Death Panels You Say?

[FollowTheWay]

You have not been on board long enough to guess any such thing. He is in fact a libertarian and has always been against those Bush policies as long as I have been on this board. You might want to get to know folks before jumping to conclusions that fit your predetermined agenda. That way you do not say such silly things.

I respond to the comments that are posted. If people are saying things differently than they did 3 years ago they should take a look at whether they are consistent in theiur perspective. And actually, I have voted for both democrats and republicans for president. Can you say the same thing? I vote the man not necessarily the party. Actually, I don't support the erosion of our civil liberty under either party. I think I've come across as being too partician myself. But when facing what seems to be a stone wall of republican-only support I do seem to be strongly democratic.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I've been pretty consistent. My brother is a Navy hero and there's no way I'm going to embarrass him by getting arrested at a war protest.

I voted democrat my whole life, until John Kerry was nominated. Voted for Bush that year and crossed my fingers. Voted Constitution, and libertarian. I supported Gary Johnson this last election. I am socially more liberal than a lot of democrats, and fiscally more conservative than republicans.

Clinton(s), Gore, Kerry, Howard Dean, just off the top of my head, wanted war with Iraq since 1993. Clinton killed 500,000 Iraqis with the evil U.N. imposed sanctions on that country. (How do you feel about economic sanctions ?)

This is a bi-partisan war. No party is clean. Let's stop blaming each other and work to eliminate these neo-con warmongers. In both parties. (If you REALLY want the war to end)

 

[Revmitchell]

I respond to the comments that are posted. If people are saying things differently than they did 3 years ago they should take a look at whether they are consistent in theiur perspective. And actually, I have voted for both democrats and republicans for president. Can you say the same thing? I vote the man not necessarily the party. Actually, I don't support the erosion of our civil liberty under either party. I think I've come across as being too partician myself. But when facing what seems to be a stone wall of republican-only support I do seem to be strongly democratic.

uh huh..............

 

[convicted1]

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/scary-medicare-claims/

The ad goes on to blame the so-called “rationing” on a board charged with recommending ways to slow the growth in Medicare spending. It says this “unelected board” would “decide what gets covered here,” showing a hospital room again.

But the law doesn’t establish any kind of board that would make decisions on what care seniors get as they’re waiting in hospital beds, or anywhere else. The ad reminds us of long-ago-debunked claims from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who first claimed the law would establish “death panels” that would decide who gets health care and who doesn’t. Palin pointed to a provision that said Medicare would pay for voluntary counseling sessions for seniors to discuss end-of-life planning with health care professionals. She later pointed to the “unelected board” referenced in the American Crossroads ad.

It was Palin who started the "death panel" stipulations in Obamacare, and they're not there.


Here, Romney calls Obamacare a "government takeover of health care" and politifact gave it the "lie of the year" in 2010: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-calls-obamas-health-care-law-government-tak/

http://obamacarefacts.com/obama-care-fact-check.php (these next two quotes are from this link.

There is no death panel and ObamaCare doesn't get rid of Medicare. The death panel myth has been being circulated since 2009 and has been debunked a number of times. In fact a provision of ObamaCare about doctors providing in home counseling to seniors had to be cut from the bill because of this rumor. The fact is there is no group of unelected people who decide if you get surgery based on any factor. About 1/4 of the entire 2000 plus page bill is aimed at improving and expanding care for seniors.

In fact ObamaCare closes the part D "donut hole" of Medicare, expands coverage for seniors who need help at home or are in nursing homes and greatly increases their access to preventive care. It also reforms Medicare advantage, a private program that is costing the tax payers millions and is lacking in the coverage it provides to seniors.

Check out this fact ObamaCare only raises taxes on those who claim a taxable income over $200k for an individual or $250k for a business or family. In other words the 3.8% income tax and 3.8% capital gains tax only affects 2% of people and 3% of small businesses. To find out more about the 21 new taxes in ObamaCare and how they affect you check out Our Full List of ObamaCare Taxes.

 

[Revmitchell]

IPAB Is an Acronym for ‘Death Panel’

Contemplating the 2012 election that can already be seen looming on the distant horizon, the President’s advisors were no doubt hoping that the “death panel” debate was… well… dead. But Obama himself inadvertently resurrected it when, in response to Republican budget proposals, he claimed that Medicare costs will be kept under control by the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Obamacare opponents have been screaming about this committee since it was first added to the “reform” bill. And, since that time, anyone with the temerity to call it by its proper name — death panel — has been vilified by the Democrats and the “news” media. Nonetheless, that’s precisely what IPAB will be. Its sole purpose is to cut funding for some health care services seniors now take for granted. And those cuts will kill people...



http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/22/ipab-is-an-acronym-for-death-p

 

[Revmitchell]

Former Obama Adviser: 'We Need Death Panels'

The center-left fact-checking site Politifact, though, called Palin's "death panel" post the “lie of the year” in 2009.

Nearly three years later, The Washington Post’s “fact-checker,” Glenn Kessler, who tried to falsely claim that Marc Thiessen was wrong when he wrote Obama had missed nearly half of his daily intelligence briefings because Obama got the reports on his iPad, accused Palin of not even “quoting herself correctly” when Palin did. Kessler then wrote “Palin is fooling herself if she thinks she can justify such inappropriate terminology to describe an effort, however imperfect, to address a serious problem that politicians on both sides of the aisle say they want to solve.”

Kessler felt the need to fact-check Palin again on June 27 of this year after Palin's Facebook post before the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare was constitutional because it was a tax.

Last Friday, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said the reason why the mainstream media and the left went apoplectic over Palin’s words was because “she was right.”

“She revealed what was supposed to be a hidden truth,” Limbaugh said.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/02/Former-Obama-Adviser-We-Need-Death-Panels

 

[FollowTheWay]

I've been pretty consistent. My brother is a Navy hero and there's no way I'm going to embarrass him by getting arrested at a war protest.

I voted democrat my whole life, until John Kerry was nominated. Voted for Bush that year and crossed my fingers. Voted Constitution, and libertarian. I supported Gary Johnson this last election. I am socially more liberal than a lot of democrats, and fiscally more conservative than republicans.

Clinton(s), Gore, Kerry, Howard Dean, just off the top of my head, wanted war with Iraq since 1993. Clinton killed 500,000 Iraqis with the evil U.N. imposed sanctions on that country. (How do you feel about economic sanctions ?)

This is a bi-partisan war. No party is clean. Let's stop blaming each other and work to eliminate these neo-con warmongers. In both parties. (If you REALLY want the war to end)

No way. Both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq shouyld be laid right at the feet of Bush and Cheney. Certainly Obama had nothing to do with starting thewse wars of agression. That's ridiculous.

 

[FollowTheWay]

uh huh..............

Yeh uh....

 

[FollowTheWay]

uh huh..............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0g

Bush saying that we are no longer worried about bin Laden. Of course not. The real reason for all of this was to occupy Iraq. This was 6 months after 9/11!

 

[Revmitchell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPTwsMEiI0g

Bush saying that we are no longer worried about bin Laden. Of course not. The real reason for all of this was to occupy Iraq. This was 6 months after 9/11!

Extreme liberal revisionism

 

[Bro. Curtis]

No way. Both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq shouyld be laid right at the feet of Bush and Cheney. Certainly Obama had nothing to do with starting thewse wars of agression. That's ridiculous.

That is simply not true, and the more you perpetuate that lie, the further we get from peace.

Bush and Cheney could not start a war. They needed congressional approval to ignore the constitution, and go to war without declaration. Educate yourself. Or remain ignorant. Your choice.

Since 2006, the democrats have had the power to cut the funding, yet won't.

You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

 

[saturneptune]

That is simply not true, and the more you perpetuate that lie, the further we get from peace.

Bush and Cheney could not start a war. They needed congressional approval to ignore the constitution, and go to war without declaration. Educate yourself. Or remain ignorant. Your choice.

Since 2006, the democrats have had the power to cut the funding, yet won't.

You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

Thanks for that post. Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around. That is what happens when either branch (legislative or executive) or either party (Democrat or Republican) does not follow the Constitution and use common sense in executing a war. Besides declaring war, the two guiding principles of leadership is that 1. you use any means at your disposal to obtain a quick victory 2. Once a victory is secure, exit quickly. Do not stay 50 years rebuilding a country. If one cannot follow those principles then do not go to war.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I think John Kerry summed up the mentality of the putative anti-war liberals best when he said....

"I was for the war, before I was against it."

They've been double-speaking since.

Oh, by the way, I was a fool to vote for Bush.

 

[saturneptune]

Oh, by the way, I was a fool to vote for Bush.

I was one of his most vocal critics in 2004. My problem with the Bushes goes back to Reagan picking Bush the First for VP. I think Reagan was an excellent President, but that decision was a mistake.

I think 1988 was the first election that I felt totally without a choice. Finally, in 1992, I voted for one of the two Democrats I have ever voted for, which was a mistake also. (Carter in 76 was the other). I just could not bring myself to vote for the "read my lips" again. Then, in 2000, I had higher hopes for the second Bush. Also, Gore was such an idiot I voted for this Bush also. The pattern continued, except that in 2004, again, I just could not bring myself to vote for Kerry. So that was the third time I had voted for a Bush. Anyway, by the end of 2008, the results of Bush were quite clear. So call me a fool also, as in 2008 I voted for McCain with a clothes pin over my nose and we have been over 2012 ad nauseum.

All we can do is hope for better choices in both parties in 2016, or a third party that has a chance.

 

[FollowTheWay]

That is simply not true, and the more you perpetuate that lie, the further we get from peace.

Bush and Cheney could not start a war. They needed congressional approval to ignore the constitution, and go to war without declaration. Educate yourself. Or remain ignorant. Your choice.

Since 2006, the democrats have had the power to cut the funding, yet won't.

You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

Ever hear about the arcane act called fillibustering? It takes more than a majority to do anything in Congress because the Republicans stated objective is to block everything the Democrats support.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Thanks for that post. Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around. That is what happens when either branch (legislative or executive) or either party (Democrat or Republican) does not follow the Constitution and use common sense in executing a war. Besides declaring war, the two guiding principles of leadership is that 1. you use any means at your disposal to obtain a quick victory 2. Once a victory is secure, exit quickly. Do not stay 50 years rebuilding a country. If one cannot follow those principles then do not go to war.

The first thing you should do is to use diplomacy to the greatest extent possible rather than to wade in and strat killing people for no good reason.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

That might be the stupidest excuse I have yet heard.

Anyhoo, I don't waste time with the purposefully ignorant. I'll leave you to your delusions. Have a nice night.

 

[Revmitchell]

Ever hear about the arcane act called fillibustering? It takes more than a majority to do anything in Congress because the Republicans stated objective is to block everything the Democrats support.

When you are not even willing to work on anything with the Republicans and tell them "they can come along for the ride but they have ride in the back of the bus."

 

[Revmitchell]

The first thing you should do is to use diplomacy to the greatest extent possible rather than to wade in and strat killing people for no good reason.

Never happened.....

 

[Bro. Curtis]

… (S)upport for the resolution authorizing the Iraq War is not something that can simply be forgotten. There is no reason to be any more forgiving of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or Harry Reid than we are of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or Condoleezza Rice.


http://www.taylormarsh.com/blog/2013/03/bipartisan-responsibility-for-the-iraq-war/