1. syb0rg's Avatar
    Here is where Humana was wrong and the government acted
    with the utmost prudence.

    Humana used a government-owned, taxpayer funded mailing list to
    send out letters stating it contained IMPORTANT INFORMATION
    about your Medicare Advantage plan
    . They compounded this
    by conveying to the recipient that it was so urgent that they
    must OPEN TODAY.

    What Humana did was try to make a corporate mailer look as if
    it had come from and was sanctioned by the government.
    That is not political speech (protected by the 1st Amendment)
    but commercial speech (which is protected far less.)

    Any company that attempts to misrepresent their own interests
    as those of the government are wrong and finally some has told
    them to shut up.

    This free speech argument is another political straw man meant
    to do nothing more than stall a process and score political points
    with those who "want their country back."

    From the horses mouth:

    I never said i agree with what Humana did- nor did i try to defend them. Regardless of who did what or what did who, if Obama's campaign crew threatened the NRA for wanting to air ads on TV prior to the Nov 2 election. not for airing them... not for slander or dragging his name through the mud but for wanting to air them, and now he is releasing a gag order on companies that oppose his wants.

    it seems a little far fetched to believe the the only reason he is doing is to prevent them from pulling any more stunts. 1) the NRA is against Obama and his strict gun laws which would cause the NRA to lose money so the NRA wanted to present the facts about Obama's prior voting history, that's all. and they got threatened for wanting to air ads that present that. and now 2) he is releasing a Gag Order on Health insurance providers from speaking out....

    it just doesn't add up...
    09-24-09 04:23 PM
  2. amazinglygraceless's Avatar
    Holy cow Mike, that is one major detour.

    The NRA notwithstanding, the Humana issue is not a "gag order".
    It is the government telling a company not to use the government
    to lie to and scare seniors.

    I don't care where anyone sits politically, but on this issue that
    would strike me as something so appropriate that even the
    dumbest guy in the room would get it.
    09-24-09 04:34 PM
  3. wnm's Avatar
    Holy cow Mike, that is one major detour.

    The NRA notwithstanding, the Humana issue is not a "gag order".
    It is the government telling a company not to use the government
    to lie to and scare seniors.

    I don't care where anyone sits politically, but on this issue that
    would strike me as something so appropriate that even the
    dumbest guy in the room would get it.
    AG,

    Have to give you credit for find a better way of saying what I was trying to say. Humana clearly has a self interest in telling people that the proposed health care plans might take away or reduce medicare advantage which might happen.
    09-24-09 07:10 PM
  4. amazinglygraceless's Avatar
    AG,

    Have to give you credit for find a better way of saying what I was trying to say. Humana clearly has a self interest in telling people that the proposed health care plans might take away or reduce medicare advantage which might happen.
    You know, Mike may be right and I may be totally off base. What bothers me
    is that political discourse has almost nothing to do with honesty these days.

    The Left thinks the President walks on water, the Right thinks he is a power
    hungry fascist. Somewhere in the middle of all the shouting, rhetoric, talking
    points and outright lies is the truth. This Humana issue is another bright,
    shining example of that.

    Any American who is unwilling to seek out the truth and debate from that
    standpoint does our nation a massive disservice.
    09-24-09 07:54 PM
  5. Archangel00195's Avatar
    My god...I'm...agreeing with AG...
    WTF...I'm scared...hold me someone...
    09-25-09 01:09 AM
  6. Archangel00195's Avatar
    Fox isn't nearly as biased as some other sources. Most other sources are just so far to the left that Fox looks biased right far more than they really are.
    Fox-repub
    MSNBC-demo
    NBC-hates GM

    Take a look at the link in my sig. This is just one of the cases where the "reporting" is based on lies. I mean they cut the second part of what she said.

    There's also the whole "No one reported 9/12 but us" thing where they stole the CNN tower shot.

    I mean Fox did everything short of funding(wait..that's in the air...) the 9/12 thing. When their job is to "report" not promote. Saying Fox news isn't as slanted as people say just shows that you either agree with them, or you don't watch it. Fox is just as biased as MSNBC.

    To be fair I listed CNN and BBC two news sources closer to the center than Fox or MSNBC. If I wanted to be a **** I'd ask for an al jazeera link or a Google news link (since they link more than on site with the info).

    This topic is something to talk about though. Its not the OP's job to present different sides. That's everyone elses' job who may disagree with the articles. If I'm the prosecutor, I wouldn't be expected to firm up the defense. That's just the case here. Have a differing viewpoint? Dig up some articles/evidence to support youir viewpoint. That's how debate works.
    No it's not. If you took a debate class or wrote an persuasive peice you'd know that. I'll explain
    Debate (cross-ex style): In a good plan you present your side, present the other side and disprove it. On a state level the refusal to acknowledge the other side acts as a side of ignorance and may cost you the round.

    Court: Hmmm...Court is slanted anyway...and it's not a debate in the...it's 4am I'll finish that thought later. Either way as prosecutor you have to acknowledge the other points and break them. If you preemptively state the other sides case ("The defense states the accused was at...) and you kill it right then and there you look more imformed and you kill any points they could use.

    Papers: Any English teacher who cares about their job will fail you if you don't point out the criticisms for your point and then point out how they are wrong. Otherwise it looks as if you're blindly supporting a side with no research into it just googled until you found things that support it.

    Summary: If you don't take on both sides in a debate topic and people point to you as slanted/baiting/jaded or whatever it's your fault.

    Think about it...if you write a paper on Gun rights...and you only cite the NRA...only like minded people will treat the paper with any kind of credibility. But if you vary the sources, acknowledge the flaws, then refute...it makes a more solid point on an academic level.

    I will admit that I love watching OReily, Carlson, Rush and Beck take on Obermman. It's my guilty pleasure I mean...the BS from fox and MSNBC feeding trolls time and time again. If Obermman left the joke network he could be so epic...
    You know...like how Beck went from cool dude on CNN to trolling people IRL on Fox.
    09-25-09 04:11 AM
  7. Archangel00195's Avatar
    ArchAngles statement was


    I just stated that the main article came from Canada's Free Press. i didn't say it was balanced... not did i imply that it was balanced. I said "neither pro/con anything he does with our heath care. " .. why would Canada care what he does with our health care....

    and why would ABC/CNN beat the one the worship by posting that on the headlines... they won't they put the Republicans up there to beat.... it's a two sided story.
    Two things...

    1: There is no archangle in this topic. Their's an archangEL. I only point it out because you do this every topic where you quote me. It's more annoying to read than that poster who spells "fox" "faux" even when talking about Megan fox.

    2: Who said anything about ABC? I mean...you can't even claim a mistype...it's like... oh wait...you're topic dodging like that jump to the NRA stuff...

    well...
    09-25-09 04:18 AM
  8. syb0rg's Avatar
    Two things...

    1: There is no archangle in this topic. Their's an archangEL. I only point it out because you do this every topic where you quote me. It's more annoying to read than that poster who spells "fox" "faux" even when talking about Megan fox.

    2: Who said anything about ABC? I mean...you can't even claim a mistype...it's like... oh wait...you're topic dodging like that jump to the NRA stuff...

    well...
    You told me to site a different source other than FOX News.... I replied with "why would ABC or CNN news beat the one the worship"... taking a piece of news from either one of them in my humble opinion is just as bad taking news from a extreme "right winger".. .. .. why would the beat the one the worship. Why would CNN/ABC or any other liberal news source do that? ? ? they wont the liberal news stations will keep Obama/Biden/Nacy/Clinton on the golden throne. and put the conservatives on the cross.... seems a little one sided if you want me to look news from other sources.

    and as far as "fox news" being that far right... i don't think it's as far right as you think... according to "TV by Numbers" Fox News has more viewers that any other news program.... On Aug 26, 2009 Fox news had more viewers than any other news source TV By numbers. and the Huffington Post referred to Fox New's rating as "CRAZY HIGH" avg. 2.15 million viewers per night during the week of March 22, 2009. I'd honestly like to start going with another news source but it seems the one i'm going with has been the majority for a while, and most likely will stay there for a little while.

    and and for the record archang[le] ---- it's called a typo, us humans... we do that from time to time...
    09-25-09 08:03 AM
  9. bp3dots's Avatar
    You told me to site a different source other than FOX News.... I replied with "why would ABC or CNN news beat the one the worship"... taking a piece of news from either one of them in my humble opinion is just as bad taking news from a extreme "right winger".. .. .. why would the beat the one the worship. Why would CNN/ABC or any other liberal news source do that? ? ? they wont the liberal news stations will keep Obama/Biden/Nacy/Clinton on the golden throne. and put the conservatives on the cross.... seems a little one sided if you want me to look news from other sources.

    and as far as "fox news" being that far right... i don't think it's as far right as you think... according to "TV by Numbers" Fox News has more viewers that any other news program.... On Aug 26, 2009 Fox news had more viewers than any other news source TV By numbers. and the Huffington Post referred to Fox New's rating as "CRAZY HIGH" avg. 2.15 million viewers per night during the week of March 22, 2009. I'd honestly like to start going with another news source but it seems the one i'm going with has been the majority for a while, and most likely will stay there for a little while.

    and and for the record archang[le] ---- it's called a typo, us humans... we do that from time to time...
    History teaches us that the majority =/= right. (Not political "right", correct right.) So that's a pretty poor argument.

    Also, while I understand your wariness of dissapearing freedoms, I think it was AG who pointed out that this is not an incident of individuals or corporations losing their ability to speak out against the govt, but instead it is the govt stopping a private entity from misrepresenting itself AS the govt in an effort to scare people into the belief that they will be in trouble unless they support that which enriches said corp. You have to be able to see the difference there, I hope.
    09-25-09 09:51 AM
  10. syb0rg's Avatar
    History teaches us that the majority =/= right. (Not political "right", correct right.) So that's a pretty poor argument.

