Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, I just wanted to make sure that people know the nature of who these Townhall "protestors" are.
Yet a plurality (or majority, depending on the poll) are against the healthcare plan. So perhaps these protestors, however organized, are really speaking for a large group of Americans.
Back on topic before we get another post with red letters - Congressman Scott was really rude when interviewed on CNN. I mean, he can frustrated all he wants, but the fact is - this is his JOB. And if he cannot stand people disagreeing with him or offering counter points or challenging him, then he can resign from the post. Now, I do not condone the hateful things (the swatiska, the racist mail), but it is also very disingenuous for Congressman Scott to say that the protests for healthcare have racism at their core. That is just so wrong and so divisive. It's a typical marginalizing strategy, similar to how Republicans called those who protested the Iraq War as "unpatriotic" and "un-American". Playing the race card in this debate is sad and desperate. Shame on him and other members of Congress for saying that.
I'm quite sure he has been on edge and probably had that outburst simmering for a while between people painting German Swastika's on his office sign and going to these town hall meetings and dealing with those crazy people.
I couldn't help but think of that part of the movie "Problem Child" where the guy running for mayor gets put on TV without his knowledge in the middle of a rant against this son, going all "don't come to me if you want something!"
Personally, I find it to be patriotic to be angry at a government that is going above and beyond the powers that they are not delegated. I was just as angry about Bush and the Congress's massive spending, "Patriot Act", etc.
The fact is:
It's a Public Forum
The Doctor lives in the district. He's a constituent.
The Doctor had tried to get David Scott's answer on the subject.
The Doctor had called Scott's office, asking if there was to be a Townhall, but was told nothing was being held on the subject. (It wasn't until later that Scott decided to hold one, and it's at the same time as the massive health care town hall meeting at Centennial Park. Coincidence? Not at all. He wanted less opposition). When you're told nothing is being held, and when you can't get your answers heard, what else is someone to do?
Scott is ranked as one of the most corrupt members of congress.
This "Health Care" legislation is dangerous. We're not saying that there aren't any problems with the current system. There are bound to be problems, given that people are living longer today courtesy of greater technology. Advanced procedures cause the price of insurance to rise for all. It's what we pay to live longer. Thirty or forty years ago, many people would have died.
Is Canada or Britain style healthcare ideal, with their long waits, people dying for those waits, the rationing of services, etc.? People from Canada come to the U.S. for healthcare because to wait is often a death sentence.
By the way, the bill does include provisions that state that if you lose your private insurance, you have to go on the government plan. All this talk about being able to keep your private insurance is a ploy to end private insurance, much like Obama said in 2003 and 2007, speaking of a "transition" period of phasing it out. How? Once you're off the private insurance, after you've lost your job, you have to go on a public plan. Furthermore, private insurers cannot compete with the federal government, as they have access to unlimited funds, if they want the federal reserve to print them. Health services do not compare to the postal services, given the huge difference in the price of goods and services. People will pay a few more cents to send something via the private sector, which often gets a package to a location faster, but they're less apt, given the difference in premimum, to go with a private insurer. As a result, people will be funneled onto the government plan.
The bill also has wording relating to a panel that assigns "worth" or "productivity" to society, and who gets priority. Of course, it's not worded exactly as such, but it refers to people being given priority for services.
The whole "racism" argument used by Scott is nothing more than him trying to obtain sympathy, and using it to get attention off him and the bill. I wouldn't doubt if the racial slurs on his office door was done by someone very dear and close to him. It's been done many times by people looking to gain sympathy. The whole "racism" argument is used to end debate, and it's something out of the left wing's playbook.
First of all, at the moderator's request, I won't even try to argue your opinions on healthcare reform. However you're blaming the victim bile at the end of your post can be refuted since this is the topic of this forum.
How about someone sends you death threats and hate mail so we can all point fingers at you and blame you? You can argue against healthcare reform all you want and that's fine, but in the name of human decency and respect--you're way out of line! with your little blame the victim rant.
I would contrast Rep. Scott's demeanor with his fellow democrat, Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. McCaskill has faced much tougher crowds than the crowd Scott faced, and while some of her comments have still marginalized that the opposition to the proposed bills is only by far right radicals instead of a far larger concern by citizens of all political stripes, she at least has said that these people have concerns that need to be heard. Even though I disagree with her stance, Rep. Scott can learn more effective ways to deal with those in opposition from Sen. McCaskill, no matter how loud and vocal they become.
It's not a matter of how vocal they become it's a matter of how threatening they are. The man has received death threats full of the n-word and his office has been graffitti'd with swastikas. I don't know about you, but I think I'd get a bit hot under the collar as well in response to an opposition that sees fit to use Nazi tactics against me.
It's not a matter of how vocal they become it's a matter of how threatening they are. The man has received death threats full of the n-word and his office has been graffitti'd with swastikas. I don't know about you, but I think I'd get a bit hot under the collar as well in response to an opposition that sees fit to use Nazi tactics against me.
I think anyone who feels attacked will eventually get into the defense mode and just plain "get over it". Like I said before, I don't particularly like Scott, but given all the stuff that's been coming out in the media that people have been saying and sending to him, heck, I'd go off on them too - whether I was in office or not.
As a matter of fact, to test the waters, I've JUST tried out a little test.... I'm sitting here during a slow period in my office. Some guys from Paulding (customers) came in a few minutes ago (they're actually still in the front office right now). The news was being discussed and I brought up the Scott video on channel 2 to see the reaction. Well, it's nearly 20 minutes since then, and I can still hear these guys use the N-word about 11 times per sentence, tossing in an "Obama" here and there for measure, along with one statement to the fact of, "I can't go to those meetings, I'd set off the metal detector". Ohhhhhkayyyyyy.
The fact is, every human has prejudices against someone. Every human. Many will say they do not, but the fact is, if you're human, then somewhere inside of you are prejudices - you may not like them, but they're there. But there's a big difference between being within the "normal" human range of emotions, and being radically dangerous (or at least sounding dangerous). This Scott thing shows that there are potentially radically dangerous people possibly getting involved in the meetings, as well as those who don't go but who are on the sidelines for who knows what reasons. It's not bringing out the best in people, or the politicians.
Kindly cite me ONE time when the Federal Government has had a success at managing ANYTHING.
Medicare is fairly liked by the folks who are under it... they are chanting about not taking away their Medicare so I suppose they are happy with it... in fact, government has been so demonized that many people on Medicare don't think it's a government program! I guess the fundamental question is... if you don't think the government will do a good job managing health care, why would you fear a government option? You always have the option to not buy the government's plan... for example, I know the USPS is cheaper but if I have an important document that must be there tomorrow, I'm choosing UPS or FedEx... why would it be different with healthcare? I'm just curious about this line of thinking.
We were mad when the federal government did not move fast enough to help manage the damage post-Katrina, were'nt we? Folks in Florida are mad when the government does not offer home insurance to cover for the private insurers that fled... but when we have an ideological aversion to a proposal, then the "government sucks" chants ring out. I just think it's wrong to demonize government in a blanket manner... yes, there are many things that government does a poor job of... but there are many things they do a pretty good job at and where we may want them involved. By and large, it appears to me that healthcare is probably one of the few things that the federal government may be very good at... I mean, have you ever had to deal with an insurance company over healthcare? 2 months later, I'm still trying to figure out whey they are charging my wife $800 for pregnancy scans. Isn't this the ONE place where government can make an improvement? I don't know about you guys but my health care coverage has gotten worse and more expensive each year I've worked.
I think anyone who feels attacked will eventually get into the defense mode and just plain "get over it". Like I said before, I don't particularly like Scott, but given all the stuff that's been coming out in the media that people have been saying and sending to him, heck, I'd go off on them too - whether I was in office or not.
As a matter of fact, to test the waters, I've JUST tried out a little test.... I'm sitting here during a slow period in my office. Some guys from Paulding (customers) came in a few minutes ago (they're actually still in the front office right now). The news was being discussed and I brought up the Scott video on channel 2 to see the reaction. Well, it's nearly 20 minutes since then, and I can still hear these guys use the N-word about 11 times per sentence, tossing in an "Obama" here and there for measure, along with one statement to the fact of, "I can't go to those meetings, I'd set off the metal detector". Ohhhhhkayyyyyy.
The fact is, every human has prejudices against someone. Every human. Many will say they do not, but the fact is, if you're human, then somewhere inside of you are prejudices - you may not like them, but they're there. But there's a big difference between being within the "normal" human range of emotions, and being radically dangerous (or at least sounding dangerous). This Scott thing shows that there are potentially radically dangerous people possibly getting involved in the meetings, as well as those who don't go but who are on the sidelines for who knows what reasons. It's not bringing out the best in people, or the politicians.
Well said Greg. I couldn't have expressed it better.
I would contrast Rep. Scott's demeanor with his fellow democrat, Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. McCaskill has faced much tougher crowds than the crowd Scott faced, and while some of her comments have still marginalized that the opposition to the proposed bills is only by far right radicals instead of a far larger concern by citizens of all political stripes, she at least has said that these people have concerns that need to be heard. Even though I disagree with her stance, Rep. Scott can learn more effective ways to deal with those in opposition from Sen. McCaskill, no matter how loud and vocal they become.
In all fairness, Sen McCaskill, Specter, etc. had townhalls specifically to address healthcare... what if 10 people showed up there and started screeching about roads and bridges? You think they would have behaved the same? I dunno.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
