KING: I just came down here so I could say to you, God bless you. … You are the awesome American people. [...]
If I could start a country with a bunch of people, they’d be the folks who were standing with us the last few days. Let’s hope we don’t have to do that! Let’s beat that other side to a pulp! Let’s take them out. Let’s chase them down. There’s going to be a reckoning!Yeah. Boy, I remember doing my US history research paper senior year of high school on the Second Civil War when Medicare passed in 1965, and the Confederate States Of People Who Hate Gubmint Health Care led a war against President Johnson's Union troops.
Seriously, guys. This is a sitting member of Congress saying the teabaggers should "start a country" and "beat the other side to a pulp", "chase them down", and "take them out."
Over health care legislation. How long before one of these nutjobs "takes out" a congressional staffer, or a lawmaker, or a White House staffer? We've got irresponsible idiots like King, who I remind you is a sitting member of Congress, advocating violence and secession here against the government and the people who in a democracy voted for the Democrats who campaigned on...surprise!...passing health care legislation.
If you're that upset with the government you're a part of, resign, King. Hit the road. But don't call for violence against people just because you guys lost fair and square.
Posts
12 comments:
Again, looking way too much into what someone is saying to rile up a crowd.
You would think if you're going to jump on someone for blatant ignorance you would be jumping on the President
"I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate."
Also found this interesting
"The Democratic health care bill will collect higher taxes for 10 years and provide health care for only 6 years."
And on what bubble-gum card did you find that little factoid? What happens after six years, do all the health insurance exchanges EXPLODE?
As to your reaction to the incendiary rantings of your loony heroes, "let's beat them to a bloody pulp" doesn't have to have much read into it. All that's required is an ability to read.
If your out is that King didn't say, "but only metaphorically!", then shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre must be okay as well, as long as the shouter adds, "Just a rhetorical flourish, y'all."
Bubble-gum card? What is this the 30's?
Anyway fire up the internet machine and go to http://www.google.com and search for it yourself.
Anyway it was Todd Tiahrt on March 16. Which is damn near spot on as the majority of these benefits don't start until 2014.
Now I don't disagree with the entire bill, there are plenty of things in it that I like and think are needed, but where I'm torn is "Does the good outweigh the bad?" and I feel like 38 states and the 11 or so that are filing suit against this when I say...hell no.
Also I think liberals are suffering from selective understanding much like people suffer from selective hearing.
And you ignored my Obama example of this which holds true.
Your "Obama example" is simply laughable. As if he were going to tell you "I'm sweating this out--it's going to be a squeaker!"
Do you understand that Social Security actually IS socialized government medicine, and that Ronald Reagan campaigned against Medicare, which was going to be the end of America?
I know google, thank you very much. That's how I know that your information is thoroughly screwy; go to politifact.com and see if they can straighten you out.
I'll tell you this: the end of denying sick children coverage starts this year. Coverage for those with pre-existing conditions begins this year. The end of rescission is this year. Small business tax credits to help them cover their employees starts this year.
Politifact finds Tiahrt's claims to be half-truths. Which you can see for yourself:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/19/todd-tiahrt/tiahrt-health-care-bill-will-collect-10-years-taxe/
This isn't the 30's I think that much is obvious. If it was, some people wouldn't be allowed to have a published opinion.
So you proved my point, thank you.
I said:
"Which is damn near spot on as the majority of these benefits don't start until 2014."
And I quoted him as stating:
"The Democratic health care bill will collect higher taxes for 10 years and provide health care for only 6 years."
Which damn near is almost, and you can't spell almost without most. Thanks for playing.
Also back to Obama, in case you didn't know what the Presidential oath states is:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So a President being asked about the process being used in reference to the "Slaughter Solution" which was controversial as it was border lining unconstitutional and most likely was hence why the Dems dropped it because they realized it would fail, you might think Obama would maybe, just maybe remember the oath he took and get a little more involved but no let's not spend time worrying about it. There's a problem when you bend, break, or make up the rules when it only suits your needs. That was the point I was making.
These liberals/progressives are all about fair play and point the finger at the GOP but when faced with the fact the reality they're doing the same thing what do they do? "They did it first!" This is what we've let our Congress be reduced to. A bunch of 4 year olds pointing the finger and one another and trying to get the next "GOTCHA!"
But thanks for further proving my point.
Also from your own link
"So Tiahrt is correct that the bill's biggest expansions in coverage do not happen until 2014..."
So you gave a reference stating what I was already stating, hell I like discussions like this. You hand me material to use which supports what I said.
Did I just get to push the "easy" button?
No, that was not what you were stating, but I see you enjoy grade-school "I know you are, but what am I" level discussion; care to publish the rest of that paragraph, or do you think selective ellipses work in the age of the internet?
But he makes it sound like all the taxes hit immediately and there are no significant benefits in the first four years. In fact, there are some benefits that begin immediately, and the taxes levied in the early years account for a small percentage of the total dollars involved. So we find his claim Half True.
Again did they not state:
"So Tiahrt is correct that the bill's biggest expansions in coverage do not happen until 2014..."
Oh wait they did. You can argue all you want about "Well X, Y, Z are happening!!" but the article you linked clearly states
"So Tiahrt is correct that the bill's biggest expansions in coverage do not happen until 2014..."
Which is what my point was above with the "Damn near spot on.." I did not say "SEE HES 100% RIGHT!!"
I guess being from NY you have to be dense or blind or all of the above.. (not poking fun at you Governor)
Please don't feed the troll Mrs. Polly, no one is really that stupid. He is simply writing bad arguements and claiming to win them to get you to argue.
*cough* or she might have re-read everything like any person would do and see that she was indeed wrong.
Check-mate
Post a Comment