'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate

[PapaG]

That is because all the people that are doing the protesting in the manner that they are would just as soon turn this country into a faschist nation ruled by fear.

One of my buddies sent me this interesting read:

http://www.truthout.org/080909A

Even if you don't agree with it, it definitly gives you pause to think about it.

Really? Citizens standing up to leaders who won't listen to them is "faschist"? I'd say it's more "faschist" to smear common citizens for being "un-American". Tempers are hot, people are angry, and the leaders elected to serve them had better start serving them.

 

[PapaG]

Every day that the conservatives in Congress, the right-wing talking heads, and their noisy minions are allowed to hold up our ability to govern the country is another day we're slowly creeping across the final line beyond which, history tells us, no country has ever been able to return

.

The Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a solid majority in the House, and the Presidency, yet it's the "right-wing" and "conservatives" who are holding things up.

Seriously, that is about the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read.

 

[PapaG]

You can be un-American while exercising your 1st amendment rights as GOP advocates so often remind us when people are burning flags. So, here we are...

Since when is burning a flag "un-American"? I told you, I'm not a part of the GOP. Burning a flag is actually about as "American" a protest that there is.

Try going to Havana and burn a Cuban flag in the street.

 

[PapaG]

I think I get the picture. Pelosi, the Dems, and their sycophants now get to define what is "American" and what is "un-American".

Good luck with that one.

 

[yakbladder]

I'm not labeling or smearing Pelosi. She's saying protestors are "carrying swastikas" and that others are "un-American". How is me disagreeing with her comments a "smear"?

I can't comment on protesters carrying "swastikas" as I haven't been to any of the town halls lately.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908070008

But I can say that even if they did, that's a very fine line to walk bringing that up. I don't necessarily agree with it - but at the same time if it's there I think it needs to be addressed in a very non-political way.

As to the smearing...you stated...

Should I then infer that the pro-Democratic position is to smear people as being "un-American"

How is that different than what you're saying about Pelosi? Her comments are stupid and she's desperate.

A stupid comment by Pelosi... the Dems are desperate when their leadership has to pull the "un-American" card.

 

[Minstrel]

I think I get the picture. Pelosi, the Dems, and their sycophants now get to define what is "American" and what is "un-American".

Good luck with that one.

I'm just curious, but were you equally angry when Cheney, FOX News and other Republicans were saying that dissent about the Iraq war or the "global war on terrorism" was unpatriotic and tantamount to treachery, because dissent and criticizing the President in times of war "gave comfort to and emboldened our enemies?"

I'm not sardonically saying you weren't, or playing "gotcha"...I genuinely have no idea. I don't recall reading your political posts prior to 2008. Not that you weren't commenting before that, but I was away from the forum for a time and started posting again in late 2007, so my first exposure to your political views came in 2008 or so.

More generally, I actually agree with you, but it's certainly not a "Democratic party" thing. The previous administration, along with their "sycophants," were labeling Iraq war protesters anti-American. There was the idea from largely conservative bases in the middle of the country (geographically) that the "heartland" was "Real America" and those on the coasts were Ivory Tower eggheads who didn't really represent America. There was, of course, one Republican label of Democrats that they were the "Blame America First" crowd. I think trying to paint opposition as against the nation's best interests is a pretty old and standard tactic, an attempt to make an emotionally based smear. And I dislike it when Democrats or Republicans do it.

 

[PapaG]

I'm just curious, but were you equally angry when Cheney, FOX News and other Republicans were saying that dissent about the Iraq war or the "global war on terrorism" was unpatriotic and tantamount to treachery, because dissent and criticizing the President in times of war "gave comfort to and emboldened our enemies?"

I'm not sardonically saying you weren't, or playing "gotcha"...I genuinely have no idea. I don't recall reading your political posts prior to 2008. Not that you weren't commenting before that, but I was away from the forum for a time and started posting again in late 2007, so my first exposure to your political views came in 2008 or so.

More generally, I actually agree with you, but it's certainly not a "Democratic party" thing. The previous administration, along with their "sycophants," were labeling Iraq war protesters anti-American. There was the idea from largely conservative bases in the middle of the country (geographically) that the "heartland" was "Real America" and those on the coasts were Ivory Tower eggheads who didn't really represent America. There was, of course, one Republican label of Democrats that they were the "Blame America First" crowd. I think trying to paint opposition as against the nation's best interests is a pretty old and standard tactic, an attempt to make an emotionally based smear. And I dislike it when Democrats or Republicans do it.

When did Dick Cheney say that protesting the Iraq War was "unpatriotic"? I seem to remember him saying the opposite. Link me, prove he said it, and I'll admonish him as well. If he didn't, I suggest you stop smearing him. As for "FoxNews", I believe it was actually an MSNBC anchor who called protesters "unpatriotic". Regardless, it's a stupid thing to say. What was your point?

 

[Minstrel]

Regardless, it's a stupid thing to say. What was your point?

Since you evidently didn't read my post, I'll re-quote my point.

More generally, I actually agree with you, but it's certainly not a "Democratic party" thing. The previous administration, along with their "sycophants," were labeling Iraq war protesters anti-American. There was the idea from largely conservative bases in the middle of the country (geographically) that the "heartland" was "Real America" and those on the coasts were Ivory Tower eggheads who didn't really represent America. There was, of course, one Republican label of Democrats that they were the "Blame America First" crowd. I think trying to paint opposition as against the nation's best interests is a pretty old and standard tactic, an attempt to make an emotionally based smear. And I dislike it when Democrats or Republicans do it.

 

[PapaG]

Mr. and Mrs. Bill Cornish are on Cavuto. They are Dems who are angry at how Dingell and others are ramming ObamaCare down our throats. According to them, only SEIU/ACORN people were ushered into Dingell's town meeting. They had the first four rows reserved for Obama supporters. Non-supporters were crowded into the back of the room or blocked from entering. No anti-Obamacare signs were allowed. The four rows of union thugs made sure the cameras could not see anyone else or record what they were saying. Finally, when frustrated opponents in the back of the room tried to ask questions, they were drowned-out by chants from the ACORN thugs. One guy -- the father of the guy with CP -- finally made it to the front and confronted Dingell (he and his family have since been threatened with death for opposing The Messiah's plan).

The Cornishes had more interesting info. There was a guy carrying a swastika sign outside and trying to get attention as a "racist opponent of Obama." Once the cameras went away, he ditched his sign and started handing-out pro-Dingell re-election material.

The Cornishes are fed-up with Obama's thugocracy and said so. Don't know if this opinion is shared by other Dems.

A long, hot summer is ahead of us.

 

[PapaG]

Since you evidently didn't read my post, I'll re-quote my point.

More generally, I actually agree with you, but it's certainly not a "Democratic party" thing. The previous administration, along with their "sycophants," were labeling Iraq war protesters anti-American. There was the idea from largely conservative bases in the middle of the country (geographically) that the "heartland" was "Real America" and those on the coasts were Ivory Tower eggheads who didn't really represent America. There was, of course, one Republican label of Democrats that they were the "Blame America First" crowd. I think trying to paint opposition as against the nation's best interests is a pretty old and standard tactic, an attempt to make an emotionally based smear. And I dislike it when Democrats or Republicans do it.

Again, when did the Bush administration label Iraq war protesters anti-American?

 

[maxiep]

I do think it's a tad odd to hear people shout down their congressperson and anyone at a town hall who wants to speak with cries of "This is America!"

So, we're supposed to listen to talking points from our Congresspeople without comment? Seriously, you'd be happier if you learned Spanish and moved to Venezuela. Those people work for us. We not only have the right, but the obligation to speak our minds when we think they're wrong.

I'd imagine you support Act Up!. What the difference between their methods and booing a congressperson who is trying to push a party line at the expense of the truth?

 

[maxiep]

I can't comment on protesters carrying "swastikas" as I haven't been to any of the town halls lately.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908070008

But I can say that even if they did, that's a very fine line to walk bringing that up. I don't necessarily agree with it - but at the same time if it's there I think it needs to be addressed in a very non-political way.

As to the smearing...you stated...



How is that different than what you're saying about Pelosi? Her comments are stupid and she's desperate.

C'mon, you're smarter than this. Speaker Pelosi--in referencing swastikas--was clearly intimating that those who were against President Obama and the House heath care bill were supporters of National Socialism. Basically she was calling them Nazis. The opposite--as shown by your mediamatters.org link--is proven. It's the fear of Fascism that brings these people out, not the support of it.

 

[PapaG]

C'mon, you're smarter than this. Speaker Pelosi--in referencing swastikas--was clearly intimating that those who were against President Obama and the House heath care bill were supporters of National Socialism. Basically she was calling them Nazis. The opposite--as shown by your mediamatters.org link--is proven. It's the fear of Fascism that brings these people out, not the support of it.

Manufactured "town halls", where only supporters are given a mic, breed this unrest.

 

[Minstrel]

Again, when did the Bush administration label Iraq war protesters anti-American?

I don't have dates and times for you, of course. A great deal of one's knowledge of such things comes from memories of seeing things on television interviews, reports of press conferences on news stations, etc, over 6 years time, which makes them hard to dig up later.

