President Obama seems to be reading DU...

[Melissa G]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/?wpisrc=newsletter

Obama rejects criticism on health legislation

Exclusive interview | President challenges critics to identify any "gap" between what he campaigned on and what Congress is on the verge of passing.

Scott Wilson | 2:38 p.m. ET

Any DUers want to compile a list?

[Melissa G]

1. We can start off with this DU thread

from dixiegrrrrl
Original message
Obama broke these 6 health care promises.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7280831&mesg_id=7280831

From her list
Biggest promise:
Universal Health Care:


1. No Individual Mandate.

2. Complete Transparency

Candidate Obama promised that health care deliberations with Congress and special interests would be transparent to the extreme.

3. Enable the Government to Directly Negotiate Drug Prices

4. Allow Drug Importation

5. Lower Premiums by $2,500 for a Family of Four


And I'm sure SOMEWHERE Candidate Obama promised to fight for a woman's right to choice and there is that sucky abortion addition separate clause that planned parenthood is pointing out...

[Melissa G]

10. More on the public option

from Hell Hath No Fury
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7299293

Response to Original message
13. Hang on while I dig around here ---

Edited on Tue Dec-22-09 03:14 PM by Hell Hath No Fury
Oh yeah, this was what I was looking for:


"Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family." President Barack Obama

:eyes:

[aquart]

2. Well, we did know his healthcare plan sucked. We did.

[wryter2000]

3. This is a good sign...sorta...I guess...maybe...

One of the most infuriating things about this whole mess has been how progressives have been totally ignored when not outright derided as lunatic/hysterical. He makes it sound as if the only real objection to the bill is how it will affect the budget. Maybe he's noticed now that we realize we're being screwed even if he's not going to do a thing to try to screw us any less. :(

[PassingFair]

20. Oh we haven't been IGNORED...to the contrary...

they are spending a great deal of time and money to
marginalize us.

[laughingliberal]

26. Yep and they can just keep on. The trainwreck of our nation has already pushed me off the grid

My life is going to likely be one of scraping to survive abject poverty, anyway. I have reached that point where I am so far down the policies of any administration do not reach me. It can not get worse for us. If I do not see some positive steps towards reversing the trend of destroying workers for the benefit of the wealthy my vote and my voice (which is all I have left) shall not go to him and their corporatist policies. My withholding my one little vote and powerless voice will not make much difference but there may be more like me. The loss of one consistent Democratic voter for 36 years? No big deal to them. But, I'm guessing I'm not alone. When the wheels come off the tracks for everyone we will find a way to rebuild this nation. It is becoming more apparent, daily, nothing will change much until then.

[PassingFair]

31. You are NOT alone...

I feel the same way. I am not scraping, but I COULD EASILY BE.

I am employed, but have a stressful job, where there are constant
threats of dismissal.

:hug:

Try not to look at the "....but the stores are full!" posts
around here. They will make you SICK.

[laughingliberal]

46. Yeah, pretty callous stuff. But that's the country we have now

Good luck to you and thank you for the support. :grouphug:

[MannyGoldstein]

4. How Fucking Stupid Does He Think We Are?

If he's actually saying that what he campaigned on is what we're getting, he's either suffering from mental incapacity, thinks we're stupid, or forgot that we can use Google.

Dear God in Heaven!

[Melissa G]

7. I'm betting on the forgetting about Google option

or thinking that the sound bite is more important than the correct answer. Perhaps a full page ad in the Times might be in order from those of us at DU who feel compelled to answer this malarkey.

[leftofcool]

5. I doubt that he cares but if he is reading DU, "stuff your healthcare reform."

[frebrd]

6. K&R!

[Melissa G]

8. Did someone un rec us already? n/t

[phasma ex machina]

39. Yes. DU's vast unrec herd continues to stealthily kick disgruntled dissent to the curb.

:rofl:

[Individualist]

9. Highly unlikely

Anyone who thinks criticism on health legislation exists primarily on DU is delusional.

[Cetacea]

28. Some of the pundits at MSNBC do, imo.

Just in the past week I've heard them quoting OPs that I've read here.

[Individualist]

38. They probably do, along with numerous other political websites.

I was talking about the OP's statement that "President Obama seems to be reading DU".

[Cetacea]

62. Thanks.

and you are probably right. Axelrod reads it for him.



:rofl:

[Occulus]

67. Apparently, the general responsible for the story regarding pregnant soldiers in combat zones

responded here, directly, to our criticisms. I've no idea if it was legit- that's for the admins to decide- but if it was, then it's confirmation that people involved in the administration actually do read this site.

I was frankly astonished when I saw that post, and I'm still more than a little skeptical that it was in fact him. But if it was, well then, good on us, I guess :shrug:

[ima_sinnic]

11. the LIE that everybody would have "a seat at the table," with transparent negotiations "televised"

"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process." --Town hall meeting on Aug. 21, 2008, in Chester, Va.

He lost me when he turned it over to Max Baucus and actually said NOTHING when doctors and nurses were arrested for trying to be heard about single-payer. He laughed off single-payer the same way he did legalizing marijuana.

pffft. This was the crux of it for me, and he showed he was just a nice plastic smile in an empty suit with good command of the English language. A dime-a-dozen con artist.

[ima_sinnic]

12. like he gives a rats ass what his "critics" think anyway

now that it's too late, and "the bill" is passed, he can say whatever he wants. what are we going to do about it, anyway?

[Tutankhamun]

14. Unless by "critics" you mean health insurance companies.

Obama is very attuned to their needs.

[ima_sinnic]

16. oh right--THOSE critics he listens to (nt)

[FiveGoodMen]

13. Really?

Fuck off, traitor! (Obama, not Melissa)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. LOL. he doesnt have to read DU. this in not just the opinion of a few crazy folk

[Monk06]

17. This place is becoming a Free Republic mirror site

Du fantasy that BO lurks on Du = Freeper fantasy that OB lurks on FR

Progressive Base will take revenge on Corporatists = Freeper Base will take revenge on RINOs

DU "Kill the Bill" = FReeper "Kill the Bill"

DU "Obama is a traiter to the Left" = FReeper "Obama is a Muslim Marxist"

DU "Obama is a tool of RW Corporate Elite" = FReeper "Obama is a tool of the Marxist/Alinski elitists"

DU "Obama is ignoring the poor" = Freeper "Obama is out to distroy the rich"

I could go on but you get the idea

DU is fast becoming a Whine and Cheese party for disaffected romantic anti-capitalists

[walldude]

18. You're comparing legitimate complaints about things like

The war in Afghanistan, Rights for the GLBT community and this health care reform bill to Freeper complaints that Obama is Muslim Nazi Socialist...


:rofl: ;:ofl: :rofl: Funny stuff.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

22. Niiiiice. Is this _all_ progressives, or only some?

Could you give us a list of these evil, evil progressive positions and contrast them with the published Democratic Party platform from 2008?

[Monk06]

24. Just the whiners who say Obama is a disappointment as President

I'm not against Progessives per se. Exept that
I haven't seen a coherent philosophy or political
program from people who call themselves progressives
on this board. I see only single issue leftists bound
by the nebulous and doctrinaire notion of inclusiveness.

No truly progressive political movement can emerge from
a disparate group of "communities" who's interests are
narrowly focused on the needs, desires and individual
identities of their particular sub culture.

[Ignis]

25. Single issues like abortion for women or DADT for gays?

Those are very real, important, everyday, life-threatening issues for people.

To belittle their concerns is reprehensible. :thumbsdown:

If you really think progressives are opposing Obama's strategy or policies simply to be curmudgeonly or to tear down our elected (D) president for sport, I doubt you and I will find any common ground for discussion.

[Monk06]

27. Abortion and DADT are single issues and are identified with the groups that

who push for reforms in those areas. That's
a fact not a criticism.

But until there is a singula cohesive Left/Socialist
political movement that addresses all these issues
within the context of a national political party
capable of achieving and holding power you will
have what you have today: a form of Anarcho/Syndicalism
composed of disparate labor and social movements
competing with each other to press in favor of their
chosen issues.

If you don't understand that I am making a reasoned
argument for Left/Liberal movement with national scope
then we probably don't have much common ground for
discussion.

[Ignis]

30. No, that wasn't at all clear until you made it clear.

But that's certainly a worthwhile goal. America lags far behind Europe in this regard, I fear.

[walldude]

33. single issue leftists

Oh I see it's because I'm a single issue leftist.
Well I have a number of issues with Obama, starting with wars, warrantless wiretapping, bank bailouts, crappy insurance bill, thanking Joe Lieberman, lying, and not the least of which is basic equal civil rights for the GLBT community.

However, if you want to live in your little fantasy world of "single issue leftists" because it makes you feel better then by all means make up some other crap that will make you feel superior so you can go on the internet and bitch about people bitching on the internet. :rofl: :rofl:

[Vinnie From Indy]

43. Your post is very amusing!

You obviously are not a word smith or even a mildly competent debater.

You write,
"I see only single issue leftists bound
by the nebulous and doctrinaire notion of inclusiveness."

LOL!!! That is one of the funniest things I have read on DU in a while. First of all there is nothing wrong with having a doctrine of inclusiveness. It is actually something of which to be proud. Secondly, inclusiveness by it's very nature binds disparate things including single issue voters together. Thirdly, there is nothing nebulous about DADT, health care reform or any of the other issues that drive progressives. They are what they are. Keep working on it and someday you might actually make a lick of sense!

[Monk06]

49. My writing abilities are more than adequate thank you and inclusiveness is not a well defined term

in the political context in which is typically used.

And it most definitely, sui generis, bind "disparate things"
together. It merely states the political differences among
people should be respected and tolerated. That's fine but
it is just a platitude. Something no reasonable person
would disagree with.

A mature political culture, however, seeks to resolve those differences
and create a unified political movement that can actually accomplish
something.

I like diversity in the same way that I like Mom and Apple pie but
I wouldn't base a political movement on it.

[Vinnie From Indy]

70. You do make some valid points.

While I disagree somewhat, you do make some valid points.

Cheers!

[Ignis]

61. Yup, the Big Tent is what we're all about.

The devil's in the details, of course, but the broad strokes are all right there in the published party platform.

[joeunderdog]

52. Can I use your post for my garden next spring?

What a load of crap.

[Monk06]

53. Whatever. Easier than reading the rest of the discussion I suppose.

[walldude]

29. Shit it got deleted before I had a chance to read it..

Must have hit a nerve if it caused mr you're a freeper to get a reply deleted...

[Ignis]

32. Just a variation of "No True Scotsman," really.

Not much new under the sun. ;)

[Monk06]

34. Sorry there is no True Scotsman fallacy in my argument. Although I'd be interested

in you cashing out the fallacy if you wish.

I have not changed the terms under discussion
which would be a necessary condition for the
Scotsman fallacy to apply

Anarchism and Socialism are well understood
political philosophies with a history going
back to the 1830's in modern times.

I have merely identified Progressivism so called
as a species of Anarcho Syndicalism because the
labor movement is probably the best fit for
the disparate political movements on the Left
in US politics. Unlike Canada and other nations
the US has not been able to field a national
party that is overtly socialist.

This partly due to the fact that if is harder
to form a multi party system under a Republican
as apposed to a Parliamentary system

[Ignis]

35. Re-read the last sentence of your post...

But substitute "nearly impossible under America's constitutional case law and current political climate" for "harder."

Progressives and other left-leaning Americans have only two choices in a de facto two-party system. To accuse us of being single-issue voters puts convenient blinders to this fact, especially on a state or federal level.

[Monk06]

36. "But substitute "nearly impossible under America's constitutional case law and current political

climate" for "harder."

I still don't see the fallacy. If anything you seem
to be the one who is changing the terms of the discussion
By substituting your "nearly impossible" with my, "harder"
your argument becomes an instance of the very fallacy you
accuse me of.

The reason I say it's nearly impossible to form a third party in
a Republic is that in a parliamentary system, at least in Canada,
all political parties receive Federal Campaign funding, which encourages
and supports a genuine multi-party system see below

PUBLIC FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND CANDIDATES

Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), also increased and extended the level of public financing of political parties and candidates.

Parties are entitled to reimbursement of 50% of their electoral expenses provided that candidates endorsed by the party received at least 2% of valid votes cast in an election or 5% of valid votes cast in constituencies in which the party endorsed a candidate (section 435).

Individual candidates are also entitled to reimbursement of electoral expenses if they receive 10% or more of the valid votes cast. The maximum amount that may be reimbursed is the lesser of 60% of the candidate’s paid election and personal expenses, or 60% of the maximum the candidate is allowed to spend in an election under section 441(3) of the Canada Elections Act (section 464).

Political parties are entitled to an annual allowance of $1.75 per vote received by the party in the previous election, provided that candidates endorsed by the party received at least 2% of the valid votes cast in that election or 5% of valid votes cast in the constituencies in which the party endorsed a candidate. The $1.75 allowance per vote is paid in quarterly installments of $0.4375 per vote and is adjusted annually for inflation (section 435.01).

Amendments to the Income Tax Act now provide increased incentives for individuals to contribute to political parties and candidates. These amendments double the amount of an individual’s contribution that is eligible for the 75% tax credit from $200 to $400. The other tax brackets of the tax credit were increased accordingly, resulting in a maximum tax credit of $650 for donations of $1,275 or more.




It would be virtually impossible in the US Federal system to pass campaign finance laws which would subsidize political parties with tax dollars. Not just harder but virtually impossible due to constitutional constraints
Virtually impossible still means possible at least in Congress where representatives can sit as independents.

But the problem isn't really that a socialist third party alternative hasn't emerged in US politics but that the very word "Socialist" has been deemed un-American even though socialism has been a strong undercurrent in US political thought and activism since after the Civil War.

And that is the crux of the problem I think is that until Socialism becomes politically acceptable fragmentation will continue to be the dominant condition of the Left in your country.

[Ignis]

37. Are you from Canada, or was that just an example?

I hate to pry, but the boots-on-the-ground reality of American politics is a far cry from even what the Constitution allows.

[Monk06]

40. Yes I am from Canada and you might want to reread the post since I had to amend it

due to my misunderstanding your previous remarks

[Sebastian Doyle]

42. If you're from Canada, then how the hell can you be defending the joke of a health care bill

Or Obama's back tracking on it.

Everyone I talk to north of the border or from any other civilized country thinks we're all fucking crazy for continuing to tolerate this corporatist horseshit. I'm inclined to agree.

[Monk06]

47. Because our national health care plan took twenty years to implement

It began with a provincial plan which provided for
free hospital care but not government funded health
insurance. That was 1946. We didn't get Universal
National Health care until twenty years later in
1966. see below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

As I said in other posts. HCR is just the first step
in Single Payer health care in the US. Given the
powerful forces arrayed against it it will take
many years of struggle before you see it.

As a side note one of the strongest opponents of
national health care in Canada was the... wait for it

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION..

That's right it is the AMA that advised and helped fund
the Saskatchewan doctors strike in 1962 in a last ditch
effort to prevent government health insurance from taking
root in North America. So your enemies were and are our
enemies in the battle to implement and defend Universal
Health care. And make no mistake once implemented those
same forces will do everything in their power to cripple
and dismantle it just as they presently doing in Canada.

[Ignis]

41. Ah. The difficulty lies in the culture of jingoism fostered by Bush.

That same message has been the dominant paradigm in the US since 1980, with a slight blip on the radar that was President Clinton's era.

The degree of resistance to anything considered an economic leveling mechanism is frightening. :scared:
It will take a real culture shift to change this, not a happy-face painted on a corporate boot. :crazy:

Those who consider themselves to be US progressives aligned themselves with the Democratic rather than the Republican candidate in the 2008 presidential election--OF COURSE! And those progressives are right to hold Obama's feet to the fire when it comes to backing away from campaign promises or planks from the published party platform.

But the leap from that point to disparaging this group as "so called Progressives" crosses the line into the aforementioned fallacy.

[Monk06]

45. When I say "so called Progressives" I am merely pointing out

that the term progressive has no widely accepted
meaning in terms of political culture in the US

It is not a name for an political movement in any
well defined sense much less a political party.

It is mere the name of a political sensibility
that is socialist in some vaguely undefined way.

The basic tenets to my understanding are the support
for social and relies tolerance especially toward
marginalized groups, economic equity, respect for
the environment etc.

While all of these issues are important, supporting
them does not in itself constitute a social or political
movement.

Unless and until the various groups supporting these
issues separately form common ground under the umbrella
of a unified political movement capable of electing
representatives to political office.

In Canada that began with socialists and progressives
uniting under the banner of the Cooperative Commonwealth
Federation which would become the New Democratic Party
which is a national party that is unambiguously socialist
in terms of its policies and political identity.

The best you can hope for in the US is socialism at the state
level and a coalition of socialists and liberals under the
banner of the Democratic Party. Progressives may not like
that situation but that is their only alternative during my
lifetime at least.

So again, to say so called Progressives is not to disparage
the term and the people who use it. I'm merely saying it
is not sufficiently well defined to be particularly useful
in understanding the present situation in national politics.

Below is a link to a discussion of the True Scotsman Fallacy.
I don't see my preceding remarks as being an instance of it.
To say a term is undefined or not well understood is not to
change the definition. It is a claim that no widely accepted
definition for the word Progressive exists in political discourse
at the moment. You can argue that I am wrong but my argument
is not fallacious.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

[Ignis]

60. The fallacy = You are setting yourself up as the judge.

Because there is no overall, official Progressive Party in the US, there is no published progressive platform against which one can compare the "True Scotsman-ness" of any particular set of goals held en masse by US progressives.

If someone says they're a Democrat and that they support the Democratic Party, one can compare that person's professed goals against those published in the party platform. If one really wanted (and some DUers really, really enjoy this), one could find a disparity between those two sources and question the "True Democrat-ness" of such a person. For example, if pressed, I would say those who do not support abortion rights and equality for all are not "good" Democrats, because their goals are not in alignment with the Democratic platform.

But I personally find that any attempt at a value judgment along these lines invariably devolves into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and thus I attempt to avoid any such comparison--because ultimately, it's a judgment on a person rather than the ideals that they hold dear. YMMV.

If you really must take umbrage with the use of the term "progressive" by left-leaning Democrats and aligned supporters, I suggest taking it up with Skinner. See the text of the "About DU" page for more details, especially the wording of the first two paragraphs:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html

[Monk06]

63. Fallacies apply to arguments not attitudes. Specifically only arguments

in the form of a syllogism are subject to fallacy.

See

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/syll_fall.html

You don't know what a fallacy is. A fallacy is an
invalid argument in the form of a syllogism eg

Major premise: All animals are mortal.
Minor premise: All humans are animals.
Conclusion: All humans are mortal.

Is valid


Major premise: All Democrats are progressive
Minor premise: Some Progressives are not Democrats
Conclusion: All true Democrats are progressive

This is species of the Scotsman fallacy and it is invalid

But I never made such and argument. I said the term progressive
is not well defined in any useful political sense and it isn't

That is not an argument it is a claim as to fact and can only
by confuted by another fact. Put another way my remarks constitute
an empirical claim not logical one.

[Ignis]

64. "You don't know what a fallacy is."

OK, if you're going to pretend that you can use tea leaves or some other method to divine what I do or do not know, I think we're done here.

:hi:

I don't waste my breath (or finger-strokes, in this case) debating logic with those who make such unsupported leaps of faith. If you'd like to dip back into the well of intellectual honesty and try again, I'll be waiting. Otherwise, don't bother attacking the man rather than the argument with me.

[Monk06]

65. Just because you don't like what I have to say does not mean that I used an invalid

argument. If you accuse someone of using invalid
arguments then the onus is on you to demonstate
how said argument is invalid.

You have not done so. Getting all peavish about
it does not change the fact that you have not made
your case.

And you end by calling me intellectually dishonest
and in the very next sentence accuse me of attacking
you instead of your arguement. You question my motives
and honesty yet you dissemble from one sentence to another.

Pointless to continue. I have to agree with you on that.

[Ignis]

66. OK, prove that I don't understand it.

I mean really, really prove it.

- Don't just sketch out the rough outlines of an argumentum ad hominem and wave your hands to fill in the blanks.
- Don't accuse me of being "peavish" :eyes: when I ask for support of your claims.
- Don't bluster and obfuscate about how XYZ is properly understood by all ABC people.
- Don't twist my words to enhance your status as the victim in this situation.
- Don't prove that I didn't write X, prove that I don't understand it--because that's your assertion.

I'm talking about logically sound, objectively testable, empirical evidence of my ignorance.

(Note: Invasive brain surgery, CT scans, MRIs, etc. are not an option in this proof.)

Here's a hint regarding the ad hominem fallacy: You can say that my argument is idiotic until you're blue in the face, and I won't mind a whit. But the second that the object of your tirade changes from "your argument" to "you," your rhetoric has lost the plot.

---

Also, despite the fact that you've ever-so-conveniently ignored what I wrote in my last post, I again suggest that you see the "About DU" page for DU's stance on the term "progressive."

If you disagree, file a complaint with the mods. I'm not a mod, and I neither make nor enforce the rules that resulted in your inflammatory and fallacious post being deleted upthread.

[Monk06]

69. I never said any of your remarks are idiotic. By your mis-attribution of the

Scotsman Fallacy you have shown that you
either don't know what a fallacy is or you
are using it inappropriately in order
to dignify what is an emotional objection
to my view. That view, opinion or what ever
you want to call it, is that the word progressive
is, "undefined in any useful political context"
and not sufficiently robust to constitute
the foundation of a political movement.

When someone calls themselves a socialist, I
know what that means. I might follow by asking
what trend in socialist thought they follow.

But when someone says they are a progressive I
have to ask them to explain what they mean by that
since typically, it connotes a political position
slightly to the of the Democrats but still more
or less comfortably allied with it.

In other words progressive is just a type of
liberalism rather than socialist,marxist or anarchist
in its orientation.

Now why should these remarks get you all in huff?
Also, I haven made an ad hominem argument ageinst you.
Argumentum Ad Hominem is another informal fallacy and
again you have accused me of making a fallacious
argument when I have done no such thing.

You don't know what a fallacy is. You misuse the term
in discussion, either consciously or unconsciously and
the proof lies in the fact that you continue to do it.

And BTW the term Progressive is not defined on the DU About
page either so that was a pointless click. And why should
I take the word of the site owners for what the word means?
Their opinion holds no more weight than the people posting
on this board since, obviously, the meaning of the word
progressive is up for grabs.

[Ignis]

71. Not proven. No proof provided. Try again, without the "huff." (nt)

[Monk06]

72. I have a better idea. You have a Merry Merry Christmas

[Ignis]

73. Fair enough. Good luck. (nt)

[Melissa G]

23. Dream on... n/t

[NYC_SKP]

54. I have to agree, limited to GD and GDP, though. nt

[Monk06]

57. Yeah I think GDP and GDP should be amalgamated. They're more or less identical

[mdmc]

21. Challenge accepted!

I need access to affordable health care. I am fully insured, but cannot afford to access treatment because my co-payments are too expensive ($40.oo per visit).

I am very sick and will be disabled without medical treatment. At least then I will be able to afford to receive medical treatment as I will be unemployed and disabled.

Didn't you campaign on improving access to affordable healthcare? My healthcare costs are going up again. and again..

ps- I also own a car that needs more work then the car is worth. Yet it was not considered a "clunker" in your SUV bailout..

[bigwillq]

44. That's too bad

One of the things I liked about Obama is that he's always said that he doesn't mind criticism. He seems to usually handle it pretty well.

[bajamary]

48. The Lawyer and the Nurses. Who do you believe?

So the lawyer President Obama makes a half-serious comment challenging critics to identify any "gap" between what he campaigned on and what Congress is on the verge of passing.

Well, Mr I-parse-my-words lawyer Obama, I believe what the National Nurses Union said about your health plan.


National Nurses United, the nation's largest registered nurses union and professional organization, declared on Tuesday that the Senate health care bill gives away too much to insurance companies and "fails to meet the test of true health care reform."

"It is tragic to see the promise from Washington this year for genuine, comprehensive reform ground down to a seriously flawed bill that could actually exacerbate the health care crisis and financial insecurity for American families, and that cedes far too much additional power to the tyranny of a callous insurance industry," said co-president Karen Higgins in a statement.

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2009/december/nation-s-largest-rn-organization-says-healthcare-bill-cedes-too-much-to-insurance-industry.html

[sendero]

50. That's a challenge..

... that has already been handily met. Obama seems to think we don't have video. He seems to think he can get by on nothing more than flowery words just because his predecessor got along fine without them.

I can't claim to really know how this legislation will really affect Americans but my hunch is that it is going to be wildly unpopular.

Way to go Obama.

[bajamary]

51. Watch and read this as Obama does pledge his support on 7/17/07

http://lauraetch.googlepages.com/barackobamabeforeplann...

The above link is to Obama's campaign speech in which he says:

"In my mind, reproductive care is essential care, it is basic care . . it is at the center and the heart of the plan that I propose. Essentially . . we're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services." (7/17/07)

Watch the video clip here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDtVnPBKMRc&feature=play...

[debbierlus]

55. Oh, he didn't - did he?

Is this a Onion piece?

[jgraz]

56. Reading? Hell, Rahm is POSTING.

By my count, he's got at least seven sockpuppets running around GD:P.

[Melissa G]

58. LOL

Ah yes, the disinformation brigade! :rofl: sock puppets abound!

[texanwitch]

59. President Obama has kicked over a fire ant's nest, a big one.

The the ants are angry.

It didn't have to be this way.

I am a democrat because I think for myself, not what other people tell me.

Act like a real Democrat and you get my support.

[Echo In Light]

68. Our "elected" Reps represent their corporate pay masters, not the people

Rigged system/phony rep democracy