......
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that Joe Wilson and his white southern fundamentalist cronies don't like Mr Obama for 2 basic reasons:
1) he is black and racist whites find that threatens their power and status;
2) he is intelligent and well educated and this threatens the anti-intellectualism strain in the American character;
As a result these whites oppose ALL proposals put forth by Mr Obama REGARDLESS OF MERIT.
Complain about this comment
165 KS:
Probably Lord Elgin :-D
Complain about this comment
125. At 9:55pm on 14 Sep 2009, saintDominick wrote:
"It seems to me that the problem is not the clowns in government, but our inability to discern the difference between an honest candidate and a scumbag."
In every society there are scumbags, the over ambitious, greedy to unseemliness, liars, cheats, demagogues, profligates and scoundrels who constitute a menace to their fellow citizens. But our founding fathers had the profound wisdom to concentrate the greatest bulk of power in one place, bait it with unlimited wealth, and then establish regular elections by which we could select such scoundrels from our midst as we thought deserving, and send them all to that city, gleaming with marble, where they could consume their energies on each other and leave us in peace.
I do believe this.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Elgin, as in Elgin's marbles? Oh, my!
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Back to Mr. Mardell's questions:
No, the rhetoric from the general over here is really no more strident than before. The primary difference is that everything is now sp easily available to watch and hear because of the internet.
The actual quantity of active citizens has risen for sure, again because of the so-much-more easy access to national platforms from which to preach.
What has really changed for the worse is the political discourse between out elected officials, especially as of late.
Gone are the Senators from both sides of the aisle that could state their disagreements with the other side in a civil manner and then go out for drinks together afterwards - that started disappearing shortly after Reagan took office as the older generation retired, and really took off after Ted Kennedy's shameful treatment of Justice Bork.
Instead, probably because of the amount of money that has to be raised to stay in power (and it IS all about power, after all), our elected officials are all to willing to say and do anything in order to get more money and handicap their rivals. I believe that you are seeing the same sort of thing in Great Britian now as well.
Because of the ever decreasing civility between our two parties, AND the all too often collusion of the media, the general public has found that if they want to keep the US from expanding its government to rediculous proportions, they HAVE to get organized and very vocal for any recognition of their concerns in both the media and by the elected officials.
It's been sad to watch, really, and I have no idea what the solution might be other than getting through a few more election cycles where hopefully the worst of the lot will get canned over time and replaced by more reasonable people.
Maybe, just like housing prices and changes in the economy, we have to go through cycles of boom and then bust with our politicians for people to wake up.
Enjoy your stay over here. Get away from Washington as often as you can - it has literally nothing in common with the majority of the US.
Complain about this comment
163. At 03:33am on 15 Sep 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:
"I found in an old, old book the following, written by a retired general, which seems to have the flavor of these times, and of this blog."
KS, I think you may have done some of us a great service. Like the political prisoners who shared forbidden jokes by numbers, some of us can now reply to those who repeat the same stale stuff "163!" and give our typing fingers a rest.
Retired Generals are just not what they were 2,400 years ago, are they?
Complain about this comment
171. At 04:41am on 15 Sep 2009, squirrellist wrote:
"Retired Generals are just not what they were 2,400 years ago, are they?"
No, but they do still write memoirs.
KScurmudgeon
sometimes more an anachronism than a conservative
Complain about this comment
But has all been said before, and at length.
Complain about this comment
On this website there is page after page of stuff about somewhere called America which is thousands of miles away across the sea and about somebody called Obama who apparently lives there.
In the meantime anti-democratic forces are trying to con the Irish into voting YES to the Lisbon Treachery which will bring the "EU" even nearer to being a pan-European police superstate.
They appear to be having some success, which is not surprising given that they have massive amounts of money at their disposal.
At the same time, we here in the UK, Prisoner No. 27 of the "EU" are being denied the right to comment on the BBC website for which we pay.
There is no Euroblog. I do not believe that there are any good reasons. I believe that the BBC is the agent of the "EU"-dictatorship.
Complain about this comment
169. KScurmudgeon
No, just joking.
The "I enjoy paying taxes" quote seems generally attributed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, US citizen and Supreme Court Justice.
Though whether he invented it or was quoting someone else I haven't had the time to check. . . Google, as often, was not really clear on that, and I don't want to hunt for my big Dictionary of Quotations at this time in the morning.
(Apparently he spent some time in London where it seems he formulated some of his ideas, don't know whether that's anything to do with it.)
Complain about this comment
I think your premise is faulty that Americans hurl the insult "un-American" at one another just because they disagree with one another and that Congress is devolving into ungentlemanly behavior. Your few examples hardly prove the point. Nor do I think that the pre-Civil War assault on Senator Sumner is an apt analogy to Rep. Wilson's short, and decidedly less-violent, outburst. He didn't beat the President about the head until he nearly died, for example. He wasn't even that unruly. He also apologized. In the past, Congress has been known to grumble and boo, so this isn't really that shocking. It's being overblown to distract from the real issues or perhaps because our Mr. President is a little bit on the sensitive side (I doubt he would laugh off someone throwing shoes at him, by contrast).
To answer your question: Is the rhetoric higher now than it has been in the past? Yes. Absolutely. More Americans are deeply upset with their government right now than I've seen in my lifetime (and, according to my parents, in their lifetime).
This rhetoric isn't because one side lost an election, as you dismissively suggest. The issues we have with our government (and it is not just Obama, I might add), are more fundamental than health care. That's why we aren't talking about health care at protests. Under our Constitution and our system of Federalism, the Federal government has a limited list of enumerated powers. The various powers that be have tortured and stretched the Constitution beyond recognition in order to legislate on things they have no business legislating on. The added insult is when our supposed representatives tell us what we are to think and do rather than the other way around. Then, when we insist on them actually doing their jobs and representing US, they insult and accuse us of being violent, racist extremists. Pointing to the occasional nut job as an example of what these Americans believe is no more fair to us than it would be to you if we pointed to the BNP and said that they represent mainstream British culture.
The unconstitional expansion of our Federal government has been going on since the 1930s, but has finally gone too far. Congress and Obama are pushing for a version of our country that is unrecognizable to what was created by our Founding Fathers. This founding vision of our government is what we believe in, at our core, as part of our identity as Americans. If we, as a people, decide that we want the Federal government to have more power, or that the Founding Fathers got it wrong, or that the changing times warrant a change in how we are governed, then we can vote and change the Constitution (and have done so 18 times -- 17 individual amendments plus the Bill of Rights).
But that is not what has happened. That is why the government's actions, power grabs and corruption are un-American. That is why we use that term. It fits. Debate is encouraged. Democracy is expected. But this grab of power by the Federal government over the objections of the governed -- that is intolerable.
To quote the Declaration of Independence (a document that you might hold in less esteem than we):
"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."
That is the crux of the matter to the millions (not thousands, millions) of people who rallied in Washington D.C. and all across the United States this last weekend.
I always find it interesting how our British friends perceive us, but I hope that you recognize that you will never truly understand our core culture. We hold certain things to be sacred. Perhaps this is not too unlike how many of us will never understand why you still have a monarch.
Complain about this comment
IRISH PEOPLE!!
Instead of listening to some lying, "EU"-loving politician, just walk into a field and sit under the rear end of a bull!
Complain about this comment
Obama once said "My friend Tony Blair."
He should choose his friends more carefully.
Complain about this comment
163. At 03:33am on 15 Sep 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:
" ...
The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition ...
Thucydides, book 3.82,[4]-[8]; in the fifth year of the Pelopennesian War."
I didn't realise the "EU" was that old!
Complain about this comment
177. At 05:16am on 15 Sep 2009, SuffolkBoy2
AFIK There is only one (sadly now infrequent) contributor to this blog from Eire. Perhaps you would be better employed writing to an RTF or Irish Times blog?
Complain about this comment
176. At 05:12am on 15 Sep 2009, Aliciadearn wrote:
"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."
That doesn't mean you have to do it by armed insurrection; it means get together and elect another, or get together and decide on another kind of government altogether. Umm, like even a constitutional monarchy, maybe.
(As we do; we've changed our form of government bit by bit by consent and public pressure quite a lot over the last 300 years, in fact. We even experimented with a Republic a hundred years before the USA, which people seem to forget. . .)
Complain about this comment
181. At 05:45am on 15 Sep 2009, squirrellist wrote:
176. At 05:12am on 15 Sep 2009, Aliciadearn wrote:
"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."
That doesn't mean you have to do it by armed insurrection ...
SB2: People in the "EU" are starting to think along those lines. Not me of course! I believe there is still plenty of scope for non-violent action.
Complain about this comment
It's the South, Mark. There's no excuse for it just as there is no cure for stupid. The people who are protesting Obama (aside from liberals who think he isn't liberal enough) are a) ignorant and b) racist.
If the South decides that it would like another attempt at nationhood all I can say is good riddance. Don't expect any resistance from the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
#151. GreySquirrel1867: " . . . British rule of Americans took taxes from us but gave no benifit to us."
Many would say that situation has not improved even after two centuries. Like father, like son!
Complain about this comment
#176. Aliciadearn: "That is the crux of the matter to the millions (not thousands, millions) of people who rallied in Washington D.C. and all across the United States this last weekend."
The best estimate for the numbers in DC is 850,000. Exaggeration does not help. In any case, more millions are content to let the President have his way, as he will, which must be galling to all those on the right. I wonder, Alicia, what health insurance you have and why you would deny health care to others?
"many of us will never understand why you still have a monarch."
Because it's the perfect combination, providing continuity while governments and prime minsters come and go. Ask yourself how many emerging nations have emulated the American model of governance as opposed to the Westminster model. Some nations prefer monarchies, Britain is not alone - ask the Japanese, the Danes, the Jordanians, the latter who had an American born queen.
Complain about this comment
181. At 05:45am on 15 Sep 2009, squirrellist wrote:
That doesn't mean you have to do it by armed insurrection ...
AD: Wow, hold on there, I never said anything about armed insurrection. I didn't even imply it. I fully agree with you about how to affect change. Why did you have the automatic reaction that I was suggesting something violent? Very curious that you assumed that and I think it suggests a bias towards certain American beliefs.
In the same vein, I'm not criticizing your constitutional monarchy or implying that our system of government is better, so you need not defend it. My reference to the queen was to draw the analogy between how we feel about our Founding Fathers/Constitution and how you might feel about your monarchy. They go to the core of a national identity that is not easy to explain to others outside our culture. I've obviously tapped a nerve; so, perhaps, you can now empathize with my point.
Complain about this comment
185. At 08:19am on 15 Sep 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#176. Aliciadearn: "That is the crux of the matter to the millions (not thousands, millions) of people who rallied in Washington D.C. and all across the United States this last weekend."
Even the right wing British Daily Mail (which you can guarantee to exaggerate anything anti-Obama) only dared go as far as 'up to a million', so given their record, you can certainly halve that at least.
#151. GreySquirrel1867: " . . . British rule of Americans took taxes from us but gave no benifit to us."
The original tea party in Boston was not really about taxes; it was about an early example of 'dumping' which (American) smugglers feared would cut their profits.
Something else that hasn't changed in 200 years. . .
Anyway, I don't understand the fuss. Americans have got what they wanted (taxation with representation) haven't they?
Complain about this comment
It is truly amazing and amusing to see (and read) how staunchly some posters, clearly living in the past, are trying to defend here socialist system and socialist ideas which have been totally discredited, which caused untold misery of hundreds of millions (literally), and, most importantly, have never worked anywhere: neither in the East and North, nor in the West and South.
Not to mention, that that socialism and socialist systems have been strongly rejected everywhere where people had any choice.
Some of those people voted with their feet (walking away from the Soviet Union's and Yugoslavia's workers' paradise the moment they could), some with their arms (swimming and rowing to Florida from Castro Bros.' Cuba), some simply soundly defeating socialist parties in free electons (like in Germany and France).
[yes, many still suffer in China, North Korea, Vietnam, having no choice]
At the rate things are going present day socialists will end up soon on the ash heap of history just like their predecessors and idols.
And many of you can't even see the writing on the wall.
Complain about this comment
Joe the Heckler and all the Tea Party protests with their co-opted Revolutionary symbols strike me as trivalizing American history and the "Spirit of '76".
"No taxation without representation" rallied Boston 2 centuries ago. The current tea party express have completely forgotten the "without representation" part.
Today's rallies are about being unhappy with our own, elected, representative government, and are not in opposition to an overseas king and occupying army. Rush Limbaugh says he wants our elected government to fail. Glenn Beck and other tea party leaders are risking a sunburn, a bad camera angle, or being seen as naysaying political opportunists, but they are not risking "lives, liberty and sacred honor".
If Bill O'Reilly can write a column praising President Obama's example as a modern-day Horatio Alger, who's proven that with persistance anything is possible, then maybe the tea party express can actually stop shouting long enough to listen a moment and reply to what is really being said. If more people contributed to our lawmaking process, which was so hard-earned 230 years ago, by working toward a compromise we might succeed in giving American citizens better and more affordable access to health care. We might also join the President in his call to more closely regulate Wall Street and prevent a repeat of the "Crash of '08" which caused so much hardship to so many, and fueled much of the (at least partly) mis-directed anger at Obama.
Complain about this comment
Re #125 "It seems to me that the problem is not the clowns in government, but our inability to discern the difference between an honest candidate and a scumbag."
Most of them start as honest candidates. It's the power, once they get it, which corrupts them).
As someone here, in Washington, D.C., famously observed many years ago:
"They came to Washington to do GOOD. And they did WELL."
This observation is, from where I sit, still valid today.
P.S. I'll be happy if you also comment on reports about a certain Congresswoman, a Democrat from California, co-owning (with her husband) a golf-club which does not admit blacks.
Complain about this comment
186. Aliciadearn wrote:
" I never said anything about armed insurrection."
I didn't say you did, but there are plenty of people (among the Washington marchers as well as among people who post here) who use that as a justification for suggesting it or even promoting it.
"My reference to the queen was to draw the analogy between how we feel about our Founding Fathers/Constitution and how you might feel about your monarchy. They go to the core of a national identity that is not easy to explain to others outside our culture. I've obviously tapped a nerve; so, perhaps, you can now empathize with my point."
I was merely attempting to point out that, although a monarchy, our governmental system is and has been for more than 300 years, a parliamentary one. And the majority of Brits aren't actually bothered that much about 'the monarchy' as such one way or another as far as government is concerned. It does what it's told.
If you want something that's more directly comparable, it would be something like our Bill of Rights from 1688, I suppose, which has in a way been the stimulus for a lot of our political development right up to the more recent Human Rights Act, but I doubt if more than 1 in a 100,000 Brits could actually quote any of it from memory.
Complain about this comment
188. At 08:40am on 15 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
"It is truly amazing and amusing to see (and read) how staunchly some posters, clearly living in the past, are trying to defend here socialist system and socialist ideas"
The only 'amazing' thing about it is that some of us are very much living in the present, and what is not at all 'amusing' any more is the way you and others will insist on confusing socialism with communism and even fascism every time you put two fingers to the keyboard.
It's boring. And wrong.
Complain about this comment
The other aspect that bothers me, aside from protestors trivializing history by wrapping themselves in it, is the "two wrongs make a right" argument for the likes of Joe Wilson and modern tea party behavior comapred to opposition to George W. Bush. That seems to feed a downward spiral in debate, which is not solving any problems...
Complain about this comment
176. "But that is not what has happened. That is why the government's actions, power grabs and corruption are un-American. That is why we use that term. It fits. Debate is encouraged. Democracy is expected. But this grab of power by the Federal government over the objections of the governed -- that is intolerable."
Power grabs over the objections of the governed? Like a president elected by less than half the voters invading a sovereign nation over the strident objections of his people?
188. "It is truly amazing and amusing to see (and read) how staunchly some posters, clearly living in the past, are trying to defend here socialist system and socialist ideas"
This is one of the biggest troubles with public debate in America. People like this respondent weigh in on issues of which they obviously have no grasp. The proposal in question is not 'socialized health care'. The government wouldn't be 'taking control of health care' no matter what Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz told you. Read the proposal before you distort things further, please.
And to all those who object to this plan because they fear that they're going to have to pay for it, you're already paying for the emergency care of those without insurance. You don't truly believe that someone who cannot afford insurance CAN afford to pay medical bills without it, do you? The hospitals pass those unpaid bills along to the rest of us in the form of higher costs.
I'd like to note a couple things here: The GOP is by consensus the party of the God-fearing. Do any of you God-fearing, red-blooded Americans remember the story about Jesus healing the sick? How about the one about Jesus feeding the masses with a bounty of fish?
So have the God-fearing turned away from the teachings of Christ completely, or only when it costs them the Almighty Dollar?
Complain about this comment
Re #136
Yet another unfortunate attempt by some to introduce religion into the discussion about a problem in a country which has a clear, distinct and constitutional laws separating church and state.
BTW. I seem to recall certain ruthless tax collector who, after hearing Jesus' teachings abandoned his profession and joined J's disciples.
Now, what was his name and why did he do it?
[demogogy cuts both ways]
Complain about this comment
192:
On reflection, I see I'm wasting my time when I read not one, but two so-called Professors of History defining 'socialism' in the NYT by quoting just one of the tenets of The Communist Manifesto without even a passing mention of St-Simon or Robert Owen.
That I might have expected from someone from the American Enterprise Institute, but not from historians.
If that's what is taught even at American Universities, I think I might as well give up.
Complain about this comment
First of all, the inclusion of religion here is to illustrate the rampant hypocrisy on that side of the debate. How can someone call himself God-fearing when he hates everything that Christ taught us?
But how ironic that you should choose that particular example, seeing as how Zacchaeus was overjoyed that although he KNEW he didn't deserve Jesus' company, Jesus came and stayed with him anyway. Isn't that kind of like people getting something they can't afford on their own?
Complain about this comment
197. At 09:59am on 15 Sep 2009, Pseudoraisining wrote:
"But how ironic that you should choose that particular example, seeing as how Zacchaeus was overjoyed that although he KNEW he didn't deserve Jesus' company, Jesus came and stayed with him anyway. Isn't that kind of like people getting something they can't afford on their own?"
Perhaps, then, Congressman Wilson (and some others) should go to stay with an "illegal alien" and offer to pay their health insurance?
The idea has something to commend it, I think.
Complain about this comment
sluff #147
An examplary post (by enzo111). Well though out, fact-based and devoid of personal attacks and slanderous innuendos so many other posts are, unfortunately, full off.
Take it from somebody who's obviously a fascist and a racist thrown out of Ku-Klux-Klan by its Grand Wizard "for right-wing extremism". :-)
BTW I think that a content of a sign held by a young man during a recent protest demontration is relevant to the level of this debate. It read:
"IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT MY SIGN SAYS; YOU'LL CALL IT RACIST ANYWAY".
Complain about this comment
"Perhaps, then, Congressman Wilson (and some others) should go to stay with an "illegal alien" and offer to pay their health insurance?"
There's only one service that our government should offer to those who have come here illegally, and that is a swift and direct escort back to the nation from which they came. Christ was ever the advocate of the criminal or the hated when it came to speaking of forgiveness, but he never said to condone crime.
That said, I'd pay a lot of money to see the look of disgust on most Republicans' faces at being forced to break bread with (gasp!) the poor, and illegal immigrants at that!
Complain about this comment
Re #$197
It might be worth pointing out that
Moved by the audacity of Jesus's mercy, Zacchaeus publicly repented of acts of corruption and vowed to make restitution for them.
Miracles happen and blind eventually can see as the above example shows.
Although not very frequently among elected public officials.
Unless they're about to lose their jobs.
[We'll remember in November]
And now perhaps, finally, back to secular matters such as insolvency of Social Security System and a predicament of other huge government-run (and taxpayer funded) programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, as applicable to success prospects of yet another governmental behemoth?
Complain about this comment
ref #189
If you are going to quote O'Reilly prasing Obama you might want to rember this:
He agrees for the need of healthcare reform, but like many of the protesters he is questioning the details, goverment's track record and the special union entitlements in the house bill.
So don't dismiisss the tea parties like Maureen Dowd does as racists.
Complain about this comment
Re #198
If you're really interested in what so-called professors teach at some American universities you might want to check what 'prof.' Angela Davies has been teaching at UCSC. And many others like her [tenured by now] at other illustrious institutions of higher learning.
And what is tought (or not taught] in American public schools.
Which brings us back to the question:
Is government a solution, or a problem?
Complain about this comment
"Miracles happen and blind eventually can see as the above example shows."
So you're saying that the people who are yelling about socialism might eventually read the proposal at hand and see that it's NOT socialism? We can only hope.
"back to secular matters such as insolvency of Social Security System and a predicament of other huge government-run (and taxpayer funded) programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, as applicable to success prospects of yet another governmental behemoth?"
As I've already pointed out, the plan we're talking about does not allow the government to run health care. It allows the government to subsidize health insurance for those who cannot afford it. The insured would pay premiums to PRIVATE insurance companies for PRIVATE health insurance and the premiums would be subsidized by the government. The only 'control' that the government would have would be criteria needing to be met by subsidized plans.
Neither would this be paid for by taxpayers, as has become the rally cry of those who worship the Almighty Dollar. You needed look no further than BBC's own site to read that "The president would pay for his $900bn plan by cutting waste from the existing Medicare programme, and levying fees on insurance companies who offer "gold-plated" insurance plans."
Insurance companies don't like this plan because it would force them to be more equitable. As such, they've turned their paid attack dogs (read: Republicans) in Congress loose on it. Those puppets, in turn, prey upon the gullibility of those who don't bother themselves to form an educated opinion.
Complain about this comment
@148 Simon 21
Sorry to post here. Referring to your post @267 Simon 21 of the previous cession, called *Press # 3 for linguistic…*,
*I believe you live in a big house. I bet you share it with numerous others and you all wear uniforms*.
With all of my respects, I do not accept the idea. First, policemen and other men in uniforms are not as intelligent and well informed as our fellow blogger Marcus is. Second, if my calculations are correct, he's a man of my age and consequently he might have already been retired (I am 61). No matter what you may think of him, Marcus reminds me of Candid, character of Voltaire. That's the reason why some bloggers hastily would just ignore his comments or would class them as being inadequate and not enough competent. As a matter of fact, Marcus is just another bell’s ringing in this vastness we could easily distinguish among so many other human voices. (Candid is the classic and omnipresent embodiment of frankness & innocence)
(I know MAII from the previous European blog of Mark Mardell. And I may assure you that the audience there was much more tolerable.)
