Where's the outrage?

[cryingbluerain]

We, as U.S. citizens, are now encouraged to report any instances we encounter of opinions/discussions that are counter to the claims of the White House with regards to Obama's healthcare plan.

From the White House blog:

Yeah, gotta keep those angry mobs of rabid right-wing extremists under control.

[I have got a horsey]

No offense to any of my liberal friends here. But in my opinion I am convinced that liberalism is the result of an infantile personality disorder.

And conservatism is just an irrational fear of change perhaps?

But does your comment refer to just contemporary liberalism or are you refering to the whole concept of liberalism thoughout the ages?

[Bong-Man]

There should not be any National Health Care Coverage Plan.

Why not...Because you already have yours ?

Hey....if the U.S. is the greatest country in the world, how come our health care is rated # 17 ?

We, as U.S. citizens, are now encouraged to report any instances we encounter of opinions/discussions that are counter to the claims of the White House with regards to Obama's healthcare plan.

Oh that message wasn't for you....it's for me. You see I'm on his team.....so if I hear of a right-winger spreading false info like...."you will lose your current coverage"....or, "you'll be taxed on your current coverage"....or "Obama's really a Kenyan", I need to pimp you out immediately. It's my job.

[SteveAJones]

Why not...Because you already have yours ?

Because it cannot function as well as a profit-oriented system rooted in the free market. There is no incentive for scientific innovation nor efficiency in a government monopoly.

Can you name even one enterprise the government runs well? I cannot.

[TypeO]

It would be nice to sit down and compare and contrast the Nat'l Health Plan that George Bush proposed with Obama's current plan, but wait......there wasn't one.

but wait, maybe because 85% of U.S. citizens already HAVE healthcare we didn't NEED a Nat'l Healthcare plan.

Talk about manufactured - the Healthcare "crisis" is one of the most overblown, manufactured issues we've ever had our faces pushed into like puppies who've peed the carpet. It's just the means for the Democrats to get their hands on even more of our money, and pander to lower-income voters by making them MORE, rather than LESS dependent on government.

I couldn't possibly find one. If I did, that would mean that this country had some kind of open debate over our response to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Gitmo, and the like. If you remember, there were no debates or press conferences. There was only bad intel that happened to fit the agenda. Where it didn't fit, they manufactured lies for the world. When it came to manipulation, George preferred photo ops on aircraft carriers.....or in front of a fellow millionaire Republican's hurricane damaged home.

So what debate is there now?

As soon as people speak up at these Town Halls, they are ridiculed and labeled and explained-away by the media.

Bottom line, there was tons of opposition to Bush throughout both his terms, and the Republicans never resorted to campaign-style commercials to "set the record straight".

Who could have possibly been manipulated by Bush's "photo-ops" when he was ripped immediately after any such photo-op by the Democrats in the House and Senate, and all the nightly news?

But these commercials that continue the campaign hype with the soothing voice-over assuring us those who oppose Obama are trying to bring President Obama and the country down?

Does the nightly news question the use of this commercial?

Absolutely not.

On a side note to Democrats and liberals: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, et al, are NOT the media.

Bryan Williams, Charles Gibson, Katie Couric, Dianne Sawyer, George Stephanapoulos, Terry Moran, Chip Reid, Andrea Mitchell, et al, ARE the media.

Stop referring to them as otherwise.

When the latter behave like the former, i.e., report with bias, there's a problem.

[TypeO]

Why not...Because you already have yours ?

Hey....if the U.S. is the greatest country in the world, how come our health care is rated # 17 ?

Because the WHO bases their rankings not just on quality of care, but on factors like how much is paid for by the government.

[Hotplant]

Why not...Because you already have yours ?

Hey....if the U.S. is the greatest country in the world, how come our health care is rated # 17 ?

Oh that message wasn't for you....it's for me. You see I'm on his team.....so if I hear of a right-winger spreading false info like...."you will lose your current coverage"....or, "you'll be taxed on your current coverage"....or "Obama's really a Kenyan", I need to pimp you out immediately. It's my job.

They get it straight from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Glen Beck and the like.

We're Doomed...OMG...where's the nearest gun show, quick!

[Bong-Man]

They get it straight from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Glen Beck and the like.

Yep....I enjoyed Fox last night. The only spin they could come up with related to the Clinton North Korea visit was the supposed snub of Al Gore. Then it was the political ramifications of the visit....how we justified their existance of over 50 years by stepping on North Korean soil. Meanwhile....not one pic of the two women coming home, the relief of the families, or Bill Clinton being praised. Of course, that's because every other channel is run by libs.

[I have got a horsey]

Because it cannot function as well as a profit-oriented system rooted in the free market. There is no incentive for scientific innovation nor efficiency in a government monopoly.

Can you name even one enterprise the government runs well? I cannot.

That's not true.

Sure a public health care system can struggle to meet all needs, particularly non-emergency surgeries, but to say that they don't fuction as well as a profit-orientated system or there is no incentive for scientific innovation is just pure nonsense...

The Continuous Positive Airway Pressure System, which was invented at a government hospital in Sydney, and the first rate-responsive pacemaker invented at a government hospital in London are two important scientific inventions I can think of off the top of my head that came from a public healthcare system, and there have been more if you fancy a bit of research...

A year ago one of my family members was diagnosed with aggressive cancer. She was going to get private health care treatment for it, but both her GP and her Oncologist strongly recommended she go to the main public hospital in our city for its oustanding record in radiation therapy. She got fantastic treatment and it didn't cost her a cent...and she got some wigs thrown in free, too, for the baldness...and you want me to believe that there's no place for public health care? Bollocks, my friend...

[SteveAJones]

She got fantastic treatment and it didn't cost her a cent...and she got some wigs thrown in free, too, for the baldness...and you want me to believe that there's no place for public health care? Bollocks, my friend...

I'm glad she got the treatment she required, but none of it was "free". There's no place

for the public health proposed for the U.S., as it mandates full coverage for all illegal immigrants and levies penalties against citizens whom refuse to relinquish their private health care plans.

[MisterMcLov1n]

I'm glad she got the treatment she required, but none of it was "free". There's no place

for the public health proposed for the U.S., as it mandates full coverage for all illegal immigrants and levies penalties against citizens whom refuse to relinquish their private health care plans.

Agreed, to an extent. Universal health care would be nice in the US and would help millions, but the current, hasty approach is quite misguided. I wish more input, thought, and time could be given instead of trying to get the bill speedily passed.

[Rock N' Rollin' Man]

They get it straight from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Glen Beck and the like.

We're Doomed...OMG...where's the nearest gun show, quick!

Bret Baier, Trace Gallagher, and Shepard Smith are really good hosts who I trust. Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are the complete opposite of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, views of both whom I disagree. Just goes to show as pointed out before that both sides have their radical minded people or well the four just mentioned sound just really annoying and everything they say is expected.

[BonzoLikeDrumer]

Because it cannot function as well as a profit-oriented system rooted in the free market. There is no incentive for scientific innovation nor efficiency in a government monopoly.

Can you name even one enterprise the government runs well? I cannot.

How about any government attached secret service's organization, or any military action in the history of the world? Even the military losses can be given some bit of credit. For an example, the US government has more income at this time than any where else (if the currant war hasn't broke us) on earth so it has the ability to do most anything it want's.

It can also hide or move money(s) in any fashion it care's, because of the huge wealth of companies and organization's under it's command. Then there is the massive amount of people (the citizen's) and the media that control them (to an extent). I can't even begin to give explanation for that part of the equation, and we are the people that will write there Senator's and Representative's (at least I have). An effect that the people at least look, as they have some control of the way thing's are being run and that can be a sobering sight to another country!

Communist China is the only other nation that can do anything close to that but, they are much more closely (and openly) controlled and the people are given very little to go through life with and they don't dare write a letter to any one about the government.

[I have got a horsey]

I'm glad she got the treatment she required, but none of it was "free".

Well sure, you are paying for it in your taxes. But the conservative government that was last in power in Australia, was trying to move people onto private health care cover, as well as continue paying for the public system out of your taxes. So I had a look at private health care insurance, and frankly, it sucked. These private health care companies want me to pay over $2,000 year, that's $40 a week roughly, not to cover my health care costs, but to off-set part of them... so if I were to go to hospital or had to see a specialist or whatever in the private system, I'd still have to pay for it, except I wouldn't pay the full amount...I think that's stupid. If I have to go to hospital, I still have to pay like $200 a day or something, the insurance just means that it's not $1,000 a day. So with everythingy ou uise you still have to pay for it so I think, well, what's the fucking point in paying your 2 grand a year then? May as well just stick with the public system. And I do, even though the government penalizes me for not forking out for private health insurance. The penalty still works out cheaper though.

[Aquamarine]

Aaaaah, nice.

Right out of the media's talking points/marching orders.

If you're suggesting I'm unable to think for myself--which you are--you'd better think twice. Then think two or three more times.

Then be very afraid.

[ally]

I'm glad she got the treatment she required, but none of it was "free". There's no place

for the public health proposed for the U.S., as it mandates full coverage for all illegal immigrants and levies penalties against citizens whom refuse to relinquish their private health care plans.

Why not both a publiclly funded system and a private option. The private system could well handle the the non emergency surgery's that the public system ( in Canada at least ) cannot presently handle. The option to pay for services would also be there for people who can or wish to do so. There could also be an option for the publiclly funded system to subsidize the private system should the gov choose to clear up waiting lists etc. Bottom line is that health care is only helpfull if you can actually use it.

[SteveAJones]

Why not both a publiclly funded system and a private option. The private system could well handle the the non emergency surgery's that the public system ( in Canada at least ) cannot presently handle. The option to pay for services would also be there for people who can or wish to do so. There could also be an option for the publiclly funded system to subsidize the private system should the gov choose to clear up waiting lists etc. Bottom line is that health care is only helpfull if you can actually use it.

It's cost prohibitive to do so and that is why the Obama-care plan makes switching to a public system compulsory. Think of it as a redistribution of wealth because that's just what it is.

[TypeO]

If you're suggesting I'm unable to think for myself--which you are--you'd better think twice. Then think two or three more times.

Then be very afraid.

Whether you think for yourself or not has no relevance to the fact that your response mirrored the media's script.

Even if you haven't said so in this particular thread, I would be truly surprised if you hadn't made the assertion at one time or another (and most likely more than once), even if not directly to me, that conservatives/Republicans can't think for themselves, and get their "marching orders" from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.

It's certainly already been thrown into this thread (not by you).

What I can say about Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. is this:

say what you will, but when they string together a dozen or more individual reports on an issue (this Town Hall meeting issue, for instance) where the exact same wording and phrases are repeated as though all the different networks read from a single script, it helps to expose the collaboration on tactics on how to report critical issues.

It would be hard for a single individual to follow all the different networks and hear it all and come to the same conclusion.

Even though I don't consider them (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) "the media", I find them sometimes taking on the role that "the media" used to embrace: exposing that which is being ignored or overlooked or swept under the rug.

And the net effect of this collaboration among the media is that it gives an overall tint to a particular issue - no matter which channel people tune in to (other than those nazis at Fox ) to "hear the news", it's the same message.

And that does have an effect on people's opinions in general.

But when you hear me make this type of comment, you take it personal as though I mean YOU in particular can't think for yourself.

I'm sure you can.

I've said it often before, the fact that you're in a thread like this debating and commenting shows you have more interest than the average American.

But a vast majority of Americans don't dig beyond what they hear reported on the news.

They take that as a mostly accurate account of events.

And in that very subtle way, they (the media) are controlling and influencing opinion among a significant portion of the population, and that's a problem.

Here's a relatively simple exercise.

Imagine if the media was reversed, that 90% of the news networks were conservative, and there was just one significant network that was like MSNBC.

Do you think Barack Obama could have been elected then?

That instead of mostly ignoring a lot of the negative issues surrounding him, they constantly reported on them, while at the same time sucked up to McCain and Palin?

I don't believe you can honestly say you believe he would have been elected anyway.

In fact, I don't even think he would have gotten past Hillary.

And that's the problem.

The media doesn't have to (and frankly, can't) influence the firm 40% or so on each end of the political spectrum (to include you and I). It's that 20% or so in the very middle that makes all the difference.

I'm not mad that they favor the left instead of the right, I'm mad that they show ANY favor.

Everyone says how torture makes us no better than countries controlled by crazy dictators.

Well, we are ALSO no better when we have a decidedly partial media.

If anything, the left should be glad we have Fox news, and Limbaugh and Hannity just to confirm that we really do still offer (at least somewhat) opposing views on things.

Contrary to what you and many liberals might believe, I would not be comfortable in this country if it was all conservative news and opinions, and all the liberal networks were eliminated or changed position.

I'm surprised more liberals don't feel the same way, instead of advocating the elimination of Fox, Limbaugh, etc.

[Hotplant]

HA!

Actually I enjoy a huge laugh when I listen to Limbaugh. Yeah, I do listen now and then.

It's like my morning joke time.

I'm fed up with all media myself. Left, right and in between.

I can't stand Rachel Maddow.

[I have got a horsey]

Here's a relatively simple exercise.

Imagine if the media was reversed, that 90% of the news networks were conservative, and there was just one significant network that was like MSNBC.

Do you think Barack Obama could have been elected then?

That instead of mostly ignoring a lot of the negative issues surrounding him, they constantly reported on them, while at the same time sucked up to McCain and Palin?

I don't believe you can honestly say you believe he would have been elected anyway.

In fact, I don't even think he would have gotten past Hillary.

And that's the problem.

The media doesn't have to (and frankly, can't) influence the firm 40% or so on each end of the political spectrum (to include you and I). It's that 20% or so in the very middle that makes all the difference.

I'm not mad that they favor the left instead of the right, I'm mad that they show ANY favor.

Everyone says how torture makes us no better than countries controlled by crazy dictators.

Well, we are ALSO no better when we have a decidedly partial media.

If anything, the left should be glad we have Fox news, and Limbaugh and Hannity just to confirm that we really do still offer (at least somewhat) opposing views on things.

Contrary to what you and many liberals might believe, I would not be comfortable in this country if it was all conservative news and opinions, and all the liberal networks were eliminated or changed position.

I'm surprised more liberals don't feel the same way, instead of advocating the elimination of Fox, Limbaugh, etc.

Listen, you can blame the public for that.

Once upon a time news was just reported, that was it, but when news became a commodity, people found just reporting the facts boring, so they started switching off, ratings were being lost. So networks jazz up their ratings with opinion, and of course that opinion falls on one side of the politcal coin or the other.

And no one these days wants to be stimulated mentally, it's bad for business, people aren't interested in thinking anymore, they just wanna hear the news that suits their world outlook or ideology. So news networks, they give the customer what the customer wants...That's good ol' American capitalism for you There's a thing in economics called 'Opportunity Costs' which means to do one thing comes at the expense of another. You want a news network that makes money? Well you give people a news network that meets their expectations, and that comes at the cost of factual/unbiased news presentation.

[SteveAJones]

Listen, you can blame the public for that.

Once upon a time news was just reported, that was it, but when news became a commodity, people found just reporting the facts boring, so they started switching off, ratings were being lost. So networks jazz up their ratings with opinion, and of course that opinion falls on one side of the politcal coin or the other.

And no one these days wants to be stimulated mentally, it's bad for business, people aren't interested in thinking anymore, they just wanna hear the news that suits their world outlook or ideology. So news networks, they give the customer what the customer wants...That's good ol' American capitalism for you.

There has always been and there will always be bias in journalism, because it is a human enterprise. Fact based-reporting became less important after the advent of the 24 hour

news cycle. The line between hard news and entertainment had to become blurred to film all those hours. I wouldn't say people don't want to be stimulated mentally, I would

say the variety of networks has become so expansive one can freely pick and choose the points of view they wish to absorb. Giving the people what they want when they want it is a hallmark of American capitalism. Not necessarily a bad thing, except people tend to demonstrate intellectual laziness by refusing to seek out let alone consider any

alternative points of view, leading to a myopic world view.

[I have got a horsey]

The public is not to blame.

I'm afraid it is. Everyone always blames the media for everything, including skinny girls in magazines. Companies are not stupid, they give the public what it wants. That's how they make money. If magazines and advertisers got a whiff of the public's desire to see larger models in advertisements, believe me, ads would be full of them. If news channels knew people wanted unbiased reporting/commentary, it'd be all over the place. Media organisations are very aware of the fact that due to the internet age, people are tailor-making their news-service delivery to suit what they want to read or see. This is currently a big issue in news media and they're very aware of it. Now surely you must understand that news media companies judge their effectiveness by how many people are reading or seeing their news, and if not many people are watching, they jig around with the content and delivery until they see ratings increases...

[SteveAJones]

I'm afraid it is.

I didn't want Michael Jackson 24/7 for two weeks and I seldom watch television as it is.

If they are playing to the lowest common denominator (and they are) lets bear in mind

not everyone of us is to blame.

[I have got a horsey]

I didn't want Michael Jackson 24/7 for two weeks and I seldom watch television as it is.

If they are playing to the lowest common denominator (and they are) lets bear in mind

not everyone of us is to blame.

No that's true, god knows it aint my fault either, I don't want to see that shit. I'd rather watch Jim Lehrer's Newsround than American Idol, but companies aren't interested in people like us because we're not easily pitched to. I mean why do I bother buying a cable channel like the History Channel? Obviously History Channel's target audience are guys who are into WW2, because that's all they ever show. They'll have 16 programmes on a day and 12 of them will either be about WW2 itself or associated weaponry. I can't watch any of the FOX channels because I'm not interested in seeing shitty sitcoms or tacky reality TV shows like The Apprentice or The Real Housewives of Orange County...Discovery only ever seems to show Mythbusters and American Chopper...The Bio channel no longer has biographies just non-stop episodes of The Dog Whisperer... Maybe I should take a leaf out of Noel Coward's book "Television is for appearing on, not for watching"

[TypeO]

Listen, you can blame the public for that.

Once upon a time news was just reported, that was it, but when news became a commodity, people found just reporting the facts boring, so they started switching off, ratings were being lost. So networks jazz up their ratings with opinion, and of course that opinion falls on one side of the politcal coin or the other.

I only blame the public for being too lazy to do more research.

Chalking it up to "money talks" doesn't quite get to the real problem.

The problem is they've chosen a particular side of the "political coin" and skew everything accordingly. It's just a short step from full propaganda and controlled information.

That's why I'm so surprised that many liberals aren't more concerned.

It's hard to believe they'd be so shallow as to only oppose coercion and indoctrination if it was ideologies they disagreed with.