Right-wing media set sights on family of 11-year-old who spoke about his mother's death at health care event
Right-wing media have recently targeted 11-year-old Marcelas Owens and his family for attacks after he appeared at a health care reform event to speak about his mother, who reportedly died after losing her health insurance. These attacks follow a history of media conservatives attacking or mocking the uninsured, and previous attacks by right-wing media on the family of a 12-year-old who spoke in support of SCHIP.
11-year-old spoke about mother's death at health care reform event
Marcelas' mother reportedly "died of pulmonary hypertension ... after losing her health insurance because she could no longer work." According to a New York Times report, Marcelas Owens appeared at a March 11 press conference with Senate Democrats and spoke about his mother's death. The Times reported that Marcelas' mother, "Tiffany Owens, died of pulmonary hypertension in 2007 at age 27 after losing her health insurance because she could no longer work. Ms. Owens had been an assistant manager at a Jack in the Box restaurant." CNN.com further reported that Marcelas said at the event, "I came out here for health care, I got involved because my mom was a health care activist, she testified and participated in rallies. She wanted people to have health care and not wait till management level to be offered health care."
Right-wing media target Marcelas and family; portray them as "liberal activists"
Beck: "Where was grandma" when Marcelas' mother was sick? On the March 15 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck attacked Marcelas' grandmother -- who appeared with Marcelas at the health care event -- for her work with the organization Washington Community Action Network. Beck said the group was "all about economic, racial, gender, and social justice for all" -- "pesky phrases" Beck then tied to "the Soviet Union" and the "democratic socialist republic in China." Beck said of Marcelas' appearance on Capitol Hill: "The trip was paid for by Health Care for America Now -- that's the George Soros-funded, Barack Obama-approved group fighting for health care. Since all of these groups are so concerned and so involved now, may I ask, where were you when Marcelas' mother was vomiting blood?" Beck continued: "Wasn't this the perfect opportunity to help provide a decent quality of life for all -- at least, for one? You had somebody in your own ranks that knew -- her mother knew. Dare I ask: Where was grandma?"
Limbaugh tells Marcelas: "Your mom would have still died, because Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014." On the March 12 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh aired a clip of Marcelas' remarks at the health care event and said, "Now, this is unseemly, exploitative, an 11-year-old kid being forced to tell this story all over just to benefit the Democrat Party and Barack Obama." Limbaugh later said, referring to Marcelas, "Your mom would have still died, because Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014."
Malkin: Marcelas is the "new, dubious poster boy for Demcare"; targets Marcelas' family. In a March 10 post, Michelle Malkin wrote that Marcelas is the "new, dubious poster boy for Demcare." In her syndicated column that day, titled, "Desperate Dems cling to human kiddie shield," Malkin wrote that Marcelas "admits he doesn't understand the complexities of health insurance reform and doesn't 'think it's anyone's fault' that his mom passed away. 'But they could have done more' for her, he says." In a March 12 post, Malkin criticized a New York Times article about Marcelas because it "fail[ed] to mention that Owens' grandmother and family have been longtime activists for the left-wing, single-payer advocates of the Washington Community Action Network or that the boy and his grandmother traveled to Washington with sponsorship from the Astroturf lobbyists of the Health Care for America Now outfit, which characterized Marcelas as an 'insurance abuse survivor.' " Malkin continued: "Never mind that there is not a shred of evidence that any health insurer ever 'abused' Marcelas. Never mind that the family has made no claim that Marcelas himself has survived without insurance."
NewsBusters: Marcelas has "entire family of liberal activists." In a March 10 post, NewsBusters' Scott Whitlock wrote that "Owens' entire family have been members of the liberal Washington Community Action Network." Further, Tim Graham wrote in a March 10 NewsBusters post -- titled, "Sell Us Marcelas: Fifth-Grade Protester Has Entire Family of Liberal Activists" -- that Marcelas "is a spokesman for a liberal lobby, the Washington Community Action Network."
Right-wing media -- including Limbaugh and Malkin -- previously attacked family of 12-year-old who spoke in support of SCHIP
Malkin, conservative bloggers attacked 12-year-old boy and his family after he gave Democratic radio address supporting SCHIP expansion. In September 2007, 12-year-old Graeme Frost -- who, along with his sister, was injured in a 2004 car accident -- gave a Democratic radio address criticizing President Bush's veto of a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Following Graeme's radio address, as Media Matters for America noted, conservative bloggers and Malkin in particular, aimed several attacks at his family, from questioning their financial status to referring to Graeme's parents as, in the words of the right-wing blog Riehl World View, "mostly spoiled brats who became parents and never felt compelled to take responsibility for themselves."
Other media outlets echoed or cited bloggers' attacks. For example, on October 10, 2007, Limbaugh argued that the Frosts "can clearly afford [health insurance]. They just choose not to." During a report on the October 11, 2007, edition of CNN's American Morning, as Think Progress noted, co-host John Roberts said of the controversy: "Conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin pounced, claiming the Frost family is a fraud, too wealthy for government assistance. One accusation: that Graeme attends a $20,000-a-year private school. The family insists scholarships cover most of that bill." Nonetheless, Roberts added: "Some of the accusations may be exaggerated or false, but did the Democrats make a tactical error in holding up Graeme as their poster child?" Noting the controversy in an October 12, 2007, column headlined, "Sliming Graeme Frost," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote:
You might be tempted to say that bloggers make unfounded accusations all the time. But we're not talking about some obscure fringe. The charge was led by Michelle Malkin, who according to Technorati has the most-trafficked right-wing blog on the Internet, and in addition to blogging has a nationally syndicated column, writes for National Review and is a frequent guest on Fox News.
The attack on Graeme's family was also quickly picked up by Rush Limbaugh, who is so important a player in the right-wing universe that he has had multiple exclusive interviews with Vice President Dick Cheney.
Media conservatives have a history of mocking the uninsured
Limbaugh's health care plan: "If you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for?" Responding to a story Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) told about a woman who wore dentures that previously belonged to her dead sister because she lacked insurance and could not afford to buy her own, Limbaugh stated on February 25:
LIMBAUGH: You know I'm getting so many people -- this Louise Slaughter comment on the dentures? I'm getting so many people -- this is big, I mean, that gets a one-time mention for a laugh, but there are people out there that think this is huge because it's so stupid. I mean, for example, well, what's wrong with using a dead person's teeth? Aren't the Democrats big into recycling? Save the planet? And so what? So if you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for? Isn't that why they make applesauce?
Beck mocks Slaughter's story: "I've read the Constitution ... I didn't see that you had a right to teeth." On his February 26 radio show, Beck played an audio clip of Slaughter's account then said, "I am wearing George Washington's dentures right now. I'm wearing his teeth right now." He later added, "I just like wearing dead people's teeth. But in America -- I'm sorry, I didn't know that that was -- I've read the Constitution before. I didn't see that you had a right to teeth." Echoing Limbaugh's remarks the previous day, Beck stated, "The environmentalists should be all over Slaughter. 'How dare you say that?' My gosh, they're just recycling. They're just reusing."
Beck sidekick uses baby voice to mock letters Obama receives. On Beck's February 25 radio show, co-host Steve "Stu" Burguiere stated that Obama "gets 10 letters, Glenn, every night." Co-host Pat Gray asked, "From 2-year-old girls?" Then, one of the co-hosts started speaking in a baby's voice: "I have no health care, Mr. Pwesident, and I have no feet and no tonsils because doctors took 'em out."
Conservative blogger Pamela Geller linked to an audio clip of the segment, which she wrote was "[d]a best! the funniest thang evuh!"
Gateway Pundit attacks Slaughter's "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down." On his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft linked to a video clip of Slaughter telling the story about the dentures under the headline, "Horror! Lib Dem Claims Her Constituent Wore Dead Sister's Teeth (Video)." After declaring the account the "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down," Hoft wrote: "Will Obamacare buy me glasses and contacts? Will Obamacare buy me a gold tooth in the front of my mouth with a little heart on it?"
Ingraham: "Louise Slaughter won the Olympics of sob stories." On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, radio host Laura Ingraham said she "liked the dueling sob stories, OK? One Democrat was trying to outdo the next on the sob story about how rotten our health care system is. Louise Slaughter won the Olympics of sob stories by saying one of her constituents had to wear her sister's dentures. OK? It got so bad with the health care system." She later added, "You had Harry Reid on the cleft palate with his -- I mean, the whole thing was ridiculous."
Fox Nation labels anecdote "Summit Insanity." From the Fox Nation, accessed February 25:
Limbaugh mocked story of transplant patient on Medicare who will have to pay own bills after three years. On February 26, referring to a story Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) recounted at President Obama's health care summit, Limbaugh stated:
LIMBAUGH: This patient was about to receive a transplanted organ -- Clyburn didn't specify what it was -- and the horror -- he's gonna get a -- he's gonna get a totally paid-for transplant. The horror is that he was going to have to start paying his post-op bills in three years.
If this is the worst we can say about American medicine, are we really in that bad a shape after all?
I have a different observation on this. I mean, look at where we are with this. This guy is -- he about had an emotional breakdown 'cause he was told he's gotta start paying his own medical bills after three years. He gets a free transplant; he gets a free after-care for three years and then he's on his own, and he's mad and thinks he's getting screwed.
Limbaugh told caller who can't afford $6,000 to treat broken wrist: "Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist." In August 2009, Limbaugh had the following exchange with a caller:
CALLER: If we pay for our health care ourselves, would it bring costs down?
LIMBAUGH: Yeah, it would, if -- with other -- yeah, if you get some other players out of the game, yeah -- of course.
CALLER: What do you mean by "other players"? I'm sorry.
LIMBAUGH: Government -- get the government out of it. Get the government -- their stupid regulations. Get the government out of Medicare. You -- look it, the only way that cost or price ratios make sense is based on the consumer's ability to pay. There has to be a direct relationship between the customer and the business at the surface.
CALLER: OK. I just broke my wrist and it's costing me $6,000. I can't afford that.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist.
CALLER: That's true.
LIMBAUGH: You know why it costs $6,000? Because you, technically, aren't paying for it. An insurance policy's paying for it, backed up by some government insurance policy, or what have you.
Conservative media figures have also endorsed health care reform that "treat[s]" people "like dogs"
Doocy: Idea to "treat [people] like dogs" "makes a lot of sense." On the March 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy reported on a Newsweek column by "very brilliant" veterinarian Karen Oberthaler entitled, "Treat People Like Dogs," which suggested that the health care system should resemble the veterinary one. Doocy said the idea "makes a lot of sense," because "we're on the hook" for our pet's medical costs. Doocy said: "[T]here's only 3 percent of Americans who have pet insurance and so we're on the hook for the charges. So, if Americans were on the hook for all the tests and stuff, it would be a lot different." Citing Oberthaler's column, Doocy added: "If you've got a golden retriever ... and you know that the dog has got cancer and it's -- you know, there really is no getting any better, would you order a bunch of tests that are going to be costly and right out of your pocket? Because chances are you don't have the insurance ... it also has to do with, you know, putting the dog through pain at the end of the road."
Limbaugh: "There's no federal dog health care plan out there, and it's working just fine." On the June 15, 2009, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh argued against public health care programs, claiming that "there's no federal dog health care plan out there, and it's working just fine," because the "private market is providing dog owners every option they want for their dogs to be cared for" and that "it's based on the owner's ability to pay, there's no insurance involved."
And what does this say about you Faux Cons, Michelle? Because what it sounds like to me is this:
That could just be me, though, and my knowledge of Michelle Malkin's past actions.
Hmm, where have we seen that before?
Well, from countless other rightwingers over the last 30 years, as well as frequently here on this site.
Americans like this mother shouldn't die because they lose their insurance through their jobs and can't get other insurance to cover their chronic conditions. Americans like this mother can't get the care they need at the ER, so don't try to tell us that she could have. Americans like this mother can't always qualify for other temporary gov't programs, so don't try to lay the blame on this mom, or blame the grandmom for not taking care of her daughter's medical needs.
We need healthcare reform that provides benefits for people like that.
We need reform for several other reasons too, but this is an important reason why.
A friend told me her daughter had breast cancer; the insurance company decided her treatment cost too much and dropped her. The daughter had to do without treatment for three months while fighting the insurance company; finally the mother called her congressman and action was taken to get the daughter treatment. But three months is a good opportunity for cancer to spread and it did. You can fill in the blank.
And the professional right wing yak clowns are telling their audiences this kind of thing doesn't happen and health care is not a "right."
It may not be a constitutionally guaranteed right, but what about basic human decency? Who would Jesus drop from insurance plans and let their cancer spread?
Sounds like the GOP healthcare plan: 1) Don't get sick. 2) If you do get sick - die soon.
Maybe it's important to put a human face on the HealthCare debate, since those opposing any reform will say that the problems these people face are just "too bad". The "Don't Get Sick" approach apparently advocated by the Republicans is hard to embrace when you are face to face with real people who are literally facing financial ruin because of an illness.
I guess it's too complicated for you. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow (except in Copenhagen of course).
I took some time off then went back to work part time because of the risk to my health. A year later, in spite of medications and limited working, I had a second heart attack. At this point the doctors insisted that I had to have the surgery or risk mortality. The insurance company (that I had maintained paying on a partime salary-with increased premiums because of my heart attack!) again refused the surgery. When the doctors and I petitioned to fight the decision, the outcome was for the Insurance company to drop me because I had become "too high risk"!
At this point I was in desperate need of surgery. I pursued other insurance carriers but since I had pre-existing conditions at this point, no one would enroll me. I then went to the last mortifying choice of applying for state health insurance only to find that I as a single white mother of 2, I did not qualify because I had a job.
Bottom line, I was left with the decision to quit my job and live on government help, just so I might be able to get the surgery or I could continue on working and risk dying and leaving my children orphaned.
Some choice! And people are blinded to the fact the this stuff happens to hard working Americans EVERYDAY!!!
And that itself is an insult, and not a logical argument. You are arguing from emotion, again,as you did when you called another poster a "baby" and told him to "grow up."
Are you for real?
More insults in 3...2...1...
besides.. who gave you or those like you the "facts" you seem so enamored with..
Would slavery have been abolished without the emotional part of the debate? Not likely. We would have been presented with facts and statistics showing the economic impact of abolition, the effects on labor forces, housing issues, Congressional redistricting and other statistical minutia on which a case could have been made that abolition would do more economic and societal harm than good. It would have been entirely lost in the discussion that the practice of owning human beings and their suffering under slavery are morally abominable.
Emotion has a place in policy-making, along with facts and statistics. It always has and it always will.
As for the rest, I agree with you completely. All of the data you presented have been the centerpieces of the arguments in favor of reform from the beginning. And we all saw the opposition's reactions - skepticism, ridicule and dismissal. The tales of human suffering, when they are real and large enough in number, give those statistics true meaning. You are right in stating that those stories are a definite part of the evidence providing support for the merits of the legislation.
Only a liar or idiot would claim it's mostly emotional.
of feeding the rich pigs
of feeding the rich pigs
of feeding the rich pigs
of feeding the rich pigs
The real example of how real people are affected IS a valid way to address the merits of the legislation.
I think it's wrong to use individuals in this way. I, however, can recognize when there is no other way to counter misinformation like "no one dies from a lack of health insurance", one may have to refute it in such a manner as this.
Oh wait, now I understand - you are under the impression that understanding something (like causes of spousal abuse) is the same as excusing it (and now I guess agreeing with it, too). Sorry, my bad.
When and if you decide to focus exclusively on the topic at hand instead of whining about previous disagreements, let me know. Otherwise I am not interested. You're a baby.
Says the poster that just posted this...
LOL! No YOU would never dredge up an old argument that you failed at would you?
And I focused on your post because it was such b/s.
I wouldn't be.
Opposites? No - you just can't comprehend very simple ideas - such as when I state I understand why someone does something does not mean I agree, condone or accept it as the right thing.
One thing I am proud of is how silly I can make you look with a few simple posts.
Absolutely hilarious! Righton argues that (1) Old Benjaman argue from emotion and (2) that he dredges up old arguments.
Now read Righton's post again and see if he isn't guilty on both counts.
Right wingers just don't get irony, do they?
You really are the gift that keeps giving...
It really is breathtaking, isn't it?
Way to prove that point.
Sorry, I guess you can't. Because arguing an issue by introducing the emotional aspect of that issue is the way liberals operate, by reflex. So of course there is no difference to you.
Are we sure that was the purpose of bringing the boy up to speak? I think Old_Benjamin was right when he said there is merit to putting a human face on an issue to counter misinformation. How can you miss that point over and over again?
Jurors deciding the guilt or innocence of a case must stick to the facts and the law but do they not hear and review the stories of witnesses and experts in making their determination, and doesn't their decision affect the lives of real people and add further to facts and stats?
No - they die!
And really, no one is honestly" arguing they don't die for lack of health insurance?
Well here is a republican sen. seeming to do just that. Perhaps he's not doing it honestly though...
http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_political/4392544.html
Carry on.
Gotcha - but that leads back to, how do you counter something like that when it's not challenged in the media at the time when the statement is made? Right - facts. Except once again, facts are given the same deference as lies like those from Sen. Kyl.
You really aren't very good at this, are you?
You're flailing around now with no cohesive point. It's ridiculous to try and follow you around like that.
Look - it DOESN'T matter whether or not he was being honest. He may well have THOUGHT he was being honest. My point here has been consistent, when trying to counter misinformation with facts and then both the misinformation and facts are given equal validity in the media, one may have to resort to hauling out real examples in order to counter the misinformation.
Oh right - you can't understand the words you are reading. Are your moving your lips right now as read this, sounding out the words in your head? In that case - nevermind, I'll just keep highlighting your specious nonsense.
What a monumentally unbelievably moronic thing to say? Of course it matters. Why do you think I specifically said honesty if it didn't matter? You're wasting my time with your ridiculous non-arguments.
I really don't think you're this bad with the English language. I'm convinced that you're being intentionally disingenuous.
That's why Old_Benjamin said it doesn't matter if he was being honest. The response would be the same in either case.
That point was very clear to most people of normal intelligence and competent literary abilities. I guess that excludes you.
I don't believe that it's poor comprehension on your part. I'm positive it's pure dishonesty.
The point is a Senator on a political chat show makes that statement (dishonest as it is) and it's not called dishonest. It's given the same merit as a fact. When these things happen over and over again, it's not really possible to stick to cold hard facts - one may have to employer a factual individual case to refute the misinformation. THAT IS THE POINT you are refusing to acknowledge.
It's not about the game or the maneuverings with me like it is with you. It's about debating facts and the policy and the issues and calling out the crap. Not getting a leg up or out maneuvering your political opponent. I don't approach political debate and issues like talk radio does. Sorry, that is more important to you than me.
It's not about the game or the maneuverings with me like it is with you. It's about debating facts and the policy and the issues and calling out the crap. Not getting a leg up or out maneuvering your political opponent. I don't approach political debate and issues like talk radio does. Sorry, that is more important to you than me.
It's not about the game or the maneuverings with me like it is with you. It's about debating facts and the policy and the issues and calling out the crap. Not getting a leg up or out maneuvering your political opponent. I don't approach political debate and issues like talk radio does. Sorry, that is more important to you than me.
If only it were so easy. The president and others keep trying to refute the lies, but look how many citizens still believe them These things are treated as tit-for-tat he said she said disputes in the media when they are not. And in case you haven't noticed - these types of interviews often don't have rebuttals - so the misinformation stands.
Ummm,, so you agree that because of the systemic issues with the media stenographers, sometimes anecdotal eveidence may be required to refute lies?
I'm not as I stated early on.
And are you stating that this 11 year old's story is somehow not factual?
But that's not what this is about. It's not about lying to counter lies. It is to counter those lies with facts and sometimes to put a human face on those facts.
And I'm taking bets on how long it will before RO claims to have "won" this little back and forth?
Or you'll just bring it up in another thread, you like to do that. I know.
But nobody's arguing that anecdotal evidence should be the sole factor in enacting legislation. You seem to act as if everything is either all or nothing. The point is (and I won't bother repeating Old_Benjamin's posts from before) that anecdotal evidence can be effective when the facts alone seem to be ineffectual in convincing people. How can you argue with that? As far as your laughable "emotional manipulation" claim, I noticed you didn't bother to respond to Old_Benjamin's question:
And are you stating that this 11 year old's story is somehow not factual?
This is an example where the line between anecdotal evidence and factual evidence is blurred. It is not a black and white issue right ON, so stop trying to treat this debate as all or nothing.
But nobody's arguing that anecdotal evidence should be the sole factor in enacting legislation. You seem to act as if everything is either all or nothing. The point is (and I won't bother repeating Old_Benjamin's posts from before) that anecdotal evidence can be effective when the facts alone seem to be ineffectual in convincing people. How can you argue with that? As far as your laughable "emotional manipulation" claim, I noticed you didn't bother to respond to Old_Benjamin's question:
And are you stating that this 11 year old's story is somehow not factual?
This is an example where the line between anecdotal evidence and factual evidence is blurred. It is not a black and white issue right ON, so stop trying to treat this debate as all or nothing.
But nobody's arguing that anecdotal evidence should be the sole factor in enacting legislation. You seem to act as if everything is either all or nothing. The point is (and I won't bother repeating Old_Benjamin's posts from before) that anecdotal evidence can be effective when the facts alone seem to be ineffectual in convincing people. How can you argue with that? As far as your laughable "emotional manipulation" claim, I noticed you didn't bother to respond to Old_Benjamin's question:
And are you stating that this 11 year old's story is somehow not factual?
This is an example where the line between anecdotal evidence and factual evidence is blurred. It is not a black and white issue right ON, so stop trying to treat this debate as all or nothing.
But nobody's arguing that anecdotal evidence should be the sole factor in enacting legislation. You seem to act as if everything is either all or nothing. The point is (and I won't bother repeating Old_Benjamin's posts from before) that anecdotal evidence can be effective when the facts alone seem to be ineffectual in convincing people. How can you argue with that? As far as your laughable "emotional manipulation" claim, I noticed you didn't bother to respond to Old_Benjamin's question:
And are you stating that this 11 year old's story is somehow not factual?
This is an example where the line between anecdotal evidence and factual evidence is blurred. It is not a black and white issue right ON, so stop trying to treat this debate as all or nothing.
Also, if facts aren't enough then you don't have enough. That is the most honest thing anyone has said yet, and the real reason for this entire discussion on this thread. Finally, thank you for saying it.
If facts are not enough, then you don't have enough. Finally, the most honest thing in this whole discussion today. Thank you for finally admitting the real reason for this type of thing.
Arguing with emotion:
MLK's "I have a dream speech"
Using emotion in aguing:
"Death panels; Pull the plug on granny"
(Opps, my bad. only Liberals use emotional imagery)
Anecdotes:
"I have heard a story about someone....."
Facts:
11 year old boy relating his story on why his mother died.
And, a little more on topic.
Anyone that attacks a child is, as they say where I grew up, Lower than a snakes belly in a wagon rut.
You then state it's sytemic and somehow I've got a problem here?
When is 6:45 pm est? You need several drinks to forget this thread.
It's an integrity issue because facts and fairness don't have to be whatever it takes.
Now you are lying.
Look, do you want to suggest a solution to the problem of the media presenting both misinformation and facts as having equal standing? You seem to think if those with truth on their side just keep reapting their facts, they will some how drown out the disinformation?
But that's a contradiction right there. Yes, the facts should be a priority, but sometimes for an argument to be successful there needs to be an emotional component. How can you still not understand this point? You use emotional factors in debate, as does everyone. What is so hard about this?
And you shouldn't be talking about making any broader points, oh one that can't see the forest for the trees. When Obama runs back from a vacation to sign legislation on a single case, like Bush did, get back to me.
Fine, next time abortion becomes the topic you will be in favor of Republicans bringing up women who have been traumatized and live in regret from having an abortion.
You are just too shortsighted and emotional, and disingenuous to think it could ever happen on the other side against some pet issue of yours.
It can.
That all you got? Ha!
Btw, parsing, circular arguments, derailing threads and insulting MMFA and their work are not debate worthy, much as you would like them to be.
Human beings are hard wired to respond to stories. Logic, not so much.
There's a lot to be said for looking at all the ramifications of a bill, but it should be discussed from a point of what exists now--not making up a lot of false and misleading emotional appeals (this is socialism/communism/putting the government between you and your doctor) and trying to see as many results of the current proposals.
Abortion, gun control, war, terrorism, all these issues have emotional appeal backed up by reality. Let's see how thrilled you are when they are used in opposition to your opinion on the issue.
Using a future prediction to argue in the present? That is a logical fallacy. Are you arguing from emotion here?
Bring it on,well stand on the side of truth and justice and common decency. What side will stand on distortion ,lies and misinformation? That seems to be the way your side emotionalizes an issue. "Our taxes are going up...torture works...war is good...we have the best healthcare in the world...Obama is a socialist...Obama is destroying our constitution and we are losing our freedoms..."
All lies and distortions but very emotional.
Ma! Code orange on the Terra alert! Get Junior to the basement and buy more duct tape!
Dang! Those wimmin' just can't make decisions on their own. They'll end up traumatized. Stupid wimmin'!
That Saddam has WMD, pa! And somethin' cake Yuraniam! Get 'im! Bring it on!!
Liberals will never get it because liberalism is a philosophy dependent on emotion and feelings. How many times are righwingers referred to as heartless and uncaring? It's what you do, it's how you debate, it's how you persuade, it's what you've got.
Carry on.
But keep pushing your canard if you think repeating it ad nauseum is going to somehow make it true.
This just happened today:
"Holding up the health care bill, Rep. Gohmert shouts, ‘I brought an abortion to show you today.’"
"As House Democrats prepare to vote on health care reform in the next few days, tea party activists protested outside the Capitol this morning, shouting cries of “kill the bill.†Reps. Steve King (R-IA) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX) addressed the crowd to warn about perceived tyranny and to distort the contents of the bill. King claimed it’s a “fact†that the bill “does fund abortion†and “does fund illegals.†Gohmert elicited cheers from the crowd when he made a graphic and disturbing claim about the bill:
GOHMERT: I brought the bill that’s being talking about. Now I don’t want to offend anybody, I’m sure that there are people here who think abortion is okay, and I don’t want to make you sick, but I brought an abortion to show you today. [...]"
http://thinkprogress.org/
Jezz talk about emotionalizing an issue,the difference is he's lying and distorting whats actually in the bill a very big difference than what the democrats were doing and what this 11yr. old was saying.
But earlier in this thread, Righton (question Mark Tommy) wrote:
>>It must be tough not be able to let go old arguments you failed at, don't you see how pathetic you appear. It's over man, grow up.
>>When and if you decide to focus exclusively on the topic at hand instead of whining about previous disagreements, let me know. Otherwise I am not interested. You're a baby.
The Schaivo case didn't merit legislative action. All of the legal aspects were in place. Schaivo was beyond recovery, as determined by competent authorized medical authorities. The legal responsibility for the decision was entirely her husband's. All of the legal issues had already been established, debated and set into law. That's why those who opposed his decision were left with diagnosis-by-cherry-picked-video and character assassination of the husband. It wasn't even a far-reaching issue. It was pretty much restricted just to this one case.
For the health care reform debate, we know that thousands of people are suffering physically and financially. This is a new effort to address that suffering. The tales of that suffering are very relevant.
But to make liberals see this is a toughie. Nearly all of their issues are argued emotionally.
Righton pulls out this smear every single time. Yet, he makes posts like this:
>>It must be tough not be able to let go old arguments you failed at, don't you see how pathetic you appear. It's over man, grow up.
>>When and if you decide to focus exclusively on the topic at hand instead of whining about previous disagreements, let me know. Otherwise I am not interested. You're a baby.
Now that's real logical, isn't it?
Inserting emotion into the debate is reasonable. No legislation will be passed on that basis alone. The other factors are ALWAYS given consideration. That doesn't mean the emotional aspects aren't without merit.
That's never been true, but that won't ever stop you from making the claim. You're too emotionally tied to it.
Huh?
No, I didn't say that. Why must you so often resort to misstating what others say?
You said "Nearly all of their issues are argued emotionally." It's not true that "nearly all" issues are argued emotionally. The vast majority are argued on the basis of facts and logic. That doesn't mean the emotional component doesn't have a place in the debate.
So what I said about liberals arguing issues emotionally is true, unless the "nearly all" is what you argued against. geesh.
Really? It is true because Question Mark Tommy says so? Aren't you getting a bit emotional, Tommy?
You said: "Nearly all of their issues are argued emotionally."
Science Buff said: That's never been true, but that won't ever stop you from making the claim. You're too emotionally tied to it.
So, the statement that has never been true is, "Nearly all of their issues are argued emotionally." and Science Buff is correct. SOME issues are argued emotionally, but MORE are argued based on facts and figures. Now, I know these fuzzy concepts of some, and most, and many, and more than are hard for you conservatives to understand with your all or nothing black and white outlook on life, but please, for all of our sakes, try a little harder.
I think we're not doing enough emotion-based arguing. I think a congressman should once again get up and read the names/stories of everyone who has died due to being denied care like Grayson did a while back. Unneccessary deaths ARE emotional. People going bankrupt every day is emotional. People choosing to feed their family over keeping their insurance is emotional.
Yes they are and it is real and the facts and statistics support it.
how is it that you can be all about free market principles and choices and individual FREEDOM when you are trying to impose anti abortion doctrine and man-woman relationships? if you guys are all about freedom and individual rights.......then how can you justify trying to make abortion illegal and same sex marriage illegal. those are individual choices.
The baby is not anesthetized and most certainly can feel the pain. You liberals get your panties in a bunch over terrorists being dunked in water, but have no problem with the violent slaughter of innocent defenseless babies.
~
The Schaivo case compared to Marcelas Owens' mom is pure apples & oranges, the former involving a woman in a vegetative state for years with no signs of an ability to interact with others, and a serious legal question of a husband's ability to carry out his wife's end of life wishes.
Further, Terri Schaivo had ample access to healthcare services. So I just don't see the connection you are referring to.
Anyone who thinks those two things are equivalent is a sick-minded barbarian.
by the way, something that has bothered me about republican philosophy for some time now. perhaps you can explain if you care to try....
how is it that you can be all about free market principles and choices and individual FREEDOM when you are trying to impose anti abortion doctrine and man-woman relationships? if you guys are all about freedom and individual rights.......then how can you justify trying to make abortion illegal and same sex marriage illegal. those are individual choices.
I understand making emotional appeals for or against but children should not be used as props.
The Owens’ case demonstrates the flaws of the employer-based system of health insurance. It needs real reform. Unfortunately, the current crop of Democrat plans would leave the employer-based system fully intact.
The dems make it look like Marcelas took it upon himself to stir up members of congress, when obviously he was coached and "guided" to plead his mothers case. An obvious exploitation to prove a half-truth. It's sad that his mother died, but the truth remains, that people die of cancer every day, with and without insurance.
Does health care need to be overhauled? Absolutely! Do they need to parade a little boy that lost his mother to invoke emotional responses and bypass reasoned thought? No!
Not only were facts and statistics used to rebut these distortions but human faces behind those facts and distortions.
Get your facts right. She did NOT die of cancer. She died of Pulmonary Hypertension, a disease that is not curable per se, but is treatable. Yes, with medical care, she would probably still be alive. And it was already diagnosed before she lost her job and insurance.
~
As I said, it is the same when pro lifers haul out pictures of fetuses in the womb, or if gun advocates hauled out an 11 year old boy who lost his parents because his house was robbed and his parents were murdered because they had to have a waiting period to buy a gun. Or a proponent of war hauls out a family in Iraq who has been wiped out by terrorists we are fighting over there.
It's all the same thing, and has no place in political debate.
You can bring out your story about the family killed by terrorist but when I show you facts and stats that say most of the needless murders and killings are the cause of errant bombs and overzealous soldiers(whose actions increase the creation of terrorist)the discussion should move to another level and the truth should be discerned. This 11yr. old boy was an example and his story highligthing the problems with our insurance industry are backed up by the already debated facts.
Stop being age-ist. 11 year olds deserve to be heard too.
The Dems show just how loathesome and contemptible they are when they use a grieving kid as a human shield. Barack Hussein is no better than Saddam Hussein when he used kids as human shields on the eve of Desert Storm. It gave me the creeps when he was giving the young British kid milk and patting him on the head. It also gave me the creeps that the Dems would abuse an eleven year old kid to suit their political agenda.
Maybe he'll become a doctor
Or anything more worthwhile than a shock-jock
Which doesn't require much.
And they also need a taste of reality...
As much as being a liberal extremist would be an oxymoron to me, I feel like if there was somebody out there, somebody who could bring it upon himself to STOOP to the right's low, low...low level....just to throw all caution (and humanity) to the wind and give these conservabums something to be paranoid about...
The problem is these guys sit comfy in their chairs, nobody ever challenges their opinions, so they become complacent, and their shows and radio broadcasts turn into contests of who can say the most inflammatory things.
It's like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Malkin, all these hollow souls, are constantly trying to compete to trash Democrats the most....not stand up for true Conservative policies....but trash Democrats the most. THIS is our modern GOP.
This isn't your Grandpa's Republican Party...in fact, mine would be very upset if he knew what was happening today with the constant lying and attacking. They're verbally attacking CHILDREN who have been through horrible things...how is this OK?!
They're actually convincing middle-class Americans to vote for the policies of the rich...and these people don't even think twice because the word "taxes" and "socialist" scares them into complete submission.
It's the feeble-minded people who have never set eyes on a form of the Constitution or Bill of Rights that seem to make up the larger portion of these liars' audiences.
I'd love to have a debate with a Limbaugh-lover who actually knew the reasoning behind his "own" opinions...but since Limburger and Beck NEVER GIVE the reasoning, I get to listen to them flounder around to grasp onto any sort of conservative trivia, regardless if it even relates to the current topic.
Then they'll name call and finally, say "the America People have Spoken," as if saying non-scientific polls (regardless of bias and truth) are all they really have to support their positions...
And the funny thing is, I'm not really anymore knowledgeable than the average political freak. It's just that the demographic that buys into punditocracy is way more stupid and weak-minded than the normal person.
The conservative pundit that gives REASON behind his opinions will form a much more reliable militia than Beck or Limburger ever could. Of course, that pundit would also need facts, and facts are not kind to the right.
Progressives need to remember, there is power in numbers, and there are a LOT of us. Progressives have fact and rationality on our side. The oppositions have glass walls that WILL BREAK if we can just persist to tap on them and stand on principle AND fact.
If this bill doesn't pass, we will not see another attempt at health care reform for another 15-20 years...'
In 15-20 years, only a select few will have health insurance.
- Small-Medium sized companies will not be able to afford to offer it to their employees.
- A family of 4 will pay $20,000/yr or more for health insurance.
Everyone who has health insurance is experiencing a false sense of security. They go see the doctor when they have minor issues and everything is taken care of... the failure of our health care system isn't when someone gets strep throat, it's when they have real problems
Rescission
Annual caps
Lifetime caps
all come into play and getting sick, really sick, in this country means you will be bankrupt.
When these tragedies happen on a more frequent basis and everyone will know someone to whom this happens to... a neighbor, a friend, a cousin, etc... than real change will happen.
We'll look back at this moment and see that there was an opportunity to avoid a lot of human suffering, but instead we chose to line the pockets of the Insurance companies (who had their most profitable year in 2009).
What will the next generation think of us?
Good! We need to reform lawsuit abuse and allow people to purchase across state lines, but beyond that our system is just fine.
That the Democrat party is greedy and selfish for saddling them with debt.
By the way, Gore got more votes in the general election than Bush, but he won. Did you complain about that then?
Please, cite facts proving the Democratic Party is "run by thugs". Thanks.
...but Bush won."
Repiglicans are the undisputed masters of the emotional argument, of course they have unlimited funds and can tap the Madison Avenue minipulitive advertising empires' talant along with superfunded think tanks. Adding to this combination is their almost total control of media; it"s possible for these thugs to sell the smell of flatulence as perfume and have most using it three times a day..
It's well known that people respond in powerfull ways to the emotional argument, thats why repiglicans are so sucsessful selling fear and hate. Liberal thinkers must also use emotional arguments to get their positions across,
There are enough sound bites by right wing hate mongers(just on the issue of health care alone) that can show them for the vile, mean spirited, contemptible cretins they are! By stringing them together with the appropriate commentary it is easily possible to make a very emotional appeal to compassion, empathy, sympathy and common sense.
Strong emotional arguments must be used to get people fired up and active. When will the dumbercrats start,fighting stratigacally with arguments and facts that ellicit visceral responses and spark activism?
but gramma's has to go in front of the death panel next week..oh noose..
but gramma's has to go in front of the death panel next week..oh noose..
oh, you mean like limbaugh's recent hospital visit and the cost of an suv. i see. ok, i welcome that.
oh, you mean like limbaugh's recent hospital visit and the cost of an suv. i see. ok, i welcome that.
And how families are broken by lack of medical coverage
So we can attack the young
And the bereaved
As true heroes!!!
Not a soul to be found in this whole sorry, motley crew.
May they all burn in hell.