    Also, while I understand your wariness of dissapearing freedoms, I think it was AG who pointed out that this is not an incident of individuals or corporations losing their ability to speak out against the govt, but instead it is the govt stopping a private entity from misrepresenting itself AS the govt in an effort to scare people into the belief that they will be in trouble unless they support that which enriches said corp. You have to be able to see the difference there, I hope.
    I do see the difference - I see it as clear as a bell. But " keep quite or I'll shut you down" is a far cry from just trying to keep them quite. Giving the a fine to pay, making them reissue letter to those who got the first letter is a correction of the problem, well... More like a slap on the hand warning. But out closing them down over this is highly unwarranted.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-25-09 10:55 AM
  11. Radius's Avatar
    What I love is the rhetoric about death lists and whatnot, how some people will be left to die.

    But they completely ignore the fact that is works that way now. An insurance company may decide not to cover you, or just delay giving you the approval hoping you'll expire in the mean time.

    I don't think anything is going to be solved anytime soon.
    09-25-09 10:56 AM
  12. Archangel00195's Avatar
    I do see the difference - I see it as clear as a bell. But " keep quite or I'll shut you down" is a far cry from just trying to keep them quite. Giving the a fine to pay, making them reissue letter to those who got the first letter is a correction of the problem, well... More like a slap on the hand warning. But out closing them down over this is highly unwarranted.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    ...You didn't read any of AG's posts did you?

    By your logic Impersonation of a cop should be legal.
    Last edited by Archangel00195; 09-25-09 at 12:09 PM.
    09-25-09 12:00 PM
  13. syb0rg's Avatar
    ...You didn't read any of AG's posts did you?

    By your logic Impersonation of a cop should be legal.
    I did read AG's Post [ im my words ] this has nothing to do with the freedom of individual speech - it has to do with corporate speech. two different ball games under two different sets of rules. yes i read it.

    So your impression of my impression was wrong or am i gathering the wrong impression?

    my impression on this case and the prior deal with the NRA [same thing happened to them] is if you are anti-obama - obama himself will sue you or "shut you down"... you cannot shut down / or shouldn't be allowed to shut down a company due to the view points that any company in question has. period. if that was the case i'd want to shut down Pepsi Co. for stands they make in today's time. I guess i should run for & lie to win the whitehouse and shut them down....
    09-25-09 12:16 PM
  14. Archangel00195's Avatar
    I did read AG's Post [ im my words ] this has nothing to do with the freedom of individual speech - it has to do with corporate speech. two different ball games under two different sets of rules. yes i read it.

    So your impression of my impression was wrong or am i gathering the wrong impression?

    my impression on this case and the prior deal with the NRA [same thing happened to them] is if you are anti-obama - obama himself will sue you or "shut you down"... you cannot shut down / or shouldn't be allowed to shut down a company due to the view points that any company in question has. period. if that was the case i'd want to shut down Pepsi Co. for stands they make in today's time. I guess i should run for & lie to win the whitehouse and shut them down....
    Funfact!
    Companys don't have the rights that people have.

    Funfact!
    SLANDER - A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel.

    Funfact!
    What Humana did was try to make a corporate mailer look as if
    it had come from and was sanctioned by the government.
    That is not political speech (protected by the 1st Amendment)
    but commercial speech (which is protected far less.)
    Funfact!
    You as a person=/=the freedoms of a corporation.
    is taking away our freedom of speech.
    MY freedom of speech is fine. Companies are already limited hardcore in what they can and can't say and this just falls in those lines. I mean have you looked at the laws for companies pertaining to politics? They get crazy...
    I wish I paid more attention during government and I'd tell you why the NRA ads where blocked but I don't care enough to look up the rules.
    09-25-09 12:41 PM
  15. amazinglygraceless's Avatar
    Since you insist on trotting out this very well debunked NRA claim,
    here you go: FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama


    Now look closely at that flier. Same color scheme, same font and same logo
    used by the Obama campaign. Problem is the flier was produced and mailed by
    the NRA with the express intent to make it appear as an official campaign
    document. Sound familiar?

    As to the ad, it was riddle with so many lies and distortions as to be laughable
    Anyone who did a modicum of research would have seen that it was total BS.

    And before you ask, the Annenberg Public Policy Center is completely
    apolitical. It was in fact started by Walter Annenberg (Ambassador under
    Richard Nixon) and his wife Lenore (Ronald Reagans' State Department
    Chief of Protocol).
    09-25-09 02:00 PM
  16. Archangel00195's Avatar
    Since you insist on trotting out this very well debunked NRA claim,
    here you go: FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama


    Now look closely at that flier. Same color scheme, same font and same logo
    used by the Obama campaign. Problem is the flier was produced and mailed by
    the NRA with the express intent to make it appear as an official campaign
    document. Sound familiar?

    As to the ad, it was riddle with so many lies and distortions as to be laughable
    Anyone who did a modicum of research would have seen that it was total BS.

    And before you ask, the Annenberg Public Policy Center is completely
    apolitical. It was in fact started by Walter Annenberg (Ambassador under
    Richard Nixon) and his wife Lenore (Ronald Reagans' State Department
    Chief of Protocol).
    IBpeopleclaimfactcheckisbias.
    09-25-09 04:19 PM
41 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD