Town Hall meetings

[Damasta]

I was going to ask Curious Physics Minor to explain himself on the Board, but I realized that this would be a better forum for it. He said

As the recent "Town Hall" meetings have shown, there's no reason to worry about facts or reality when you can just yell, threaten, and make up lies.

Now, I'll admit I don't follow politics that closely, so I'm not aware of a lot that goes on. So I wasn't sure what to make of that statement. Was he accusing the organizers of the Obama â„ž Town Hall meetings of astroturfing? Or the people they wouldn't let in? Was he saying that the organizers of the meetings misrepresented the data, put a pro-universal health care spin on things that are actually ambiguous, or claimed factuality for things that are really just hopeful speculation? Or was he saying that the protesters misrepresented the data, put an anti-universal health care spin on things that are actually ambiguous, or claimed factuality for things that are really just fearful speculation?

From the little bit of research I've done between reading the question and posting this, it seems that the reality is that the correct answer is both. Health care providers asked their employees to go and provided them with "talking points". Pro-health care reform unions and activist groups bussed people to the town hall meetings. So both sides were astroturfing. And as far as misrepresenting the data, putting a spin on things, and claiming factuality for things that are really just speculation—that happens with every issue, across the gamut of the political spectrum. Let's not pretend that either of the major political parties is saintly. They're both (to some degree) corrupt and power-hungry; neither is interested in the raw truth (on every issue or possibly even on any issue).

Based on the rest of his answer, I'd guess that CPM meant to accuse only the protesters of "yelling, threatening, and making up lies". But is anyone willing to defend the organizers and say that they were guiltless and completely in the right?

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Here's a primer.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... er-skelter

[vorpal blade]

Here's a primer.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... er-skelter

Can you find an unbiased "primer?"

I find it amazing that a lot of people are quick to criticize others for "making up stuff" and misrepresenting the facts, yet the critics don't really know for themselves what is in the proposed health care bills. I bet President Obama hasn't read the legislation either. They criticize the protestors, relying on what others have told them is or is not in the bills. The major bill is over 1000 pages and filled with legal jargon. It is not easy to say what it means, and in places it contradicts itself. Before I started throwing stones at the protesters I'd make sure I knew the facts, and not just what the Obama Administration spin masters want you to believe.

I think we need to be polite and respectful, and let others talk. The loud mouths at the town hall meetings probably had their facts straight, but they should be more courteous. Their reactions are understandable, however. Many of us love our country like our mother, and it is hard to remain calm and polite while watching your motherland raped by a gang of "good-intention" thugs. Speaking of the emotions involved.

[Cuddlefish]

Vorpal Blade, have you read the bill? Has anyone else here? I'm just interested to see if anyone has bothered.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

An unbiased source like, say Fox News?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-a ... w-liberals

I chose the clip precisely for its bias. Damasta was asking for clarification of the arguments against the town hall protesters. Jon Stewart captures the sentiment and explains out the point of view that CPM seemed to echo. It's a primer because it's an introduction, not the final word.

And Vorpal, it is absolutely impossible to be unbiased. Everything you read is saturated in bias and underlying ideology. But, since you asked nicely, here's a more even-handed (though less detailed) clip on the same topic from the Daily Show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-a ... rm-madness

[vorpal blade]

Vorpal Blade, have you read the bill? Has anyone else here? I'm just interested to see if anyone has bothered.

I've read portions of H.R. 3200, dated 14 July, 2009. There are several bills, and they keep changing them. I was sort of waiting for a final version. How about you, what have you read?

I suppose most of us rely on others to tell us what is in the various bills, and what it is all about. Then it boils down to whom do you trust, because the various reports are in serious conflict. The main reason I read as much as I did in H.R. 3200 was to check the claims of people who oppose the bill.

[vorpal blade]

Thanks for the links. I wasn't able to view them on this computer, but I hope to get to it soon on another computer. Been rather busy lately. Just like everybody else.

I believe it is possible to be unbiased, don't you? Wouldn't God be unbiased? Don't you think that claiming everyone is biased is just an excuse to be as biased as we want to be?

[vorpal blade]

I watched Pres. Obama's speech on Health Care last night. I didn't actually listen to it. I was in the office of a life insurance salesman during the whole speech. Behind the salesman there was a TV showing the live broadcast, but the sound was off. They did have those little blurbs at the bottom of the screen to summarize what was being said.

The salesman was pretty boring, so I spent most of the time reading the blurbs. Every time they would post something that Pres. Obama was saying I thought, "That's not true." It was one lie after another. I was reminded of this old joke:

Question: How do you know when a politician is lying?
Answer: When his lips are moving.

[Cuddlefish]

Vorpal Blade, have you read the bill? Has anyone else here? I'm just interested to see if anyone has bothered.

I've read portions of H.R. 3200, dated 14 July, 2009. There are several bills, and they keep changing them. I was sort of waiting for a final version. How about you, what have you read?

I suppose most of us rely on others to tell us what is in the various bills, and what it is all about. Then it boils down to whom do you trust, because the various reports are in serious conflict. The main reason I read as much as I did in H.R. 3200 was to check the claims of people who oppose the bill.

I've been working through H.R 3200, but it's long and I have no time. I'll finish it though, so I can make an informed decision without the aid of biased news reports or politicians.

[vorpal blade]

I've been working through H.R 3200, but it's long and I have no time. I'll finish it though, so I can make an informed decision without the aid of biased news reports or politicians.

That's commendable. I'd just like to make a caveat. It isn't easy to ferret out exactly what the bill will do or won't do simply by reading it. Sometimes you have to read between the lines, or go by some prior experience.

For example, President Obama said on Sept 9, 2009

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. (Applause.)

There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. Some people are working to make it explicit that abortion will not be funded, and illegal aliens will not be insured, but I don't think congress will make those changes to H.R. 3200

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You lie! (Boos.)

THE PRESIDENT: It's not true. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. (Applause.)

Well, you aren't going to find these things explicitly in H.R. 3200. But that doesn't mean that this legislation won't result in the things Pres. Obama labels "bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost." Which, by the way, is an unfair and untrue criticism of those who honestly find fault with the reforms in this legislation, but would love to see other reforms.

While H.R. 3200 might not explicitly provide federal funds for abortion, the way the bill is written it will be impossible to deny federal funds for abortion. You have to read carefully the parts explaining what kind of care must be provided and funded by the government, and realize that it will be successfully argued that abortion must also be covered. I believe Pres. Obama is fully aware of this, and is being disingenuous in his comments. In other words, he's lying. But you might read through the whole bill and never realize it.