Project Wonderful Banner

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

That damned quote

What's Mallard raving about today?

President Obama, Healthcare.

Quotes are great fun when you take them out of context:
As I indicated before, I think that we’re going to have to have some system where people can buy into a larger pool. Right now their pool typically is the employer, but there are other ways of doing it. I would like to — I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we’ve got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we’ve got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.
That said, I refuse to grant the premise that our profit-motivated, employer-based health insurance system provides value.

20 comments:

Michael said...

This is clearly a fabrication, because this was President Obama in 2007. His chin was 6 inches shorter, and he more closely resembled the aliens in "To Serve Man".

Anonymous said...

Teabaggers 2007: "Obama's a secret muslim terrorist!"

Teabaggers 2009: "Obama's a Nazi socialist!"

Remember, though, teabaggers are just poor innocent grannies, victims of Obama's evil plot to euthanize them! Not hateful idiots that leap on to whatever crap that Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck spewed this week.

Tog said...

If Tinsley didn't take things completely out of context, he couldn't draw his counterpart with that smug-dick smirk he loves so well.

Plus, Tin knows his target audience is already primed to accept and regurgitate whatever he craps out without checking it; they know fact-checking is a tool of the Devil (as are facts).

steve-o said...

Let's just pretend that what Tinkley has written here is 100% correct (even though we know it's bullshit). So in Tinz's world, back in 2007 Obama wanted to get rid of employer covered healthcare, but now his position has evolved and now he wants you to keep your healthcare. So what is the problem with this? Oh yeah, real men never, and I mean NEVER, change their minds about ANYTHING.

Anonymous said...

You misunderstand this taking quotes out of context thing. If it's done to Democrat quotes it's OK. But, all embarrassing Republican quotes are by definition out of context and this cannot be allowed!!!

Glad I could straighten this out for you.

Rootbeer said...

I would think that it was clear to anybody with a functioning brain and liver that Obama's comments from 2007 covered long-term goals, and his comments from three weeks ago today covered the immediate goals of the reform bill under consideration.

There is no inconsistency between the two statements; the 2009 bill is only one step in the transition to the system Obama would like to see.

dlauthor said...

Tinshley, 2002: Ted Kennedy is evil because he's a boozer!

Tinshley, today: Ted Kennedy was evil! Where did I put my booze?

dlauthor said...

Also, you know, this trend of exaggerating features farther and farther down President Obama's body has disturbing ramifications for, oh, around 2014.

rewinn said...

April 2004: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so."

2007: "Congress must legalize the warrantless wiretapping I have been ordering since before 9/11"

Remember when Tinshley got mad about that?

exanonymous said...

Employer coverage is so wonderful they keep switching the insurance on employees just to keep things exciting and great!

Growing up with parents on employer provided coverage meant that every time I got used to a pediatrician and office, we had to switch because the company wanted cheaper insurance. So when employed myself, I opted for private insurance instead of company insurance when it cost the same (even though the company one had better benefits) and sure enough, 6 months in they were switching companies and people had to sort through doctors and hospitals and fill out multiple forms.

But hey, I've cynical of that for a long time. Employer insurance was what forced my family to stop visiting a doctor who was so dedicated he opened his office at 2am so my parents could bring me in when I was 2 and extremely sick. He would make house calls for his patients as well. Until the insurance companies interfered anyways.

Factinista said...

@exanonymous

And the teabaggers are saying that the government would choose your doctor for you. Convenient how they forget stuff like that.

Jazzbumpa said...

So . . . though there is no inconsistency between the two statements, we are to believe thqat Obama has changed his mind.

Contrast the previous President, who would never have changed his mind - even if he had one.

Toots McGee said...

Forgive me for indulging in the trollish pursuit of blasting you with a series of links unrelated to today's "comic", but I find this interesting and kind of thematically similar to what Ducky's been presenting to us.

The Department of Education issued this announcement that the president would be addressing all U.S. school children. Just to cherry pick some of the announcement: The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.

The Republican Party of Florida chairman then issued this statement opposing the president's address to school children thusly (again, I selected a highlight):

The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.

While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda. The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.


I ask with complete sincerity, is this really happening? Are people, real human beings, seeing stuff like link #1 and reacting with stuff like link #2? (Oh yeah, and if you notice, the RPOF links directly to the DOE link, so it's not as if those who consume this stuff can't go back to the source and read it for themselves. That's the part that troubles me the most. It's as if they are just daring us to call them on their BS while they're smugly assured that their base will eat up their vitriol with a spoon.)

Sorry for the length. I'll restrain myself next time. I swear.

GeoX said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GeoX said...

Children should be encouraged to bring guns to school and chant "hear our voice!" over and over to drown out Obama's message! That's what I call "healthy debate!"

Anonymous said...

Obama's teleprompter malfunctioning again?

Frank Stone said...

>sigh< Poor, poor Brucie. He doesn't understand how the whole "juxtapose 2 quotes by the same speaker to illustrate the speaker's hypocrisy" thing is supposed to work.

See, Brucie, the older quote is supposed to be placed BEFORE the more recent quote, and the 2 quotes are supposed to be about the SAME THING. ("2007 Obama" was talking about employer-based coverage, while "today Obama" was talking about coverage in general.)

I hate to break this to you, Brucie (well, no, I don't, really), but this crap isn't going to make you rich. You aren't as shrewd as Rush and Sean, and the cranky old white guys who make up Billy-Boy's audience probably aren't reading the comics page anyway.

dlauthor said...

I like how the Coward couldn't be arsed to even be sober enough to post anything vaguely topical, but just dragged his face out of the pool of vomit and spilled, stale Schlitz that he calls a pillow long enough to burble about teleprompters and promptly pass out again.

Sleep tight, little guy. You've had a big day.

rewinn said...

Hey, Toots, you've just done Tinshley's 90 hours of research for next month's "comic".

I don't mind your post at all; it's both funny and sad how the GOP is just out-and-out making stuff up as if there's no way to check their lies. It mighta worked in pre-internet days too.

Can you IMAGINE being an internet-literal young person today and joining the GOP? The Democratic Party is a deeply flawed institution, far too riddled with corporatists, but at least the guy in the White House ties his factual statements to things that can actually be proven with sources more reliable than "* Foxnews"

Tog said...

@Anonymous 11:47 AM

Seriously, could you please put some effort into your trolling? The only thing offensive about your message is its sheer laziness. I thought you guys were really big on "triumph of the will" and all that.

I've learned not to expect you squirming maggots to think for yourselves, fight your own wars, or do fact-checking...but for crying out loud, stir yourself enough to at least be mildly provocative.