About half of self-identified Republicans believe Barack Obama is not a US citizen. Testimony of the Republican governor of Hawaii, of the keeper of records, the presence in two Hawaii papers at the time of his birth of announcements thereof, and the actual certificate having been viewed by neutral observers -- none of it is convincing to these people.
It's perfect.
We now see exactly why, for so long, the Republican party has been a foe of public education, a proponent of religion in schools, of ignoring science, of sucking up to fundamentalists who prefer reinforcement of beliefs over search for facts. It's come to fruition for them, and I can't but imagine their leaders are happy as hell. Finally, they've produced a stable of uneducated people, unable and unwilling to evaluate data or opposing arguments, malleable in the extreme. We are producing exactly the kind of citizenry that these haters of democracy have been hoping for and working toward for a generation. Frightened, suggestible, vulnerable to the most cynical of manipulation, the "base" Republicans are now fully formed, exactly as planned. While conspiracy theories of the most fantastic kind are bloated, floated, and promoted, the real conspiracy has flourished under cover of darkness. The intended victims happily bought in to their own destruction. What's next? Believing health care reform means the government coming to kill senior citzens? Because their unknown overlords know they can kill health care reform by such scare tactics, and that their genetically modified sheep will fall for it?
Pretty damn smart. And working like a charm.
Posts: 1563 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
The second plan is obviously not working in countries with national healthcare. We are so incompetent at administrating a scheme which kills the elderly that our citizens are living longer than Americans .
It's long been a joke here [first made in Yes, Minister ] that we shouldn't encourage people to live long. For example,we should make cigarettes more freely and cheaply available. Government policy really ought to be to save money we spend on pensions and healthcare by making sure that people died before they retired.
Hey, I don't think that someone born in Hawaii is American, or a US citizen, either. It doesn't sound right ! It always sounds slightly odd when someone from Northern Ireland calls themselves British, too.
'The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.'The Next President of the USA
I saw that. It's beyond outrageous into some zone for which I have no words.
There's no doubt many will believe her. My only question is whether she actually believes it herself, or whether she's so bereft of values and self-respect that she'll say and do anything to keep herself in the public eye. Hard to tell. I think she's a mediocre mind with a sub-par education; but it takes a level of stupidity and a measure of paranoia that might be beyond even her. I think she's just evil. To use a favorite word.
Posts: 1563 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Where did she get the quote about 'levels of productivity in society from' ? It sounds scary!
She says that the elderly will suffer most from what she terms rationing. Hmm. My mother lived to be 92, and had NHS care from when it came in (1948), as we all did, and do, in my family. She spent the last year or so of her life in an NHS geriatric hospital. Some rationing!
Just out of interest: Is it possible, in the US, to take insurance against having a baby with Down's syndrome, so that, if one is born, the whole of its medical care is funded for the whole of its natural life? How is the medical care funded in the absence of such an anticipatory insurance? And do insurance companies ever decide not to fund further, or any, healthcare if they deem it not justified on medical, or on financial, grounds?
At the other end of life, but pertinently, an MP has discovered that the NHS is sometimes refusing in vitro fertilisation to couples on grounds, inter alia that the woman is judged too old. This discovery has led to some discussion here.
As to my last sentence, I see that the 2004 guidelines of NICE ( National Institute for Clinical Excellence) on 'in vitro' and infertility, which set out what the NHS should do, sets the limit at 39 years.The complaint is that some NHS bodies are not following the guidelines, which cover more than just age in advising on what should be done. The Department of Health's reply was that the NHS is making good progress in implementing the guidelines. Sounds as though they admit that not everything is being done everywhere yet, in applying them all as they should be.
'...Palin wasn't just talking about euthanasia. She specifically referred to her baby, Trig, potentially being deemed unworthy of healthcare by this so-called "death panel" based upon his "level of productivity in society," which are phrases she herself put in quotes; as if they were official parts of the legislation. Apparently, Obama's now going after the special needs people, too.
