• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ark. crowd mocks lawmakers over Obama health plan

I did not see any "violence". But yes, I totally support the "fat union thugs" pushing the mob out of the room. You don't? How long should the protestors have been allowed to chant? As long as they want? How does that contribute to the town hall meeting? Do you consider their chanting to be "free speech"?
Since when do "fat union thugs" have the right to say what goes on at a public meeting?

If the protesters were disturbing the peace, call the cops and let them handle it. That's their job. Fat union thugs get to stand on the side and be peaceful just like the protesters.
 
What you are either failing to recognize or understand is that there is a difference between people working for compensation in healthcare and big companies running the healthcare business seeking to maximize their profits.
They are not the same thing.
I would love to see you back this up. I work in insurance, so I think the service aspect of it is much greater than you give some companies credit for, it's not as simple as demonizing profit.
 
Since when do "fat union thugs" have the right to say what goes on at a public meeting?

If the protesters were disturbing the peace, call the cops and let them handle it. That's their job. Fat union thugs get to stand on the side and be peaceful just like the protesters.





See, if I was that guy, I would have choked one of those union thugs out, then sued the union for everything it had....


Will approves of violence for his position, he just prefers to send others to do it.
 
9100_health-care-meeting.jpg


You make excuses for assault noted....

What happened to him?

(Yes i came in the thread late, sue me)
 
See, if I was that guy, I would have choked one of those union thugs out, then sued the union for everything it had....
I'd probably find the nearest two-by-four and do some on-site knee re-adjustment, but that's just me.


Will approves of violence for his position, he just prefers to send others to do it.
Gotta love outsourcing.:cool:
 
Union thugs assaulted him at one of the town hall meetings because he was speaking against the health care bill.

..... :/
I hope he sued, yes?

I hate Unions.
They are the lowest of the low.
 
See, if I was that guy, I would have choked one of those union thugs out, then sued the union for everything it had....
Yeah, but if you choke the guy out then someone has to hoist his sweaty carcass out the door.

Joint locks are far more entertaining, and less inconveniencing to the janitorial staff.

Will approves of violence for his position, he just prefers to send others to do it.
I have noticed this.
 
I would love to see you back this up. I work in insurance, so I think the service aspect of it is much greater than you give some companies credit for, it's not as simple as demonizing profit.

If you work in insurance, then it should be even more clear to you.

How do insurance companies make money? How do they decrease costs and maximize profits?

In the Auto Insurance World, they do so by attempting to attract driver's with unblemished records and cancelling policies on those who are determined to be liabilities.

The same is true of Health insurance companies. If health insurance companies authorize every procedure that a Doctor recommends a patient have, that is going to increase their costs and thus decrease the amount of profit that they bring in for their CEO's and shareholders.

It is this incentive to ration healthcare, deny recommended procedures, deny insurance to those with pre-existing conditions, and seek to deny claims that cut costs and increase profits.

Do you seriously not see the inherent flaw/contradiction in such an archaic and asinine system?
 
I'd probably find the nearest two-by-four and do some on-site knee re-adjustment, but that's just me.
Now that's not very nuanced thinking.

Grab thug thumb, twist thug thumb, smile as thug howls in pain and ask for his thumb back.

Or grab thug wrist, apply pressure across the carpal joint, watch thug drop to the ground like a sack of russet potatoes.
 
I'd probably find the nearest two-by-four and do some on-site knee re-adjustment, but that's just me.


Meh, it's better for the court case if you were unarmed and out manned. And a good lapel choke on that hawiian shirt he was wearing, the last thing he'd see before his world went black would be me.... :lol:



Gotta love outsourcing.:cool:


I prefer a more intimate approach. :lol:
 
Yeah, but if you choke the guy out then someone has to hoist his sweaty carcass out the door.

Joint locks are far more entertaining, and less inconveniencing to the janitorial staff.


I have noticed this.




I'd still want his world to go black for a few minutes.... nothing like the fear of death in some thug having a check cashed his fists couldn't cash. :mrgreen:
 
If you work in insurance, then it should be even more clear to you.
Notice I didn't say all companies were good ones.

How do insurance companies make money? How do they decrease costs and maximize profits?
Risk/Premium ratio, the best way to explain it is, the more people sharing in the risk, the less people have to pay, as long as liabilities stay under what is being charged in premium. Insurance companies reduce costs by first having a negotiation position with caregivers, this is as simple as saying "the check will be on time, we just want a good rate" and honoring that promise, the second thing is to deny unnecessary or uncovered care, this is all stated explicitly in writing, if the contract isn't honored, people have legal recourse. Also, insurance companies....every single one of them, reinvest to cover gaps in earnings, as well as many companies re-insure, that is, they buy smaller contracts to further spread out the payout so as to keep prices as reasonable as possible compared to liabilities.

