Suppose there is a TV or radio personality named Mohammad Fatah. He has a very popular program with the Muslim population of this country. On the program, he accuses Sam Tinkerbell (CEO of Dark Springs, a military contractor) of murdering babies. He calls Tinkerbell, in mocking, Sam Infidel, and says he is dangerous to the world. This berating goes on for a few years off and on.
Then one day, a man named Jakarra Hussein kills Sam Tinkerbell, is caught, and sent to prison. Is Mohammad guilty of sedition and/or domestic terrorism? Or at least conspiracy to kill?
Well, is he?
15 comments:
As far as I know, under U.S. law, no, he isn't. Am I in for a rude surprise?
Or are you cooking up a new sauce for the goose (but never the gander)?
Oh, and may I be the first to note the sudden change in topics what with the comments on health-care not being the sweet serenade from the choir of the Church of the Most Holy Government.
First Palin and then this little gem. Pretty damn obvious there M.
Well, the Palin quote is still about health care.
And actually so is this one. But let's wait and see if any of my shy readers post anything else.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html
Well when the Speaker and the House majority leader write an Op-Ed in USA Today saying, in effect, "Yes we know the healthcare debate has been going on for 97 years, but now we're at the crisis and we must pass this bill before the midterm elections", I can't help but wonder if "affordable healthcare" is actually the issue here.
I think it is, GOF. There is no doubt in my mind that the people protesting at the town halls have been led to believe, by those who stand to lose the most money from health care reform, that they are all going to die if there is government health care.
This is a lie. And, since many people in this country are fearful and ignorant, they easily leap to this conclusion. It works out great for the people against this reform because they can pretty much say anything and people will believe them.
I do disagree with Nancy Pelosi and really bad choice of words saying that these protesters are Unamerican. Everyone has the right to scream and holler all they want. It's when people make threats of violence that it crosses the line.
You may notice that last in line posts more when you talk about issues, not other people.
...and up until the last few weeks, I didn't think anyone was listening to Rush anymore.
Many people in this country being fearful and ignorant doesn't take away the fact that you have a veto-proof majority in both the house and the senate and you don't even need 1 republican vote to do anything.
Unlike the Republicans (who all march in lockstep or get kicked out of the uni mind collective), Democrats disagree....especially the ones who have voters in their district who are now deeply drinking from the propaganda trough.
This is an issue, dude. Several million citizens of our country believe the earth is flat.
There are voters like that in every district. If it was just the flat-earthers, democrats wouldn't be having the problems they are having passing the bill.
They're having problems because they are hearing from their constituents who have been successfully brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh et al. If it were only as simple as it being bad policy (which it isn't) but it's not. There are very powerful people who stand to lose a lot if this bill passes. They are going to lie their asses off to make sure that it doesn't and put the fear of God into people.
You have a legitimate gripe about the bill. Most Americans know only what they hear from the media which is old people are going to die and every will be forced into government servitude.
Most Americans know only what they hear from the media which is old people are going to die and every will be forced into government servitude.
I linked to a piece that didn't say that, nor did it cheer-lead for a headlong plunge into govt run health-care. I guess the Christian Science Monitor isn't part of the media.
Do you know how shrill you come across when you are losing?
How on earth did all these stupid people get fooled into voting for Obama and the Congressional Democrats - since now they are all being so easily fooled by evil health insurance companies and the Republicans? All of this whining you are doing really undermines the legitimacy of the Democrat mandate to govern. You probably don't even realize that you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth.
Here's another article that doesn't fit the Markadelphia world-view.
WaPo is still part of the media, right M?
You missed the point, Mark.
The entire leadership of the Democrat Party, up to and including the President, says "It's too important to just do nothing." "It's too important for half measures."
So far, I agree with them. So does the majority of both Republicans and independents of all stripes.
Whether the debate over government taking a hand in healthcare dates back to 1912 is not a matter of opinion, it's an easily checkable datum, so the whole concept of "disagreement" is pointless.
Where we diverge is when those same Democrats who are saying "It's too important to just do nothing" and "we've been discussing this for 97 years" and "we need to have a serious debate, it has to be done right"... notice that while their talk is all about getting it done right, their actions are about getting it done now.
Every single issue that is now being discussed and debated would already be a fait accompli had the leadership of the party currently in a veto-proof majority gotten its way.
I can accept that you see the issue as being healthcare. But I also think the vast preponderance of the evidence shows unequivocally that your party's leadership, those whose words and actions you are very ready to give the benefit of the doubt to, and to whom you want to give authority in this issue... you think they give a flying &^%#$ about your healthcare or mine? Really?
I call bullshit. They care about making themselves look good and making their money cronies happy, and that's all they give a shit about.
Oh, and they quite obviously care about making their money cronies happy before we can catch them at it if at all possible.
That's what their actions say. Do you really think being distrustful of such people is a bad thing?
If you don't understand my take on why they have earned our distrust, maybe you'll listen to Robert Reich:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/10/pharma/
The final paragraph says it all.
I agree with Reich and you. It is horrible and guess what?
It entirely proves my point about how government doesn't run the show at all. It's all being run by corporations with stoolie's in DC. The question is...is Obama one of those stoolies? To a certain extent, he is. He has to be because of the sociological context in which the system is setup. He must operate within that system in order to achieve ANY of the goals he wants to achieve and that includes covering everyone under insurance.
Does that mean he is going to be like this for his entire administration? It remains to be seen. I think we are going to see him push the boundaries of the current system and it's right around then that someone is going to take a shot at him...or several shots.
At the end of the day, though, I still pick him--just as I did the multimillionaire Bobby or Jack Kennedy--over a Republican because they are at least aimed in the right direction. I never have said Obama was perfect and have stated many times that we will make big mistakes. This is one of them. His current policy in Afghanistan is presently another.
You are incorrect in the "getting it done now" department. It won't be done until October or November. I think that is a good thing. We need to let the right go too far and make fools out of themselves first. We also need to change some things in the bill to make it better.
And I think it is a good thing to be distrustful. And very American.
We need to let the right go too far and make fools out of themselves first.
Uhm, M, it isn't the right that is running the ship of state these days.
And the Dems didn't win their majority based on the country lurching to the left - they bought the majority at the cost of moving the party to the center. So much for the progressive wet dream.
You are incorrect in the "getting it done now" department.
No I'm not. While you are correct and it's not going to be done for quite a while, that condition is in spite of the efforts of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, not because of them.
That right there is why I think "distrust" is too mild a reaction. Once the supporters of a given change, particularly at the national leadership level, have shown conclusively that they don't give a damn whether it's right or not, they only care if it's done soon enough... at that point I think what they're selling should be considered "guilty until proven innocent", no matter what it is.
Post a Comment