• 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!

Palin says Obama's health care plan is 'evil'

Its important that we keep Sarah Palin relevant at least until 2012.
 
lol......her base will keep her relevant. i believe the christian right is just a little disturbed that election after election, they are pandered to, and yet, even with their republican presidents, not much changes. the christian right may go further off the tracks in 2012.
 
of course she has, she greatly assisted mccain in 2008.
 
Sarah Palin is just using talking points from other politicians, which is no surprise. There is no death panel except in her head.

It is a figure of speech for those who will deciding what care they will provide and what they will deny.

The Orwellian reality here that Palin speaks of is this OBVIOUS point; if Government is making the decisions, who here thinks that if someone is diagnosed with Downs syndrome which after birth will become a life long burden on the "Government Health Care System", the decision would be to recommend and force an abortion rather than permitting the person to give birth to someone with a known birth defect.

If you are claiming that this could never happen, you are wallowing in a sea of willful denial.
 
wtf? :confused: What does she mean by that? Under UHC everyone is worthy of health care. That's the whole point of UHC.

But this isn't true. But alas, if you are a gullible willing supplicant of Government largess, then I can see how you would desperately argue to become a ward of the State.

The REALITY is that UHC does indeed limit what is covered under the plan and their decisions result in less specialization, doctor shortages and long waiting lists for specialized care and operations.

The reasons are OBVIOUS only to those who do not desperately cling to the fantasy that Governments are well managed cost effective systems that are better equipped to decide what is best for its citizens.

Isn’t it funny how under Bush many Liberals where highly skeptical of Government and anti-Government now wish to suggest that Government is the best source to handle our healthcare needs and should be trusted?
 
Folks are freaking out. I saw a story on tv the other night where the state of Oregon denied payment for a woman's chemo drugs but sent her a letter offering to pay for assisted suicide instead. :shock: Let me see if I can find it online.....

Hot Air Blog Archive Video: Oregon says no to chemotherapy, offers assisted suicide instead

Apparently it's an older story but I just saw it on tv the other night so it's obviously being hauled out and retold to get folks all worked up.

There are lots of folks who fear they might get similar letters under an Obama plan.

As for me I'd just like to hear some actual details which are quite lacking. It's surprising how for and against Obama's plan folks are when I know next to nothing about it and apparently neither does anyone else.

All one needs to know is that the Government wants to involve itself in our healthcare decisions, thinks it can insure 45 million currently uninsured Americans and illegal immigrants without increasing taxes and that currently this Government is close to bankrupt and doesn’t have the money to pay for such a plan.

The notion that more information is required to comprehend how this will be a disaster is funny.

Of course if you wish to argue and provide evidence how Government managed plans are fiscally responsible, incorruptible and well managed, I am all eyes and ears.
 
who here thinks that if someone is diagnosed with Downs syndrome which after birth will become a life long burden on the "Government Health Care System", the decision would be to recommend and force an abortion rather than permitting the person to give birth to someone with a known birth defect.

If you are claiming that this could never happen, you are wallowing in a sea of willful denial.

If you claim that this would ever happen, you are wallowing in a sea of making **** up without any regard for reality.
 
At DP, lefties tend to bring her up in a mocking way. Righties tend to bring her up in an adoring way. Over the past few months, from my observation, there have been more lefty mocking threads, then right adoring threads. So in a sense, you may be correct, but not in the context that you think,

No, I agree with you. I think the adoring threads stopped around the time of the election loss, or shortly thereafter.
 
After hearing another misleading story about the proposed health care plan, I realized the problem I have with the political right is not their policies, some of which, like gun rights, I support very strongly. It is that their strategy for dealing with opposing viewpoints is not open debate (the American way), but instead to try to shut down debate (as we have seen at the protests at town hall meeting about health care) and flood the media with distortions and outright LIES! Here are just three fact checked examples for the last few days:

False Euthanasia Claims | FactCheck.org

Cash for Clunkers | FactCheck.org

CPR Administers Bad Facts, Again | FactCheck.org

I'm not sure what I think about the following organization because I haven't researched it well yet, but it is nice to see that others who see the problem are trying to do something about it:

What We Stand For | Save the News

I do think it is very dangerous to our democracy that blindly partisan ideologues are masquerading as Newsmen! Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh (just to name a few) are propaganda pushers, pretending to be Newscasters with the public's best interest at heart. To be fair, recently some have popped up on the left as well. Keith Olbermann and the rest of the MSNBC crowd are just as crappy "Non-News" as the Fox goons are. Don't get me wrong; I have no problem with these folks sharing their opinions and exercising their free speech. I just have a problem with them doing it while pretending to be newscasters. What scares me is that FOX and MSNBC are the two most popular news sources!