Here's an example, something Ashcroft said:

"To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve," Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/06/inv.ashcroft.hearing/

That seems pretty much in line with what Pelosi said. Both are claiming that critics are being irresponsible and either "un-American" or aiding "America's enemies."

 

[PapaG]

I don't have dates and times for you, of course. A great deal of one's knowledge of such things comes from memories of seeing things on television interviews, reports of press conferences on news stations, etc, over 6 years time, which makes them hard to dig up later.

Here's an example, something Ashcroft said:

"To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve," Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/06/inv.ashcroft.hearing/

That seems pretty much in line with what Pelosi said. Both are claiming that critics are being irresponsible and either "un-American" or aiding "America's enemies."

Really? I don't see it at all. Ashcroft seems to be talking about a side effect of protesting, and not the actual act of protesting. I'll agree that Ashcroft's statement is completely devoid of an opposing perspective, though.

 

[yakbladder]

Manufactured "town halls", where only supporters are given a mic, breed this unrest.

To answer your original post before you edited it - I have no idea who mindmatters is sponsored by. I was merely doing research at your statement about swastikas. I hadn't seen mention of it before. However, I did see several other sites mention it if you'd like me to dig them up. I try not to limit myself to one source or one point of view. I merely pick items at random to get a cross-section.

 

[yakbladder]

Manufactured "town halls", where only supporters are given a mic, breed this unrest.

Also, as I stated in my earlier post - I think it's a fine line to bring it up and I've already said it should be brought up in an apolitical manner. So what exactly is the point anyone is trying to make?

The town halls are being manufactured now. Because before they were just as useless with people shouting down any attempt at discussion. Do you see the issue developing yet?

 

[Minstrel]

Really? I don't see it at all. Ashcroft seems to be talking about a side effect of protesting, and not the actual act of protesting. I'll agree that Ashcroft's statement is completely devoid of an opposing perspective, though.

Hmm, as I read it, he's talking about the act of criticizing the war effort with allegations of trampled liberties ("...to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists...").

So it seems to me to be talking about the act of protesting in a certain way (as is Pelosi...she's talking about the act of protesting via "drowning out civil discourse"...ostensibly, not all types of protest). I'm not defending Pelosi...I don't think she should be criticizing any type of peaceful protest, but I think Ashcroft was doing largely the same thing.

 

[PapaG]

Hmm, as I read it, he's talking about the act of criticizing the war effort with allegations of trampled liberties ("...to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists...").

Yeah. Like I was saying. This is Ashcroft's view on a result that he feels the protesters are accomplishing. He didn't call their protesting "un-American", though.

So it seems to me to be talking about the act of protesting in a certain way (as is Pelosi...she's talking about the act of protesting via "drowning out civil discourse"...ostensibly, not all types of protest). I'm not defending Pelosi...I don't think she should be criticizing any type of peaceful protest, but I think Ashcroft was doing largely the same thing.

I get the impression that you feel that I support Ashcroft's words. I don't. He may have a point, but he should have expanded on it to clarify his intent. Pelosi's words carry no nuance.

 

[PapaG]

To answer your original post before you edited it - I have no idea who mindmatters is sponsored by. I was merely doing research at your statement about swastikas. I hadn't seen mention of it before. However, I did see several other sites mention it if you'd like me to dig them up. I try not to limit myself to one source or one point of view. I merely pick items at random to get a cross-section.

What does the odd photo of somebody at a protest holding a swastika have to do with anything? Pelosi made the comment when asked about the protesters. Are all of the protesters carrying swastikas? It seemed to be a rather demeaning and pigeon-holing thing to comment about regarding the thousands of people across the country protesting her healthcare plan.

 

[PapaG]

Also, as I stated in my earlier post - I think it's a fine line to bring it up and I've already said it should be brought up in an apolitical manner. So what exactly is the point anyone is trying to make?

The town halls are being manufactured now. Because before they were just as useless with people shouting down any attempt at discussion. Do you see the issue developing yet?

Whatever, yak. Clearly you have a problem with people trying to have their voices heard by leaders trying to shut them out of the debate. That's a you problem. Many of these people are Democrats, BTW.

 

[yakbladder]

What does the odd photo of somebody at a protest holding a swastika have to do with anything? Pelosi made the comment when asked about the protesters. Are all of the protesters carrying swastikas? It seemed to be a rather demeaning and pigeon-holing thing to comment about regarding the thousands of people across the country protesting her healthcare plan.

I don't believe I've disagreed with you yet on this particular subject so I'm not sure what you're getting at?

I'm perfectly okay with the un-American comment because I believe hysterical, rhetorical yelling that defeats honest discourse is more in line with social norms from fascist countries vs. America. Perfectly legal, but in poor taste. But, as previously mentioned ad nauseum, the swastikas thing should be strictly apolitical if it is discussed.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

i saw that there was some ad attacking the protestors for these "rallies". of course, they blamed rush limbaugh and the GOP.

"you damn neocons, stop watching your fox news!"

so cliche.

 

[Minstrel]

I get the impression that you feel that I support Ashcroft's words. I don't. He may have a point, but he should have expanded on it to clarify his intent. Pelosi's words carry no nuance.

I don't think his statement carries any nuance. He can't literally say "It's treasonous to accuse us of trampling liberties in conducting this war," so he said the same sentiment more softly.

And no, I don't feel you support Ashcroft's words. I got the impression that you felt this was a "Democratic party" thing, which I don't think it is. I think it's an old and common (and distasteful) strategy employed by both parties (and other parties, when they've had power).

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

[video=youtube;PtTBkxvBq88]

there it is. stop those rabble rousers!

 

[yakbladder]

Whatever, yak. Clearly you have a problem with people trying to have their voices heard by leaders trying to shut them out of the debate. That's a you problem. Many of these people are Democrats, BTW.

Again, Papa, you seem to be wearing blinders that prevent you from either reading posts or understanding them, I'm not sure which. I've already stated many, many, many times that people from both sides should be ashamed for implementing tactics which seeks to avoid HONEST discourse. But these people weren't trying to have their voices heard. They were trying to prevent others from speaking or having any rational conversation about the subject. Explain to me how attending a meeting for the public and then just continually yelling at the top of your lungs with no sense or order or respect or waiting for responses or discussions is anything but negative? They've started to be shut out of the debates in town halls because of this which has only starved the conversation of another point of view.

But for cripes sake, would you let your kids just yell and scream and throw a tantrum and get their way because they did so? Or would you ask them to first calm down and act like an adult (though harder for them) and discuss the matter? These are people who have no problem acting like 3 year olds...Clearly you are the one with the problem understanding my posts, please do not assign views to me since you have no clue what they are.

 

[crandc]

So, we're supposed to listen to talking points from our Congresspeople without comment? Seriously, you'd be happier if you learned Spanish and moved to Venezuela. Those people work for us. We not only have the right, but the obligation to speak our minds when we think they're wrong.

I'd imagine you support Act Up!. What the difference between their methods and booing a congressperson who is trying to push a party line at the expense of the truth?

Actually I don't often support Act Up.

NO ONE said don't comment. Shouting people down is not commenting. Shouting down people trying to participate is not commenting. The instructions for the town meetings specifically say not to engage in debate but to prevent the congressperson from speaking. That is not commenting. That is thuggery.

I already know Spanish. What does Venezuela have to do with shouting down a congressperson or a citizen to keep them from speaking their minds? Is only YOUR mind the one that can be spoken? And how do you know what "truth" is if you won't listen to what someone says? Is truth whatever the insurance company wants? Or Rush Limbaugh?

 

[maxiep]

Actually I don't often support Act Up.

But you do support them.

NO ONE said don't comment. Shouting people down is not commenting. Shouting down people trying to participate is not commenting. The instructions for the town meetings specifically say not to engage in debate but to prevent the congressperson from speaking. That is not commenting. That is thuggery.

I know. You and your ilk should tell the unions to back off average americans trying to address their concerns with their representatives.

I already know Spanish.

Felicidades. Eres muy especial. Ahora será más fácil para ir a Venezuela o Cuba.

What does Venezuela have to do with shouting down a congressperson or a citizen to keep them from speaking their minds? Is only YOUR mind the one that can be spoken? And how do you know what "truth" is if you won't listen to what someone says? Is truth whatever the insurance company wants? Or Rush Limbaugh?

Again, it's not the person supporting this plan getting yelled down, it's the person who dares oppose El Jefe. And if you can't tell truth from spin, then deleted.

 

[Eastoff]

What does the odd photo of somebody at a protest holding a swastika have to do with anything? Pelosi made the comment when asked about the protesters. Are all of the protesters carrying swastikas? It seemed to be a rather demeaning and pigeon-holing thing to comment about regarding the thousands of people across the country protesting her healthcare plan.

The problem with the protesters, is that they are calling Obama a socialist and a fascist. I think everyone can agree that the death of Hitler was a good thing. By equating Obama to the Nazi's it is saying "it's ok to kill obama because he's just like hitler."

My main point is that it's ok to disagree with those in charge. It's okay to protest. It's not right to interrupt someone else's free speech. It is also okay to call someone "unamerican" because hey, that's part of free speech! The bush administration made it clear anyone that questioned the IRAQ war was "unamerican". It was also "unamerican" when obama didn't wear his american flag pin.

I'll let you guys have the last word, because i'm way too lazy to banter on this subject.