________________________________
From: Mike Dixon <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 27 July, 2010 8:33:03 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?
________________________________
From: feste37 <fest...@yahoo. com>
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tue, July 27, 2010 5:39:53 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?
Perhaps you could tell me exactly where in "Obamacare" it says that people in
their sixties are "too old" for multiple heart bypass surgery.
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon <mdixon.6569@ ...> wrote:
>
> Now picture this. You're in your sixties and in fairly good health except you
> need a multiple heart bypass and under Obamacare you are considered too old
> for
>
> such care and are offered Plavix or just aspirin as your only option. You
> want
> to appeal this decision but you have to go to somebody who hasn't had their
> *epiphany* yet. You just might get so pissed that you drop dead of a heart
> attack on the spot! Nobody should have to deal with a government bureaucrat
> in
>a
>
> life and death situation.
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: ditzyklanmail <carc...@...>
> To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 7:25:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?
>
> Â
> If I was a public servant. Working, paid for by taxpayer dollars, in a
> government agency. Any person who has agony, complaint, distress and comes to
>me
>
> in my position, even if rude, obnoxious, acting superior as they present
> their
> strife, as I am a public servant as I work for the people of the country I
>live,
>
> I would not serve the obnoxious person less than anyone else.
>
> If in my own business, I may tell a person to go to another, but then again
> as
> they say, "the customer is always right."
> People are taught to go to the government for help, if there is no other help
> available?
> When our farmers are suffering, anger will of course come forth. Unless we
> live
>
> in India, then maybe they commit suicide and just step out of the way of life?
>
> Any agency that harnesses laws to the point of extinction of a livelihood,
> that
>
> agency does it really have a purpose anymore?
>
> Is this really about racism or about government getting so large that a
> farmer
> has to now leave his farm to attempt to get help from a government agency
> instead of growing his crops?? or keeping his farm?
>
> Look past the people involved and ask why this type of thing is happening to
> people trying to make a living from their own hands.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: authfriend <jst...@panix. com>
> To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sat, 24 July, 2010 9:43:45 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?
>
> Â
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon <mdixon.6569@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > See 17:28 in video.
>
> The only audience response at 17:28 is a chuckle.
> There are no "cheers," no "applause" anywhere in
> the portion of the address where she talks about
> the farmer.
>
> And in any case, they aren't chuckles of approval
> of racism, they're chuckles of sympathy at her
> conflict, of understanding how she felt. OF
> COURSE she wasn't going to feel like going out of
> her way to help the farmer when he'd been acting
> so superior.
>
> Her tone of voice at that point is wry and self-
> mocking, strongly suggesting that *she* didn't
> approve of having had the feeling she described.
>
> And when she goes on to recount her epiphany--
>
> "Working with him made me see that it's really
> about those who have versus those who haven't.
> They could be black, they could be white, they
> could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then
> that I needed to help poor people--those who
> don't have access the way others have."
>
> --you can hear people in the audience going,
> "Mm-hm," "That's right, that's right." The
> audience *does* approve of her recognition that
> it isn't about race, it's about being poor.
>
> And as to Breitbart's revised charge that the
> audience didn't know she was going to describe
> an epiphany, and that therefore they were
> approving of her pre-epiphany racism not
> realizing she was going to end up renouncing
> it, here's how she introduced the story about
> the farmer:
>
> -----
> SHERROD: God is good. I can tell you that. When I
> made that commitment, I was making that commitment
> to black people -- and to black people only. But
> you know God will show you things and he'll put
> things in your path so that you realize that the
> struggle is really about poor people, you know.
>
> AUDIENCE: All right. All right.
> -----
>
> In other words, Breitbart is lying about the
> audience's expectations as well. She told them
> *in advance* she had undergone an epiphany,
> and they very clearly approved of the outcome
> before she'd said a word about the farmer.
>
> You and Breitbart haven't got a leg to stand on,
> Mike. Shame on you for defending him.
>
> BTW, William Saletan of Slate.com has a piece
> that goes through the entire transcript of her
> farmer story noting every one of the specific
> audience responses. Check it against the tape:
>
> http://www.slate. com/id/2261552/ pagenum/all/ #p2
>
> Earlier, you wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon <mdixon.6569@> wrote:
> > >
> > > What I found amusing was on The View this morning.
> > > Andrew Breitbart was accused of *editing* the
> > > video he posted to exclude exculpatory evidence
> > > that Ms Sherrod was not racist. However, The View
> > > did that very thing. They showed the same clip
> > > but edited out the applause, laughter etc of NAACP
> > > members as Ms Sherrod admitted she did less than
> > > she could have to help the white farmer who
> > > came to her for help because she thought he was
> > > trying to show that he was superior to her.
>
> "The View" showed a heavily edited-down version
> of the video Breitbart posted; it was just a few
> highlights. The full Breitbart video was too long.
>
> (Whoopi apparently didn't realize this when she
> introduced it and misspoke when she said it was
> the same as his. If you watch the tape, you can
> see that someone on the production staff tries to
> correct her, but she doesn't understand what the
> person is signaling to her.)
>
> They didn't "edit out the applause" because there
> was none to edit out. And they didn't "edit out"
> the one chuckle, they edited out the whole chunk
> of the speech that generated it, along with
> several other chunks. It was an abbreviated
> version of the Breitbart video, but it didn't
> misrepresent anything.
>
> So Breitbart's smear of "The View" goes down the
> tubes along with everything else he's claimed.
> (I'm pretty sure you were just parroting what he
> said in the quote immediately above; you didn't
> realize they showed an abbreviated version of his
> video. But he surely did. And now you do too.)
>
Oh, you know there isn't going to be anything like that in the bill it's self.
That will be based on policies of each administration. Things like state of the
economy, deficits, *social justice*, current life expectancies. Obama did say
in
his campaign that there comes a time when we have to say *no* to such
procedures
and just treat people with a pill, make them comfortable for their end of days.
The very young and very old will be rationed more harshly.
Yes this is happening. I saw it. I experienced it. It freaked me out. I still
do
not know what to do with it. A good lawyer is hard to come by.
