It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Having informed you in previous columns of "Dirty secret No. 1" and "Dirty secret No. 2" in Obamacare, dirty secret No. 3 is the sin of omission. It's what the health care bill doesn't say that will bite you in the end.
If you were writing 1,000+ pages on a subject, don't you think you'd have enough space to cover the essentials? But what if some of the issues were political hotbeds? And, if you were trying to sell the package, are there issues you'd intentionally leave out? If you were a Washington bureaucrat, I know you would!
In 1,000+ pages, there's surprisingly sparse coverage or complete avoidance of a host of necessary issues. I would cite pages in the bill as I've done in my other articles, but there aren't any covering them. These are questions that need specific answers by the Obama administration as well each of our representatives.
Basically, he says "if you don't specifically mention __blank__ in your bill, and I read somewhere that someone who advices the President is in favor of __blank__, then that automatically means that you definitely will implement __blank__ in the future, secretly." Oh yeah, and it will kill old people and puppies because you hate America
Originally posted by Artephius Abraxas Helios
Chucky's dirty secret is that he is a right wing tool. He may be an honest man, and may, in fact, believe what he is saying. I certainly hope so. But, the fact of the matter is, that he continually clouds the issues by throwing around his celebrity, as if that somehow makes him an expert. I assure you, HE IS NOT.
After reading only the first few items on his list it became apparent that he is more interested in attacking views expressed by President Obama's adviser, Dr. Emmanuel, then the bill itself. The questions Chuckles asks are in regards to Dr. Emmanuel's book, but are not mentioned in the bill itself.
Of course, I do realize, that that is his point, right? But you cannot have it both ways. The right has continually said that "the bill" (which is itself a misnomer, as there are several versions currently being passed around and none of which are being voted on currently as Congress is on recess) is too long and purposefully misleading. Now, they are going to blast it for being to vague as well? He has cherry picked elements from Dr. Emmanuel's book that he disagrees with and applied them to the bill as if they are implied, then ask questions regarding his own implied assertions"
Basically, he says "if you don't specifically mention __blank__ in your bill, and I read somewhere that someone who advices the President is in favor of __blank__, then that automatically means that you definitely will implement __blank__ in the future, secretly." Oh yeah, and it will kill old people and puppies because you hate America
Really??? I realize that this is a conspiracy based site, and we are all believers and skeptics both, but shouldn't we require a bit more than mere assumption from a B- list internet celebrity before running to post a thread simply repeating political posturings from a known political hack. Next you will be telling us what Joe the Plumber thinks about the illuminati (hint: no one cares). As if any of these people, right or left are anything more than props, they are one step above set decorations.
People that continually post this non-sense have no desire to debate issues or find solutions because they are dead set in their ways, and convinced already that they and they alone are right. Obama is and always will be a socialist to them at best, and a traitorous tyrant at worst. Thus, if they start from that immovable position how can those of us who are actually open to ideas debate with them, the points that ARE in the bill?
[edit on 24-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]
Originally posted by Artephius Abraxas Helios
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
Where did I attack the person. I simply claimed he is no more a health care expert than you or I. Does his internet celebrity give him special insight into the bill of which I am not aware, because I did not receive that memo. I believe I did debunk his "claims" by showing that they are not claims at all, but are instead, simply implied assertions regarding Dr. Emmanuel's book.
On the other hand, what exactly did your post contribute. You simply attack me because you assumed that I attacked someone with whom you agree. That is reactionary and adds noting to debate or the free flow of ideas. I suggest you try again, but this time either with with facts or with wit, as a simple disdainful repetition of the word "typical' is insufficient.