I disagree. This place has plenty of bias!

Barry laying the smack down.

Even Newt Gingrich is saying the speech would be "good for students to hear". I think we can all officially agree that there was no reason for the uproar, yes?

Depends. Obama seems pretty anti-cancer and AIDS in this speech. I could see the people that support those things as being a little uncomfortable with his speech.

What about the tumor's rights?

Obama is anti Sony, he's all for Xbox. I as a proud Microsoft supporter, am very happy, BUT the Sony bigots out there will probably be up in arms very soon.

I don't need my kids being told they will not be successful when they grow up!

This commie/nazi bastard can go to hell!!

I hope that part of Obama's speech explains that Pink Floyd is a great progressive rock band but can't compete with heavyweights like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.

I hope he states that all those old bands suck.

My guess is he will say something about the fact that Brian Leeds will complain no matter what happens and call the WAAHHHHHHHHmbulance.

Fixed.

I just saw on the crawl Laura Bush supports Obama's speech and said people need to respect the president.

Elections have consequences.

The insight! I cannot handle it!

Spanish Jack, if your going to use a signature as large as you do, would you mind correcting the spelling mistakes that Obama would certainly never make. Bush is out of office, let's not confuse the two.

Please, swifly, or a catatastrophe might happen!

Also, ran across this today, and thought that it was relevant to the issue at hand...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/06/obama-sch...aradarajan.html

He has no credibility - he's a terrorist. If you agree with that article, you're a terrorist too. And those terrorist can cause big catatastrophy

I agree with the right on this, i sent my kid to private school so black people COULDNT talk to them.

Well, here's what all the fuss is about. 'Bam dressed up in blue.

Part I


Part II





Thank You!!!

There's a lot he said in this speech that I can't see a single conservative having a problem with. Some parts of his speech could've been delivered by Reagan for crissakes. So there's no denying that it's not the message, it's the messenger.

On a side note--he really does sound like Bill Cosby sometimes. That's a good thing. He delivered a speech that was filled with simple, common sense. Thnking back to my childhood, I know this is something I would've loved to have heard from the President of my country. From a former American kid who went to a public school plagued with budget cuts and decreasing opportunites, this speech will mean a lot to a lot of kids out there.

Yeah, like not having a neocon retard as president. Ain't it great Jack? Comrade?!?!?

The speech would have been better if the president was accompanied by an animated penguin in sunglasses who told the kids that it isn't COOL to drop out of school. "Right, Mr. President?"
"You got it, anthropomorphic animated penguin in sunglasses!"

I am working on it.



Comrades Chavez, Correa, and Morales have extended their red carpets for my visit to the Gran Colombiana region.



Just like many in both side of the aisle were suspicious about Bill Clinton and George Bush, there is a good number of conservatives today who are very leery of the president's background and many in his administration. This whole mentality, although paranoic in some quarters, is strengthen by the perception of many (some paranoic too) that the main stream media has not vetted the administration as they did with past administrations (Dems and Reps). It doesn't help the perception when cases like of this past weekend related to the Green Czar (Anthony 'Van" Jones) come to the light. It's inconceivable to think the administration nor do I believe the press wasn't aware of Mr. Jones questionable background. The majority in this country are centrist and are within their constitutional right to question some of the moves and decisions the president makes. Having said that, I agree that some in the conservative side made a big deal out this situation. But in fairness, nobody knew what was in the original speech and only the president, and his close advisors, know whether the speech was revised after the criticism (fair and unfair) it generated. Therefore, to play Monday morning QB, after the fact, may not be real either. Just like it was fair and patriotic to dissent by some many of W policies, then is it fair to ask questions related to some or many of President's Obama decisions? In hindsight, I do agree that the speech coumd have come from someone like Reagan. But did the criticsim made the president make changes? We will probably have to wait until members of the administration start writing books.

Click to view attachment

Look, when the media is accused of being biased, they do everything they can to prove they are not. That means they will go overboard in trying to uncover something. And this press group at the White House has challenged this administration with probing questions, etc. So please stop with this whole "the media doesn't challenge this president like they have others" thing. Because it's not true.

Thing is, a lot of people know this, so they push the perception that the media isn't doing their job so they'll give more airtime to stupid shit like the Birther stuff or the concept of Death Panels just so they can "prove" they aren't bias.

The democrats were stupid to call this speech historic and a landmark speech ahead of time. The whole recommended lesson plan thing was idiotic too. The conservatives have been stupid in saying a speech on education is Obama trying to recreate the Hitler Youth. They should be teaching their kids to respect the office of the President even if you don't agree with the person currently holding it, not crap about how he's not "their President."

I'd like to make something very clear.

