Mr. President .... thanks for that assertiveness and confience on health care ........ but .....

[Stinky The Clown]

.... it would be a good time to take a firmer stance on the policy of it all.

We can't survive on 'something'. We need concrete facts and concrete statements. You appear to simply be allowing/hoping for something to happen.

Is single payer on your agenda? You were for that before you appeared to be against it.

You say you want a 'public option', but you have yet to define it.

You need to take a firmer stand, Mr. President.



(context: his 4.15 EDT speech on live teevee)

[sandnsea]

1. No. Single payer is not on the agenda

Never was.

The public option is in both the House bill and the Senate HELP bill.

You're confusing the matter, not him.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. No, I'm not.

He was for single payer before he got to DC. Now he is not.

You're correct, single payer is not on the congressional tables. The OP doesn't infer it is.

[MNDemNY]

6. You know you should not speak ill of you-know-who.

[sandnsea]

9. That is just a big fat lie

He was never for single payer. He always, always, said if he were creating health care from the ground up he'd opt for single payer. He never once introduced single payer legislation in Illinois. That is just a big fat lie created by Obama haters.

[DJ13]

12. Full quote from Obama in 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.



http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/june/barack_obama_on_sing.php
Barack Obama on single payer in 2003 | Physicians for a National Health Program

[sandnsea]

15. And also repeatedly said

that single payer wasn't reasonable, and that it still won't pass with all the Blue Dog Dems.

Everybody knows this but keeps posting that one paragraph as if it has anything whatsoever to do with our current health care plan.

It's just Naderite disruption, that's all it is.

[DJ13]

23. The OP said

"He was for single payer before he got to DC. Now he is not." in post #2.

You said that was a lie.

You were wrong, Obama WAS for it before he became a Senator.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[closeupready]

27. You should apologize for calling Stinky a liar. Very rude and nasty of you.

n/t

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[closeupready]

36. Shame on you for your disgusting tactics here.

:puke:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[MNDemNY]

57. Disgusting...

is that stuff on your nose.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

18. Oh I'm still here

And I answered the one quote that has been taken out of context for far too long. Single Payer IS NOT on the agenda and never was. That is a fact.

[Jakes Progress]

32. I've seen that before too.

You claim all quotes but yours are taken out of context. Thank god the president has some honest people defending him. The biggest problem Obama has is the mindless cheerleaders who irritate and alienate everyone who doesn't belong to their private club.

You make idiotic statements like "Single Payer is not on the agenda" when it has been, it could be. But of course you use big old capital letters so that it seems so "factual". Then you call your silly statement a fact. Whose agenda wasn't it on. It was on the agenda of many DU'ers. It was on the agenda of more than a few in congress. It was on the agenda of thousands who will go without insurance without it.

But the pom pom league has decided which words Obama said can be listened to and which cannot. The PPL sends out waves of hate toward those who suggest that we can do better. (All while calling their targets haters). The PPL doesn't care about policy or legislation or right or wrong. Only in fawning.

The man I campaigned for and voted for has many problems and roadblocks thrown against him, but none more than the mindless whining of his self-appointed defenders at all costs. He is a rock star in the political world, and just like the music world his groupies are a source of embarrassment to him and his efforts.

[closeupready]

43. Wheeeeee! Obama is always correct, you are always wrong!

:sarcasm:

:D

[shadowknows69]

106. Political Groupies---Jack Black in "Bob Roberts" nailed it.

[bertman]

120. Damn, Jakes Progress, I love the way you said that. Perfect.

[karynnj]

56. The fact is that the paragraph you take as if it is a smocking gun isn't

Obama said repeatedly in 2007 and 2008, that single payer was unachievable. Tell me how you get it through a Senate that is fighting even a public option? Now, what happened between Oct 2003 and 2007? Obama became a Senator. Could it be that being in the Senate he learned something about what that body could and could not pass?

I don't like anyone using the word liar - when there is no provable lie. But, I also hate this idiotic "he was for it before he was against it" nonsense. It is perfectly legitimate to change positions. It is also clear that he did not run on it in 2007/2008 and he explained the change.

[sandnsea]

70. It's a lie. Obama was not for single payer

One comment over a course of years does not change that. I've studied his Illinois legislation. He never introduced anything resembling single payer, never advocated for it. He did, however, introduce an Illinois Constitutional Right to health care. These are facts. When people say things to distort those facts, that's a lie. Pure and simple. Somebody as informed as Stinky knows it.

[MNDemNY]

29. You are uninformed or lying, which is it???

[Jakes Progress]

41. He doesn't have to choose. He can be both.nt

[Stinky The Clown]

31. So now I'm an Obama hater?

Must be nice in your simpleminded black and withe, either/or world.

[Jakes Progress]

34. At least he doesn't have to think there. nt

[sandnsea]

37. You sure aren't a truth teller

Why you choose to post that shit is beyond me because you know it's a damn lie.

[Stinky The Clown]

65. Fact: He was for single payer in 2003. Fact: He seems to be against single payer now.

Where is the error in my OP?

This is not rhetorical. Answer the question or shut the fuck up with your assertions about what I said with respect to truth.

[sandnsea]

71. No. He wasn't. One comment is not the entirety of an opinion

You will have to do a whole lot better than one off-the-cuff comment to make that claim. That paragraph is a canard pulled out of the left wing ass to attack him. He was never for single payer, and it most certainly was never part of the current agenda. That was your question, right? Why would you ask whether single payer is part of hte current agenda when you know perfectly well it's not. Pretending that there is some confusion on the matter, is a LIE.

[Stinky The Clown]

84. It was a rhetorical flourish

you asshat. And you fucking know it.

[enlightenment]

42. What are you? Eight?

"big fat lie created by Obama haters"

Good grief.

Do you pay any attention to what you type?

[sandnsea]

52. No. The lie was created by eight year olds n/t

[PretzelWarrior]

10. I think you mean imply. THe writer/speaker implies. the reader/listener

infers.

[Stinky The Clown]

33. On the substance .....

..... misdirector

[MarjorieG]

16. Are we all or nothing? We can't even get a decent public option, surtax on rich with our Congress.

Plus, there is a reasonable argument to be made while economy so volatile, unwise to upset, get rid of 1/6th of it and transition meaning more job loss.

We need a strong public option, with no firewall between public/private.

[karynnj]

24. He said though in the primary debate (I think in SC) that single payer was unachievable

You will find many Democrats, who say that if they could start at scratch they would have a single payer system. The problem is that you do not have anywhere near the support needed to that given where we are.

[BlooInBloo]

25. Did he campaing for the Presidency on single payer?

If not, then you're confusing the issue for no especially good reason.

If you want to bitch at him for not being for it now, that's cool. But don't pretend like there's anything confusing about his position.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. The problem, as I see it, is not single payer or public option, or anything else .....

... and for my current view, read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6079784

That said, the issue is that he has not, IN MY VIEW, provided sufficiently strong leadership on the issue. He CAN turn public opinion and he has proved it. First over 50% president in one hell of along time. Yet the public seems not to be there. He needs to use that bully pulpit far more than he has, IN MY VIEW.

He might also use to Lyndon Johnson type arm twisting to those fuckwads on Capital Hill. Skewer the bastards.

[kath]

48. Exactly - he was for it (and pretty emphatically, IIRC) before he was against it.

I fear that the so-called "reform" is going to be a joke and worse than nothing, and that we are screwn.

[sandnsea]

53. Illinois Legislation. Produce it.

One paragraph taken out of context is not emphatic. He was never for single payer, ever. That is a big fat lie and the left is the liars who are telling it.

[MNDemNY]

3. Please define for me Mr. Obama's definition of a "public option".

[sandnsea]

8. Criteria

Something that is open to business, uninsured, privately insured. Something that is financially sustainable. Something that has set payments along the lines of Medicare. No trigger.

[MNDemNY]

11. "something" are you fuckin' kidding?

Try again, this time you can't use the word "something".

[sandnsea]

21. The plan

will have... items listed.

The plan comes out of Congress. They are the ones you need to be hounding.

[MNDemNY]

28. Yes, and I have, and will continue to do so. but that does not let this , or any POTUS off the hook.

He needs to get more involved, much more pushy. Time to spend WADS of that political capital. WADS,and WADS of it.

[sandnsea]

40. Oh my god, he is involved

On an almost daily basis, he is pushing Senators and the House. You're just thrilled he'll never push single payer so you can bitch about everything else. It's the bitching you enjoy.

[MNDemNY]

50. If you would pull your nose...

out of his ass, you might get a clue.

[karynnj]

108. But he likely does waste as much as 6 hours a day sleeping, Sandnsea

I really don't get why people don't see that these small meetings he is having with Senators and Congressmen - command performances really - are him using his persuasion and influence to push them to agree to a bill.

In addition, he was fantastic explaining it to a crowd of over 17,000 people in NJ - mostly committed and active Democrats.

[karynnj]

60. It is Congress that will create the details -

Neither the House or Senate has a completed bill, but the bills they have are detailed, as such legislation has to be. The final bill will have all the details. Obama, as President, has given guidelines he wants met.

[MNDemNY]

61. What are those "guidelines"???

[kjackson227]

47. You people try to act as though you have no idea what President Obama is proposing...

for public option. It's pretty much self-explanatory, but because you refuse to give the President credit for "ANYTHING", I'll try to explain it to you as "SIMPLE" as I can... Public Option will allow ANYONE the option (choice) to choose healthcare coverage from a marketplace or group of different affordable healthcare plans provided by the government. Stop playing dumb, and FORGET ABOUT SINGLE-PAYER BECAUSE IT AIN'T HAPPENING, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

[MNDemNY]

54. I never mentioned "single payer" Again, Please define his "public option"

Because what is being touted is a very weak "public option" that will not be allowed to compete with for profit insurers for years, it is not open to "anyone" You should stop acting "dumb" and accepting anything that is fed to you. Buy the hype if you like, but, I will not.

[kjackson227]

64. The only one who's doing the "Hyping" here is you and your ...

minions. I guess you didn't get the memo, but 76% of us are in favor of the feeding, so... OH, WELL! Stop being disingenious, and telling half-truths. This reform is not perfect- nothing is, but to throw the baby out with the bath water is not an option. I think most sane, and mature Americans realize that we can't have everything we want in life. That's the way it is. Deal with it.

[MNDemNY]

111. &6% of you are willing to bend over and grasp one's ankles. Goodie.

[kjackson227]

4. The President just outlined the proposal including public option...

were you not listening?

[MNDemNY]

7. I must have missed it, tell me again about his "public option".

[PretzelWarrior]

5. uhhh........way to not tell the truth.

other posters have made the points already. But you whiney people are becoming absolutely predictable.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Whiney?

Fuck you, asshoile

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Further ....

Nothing whiny here, you knee jerker.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6079784

[scheming daemons]

14. Your third sentence is misleading

Obama was for single-payer in 2003.... but he's been against it since 2005, and said so repeatedly during his campaign.


Don't be like Rove. Stick to the facts.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. Fact: He was for it in 2003. Fact: He appears to oppose it now.

Where is the error?

Your filter, not mine. My statement is factual.

[scheming daemons]

80. Too many would read your OP and think that Obama broke a campaign promise...

...or reversed on a campaign promise.


It's another "Where's the Change I Can Believe In?" post.


Every informed voter knew Obama's position on single-payer before voting for him.


If you're disappointed that he's not for single-payer now, then you weren't paying attention and you were assuming your priorities were his.

[Stinky The Clown]

85. Tough shit

Single payer is not the issue. Ambiguous leadership is the issue.

Reread the OP

[karynnj]

19. He did give more details in his speech in NJ

He is not for single payer - and he didn't run on single payer - so stop the "You were for that before you appeared to be against it." nonsense. This Daily Kos diary has a video of his speech - http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/17/114412/940

You might notice that he got applause when he spoke of being able to keep your plan - that is not true of single payer.

[scheming daemons]

20. They're not interested in facts, karyn....

...they wanted him to be Dennis Kucinich, and they're pissed that he's not. (and never was).

[Stinky The Clown]

46. What in the OP is not factual?

That is not a rhetorical question. Answer it.

[Curtland1015]

59. Where did they ever say they were refering to the OP? nt

[Stinky The Clown]

72. 50 was to 20 was to 19 was to the OP

Follow the thread.

:eyes:

[karynnj]

68. Did he/she say your op was not factual? No

Were there additional facts in my response? yes. He/she is responding on the facts I added.

[Stinky The Clown]

73. 50 was to 20 was to 19 was to the OP

Follow the damned thread.

[karynnj]

77. I did follow it and I stand by what I said - it is you who can't follow the threads

19 was in response to your call that Obama promote the healthcare plan. I personally heard him do this in NJ. That was pertinent to the op.

20 was a comment to my post, essentially saying because of the nasty responses elsewhere that "they" weren't interested in the facts - ie the info I gave that you showed NO interest in - just as 20 said. Seeing that you said he should be out there promoting it the fact Obama was promoting the healthcare plan was pretty relevant.

[Stinky The Clown]

86. I bet you arue with doorknobs

Turn right .... no left ... right ..... right? .... no, not right .... left .....



:eyes:

[karynnj]

89. no - that would be you

[Stinky The Clown]

90. Do us both a favor .....

.... next time you're tempted to come to one of my threads ..... reconsider.

Of course, you can always anonymous unrec ..... as you did here. Anonymous ..... so chickenshit.

Anyway .... I already exert self control and stay out of your threads ..... Reciprocate, okay?

Now go ahead .... take your last word. I know you can't resist.

[karynnj]

96. I did NOT unrecommend this thread -in fact, I just recommended

it making it go from 2 to 3 - hope you're happy although it is a mess.

I have no idea what problem you have with the relatively few threads I have started - nearly all of which are positive and content heavy? I can understand why my threads may not interest you, but I really don't see why they would offend you. Most are on Senate hearings or floor statements. Not all that controversial.

[karynnj]

62. I know = and it was for any lurker who could be influenced by them

that I posted the link. Speaking of Dennis Kucinich, I found his Daily Kos diary to be absolutely ridiculous. He acts as though he thinks he is a profile in courage pushing single payer, which he has to know has no chance - on a liberal blog, where people will praise him. I would bet that there may be more than a few people in Cleveland, slightly above the poverty level who would be given nearly free insurance under Kennedy's plan. I hope these constituents give him flack if he votes against their interests.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/15/23322/6681

By the way, the honorable Mr Kucinich has also changed his views on a few things.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. I didn't say he ran on it. I said he was for it before he was against it

Before he came to DC. That was stated clearly upthread.

[Jakes Progress]

38. Stinky, you are talking to the pure of heart.

They don't reason. They don't think. They just wrap themselves in the smug comfort that they are the true defenders. They lie easily and then call others liars. Their actions are the spitting image of the bushites that littered my state for the last 8 years.

They cause him more problems and cost him more good will than all the billy-o's and rushies put together.

[closeupready]

45. +1

n/t

[MNDemNY]

55. +2

:-)

[fascisthunter]

58. +2

[karynnj]

66. I am not someone who always agrees 100% with Obama

He is not even the politician I most agree with - and even with that politician there are times I disagree. The fact is that in this thread the op has the absurdity to try to hold Obama to something that he explicitly did not run on - because he had been for it in 2003. He ignores the fact that Obama was asked in a debate to explain that change and he did.

The faux outrage that you had some reason to expect that he was really for single payer is not based in reason. Given that you supported first Kucinich and then Edwards, already demonstrated that you were willing to accept change - Kucinich changed many positions over time and Edwards didn't have a position he wouldn't change if it was politically expedient.

Incidently, your comment here violates DU rules and I see you have your very own dittoheads - how lovely.

[Stinky The Clown]

69. You are SO far off base .......

And hold that "DU rules" self righteous bullshit. You piss everyone off, assert bullshit as fact and then want to hide behind the rules? Gimme a fucking break.


The OP says that I want Obama to be more a leader on this. I criticize his ambiguity and lack of stated goals. I am not asking for single payer, which you seem to have some hard on about.

Read this reply I made upthread, and until you can tell the truth, you may want to stand on the sidelines. Oh .... and make sure you follow the link in the repost below.






Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul-17-09 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #25
43. The problem, as I see it, is not single payer or public option, or anything else .....

... and for my current view, read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

That said, the issue is that he has not, IN MY VIEW, provided sufficiently strong leadership on the issue. He CAN turn public opinion and he has proved it. First over 50% president in one hell of along time. Yet the public seems not to be there. He needs to use that bully pulpit far more than he has, IN MY VIEW.

He might also use to Lyndon Johnson type arm twisting to those fuckwads on Capital Hill. Skewer the bastards.

[karynnj]

81. The fact is that you have attacked many people on this thread

What I responded with was what Obama said - very convincingly - at an event I attended yesterday in NJ. That is not "bullshit", it is fact. YOU were the one in the OP that mentioned single payer and used the Rovian "he was for it before he was against it" nonsense. This thread is here for everyone to see - what was your purpose in your stream of consciousness op.

[Stinky The Clown]

87. That cross you drag around must be getting pretty heavy for ya, honey.

You pooooooooooor martyr.

Awwwww ..... c'mere, sweetie. Lemme give ya a hug. No one understands you. There there. It'll be okay.

[karynnj]

88. no thank you!

plenty of people understand both me and what I say - and many are people I respect and many I know. Too bad you don't have the grace to admit that I gave you a relevant piece of information.

[Stinky The Clown]

92. You gave me nothing but bulshit and a hard time.

Like you did to others in this thread.

Do us both a favor, put me on your ignore list. You're a wild one, you are.

[karynnj]

94. I have never been called wild ever in my life and I doubt many people here

have that opinion. You are the one who is spewing nonsense and calling it fact - and anyone reading this can see that.

[Jakes Progress]

100. Would you care to show what nonsense?

Just what in the OP is nonsense (your polite term for a lie)?

It is a fact that Obama once voiced a preference for single payer. It is nonsense to say that he didn't.

So who is spewing? I agree. Anyone reading this can see that.

(It also appears that Obama agrees with Stinky. His OP asked for Obama to step out and be more vocal in support of good health care reform. Obama has done just that. Do you consider Obama"s actions to be nonsense also?)

[karynnj]

109. Nonsense does not mean lie and that comment was not just

to the op but to his last several posts in this sub thread. You and stinky both ignore that I gave a link to Obama stepping out before over 17,000 people in NJ to do just that.

The fact is that stinky himself admits that he knew Obama's position on single payer - that he was not for it because it was unachievable. He called it a rhetorical flourish. It was that and done in a way that insulted the President. Now, you and he are spinning that the op "asked for Obama to step out and be more vocal in support of good health care reform."

Had he written an OP that said just that - not going off tangent with his "rhetorical flourish", this thread would have been far better. I would still have made my post on the NJ event - and I would hope that he might even have watched it. The fact is Obama had already moved into more active public support of the plan before the op was written.

[Jakes Progress]

117. Nice try.

You just can't admit error. Now you put it down to a fit because of a rhetorical flourish.

You admit that the OP is correct, but not that you were guilty of snarking. You admit that the OP knows what he's talking about, but still you want to jump on him - why? You don't like his flourish.

Seriously lame.

[karynnj]

121. You completely misread what I said

The OP was quilty of snark and he himself called what he said a rhetorical flourish.

I will not admit error - because NOTHING I said was wrong. In addition, my comment was not snark or in jest, it was completely serious.

1) Obama was already out selling his plan - I know, I was there. According to you the gist of his OP was that Obama should START doing that - yet he ignored posts - with video links - showing him doing just that.

2) The OP admitted that he knew Obama's position when he wrote that Rovian line. No I do not like his snark - it was rude to the President.

What is lame is this op and your defense of it. There's a reason it is at one recommend - and Stinky is completely wrong in saying I unreccommended it. I didn't.

[EFerrari]

76. No, that post that respectfully dissents does not violate DU rules.

While yours, which insults other DUers, probably does violate the civility provision.

[karynnj]

78. You are seeing what you want

The fact is his post insults all of us who did not agree with him. In addition, the only possible insult in mine is saying that a statement lacks reason - that post said all of us could not reason. So, there is no logic to saying that post "respectfully" disagrees. There is not a sentence in it that is not extremely insulting.

[EFerrari]

79. Where is the insult? Thanks.

[karynnj]

83. In the post I responded to

"They don't reason. They don't think. They just wrap themselves in the smug comfort that they are the true defenders. They lie easily and then call others liars. Their actions are the spitting image of the bushites that littered my state for the last 8 years.

They cause him more problems and cost him more good will than all the billy-o's and rushies put together."

1) They don't reason - This is an insult to anyone
2) They don't think. - This too
3) They just wrap themselves in the smug comfort that they are the true defenders. - pretty obnoxious
4) They lie easily and then call others liars. - I have never lied in any post I ever made. I have been wrong occasionally, but I have never lied. I also said in this very thread that I don't like calling people liars. This is because I do not know enough about their knowledge or motivation to know if they are lying.
5) Their actions are the spitting image of the bushites that littered my state for the last 8 years. - kind of the ultimate insult
6) They cause him more problems and cost him more good will than all the billy-o's and rushies put together." - another insult

Now here is my post that that is indirectly responding to:

He did give more details in his speech in NJ

He is not for single payer - and he didn't run on single payer - so stop the "You were for that before you appeared to be against it." nonsense. This Daily Kos diary has a video of his speech - http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/17/114412/940

You might notice that he got applause when he spoke of being able to keep your plan - that is not true of single payer.

There is NOTHING in that post that justifies his response.

[Jakes Progress]

91. Golly. Unkink those knickers.

A little hyperbole goes a long way. The response was based on the multiple repeating of the lie (would you prefer "unfact") that Obama has never been in favor of single payer. All kinds of avoidance and all kinds of misdirection were tossed around. But the truth is in his own recorded statements. Stinky didn't say he was for it now. Stinky didn't say that Obama hadn't changed his mind. In fact, that was the statement. But to say he never professed single payer is to deny his words. But the PPL continues to say he never said any such thing. When they are confronted with the evidence, they harumph and say Well he didn't run on it. The OP didn't say he did. But what the OP writes is not what the PPL addresses. That, to me, is evidence of a lack of reason or dishonesty. As for not thinking, I was trying to give them an out for not being able to understand what was written or being outright dishonest. Perhaps, blinded by fandom, they just don't think before they reply.

Now the lying. Obama is on record in the past as saying he favored single payer. To say he isn't is not true. To say so after the evidence is available is a lie. But instead of acknowledging the error, the poster up-thread called the OP a liar. Following any president right or wrong is exactly what we insulted the bushites for. They would not brook any discussion that bush might need to do something other than what he was doing.

The OP was called an Obama hater. Would you care to defend that statement? This is the kind of action that costs good will for the president. Stinky's OP was downright polite. He asked for the president to use more of his considerable leadership to move this legislation toward a more progressive posture. He voted for Obama. I voted for Obama. I campaigned and contributed towards his election. But we have some here who love to sound like they are defending the poor little president. Their reasoning is that if you ever disagree with the president or with them, you are an Obama hater who wishes mccain were elected. That kind of crap is insulting and stupid and dishonest and it irritates the shit out of people. Back during the election, when I was knocking on doors and canvasing and dropping off literature for the party, I often encountered Democrats who liked Obama, but couldn't stand his fan club.

My post which got your knickers twisted, was to Stinky about the multiple times he was having to defend his honor and his honesty against outright lies and dishonesty. If I had wanted to respond to you directly, I would have done so. (See, I am doing that now.) If you feel my post touched a little too closely on yours, then that's the way it goes. Touch people will get their feelings hurt.

As for your post that you say I responded to, I will respond now. Read your post again. Here is where it is dishonest. For the thirtieth time: The OP did not say that Obama is currently in support of single payer. But you know that. Obama has been on record in the past where he said he favored single payer. But you know that. Then you call the the very true statement "nonsense". How is that not dishonest.

Okay, let the spin begin.

[karynnj]

95. note - I never said he never was for it -not once. I posted many times referring to the 2003 comment

Seeing that Stinky has posted to me that I should follow the thread - you should too. His comment was to a comment of mine.

As to the comment of calling it nonsense - it was to the charge- which I put in quotes. It is a Rove attack that you should recognize from 2004. It is in fact reasonable to change positions - for a reason. Here, he's explained that it is because it is not feasible to get it passed. It would have been dishonest to promise something he knew he could not do. Reality changed his position. The fact is that I never have used that charge against any Democrat, not even Edwards, who was my least favorite Democrat running.

It is insulting that you assume that any of us who defend Obama on this issue are doing it out of loyalty. My motivation is that something on the lines of what Kennedy proposed is likely the best we can get and I want this to succeed for the people who need it. I am genuinely concerned that the single payer people might by opposing what we can have, for something that clearly can not be passed.

I never called him an Obama hater - and I didn't see that post. I clearly don't agree with it and would never have said it. I responded to Stinky's concern Obama speak out - with information that he did yesterday right here in NJ - with a link to a video so he could see what Obama said and not take my opinion that he did and that it went over well. Although I was an Obama supporter, it was in the pre-primaries the result of eliminating the others. I grew to admire him more as the general election went on, but I never thought he was perfect. No one is.

I am not responsible for anyone's posts other than my own. In addition, this is a discussion board. If something is said that people disagree with they can counter it. That is different than calling people liars (which was wrong) Or saying that others do not think or have the ability to reason because they reached a different conclusion.

[Jakes Progress]

98. It seems that you were responding to a post of mine

that was not to you. I was responding to the plethora of posts that refused to acknowledge Obama's own words and telling Stinky to stop lying. Sorry if you took it all to be about you. I responded above to your post that you reference.

Please do not deny that there are a band of defenders who attack anyone who questions the president on any subject for any reason. They are as pointless as those who are rude to Obama and attack him for all reasons. Those are the jerks I was referring to in my post, which was to Stinky.

Even here, when you seem calmer, you argue dishonestly. Your post told Stinky to "come off" a rovian attack because the president isn't for single payer.

First offense is implying Stinky is rovian. In the post where you delineated my supposed crimes, you said how wrong it was for someone to say another Du'er was like a bush fan. But you had just done this yourself.

Second offense (and the one most repeated in the whole thread) is that Stinky didn't say the president was for single payer. He didn't say that. He didn't say that. He didn't say that.

In case the point is too fine to understand, I will just say that Stinky didn't say that. But that is what most of his detractors argue. As you did in your post to him.

Read the OP again. And again. Parse it if needed. Stinky said that Obama had once favored single payer - Obama did. Then he asked Obama to be more forceful in making the health bill as progressive as possible. With today's speech, it appears that Obama agrees with Stinky that he needs to get more involved. All the hoopla that followed the OP was promulgated by fans arguing that Obama is not backing single payer. So who is arguing that?

Golly, this shouldn't be difficult to understand.

[karynnj]

105. Let me try again

"Even here, when you seem calmer, you argue dishonestly. Your post told Stinky to "come off" a rovian attack because the president isn't for single payer."

I said to come off the "he was for it before he was against it" Rovian nonsense. The fact is that there was a snarky, disrespectful tone in that part of the OP towards the President.

This was not dishonest. There is nothing inherently wrong in politicians changing their positions. You want them to change if they grow to see the wisdom of changing or they see that the position they held is impossible or counterproductive. The real word for never changing is inflexibility, which is not a virtue. You are well aware that Rove made "he was for it before he was against it" a negative charge that meant no core principles - even though Kerry did not even change positions - the two votes were on significantly different versions. As I noted, people here did not post that Kucinich was against pro-choice before he was against it or any of a number of variations I could list with Edwards. The reason is that, from 2004, that formulation carries negative connotations. You may not agree with the characterization of Rovian, and equivalents to "flip flop" have been around for years, but "dishonest" is not accurate. The characterization is subjective, thus you can agree with it or disagree with it - but as it is not an objective statement of fact, it can not be true or false.

If he had not used that phrase and simply said Obama was not for single payer, I would not have said that - because it makes no sense.

There is a huge difference between me calling a specific comment, Rovian, and your far more comprehensive indictment of all of us calling the op on anything here. As to Obama doing what the OP said, in my post I gave him a link to Obama having done just that the day before the OP was written. . Something, the OP and you have failed to notice apparently.

As to "calmer", my posts were far calmer than you buddy's and even yours. No one on that thread deserves to be described as you described people.

[Jakes Progress]

116. I see you trying.

Trying to cover up that you accuse other of doing what you do, that you got caught out and refuse to admit that you were reacting not to the OP but to another agenda.

So keep on trying. And keep on using that big bold type. It is so macho.

I think you would do well to put me on ignore, because when you do that shit, I will you on it each time, and you will just get hurt feeling again.

[karynnj]

122. You are completely irrational

How do you cover up posts. Once you are out of the edit period, you can't change things - therefore you can't cover up. There is nothing I said in any post here that is not fact based.

Your assertion that I was not responding to the OP is absurd. I wrote specifically what I did not like in the OP. Every statement I made is consistent with the first. It is a bit presumptuous that you say I have an agenda that drove this, not the OP.

The fact is it is Stinky, who wrote something he shouldn't have and he refuses to admit that he was wrong. Why do you think this thread has only one recommend? The fact is that you are simply rallying to the aid of your buddy.

[karynnj]

63. Nor did I say he had never been for it

It is significant that he explicitly did not run on it.

[Jakes Progress]

99. Which has nothing to do with the OP. nt

[karynnj]

110. People are allowed to comment on things not explicitly in the op

It is completely relevant to say - as I did:
"He is not for single payer - and he didn't run on single payer"

It is an answer to the OP's rhetorical flourish as to what is current position is. It is certainly valid to point out what he ran on in 2007/2008.

[Jakes Progress]

118. Yeah. It's called off topic.

A favorite tool of those who get caught being wrong and so want to argue something else.

You got a topic you want to discuss - start a thread.

[karynnj]

119. It is sufficiently close and pertinent

as it is more relevant what he ran on vs what he was for in 2003.

[Curtland1015]

49. So then, you're saying he's confusing the issue, and your proof is...

...something he said SIX YEARS AGO, and hasn't (as far as I'm aware of...) brought up since?

Six years is an awful long time, and he wasn't working then with the people he's working with now. Perhaps he changed his opinion on it?

I'm not going to say I think you're wrong on any of this. But it seems like a flimsy argument to me.

[Stinky The Clown]

67. No, that's not at all what I am sayng, Misdirector. See my answer, upthread to Blooinbloo:

Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul-17-09 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #25
43. The problem, as I see it, is not single payer or public option, or anything else .....

... and for my current view, read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

That said, the issue is that he has not, IN MY VIEW, provided sufficiently strong leadership on the issue. He CAN turn public opinion and he has proved it. First over 50% president in one hell of along time. Yet the public seems not to be there. He needs to use that bully pulpit far more than he has, IN MY VIEW.

He might also use to Lyndon Johnson type arm twisting to those fuckwads on Capital Hill. Skewer the bastards.

[solstice]

74. Obama sounds like he cares more about saving money than helping Americans screwed over by insurance

companies. Every time he mentions health care reform, his number one issue is controlling COSTS - not helping victimized consumers.

And yet, he has never made a PEEP about how much money is spent on his war.

I don't think Obama is either assertive or confident.

[ShortnFiery]

75. "I don't think Obama is either assertive or confident."

That's because, when push comes to shove, all three Branches of our Government are RUN by the ruling elites of Wall Street and The Pentagon. The fact that we can go and "vote in" politicians does not mean that they serve WE, The People. :(

[jcarterhero]

103. Yeah, it's a fucked up system

Amazing how so many of us actually put up with it.

[DeltaLitProf]

82. He didn't even mention the public option.

And the main point just seemed to be to list all the things there is agreement on and to beat back the Senate Gang of Six. Nothing he said helps beat back the Mike Ross Bluedogs in the House.

[karynnj]

93. If it matters, he did mention the public option in NJ yesterday

[mopinko]

97. stinky, he is a practical man. he came from blue, blue, blue. he is smart

enough to know that that is not where he is now.
imho, he was in favor of it when he was a state senator, but no such issue was ever under serious consideration in the illinois senate. there was a perfectly toothless advisory referendum, where there was support for a universal right to health care. but there was no serious attempt to comply with that sentiment.
however, in the people's republic of hyde park, which he represented, it was long an article of faith that we ought to have single payer healthcare. that was the sea in which he swam. some of the earliest proponents that i know of are folks who were obama's friends and supporters.
but he is nothing if not pragmatic. he knew the day he set foot in the senate that it was a futile battle to set that as an ideal. he knows full well that it is just not doable.

i think it is a mistake to think that he has not been directing the debate, and letting the members of congress know what he would sign, and what he would not sign. imho, right now there is a line in the sand for a "robust public option". there also seems to be some support for state level single payer. i think a few states may go that way, including illinois. there really is a lot of support for it here. majority support, just no idea where to get the money.

i do not doubt that in a perfect world, we would have single payer. this is most emphatically not a perfect world. he knows that.

[dolphindance]

101. I think he purposely avoids calling the public option the "public option"

When speaking to mixed (i.e. not 100% democratic) audiences. He does this to control the message of the debate. When he speaks in general about giving the uninsured more options, the public option is obviously one of those. But he won't SAY it unless pressed. This way, the entire "government run health care" boogey man isn't invoked, even if it is there under the covers.

He is framing the debate around providing universal coverage that is "affordable" (read: FREE if it has to be -- but can't say this) and brings down long term costs.

He's managing the perception game. Trying to head off the RW attacks.

[jcarterhero]

102. You summed up the way I feel about this mess

Obama needs to stop being a flip-flopper and take some action, ASAP.

[Stinky The Clown]

104. I don't think he's flip flopping .......

...... I just think he has been vague and aloof and seemingly uninvolved. He has a ton of political capital. NOW is the time t spend it.

And now is the time to dust off that unused bully pulpit and start selling the American people on this so they can bring some pressure to their congresspeople.

[karynnj]

107. Which as I gave you the link to show you is precisely what he did in NJ the day before you wrote

this op. The bully pulpit was not dusty at all! Not to mention, there have been accounts in every paper I read and on TV, that Obama has been meeting with small groups of Congressmen and Senators on this issue. He also had a press conference on it yesterday.

Watch the NJ video and you will see why my local paper said the President spent more time on advocating for healthcare than speaking of Jon Corzine. uhmmm NO ONE in the crowd I was with or the 50 people on the bus I was on thought the President was either aloof or uninvolved - nor did the media accounts. In addition, the various NJ county Democratic organizations coordinated buses and encouraged people to go with them - and unless you had other connections, it assured you of getting a seat. At least in my county, the time on the bus was used to get people to sign up for Obama's grassroots (OFA) effort on healthcare and to register anyone not registered. (Only two 18 year olds on my bus.)

If you remember, Obama did the same thing on the stimulus package. He and his administration quietly worked with Congress until a few weeks before the votes - then he went to the House of Representatives and did a media blitz where he seemed to be all over the tv - often through coverage at town hall appearances.

[Bluenorthwest]

112. Why is the bill worded to exclude domestic partners?

Why do you support so strongly a bill that will discriminate against my family? Why do you consider it a bad thing to ask for details? It seems that this mandated premium is going to come with a tax credit to help pay for it, but my family is not allowed to file a joint return.
Can you tell me how my family will be treated under this bill? If not, that is the whole point of the OP, that we are not getting enough detail and leadership.
I can not support a bill that will discriminate against my own family. I'd not support one that discriminated against yours either. That is the difference between us it seems.

[karynnj]

113. I have not read the bill voted out of the senate or the house bill

In all the summaries I have read, I read nothing about domestic partners. I assume you mean that you will not be included as families - if this is accurate in any of the existing bills, it definitely needs to be changed in the final bill. I supported Kerry's 2004 statement that he would ask for legislation to give civil unions all the federal rights of marriage - which if Obama asked and got something similar would correct this problem and others if you are in a state that allows marriage or civil unions.

The details are in the current bills - which are available online. The HELP one is supposed to be over 1000 pages. It does appear that you don't know if it does or doesn't have provisions to deal with your situation. Shouldn't you either ask one of your elected officials or try to find what is in the bill? the former is not just easier, but this is an issue that should be brought up.

Your attack on me though is unwarranted. The final bill is not yet written. It is impossible to know all its provisions. I do think you should pursue this with your legislators. Have any LGBT organizations written anything on this or advocated for anything? This is the first time I have heard of this and I do follow those issues to some degree.

[Bluenorthwest]

114. Assuming that I have not contacted my Representative and Senators

is insulting. I have. This is why I know, as I said, that they have worded it to exclude Domestic Partners by using the term 'spouse'. That is the fact of the matter as it now stands. My Rep's office says that is the case, and that he will not vote for it as it stands.
Not one elected official is able to answer my questions past that. They say they don't know, and also that no one seems to know.
But the fact is the bill discriminates against families that the religionists do not approve of. The OP is asking for more detailed information. You are claiming that there is plenty of detail for those on your bus and those who watched on TV. Claiming it is all there to find. My Rep can not find it. You claimed to have plenty of knowledge. So I asked you. And you did not know. I gave you a chance to tell me what you had learned. You are being a strong proponent of the bill, and also of not questioning the bill or asking for any information about it.
My Rep knows my name and face. Does yours? What have you said to your Representatives in opposition to discrimination against my family in this law? Nothing. Because you did not know that at all, but you still back it.
Id like to be able to back health care reform, but I can not until I know that the bill is free from discriminatory policies, or at least until someone can explain how much extra we will have to pay to please the bigots. I can not take a stand that might be against my own family, can you understand that? It is my family. We are human beings. Family first. Sorry if that does not please your image of how I ought to be. But I care more for my loved ones than for some politician's reputation. Most people do.
But in the end, you are supporting what you do not know about. Which to me is really an odd choice. "Sure I voted that my neighbors should be treated unfairly, but the talk was hard to understand so I just backed the President. Sorry neighbor."

[karynnj]

115. You did not include that information, which would seem reasonable to

do rather than asking me something you knew I wouldn't know.

In your post which inexplicably opted to attack me. My rep is a Republican and I am active with the county Democrats, who do know my name and face. To be honest, I did not think of this in terms of gay rights, because I did not think of it. I do know that there are companies that do give insurance to domestic partners, so this clearly has to be something they address.

I did not claim that everything is known. In fact, it can't be known now as there is no final bill. I gave a link so you could watch exactly what Obama said. What I supported is what I know of the Kennedy bill.

Not to mention, the ONLY negative comment I made to the OP was that I took issue with his snarky "rhetorical flourish". In return, he and his friends have accused me of many things - including anonymously unrecommending the thread, which I did not do.

[jeanpalmer]

123. He has not offered his own plan

I thought he would do that. Instead, he has established a few criteria that any plan passed by Congress must meet. I don't know why he is not proposing his own plan. As you say, it makes him seem aloof. To me it looks like an effort to shift responsibility for health care reform from himself to Congress. Because based on campaign rhetoric, people expected him to lead the fight for health care reform, but clearly he is shifting that responsibility to Congress. Why is he doing that? Can only speculate. Maybe he believes that true comprehensive health reform is impossible to achieve, or that the end product will be so minimal it will be considered a failure. And he doesn't want to be blamed for tha. So he is shifting the responsibility away rom himself ahead of time.

If the end result were going to be hugely successful, I can't see why he would not want to be proactive and have his name on it.