The lady with the sign comparing the President to Hitler is a campaigner for Lyndon LaRouche, sometime socialist, now a far left member of the Democratic party. Liberal kookiness at its most flavorful.
I think what’s important here is the dismissal of the rather casual claim that Healthcare reform must obviously be a nazi plot. She asserts, with no evidence as if it were an obvious truth, that Obama is advancing nazi policies. And gets exactly the response she deserves.
And Lizzy. . . you can prove this? It’s really the left that is slowly going insane in their opposition to Obama?
True, Mark. I didn’t notice that in the long clip that I watched earlier today.
I won’t make any comparisons between the president and Hitler, but I will say that HR3200 could lead us in a very bad direction, if not under this administration under future adminstrations.
I think the key is article 123, which outlines the Health Benefits Advisory Committee. This group, as I understand the bill, will be advising what must be part of any health insurance policy public and private. Out of 27 members, 18 are elected directly by the president and 9 are elected by someone who is appointed by the president.
Is it insane of me to expect that abortion coverage will wind up being mandated by that commission? After all 18 people are being appointed by a man who promised to pass FOCA, which the contributers of this blog rightly reject… this could simply be a way of doing it without having to fight.
And, yes, I am concerned that one of our presidents chief advisors on healthcare (Zeke Emmanuel) articulated the “Complete Lives System.” Oh, and another (Holdren) who said in the 1977 publication “Ecoscience:” “even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” (p837).
Again, I don’t like where this could go. But I might just be a China Hutch on Jupiter, so what the hell do I know?
“Having a military can go in a bad direction, if not this president, then a future one,” so you will promote the removal of all armed forces? After all, Nazis had them ;)
Back when it was serious, the media acted like Barney Frank. It did not give any platform to the kooks who said the Civil Rights Act would leader to white slavery. Why does it give a platform to the modern-day kooks? This is the great question.
That analogy doesn’t work out too well, Henry. Sure, an army can be misused towards evil ends. Nobody disputes that. But it is still a choice to join the army I think that the more appropriate analogy is the draft, (which I don’t think many of us would support… at least I don’t).
The draft makes military service compulsory and allows for the temptation of the commander in chief to be reckless with his military resources, including the human lives who are in the military. Likewise, if adopted and misused, the Health Care Advisory Committee could again impose compulsory demands (even evil demands as is the case of abortion) on the taxpayers.
But I ask again: Is it insane of me to expect that abortion coverage will wind up being mandated by the Health Care Advisory Committee if approved?
We don’t have a choice of whether or not we HAVE an army; that’s the issue. We have one, and it can be used/abused, as military dictatorships show.
All you are arguing is “could,” and my point is, a military “could” do all kinds of things. I was trying to show you the fault without calling it out, but I will do so now: “Appeal to probability.” Do you any good?
Is it insane of me to expect that abortion coverage will wind up being mandated by the Health Care Advisory Committee if approved?
Insane? Probably not. But not much of an arguement in the public sphere. Actually, it is already the case. It has been determined that Medicaid and Medicare allow for abortions. It goes unimplemented because of the Hyde Amendment (abortion is authorized but unappropriated). So long as the Hyde Amendment is renewed each year, thae status quo remains.
You might say that is a shakey position to stand in. But you might say that to the GOP who never made an attempt to make the Hyde Amendment permanent law during their years of control of Congress and the White House. Nor did they or the NRTL Cmte ever take any action to restrict private insurers from including abortion coverage.
To the pro-lifers who are trying to get authorizing language prohibting abortion and restrictions on what private insurers can do, I support them and wish them success. If they get success on one of these, I also intend to laugh in the face of all pro-lifers who warned of dire consequences if Obama was elected — here getting something that was never won nor even proposed prior to Obama.
I wonder how the real, actual American Nazi Party feels about the nation’s first black president? After all, if he’s such a “Nazi” wouldn’t they be falling over themselves approving of him?
” If they get success on one of these, I also intend to laugh in the face of all pro-lifers who warned of dire consequences if Obama was elected — here getting something that was never won nor even proposed prior to Obama.”
And if you’re wrong then what? Cry for all the babies who are dying? Crying with all the mothers who regret their decisions? Write a nice apology to all of us on a blog?
Seriously man. I hope you laugh in my face if we make it through these 4 years without any further liberalization of abortion policies. But I don’t think that those of us with serious concerns deserve to be laughed at for the concerns.
But I don’t think that those of us with serious concerns deserve to be laughed at for the concerns.
If you have kept quiet about those concerns until you could use them as a way of denying millions of Americans the opportunity to get health insurance, laughing is one of kindest responses I can think of.
Get authorizing language restriction abortion. Put limits on private insurers offering abortion coverage. But show me one bill introduced in the past eight years to do this at the request of the Pro-Life Movement.
The lady is a LaRouche supporter. It’s been widely reported.
Lyndon LaRouche is a member of the Democratic party. At least, he got votes (a substantial number in some states) running in the Democratic presidential primaries. 8 times he’s run for president, 7 times as a Democrat.
Drawing comparisons between the President’s health reform ideas and Hitler’s reform ideas is a tactic they’ve been using for awhile now. At least since July.
They get a lot of college students to join them … a lot of them to get experience on a political campaign.
Liberals worship Obama and blindly do whatever he says, except for the ones who compare him to Hitler and are so far the biggest obstacle to the success of his first major policy proposal.
Phosphorious… you might be kidding… I can’t tell… but I know a lot of liberals who don’t worship Obama and are pretty ticked at him… Just pick up the past 5 or 6 issues o The Progressive or read Z Magazine…
Of course, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky may consider themselves well beyond “liberal…”
The draft makes military service compulsory and allows for the temptation of the commander in chief to be reckless with his military resources, including the human lives who are in the military.
I most definitely DO support a draft: national service (in the military or not) is a characteristic of a society far more democratic than ours is.
If there had been a draft at the time of Dubya-idiot’s “war of choice” and politicians’ and industrialists’ and other rich people’s children had been obliged to go fight in a desert against people who were no threat to us, I seriously doubt there would have been such an adventure. A draft is one way of ensuring that ALL segments of society are “on board” regarding a military endeavour.
If there had been a draft at the time of Dubya-idiot’s “war of choice” and politicians’ and industrialists’ and other rich people’s children had been obliged to go fight in a desert against people who were no threat to us, I seriously doubt there would have been such an adventure. A draft is one way of ensuring that ALL segments of society are “on board” regarding a military endeavour.
This is naive. The fix is in when it comes to military conscription. Do you really think the “politicians’ and industrialists’ and other rich people’s children” are exposed as much as the rest of our children when it comes to the military draft? You’re conceiving of a system that can never exist.
IMHO the Cheneys and Clintons of this world will always find ways around a draft – same goes for kids of “industrialists’ and other rich people’s children”.
And do not kid yourself a large majority of Americans very much WANTED that war. In many ways it always seemed strange to me that such a proud and accomplished Nation did get bend out of shape as much as it did because of that single senseless act of ruthless inhumane terrorism – but hey all the would have could haves will not lead to a better future. In my view now 8 years delayed the Obama administration is finally pursuing the proper course – use all your wits to silently and effectively wipe out the enemy. Do not strut around like Bush did – just get the damn job done and publicly focus on the stuff that really matters.
I, by the way think that the Obama team will have the last laugh in the health care debate.
Sane,intelligent and funny voices like Barney Franks are just the beginning.
The standard criticism from the right these days is that Obama is the messiah that liberals worship. And yet the democratic Congress is not simply rolling over for his healthcare initiative the way a republican Congress rolled over for Bush’s war in Iraq.
And yet still conservatives equate all things crazy and extremist with “liberals”.
And so we have armed tea-baggers showing up at townahall meetings, and the response on the right is either
1) This is no big deal, it has happened with every president, especially Bush
or 2) They really liberals anyway.
Someone is going to have to die before conservatives see the craziness that is right at the center of their movement.
“Someone is going to have to die before conservatives see the craziness that is right at the center of their movement.”
Sorry to say but violence will not be instructive to those who currently dominate and shape the ethos of the Republican Party. Self-righteousness is a force that transcends all situations and circumstances. The lethal mixture of ideology and religion will never shrink before violence. It will embrace it.
What I (perhaps as a non-American) cannot wrap my head around is the fact that Catholics are arguing as either Democratic or Republican partisans on this issue. Of course the uninsured need healthcare. Of course there shouldn’t be anything in the bill that will increase abortion access. How is it that we aren’t all agreed on this?!? And if we are agreed, why don’t we mobilize everything we’ve got to support the bill with an amendment (or amendments) ensuring it won’t lead to increased abortion access? We’d have the bishop’s backing, virtually every one of them. We’re 25% of the population and growing. On an issue where the Catholic response seems obvious, we could actually make a difference. Instead we have liberal Catholics brushing off abortion concerns and conservatives calling Obama the anti-Christ and making blatantly un-Catholic claims about how to organize a society.
If we don’t smarten up we get either a) continued lack of health insurance for millions or b) a vast expansion of abortion, both unmitigated tragedies from the Catholic point of view
I’m entirely baffled, and a bit nauseous.
Lyndon LaRouche is a member of the Democratic party.
Lyndon LaRouche is not a member of the Democratic Party.
He receive no votes for the Democratic nomination. He may be the only living person who the Democratic National Committee has formally expelled from the Party. Under Party rules, if anyone wrote him in on the primary ballot, the votes were not counted. (I have served on the Democratic National Convention Rules Committee and have a prety good understanding of this process).
The Democratic Party, while promoting a legitimate inclusiveness, is also not afraid to expell a true extremist from its ranks. The GOP would be wise to learn a lesson here.
Ooo an apology for the Democratic party, inclusive but courageous! No extremist kook heads allowed huh? Do you really want to stick with that. Just off the top of my head, I remember Cynthia McKinney. She was allowed to continue to serve as a Democrat until the election in which she was defeated by “the Jews.” Then the party her up for election again a couple years later.
At one point, Mr. LaRouche ran in the Democratic primaries and got double digit support. Even in states with “closed primaries.” Ihere were a bunch of Democrats who voted for him.
Whether or not he has the formal blessing of the Democratic establishment is not the issue. The point is, he is a hard core leftist.
It is highly ironic AND instructive to me that here we have an incident which is supposed to hold up conservative opposition to Obamacare for ridicule … and it turns out to be liberal opposition.
Lizzie, I accept your theory that the Republican party is exclusive and afraid. With the recent rallies, nothing could be clearer. They are a narrow, frightened bunch.
The lady with the sign comparing the President to Hitler is a campaigner for Lyndon LaRouche, sometime socialist, now a far left member of the Democratic party. Liberal kookiness at its most flavorful.
Yeah… I put this up on Facebook… it’s terrific!
It’s a great example of people breaking Godwin’s law…
David
Just to clarify… she was not comparing the president to Hitler. She was comparing a policy of the president to a policy of Hitler.
I recommend watching the full video for more context.
But she did have a picture of Obama marked with a Hitler moustache…
I think what’s important here is the dismissal of the rather casual claim that Healthcare reform must obviously be a nazi plot. She asserts, with no evidence as if it were an obvious truth, that Obama is advancing nazi policies. And gets exactly the response she deserves.
And Lizzy. . . you can prove this? It’s really the left that is slowly going insane in their opposition to Obama?
Really?
Lyndon LaRouche is not a member of the Democratic Party.
We need more Barney Franks!
True, Mark. I didn’t notice that in the long clip that I watched earlier today.
I won’t make any comparisons between the president and Hitler, but I will say that HR3200 could lead us in a very bad direction, if not under this administration under future adminstrations.
I think the key is article 123, which outlines the Health Benefits Advisory Committee. This group, as I understand the bill, will be advising what must be part of any health insurance policy public and private. Out of 27 members, 18 are elected directly by the president and 9 are elected by someone who is appointed by the president.
Is it insane of me to expect that abortion coverage will wind up being mandated by that commission? After all 18 people are being appointed by a man who promised to pass FOCA, which the contributers of this blog rightly reject… this could simply be a way of doing it without having to fight.
And, yes, I am concerned that one of our presidents chief advisors on healthcare (Zeke Emmanuel) articulated the “Complete Lives System.” Oh, and another (Holdren) who said in the 1977 publication “Ecoscience:” “even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” (p837).
Again, I don’t like where this could go. But I might just be a China Hutch on Jupiter, so what the hell do I know?
Leonard Pitts has a great column today about the Obama-as-Nazi” “argument”:
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/1192888.html
“Having a military can go in a bad direction, if not this president, then a future one,” so you will promote the removal of all armed forces? After all, Nazis had them ;)
Back when it was serious, the media acted like Barney Frank. It did not give any platform to the kooks who said the Civil Rights Act would leader to white slavery. Why does it give a platform to the modern-day kooks? This is the great question.
That analogy doesn’t work out too well, Henry. Sure, an army can be misused towards evil ends. Nobody disputes that. But it is still a choice to join the army I think that the more appropriate analogy is the draft, (which I don’t think many of us would support… at least I don’t).
The draft makes military service compulsory and allows for the temptation of the commander in chief to be reckless with his military resources, including the human lives who are in the military. Likewise, if adopted and misused, the Health Care Advisory Committee could again impose compulsory demands (even evil demands as is the case of abortion) on the taxpayers.
But I ask again: Is it insane of me to expect that abortion coverage will wind up being mandated by the Health Care Advisory Committee if approved?
We don’t have a choice of whether or not we HAVE an army; that’s the issue. We have one, and it can be used/abused, as military dictatorships show.
All you are arguing is “could,” and my point is, a military “could” do all kinds of things. I was trying to show you the fault without calling it out, but I will do so now: “Appeal to probability.” Do you any good?
“It did not give any platform to the kooks who said the Civil Rights Act would leader to white slavery?”
People actually said that? I’m happy I was born in the 80s.
No, Henry. Except for the draft, we CHOOSE to have an army. If people don’t join, we don’t have one (again, the problem is the draft).
Is it insane of me to expect that abortion coverage will wind up being mandated by the Health Care Advisory Committee if approved?
Insane? Probably not. But not much of an arguement in the public sphere. Actually, it is already the case. It has been determined that Medicaid and Medicare allow for abortions. It goes unimplemented because of the Hyde Amendment (abortion is authorized but unappropriated). So long as the Hyde Amendment is renewed each year, thae status quo remains.
You might say that is a shakey position to stand in. But you might say that to the GOP who never made an attempt to make the Hyde Amendment permanent law during their years of control of Congress and the White House. Nor did they or the NRTL Cmte ever take any action to restrict private insurers from including abortion coverage.
To the pro-lifers who are trying to get authorizing language prohibting abortion and restrictions on what private insurers can do, I support them and wish them success. If they get success on one of these, I also intend to laugh in the face of all pro-lifers who warned of dire consequences if Obama was elected — here getting something that was never won nor even proposed prior to Obama.
I wonder how the real, actual American Nazi Party feels about the nation’s first black president? After all, if he’s such a “Nazi” wouldn’t they be falling over themselves approving of him?
” If they get success on one of these, I also intend to laugh in the face of all pro-lifers who warned of dire consequences if Obama was elected — here getting something that was never won nor even proposed prior to Obama.”
And if you’re wrong then what? Cry for all the babies who are dying? Crying with all the mothers who regret their decisions? Write a nice apology to all of us on a blog?
Seriously man. I hope you laugh in my face if we make it through these 4 years without any further liberalization of abortion policies. But I don’t think that those of us with serious concerns deserve to be laughed at for the concerns.
But I don’t think that those of us with serious concerns deserve to be laughed at for the concerns.
If you have kept quiet about those concerns until you could use them as a way of denying millions of Americans the opportunity to get health insurance, laughing is one of kindest responses I can think of.
Get authorizing language restriction abortion. Put limits on private insurers offering abortion coverage. But show me one bill introduced in the past eight years to do this at the request of the Pro-Life Movement.
The lady is a LaRouche supporter. It’s been widely reported.
Lyndon LaRouche is a member of the Democratic party. At least, he got votes (a substantial number in some states) running in the Democratic presidential primaries. 8 times he’s run for president, 7 times as a Democrat.
Drawing comparisons between the President’s health reform ideas and Hitler’s reform ideas is a tactic they’ve been using for awhile now. At least since July.
They get a lot of college students to join them … a lot of them to get experience on a political campaign.
Let me get this straight:
Liberals worship Obama and blindly do whatever he says, except for the ones who compare him to Hitler and are so far the biggest obstacle to the success of his first major policy proposal.
Liberals! Is there anything evil they won’t do?
Phosphorious… you might be kidding… I can’t tell… but I know a lot of liberals who don’t worship Obama and are pretty ticked at him… Just pick up the past 5 or 6 issues o The Progressive or read Z Magazine…
Of course, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky may consider themselves well beyond “liberal…”
Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi both are the big problem behind our country’s problem. I don’t see how Catholics can support these people.
The draft makes military service compulsory and allows for the temptation of the commander in chief to be reckless with his military resources, including the human lives who are in the military.
I most definitely DO support a draft: national service (in the military or not) is a characteristic of a society far more democratic than ours is.
If there had been a draft at the time of Dubya-idiot’s “war of choice” and politicians’ and industrialists’ and other rich people’s children had been obliged to go fight in a desert against people who were no threat to us, I seriously doubt there would have been such an adventure. A draft is one way of ensuring that ALL segments of society are “on board” regarding a military endeavour.
If there had been a draft at the time of Dubya-idiot’s “war of choice” and politicians’ and industrialists’ and other rich people’s children had been obliged to go fight in a desert against people who were no threat to us, I seriously doubt there would have been such an adventure. A draft is one way of ensuring that ALL segments of society are “on board” regarding a military endeavour.
This is naive. The fix is in when it comes to military conscription. Do you really think the “politicians’ and industrialists’ and other rich people’s children” are exposed as much as the rest of our children when it comes to the military draft? You’re conceiving of a system that can never exist.
Digbydolben,
IMHO the Cheneys and Clintons of this world will always find ways around a draft – same goes for kids of “industrialists’ and other rich people’s children”.
And do not kid yourself a large majority of Americans very much WANTED that war. In many ways it always seemed strange to me that such a proud and accomplished Nation did get bend out of shape as much as it did because of that single senseless act of ruthless inhumane terrorism – but hey all the would have could haves will not lead to a better future. In my view now 8 years delayed the Obama administration is finally pursuing the proper course – use all your wits to silently and effectively wipe out the enemy. Do not strut around like Bush did – just get the damn job done and publicly focus on the stuff that really matters.
I, by the way think that the Obama team will have the last laugh in the health care debate.
Sane,intelligent and funny voices like Barney Franks are just the beginning.
David Wheeler-Reed,
Yes, I was kidding. :-)
The standard criticism from the right these days is that Obama is the messiah that liberals worship. And yet the democratic Congress is not simply rolling over for his healthcare initiative the way a republican Congress rolled over for Bush’s war in Iraq.
And yet still conservatives equate all things crazy and extremist with “liberals”.
And so we have armed tea-baggers showing up at townahall meetings, and the response on the right is either
1) This is no big deal, it has happened with every president, especially Bush
or 2) They really liberals anyway.
Someone is going to have to die before conservatives see the craziness that is right at the center of their movement.
“Someone is going to have to die before conservatives see the craziness that is right at the center of their movement.”
Sorry to say but violence will not be instructive to those who currently dominate and shape the ethos of the Republican Party. Self-righteousness is a force that transcends all situations and circumstances. The lethal mixture of ideology and religion will never shrink before violence. It will embrace it.
What I (perhaps as a non-American) cannot wrap my head around is the fact that Catholics are arguing as either Democratic or Republican partisans on this issue. Of course the uninsured need healthcare. Of course there shouldn’t be anything in the bill that will increase abortion access. How is it that we aren’t all agreed on this?!? And if we are agreed, why don’t we mobilize everything we’ve got to support the bill with an amendment (or amendments) ensuring it won’t lead to increased abortion access? We’d have the bishop’s backing, virtually every one of them. We’re 25% of the population and growing. On an issue where the Catholic response seems obvious, we could actually make a difference. Instead we have liberal Catholics brushing off abortion concerns and conservatives calling Obama the anti-Christ and making blatantly un-Catholic claims about how to organize a society.
If we don’t smarten up we get either a) continued lack of health insurance for millions or b) a vast expansion of abortion, both unmitigated tragedies from the Catholic point of view
I’m entirely baffled, and a bit nauseous.
Lyndon LaRouche is a member of the Democratic party.
Lyndon LaRouche is not a member of the Democratic Party.
He receive no votes for the Democratic nomination. He may be the only living person who the Democratic National Committee has formally expelled from the Party. Under Party rules, if anyone wrote him in on the primary ballot, the votes were not counted. (I have served on the Democratic National Convention Rules Committee and have a prety good understanding of this process).
The Democratic Party, while promoting a legitimate inclusiveness, is also not afraid to expell a true extremist from its ranks. The GOP would be wise to learn a lesson here.
Ooo an apology for the Democratic party, inclusive but courageous! No extremist kook heads allowed huh? Do you really want to stick with that. Just off the top of my head, I remember Cynthia McKinney. She was allowed to continue to serve as a Democrat until the election in which she was defeated by “the Jews.” Then the party her up for election again a couple years later.
At one point, Mr. LaRouche ran in the Democratic primaries and got double digit support. Even in states with “closed primaries.” Ihere were a bunch of Democrats who voted for him.
Whether or not he has the formal blessing of the Democratic establishment is not the issue. The point is, he is a hard core leftist.
It is highly ironic AND instructive to me that here we have an incident which is supposed to hold up conservative opposition to Obamacare for ridicule … and it turns out to be liberal opposition.
Lizzy,
When the birthers have been formally expelled from the GOP, you will be allowed to gloat.
Until then, not.
I’m not gloating. According to you the Democratic party is ‘inclusive” and “not afraid.” I make no similar apologies for the Republican party.
The instructive part of this thread is that people are prejudiced by their political views, and that prejudice leads them to make rash judgments.
Lizzie, I accept your theory that the Republican party is exclusive and afraid. With the recent rallies, nothing could be clearer. They are a narrow, frightened bunch.