Generalissimo Franco
Sofia, sept. 15th 2009
Complain about this comment
And while we're discussing 'big government', I'd like to call attention to another delicious morsel of irony: The party that says they're against government controlling our lives seems to have no problem with the government controlling what women do with their uterus, what we do with medical research, or with controlling who marries whom.
Someone refresh my memory: Does GOP stand for 'Grand Old Party' or 'Gang of Pietism'?
Complain about this comment
Re#204
"Neither would this be paid for by taxpayers, as has become the rally ry of those who worship the Almighty Dollar. You needed look no further than BBC's own site to read that "The president would pay for his $900bn plan by cutting waste from the existing Medicare programme"
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd luv to sell ya.
I have yet to see a single major government program from which waste has ever been succesfully eliminated. And if, by any chance (such as an obvious scandal media got a sniff of) some program IS eliminated (after a public outcry), another one is quickly created, funded with money allegedly saved, plus some more allocated by pork-barreling legislators.
And since you persistently raise an issue of hypocrisy on the other side
of the isle, perhaps you would care to also comment on reports about a certain Congresswoman, a Democrat from California, co-owning (with her husband) a golf-club which does not admit blacks?
And tell us again what would Jesus say?
P.S. Since I, personally, have also some serious doubts about heaven-run universal resurrection program, I'd rather not be taxed to death.
In this life.
Complain about this comment
ironfranco, you are correct when you say I don't wear a uniform. I live in this house with my sister and two big dogs and that is all. My maids come once every two weeks. My gardeners comes once every two weeks. There is no chauffeur, no cook, no other help. We have to see to that ourselves.
I made much of my money the old fashioned way, I inherited it. Not having a profession which pays tens of millions of dollars a year in bonuses for failure like investment banking or for playing games like baseball players, I invested that money carefully and conservatively knowing that I would not get a second chance if I squandered it. It is the fruits of 8 other people's lifetimes and I think if they were alive today they'd be glad to see it did not disappear down a rathole of self indulgence in trivialities or foolish get rich quick schemes sold by snake oil salesmen like stock brokers and investment advisors.
I am extremely grateful to my ancestors who came to these shores having left Europe, worked hard, saved, and left their material achievements to me. I've always wanted a large house and now I have one. America owes its success to being a land of opportunity not of guaranteed success. The guarantee of not failing also carries with it the assurance of mediocrity being the most one can achieve in life because any evidence of success beyond a modest level of comfort is taxed away by the government to bail out less successful people. This is the problems illegal migrants and those who refuse to get an education pose to society. They will inevitably become a drain on the public coffers which means a drain on those who are more successful but are forced to support them. So many that they are a lead ball and chain. Guaranteed government health care for everyone is only one more such ball and chain. In private insurance, those who take the highest risks pay the highest premiums. Life insurance for people who are daredevils, car insurance for motorcyclists who won't wear a helmet (that's illegal now) and medical insurance for those who smoke cigarettes should be much more expensive. Under Obama's plan there is no such correlation between risk and benefits. With the available relatively limitless funding initially and no profit incentive, the government will first drive private insurance companies that must make a profit out of business. Then in an effort to rein in vast resources it is expending it will ration medical care. The system will ultimately degenerate to the UK's system. There is no way I will pay less for medical care, I'll just pay more money out as a new higher tax for less quality of care than I save on premiums to a private insurance company because it will have to cover so many other people who do smoke, who do drink to excess, who do weigh 375 pounds but don't pay more for their bad lifestyle decisions. Many other Americans see it that way too. That is why they are so angry.
Complain about this comment
205. ironfranco
Please reply to a post within its own thread, or people will begin to suspect either you are trying to start a fan club, or even that you are another poster using another name.
Complain about this comment
# 187 squirrellist wrote: [of the attendance at anti-Obama protests in Washington]
"Even the right wing British Daily Mail (which you can guarantee to exaggerate anything anti-Obama) only dared go as far as 'up to a million', so given their record, you can certainly halve that at least."
Nate Silver at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/, in a piece on Sunday called 'Size Matters; So Do Lies', said the following:
"But yesterday, someone told a real whopper. ABC News, citing the DC fire department, reported that between 60,000 and 70,000 people had attended the tea party rally at the Capitol. By the time this figure reached Michelle Malkin, however, it had been blown up to 2,000,000. There is a big difference, obviously, between 70,000 and 2,000,000. That's not a twofold or threefold exaggeration -- it's roughly a thirtyfold exaggeration."
Complain about this comment
200. At 10:30am on 15 Sep 2009, Pseudoraisining wrote:
"There's only one service that our government should offer to those who have come here illegally, and that is a swift and direct escort back to the nation from which they came."
". . . and the greatest of these is charity." I am reliably informed that Mexico, unlike a near neighbour, is to offer an amnesty to those who are working there but did not enter the country legally.
Complain about this comment
Ref 183, BA
"It's the South, Mark. There's no excuse for it just as there is no cure for stupid. The people who are protesting Obama (aside from liberals who think he isn't liberal enough) are a) ignorant and b) racist."
Don't underestimate the extent of the opposition to universal healthcare and the inexplicable support to private insurance coverage. Opposition can be found throughout the country not just the South where, admittedly, this desperately needed proposal has served as a catalyst to inflame passions for reasons that have little to do with the issue at hand.
Contributing factors to the robust opposition to reform go well beyond ideology, greed, egotism, and political opportunism. President Obama made a huge strategic mistake when he let Congress tackle the issue without presidential guidance and leadership, and he has failed to explain how we are going to fund the proposed program with the specificity it deserves.
Suggesting that 2/3 of the cost will be borne by the elimination of wasteful MEDICARE spending without offering specifics such as which line items and corresponding funding would be eliminated caused unnecessary panic among seniors who are probably the least likely to be affected by any of the proposals that are being considered.
What we need at this point in the debate is presidential leadership and engagement. President Obama joined the debate too late in the game, but he still has a chance to accomplish what has eluded Republican and Democratic Presidents since Harry Truman. As a minimum, we need to get rid of the pre-existing condition clause, provide portability, eliminate or at least reduce co-pays and out of control premium increases, and make an effort to provide adequate healthcare to all our citizens.
Complain about this comment
@209 Squirrellist
Sorry to have posted here. Shall be back soon with an appropriate comment on the discussed subject.
Generalissimo Franco
Complain about this comment
195. powermeerkat wrote:
"Yet another unfortunate attempt by some to introduce religion into the discussion about a problem in a country which has a clear, distinct and constitutional laws separating church and state."
This is a total non-sequitur. If people vote with their conscience (christian or otherwise) then they should be in favour of universal healthcare. If they vote with their wallet, then at least have the honesty to admit it.
Seperation of church and state notwithstanding, according to the last census 76% of Americans identified themselves as Chrisitians of various denominations.
Each individual can vote with his own moral or religious preference without breaching the constitution.
What boggles the mind of many of us, is that people who often espouse a deep faith would show so little Christian charity to their less fortunate compatriots. Hypocrisy, or can you just be Christian on Sundays now?
Oh and to whoever it was who posted "Charity begins at home" earlier, well you words speak volumes for your character.
Complain about this comment
To powermeerkat and MagicKirin,
Do you both identify with KScurmudgeon's post in #163?
Complain about this comment
Re#211" I am reliably informed that Mexico, unlike a near neighbour, is to offer an amnesty to those who are working there but did not enter the country legally."
And who might that be? Narcotraficantes from Colombia? Or their illegal sponsors from Venezuela? Or refugees from now 'fascist' Honduras?
Or perhaps - horrible dictu - refugees from Cuba, which "has the best health-care system in the world"?
Let me reliably inform you (based on Mexican media reports and my own observations) that Mexico is ruled in practice by narcocartels.
[the country's Attorney General has just resigned 'cause he couldn't take constant pressure and threats any more.]
Let me also inform you that according to reputable Mexican sources
illegal immigrants (undocumented aliens, if you prefer) working illegally in U.S. send about 20 BILLION dollars [$20,000,000,000] per year to Mexico.
This money isn't even SPENT in the US (which might benefit its goods&services economy). And many Americans DO mind it.
P.S. This debate is turning into partisan Democrat-Republican recrimination duel. So perhaps Mark Mardell would do all readers of his blog a favo[u]r and report on significant contributions of LIBERATARIANS regarding health insurance reform proposals.
This is, nota bene, not a pro domo sua suggestion, since I am neither a Democrat, nor Republican, and not even a Libertarian.
Just my two cents. About all the change I can spare right now.
It's TIME FOR CHANGE! [in U.S. tax&spend Congress, come next November]
Complain about this comment
208 MAII
"medical insurance for those who smoke cigarettes should be much more expensive."
Or perhaps they could be subsidised from the profits of companies who knowingly sell addictive poisonus substances?
What about those wo drink alcohol? Causes lots of deaths too.
Nothing has yet come close to countering the ethical argument that in a civilised society basic universal healthcare should be an absolute human right.
Complain about this comment
#67 fluffytail : I assume you refuse to take gov run "unemployment insurance."
Anyone who works in the US pays for gov run unemployment insurance. It is taken out in taxes. Same as medicade and medicare. I don't think that you will find 1 american who doesn't think that something needs to be done about healthcare. As the richest country in the world I think all AMERICANS should have access to healthcare when they need it. Thats where the problem starts. Until Obama closes the loophole on providing ILLEGAL immigrants with healthcare that AMERICAN taxpayers pay for nothing will get passed. With Obama's tax and spend policies, unemployment going up and e-verify not passing except for certain states that decided to pass it themselves,would you trust Obama or the government with some kind of public healthcare. I DON"T
Complain about this comment
212. saintDominick: "Contributing factors to the robust opposition to reform go well beyond ideology, greed, egotism, and political opportunism. President Obama made a huge strategic mistake when he let Congress tackle the issue without presidential guidance and leadership, and he has failed to explain how we are going to fund the proposed program with the specificity it deserves."
*****************
President Obama has continued to make one significant mistake: he over-promises. It was he who made the claims about saving money, not increasing the deficit, not having any changes in one's current health care, etc., that cannot be substantiated and lead to the accusation that he is a "liar".
Not everyone is willing to take him at his word that, in the end, things will fall into place as he promises. And why should they?
Complain about this comment
I am English and have lived in the US for more than forty years. When I first came here the differences between the two parties were much less pronounced. There were fringe groups, particularly in the South and then strident protests and civil unrest during the 60s. I think it true to say that from time to time there have been eruptions of frightfulness and xenophobia or racism. However I think it true that in modern times we have seen nothing quite like the level of invective as that which has emerged since the last general election. The leaders of the tea party movement seem fairly wealthy and educated but they seem to be deliberately stirring up hatred and mischief among those they openly term "working class stiffs" and are exploiting the fears of those unemployed or drawn to political radicalism often in the most uninformed and vivid terms.
If the Republican Party succumbs to this fringe element it will lose all hope of being a national party and will more and more resemble the British BNP.
Complain about this comment
220. NIParson: "However I think it true that in modern times we have seen nothing quite like the level of invective as that which has emerged since the last general election."
**************
It was equally ugly during Bush's two terms, but I recall it starting when Republicans went after Clinton.
Complain about this comment
When Obama was in Europe he said something about letting Turkey into the "EU".
He should try to imagine the consequences of removing the border with Mexico.
He is entitled to say what he wants but it would have been better if he had kept quiet.
Complain about this comment
The constitution does say welfare you guys are such weasels.
Grey squirrel the invasive species.
You say does not have to provide everything.
blah blah.
what else do they provide. we\ll that defence.
Oh wait in that case take away all the aid for the old.
most of them had good wages earned for time when the deal was still working.
so get rid of oldies care as well.
let the work those generations did to better their family 's lot by having the farm turned over to the insurance industry ofrt he hospital.
Seeing as you prefer to retard your kids by teaching them yourselves why not get rid of all schools.
Becasue you would have a bloody revolution which is also mentioned in the constitution. obliquely.
Weasel worm squirm whatever. I see nothing but moving goal posts in the comments from the right.
I , under the advice of the poster that I cannot find provided clear proof that the constitution does indeed say that the stae shall look after the general welfare.
then they want to run to a new pitch and start the same game again.
Pathetic. Dishonest debate is the favourite of the right.
Complain about this comment
The Austrian Army will be part of a "European Battle Group" in the first half of 2011 and in the second half of 2012.
So that is Austria's neutrality being flushed away be the "EU"-Dictatorship.
Guarantees from "EU"-lovers have been shown in the past to be totally worthless.
I think it is reasonable to assume that any guarantees given to the Irish about their neutrality or anything else will also be worthless.
When considering whether to loose your neutrality or your virginity you consider not merely if but to whom.
By its actions in regard to the Lisbon Treaty, the "EU" has shown that even now it is a despicable, undemocratic, anti-democratic, megalomaniac monstrosity. After Lisbon it will get worse or so I and others believe.
Even the British Empire did not conscript in Ireland. The "EU" will. Lisbon will be far worse for the Irish than the British Empire.
Before the first Irish referendum I read that the "EU" had a package of measure just waiting for Lisbon to be in force. I would like to know what those measures are. The BBC is failing in its duty to inform the British people on the "EU".
Some sort of Schlieffen plan? The victims to be not just the Belgians and the French but the whole of the people in the "EU" except of course the "EU's" apparatchics and Darth Vaders.
Some have questioned my right to post here.
1) The "EU" is a danger to the USA.
2) I pay for the BBC through my taxes.
Complain about this comment
Ref 219. Andrea
"Not everyone is willing to take him at his word that, in the end, things will fall into place as he promises. And why should they?"
I agree that President Obama needs to provide unambiguous specificity regarding how healthcare reform would be implemented and, most importantly, he needs to clarify the issue of funding. Intuitively, I would say that if we use the systems that are in place in most industrialized nations as a model the only conclusion that can be reached is that our current system is too expansive, exclusive, inefficient and needs to be reformed.
I am not at all convinced that 2/3 of the annual funding associated with the proposals that are going to be discussed can be met by eliminating waste in MEDICARE. The President has to be more straight forward with the public and must include data that we can understand and use to assess the viability of what is being proposed. Instead, we spend our time talking about death panels, euthanasia, Hitler, socialism, the execution of American children, indoctrination and a host of ridiculous assertions that detract from our ability to form an opinion on an issue of great importance to our country.
Complain about this comment
218 stove top.
you would say that americans will deny their fellow americans health care incase someone who didn't pay was treated.
OK I'm glad you're on board we need it and I'm not sure if you fall sucker for the same line
because it is pathetic.
I'm pretty annoyed to read that medicare goes to all. not just the poor or underinsured.
I'm pretty annoyed to see geriatrics with huge houses with landscaped(ie ruined sterile grass monocultures) yards complaining that they will take less cruises this year because the premiums have gone up.
That gardening annalogy is quite fitting to the melting pot"dream" of america.
British gardens are a shock of perennials annuals all sorts. so thick that he weeds have no where to grow.
The states is a YARD mowed to the exact length. fed the wrong fertilisers and over watered.
Complain about this comment
re: 164 enzo Just why are you stuck with old and mostly ineffective drugs for certain cancers when the new (and much more expensive)drugs work so much better?
Well, actually, what you say may contain some truth. The fact is, both Canada and the US need to work hard to catch up to Cuba, whose survival rates for breast cancer are the best in the world: "For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates -- another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years." The link here.
Granted, these are five year survival rates, and what is really interesting are mortality rates. A good essay on the ins and outs of medical stats in Scientific Americanhere.
As to your ideas regarding rationing, I will leave the Brits to defend the NHS. Let me just point out that the notion of deprived Canadians flooding to the US for treatment is not true. The system here is not perfect. There are (sometime unacceptably long) waits for elective proceedures. But the we get, on the whole, high quality, timely treatment. All of us.
Complain about this comment
PS there have been americans fixed up on the NHS for cheap. they get billed maybe but way less.
I propose that all americans seeking treatment anywhere in the world should be forced to show local insurance pay at special rates (ie 4 times what it costs a brit privately) or die.
strange there is a post by the JW on americans getting treated in the UK. and saying rubbish as usual but strangely not going broke over it.
A special rate for americans because that's how they treat others.
I would also add that to treat your neighbours as you would have them treat you.
but that message would be lost on one of the most evil of "Christian" nations.
Complain about this comment
Ref 216, PM
"It's TIME FOR CHANGE! [in U.S. tax&spend Congress, come next November]"
Was the $1T spent on Middle Eastern adventurism more to your liking?
I am as concerned as everyone else about the massive amounts of debt that we have accumulated in recent years, but making President Obama responsible for it is a bit disingenous.
President Obama inherited a mess that required a massive infusion of funds in the form of a stimulus package, the Fed also had to pump in billions to stimulate a tenuous economic recovery. I think it is also important to note that the FY09 budget was signed by President Bush and took effect October 1, 2008. Obviously, the $800B stimulus package made the deficit much worse than it already was, but what is the alternative? Should our government - and us - allow the US economy to collapse?
We are not out of the woods yet, and it is still too early to tell whether or not a full recovery will be achieved, but there is no doubt in my mind that Bush's $700B TARP and Obama's $800B stimulus package prevented a catastrophe of major proportions.
Complain about this comment
206 GOP you ask what it means.
G as in old something "eriatric "
O as in an angle that is not right or acute but rather
P would for sure get me censored but a sharp stabbing with a needle will give you the Idea. Plural.
Complain about this comment
Wilson is a diversion from the real problem...
which is that the amount of money used in politics is excessive and the nation is being controlled by lobbyists and their clients (corporations and the wealthy)
The government is not working to make programs for the people but for the special interest groups. The AMA backs new programs for medical care because they have lost revenues when people were not insured.
Its really disgusting...and the old analogy..like pigs at the trough... suits.
Meanwhile Americans fight one another..and many American liberals that I know wish the South had won...because we feel like the South and its views are weakening America.
The majority of Americans want a health care system that works for America...and the people who live in America...
There were less than 100,000 people in Washington DC for the tea party rally. That is a very small number.
Complain about this comment
WHOOPS! SORRY! CORRECTION TO MY PREVIOUS POSTING!
The British Empire did not conscript in Ireland in WWI. I presume it did in the North in WWII.
Complain about this comment
"Let me reliably inform you"
that would be a first.
"reliability" ( a word Mark that you will notice gets its own meaning depending on which person you talk to.
some say the old ford that spends so much time being fixed is reliable. because it is reliably not japanese (though lol again it's parts are probably))
Complain about this comment
"151. At 00:04am on 15 Sep 2009, GreySquirrel1867 wrote:
The general welfare mentioned in the conStitution does not mean that congress is supposed to provide EVERYTHING for the people, other wise every aspect of our lives would be ruled by our government, & we would not be free but slaves. That phrase was meant to to point out that British rule of Americans took taxes from us but gave no benifit to us."
----------------------------------------------------------------
." That phrase was meant to to point out"
Making up the words as they go along . grunt grunt snort snort . pigs snuffling in the muck.
PS the constitution says "arms" not fire arms
are you sure you can read English?
Complain about this comment
re: 203 meerkitty Is government a solution, or a problem?
So, you're an anarchist, then?
Complain about this comment
ninny why don't you stop sounding like a broken record and save us all the reading.
you speak like a party mouth piece.
So far not one of the right seems to accept their own constitution that they throw out at all time.
instaead of just saying.
"your a democrat" bring some issues. something Interesting.
If you say I have brought nothing then fine. But the argument that I drew the attention of the bloggers here to is a pretty good one that YOUR SIDE seem to find rather dificult to answer. I doubt you see it as relevant.
Big deal you seem to miss a lot of other things as it happens so I 'd expect no less from you.
You have yet to make one origional comment in over a year. really it is like listening to a cheerleader who was put on the cheer squad so she could pass through high school.
"Go team"
Go Team"
Did you earn a gold star from GOP HQ or a silver star. either way they gave you too much.
If you want to talk about polite then try being polite.
When engaging in debate raise points make points, discuss points but when they are shown to be bull drop it!!
Other wise it is back to arguing with a drunk.
your style is the perfect example of "american political debate"
you say nothing of relevance.
You make up stories.
you make up what the opponent is saying then answer your fantasy of what they said.
ah no worries enjoy your life but don't go ruining it for others
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell, your discussion of earlier incidents in the Congress, and comparisons with Parliament, are interesting, but this incident is distinct from the give and take that can occur among members of Congress (or Parliament). The president is entitled to respect when delivering a message to Congress and the people, and the interruption was a violation of House of Representative rules, even if the remark had fallen short of calling the president a liar. The president's message could have been questioned in another time and place, and in a more polite manner.
Congressman Wilson should be given a formal reprimand by the House, in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
225. saintDominick: The total funding will not come from eliminating waste. Nowhere are Obama's claims about costs substantiated.
Agree about the need for reform. Who best to do it? I don't think our 3-headed beast (ex., the president, democrats and republicans) is doing a great job with this. Obama says one thing, democrats write another and republicans propose gotcha amendments.
Most of the innovations you read about come from governors/states or individual hospitals. I think we should give the states Medicaid block grants (substantially increased) and let them innovate. The governors, at least, have a stake in what works, and they seem to have the most rational arguments for and against the bills' details.
Complain about this comment
Re#222...
There's a very good reason why Mexico isn't a part of the United States, Puerto Rico has not become a U.S. state (although roughly half of its inhabitans regulary express such a wish in all pools conducted on the island), and nobody here is very eager to let Argentina and Brazil into NAFTA at this stage. [it then becoming AFTA].
Some nations have to build Great Walls to keep their citizens in (East Germany being a good case in point), while some nations (like U.S) have to built fences to keep people out.
How does this saying go?
"Good fences make good neighbours"?
And on a less facetious note:
COUNTRIES WHICH LOSE CONTROL OF THEIR BORDERS PRETTY SOON CEASE TO BE COUNTRIES.
And there are ample examples of that in the human history.
P.S. Of course we could also dispense with a whole concept of nations-states entirely and create one happy "global village".
Where everybody would be well served by Medicins sans Frontieres.
Complain about this comment
"Of course I did as you predicted. Your response did not negate my point. "General welfare" does not mean health care. If it did, those far wiser than you and I would have made health care available many years ago."
1st gen
you ask why the names.
well this is how I see it.
you said you would do something If I provided evidence. then you backed out because when you said that you assumed there was no reasoning behind my comment.
You then admit but ignore your own admission to doggedly press the issue that health care does not equal welfare because the people back then had no concept of big national hospital groups with doctors that were supposedly better than the snake oil sales men.
They have nothing in there about the right to build nuclear bombs in the country that harm people living near the test site.
but we all paid for it and the Indians are still paying for it.
There's a hearing for you run with it because the basis of you other points is rubbish.
WEFARE
would include access to the hospitals. Americans who are blind and grunt think that means nothing to do with the most basic fundamental welfare. Health.
Why do I call you and the others ninnies names.
Because you are the ones that are intellectually dishonest. as well as dishonest.
You show no back bone. You ask us to engage with you on a polite level but then do not have the decency to admit that you were wrong and the constitution does contain a command to look after the people.
At the same time proving my assertion that americans think words are so flexible that they might as well not be written.
You ignore your constitution when it is convenient then argue with those that would have howitzers legalised because of some obscure reading and interpretation of your constitution.
When people go through the effort of showing you and you close your eyes only to open them when the proof is put away. You are being disrespectful.
and ad that is why I treat you as someone worthy of contempt.
Same as the NY er.
but as you notice not quite the same as I treat some others who seem to make an effort and though I disagree with them , I still read their posts to see what interesting points they make or how they get there.
you are only worth reading in order to know how dishonest the so called polite people can be.
If you think you are polite then go to school again.
.
Complain about this comment
221 ninny (this time almost with affection) your comment that the republicans started it is for once true.
so isn't it time you stopped it?
or do you guys only start fights but can't end them?
Complain about this comment
224 I think they question your right to be allowed out of the institution not your right to post here. (well there are certain rules like no racism or slander that may get in the way occasionally.
Complain about this comment
There seem to be two parts to this debate: is it right for one politician to call another a liar, and how should healthcare be provided in the US?
On the first point, my response would be no: it is never right for one politician to call another a liar, however much they may disagree with their politics. This applies to all politicians of all parties. It is very easy to throw accusations of lying, when the other person may simply be misinformed. It also raises the temperature of debate, and the louder someone is shouting, the less likely they are to be able to listen to opposing arguments.
How should healthcare be provided in the US? That is, obviously, a matter for US citizens to decide, not those of us on the other side of the Atlantic. However, I am reminded during this debate of an article I read in a local paper 30 years ago, intended as a salutary warning that when visiting the US for any reason, it is essential to purchase sufficient health insurance (certainly more than when visiting other countries).
The article concerned an elderly couple who had visited the US for a holiday, along with another relation (I believe a sister of one of the couple). While there, the husband became ill and needed to be hospitalised. His wife was told that he needed an operation: she said, "We can't afford it" and the doctors said "You have to afford it because we are going to operate anyway: it is the only way to save his life." The operation went ahead, the husband died despite this, and his widow was presented with a bill that was so large that she would have to sell her house in order to pay it.
Now, obviously the facts presented in the local paper came from one side only, the widow and her sister/sister-in-law, so may or may not be completely correct: and the situation may well have changed in 30 years. But it does reflect the perception (accurate or not) that visitors should not suffer a major illness or be victim to an accident while in the US, because it is simply too expensive to be treated.
Complain about this comment
#176. Aliciadearn: " the millions (not thousands, millions) of people who rallied in Washington D.C. and all across the United States this last weekend."
Apropos my post at #185, the figure of 850,000 has been revised down by independent analysts to a tenth of that number, perhaps even to just 70,000. Of interest is that in their zeal to show how many were in attendance, a five year old photo was posted on the 'net - and not taken at the National Mall!
An interesting development which will irk Alicia and her kind, the AMA is now on board with the President.
Complain about this comment
Re #235
As Ronald Reagan famously remarked:
The most terryfing phrase in English language is
"I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I'VE COME TO HELP YOU".
Thank God, 'chronophobe' you're not from this country, for otherwise I'd get mighty scared (although I don't scare easily).
Although I'm glad that you enjoy such a fantastic health service in your country, second only to that in Castro Brothers' Cuba.
Cuba, you know, that huge prison next to Gitmo?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS TROUGH THIS WORLD I RAMBLE
I SEE MANY FUNNY MEN
SOME KILL YOU WITH A SIX-GUN
SOME WITH A FOUNTAIN PEN
(Woody Guthrie)
Complain about this comment
You really are "too new to this place to know"; which is at once both an advantage and a disadvantage. It means you can approach matters more openly and guilelessly without a lot of pre-existing prejudices (to an extent) but it also means you perhaps mistake rhetoric for substance. Sure, Wilson is a sod but his intemperate outburst contains a kernel of truth - not so much in the specific sense but in the general sense. As the noted American independent journalist, the late I.F. Stone once succinctly put it, "All Governments Lie." Wilson's remark could just as easily be directed at any president in the past - most notably G.W. Bush - or anyone on Capitol Hill, including himself. Lying is "just the vigorous terms of debate that are normal" in Washington - and most other world capitals. Just ask that suave liar, T. Blair. Which is "why many see Congress as the last refuge of grown-up" deceit, "and want to keep it" away. Corporate "tyranny" is dressed up in lies about "liberty". Obama and Wilson and talk radio all serve the same ends of corporate power in their own fashion.
Complain about this comment
What would america know of good fences. they don't even know blacksmiths make them.
238 AdrienNY.. (see speak some sense and you will get treated with some respect)
good comment.
much better.
I don't think Obama a beast.
I won't argue the donkey and the elephant aren't though.
States would opt out and all the people from them states would be behaving like the immigrants you all describe taking services they didn't pay for.
Suppose it's not so bad if they are american.
Oregon used to have a basic system for the poor. still does to some extent. It got scuppered by Bush's war needs.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
239. At 4:58pm on 15 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Re#222...
There's a very good reason why Mexico isn't a part of the United States, Puerto Rico has not become a U.S. state (although roughly half of its inhabitans regulary express such a wish in all pools conducted on the island), and nobody here is very eager to let Argentina and Brazil into NAFTA at this stage. [it then becoming AFTA]."
And that reason is?
"COUNTRIES WHICH LOSE CONTROL OF THEIR BRDERS PRETTY SOON CEASE TO BE COUNTRIES.
And there are ample examples of that in the human history."
Hmm but as you have just pointed out control of its borders did not save the Soviet Union or East Germany or Roumania etc etc."
"P.S. Of course we could also dispense with a whole concept of nations-states entirely and create one happy "global village".
Where everybody would be well served by Medicins sans Frontieres."
Considering the multmillions who have died due to nationalism - this idea can hardly be any worse.
Complain about this comment
What this reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3u3PwCZfM4
Complain about this comment
224. At 3:28pm on 15 Sep 2009, SuffolkBoy2 wrote:
The Austrian Army will be part of a "European Battle Group" in the first half of 2011 and in the second half of 2012.
So that is Austria's neutrality being flushed away be the "EU"-Dictatorship."
I am sure this will cause restless nights for us all. Austria's army hmm I think of nothing else.
"I think it is reasonable to assume that any guarantees given to the Irish about their neutrality or anything else will also be worthless.
When considering whether to loose your neutrality or your virginity you consider not merely if but to whom."
Rather a peculiar analogy. For most men the considering is remarkably short. Ireland and Austria have been ravaged and savaged by war. They are not international virgins.
Given your odd sexual obsession a better word would be chastity.
"By its actions in regard to the Lisbon Treaty, the "EU" has shown that even now it is a despicable, undemocratic, anti-democratic, megalomaniac monstrosity. After Lisbon it will get worse or so I and others believe."
You probably also beleive in the Loch Ness monster as well.
"Even the British Empire did not conscript in Ireland. The "EU" will. Lisbon will be far worse for the Irish than the British Empire.
Before the first Irish referendum I read that the "EU" had a package of measure just waiting for Lisbon to be in force. I would like to know what those measures are. The BBC is failing in its duty to inform the British people on the "EU"."
Hmm and are the Irish leaving the EU? Answer no.
They will vote for the Lisbon Treaty as their demcractic government wants them to do.
Oh and a word of warning, the Irish do not tend to appreciate lectures from the English on what they should do.
"Some sort of Schlieffen plan? The victims to be not just the Belgians and the French but the whole of the people in the "EU" except of course the "EU's" apparatchics and Darth Vaders."
Some sort of craziness Darth Vader and the Schlieffen Plan? What about the Daleks are they involved?
"Some have questioned my right to post here."
And some of us are questioning your health if you know what I mean.
Complain about this comment
littlepammie
Nice post. there is really only one debate here which is not that there needs to be health care (already done) .
The debate is really about the rude behaviour.
But I am suggesting that it is so much the norm for the right.
That they are not polite.
Sugar and honey with arsenic in it is not nice stuff.
It looks great but kills you.
I'd say that the dems on the whole are only marginally better.But they are better.
Here on this blog and the one before we are now arguing with the same points with the same lies.
The healthcare debate here illustrates the inability for the right to accept their own words or their own constitution because they have some really strange meanings of what words mean.( linked to another blog post by MM)
This utter disrespect to all by the right is also shown by the behaviour of the idiot screaming at Obama.
The refusal to accept that general welfare would include health care . then the weaselling to "you can't make every body, can't force them to"
after saying Show me the money and I'll get off it" is so typical it is what the poor poor democratic politicians have to face every day.
Then to have one shout "liar" must be really annoying.
The health care part of this discussion is really a discussion about honesty in debate.
Complain about this comment
241. fluffytale: "221 ninny (this time almost with affection) your comment that the republicans started it is for once true.
so isn't it time you stopped it?
or do you guys only start fights but can't end them?"
********************
You are soothed that I criticized Republicans.
I'll call them ASAP and tell them to knock it off.
Complain about this comment
If the President stops using the number 46 million Americans without healthcare (Which by congresses own very low estimate includes over 12 million illegals) then I will stop believing that I am being lied to.
Complain about this comment
Re#249
powermeerkat wrote: "COUNTRIES WHICH LOSE CONTROL OF THEIR BORDERS PRETTY SOON CEASE TO BE COUNTRIES.
And there are ample examples of that in the human history."
Simon21 replied:
Hmm but as you have just pointed out control of its borders did not save the Soviet Union or East Germany or Roumania etc etc."
True. And for a very good reason. Those borders were heavily guarded (Albania's even more than that of DDR's) not to protect those states from a huge influx of huddled masses from without, but from a massive outflow of their own huddled masses.
Those borders might have protected those failed states from an outside invaders.
But they were not strong enough to withstand a pressure of millions desperately wanting to get out.
Similarly, the fence currently being built on the basically unprotected U.S. southern border will be easily toppled if millions of destitute and enslaved American citizens push against it desperately trying to get to Mexico; if they decide one day they'd be much better off there than in El Norte.
Just as the US Coast Guard won't be able to prevent escapes of oppressed Americans from Florida to Cuba if they are desperate enough to get there.
For example, to take care of "the best health care system in the world".
Which brings us back to the main topic of that discussion. :-)
Complain about this comment
re: 245 meerkitty Thank God, 'chronophobe' you're not from this country, for otherwise I'd get mighty scared (although I don't scare easily).
I will take that as a compliment. Thank you.
But you seem to have missed the point: in this particular category, the US is second to Cuba. We are third.
And here's some Woody right back atcha:
The crops are all in and the peaches are rotting
The oranges are filed in their creosote dumps
They're flying 'em back to the Mexico border
To take all their money to wade back again
Goodbye to my Juan, farewell Roselita
Adios mes amigos, Jesus e Maria
You won't have a name when you ride the big airplane
All they will call you will be deportees
My father's own father, he waded that river
They took all the money he made in his life
It's six hundred miles to the Mexico border
And they chased them like rustlers, like outlaws, like thieves
The skyplane caught fire over Los Gatos Canyon
The great ball of fire it shook all our hills
Who are these dear friends who are falling like dry leaves?
Radio said, "They are just deportees"
Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can raise our good crops?
To fall like dry leaves and rot on out topsoil
And be known by no names except "deportees"
Why shouldn't the people who do your dirty work be treated like human beings?
Complain about this comment
The quesiton when distilled is:
When is it morally correct to oppose authority by breaking the law?
and thats why Obama is being compared to Hitler..because the moral imperative is more clear then...so people can be encouraged to break the law or rules
Should someone have shouted to Bush "you lie" when his administration said there were wmd in Iraq and we should go to war and not wait for the mushroom cloud?
It seems to me that either we are now seeing more clearly what has been going on all along and we have been lied to ...or the system is breaking down.
My hope is that America can be in the future what it has said it was...
Obama gave a speech today in front of the AFL CIO and gave imo an excellant speech.
Imo Obama is hoping the unions will grow and help him get programs through that will help the American people and constrain the wealthy and the large corporations.
Complain about this comment
247. fluffytale: "States would opt out and all the people from them states would be behaving like the immigrants you all describe taking services they didn't pay for.
Suppose it's not so bad if they are american."
************************
Governors usually object to "unfunded" mandates. They could be subject to the same requirements as proposed -- ex., no refusal for pre-existing conditions, etc.
Illegal immigrants are the governors' responsibility anyway.
Obama can take all that money that he plans to save by not giving it to the insurance companies and give it to the states with provisions.
They'll be a lot more innovative than a large federal bureaucracy.
Complain about this comment
please do.
Complain about this comment
A resolution passed in the House, 240 to 179.
Complain about this comment
cyberITguy: Regarding post 254, please see the publication Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008, which is downloadable as a PDF document from the US Census Bureau.
On page 59 of that publication, in Table C-1, Health Insurance Coverage: 1987 to 2008, in the row marked "2008" and the column marked "Not covered", one can see that the estimate given is 46,340 thousands (i.e. 46,340,000 people). On page 21, in Table 7, one finds that the bounds for the 90% confidence interval for this estimate are plus or minus 529 thousands (i.e. 46,340,000 +/- 529,000 people). These numbers come from the US Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, 2009 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
On page 57 of the publication, in the first paragraph, one can read the following description of these data:
This publication from the US Census Bureau does not provide any numeric breakdowns by legal or illegal presence.
May I ask what number of people you believe to be without health insurance, and what the source of that number is?
Complain about this comment
255. At 8:36pm on 15 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
Re#249
powermeerkat wrote: "COUNTRIES WHICH LOSE CONTROL OF THEIR BORDERS PRETTY SOON CEASE TO BE COUNTRIES.
And there are ample examples of that in the human history."
Simon21 replied:
Hmm but as you have just pointed out control of its borders did not save the Soviet Union or East Germany or Roumania etc etc."
True. And for a very good reason. Those borders were heavily guarded (Albania's even more than that of DDR's) not to protect those states from a huge influx of huddled masses from without, but from a massive outflow of their own huddled masses."
Really. Did you ever try and enter the Soviet Union on a whim? Try to cross into East Germany?
They controlled their borders and still collapsed - your point fails.
"Those borders might have protected those failed states from an outside invaders.
But they were not strong enough to withstand a pressure of millions desperately wanting to get out."
Well that was not a matter of borders was it. It went a bit beyond that.
"Similarly, the fence currently being built on the basically unprotected U.S. southern border will be easily toppled if millions of destitute and enslaved American citizens push against it desperately trying to get to Mexico; if they decide one day they'd be much better off there than in El Norte."
Or some are fleeing the police or the drug gangs still need crossing and delivery points. Or the imnmigrants flow back and forth as they visit families bring back money etc.
SO your point is lost - again
Complain about this comment
As a former member of the US Military myself, I think there's some additional analysis that's needed here, especially after reading the military data in Wilson's bio.
I think there’s a general agreement that the deliberate use of intimidation, used throughout the US Military indoctrination processes, is intended, first, to disfranchise people from a large number of decision-making variables, and second, to set the bar for making complaints and/or changes in a system very high.
I don't want to belabor the point with the nuances of intimidation, but people should understand that hectoring remains an effective behavior modifier, that the military wouldn't use it so extensively otherwise, and that it takes much thought and planning to render such behavior less effective.
In Wilson’s case, retiring as Colonel in the JAG Corps is not at all equivalent to such an extremely high rank in the operational segments of the military, and is more akin to being an officer in the Medical Corps. For example, a JAG Colonel is not responsible for a Brigade of soldiers, but is awarded their officer rank dependent upon professional experience, in Wilson’s case Law, and not on command responsibilities in the traditional military sense.
That said, with hotheads, it’s good to be aware of them and what they’re doing, but it’s even better to ignore them. Wilson is just an example of the state of the Military’s relationship with the US Government.
Anyone wanting to read up on the state of affairs between the US government and the US Military would find James Carroll’s “House of War” a good place to start. I, for one, would like to know where to look for information in that regard for Britain. Are there MPs, current or former, who were military men or women? How did they conduct themselves? What were the responses to their conduct?
The BBC reporting in the US is brilliant, and it’s my main source of news (including the extensive news and investigative podcast productions that I listen to regularly). But Mark, you and the BBC really have an obligation to look into how the military and the government here get along. Without that knowledge, I don’t really know how good a job you’ll be able to do other than just “report.”
Complain about this comment
While Representative Wilson could have had more tact with his comment (namely by saving it for later), he certainly is not a disgrace. Obama and his cabinet have consistently misled the public about his legislation. Proof is found in the completely inaccurate predictions he and his cabinet made about the economy months ago (they continue to be wrong, by the way).
Attempts by people to paint Wilson and his supporters as crazy, racist, fringe, or irrelevant are useless and ridiculous. Millions of Americans want answers from Obama concerning his past, current, and future legislation, which so far has not been much "change" at all.
Complain about this comment
While Representative Wilson's actions were out of line, I feel that the reaction has been disproportionate to the offense. Especially given what Bush, or even Clinton put up with during their presidencies, and the relative lack of reaction to it.
With regard to the tea parties, I would say Mr. Mardell, that you would do well to look beyond our nation's capitol. Protests of any sort in Washington D.C. tend to bring out the more extreme side of any argument.
Complain about this comment
1st generation.
You did exactly as predicted.
shame. yuo admit it then carry on. that is the problem.
debate with the GOP is like debate with a drunk.
the drunk keeps saying"YES THHATS RIGHT BUT>..." then they carry right on as if they never agreed.
stuck in a loop of confused neurones wondering if they just said that or were thinking about it.
That seems to ba as american as it gets in debate.
"Not to mention the fact, Constitutionally, the Government (Obama) does NOT have the Right to implement such a plan. "
"72 Fluff
Show me where and I will retract my statement."
I did you weaselled.Then tried to tell another responding to you that they were off topic . a topic you brought up.
.
Complain about this comment
re: 175 IMAProgressive Is white the norm or the meter stick by which everyone else should be measured?
Yes, yes! This is the nub of it -- 'white' is not a so much a 'race' as it is a myth of power. The tea party rhetoric is an expression of angst at the thought that this myth might, at long last, be crumbling.
Think of it -- all the status, the economic benefits, the sense of power, that accrues to one on account of 'whiteness' -- all of this is challenged by the mere symbolism of a person of colour in the White House! Whiteness the meter stick no more.
Now, add to this Obama's somewhat progressive agenda, and -- presto! -- mobs of angry white folk pining for the loss of their comfortable hierarchy ...
Complain about this comment
267 chrono you pinko you
I agree.
Complain about this comment
Tiger Woods has famously stated couple of years ago when refusing to be coopted by African-Americans, Asian-Americans, etc.:
"I'm not black, Im'm not Asian, I'm not white. I'm AMERICAN!"
Well said, Tiger! [oops, have I just drawn a WILD card?]
P.S. Sorry 'pool-side pinkos'. I grew up in times when PC stood only for 'personal computer'. :-)
Complain about this comment
BTW What color (as if it mattered) were the Bush Administration's
National Security Advisor, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State?
The answer: of different color than their equivalents in Obama's Administration. [oops!]
Complain about this comment
From the latest debate here:
At 8:59pm on 15 Sep 2009, alanNJ wrote:
I don't support Obama because he's 100% liberal; NOT because he's 50% black.
Complain about this comment
[Complain as much as you want.]
Complain about this comment
54. AndreainNY: "In this particular case, the 'you lie' heckler was also wrong on the facts"
******************
How so?
The bill clearly restricts subsidies to U.S. citizens and legal residents.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
Complain about this comment
264. At 00:42am on 16 Sep 2009, leemil4 wrote:
While Representative Wilson could have had more tact with his comment (namely by saving it for later), he certainly is not a disgrace. Obama and his cabinet have consistently misled the public about his legislation. Proof is found in the completely inaccurate predictions he and his cabinet made about the economy months ago (they continue to be wrong, by the way)."
This is abundant proof of your inability with the English language. Unless you beleive Obama has a secret time machine he cannot actually tell the future only tell you what he beleives it might be. Most people with a brain cell are aware of this.
Perhaps he should preface his remarks with some phrase "I cannot travel through time" in case people like you beleive otherwise.
Therefore he can hardly be lying since he does not know the truth of the matter, much less conceal it.
Tell you what try suing your bookie for giving you a wrong tip on the gee gees, and see how far that gets you.
Complain about this comment
270. At 10:17am on 16 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
BTW What color (as if it mattered) were the Bush Administration's
National Security Advisor, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State?
The answer: of different color than their equivalents in Obama's Administration. [oops!]"
What colour was Bush, the vast majority of his Cabinet and who complained they were cut out of decision making?
Opps again.
Complain about this comment
271. At 10:22am on 16 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:
From the latest debate here:
At 8:59pm on 15 Sep 2009, alanNJ wrote:
I don't support Obama because he's 100% liberal; NOT because he's 50% black."
Yes of course, its just a coincidence. Yeah right.
How interesting his percentage of blackness means so much to you.
Another coincidence? Opps again.
Complain about this comment
"I'll just pay more money out as a new higher tax for less quality of care than I save on premiums to a private insurance company because it will have to cover so many other people who do smoke, who do drink to excess, who do weigh 375 pounds but don't pay more for their bad lifestyle decisions."
Well it is not that there are neither cigarettes nor booze avaliable here in Europe, but instead of taxing everyone to cover the costs for negative effects of those the taxes are put on the specific products so that you would only have to effectively pay more for your healthcare when you buy cigs or alcohol (as you are a friend of whine i doubt the relatively low tax on that will have a big impact on your already noth that cheap bottles).
For fat people I think it is a bit more tricky. They are not taxed as much but as they usually don't reach ages of leaner people the money they cost more in health care is saved in governmental pension plans.
Though our opinions don't seem to go along all the way there, we are not entirely stupid ;-)
Complain about this comment
chronophobe:
Interesting that you would try to use a 10 year old study to somehow justify a claim that the Canadian health care system is fine and healthy today. And a study that looked at the number of Canadians coming to the US for treatments in only 3 border states at that! To say that things have changed a bit in the intervening 10 years is to put it nicely.
Rather than my spending the time to educate you, try googling "Canadian health rationing" and a few other variations to see for yourself just what has happened to your system over the last few years - even your health minister admits that it is suffering from massive funding issues. As one health ministry official put it : "We have no idea how many people die while on the waiting lists for their treatments - no one is counting".
And therein lies the issue that rational thinking US citizens have with how our elected officials are going about "solving" the problem - they truely do not seem to understand that there is no way to guarantee full coverage to everyone without a huge increase in the outlay per person, and with that outlay increasing every year as medicine comes up with more and more ways to treat illnesses.
No. The only solution if coverage is to be given to all as a "right" is to severely limit what services are allowed - exactly what goes on in Canada, England, and all other "social" medicine countries.
As to those who complain that they have to buy insurance when they come to the US, well, since you have not paid INTO the health system over here, what makes you thing that you are entitled to WITHDRAW from the system?
When I travel abroad, I also purchase insurance policies - I really do not think it is rerasonable for another countries citizens to pay for my problems when I visit their country.
Sorry, but your "free" health care is not free - as with all government spending, it comes directly out of your pocket in the form of taxes.
If we continue to allow our elected officials to pass more and more entitlement programs, pretty soon the cost won't be covered even if they take every last penny of your paycheck.
Complain about this comment
I am a Brit who spends about 4 months a year in the US. There is no doubt that the political scene has become pretty vicious since Obama first reared his head as a Presidential candidate. But from what I can see, it's not neccessarily Congress that is responsible so much as the incitement published daily by right wing news stations, radio talk show hosts and media generally. Believe me, some of these characters need to be seen/heard to be believed. They lie, shout, cry, spout venom and all in multiple decibels.
Of course the Americans also don't know how to conduct a meeting properly, as was illustrated by the so-called town hall meetings about health care in the summer. They were more like free-for-alls with whoever could shout the loudest taking over the whole thing. That's not a meeting, that's a pantomime.
If you want to hear proper debate based on logic and evidence in America, forget it!
Complain about this comment
Gherkin
OH I'm not really that sorry about my name calling. I did give it up but you guys couldn't so I joined in again.
but really if you ninny and the erroneous one want to look for insults then look at your own posts.
you insult yourself as a human being there all the time.
Complain about this comment
#251. Simon21: "Ireland and Austria have been ravaged and savaged by war. They are not international virgins."
Ireland? They sat out the last war and were a haven for German spies. When was the last time Eire, to give it its correct name, was "savaged by war"?
"They will vote for the Lisbon Treaty as their demcractic government wants them to do."
They didn't last time, so why the assumption that they would now? And as Marcus would willingly point out, the British never were given an opportunity to vote. There is little doubt in my mind that had there been a referendum, it would have been defeated.
Complain about this comment
Unlike your parlimentary system in the UK, we operate under a written constitution here in the States. For historical reasons, many of us have a deep distrust of a distant-seeming intrusive government that pays little heed to our wishes and desires. Our constitution was intended to place checks on the central government and keep most decisions that affect our citizen's day to day lives at a closer level to the people. It was intended to list only the powers that the central government had...anything not mentioned was reserved to the individual constituent states. Healthcare...not mentioned. Therefore under Amendment 10, healtcare is no business of the Federal government and must be enacted on the state level. Several of our states HAVE enacted universal healthcare as expressed by the will of their citizens. A Federal level healthcare bill would be unconstitutional. So far this hasn't stopped the Feds from enacting tons of unconsitutional laws..this is what scares a lot of Americans. Our Federal representatives swear an oath to uphold the constitution but most seem to have never read it.
Complain about this comment
42. At 2:48pm on 14 Sep 2009, Yankatlarge wrote:
"And, for the record (not sure how Hitler gets dragged into every discussion), but the Austrian Corporal of whom so many speak was a Socialist. What do you think 'NAZI' stands for!?! He was merely offering German industrialists a more palatable system than the Communists of the day. See what happens when you settle for half-measures? ;-)"
_________
Uh, no.
Adolf Hitler could not by any reasonable interpretation be termed a socialist. He simply took over a very small pre-existing political splinter group, and turned it inside-out such that the name became entirely misleading. Just as the Holy Roman Empire was, after a time, neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire, the NSDAP was after Hitler's takeover very soon neither particularly national, nor socialist, nor entirely German, nor dominated by workers, nor a political party so much as a Brownshirt gang prepared to silence its opponents by violence and intimidation - the Basij of the 1920's and 30's you might say.
You might want to read: "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", William Shirer. Well known book. Still in print, too.
Complain about this comment
48. At 3:13pm on 14 Sep 2009, 1stGenAmerican wrote:
"... Those of us protesting against "Obama healthcare" are not protesting against affordable insurance for all, but rather any plan run and controlled by the GOVERNMENT! Yes, the system needs to be reformed, but the Government (regardless of Republican or Democrat controlled)is not qualified or capable of effectively running such a beast. Not to mention the fact, Constitutionally, the Government (Obama) does NOT have the Right to implement such a plan."
_______
Could you please point to the section and precise wording in the US Constitution to which you refer?
Or, alternatively, could you admit that you haven't a clue what you are talking about?
Complain about this comment
281 - japridemor
"Unlike your parlimentary system in the UK, we operate under a written constitution here in the States"
You are letting yourself down with your knowledge of the UK. The UK does indeed have a written constitution. It's just not written down on a single piece of paper as the US constitution is. The UK constitution evolved over hundreds of years, starting from the Magna Carta and incorporated into the English Common Law. The framers of the US constitution simply short-cut the hundreds of years and this is why the US constitution is on a single piece of paper.
As for healthcare not being mentioned in the US constitution - not really suprising is it? In the 1770s healthcare was a dirty saw and something to bite on. Perhaps if the framers had modern healthcare then maybe they would have put it into the constitution?
Literal obeyance of the constitution as a model for how to run a country is as surely doomed to fail as did the literal obeyance of the Bible for European countries, as is the literal obeyance of the Koran for Islamic states we see today. You might not like it, it might offend you patriotism and your faith in the "founding fathers", but the more years go past, the more out-of-date the constitution will become.
Complain about this comment
83. At 5:48pm on 14 Sep 2009, squirrellist wrote:
"... I have never read of any concerns as to what proportion of Chinese, or Canadians, in the USA may be in the country illegally and wishing to take advantage of 'free' emergency health care, for example. If the provision, or restriction of it, is an issue, then why mention Hispanics (or more often, Mexicans) in the same breath?"
______
However, there are lots of Americans illegally in Canada using fake ID to receive medical treatment, e.g., under OHIP. This is a recurring problem. The government of Ontario says very little to avoid irritating our neighbours, but spends significant time and enforcement effort on the problem. Who knew that living in Buffalo had such potential advantages?
Complain about this comment
280. At 4:56pm on 16 Sep 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#251. Simon21: "Ireland and Austria have been ravaged and savaged by war. They are not international virgins."
Ireland? They sat out the last war and were a haven for German spies. When was the last time Eire, to give it its correct name, was "savaged by war"?"
The civil war, the war of independence. The burning of Cork etc. Not world wars, but real wars replete with killing atrocities etc.
"They will vote for the Lisbon Treaty as their demcractic government wants them to do."
They didn't last time, so why the assumption that they would now? And as Marcus would willingly point out, the British never were given an opportunity to vote. There is little doubt in my mind that had there been a referendum, it would have been defeated."
Perhaps in the UK, but in the UK voting on treaties is unconstitutional (as much as anything is). The UK US alliance is not voted on, neither is any other treaty.
As regards Ireland, the Irish always support the EU ultimately.
Complain about this comment
japridemor (#281) is guilty of his own selective reading of the US Constitution. The first of the enumerated powers of the Congress under Article I, Section 8 is:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The tenth amendment is:
Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution does not enumerate every possible act of Congress which falls under the category of "general welfare" and it does not need to. There are a great many US laws promoting the general welfare of the citizens of the United States on matters which are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. There is no prohibition against federal health insurance programs in the Constitution, and no liklihood that a health insurance bill, if passed, will be found unconstitutional.
Only the US Supreme Court can say with authority what is unconstitutional. Anonymous bloggers who assert that this or that is "unconstitutional" generally don't know what they are talking about.
Complain about this comment
"176. At 05:12am on 15 Sep 2009, Aliciadearn wrote:
"Under our Constitution and our system of Federalism, the Federal government has a limited list of enumerated powers. The various powers that be have tortured and stretched the Constitution beyond recognition in order to legislate on things they have no business legislating on.
"The unconstitional expansion of our Federal government has been going on since the 1930s, but has finally gone too far. Congress and Obama are pushing for a version of our country that is unrecognizable to what was created by our Founding Fathers. This founding vision of our government is what we believe in, at our core, as part of our identity as Americans. If we, as a people, decide that we want the Federal government to have more power, or that the Founding Fathers got it wrong, or that the changing times warrant a change in how we are governed, then we can vote and change the Constitution (and have done so 18 times -- 17 individual amendments plus the Bill of Rights)."
_________
So, precisely which section of the Constitution prevents congress from making laws in the field of health care ?
How is it that the Constitution permits publicly funded healthcare (and has done without protest for years, and years) if you are over 65, but not if you are 35?
Wouldn't rationalizing that distinction, which you implicitly support (unless you are now proposing the abolition of many existing programs) require an even more tortured interpretation of the Constitution?
Here's an alternate hypothesis: When it comes to the US Constitution, you do not know what you are talking about.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#283) "Could you please point to the section and precise wording in the US Constitution to which you refer?
Or, alternatively, could you admit that you haven't a clue what you are talking about?"
My sentiments, exactly, for both contributors who made this argument.
We have had federal retirement insurance (Social Security) in the US since 1935. If that is Constitutional, so is federal health insurance. We also have federal bank deposit insurance.
Complain about this comment
...does no one here remember the vitriol, disrespect and hatred directed at Geroge W. Bush?
One of our top Senators, Harry Reid called Bush a liar on many occasions (more than once on the Senate floor) and said that Bush "betrayed the country.” He said this on more than once on the Senate Floor. He called Judge Clarence Thomas "...an embarrassment to the Supreme Court". Was that respectful? ...was it racist?
Jimmy Carter said today that Obama [as president] should be "treated with respect". Did that respect extend to Bush, or only Democrats? Carter criticised Bush while Bush was still in office! Hypocrisy is rising fast in DC these days.
I absolutely LOVE the UK, but one of the main reasons we rebelled was to have the opportunity to make our own way and speak our minds without the government deciding every aspect of our lives from hundreds (thousands) of miles away. There is not a day when I don't see a BBC story on the woes surrounding the NHS or DNA records or VAT rows. No offense to the Motherland, but I don't want any more socialism or government control in my country.
Complain about this comment
#286. Simon21:
When was the last time Eire . . was "savaged by war"?
"The civil war, the war of independence. The burning of Cork etc. Not world wars, but real wars replete with killing atrocities etc."
But not in modern times. If you are going to cite such uprisings, what country on earth has not had similar experiences? You cannot compare what Austria and the rest of Europe suffered in two world wars with what happened in Eire. Come to that, when was the last time the United States suffered on its own shores? And don't cite 9/11, because that was one tragic but single day. It hardly compares to something like the Blitz on London, Coventry or Bristol. To generalise, America at home has had it easy for a long, long time.
