Because you jinxed first, technically I am not allowed to talk until you say my name three times, but perhaps typing doesn't count. I'd be glad to buy you a Coke -- a whole 6-pack. Very close academic guess, by the way, as I do have a minor in philosophy. You are my favorite aunt.

Me: "People need to realize that the health-care plan is intended as some sort of government takeover."

Oopsy daisy... I meant to say the health-care plan is NOT intended as a government takeover.

chiefpayne: ""The question I asked you is WHO demonized them." Pelosi and Reid for two."

I see. Earlier you were saying it was Obama and a bunch of other Dems. Now you're saying Pelosi and Reid, but when questioned, you have admitted that you disagree more with their tone than with what they actually said. So I think your case for "demonization" isn't that strong.

chiefpayne: ""As for calling them teabaggers, how do you equate that with demonization? I am really curious." Oh come on...you know what that is. I don't need to spell it out for you."

Teabagger is what they originally called themselves, though certainly people had a bit of a smirk about it as a result. But the term is a self description, based on the fact that they were throwing teabags around.

chiefpayne: "Well that's the point...they aren't drowning out opposing points of view."

You don't have a problem with people repeatedly shouting OVER people who are attempting to answer questions calmly, etc.?

chiefpayne: "They are striving to get their message out but it either is falling on deaf ears or is being lost."

Why do you say that? Senators at the town hall meetings are responding to people's questions.

chiefpayne: "And it's not helping when Congressmen are putting their constituents out of the meeting and filling up the seats with those who agree with them. Looks pretty bad, actually."

So I take it you must have been REALLY down on Bush. Yes?

chiefpayne: "The generalized "they" in the opposition to healthcare. That's like saying every liberal is like the extreme members of PETA means all of them are like that."

So you have now admitted that there was nothing Pelosi's words that counted as demonization. You just don't like the way she seemed to be generalizing (though it's not evident she's referring to all protesters; she could just be referring to the uncivil ones).

Let me be clear: I think it's important that people with opposing viewpoints be heard out. I think that really good questions and criticism will likely lead to a better health-care plan.

The problem is that several people have as much as admitted that they aren't trying to have real debate. Some of them have admitted that their sole motive is to kill the plan and deliver a loss for Obama. There is a political angle to this of SOME people wanting to make the Dems look like big-government, overspending socialist bureaucrat totalitarians, in the hopes that it will turn more people in favor of the Republicans so they can get more votes in the 2010 elections.

As for people with legitimate concerns about the health care plan, they should be fully heard out. People need to realize that the health-care plan is intended as some sort of government takeover. The point that keeps getting made over and over is that the intention is to reduce the cost of health care for everybody. There is no denying that insurance companies have gamed the system for maximum profit. There is no denying that the current system does not serve the best interests of the average person.

chiefpayne: "Oh please...so you are assuming that she did ASK for a moment to check her voice mail or whatever."

I didn't assume anything. I said "as far as anybody knows," the situation could have more to it than what's shown. You're the one assuming that what the video shows is the sum total of what happened.

chiefpayne: "Ok...then WHY didn't she ask for a moment in the video."

The video doesn't show how it started. She might have asked for a moment prior to the start of what we see in the video. She might have held up her hand as if asking for a moment, and the woman might have asked her question anyway. More importantly, Jackson might have then given a full response to the woman. Don't you think that Jackson's response is essential in judging whether she was being generally rude or not? Why are you so eager to rely solely on a brief video to make a full judgment on Jackson's behavior?

ChiefPayne: "Worse, WHY didn't she say that was exactly what she was doing while defending herself, rather than say the video must have been doctored?"

I didn't see the interview, but if Jackson said it was doctored, she may well have been referring to its out-of-context nature and the text overlay.

ChiefPayne: "...but then when she defended herself, she was asked if she apologized and she said the woman never asked for one so she didn't get one."

You're really letting yourself get carried away by this. I don't think Jackson would have any reason to do anything other than apologize if this exchange had ended with her giving a full response to the woman.

ChiefPayne: "Still, if someone DOES come up with an unedited version...a FULL version of what really happened I would like to see it."

Doesn't this just prove my point? Why is the only version that's being pushed by opponents a clearly out-of-context version? If Jackson was so very rude, why not show the entirety of what occurred?