I really think this is one of the biggest problems facing our country today.
 
No, I agree with you. I think the adoring threads stopped around the time of the election loss, or shortly thereafter.

For the most part, with the exception of a few stragglers here and there, you are correct.
 
I'm not sure what I think about the following organization because I haven't researched it well yet, but it is nice to see that others who see the problem are trying to do something about it:

What We Stand For | Save the News

Savethenews.org is a project of Free Press. Free Press was founded by Robert W. McChesney.

Robert W. McChesney is an American professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is the Gutgsell Endowed Professor in the Department of Communication. His work concentrates on the history and political economy of communication, emphasizing the role media play in democratic and capitalist societies. He is the President and co-founder of Free Press, a national media reform organization. McChesney also hosts the “Media Matters” weekly radio program every Sunday afternoon on WILL-AM radio, which features left-wing activists such as Naomi Klein and David Niewert

Since 2002, Bob McChesney has hosted Media Matters, a call-in radio show broadcast weekly on WILL-AM. Guests such as Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Danny Schechter, Seymour Hersh, Norman Solomon, Amy Goodman, Howard Zinn, and Gore Vidal discuss the relationship between media and American politics and answer questions from callers

Robert W. McChesney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its current executive director is Josh Silver, a blogger for the Huffington Post.

Seems like this organization might have its own issues with bias.
 
Thanks for the background, RightinNYC. Seems like they might, it will be interesting to see if the organization goes anywhere. Regardless, the battling right and left wing propaganda giants posing as news organizations are tearing our country apart.

In regards to Palin's comment, it seems typically uninformed, divisive and fear mongering. She really doesn't have any place in national politics. I think it is odd when I hear people say that McCain being "too liberal" cost the Republicans the election. Nothing could be further from the truth. The election was decided by independents like myself. I was seriously considering McCain until he picked Palin. She just doesn't have the smarts, temperament or experience to operate at the national level and never should have been asked. I do feel bad for her because the media has used her as a punching bag, which is easy as she is so out of her league. It's cruel, like calling a second grader up to the front of the class to attempt a calculus problem, and then making fun of him when he doesn't know how.
 
Savethenews.org is a project of Free Press. Free Press was founded by Robert W. McChesney.





Robert W. McChesney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its current executive director is Josh Silver, a blogger for the Huffington Post.

Seems like this organization might have its own issues with bias.

Except....where do you see an industry that has popped up to exist almost solely to counteract the level of lies, distortions, half-truths, etc.. from the left? Sen. Al Franken would probably be just some writer in New York for SNL if he had not found so much success in pointing out the ridiculous lies and misinformation that comes from people like Limbaugh and FOX. Air America was started to directly counter falsehoods disseminated on talk radio and FOX. Media Matters, FAIR, Think Progress, etc.. have all sprung up as a reaction. Their popularity exists almost exclusively on pointing out, mocking, responding to, etc. the most outrageous of claims.

As I always say mistakes are natural, and people should be given an allowance for making them. I think it is ridiculous to hold something against a politician or public speaker for making honest mistakes. Problem here is that we have people that simply have no shame. It is not just that they tell a simple lie, it is that they tell the extravagant lies over and over. Look at Palin herself who for weeks repeated the whole "Thanks, but no thanks" repeatedly, even after it had been reported numerous times that it was only "No thanks" after there was public uproar and humiliation to this project and it would be canceled. The whole issue with this "Death Panel" just leads us to conclude one of two things; either these people are so woefully inadequate in intelligence that nobody should ever listen to another word of theirs, or they are shameless dishonest liars with no morality or ethics.

This is part of the problem with the whole GOP today. You can not take intelligent or educated people, and boil down complicated issues to simplistic fear tactics based on lies and expect them to buy it. I can not think of any other issue that drives people away, towards the middle, centrist, independent, or even left than the level of complete and outright pulling out the arse B.S. that some on the right do. And it is getting worse and worse, nobody on the right now cares to listen to the intelligent and educated voices who do not need to lie to form an argument, they are being drowned out and pushed away for the infotainment of Limbaughs and Becks. You get rid of the morons like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and rest and put back the Brooks, Frum, Sullivan, Noonan,

Follow any news cycle, here is how it goes. Event occurs, mainstream reports. Fox, Limbaugh and co. distorts and lies. Then left side picks this up and runs with the lies. The funny thing is lost in all of this are the real conservative voices that given an honest assessment based upon intellectual thought, they have been marginalized because they do not have the same entertainment value as a Hannity.
 