That's the craziest part about her claim in that she went MUCH further than anyone else I had heard before, at least from a national figure. Now it's not just the oldies who Obama is trying to kill but potentially ANYONE who is deemed too unproductive to deserve healthcare. And for as much as Gingrich is defending her, he's actually walking her crazy back quite a bit, taking it to where all the other crazies were; while also being more subtle about it...'(from a comment following) "Gingrich has Palin's Back"
Palin seems to favour that form of political discourse (used by both left and right) in which if you can somehow portray yourself as an oppressed victim, you don't need to bother with facts and arguments - you've won the debate. Saying her baby and parents would be killed for being unproductive involves another tiresome tendency in political discussion - comparing your opponent to the Nazis.
On the positive side, Palin is going to have to try hard to keep up this level of newsworthy loopiness - she's really raised the bar for herself.
"Level of productivity in society" produced 10 pages of Google results (omitting those which are similar etc).The 'quote' is only found in Palin's statement. I had hoped it might be in the works of Marx, Engels, Orwell or Huxley (Brave New World) or the like, which would give it some context. She seems to be inventing her own quotes. That's a cunning way of proceeding.
The commentators to DG's link should be reassured that we don't think Americans are stupid.
Is Mrs Palin able to get away with this because she is no longer in office ? May she then avoid being cross-examined by the Press or on TV or radio? What would happen here is that the leaders of her party would be cross-examined in the media and in the House (at Prime Minister's Questions or generally). They'd be asked whether they agree with what she said and, if so, asked to explain and justify it. If not, will they now publicly disown the statement and admit it is the falsehood it is ? The answers would be on every news programme and in every newspaper in the land.
She is now a private citizen (Deo gratias), and can lie with impunity (like elected officials can't!), subject only to slander and libel laws. She doesn't have to answer any press questions. The same isn't really true for those elected officials who didn't quit their job halfway through their term. One-by-one, Republican leaders will be faced with questions about Palin's statements. She has actually put them in a bind; in order to show solidarity with a fellow Republican, they'll have to agree with her and back the very obvious lie. If they disagree with her, they face repercussions from the party base. Romney has a unique problem in this; some parts of this bill are almost identical to what he got passed in his home state when he was governor. I think his only options are to claim that he was possessed by an evil demon, and has since been exorcised or to claim temporary insanity. (There are those that will contest the use of the word "temporary".) **** In a related story (to what I just said), I saw that there is a power struggle inside the Taliban, with assassinations and all. They really are similar to Republicans, aren't they? Limbaugh and Gingrich fighting for the head position, with Steele screaming that HE was elected as head, Huckabee and Romney taking potshots when they can, and Palin acting as Gen. Jack D. Ripper, firing shots at anyone who drinks fluoridated water. Meanwhile, McCain waves at cars driving by at one of his homes, and wonders why no one comes to see him anymore.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Over here it doesn't matter how minor the party member is, if they get quoted.(And they do, by an opponent or some local reporter and it then hits the tabloids) Immediately some idiot who's just an 18 year old candidate for some godforsaken tinpot little town council seat, or on some committee out in the sticks, says something stupid, or out of line with fact or with sense or with policy, some leader of the party who never even knew of their existence is being grilled about it. It's no good the poor man saying 'Who is that idiot? Do we know who he is?' the press treat it as though it was party policy from the deputy leader or a member of the cabinet. Absurd sometimes, but all good fun!
Is Mrs Palin able to get away with this because she is no longer in office?
Maybe it's more to do with the medium than her status. Comments involving loopy conspiracy theories like that one are a commonplace on the Internet (these pages being a noble exception of course ). Does Palin realise that she has a wider audience than a like-minded political fringe - that she's not just forwarding e-mails to her buddies? Or is she (as she maybe did in the election) aiming only at that section of the electorate?
). Does Palin realise that she has a wider audience than a like-minded political fringe - that she's not just forwarding e-mails to her buddies? Or is she (as she maybe did in the election) aiming only at that section of the electorate?