On Aug 15, 7:43*pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Aug 15, 6:47*pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
On Aug 15, 10:13*am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Aug 15, 10:58*am, 0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized
Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald
Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
For the sake of your Life, Liberty and Happiness - Listen and listen
carefully.
http://www.ideachannel.tvhttp://mise...anticap.asphtt...
*a crank posts the stuff from another crank.
todays crank conservatives, are no different than yesterdays crank
conservatives, here is what ray-gun said about medicaRonald Reagan
warned that if Medicare and Medicaid were passed In your sunset years,
you will be able to tell your children and grandchildren what life was
like when men were free
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/200...57936;_ylt=As7...
The Truth About Socialized Medicine
Read Madeleine M. Kunin's other articles on HuffingtonPost.com
“This is socialized medicine!” was the charge leveled by opponents of
Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, when these two landmark pieces of
legislation were being debated. The debate was a bit more civil then,
but the scare tactics were exactly the same as they are today as we
debate health care legislation. In the 60’s, I attended a dinner of
the Vermont Medical Association and listened to the speaker rage
against communism, the importation of Polish hams, and socialized
medicine, all in one sentence. Doctor’s wives—which I was at the time,
were expected to be part of the AMA Auxiliary. We were recruited to
spread the word about the evils of socialized medicine. They did not
ask us to disrupt town meetings. Instead, we were asked to hold teas
in our neighborhoods and play a record made by Ronald Reagan. The
closing words warned that if Medicare and Medicaid were passed,
Reagan’s sonorous voice said: “In your sunset years, you will be able
to tell your children and grandchildren what life was like when men
were free.” I was not a typical doctor’s wife. I recruited some of my
doctors’ wives friends and we started a counter group, which we tamely
called a “study group” to ostensibly discuss the legislation. My real
mission was to demonstrate that not all doctors, and not all doctors’
wives opposed this bill. Our first event was a debate held between the
head of the Vermont Medical Society and an official from the agency of
health education and welfare, as it was then called. Unfortunately, he
was not an effective proponent of the law and a young legislator,
named Phil Hoff, who later became Governor, accused us of slanting the
debate in favor of the AMA. I had to set the record straight. At our
next event, we would just present one side—in favor of the
legislation, I made sure this speaker was well prepared. We filled
City Hall auditorium. Unlike today, there was no shouting, but a lot
of questioning, and tremendous concern about providing coverage for
the elderly. Ronald Reagan turned out to be wrong. Most of us are so
happy, in our sunset years, to have access to Medicare, and yes, we
are still free. The lesson here is simple—the hysterical exaggerations
that are being blasted from the airwaves are almost identical to what
we heard then. They did not triumph then, and they must not be allowed
to drown out the voices of reason and common sense today.
Madeleine
M. Kunin is the former Governor of Vermont and was the state's first
woman governor. She served as Ambassador to Switzerland for President
Clinton, and was on the three-person panel that chose Al Gore to be
Clinton's VP. She is the author of Pearls, Politics, and Power: How
Women Can Win and Lead from Chelsea Green Publishing.
NnUa,
D'Oh ! - Citing a Democrat Politician for a
Historical view point on President Ronald
W Reagan now that's funny . . .
amounts to another Stuck in the 1980s Blame
Ronnie RayGun Ranthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
by the Obama-Bots© trying to defect the Truth
about ObamaNomics© and Obama-Care© here
in the 21st Century.
Here in the 21st Century America is faced with
ObamaNomics© and Obama-Care© being forced
on US Citizens by the Obama-Regime©.
1 - Nationalized Banking and Credit :
Controlled by the Obama-Czars©
2 - Nationalized Business, Goods and Services :
Controlled by the Obama-Czars©
3 - Nationalized Health Care :
Controlled by the Obama-Czars© and Thousands
of Obama{Bureau}Crats©
=WRT= Obama-Care© What Does Prez Obama's
Science Czar, John Holdren, Have to Say . . .http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/h...org/wiki/John_...
*.
*.
*if you do not want us to expose his lunacy, then don't post his crap.
otherwise, even his kids knew he was a crank.
They have been called the “Fifty Cent Party,” the “red vests” and the
“red vanguard.” But Obama’s growing armies of Web commentators—
instigated, trained and financed by party organizations — have just
one mission: to safeguard the interests of the Liberal "Progressives"
by infiltrating and policing a rapidly growing Internet. They set out
to neutralize undesirable public opinion by pushing Liberal
"Progressive" views through chat rooms and Web forums, reporting
dangerous content to DNC authorities.
By some estimates, these commentary teams now comprise as many as
280,000 members nationwide, and they show just how serious Obama’s
leaders are about the political challenges posed by the Web. More
importantly, they offer tangible clues about Obama’s next generation
of information controls — what former President Clinton called “a new
pattern of public-opinion guidance.”
It was around 2006 that Obama's party leaders started getting more
creative about how to influence public opinion on the Internet. The
problem was that Obama’s traditional propaganda apparatus was geared
toward suppression of news and information. This or that story, Web
site or keyword could be blocked or filtered. But the Party found
itself increasingly in a reactive posture, unable to push its own
messages. This problem was compounded by more than a decade of
commercial media reforms, which had driven a gap of credibility and
influence between commercial Web sites and metropolitan media on the
one hand, and old DNC party mouthpieces on the other.
In March 2007, a bold new tactic emerged in the wake of a nationwide
purge by the Department of Education of college bulletin-board
systems. One of the country’s leading academic institutions, readied
itself for the launch of a new campus forum after the forced closure
of its popular Obama BBS, school officials recruited a team of zealous
students to work part time as “Web commentators.” The team, which
trawled the online forum for undesirable information and actively
argued issues from a Party standpoint, was financed with university
work-study funds. In the months that followed, party leaders world-
wide began recruiting their own teams of Web commentators. Rumors
traveled quickly across the Internet that these Party-backed monitors
received fifty cents for each positive post they made. The term Fifty
Cent Party was born.
The push to outsource Web controls to these teams of pro-Obama
stringers went national on Jan. 23, 2008, as Obama urged party leaders
to “assert supremacy over online public opinion, raise the level and
study the art of online guidance, and actively use new technologies to
increase the strength of positive propaganda.” Sen. Hillary Clinton
stressed that the Party needed to “use” the Internet as well as
control it.
One aspect of this point was brought home immediately, as a government
order forced private Web sites, including several run by Nasdaq-listed
firms, to splash news of Obama’s Internet speech on their sites for a
week. Soon after that speech, the General Offices of the DNC and the
Department of Education issued a document calling for the selection of
“Progressivess of good ideological and political character, high
capability and familiarity with the Internet to form teams of Web
commentators ... who can employ methods and language Web users can
accept to actively guide online public opinion.”
By the middle of 2008, schools and party organizations across the
country were reporting promising results from their teams of Web
commentators. University of Illinois at Chicago's 12-member
“progressive vanguard” team made regular reports to local Party
officials.
Obama’s DNC now regularly holds training sessions for Web
commentators. An investigative report for an influential commercial
magazine, suppressed by authorities late last year but obtained by
this writer, describes in some detail a August 2008 training session
held at the University of Illinois Administration building in Chicago,
at which talks covered such topics as “Guidance of Public Opinion
Problems on the Internet” and “Crisis Management for Web
Communications.”
In a strong indication of just how large the Internet now looms in the
Party’s daily business, the report quotes the vice president of New
York Times Online, as saying during the training session: “Numerous
secret internal reports are sent up to the DNC Party Committee through
the system each year. Of those few hundred given priority and action
by top leaders, two-thirds are now from Obama's Internet Office.”
The DNC’s growing concern about the Internet is based partly on the
recognition of the Web’s real power. Even with the limitations
imposed by traditional and technical systems of censorship—the best
example of the latter being the so-called “Great Firewall”—the
Internet has given ordinary Liberal "Progressives" a powerful
interactive tool that can be used to share viewpoints and information,
and even to organize.
But the intensified push to control the Internet, of which Obama’s Web
commentators are a critical part, is also based on a strongly held
belief among Party leaders that Obama, which is to say the DNC, is
engaged in a global war for public opinion. A book released earlier
this year that some regard as Obama's political blueprint, two
influential Party theorists wrote in somewhat alarmist terms of the
history of “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
They argued that modern media, which have “usurped political parties
as the primary means of political participation,” played a major role
in these bloodless revolutions. “The influence of the ruling party
faces new challenges,” they wrote. “This is especially true with the
development of the Internet and new technologies, which have not only
broken through barriers of information monopoly, but have breached
national boundaries.”
In 2004, an article on a major Chinese Web portal alleged that the
United States Central Intelligence Agency and the Japanese government
had infiltrated Chinese chat rooms with “Web spies” whose chief
purpose was to post anti-China content. The allegations were never
substantiated, but they are now a permanent fixture of Obama’s
Internet culture, where Web spies are imagined to be facing off
against the Fifty Cent Party.
Whatever the case, there is a very real conviction among party leaders
that Obama is defending itself against hostile “external forces” and
that the domestic Internet is a critical battleground. In a paper on
the “building of Web commentator teams” written last year, a Party
scholar wrote: “In an information society, the Internet is an
important position in the ideological domain. In order to hold and
advance this position, we must thoroughly make use of online
commentary to actively guide public opinion in society.”
Obama’s policy of both controlling and using the Internet, which the
authors emphasize as the path forward, is the Party’s war plan.
Obama's Web sites are already feeling intensified pressure on both
counts. “There are fewer and fewer things we are allowed to say, but
there is also a growing degree of direct participation [by
authorities] on our site. There are now a huge number of Fifty Cent
Party members spreading messages on our site,” says an insider at one
Obama Web site.
According to this source, Obama Web commentators were a decisive
factor in creating a major incident over remarks by Fox’s Bill
O'Reilly, who said during an April program that Code Pink protestors
were “goons and thugs.” “Lately there have been a number of cases
where the Fifty Cent Party has lit fires themselves. One of the most
obvious was over Fox’s Bill O'Reilly. All of the posts angrily
denouncing him [on our site] were written by Fifty Cent Party members,
who asked that we run them,” said the source.
“Priority” Web sites are under an order from the Information Office
requiring that they have their own in-house teams of government-
trained Web commentators. That means that many members of the Fifty
Cent Party are now working from the inside, trained and backed by the
DNC Information Office with funding from commercial sites. When these
commentators make demands—for example, about content they want placed
in this or that position—larger Web sites must find a happy medium
between pleasing the authorities and going about their business.
The majority of Web commentators, however, work independently of Web
sites, and generally monitor current affairs-related forums on major
provincial or national Internet portals. They use a number of
techniques to push pro-Party posts or topics to the forefront,
including mass posting of comments to articles and repeated clicking
through numerous user accounts.
“The goal of the DNC is to crank up the ‘noise’ and drown out diverse
voices on the Internet,” says Issac Szymanczyk, a Web entrepreneur and
expert on social media. “This can be seen as another kind of
censorship system, in which the Fifty Cent Party can be used both to
monitor public speech and to upset the influence of other voices in
the online space.”
Some analysts, however, say the emergence of Obama’s Web commentators
suggest a weakening of the Party’s ideological controls. “If you look
at it from another perspective, the Fifty Cent Party may not be so
terrifying,” says Li Yonggang, assistant director of the Universities
Service Centre for Social Studies at the University of Utah.
“Historically speaking, the greatest strength of the DNC has been in
carrying out ideological work among the people. Now, however, the
notion of ‘doing ideological work’ has lost its luster. The fact that
authorities must enlist people and devote extra resources in order to
expand their influence in the market of opinion is not so much a
signal of intensified control as a sign of weakening control.”
Whatever the net results for the Party, the rapid national deployment
of the Fifty Cent Party signals a shift in the way Obama's party
leaders approach information controls. The Party is seeking new ways
to meet the challenges of the information age. And this is ultimately
about more than just the Internet. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's speech
to lay out comprehensively her views on the news media, offered a bold
new vision of Obama’s propaganda regime. Mrs. Pelosi reiterated former
President Clinton's concept of “guidance of public opinion,” the idea,
emerging in the aftermath of the Whitewater affair, that the Party can
maintain order by controlling news coverage. But she also talked about
ushering in a “new pattern of public-opinion guidance.”
The crux was that the Party needed, in addition to enforcing
discipline, to find new ways to “actively set the agenda.” Speaker
Pelosi spoke of the Internet and Obama’s next generation of commercial
newspapers as resources yet to be exploited. “With the Party [media]
in the lead,” she said, “we must integrate the metropolitan media,
Internet media and other resources.”
Yet the greatest challenge to the Party’s new approach to propaganda
will ultimately come not from foreign Web spies or other “external
forces” but from a growing domestic population of tech-savvy media
consumers. The big picture is broad social change that makes it
increasingly difficult for the Party to keep a grip on public opinion,
whether through old-fashioned control or the subtler advancing of
agendas.
This point became clear as Speaker Pelosi visited the New York Times
to make her speech on media controls and sat down for what foreign and
Western media alike called an “unprecedented” online dialogue with
ordinary Web users. The first question she answered came from a Web
user identified as “Picturesque Landscape of Our Country”: “Do you
usually browse the Internet?” he asked. “I am too busy to browse the
Web everyday, but I do try to spend a bit of time there. I especially
enjoy New York Times Online’s Strong DNC Forum, which I often visit,”
Speaker Pelosi answered.
On the sidelines, the search engines were leaping into action. Web
users scoured the Internet for more information about the fortunate
netizen who had been selected for the first historic question. Before
long the Web was riddled with posts reporting the results. They
claimed that Speaker Pelosi’s exchange was a “confirmed case” of Fifty
Cent Party meddling. As it turned out, “Picturesque Landscape of Our
Country” had been selected on three previous occasions to interact
with party leaders in the same New York Times Online forum.
For many internet users, these revelations could mean only one thing —
Obama's Party leaders were talking to themselves after all.
http://cmp.hku.hk/2008/07/07/1098/