Hey, I'm new to this site, how do you "thank" someone? Regardless, thanks Sam_W, for your thoughtful post.
 
Except....where do you see an industry that has popped up to exist almost solely to counteract the level of lies, distortions, half-truths, etc.. from the left? Sen. Al Franken would probably be just some writer in New York for SNL if he had not found so much success in pointing out the ridiculous lies and misinformation that comes from people like Limbaugh and FOX. Air America was started to directly counter falsehoods disseminated on talk radio and FOX. Media Matters, FAIR, Think Progress, etc.. have all sprung up as a reaction. Their popularity exists almost exclusively on pointing out, mocking, responding to, etc. the most outrageous of claims.

As I always say mistakes are natural, and people should be given an allowance for making them. I think it is ridiculous to hold something against a politician or public speaker for making honest mistakes. Problem here is that we have people that simply have no shame. It is not just that they tell a simple lie, it is that they tell the extravagant lies over and over. Look at Palin herself who for weeks repeated the whole "Thanks, but no thanks" repeatedly, even after it had been reported numerous times that it was only "No thanks" after there was public uproar and humiliation to this project and it would be canceled. The whole issue with this "Death Panel" just leads us to conclude one of two things; either these people are so woefully inadequate in intelligence that nobody should ever listen to another word of theirs, or they are shameless dishonest liars with no morality or ethics.

This is part of the problem with the whole GOP today. You can not take intelligent or educated people, and boil down complicated issues to simplistic fear tactics based on lies and expect them to buy it. I can not think of any other issue that drives people away, towards the middle, centrist, independent, or even left than the level of complete and outright pulling out the arse B.S. that some on the right do. And it is getting worse and worse, nobody on the right now cares to listen to the intelligent and educated voices who do not need to lie to form an argument, they are being drowned out and pushed away for the infotainment of Limbaughs and Becks. You get rid of the morons like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and rest and put back the Brooks, Frum, Sullivan, Noonan,

Follow any news cycle, here is how it goes. Event occurs, mainstream reports. Fox, Limbaugh and co. distorts and lies. Then left side picks this up and runs with the lies. The funny thing is lost in all of this are the real conservative voices that given an honest assessment based upon intellectual thought, they have been marginalized because they do not have the same entertainment value as a Hannity.

This is wrong on so many fronts.

You argue that because there is no cottage industry that has developed around pointing out the lies of the left, the left is obviously being more honest. That's such a huge logical leap that it's hard to even imagine how you arrived there.

First, there is such a cottage industry. See Newsbusters, Pajamas Media, HotAir, etc.

Second, even if there weren't, the fact that there was a market for writers that smugly point out errors made by conservatives doesn't prove much beyond the fact that liberals like to watch things like that.

You then turn to the fact that there is a non-trivial portion of the population who believes in ludicrous claims like Palin's death panel nonsense, and use that to conclude that conservatives are somehow disproportionately stupid or uneducated.

Setting aside the fact that actual things like "facts" disprove your end conclusion, are you so narrow-minded as to forget that the right doesn't have anything close to a monopoly on hyperbolic idiocy? Take a look at anything on counterpunch/infowars/huffpost/dailykos from 2001-2008 and tell me that they're not equally populated with populist ****heads.

If you want to criticize people who take a complex issue and boil it down to something simplistic that fits their own views, you might want to take a hard look at your last post.
 
The Orwellian reality here that Palin speaks of is this OBVIOUS point; if Government is making the decisions, who here thinks that if someone is diagnosed with Downs syndrome which after birth will become a life long burden on the "Government Health Care System", the decision would be to recommend and force an abortion rather than permitting the person to give birth to someone with a known birth defect.
Where are you getting your info from? Which part of health care reform being proposed dictates the government could force someone to have an abortion?

If you are claiming that this could never happen, you are wallowing in a sea of willful denial.
From what I understand, what is being proposed is counseling patients on what options they have in regards to what treatment they feel is best for them. I haven't heard anything specifically about abortion, but your claims sounds like a hypothetical theory, not facts.

As for Palin, her claim has been fact checked and found to be false.
 
Last edited:
the right doesn't have anything close to a monopoly on hyperbolic idiocy? Take a look at anything on counterpunch/infowars/huffpost/dailykos from 2001-2008 and tell me that they're not equally populated with populist ****heads.

I think this is a good point. The left has plenty of partisan airbags spewing propaganda as "fact". However, the right has excelled at it and, given the popularity of Rush, FOX News, etc. it seems like this style of repeating simplified, damning and often untrue catch phrases or ideas over and over whenever talking about a complex issue is becoming far and away the most popular strategy of the right.

FOX News has a great way of defining themselves as a reaction to the "liberal" media. Very convenient because anyone who disagrees with them can be dismissed as a "left wing nut job". Thorough, intelligent discussion on a topic almost never happens. Guest who disagree with the company position on an issue are dismissed, mocked and often not allowed to complete their thoughts.

I find the state of the news today very disheartening. If I want to hear a good debate on an issue where all participants are articulate, intelligent and where the debate is respectful and all are given enough time to speak their mind I have to watch "Meet the Press" or listen to a few of the shows on NPR. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine, in the form of your Hannities and Olbermans, is a lot more powerful, regardless of how vapid it is. It is scary how many people are making decisions based on organized misinformation.

Sad day when Tim Russert died.
 
I think this is a good point. The left has plenty of partisan airbags spewing propaganda as "fact". However, the right has excelled at it...

Do you see why others might have a hard time believing what you're saying here? You concede that this happens to both sides, but then claim that it's far worse for your opponents. You provide nothing to support your conclusions (not that there's anything conclusive either way), but nevertheless make sweeping statements.

It's also not a very productive debating technique, because I could just respond with "No, I think the left is worse" and then we're at an impasse where neither of us can support our claims and we're just arguing over who is a bigger liar.
 
The Palin Woman has already backed off her stupidtism of accusing the Health Care Financing Reform Bill of having a "death panel". I dubbed this blithering idiot The Igloo Girl , but you know that's an insult to igloos. Someone must have drawn some pictures for The Palin Woman to look at so she can see that there is no provision for "death panels" in the 'health bill" that must be the reason why the idiot is backing off a bit.

Look people if anyone could have gotten away with 'death panels' we in the health insurance indistry would have since that would have saved us money. LOL I am joking of course
 
Last edited:
The Palin Woman has already backed off her stupidtism of accusing the Health Care Financing Reform Bill of having a "death panel". I dubbed this blithering idiot The Igloo Girl , but you know that's an insult to igloos.

How about "Iglor"?
It's a cross between igloos and Egor, whom she bears a passing resemblance to, at least in my eyes. I believe it's the hunchiness, and the weird facial tics.
 
You concede that this happens to both sides, but then claim that it's far worse for your opponents. You provide nothing to support your conclusions (not that there's anything conclusive either way), but nevertheless make sweeping statements.

It's also not a very productive debating technique, because I could just respond with "No, I think the left is worse" and then we're at an impasse where neither of us can support our claims and we're just arguing over who is a bigger liar.

First off, I don't consider the right "my opponents". Only those who spew propaganda instead of news. Secondly, the fact that FOX "news" is the most watched "news" on television is pretty conclusive proof that the right is better at this than the left. As I have stated many times, I consider Keith Olberman equally wrong and anti-American. My main concern is that retarded screaming heads seem much popular than thoughtful debate. Wait, there is a great SNL skit here somewhere involving a new FOX program and the incredible hulk.
 
First off, I don't consider the right "my opponents". Only those who spew propaganda instead of news. Secondly, the fact that FOX "news" is the most watched "news" on television is pretty conclusive proof that the right is better at this than the left.

No, it's not.

Setting aside the fact that viewership among a small segment is a poor proxy for support, a large part of the reason why Fox is more popular than the other networks is because it has a larger share of its target market, while the other networks are forced to split theirs.

Imagine a town that likes ice cream. 70% like vanilla and 30% like chocolate. Now imagine that there is only one supplier of chocolate ice cream, but 5 suppliers of vanilla, each of whom controls 10-20% of the 70% share of vanilla.

The supplier of chocolate ice cream will be the largest supplier in the town. Does that mean that the majority of the town likes chocolate?
 
Man it didn't take the irrelvant quitter long to show her true colors with this "Death panel" fearmonger scare tatic crap...along with again using her child as a prop to rile the angry scared mob with the trash.

She is now she is backtracking....what a trash talking hussy failure. What a Mavrick.

She deserves no more comment...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom