2009-9-23 03:55:00
JJ:
Kathryn Earl writes the only letter that makes any sense. This, of course, means she will be attacked by the Tasmanian devils who post today.
Mr. Webster says:
"Can we change the discussion from ways to 'stop Obama!' to ways to reduce health care costs and provide care for all Americans?"
JJ:
This is kind of a Catch-22 situation. If Obamacare is passed it will be too late for effective reform and to reduce costs and/or increase efficiency. Obamacare should be tried in one liberal state or city first so they can demonstrate all these savings they claim we will have.
Meanwhile we need to reform the socialized health care we presently have to make it as efficient as the French system which costs less than a third of our Medicare and Medicaid costs per person.
Yesterday every single post I made was flagged without reason and this by itself violates one of the rules the forum. I've been accused of breaking rules here because I gave out my website to a reader who wanted to know what I did for a living. It's a huge stretch to say this is running an ad. On the other hand, it is not a stretch to state that this bunch here is breaking the following rules many times each day.
It also illustrates the extreme intolerance of the Left in attempting to stifle free speech.
JJ:
Now this is an real example of an ad that breaks the rules:
"Badnana" wrote on 08/29/2009 08:25:11 AM:
"Idaho Main Street Alliance
Type: Causes - Rally
Network: Global
Price: FREE!!!
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009
TiJJ 12:00pm - 1:00pm
Location: Capitol Annex (Old Ada County Courthouse)
Street: 514 W Jefferson
City/Town: Boise, ID
View MapGoogle
MapQuest
Microsoft
Yahoo
Phone: 2085702067
Email: nancy@...
JJ:
Does this mean I can post an ad for a political event of my own that is against Obamacare and no one will flag me?
Replying to "Badnana":
"joseph 732, may I call you Tasmanian Devil? Ok, taz, (I know by your request not to insult, to comment on issues, not individuals that this must be a term acceptable by you) the public forum is exactly where announcements such as the rally belong. It isn't advertising for profit (see joseph 732...."
JJ:
Here's the rule:
"Do not use the commenting system for advertising. That's spam and it isn't allowed."
It says nothing about making a profit -- though there will be much profit up for grabs if Obamacare is passed.
"GrayMatter" wrote:
"Tea Bagging parties have been continually advertised in the comments section of this forum."
JJ:
This is completely untrue. How can tea parties be "continually advertized" here when there has only been one tea party (April 15) discussed on this forum and that wasn't an ad but a discussion of the event? And you accuse me of lying.
"Gray":
"There are many advertising requests for donations in the comments."
JJ:
I don't recall seeing any, but it would be a violation of the rule as written. If it were completely altruistic like the Red Cross then few would object but "Badnana" is advertising a highly partisan event. If he gets away with it then I should be able to advertise a partisan event giving the other side.
"Gray":
"At least these were not selling anything, unlike your self promotion and advertising for profit."
JJ:
If selling something is so bad then you'd better not buy any more groceries. Calling my answering of a question an ad is a mean spirited distortion.
"Gray":
"Besides, what do you have to worry about - you explicitly stated the Statesman approved your advertising?"
JJ:
It is my understanding that The Statesman editors review each profile and then if it looks "OK" they will approve it for viewing. (Note: This bunch insisted the Statesman review my profile again which they did and accepted it a second time.)
Look at "Boiseriver's" profile. It says he is under review by the editors. So does "Robbo" "Grandjester" and "Larnewoman's." Apparently they take a close look at a profile before they pass on it.
"Gray":
"Lying is offensive to most people. As a spiritual teacher. You made many statements which were untrue and you were called on it."
JJ:
I'm getting tired of you accusing me of lying with absolutely nothing to back it up. It is not only offensive but violates the rules of the Statesman which says:
"Don't insult one another Don't use... hate speech. Do not attack other users; focus your comments on issues, not individuals."
You could justifiably be kicked off this forum if you do not abide by the rules.
"Badnana" wrote:
"I just called the editor of the Statesman for clarification. Unfortunately, I could only leave a message, but I will post as soon as I get a response. It's not my intent to twist words. Where are public announcements okay in your world? And how can you attach this to your hatred of Obama?"
JJ:
First I do not hate Obama. That accusation sounds like hate speech on your part.
You need to tell the Statesman that this is a partisan event as they may give you a pass on something non partisan, such as a fundraiser for a homeless family.
I wouldn't have even raised this issue except the Left here has accused me of violating the rules on something much more innocent than this.
"Thatsrap":
"Hasn't this dead horse been flogged enough? I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought this was a forum to discuss letters to the editor. I could care less about your own personal battle - here's an idea - write an letter to the editor about it, and then we will ALL discuss it in the proper...."
JJ:
The source of this problem are those who attack me without cause. Why don't you get on their case? If no one attacks me or attempts to defame my name then the dead horse will not have to be flogged.
Keeping focused on the letters is fine with me but I refuse to just sit back and let others call me a liar, hypocrite, idiot, dittomonkey, etc., without defending myself.
JJ:
Interesting letters today. I could write a dozen posts on them. I know that would so please my liberal fans. Several points on the Town Hallers:
But perhaps the greatest lie of all is the lie that the protesters are mislead. They are the ones who know a few of the things in the bill. Most critics of the protesters know nothing about it and just have blind faith that the 1000 pages are written for their own good.
"Ronk83704" wrote:
"When will you give up your Medicare? Or aren't you on it yet?"
JJ:
I'm not on it. And what does this question have to do with anything? If I were on it so what? I have never criticized anyone for taking advantage of Medicare, Medicaid, the VA etc. I criticize the program for costing over $9000 per person per year when Japan spends about $2400. We have this inflated cost without those greedy insurance companies getting in the way and we want to expand this so the whole nation is on it? Even if we average our current spending on government social medicine for every man woman and child in America the amount is still over $3000 per person. That's enough to cover everyone and have money left over if we fixed the problem of waste and fraud first and had the thrift of Japan, France or England.
"Loki" wrote:
"Joseph, you are so boring! I heard all of that on Rush, Hannity, and Beck."
JJ:
Glad to see you spend your free time productively. You didn't hear anything from this post on talk radio, but all you have to do is read a few paragraphs of a liberal blog and you have encapsulated your entire paradigm.
"Loki":
"As for health care, let the stupid and poor people keep enriching the for profit insurance companies."
JJ:
As I am sure you will continue to buy groceries to enrich those greedy farmers trying to make the best profit possible.
"Badnana" wrote:
"'Joseph 732,' (JJ) you have finally done it. I am done debating anything with you."
JJ:
One down a hundred or so to go.
"Grandjester" wrote:
"Whereas, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions.
"Sarah Palin, Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska in April 2008.
"I guess she was for Death Panels before she was against them."
JJ:
Healthcare Decisions Day was created to encourage people to make plans for their own death. It had nothing to do with a death panel of government sponsored bureaucrats.
I do not know anyone, conservative or liberal, who is against the goal set by Palin.
JJ:
Good news. People are waking up to congressional bungling with Health care and other boondoggles. A whopping 70% of independents would vote to replace the entire Congress if they had the opportunity.
See: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_ 2009/57_would_like_to_replace_entire_congress
Note: This information has not yet appeared on Rush, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Fox News, etc.
"Grandjester" wrote:
"Ah Joseph, don't ever change, and by that I mean do not bother to educate yourself. The text of Palin's declaration is almost identical to the text in HR320 on end of life planning, which Palin has now transmogrified into 'Death Panels'."
JJ:
It's HR 3200 not HR 320.
To compare Palin's one page document with Obama's 1000 pages and say it is similar is crazy talk. There's a couple sentences that are similar but that leaves 999 more pages to deal with.
The truth is Palin never mentioned HR 3200. She was talking about the health care plan in general and the fact is she is correct. In such a socialized plan there will be rationing of life saving services and some panel of bureaucrats (a death panel) will have to decide which treatments are affordable and when we can get them.
Many patients in Canada come here to save their lives from the decisions of their "death panels."
"GrayMatter" wrote:
"Oh, so your goal is to stifle free speech for those who do not agree with your opinion."
JJ:
Wow. Where did that come from? That question makes as much sense as me asking you why you do not like healthcare for the poor.
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved