Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing

Dungheap said:
And they can mail them all they like. They just have to pay for postage.
Click to expand...

No, if dems are found to be wrong in their accusation they can mail them as part of the congressional budget for such things. That's called being responsible to the American public about new proposed policy that will put in effect astronomical new spending and change the way we manage health care :)
 
Ice Dancer said:
The avenue they have chosen are mailer's. Not everyone has a computer.

It is subversion if the information is not misleading as democrats accuse.

The mailers have nothing to do with being campaign documents. To say so is riddiculous and patently dishonest of you.
Click to expand...
Dishonesty and subversion is the only way they can defend their plans. They are no better or different than Bush & Co. In fact (and I have difficulty believing they managed to achieved this level so quickly) they are significantly worse than the previous administration ever dreamed of being when it comes to lying, breaking promises, and screwing the American public to further their designs of ever increasing federal authority in all things.
 
Good Luck said:
Dishonesty and subversion is the only way they can defend their plans. They are no better or different than Bush & Co. In fact (and I have difficulty believing they managed to achieved this level so quickly) they are significantly worse than the previous administration ever dreamed of being when it comes to lying, breaking promises, and screwing the American public to further their designs of ever increasing federal authority in all things.
Click to expand...

IT'S ALL A BIG CONPSIRACY?! TEH GUBMITS OUT TA GET ME!? :crybaby:
 
Good Luck is such a fucking retard it's amazing. Why can't you just fucking die? You have the IQ of a chimpanzee.

The networks broadcast the presidents state of the union, etc... voluntarily because they think it will get ratings. Taxpayers don't pay for this. The networks may very well choose not to broadcast the president, like Faux did with Obama's last conference.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't think that's true. Do you have a source for that?
Click to expand...

The facts:

Airwaves are owned by the public. When the government granted access to public airwaves and granted that access for free -- the networks promised in return to set aside modest amounts of time to inform the public. White House press confrences fit that bill. Programing is paid for through advertising. Press conferences do interfere with veiwer ratings and potential loss of revenue to the networks.

The crux rests in how many Obama has had in a relatively short span of time
(4 in 7 mos.) It's starting to push the limits of modest amounts. Obama uses the press conferences to espouse his partisan rhetoric making the use less than merely informing the public and more about policy stumping.
 
Ice Dancer said:
The facts:

Airwaves are owned by the public. When the government granted access to public airwaves and granted that access for free -- the networks promised in return to set aside modest amounts of time to inform the public. White House press confrences fit that bill. Programing is paid for through advertising. Press conferences do interfere with veiwer ratings and potential loss of revenue to the networks.

The crux rests in how many Obama has had in a relatively short span of time
(4 in 7 mos.) It's starting to push the limits of modest amounts. Obama uses the press conferences to espouse his partisan rhetoric making the use less than merely informing the public and more about policy stumping.
Click to expand...


So Good Luck is full of shit. Thanks.
 
Dungheap said:
So Good Luck is full of shit. Thanks.
Click to expand...

No, he's costing tax payers to make these partisan pitches. We do pay his salary. Press conferences where he takes only 13 questions or less to policy stump for his partisan wish lists should be called out. To make matters more injurious he's done 4 in just 7 mos and they are boring as hell and lack the neccesary details to make them truly informative.
 
Ice Dancer said:
No, he's costing tax payers to make these partisan pitches. We do pay his salary. Press conferences where he takes only 13 questions or less to policy stump for his partisan wish lists should be called out. To make matters more injurious he's done 4 in just 7 mos and they are boring as hell and lack the neccesary details to make them truly informative.
Click to expand...


So now taxpayers paying the President's salary is akin to taxpayers paying for the GOP to mail campaign materials? Seriously?

Just stop. Please.
 
Watermark said:
Good Luck is such a fucking retard it's amazing. Why can't you just fucking die? You have the IQ of a chimpanzee.
Click to expand...
shucks....I came here because people told me there were intelligent liberals to debate....it's a shame they've all been on vacation since I arrived.....
 
Dungheap said:
So now taxpayers paying the President's salary is akin to taxpayers paying for the GOP to mail campaign materials? Seriously?

Just stop. Please.
Click to expand...

Prove that the mailers informing Americans of how the Health Care plan would work is campaign materials...

I never said that mailers and the presidents salary were the same. I responded to the president doing press conferences as akin to his using tax payers money (his salary) to pitch his partisan policies on national TV which is an abuse of press confrences that are designed to be informative not soap boxes. Had he layed out specific and detailed facts, allowed for for more questioning instead of using each question to bloviate and repeat himself, I would have had no problem with his using the press conference. As it stands he's proven that he has NO intention of explaining his plans details or perhaps its such a convoluted piece of crap he simply does not understand it himself.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Prove that the mailers informing Americans of how the Health Care plan would work is campaign materials...

I never said that mailers and the presidents salary were the same. I responded to the president doing press conferences as akin to his using tax payers money (his salary) to pitch his partisan policies on national TV which is an abuse of press confrences that are designed to be informative not soap boxes. Had he layed out specific and detailed facts, allowed for for more questioning instead of using each question to bloviate and repeat himself, I would have had no problem with his using the press conference. As it stands he's proven that he has NO intention of explaining his plans details or perhaps its such a convoluted piece of crap he simply does not understand it himself.
Click to expand...


1) I don't have to prove anything. We'll wait and see what happens.

2) Good Luck raised the issue of presidential press conference under the apparent belief that taxpayers have to pay the networks for the time provided, which it turns out is not true. Responding to that by saying that we pay the President's salary sounds an awful lot like equating the two.

I'd also note that we pay Congressional salaries as well and they go out and bloviate and say all sorts of wild nonsense.
 
Dungheap said:
So Good Luck is full of shit. Thanks.
Click to expand...
The time is "paid" for by the networks... yea, by the government subjugating the networks with the "public airwaves" fallacy. (ie: stealing the time "for the good of the public")

However, there is more involved than just network time. The government owns and maintains the cameras used (though the networks often do add their own if it is an outside conference - not so if it is in the oval office), owns and operates and maintains the teleprompters (heard they had to fix one than blanked out not long ago - they probably bought a new one at 5 times the cost of fixing the old one) pays the wages of the technicians, etc. That does come out of tax payer pockets. If Obama continues to have nationally televised press releases at his current rate, he will exceed Bush's total number inside his first year. He is even exceeding FDR's "fireside chat" numbers.

But the opposing side wants to release their analysis of the legislation being considered, then (and only then) it is up to private money to get the word out? (calling it "campaigning" is just another of many lies to support their usurping the way this republic is supposed to work.)

Of course, the point is beyond mommy government tit suckers who think the purpose of government is to preempt paying programming to tell us what to think and how to act at any given moment. It's also well beyond the comprehension of the "liberals are always right, so we have to be totalitarians, 'for the good of the public'" crowd.

It was wrong of Bush to use his authority to try and hush official opposition to the Iraq war. It is no less wrong for the democrats to use their authority to try and hush official opposition to their legislation. "Change" is not about doing the same wrong things (or worse) no matter what the motivation or perceived ends may be. Suppression of opposing opinion is what it is, no matter who is doing it for what reasons.
 
Last edited:
The "bluedog" Dems ( Dixiecrats mixed with their northern counterparts) are going to be a consistent pebble in Obama's shoe for the next 4 years, I fear. In some cases, that might indirectly be a good ruler to keep him on his toes and NOT meld into a Dem version of the Shrub's administrative style. Time will tell.
 
Dungheap said:
1) I don't have to prove anything. We'll wait and see what happens.

2) Good Luck raised the issue of presidential press conference under the apparent belief that taxpayers have to pay the networks for the time provided, which it turns out is not true. Responding to that by saying that we pay the President's salary sounds an awful lot like equating the two.

I'd also note that we pay Congressional salaries as well and they go out and bloviate and say all sorts of wild nonsense.
Click to expand...

You're right you don't have to prove that you make obnoxious unproven accusations without any proof, as that already happened.

Equating press confrences to the presidents salary is how tax payers pay for them and that is what I said. I am not opposed to presidential press conferences that are actually informative. I am against them being used to promote a partisan policy absent the details and which avoids in depth questioning by our press.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top