Thursday, September 10, 2009

Only One?

I didn't watch the President's speech last night. I am just not interested in watching a man speak to a joint session of congress in order to pass a bill. The whole thing is completely arrogant. YahooNews stated,
"The speech galvanized support along the Democratic caucus across the political spectrum, from the progressive caucus to the Blue Dogs, and everybody left determined to get something done this year..."
Here is one problem with this whole thing. The Republicans had no ability to stop this thing. The Democrats continually keep blaming the Republicans when they were in the super majority (until Teddy's death).

So my opinion is that if this is sooooo necessary, just pass it without Republican support. The truth is, if this passes, Democrats will need major cover because as the President admitted in an answer to a skull full of mush,
What happened is that back in the 1940s and fifties, a lot of -- most of the wealthy countries around the world decided to set up health care systems that covered everybody. The United States, for a number of different reasons, organized their health care around employer-based health insurance. What happened was is that the majority of Americans still have health insurance through their job and it's, you know, most of them are happy with it, but a lot of people fall through the cracks.
Yuppers. We are happy with what we have. The President is lying when he says I will get to keep my health insurance. We have him on video lying about this whole thing.

Since it is unnecessary to do any of this, since there are better ways of reforming the problems in our system, since the President's own stimulus would pay for citizens that are not covered, we know there is no reason to overthrow our current system. So why do it? If you have read the Constitution and know why it was written, you know what the answer is.
The night's defining moment — which Democrats hope to transform into a turning point – came when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted "You lie!" as Obama claimed his plan wouldn't offer free care to illegal immigrants.
So what if one Republican is painted as being an idiot for saying something. The fact that all of the other Republicans said nothing and seem completely unaware of the fact that we are in the midst of a civil war over whether or not the Constitution will be the law of the land is not being missed by their constituents.

Believe me when I say that if there were another party that held to the Constitution as being the law of the land, conservatives would abandon the Republican party today. If more Republicans don't speak up and call the President what he is, then to quote George Lucas back to himself, "Liberty dies with thunderous applause."

So in conclusion, the "night's defining moment" should have been that a hundred Republicans chanted, "You lie!" It is a shame there was only one.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your lack of respect for anything you disagree with is disturbing.

Howard Fisher said...

Respect for what? Should I respect communist dictators? When you say "anything", do you really mean I have to respect anything and everything?

I suppose one could argue that yelling out "liar" during a Presidential address is wrong. What is interesting is that the Political Left has no trouble at all booing Bush during a speech (something all of the pundits conveniently forgot during their commentaries on this situation). So basically I would normally agree that what Wilson did was wrong.

However, when a President is attempting to overthrow the Constitution in the most blatant and obvious way, when he is using communist speech tactics to marginalize and destroy his political enemies (and he seems to be very aware of who his political enemies are as opposed to the Republicans such as the "useful idiot" John McCain), when almost everything the President says is a blatant lie (or he really is that stupid), it is time to defend the Constitution with means that the other side is using to destroy it.

Make no mistake about it. This country is in the fight for its way of life. Obama is on the side that is purposefully trying to overthrow it.

So no, I do not respect President Obama's attempt to destroy the foundation for self government and Constitution of the U.S any more than I respect the South's attempt to defend slavery and the Jim Crowe Laws. You may respect such ideas, I will not.

Howard Fisher said...

BTW: I guess you probably have no problem with the press misreporting the town hall meetings. You probably have no problem with Pelosi calling old people at the meetings Nazis (many of whom are Democrats!).

The fact is, what Obama is doing is nothing short of Fascism. The irony is quite striking.

Anonymous said...

Fascism and Communism are not interchangeable. Using the terms as such only highlights ignorance.

Howard Fisher said...

I agree. It is hard to tell what is facist about this guy and what is communist. He is doing both right in front of us and nobody wants to believe it.

The fact is, his entire speech was a lie after lie and we all know it. None of this is about health care. This is all about the overthrow of our political system as we have known it.

Obama is using Olinsky's rules for radicals. Use your opponents language to make him think you are saying the same thing, when in fact you are doing something completely different.

A loooong time ago I remember listening to Tom Brokaw or one of the other big TV anchors offer his opinion of the major differences between the political right and Left.

He admitted that the Right tells all what they are about. The Left instead is radically different because everything they do is in secret and camouflaged.

That is Obama in a nut shell.

Anonymous said...

According to polling "we" do not all know that everything Obama said is lies. I think you're living in an isolated bubble with Mr. Glenn Beck. I mean, it's alright to have favorite commentators, but occasionally you need to move outside of your comfort zone and challenge yourself.

The right has greatly exaggerated some things in this health care debate. "Death panels". We should all decide our end of life care-- that doesn't mean (in the language of the bill) that we're telling people when they have to die. We're helping THEM to decide for THEMSELVES what their end of life care is like before they can no longer physically / mentally render such decisions. Sounds like good planning. To the right it sounds like fascists / communists / socialists / whatever the new scare word is.

There have obviously been those who want to extend health care to illegal immigrants. But if that's not what the bill says, or what Mr. Obama is proposing, perhaps we shouldn't scream otherwise.

Yes-- Obama several years ago said he wanted to create a totally public option and eliminate the private one. But in recent talks he has been willing to discuss cooperatives as opposed to a public option (which pisses off the left) because he simply wants to get people coverage. So why keep railing on this quote of his if he is willing to make concessions?

Obama's administration has not been an overthrow of government. He's made appointments-- more czars than previous administrations, but less appointments overall. He's repealed some secrecy of the Bush administration, while still keeping other portions. He's made an effort to be popular instead of blazing blindly ahead. There have been no PATRIOT Act style issues, but there are still the same sort of spending oversights we saw in the last administration.

Honestly, I would say if anyone stands a chance of truly damaging our government system right now... pay attention to the upcoming Supreme Court rulings on corporation campaign donations. That could be a game-changer.

But the sky isn't falling. The economy is bad, but shows signs of improvement in several areas. Where is your overthrow of government? Truly. Don't give me rhetoric or fear-mongering if you wish to make a point. Or are you just talking to yourself?

Howard Fisher said...

Thanks for your comments again anonymous.

"We're helping THEM to decide for THEMSELVES what their end of life care is like before they can no longer physically / mentally render such decisions. Sounds like good planning."

It is interesting that we both are seeing the exact same thing and yet see them very differently. You state the above words as if it were just a mere policy difference.

Sir, this is the United States of America. The fact that you even made such a statement such as this shows the fundamental difference in which we approach government and its role.

The above statement is a fundamental change. Therefore the fact that you are willing to ask the question shows that the change, or "overthrow" as I called it, has already occurred.

No one should ever have a discussion with the President or any government official about end of life care. Ever!

So I'll say it again, the overthrow of our form of government has occurred if we are willing to grant the premise of your argument. None of this debate is worth having because none of it is Constitutional.

Of course I agree with Robert Bork that Social Security is unConstitutional. In fact, I believe if Roosevelt had not been allowed to stack the courts, it would have been struck down just as the Income Tax Act originally was.

I am not saying that Bush is innocent in all of this. These things have crept in under his watch and prior. Last year's "400 billion dollar save the economy bill" was not the beginning of this mess. I would argue that education czars and others are a violation of our fundamental freedoms and form of government, even if it was done with "conservative" methods or intentions.

"Honestly, I would say if anyone stands a chance of truly damaging our government system right now... pay attention to the upcoming Supreme Court rulings on corporation campaign donations. That could be a game-changer."

Could it be that we agree at this point? I think the Supreme Court should have struck down the McCain/Feingold act in its entirety. :-)

Anonymous said...

The government officials are writing a bill that says "have this conversation with your doctor". The conversation with your doctor can be whatever the hell you want it to be.

Government-run health care already exists. Expanding it to others is not world-ending, or Constitution-ending.

I don't know about striking down McCain/Feingold... I think it could use refining, but I have no interest in seeing corporate America have that much more sway in the races (and I say this as someone who recognizes how much a sway they had for Obama).

Howard Fisher said...

Howdy again,

"The government officials are writing a bill that says "have this conversation with your doctor". The conversation with your doctor can be whatever the hell you want it to be."

Again, I reject the premise. There is no need for this. Yea, you can make anything sound good. It might even work for a week. What I am arguing is that the premise that any "government official" that says I have to have a conversation about something with my doctor is scary indeed.

Men are sinners and men want power. Granting this kind of power to "government officials", even if they are good, will only lead down a road we don't want to go.

As for McCain/Feingold, I am kind of bummed. I was hoping that at this point we might agree. I am wondering if the Constitution Party's platform deals with this strongly enough that people such as us could agree about the Corporate America problems.

As far as I see it, politicians go to DC poor and return rich and corrupt (I grew up in Mass and know the corruption there with good old boy Teddy). McCain's law clearly violated the First Amendment. I think the best way to reform is not to violate the Constitution, but instead to place term limits. McCain says that restricts good people from serving. Well, his law did exactly the opposite of his stated intention.

The only way to keep people from getting rich at DC is to get rid of them. It is a drastic move but the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Thanks for the comments.

Howard Fisher said...

I was thinking about this some more.

"Government-run health care already exists. Expanding it to others is not world-ending, or Constitution-ending."

As good intentioned this sounds, I disagree that President Obama really has these good intentions. The major problem right now is job losses and the economy. Yet he is doing nothing about it. Instead he is trying to save our health care. He is so concerned about it, he speaks to a joint session of congress about it.

For 8 years I was told how evil Bush was and the economy was horrible and he should concentrate on the economy instead of the war in Iraq. Here the Dems do the opposite of what they complain about.

Getting power over the entire health care system has faaaarrrrrrrrr reaching implications for individual liberty. If you really believe this whole thing is just about caring for somebody without health care, then I say time will prove one of us wrong. I just hate to have to prove things that way because in the end, even if I am right, you will not see it that way.

If something smells fishy, it is probably because it is.

Howard Fisher said...

"Yes-- Obama several years ago said he wanted to create a totally public option and eliminate the private one. But in recent talks he has been willing to discuss cooperatives as opposed to a public option (which pisses off the left) because he simply wants to get people coverage. So why keep railing on this quote of his if he is willing to make concessions?"

I was thinking about this comment this morning and it occurred to me that the original context of my opposition to this was because the original context of the clips that I posted were admitting that Obama was explaining that the public option would take possibly up to 15 years.

In other words, you are saying that Obama is making concessions now. In those past speeches, he admits he may have to make concessions to get the public option down the road.

So I again, reject your premise that Obama is some open-minded guy that wants what's best for our country. He has admitted he doesn't like the Constitution and has more than demonstrated that.

However, I must admit that Bush failed to lead and gave rise to this when he bailed out GM. Bush in years past warned GM that he would not bail them out. He failed to do what is right and now we have this mess.