In the Auto Insurance World, they do so by attempting to attract driver's with unblemished records and cancelling policies on those who are determined to be liabilities.
Health works in a similar way, but if a contract in health puts in a coverage maximum(lifetime) then one can't be dropped at a whim, or at least they will know when they are claiming too much.

The same is true of Health insurance companies. If health insurance
companies authorize every procedure that a Doctor recommends a patient have, that is going to increase their costs and thus decrease the amount of profit that they bring in for their CEO's and shareholders.
see above.

It is this incentive to ration healthcare, deny recommended procedures, deny insurance to those with pre-existing conditions, and seek to deny claims that cut costs and increase profits.
Procedure denial happens for many reasons, not just because a company doesn't want to pay, if a doctor explains that a denied test was medically necessary, more often than not a company will cover it, it's usually when a doctor doesn't explain that something which looked like he was padding a bill in fact was an appropriate action.

Do you seriously not see the inherent flaw/contradiction in such an archaic and asinine system?
As opposed to a government system which would essentially do the same thing without having to justify their actions in civil court?
 
Now that's not very nuanced thinking.

Grab thug thumb, twist thug thumb, smile as thug howls in pain and ask for his thumb back.

Or grab thug wrist, apply pressure across the carpal joint, watch thug drop to the ground like a sack of russet potatoes.
Yeah, but these thugs are typically stupid, his buddies wouldn't figure anything out until he was flopping on the ground like a fish, but I like your idea too.:mrgreen:
 
Yeah, but these thugs are typically stupid, his buddies wouldn't figure anything out until he was flopping on the ground like a fish, but I like your idea too.:mrgreen:




The advantage of a lapel choke would be you could use the fat pig as a block to the other fat pigs from throwing at you. ;)
 
Meh, it's better for the court case if you were unarmed and out manned. And a good lapel choke on that hawiian shirt he was wearing, the last thing he'd see before his world went black would be me.... :lol:






I prefer a more intimate approach. :lol:
See, that's the thing, I am just at that height and build to where they take away from each other at a glance, because I'm sort of tall, but not really, and big, I either look tall and lanky or short and skinny from a distance, cop sees that and the big fat thug and I'm "that weak dude", it's just up to me to act scared. And yeah, the "intimate" approach is more fun, but unlike our politicians we have spines.
 
The advantage of a lapel choke would be you could use the fat pig as a block to the other fat pigs from throwing at you. ;)
The advantage of a wrist lock is you get to enjoy the mewling of the fat thug as he begs his friends to leave you alone so he can get his hand back. ;)
 
If rightwing thugs attempt to stop the democratic process by shouting down town hall meetings, I approve any necessary actions to stop them and allow democracy to proceed. If the AFL-CIO, Teamsters or Tony Soprano want to send in enforcers to drag these people out of the meetings by their heels and put them back on their buses, I approve it.
Anyone who attends a town hall meeting with questions and opinions is welcome, but when organized groups attempt to disrupt those meetings and not allow them to proceed, that is vigilantism, and should be met with strong physical confrontation.
Oh goody, vigilante justice! That's always a recipe for success. :roll:
 
Oh goody, vigilante justice! That's always a recipe for success. :roll:

So you approve of mobs trying to shut down town hall meetings, but if anyone tries to stop them, they are vigilantes. I am surprised that so many here find this logic acceptable.
 
So you approve of mobs trying to shut down town hall meetings, but if anyone tries to stop them, they are vigilantes. I am surprised that so many here find this logic acceptable.
Straw man. Try again.
 
So you approve of mobs trying to shut down town hall meetings, but if anyone tries to stop them, they are vigilantes. I am surprised that so many here find this logic acceptable.
If someone takes matters into their own hands, as you and others here have advocated, they are vigilantes by definition.

If you want to argue the merits of the vigilante, go for it. There are ethical arguments to be made for vigilantism.

Denying that actors without color of law are vigilantes, however, simply shows the paucity of your argument.
 
Union Sturmabteilung at work. They'll need some brown shirts and **** caps to really look the part.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kxaGfClPws"]YouTube - Kathy Castor - Healthcare Town Hall Meeting in Tampa - 8/6[/ame]
 
Back
Top Bottom