"in the UK voting on treaties is unconstitutional"
Where did you get that idea? The government had promised a referendum but reneged on that. The British constitution is fluid enough to allow referendums (referenda) on any subject should the government of the day permit it. The fact of the matter is New Labour has not permitted it. If David Cameron had any sense, at such time as he becomes Prime Minister he would make that a priority and opt out. There is substantial discontent with all that the EU stands for - hence the retention of the pound sterling as the national currency.
"The UK US alliance is not voted on"
There is no formal UK-US alliance, it's a "special relationship".
Complain about this comment
David_Cunard (#291) "There is no formal UK-US alliance, it's a "special relationship"."
There is something called the UK/US Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty
Complain about this comment
Then there's the agreement for cooperation on the use of atomic energy for defence purposes: atomic energy agreement, which dates from 1958.
Complain about this comment
#292. GH1618:
"There is no formal UK-US alliance, it's a "special relationship".
"There is something called the UK/US Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty"
That only covers one particular series of transactions - it's not a bilateral defence treaty or anything like the Lisbon Treaty. In any case, it still isn't a formal alliance between the two nations.
Complain about this comment
The defense alliance is NATO, which hardly needs documentation. There would be no point to a similar alliance between only the UK and the US. It is the additional, formal agreements which make the relationship "special."
Complain about this comment
#295. GH1618: "The defense alliance is NATO, which hardly needs documentation. There would be no point to a similar alliance between only the UK and the US. It is the additional, formal agreements which make the relationship "special."
NATO is the acronym for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which covers far more nations than the United Kingdom. There is no formal, direct alliance between the two nations.
"the additional, formal agreements which make the relationship "special."
Quite clearly you do not recall how that relationship began. Remember that this goes back to Jamestown, VA (1607), then the days of Plymouth Rock (1620), and later the Founding Fathers (1776). They used their mother tongue, English. to write the Declaration of Independence and later, the Constitution. More recently the United States gave great assistance in two world wars, not to mention the Falklands episode. Relationships are not determined by treaties or contracts but by long-term emotional and cultural attachment.
Complain about this comment
291. At 7:31pm on 16 Sep 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#286. Simon21:
When was the last time Eire . . was "savaged by war"?
"The civil war, the war of independence. The burning of Cork etc. Not world wars, but real wars replete with killing atrocities etc."
"But not in modern times."
Er what? What do you call them. Ancient times?
"If you are going to cite such uprisings,"
War of independence thank you not uprisings. You do accept Irish independence?
what country on earth has not had similar experiences?"
Australia, New Zealand, Canada. Shall I go on? When was the Australian civil war and "uprising" in modern times? The New Zealand freedom fighters?
Y"ou cannot compare what Austria and the rest of Europe suffered in two world wars with what happened in Eire."
I answered the impertinent point that somehow Ireland was a "virgin" in terms of war. You agree with me that it is not. And it is grossly offensive to imply that Irish suffering (which saw the country practically in a perpetual war agains the British for 100s of years[ indeed a modern historian has stated that peace in Irish history is rarer than conflict]) somehow can be discounted.
"Come to that, when was the last time the United States suffered on its own shores? And don't cite 9/11, because that was one tragic but single day. It hardly compares to something like the Blitz on London, Coventry or Bristol. To generalise, America at home has had it easy for a long, long time."
Well Pearl Harbour was no picnic. But I did not refer to the US.
"in the UK voting on treaties is unconstitutional"
Where did you get that idea?"
Because it is. Did we have a vote on the UK's treaties with Australia, Thailand etc. No.
In Ireland the issue is different. Neutrality is written into the Constitution. It is a highly sensitive issue.
"The government had promised a referendum but reneged on that."
True but it was in no sense obliged to have one as it is obliged to have an election.
"The British constitution is fluid enough to allow referendums (referenda) on any subject should the government of the day permit it."
The British constitution would oblige the Queen to sign her own death warrant if her advisors recomended it.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Like regular elections norms do matter.
"The fact of the matter is New Labour has not permitted it."
It doesnt have to.
"If David Cameron had any sense, at such time as he becomes Prime Minister he would make that a priority and opt out. There is substantial discontent with all that the EU stands for - hence the retention of the pound sterling as the national currency."
Hmm but a moment ago you were wanting a referendum, in fact all you want is to leave the EU by any means.
That is hardly consistent.
"The UK US alliance is not voted on"
There is no formal UK-US alliance, it's a "special relationship".
Really. Well that is interesting. SO this extradition procedure we hear so much of is not a treaty.
The Visa and trade agreements are not regulated by treaty?
The use of British military bases is not agreed by treaty?
The use of British airspace and sealanes are not agreed by treaty?
I think you will find they are and the British public has not been consulted on any of them.
Complain about this comment
294. At 8:55pm on 16 Sep 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#292. GH1618:
"There is no formal UK-US alliance, it's a "special relationship".
"There is something called the UK/US Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty"
That only covers one particular series of transactions - it's not a bilateral defence treaty or anything like the Lisbon Treaty. In any case, it still isn't a formal alliance between the two nations."
Sorry playing with words won't work.
It is a treaty between the US and the UK. Pretending it isn't is ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
296. At 10:24pm on 16 Sep 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
#295. GH1618: "The defense alliance is NATO, which hardly needs documentation. There would be no point to a similar alliance between only the UK and the US. It is the additional, formal agreements which make the relationship "special."
NATO is the acronym for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which covers far more nations than the United Kingdom. There is no formal, direct alliance between the two nations."
Yes there are a number of direct treaties between the two countries. The military alliance is through Nato. The fact it covers more countries is not relevant in the slightest.
"Quite clearly you do not recall how that relationship began. Remember that this goes back to Jamestown, VA (1607), then the days of Plymouth Rock (1620), and later the Founding Fathers (1776). They used their mother tongue, English. to write the Declaration of Independence and later, the Constitution. More recently the United States gave great assistance in two world wars, not to mention the Falklands episode. Relationships are not determined by treaties or contracts but by long-term emotional and cultural attachment."
This is certainly felt by the British, but not necessarily by the US.
It ought to be remembered that the British white side of US society is in decline and Latin side is growing. And "Hispanics" as they are known have little attachment to Plymouth Rock (probably non existant by the way)or protestant puritans. Ditto America's black population.
Complain about this comment
Mark, with the Wilson outburst you have observed another American trait. That is a persons behavior is always far more interesting than the topic in hand. America is top of the world listing for dropping everything important or going way off topic to spend considerable time and money evaluating a persons looks, comments, absence of comment, their clothes, or the car they drive. I mean one of the top stories yesterday was about Kate changing here hair style.
Complain about this comment
#299. Simon21: "Yes there are a number of direct treaties between the two countries. The military alliance is through Nato. The fact it covers more countries is not relevant in the slightest."
Of course it is relevant, you just can't admit that there is no formal alliance between Great Britain and the United States. Umbrella agreements are not the same as an alliance - ask any NAFTA member.
"This (special relationship) is certainly felt by the British, but not necessarily by the US."
Since you always use English spelling as opposed to American, colour rather than color, I make the assumption that you are British. If so it is presumptuous of you to suggest what may or may not be in the United States. Americans generally have an affection for the United Kingdom, are mostly enchanted by the Royal Family and British accents are as popular as ever.
Complain about this comment
#297. Simon21: "Well Pearl Harbour was no picnic."
Since your knowledge of history is imperfect, Hawaii had not attained Statehood at the time. Like 9/11, it was, to use an Anglicism, a "one-off" occurrence which set off a chain of events. It did not compare to the blitz on London or elsewhere, or even the Allied bombings of Germany. America (fortunately) has never suffered as much as Dresden or other towns and cities in the European theatre. Neither has Ireland.
Complain about this comment
DC he could be an Aussie?
Kiwi
India.
also "not to mention the Falklands episode. "
America was no exactly helpful in that one.
rather limp when it comes down to it.
Complain about this comment
DC here's a treaty. probably not the right sort but take a look at how one sided it is
its a bunch of trash.
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm
Complain about this comment
"America has never suffered", blahblahblah
Sherman's March. 'nough said.
Complain about this comment
South Carolina hot-heads seem frequently to feel they have special (one-way) license to go beyond what many of us consider acceptable behavior. Let's not forget the Battle of Fort Sumter, either, which began April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m.; Confederate batteries opened fire, igniting the American Civil War, which resulted in ca. 620,000 casualties, exceeding the nation's losses in all its other wars combined, from the Revolution through Vietnam!
Complain about this comment
Re #306
Are you saying that gen. Sherman did NOT go beyond what many civilized people would consider acceptable behaviour - with his scorched-earth
tactics?
BTW I'm not from the South, I've never kept slaves and I've never approved of rasist policies of the Democratic Party in that region. As a matter of fact I've always considered them abhorrent.
Complain about this comment
#304. fluffytale: "DC here's a treaty. probably not the right sort but take a look at how one sided it is"
I did and you're right - hardly equitable is it? BTW, I have admired your complete change of personality from last year; I assume that the "naughty boy" persona was a clever bluff, but it must have been difficult to mis-spell everything so consistently. Clever, though!
#305. powermeerkat: ""America has never suffered", blahblahblah"
The reference included Dresden, London and other great cities; tell us which towns across America have suffered so much; one incident in the nineteenth century cannot be compared to an entire continent suffering the ravages of a world war. This is one reason why 9/11 came as such a shock to the United States and is memorialised every year. What if the British continued to mark the forty days and nights of the blitz? They survived and continued with their lives. There is a limit to how long one can grieve.
Complain about this comment
#305. powermeerkat: ""America has never suffered", blahblahblah"
After having read what that March even was I think you are joking like MA2 claiming growing up in Bronx is harder than in Africa or Lead/Mercury Mines in South America.
Just do a google picture search for any of the following "Dresden/London/Cologne after ww2" and you will see what a joke Shermans March was compared to those (there are probably many more examples of cities that were completely destroyed from all across Europe). By ~1860 they just didn't have the same means to cause destruction as they did in ~1940.
Complain about this comment
"I've never kept slaves and I've never approved of rasist policies of the Democratic Party in that region. As a matter of fact I've always considered them abhorrent."
-----------
let me get this right then.
You oppose the racist Democrats in that area.
sorry I'm confused, does that mean you don't mind the republican racists in that area.
or maybe all the racists as long as they are not democrats in that area.
Wow and ninny says I'm full of hate.
Complain about this comment
DC Moi?
No No No. I will never learn to spell.
and if I am making sense, I am sorry, that was never my intent.
I think you refer to those other British blacksmiths living in Eugene.
Those that were banned resisting the tyranny of the webb.
Complain about this comment
PS what a distraction the sherman rubbish is.
Both sides were american.
both sides probably had dems and republicans..
or are youall admitting the parties are devided by the actions of the civil war.
so hundereds of years latter trying to link any sides actions to the politics of today without looking at THE POLITICS OF TODAY is a total waste of time.
And by today I would include "this life time".
It is the actions of the republicans TODAY that offends me today.(see I said today more times than the today show says in their introduction (NBC today show that is).
Complain about this comment
What's really important, and what really matters, comrades, is that you have had your past (with its amply documented record).
And you have no future.
No pasaran! :-)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS