Kathleen Sebelius thinks we're all stupid and need re-education

[fossten]

Will this re-education be done in camps?

“Unfortunately, there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in [the healthcare reform law] and what isn’t,” Sebelius told ABC News Radio in an interview Monday.
“So, we have a lot of reeducation to do,” Sebelius said.
​

 

[shagdrum]

IIRC, my Uncle voted for her...

 

[fossten]

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

 

[shagdrum]

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

 

[fossten]

Camp Sebelius…where you learn what we want you to learn, and what you need to learn.

List of classes:

Never waste a crisis…Rahm Emanuel
Global Warming, fact or reality?…Al Gore
Oil, what oil?…Napolitano
Living with a porous border…H. Clinton
Right to voter intimidation…E. Holder
How to win a war…B. Hussein Obama (special guest and most honored speaker)
You will learn to love our Health Care bill…K. Sebelius
Taxes for thee, not for me…T. Geithner.

 

[FIND]

Wow way to twist her words.

I think she is merely suggesting that many people are misinformed about the new law. There is a lot of misinformation out there about the law on both sides. How do you get "re-education" camps and her calling people stupid out of that? Heck, you still think under the new law there will be death boards, so.....

 

[shagdrum]

Wow way to twist her words.

I think she is merely suggesting that many people are misinformed about the new law. There is a lot of misinformation out there about the law on both sides. How do you get "re-education" camps and her calling people stupid out of that? Heck, you still think under the new law there will be death boards, so.....

There is a lot of disinformation out there...and the Obama Administration (including Sebelius) has been one of the biggest sources of it.

 

[topher5150]

I don't even think the people who want to pass this law aren't even that educated on the bill

 

[fossten]

Wow way to twist her words.

I think she is merely suggesting that many people are misinformed about the new law. There is a lot of misinformation out there about the law on both sides. How do you get "re-education" camps and her calling people stupid out of that? Heck, you still think under the new law there will be death boards, so.....

You'd think that one of the divas of the smart-set would be intelligent and savvy enough to avoid Orwellian code words like 'reeducation,' especially considering the administration - errrrrrr - regime - she's part of demonstrates such an Ivory Tower attitude toward American subjects - errrrrrr - citizens.

But no, she used the word - and she meant exactly what she said. If you can't detect the condescension in her words then you're not worth discussing this with.

I used 'camps' to make light of her comment; count on liberals to have zero sense of humor.

 

[FIND]

You'd think that one of the divas of the smart-set would be intelligent and savvy enough to avoid Orwellian code words like 'reeducation,' especially considering the administration - errrrrrr - regime - she's part of demonstrates such an Ivory Tower attitude toward American subjects - errrrrrr - citizens.

But no, she used the word - and she meant exactly what she said. If you can't detect the condescension in her words then you're not worth discussing this with.

I used 'camps' to make light of her comment; count on liberals to have zero sense of humor.

Meh, words words words. Who knows if you are joking or not, you are making that big of a deal about a word re-education..... Not like re-education is synonymous with Nazi death camps or anything like that. The point is just that there is a lot of misinformation on both sides, and idk how much of the new health care law you have read, but even going by what I read, I doubt there is a single person in DC or many outside of DC who have any idea what exactly is in it.

There is a lot of disinformation out there...and the Obama Administration (including Sebelius) has been one of the biggest sources of it.

No.... But if that is what you think, perhaps you should sign up for re-education.....

I don't even think the people who want to pass this law aren't even that educated on the bill

Exactly, and neither are the ones against it. I think they all (on both sides) need to sit down and read the damn thing instead of pandering for votes.

 

[Calabrio]

Not like re-education is synonymous with Nazi death camps or anything like that.

Or anything like that.
Re-education camps are synonymous with communists like Chairman Mao in China, the Vietnamese, and the Soviets.... It's a powerful word and, given the political orientations of those close to the President, you'd think she'd have made a more tactful choice of wording.

Exactly, and neither are the ones against it. I think they all need to sit down and read the damn thing instead of pandering for votes.

The opposition to the bill apparently knows more about it many of those that signed it.

It's interesting to see people defend a bill without knowing what is in it, while presuming those that oppose a 2500+ page piece of legislation (the regulation will be even longer) are just "pandering" for votes.

 

[FIND]

Or anything like that.
Re-education camps are synonymous with communists like Chairman Mao in China, the Vietnamese, and the Soviets.... It's a powerful word and, given the political orientations of those close to the President, you'd think she'd have made a more tactful choice of wording.

I don't see any indication that she is using it in such a way to suggest that we are going to going to go communist or anything. It is just a word. I hear that Hitler has used words before too, are they off-limits now? You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. You guys are just trying to make a connection that isn't there just to invalidate a statement. The basic argument there is the essence of ad hominem. It is just silly to even dwell on.

The opposition to the bill apparently knows more about it many of those that signed it.

It's interesting to see people defend a bill without knowing what is in it, while presuming those that oppose a 2500+ page piece of legislation (the regulation will be even longer) are just "pandering" for votes.

I haven't seen any in the opposition that know any more about it, they just claim to to get votes. I don't support this bill either, I mean, there are some changes our health care system needs, but not the ones this bill wants to give us for the most part..... People on both sides of the issue don't know a thing about this bill and are just trying to appeal to peoples emotions or whatever bandwagon they can. There is so much misinformation out there that it is almost impossible to find out what the bill is really trying to deliver.

 

[Calabrio]

I don't see any indication that she is using it in such a way to suggest that we are going to going to go communist or anything.

No, you are correct. She did not say that they were going to round up anti-communists and send them to reeducation labor camps. You are 100% correct on this point, I don't think anyone is disputing that.

It is just a word.

Yes it is.
And they have meaning. Overt and subvert meanings.
As I said, it was a curious, maybe tone deaf, choice of words given the alignment of those close to the President.

I hear that Hitler has used words before too, are they off-limits now?

Well, if she says that the administration has a "final solution" for the problems in the country...

I haven't seen any in the opposition that know any more about it, they just claim to to get votes.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention.
I won't dispute or argue whether "you have seen" something, but that's hardly of any consequence.

The reality is, the opposition to this bill is much better informed than those that have blindly followed the President in their support based on false hope.

People on both sides of the issue don't know a thing about this bill and are just trying to appeal to peoples emotions or whatever bandwagon they can.

Your making two fundamental mistakes here.
You're presuming that the opposition "doesn't know a thing about the bill." That's simply untrue. However, I will agree that few, if any people, know of everything in the bill.

But that brings us to your second mistake.
I don't need to know EVERYTHING about a bill to oppose it. I would have strong moral cause to oppose a bill on a single issue. However, it's irresponsible and dangerous to support and defend a massive, radically transformative piece of legislation without know precisely what is in it.

If it's too big to read, BREAK IT UP and pass it as many smaller bills.

There is so much misinformation out there that it is almost impossible to find out what the bill is really trying to deliver.

That's another moral equivocation of the people defending and opposing it.

 

[FIND]

Then you simply haven't been paying attention.
I won't dispute or argue whether "you have seen" something, but that's hardly of any consequence.

The reality is, the opposition to this bill is much better informed than those that have blindly followed the President in their support based on false hope.

I'm going to disagree here. There are some on the supporting side that are well informed, I'll admit there are some on the opposition, but I can tell you with no degree of uncertainty that the loudest in either camp, are not that informed minority I am speaking of.

Your making two fundamental mistakes here.
You're presuming that the opposition "doesn't know a thing about the bill." That's simply untrue. However, I will agree that few, if any people, know of everything in the bill.

I won't say the opposition doesn't know a thing about the bill, I said there are people on both sides that don't know a thing about it. I just bought a beater explorer the other day from this old guy, and we sat around BSing for a while, and he got on the subject of health care reform. He said he hoped it didn't pass because he heard that there will be death boards, that once you reach a certain age, you will get only minimal care until you die because you aren't useful anymore, and that it would give free health care for every illegal immigrant. I chuckled a bit and my only response to him was, they should have all those politicians quizzed on their knowledge of the contents of these kind of 2000+ page piece of bureaucratic bloat, and if they fail, they aren't allowed to vote. It would stay in committee for the next 50 years that way.

But that brings us to your second mistake.
I don't need to know EVERYTHING about a bill to oppose it. I would have strong moral cause to oppose a bill on a single issue. However, it's irresponsible and dangerous to support and defend a massive, radically transformative piece of legislation without know precisely what is in it.

But, one should be informed, and not risk the chance of opposing or supporting it based upon a fallacy spread by a special interest or a politician, as is the case so often.

If it's too big to read, BREAK IT UP and pass it as many smaller bills.

Agreed. Of course, we all know the only reason most bills become this big is so that people can attach all the crap they know will never make it through and hope it hides under the radar when it is next to something "awesome".

That's another moral equivocation of the people defending and opposing it.

ok..... I was just trying to make a point.

 

[Calabrio]

I'm going to disagree here. There are some on the supporting side that are well informed....

The only people who are "well informed" when it comes to the omnibus bills the last Congress has passed and still support it are the organizations that actually wrote it- and they aren't in congress.

And those that do have a good understand of the macro concepts of the bill, yet still defend it, are actively engaging in deceiving the public, lying about what the bill is, does, will do, and what it's designed to accomplish.
YouTube- SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

YouTube- Hacker admits Public Option is Trojan Horse for Single Payer

In addition to the incremental move to a single payer system, there are hidden taxes and regulations in the Obamacare bill that seemingly have nothing to do with medical insurance, including new regulations on gold and massive changes to the tax system which will burden all business.

For example, we've discussed it here, but did you know that every U.S. business, and individuals as well, will be forced to obtain the tax ID number and/or the Social Security number of everyone with whom they do more than $600 worth of business in a year? You should. That's in the Obamacare bill.

He said he hoped it didn't pass because he heard that there will be death boards, that once you reach a certain age, you will get only minimal care until you die because you aren't useful anymore, and that it would give free health care for every illegal immigrant.

You might not like the language he used when relating this concept to you, but it's true. It's based on a system penned by Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm Emanuel's brother and he was the Special Advisor for Health Policy) called "The Complete Lives" system. The political cover is that such concepts are only considered during shortages, when rationing is needed.

How's that economy looking?
And what happens to supply when demand increases?
How much is your life worth?

But, one should be informed, and not risk the chance of opposing or supporting it based upon a fallacy spread by a special interest or a politician, as is the case so often.

If the purpose was information, then they wouldn't have released these 2500 page omnibus bills just 24 or 48 hours prior to voting on them.

Agreed. Of course, we all know the only reason most bills become this big is so that people can attach all the crap they know will never make it through and hope it hides under the radar when it is next to something "awesome".

I agree that pork is a problem in Washington. There's too much power there.
But you don't 2500 pages of pork. That's 2500 of legislation.
That's RADICAL TRANSFORMATION done under the cover of bureaucracy and partisanship. That's like a revolution run by lawyers and so-called intellectuals who have contempt for the constitution and the American public. That's dangerous.

 

[shagdrum]

Politics is not an equation where the negative traits equal out on both sides.

Just because one side of the political spectrum may be ignorant and/or dishonest concerning a certain issue doesn't mean that is equally true about the other side. Put more broadly, just because certain negative traits can be shown in coming from one side of the isle does not automatically mean that it is equally as prevalent on the other side. To infer as much is just as dogmatic as any extremist viewpoint on either end of the political spectrum.

"Appeal to the middle" is inherently fallacious. Unfortunately this tortured logic has become a means for the less informed to pretend they are more "enlightened" then others because they are "above partisanship". The lowest common denominator in political discourse re-frames the debate in a self-serving manner to condescends to anyone in disagreement with their ad hoc viewpoint.

This unfortunate "enlightened moderate" attitude is a profound detriment to dialog in this country as it encourages politics to be viewed simply as a means of self expression. Discussions become personal and dominated by defensiveness. Civility becomes impossible as well as objective inquiry. Discourse degrades to the level of high school social cliques.

 

[fossten]

It is just a word. I hear that Hitler has used words before too, are they off-limits now?

Straw man. I never said it was off limits. I was making a point about Sebelius' ivory tower arrogance and lack of savvy. You can go back and read my post if you're confused.

Redistribution is a word too. Keep using that in connection with policy and I will assume you have Marxist tendencies. See how that works? Or is using good judgment to arrive at logical conclusions off-limits now?

 

[shagdrum]

That's RADICAL TRANSFORMATION done under the cover of bureaucracy and partisanship. That's like a revolution run by lawyers and so-called intellectuals who have contempt for the constitution and the American public. That's dangerous.

"Death by a 1000 paper cuts"

 

[FIND]

The only people who are "well informed" when it comes to the omnibus bills the last Congress has passed and still support it are the organizations that actually wrote it- and they aren't in congress.

And those that do have a good understand of the macro concepts of the bill, yet still defend it, are actively engaging in deceiving the public, lying about what the bill is, does, will do, and what it's designed to accomplish.
YouTube- SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

YouTube- Hacker admits Public Option is Trojan Horse for Single Payer

In addition to the incremental move to a single payer system, there are hidden taxes and regulations in the Obamacare bill that seemingly have nothing to do with medical insurance, including new regulations on gold and massive changes to the tax system which will burden all business.

For example, we've discussed it here, but did you know that every U.S. business, and individuals as well, will be forced to obtain the tax ID number and/or the Social Security number of everyone with whom they do more than $600 worth of business in a year? You should. That's in the Obamacare bill.


You might not like the language he used when relating this concept to you, but it's true. It's based on a system penned by Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm Emanuel's brother and he was the Special Advisor for Health Policy) called "The Complete Lives" system. The political cover is that such concepts are only considered during shortages, when rationing is needed.

How's that economy looking?
And what happens to supply when demand increases?
How much is your life worth?


If the purpose was information, then they wouldn't have released these 2500 page omnibus bills just 24 or 48 hours prior to voting on them.


I agree that pork is a problem in Washington. There's too much power there.
But you don't 2500 pages of pork. That's 2500 of legislation.
That's RADICAL TRANSFORMATION done under the cover of bureaucracy and partisanship. That's like a revolution run by lawyers and so-called intellectuals who have contempt for the constitution and the American public. That's dangerous.

Ok, that is surely a well informed view

 

[shagdrum]

Ok, that is surely a well informed view

Restated for emphasis...

"Appeal to the middle" is inherently fallacious. Unfortunately this tortured logic has become a means for the less informed to pretend they are more "enlightened" then others because they are "above partisanship". The lowest common denominator in political discourse re-frames the debate in a self-serving manner to condescends to anyone in disagreement with their ad hoc viewpoint.

This unfortunate "enlightened moderate" attitude is a profound detriment to dialog in this country as it encourages politics to be viewed simply as a means of self expression. Discussions become personal and dominated by defensiveness. Civility becomes impossible as well as objective inquiry. Discourse degrades to the level of high school social cliques.
​

If you are only going to condescend and refuse to consider viewpoints that are clearly foreign to you and refuse to question your own views then the only reason left to engage others on this forum is to stroke your own ego.

 

[fossten]

Ok, that is surely a well informed view

Yet another ankle-biting response totally devoid of substance used to back itself up.

 

[FIND]

Straw man. I never said it was off limits. I was making a point about Sebelius' ivory tower arrogance and lack of savvy. You can go back and read my post if you're confused.

Redistribution is a word too. Keep using that in connection with policy and I will assume you have Marxist tendencies. See how that works? Or is using good judgment to arrive at logical conclusions off-limits now?

I believe the Bolsheviks was also concerned with elitists.....

 

[fossten]

I believe the Bolsheviks was also concerned with elitists.....

Oh they was, was they?

So, are you trying to say that I'm a Bolshevik? Because if you aren't, then it's not clear at all what point you're trying to make. And if you are, then I laugh out loud at your ridiculous post.

 

[FIND]

Oh they was, was they?

So, are you trying to say that I'm a Bolshevik? Because if you aren't, then it's not clear at all what point you're trying to make. And if you are, then I laugh out loud at your ridiculous post.

Yes, they was.

Just pointing out why it is so silly to be concerned with words. Your meaning is much closer to what Nazis and Communists had been using in their own campaigning, so I guess, by the reasoning you were using earlier you must be a Communist or a Nazi. So which is more important, semantics or vocabulary? Or maybe we can drop such a silly complaint?

 

[shagdrum]

Just pointing out why it is so silly to be concerned with words.

Accuracy of language is the indispensable prerequisite of sound knowledge.
-William Godwin
​

How can you have an intelligent, productive conversation between two opposing views with profoundly different understandings of important concepts (and the logical implications derived from them) when you eschew a concern for words as "silly"?