There were about 400 pro healthcare folks. It was sponsored primarily by the SEIU union and ACORN. You had about 75 anti-s there. They were a motley lot. A lot of anti-abortion folks trying to claim it funded abortions. Then you had assorted cranks, claiming Obama was a communist, a socialist, a muslim. A lot of them were yacking about illegal aliens. One guy yelled at a pro-healthcare guy and said: "enjoy your homosexuality". Many of these folks seemed sort of down and out. Looked like they could use some Medicare or perhaps dental insurance. You did have some typical yuppie libertarians, too. I talked to an older anti woman who had Medicare and was complaining about it. She thought somehow she could do better without any changes. She was ranting about the government being involved like that was all that needed to be said. I told her to have the courage of her convictions and that nobody was forcing her to use Medicare. Maybe she could be a greeter at Walmart and buy her some private insurance. All in all stimulating and interesting. Is this any way to run a country? Perhaps yes, perhaps no?
It's a reasonable concern at this point: "Will health care legislation mean "government funding of abortion"? President Obama said Wednesday that’s "not true" and among several "fabrications" being spread by "people who are bearing false witness." But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim. "President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component" of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right? The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications." . . . http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/
I got a pamphlet on my door for the North Houston Tea Party Patriots. I'm considering the idea of going to their next tea party out of curiosity although I expect I will end up being an agitator once I see all the stupidity. Anyone else down for some fun?
I think you will enjoy it. If you sit down and calmly argue (formal sense, as opposed to quarreling) your positions, you will discover a wide range of opinions -- with most of the people supporting health care reform.
Then you've never met glynch. He's a very down to earth, very mellow, sort of high school history teacherish type in real life. A regular dad kind of a guy, with a comforting touch of hippie to him.
I actually never have met glynch. All I know of him is what he is here...he tends to put people into little boxes...good or evil and needle those he thinks are bad rather than have a real debate. If I have mischaracterized the man, my sincere apologies. Hell, I'd even buy the dude a beer.
The origianal poster said it was sponsored by SEIU and ACORN, so more than likely 90% of them were bused in. I didn't know these creeps were holding rallys, hope no fingers were bitten off during the festivities
That is all you needed to say. They have become a thorn in my side and the side of lawyers representing the Debtors. They send letters to the homeowners giving the terms of the loan modification that are not an accurate reflection of the loan modification. At some point, they will have to answer for their inaccuracies in a court of law.
I can tell you that I haven't been in a fight since I was 19. That was in 1992. I can disagree with people in a civil manner. If the discussion gets hot, I usually simply say "we will never agree on this issue, let's move on to something else."
I've probably several times over the past many weeks said things that came out more forcefully than meant directed at him in a debate, and he did the exact opposite.