Alot of the republicans keep saying that the Dems criticized Bush just as much if not more than they criticize Obama.

Bush was criticized for saying funny stuff in interviews during his first term. I don't remember people questioning every single little move he made. It was in his second term that people went ballistic questioning his decisions and motives because they were BIG decsions.

I don't see how ANYONE can possibly compare criticism over WMD that didn't exist, to a speech to the youth of America about education.

Every time I see the title of this thread, this song jumps into my head.

You're whack, you're twisted your girl's a hoe
you're broke, the kid ain't yours and everybody knows.


Yup. That could easily apply to the US of A.

He'll never beat the Hypnotoad.

I love hypnotoad.

We. All. Love. Hypnotoad.

If this is the case, then how is it that the Anthony "Van" Jones case, although pretty well know in may quarters, was never brought up or dicsussed by the press? This is the same press that had no qualms to immediately publish unsubstatiated reports about an alledged John McCain affair last year during presidential election. This is the same press that gave front page and top fold cover of every American casualty in Iraq, yet today doesn't give the same type of coverage of how badly things are going in Afghanistan and troop increases President Obama has approved. This is the same press that went "oh my god, how rude!!!" today about Mr. Wilson's behaviour last night (I do not approve of his behaviour), yet seems to have forgotten how W was also rudely treated in a speech to Congress a few years back. This is the same media that doesn't put the same reporting pressure, like it did to the previous administration, when discussing the thousands of jobs that are being lost every month. Folks are continuing losing their jobs and put out of work. Yet the press is preoccupied with what kind of beer 4 individuals are going to be having.

I am very sorry if you feel otherwise, but the main stream here is behaving exactly in a similar fashion like their brothers in arm in 3rd world countries like Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, or any of the left leaning countries in Latin America. The resemblances are mind boggling. Not for nothing, but media outlets like the NY Times and Newsweek, just to name a couple, should look into why they are losing readership. They may find out something.

All I am asking is for fairness and consistent reporting with the same bar be applicable to members of both side of the aisle.

My favorite part of the speech was when Obama said that in America you can make your own destiny and a sixth grader from South Carolina shouted "You lie!"

Um, they are looking into why they are losing readership. Every print publication has lost circulation over the last decade and there has been significant discussion about why this has happened and how it can be fixed (I don't think it can).

If you think the reason is because they don't cover things they way you want them to be covered, you are really more naive about how the news industry works than I thought.

And to compare our news industry to what you find in a third world country is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. But I can't change your mind nor am I going to attempt to do so. Continue to wear those blinders.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/10/o...l_n_282974.html

"Olbermann digs deeper to uncover Wilson's sometimes tumultuous relationship with the truth."

Obama was distorting the truth about that, though. Republicans, i think in the House, have tried passing a bill that would exclude healthcare for illegal immigrants and pay for abortions, but Democrats voted against it. That's a sign that two those subjects may very well be in the bill..........which to this day Obama and the Dems still cannot write up.

Neither of those are in the bill. It has been cleared by numerous independent fact checking organizations. Some Reps are still trying to fear monger this via a loophole because, technically, if someone comes into the hospital for emergency service or receives those services on the scene, they could be an illegal alien. But what's the alternative, having EMTs do a background check and look at someone's drivers license before administering CPR? That's crazy.

Besides which, the same thing happens now. You don't have to show your green card before they pull a chicken bone out of your esophagus.

Is unbiased and consistency a personal wish? I may not know the inner details of how the industry works, but I certainly know the information, or the lack of thereof, to its readership. Yes, my command of the english language is not at a level that I would like, but it doesn't prevent me from understanding what I am being told thru TV and writing media.



I could say the same thing about you for making such a remarkable comment.

The original comment I wrote dealt with the problem that we are seeing today in this country. The press has realize the power in how it can shape political decisions. This is something that has been the norm in just about every Latin American countries. In countries like Venezuela, the press did not question the message a guy like Chavez was putting out. They went along because as always, he was fighting for the common folk. Similarly, the press in Ecuador did not for example question Rafael Correa's proposals of providing housing to every poor soul in the country. How it was going to funded went without any debate. Realization has surface and questioning of not only his foreign policies, but many of his domestic policies are starting to pop up in some media outlets. Correa in turn has now instituted policies that punishing those questioning and debating with following up in similar fashion, like Venezuela's regine, of treat of closing them down. Some are surprised at this events, but what they don't realize is that the telltale signs were all over the place.

It is remarkable that although I make the point of acknowledging the paranoic view in some outlets or individuals, you still go ahead and accuse me of being blind. I know you work in the information media business and it is understanding your defense of it, but I would say it is wise for once in awhile to take a step back and take stock of what you have in front of you and what is going around you. I have also learned not to hold candles or revere people. At some point, they tend to disappoint you.

You are certainly correct in saying the bills or proposals going around the House and the Senate do not contain specific language about HC for illegal immigrants, but I am glad you mentioned because your statement also debunks and contradicts statements the president made Wednesday and peole like yourself have made in the past. Regardless of whether you have HC coverage or can pay the bill, medical facilities like the Lincoln Hospital in the Brionx do not, I repeat, do not turn you away because of lack of coverage or financial means and let you die in their door steps. For example, an undocumented pregnant woman is attended and her natal care is paid for by Medicaid. This is not fear mongoring, like you call it, but a fair question of how, after an entire overhaul of the health care industry, the 10-12 millions of undocumented folks, who do not have HC coverage and are a big factor of why HC cost are where they are today, are going to be handle. Now, the president didn't outright lie, but he certainly wasn't fothright about it.

Similarly, I believe there is misrepresentation of the facts when the president goes about the $500 billion in savings out of Medicare and Medicaid, without specifically saying how and where these are going implemented by the hospitals, insurance co., and phrmaceuticals co. and not impact seniors and poor people. States like NY are going broke because the overrunning cost in Medicaid. Let's bring this down to a more personal level. Let's say your household expenses (housing, food, clothing, etc) are $6K/month and you decide to outright, without any thought, to cut your expenses by say $2K. Without specifically identifying the realistic opportunities where these savings maybe obtained, then would I be wrong to ask you whether these savings mean, for example, that instead of eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner, these savings could conceivably make you skip say dinner? The president had a chance to put at ease many of these fears and rather than being specific, he went ahead and provided no substance and with the exception of the malpractice liability bone, he resurgitated the same generalities he has in the past.
This speech was portrayed as one that was going to provide specifics. Indeed, it provided the specific ideas President Obama wants in it and not of the individual proposals floating around. Forget for a moment as to whether the government is capable of managing such a massive social program as HC is and is going to be, but the cost is one if not the most critical factor in this bill. And how it is going to be paid without adding to our bankrupt budget is a prudent debate. Now I know there are folks out there that don't want this bill passed for the wrong reasons, but the sane without and agenda want it passed. What they want is not find ourselves with a bigger problem in the future. What good is it to pass legislation today and not being able to afford it and most likely compound our present and future economic woes? To pass a bad piece of legislation do not serve those that need. Bush 41 was criticized for his voodo economics. President Obama and today's Congress are dealing in voodo math. Actually, the president's problems is not with the Reps. It is actually with members of his own party whoe represent centrist and moderate Reps districts who do not like and undertand the economic factors of the plans out of the 4 House committees. In their wish to take back Congress, the DNC enlisted many moderate candidates, who although do not share most of the left leaning views of Pelossi and Reid, they resonated with moderate and independent would be voters.

Section 246 of HR3200 clearly states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

What Obama said in his speech: "There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This too is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those that are here illegally. [followed by 'You lie!']

So you are plainly WRONG to say that "The House [bill] ... [does] not contain specific language about HC for illegal immigrants." It very plainly says in the simplest words imaginable that those here illegally will not have their medical coverage paid for by the federal program. This could not be any easier. But your next point illustrates the absolute insanity of this strand of criticism for the bill, the hypocrisy of the bill's staunchest critics, and the disgusting lack of sympathy portrayed by those needing to politicize what should be a "no brain" decision about (what should be) an essential human right.



So the criticism of this section of the plan is that it does not outright provide a mechanism to ensure that illegal immigrants are in fact left to die in their doorsteps by the HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY. A problem with the bill, in your own words, is that it does not resolve the cost spent to provide health care to those here illegally. There are only three ways to deal with this:

1) Treat them and make illegal aliens work off their care. This was the preferred method of the southern United States up until the Civil War.

2) Treat them with minimal possible care (because it won't be reimbursed by the government), eat whatever cost is associated and hope that the initial outlay is eventually balanced over time. For example, I wonder how many current members of our military force were born in American hospitals to undocumented parents -- one of my friends from law school, a former Marine, would attest to this happening.

3) Let them die.

This is the Health Care Industry. The idea behind this reform, at its barest philosophical level, is that in a country so developed and sophisticated as ours, health care must be a FUNDAMENTAL right. If you get sick in the United States, the decision to get treated should not hinge on whether or not you can afford it. If you administer health care in the United States, you should not perform a credit check on your patients before deciding which form of care to give them. It's that simple. Any system that would deny this basic human need to anyone, even an undocumented alien in this country, flies directly in the face of the oath and responsibility of anyone involved in the health care industry. Find me any doctor in the United States that, if faced with a sick illegal alien needing medical assistance, would turn them away simply because they weren't lucky enough to be born within this country's borders. You won't find one. So why should a health plan designed to provide universal coverage grant these individuals a mechanism to shirk this basic responsibility?

And that's only one point here. How about the hypocrisy? How about idiots like Joe Wilson clamoring on about the mistaken belief that HR3200 will create death panels and play some form of Russian roulette with the elderly ... yet denying health care to illegal immigrants should be an essential aspect of the bill? In other words, they will play the death card when it comes to your nanny and grampy, but illegal immigrants? Fuck them. Fuck them and their sick dying babies. Unlike nanny and grampy, those people shouldn't be here anyway. Free health care is just a big 'ol incentive for those people to sneak in this country, like leaving food out for roaches. "HR3200 will kill old people! Also, HR3200 will not kill enough illegal immigrants!"

I say nothing here about the bill itself or universal health care, other than stating the philosophy behind reform, which I think is correct (which I say as someone that, at various points in my own life, did not have any health care). This is entirely to counter anyone that would defend Joe Wilson's comment as anything short of profound stupidity.

Factcheck.org's examination of Obama's claims in his speech:

(via Newsweek)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/215156/page/1

Seven falsehoods about Health care reform:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/211981/page/1

Good, evenhanded look at the issue here.

Exactly, they are not addressed in the bill because they are open to the bill. The Democrats are playing the game that you're caving into, which is "it's not in the bill" as if they are trying to imply that it wouldn't be done. But the truth is that because those two subjects are not addressed in the bill then they are actually available to the bill. What the Republicans want, and justly so, is an amendment to the HR 3200 that guarantees that neither illegal immigrants and abortions will not be open to the bill. The Democrats vote against that, which clearly means that they want to keep those two subjects open for it.

It's easier to put it this way to prove your point, Jack. Although first i want to say that checkie is absolutely right in terms of why the papers are losing. It is the internet as a primary reason why people don't go to a news stand and buy the NY Times any longer.

However, to back your point....it is also true that people are annoyed by liberal bias in most papers around the country, specifically the big name ones that wire their stories to smaller market papers. I do not think the majority of the country is left, or right. I think the majority are definitely in the center. The far right is a small representation of the country, as is the far left. And possibly the far left is even smaller than the far right. So, when you have this small group of people writing news with twists and ideologies that do not relate to the majority of the country, then people will not show interest in it. And the best way to prove that point is that MSNBC is like the TV station for the NY Times and the other leftist papers, and MSNBC has horrible TV ratings. The majority of the people do not have much interest in what liberals think and how they think. People react to such bias and they don't support it by either buying a paper or switching to CNN or FoxNews.

So 101 and Jack, you both have issues with non citizens receiving health care ? Trying to understand what you both are saying.

I think that Obama's speech that night was one of, if not the, worst he ever did. He was shooting out stuff that just has no meaning. And no, not because he is Obama, he is a Democrat and so on. Politicians in general pull this kind of garbage every time. They talk about certain subjects and make it seem as if it is the best plan, that it has little to no flaws, that everyone will be happy and sing joy to the world. That's politics.

This healthcare reform has gone on for months now and yet its contents have been ridiculously inconsistent. HR 3200 was horribly written and reading it nearly made me cross eyed. Sub paragraph this to sub paragraph that. It was just so badly done that some Democrats were as confused as i was.

This plan will be a detriment to this country. Obama rushed into it. I think he would have had a better chance two years from now.

When the economy is struggling as much as it is now with the unemployment rate possibly reaching 10% in three to six months time, this plan is only a bigger burden on businesses. This is a Web site i used during my early stages of grad school and it summarizes in simple terms as to why it would be a burden on small businesses.

NFIB

leedsy, according to the Congressional Research Service:

Treatment of Non-US Citizens



The problem with HR 3200 is that the section that leedsy stated has no enforcement. Even CIS, a pro-immigration organization states that the bill could still allow illegal immigrants to receive the taxpayer's healthcare.

Ok.

Of course we are in favor of any human being to receive health care when needed. In fact, it is the law that any person to enter a hospital has to be treated. The American people already pay millions every year on illegal immigrants receiving healthcare in hospitals.

I also think that a doctor should have the right to choose if he/she wants to care for an illegal immigrant, which my dad does along with many other doctors. Not that conservatives have put this in writing, but i know they have a sentiment against such and that's a big no no on my part. Shame on them. A doctor should be free of choice when it comes to that regard.

Here is what i do not want. I do not want an illegal immigrant making an appointment with Dr. John Johnson getting a physical with blood work, getting an x-ray, and other examinations that we then pay for, and that the doctor has to perform the examinations.

I certainly hope one of your relatives that visit you from overseas , never have any health issues that require what you stated above.