Interesting how this Administration is suppose to be for the people but instead it's going after them for, of all things, lies. I guess there are no mirrors in the White House, Congress or the Senate, keeps them from looking in the mirror before accusing others of lying.

From "Yes, Minister", Prime Minister Hacker says it best:

Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:

The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;

The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;

The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;

The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;

The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;

The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;

And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

I think you are a "Deily Telegraph reader".

So am I.

The hypocracy and outright lies are mind boggling.

You know what's funny, well, not funny, infuriating really...is that it says:

Putting this all together...what the fuck. Granted, their wording of this sucked badly, but anyone with half a brain and an ounce of reading comprehension can see that the blog post talks about bad information, lies, etc. They're not preping to ship people off to Alaska, they're saying...in my opinion and I also had others look at it, cause i could be wrong....they're saying: lets cut through the Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, et al. bullshit.

It reminds me of something a friend wrote. I think I'm gonna pass it on.

AJ, don't put yourself down like that.

Do you always resort to childish things, or am I just the lucky one? Really, come on AD - why not try writing something constructive, like say a well reasoned refutation of what I wrote.

In a convoluted way I thought it was more of a compliment to you, but whatever.

You are correct if you are equivalent to that of a drone (half a brain and an ounce of reading comprehension) that's what you'd think this was about.  For others you'd see that this is a major scare tactic against the freedom of speech.  AJ, you should ALWAYS be worried when the gov't is wanting to collect names or people info (ie emails) of those who oppose it.

The second part is the Obama administration hasn't been truthful with American's since his presidency.  Don't you find it ironic that anyone who opposes this bill are spreading lies and disinformation?

AJ, If that is what you see then you are missing the disinformation. President Obama is talking about health insurance reform. What the Congress is writing is something completely different., universal health care. The reforms that the president is talking about are not in the bill that the Congress is writing. This means that either the president is misleading us or he is unaware or what the Congress is doing. I posted what the President promises for insurance reform and none of it is in the congressional healthcare bill.

This is from the White House website on health insurance reform.

No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions,

No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays

No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care

No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill

No Gender Discrimination

No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage

Extended Coverage for Young Adults

Guaranteed Insurance Renewal

The Congressional healthcare bill is written in such a way that insurance companies will be forced out of business because if there is any change in your coverage you must take the government’s healthcare plan. Eventually there will be no one left or so few people left that health insurance will die on the vine from lack of participants. The government will be left as the sole provider and the potential danger of the government to change the rules and force you to do what they think is best for you become more and more real. If you smoke you can’t be treated because it is a health risk that costs more money. Too much salt in your diet is bad for you so you won’t get treatment. If you drink and need a liver transplant you must be alcohol free for 6 months. So if you have 3 months to live sorry we can’t help you. I think it was last week when that happened in the UK where a man died because he had 3 months to live when the found out he had liver cancer he could not live the 6 months free of alcohol so he died.

There is a mixed message here. one coming from the President and one from the Congress. The Congress writes the laws and people are afraid. While the president is talking about reform of insurance that will be put out of business in 20 years through attrition giving he President what he campaigned on. A single payer system government run healthcare.

In Obama's own words he wants Single payer (i.e. government pays).

Granted, any government should be approached with a reasonable amount of skepticism and concern, but so should any paranoia.

Socialist state? Bullshit.

Dissent Camps? Bullshit.

Orwellian Government? Bullshit.

George Bush increased the government and its like crazy - where was the paranoia and fear with that?

Yes, be cautiouis and skeptical and aware...but to jump at every shadow, come on. I mean, I read an article written (i believe) by Brad (draginol/frogboy) a week or two back, and the way he approahed the deal with health care was great. I had no problems with it. He approached it in a reasonable, critical thinking, and intelligence driven way. Not fear. Not like the media.

Well I don't take kindly to being called an idiot; I can safely say that I am not.

See, what I see going on with this is that you have two camps right now. You have the democrats in congress, and then you have Obama. I had pretty much figured from day one in 2006, when the Democrats took control, that they were going to push their own agenda and anyone and everyone can screw themselves. Then you have Obama, who I feel is a fairly reasonable and intelligent guy. He may want xyz, but the Dems in congress...well, they want 123; two totally different things.

Such is the limits of a President. He may push and advertise his agenda/platform...but ultimately only congress can pass legislation. If anything, be pissed at Congress. They're the ones driving the burning car.

while it is potentially POSSIBLE that they have horribly misworded it in such a way as to SOUND like they are collecting names...

It is a whole lot of "benefit of the doubt" (which I ran out of for this administration) to give them to assume that this is the case.

The fact is, they are asking for emails. Which gives them names... what are they gonna do with it? well so far they fired the investigator general in the sacramento case, dropped the charges against the black panthers and ACORN, funnel money to acorn, push for more "electronic voting machines" (read MIT report on those), and so on. Frankly I don't trust them, and them asking people to volunteraly send names of dissidents sends chills down my spine. And should do the same to anyone who has ever read a history book, or is old enough to have seen things first hand.

PS. It doesn't help that the nominate a supreme justice who is openly racist, insult our intelligent with sayings like we gotta spend ourselfs out of debt, lie left and right, and label anyone who is "a us army veteran, anti abortion, or anti illegal immigration" a potential domestic terrorist.

First he was trusted by republicans not conservatives. Conservatives called him a liberal and we were laughed at by other liberals because Mr. Bush was portrayed as a hard right conservative. Mr. Bush was doing what Mr. Obama is doing only at a slower pace.

It is interesting that now the president does not have massive powers while when Mr. Bush was in office all the bad things that the Congress did was blamed on him. An example would be the current financial crisis. Mr. Bush warned about it two years before it happened. He can not re-write the laws to fix it and the congressman responsible for the bad law called Mr. Bush a racist for opposing and pointing out the dangers. When the economy started to tank it was on Mr. Bush's watch so he got the blame, as Mr. Obama will frequently tell you, he inherited this mess from the previous administration. What most will not admit to is that the beginning of this mess was started with President Carter, then added to by President Clinton. Both signed those bad laws that the Congress wrote.

It is clear you are taking these statements out of contex. No one would really mean those words and don't forget that it is the left that said them and they are never racist, bigoted, or hateful as a group.

Still, where was the fear and paranoia? If big gov't under Obama is just as bad and drives paranoia/fear....then it's the same with Bush. Right?

The president shouldn't have massive powers, because it ultimately weakens/destroys the balance of powers and is - so far as i know - unconstitutional. I don't know where you're getting at my agreeing with massive presidential powers.  I'm assuming it's because you commonly and erroneously are throwing me into one big pot so to speak.

Bush warned us about it? Yet why did he push for budgets that were big?

I find it interesting that you didn't mention a single Republican. Bias perhaps?

Oh, there were Republicans who failed their responsibilities, too, make no mistake.  They just weren't in charge anymore after the 2006 elections.