Right Wing pundits go after a child who lost his mother.

Repeating for emphasis.

These people are assuming this child and his family:

1) Do not want this attention/to be on tv
2) Do not want people to hear their story
3) Did not create or approve the words they speak
4) Do not understand the issue

Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with the accuser, and they don't have jack***** to back any of that up.

So yeah, they ARE insulting the kid AND his family by insuiting this stuff (that they're ignorant puppets) and calling them names just as much as they are attacking the Democrats or the interest groups which support the same issue.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg... wait til things get really heated and the media Right starts treating them like the 9/11 victim's families.

Then you'll start hearing things like this:

1) They're exploiting their dead mother for attention/politics
2) They're somehow personally benefitting from this

And as an aside; Limbaugh pointing out that the kid's mother would STILL BE DEAD is the stupidest counterpoint I've ever heard of. Really Rush? Isn't that just making a better argument for HEALTH CARE REFORM NOW instead of later? Idiot.

 

Health Care Reform does not equal the bill before us. Being opposed to this bill is not the same as opposing healthcare reform.

Re: "putting these people on TV" -- I ask again, do you think this kid and his grandmother initiated this action or were they invited?

 

It does not matter whether they were invited or not.

Either way, they are consenting.

Kind of hard to exploit someone who is consenting, or force someone to do something who is does it willingly.

And you cannot, with a straight face, tell me that these commentators are not wholly opposed to health care reform (at least that which includes Obama's signature/increased coverage). But then again, you're giddyup, so you probably will.

 

Take a young teenage girl and get her addicted to some kind of narcotic. Then pimp her out with the promise of said narcotic being provided. Is that exploitation? Was she consenting? Complicated situation but a slam-dunk in overturning your simplistic conclusion. This kid and his grandmother are much more subtle, of course.

My remarks about healthcare reform were more about my position than Beck's or Limbaugh's. Let's go to a basketball analogy: I'd like to acquire Chris Bosh for the Rockets but at what cost? I may not like the cost in the same way that I may not like this version of healthcare reform.

You need to be specific not general in your condemnation. Of course, you're DonnyMost so you'll just go off... :grin:

 

I don't think the kid was attacked at all. This is no more an attack of this kid than it was when people criticized Palin for using her baby as a political tool.

 

As true as this is in theory Giddyup, the largest reason I support democratic efforts at healthcare reform is I don't believe the Republicans have any intention to ever address the issue.

Where were all these good ideas when they controlled Congress in the 90s? Where were all these good ideas when they controlled both Houses and the White House!

No sir. The Republicans elected to nix healthcare reform for a decade, and I firmly believe their only goal right now is to kill this bill so it becomes politically unviable (not a word?) for another decade. Opposing THIS bill IS opposing healthcare reform, because if it fails the dems will probably be too afraid to try again and the Republicans will have no incentive to address it.

 

I don't see how anything you just said is even offensive to be honest.

The kid was either manipulated into or voluntarily agreed to become a spokesperson for healthcare reform. Telling him that you'd inform him of the fact (in the guys mind) that healthcare reform wouldn't have saved his mother is not an insult to the kid. Nor is saying he's being used as a poster child of a dubious cause. All that does is insult the case. If that insults him by extension, than both parties have insulted a ton of kids over the years.

 

If I were the kid, or his family, I would be insulted at people saying that I was puppet/pawn/shield (coerced/exploited) that didn't know what I was talking about (don't understand issue/just want attention/don't agree with what I'm saying).

That is insulting to their intelligence, their motive, and their dead relative.

 

It wouldn't be cruel to tell an obese person who is lobbying for something because she says it made her fat that in fact it isn't why she is fat though.

It isn't like Rush said "I'm want to go tell some random person that his mother would be dead with or without healthcare reform!" He's talking about a kid who is attributing the death of his mother to lack of healthcare with his message being used as a tool to pass healthcare legislation.

 

Why does it matter anyway?

It's not like the kid is crusading to get his mother brought back from the dead or to turn back time.

He's trying to (omfg can it be true?!) help other people.

*mind is now blown*

 

I just don't see it. This is faux outrage in my opinion. Doesn't even deserve a thread.

 

You're a puppet and you don't know what you're talking about.

I question your intelligence, your purpose, and your ability to think and act for yourself.

That sounds perfectly fine, eh?

 

Is that the language that was used? Because that it isn't what I read.

 

So as long as you can trot out a child to make your point, preferably one with a dead relative, you become immune from response? I wonder why Malkin would call him a kiddie shield. Total non-story.

 

Depends.

Are they responding to the legislation, or the child/family?