U.S. Rep. David Scott to face additional health care fanatics
August 19, 2009 at 2:53 pm by Thomas Wheatley in NewsU.S. Rep. David Scott, D-Jonesboro, sparked national headlines earlier this month when he lost his cool with a health care reform opponent in Douglasville. He took some heat from boneheads for that one.
Since then, the congressman’s held additional forums about Congress’ perplexing — and ever-changing — proposal. And on Friday, August 28, he’ll speak at another event in Austell sponsored by the AARP, one the organization hopes will be a lively but civil.
If you’re planning on just dropping by the free event, you might be disappointed. In order to keep the forum orderly, the AARP asks you to RSVP if you plan to attend. There’ll be refreshments and snacks to help foamy-mouth protesters recharge after yelling about socialism. Guns will probably not be allowed.
To RSVP, call 1-877-926-8300 or send the organization an email. The event will be held from 10 a.m. to noon at the Austell Community Center at 2625 Joe Jerkins Blvd., Austell, GA 30106. Doors open at 9 a.m.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Mr. Wheatley are you a “Bonehead”? Not sure of your application on this statement.
Since the Webster defintion is – “a foolish or stupid person; blockhead” I am sure this is not what you meant? I hope.
Please I ask you to clarify you definition and reason. The man was attacked by his representative, accused of not being a constituent and was talked down too by the congressman about not contacting his office to set up an appointment. All allegations which later where dispelled. I am also a constituent, I have contacted Congressmen Scotts office 2 times and have recieved no call back, does that make me a bone head?
Please I would like to understand what a “Bonehead” is and how I can identify these individuals at the meeting.
Are only opponents of a Federal Healthcare program “Boneheads” or do some proponents qualify as well.
I wonder would you be willing to have a written debate on the issue, or is free and open discussion unsavory to you?
August 27th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Good response. How? Could you be more specific?
August 27th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Your testy, repetitive rhetoric. You sound like a… like a… oh, what’s the word I’m looking for?
August 27th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I don’t think opponents of health care are boneheads. I applaud them for speaking out and engaging in the political process. But responding to opposing viewpoints with inflammatory symbols isn’t the best way to have a conversation. (The link I included in the sentence about “boneheads” brings you to a news story about the vandalism incident at Rep. Scott’s office.)
August 27th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Mr. Wheatley,
I applaud you for responding, thank you. But the symbols that you refer to like the portal of Obama as Hitler was not done by Republicans but actually by followers of Lyndon LaRouche, a registered Democrat.
In regard to the David Scott office sign defiling, are you inferring that the person who did this was Republican or represented the majority position of opposition to health care. No question this was wrong, but it was an act of coward not willing to protest in person.
Let’s also not forget this was done the day after the news broke nationally about Scott’s confrontation with his constituent. Is it beyond the realm of possibility this was not perpetrated by a Scott supporter seeking to divert negative attention from Scott by making him a victim. Just during this debate alone their have been at least two well publicized incidents where Democrat supporters did exactly this. The first at John Dingels town hall where a democratic strategist pose as a Republican carrying a Nazi sign, the earlier this week in Denver where a strategist was arrested for causing $10,000 in damage to the Democratic party headquarters. In both instances it was inferred or direct blame was placed on Republicans.
There is also the attempts be Democratic leadership to portray protestors as nationally coordinated “Astroturf” provocateurs. The hypcracy here is that this week the Obama administration and Democratic party announced a strategy to do exactly what the falsely accused these citizens and the Republican party of doing, which was in fact debunked.
There is also one other fact. Acts of violence such as those committed in Tampa and St. Louis where executed by supporters of healthcare and members of SEIU in an attempt to silence opponents of the current bill. Where is your outrage and condemnation of these acts.
There is also the Whitehouse use of flag@whitehouse.gov to collect emails of opponents, which the denied one week and the following week sent emails two. Is that not the ultimate act of intimidation?
Again, I appreciate your response, but I do find it somewhat lacking in fact.
I hope you will continue this discussion though as I believe this is a healthy debate.
Can I look forward to seeing you at tomorrows town hall meeting?
August 27th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Dash,
Your inability to openly discuss the issues either displays your lack of comprehension or desire to discuss the issues or to openly understand any position other than the decision that you have already arrived at.
I myself do not believe in providing unfettered support to any government policy without first reviewing and understanding the benefits and implications. I search to find both views that are in agreement and disagreement to my own to ensure that I have not arrived at an incorrect decision myself.
I certainly would enjoy having free and open discussion with you, but I cannot indulge rhetoric or agitation tactics.
Good luck to you.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Mr Wheatley.
Please excuse my typos in my previous response, but I am sure that you will be able to reasonbly be able to read through these and understand my POV.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Dash,
Your inability to openly discuss the issues
What inability to discuss the issues? I critiqued your initial reply, which was lame and overly defensive. Against your better judgment, you asked me to clarify. I did. Then you whip out this non sequitur. Passive-aggressive much? You never tried to engage me on the issues, Chuck. That’s your bad, not mine.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Dash
You correct, you did critique my initial post with Methinks thou dost protest too much” from Hamlet, misquoted I might add the proper quote is “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” or in this forum “Though protest too much, methinks” which obviously takes my gender into consideration.
I responded with a request to clarify, I wanted to understand your usage of the phrase since often it is in fact not only misquoted but misused. The proper inference of this phrase is that the “Protest” or vow is too strong.
Your second response was without meaning or response to the question, but only intended to call me a “bonehead”.
Your final response infers that I am passive-aggressive (Of, relating to, or having a personality disorder characterized by habitual passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in occupational or social situations, as by procrastination, stubbornness, sullenness, and inefficiency.) However, I have completely responded to your inferences without said stubbornness or resistance or inefficiency.
Refer to my posts as “non sequitur” which I can only take that you mean comedic, yet I have not made a single joke here or used any sarcasm.
The irony is that I have not attacked you once, however in three consecutive posts you have dismissed, characterized without substation that I was repetitive, aggressive and a “Bonehead”, passive aggressive, “non sequitur” and insists that I have made some error in judgment and conclusion.
Would you not characterize yourself as openly aggressive?
August 27th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
You’re only repeating your mistake, Chuck. Your “Comic Book Guy “routine demeans you. I never quoted Hamlet; I merely used an oft-repeated adaptation of an otherwise rarely appropriate line. Again you are displaying passive-aggressive tendencies, and again you have failed to engage me in a substantive discussion.
Last chance, Chuck. Make it count. And try to make it less scrolly this time.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Sorry, your chances are up you did not answer my question.
Beep
August 27th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Worst. Response. Ever.