Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $17,066
19%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 19% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Richard Poe

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Who has read "Hillary's Secret War?"

    05/02/2011 4:50:06 PM PDT · 35 of 36
    Richard Poe to jla; netmilsmom
    Oops! I left out the most important person in post #31. I left out Jim Robinson! Here's how I should have written it:

    "Hillary's Secret War was based on exclusive, in-depth interviews with New Media pioneers such as Joseph Farah, Christopher Ruddy, David Horowitz, Andrew Breitbart, Binyamin Jolkovsky, Missy Kelly, J.J. Johnson... AND JIM ROBINSON."

  • Who has read "Hillary's Secret War?"

    05/02/2011 11:47:07 AM PDT · 31 of 36
    Richard Poe to jla; netmilsmom
    jla wrote: "I've read [Hillary's Secret War] and it was awful. Poe doesn't reveal anything one cannot find on the www, whether true or not. It's basically nothing more than a composite of articles written about the Clintons. Very speculative; no hard facts."

    Dear jla:

    I am sorry that you did not like my book. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. However, your post went beyond mere opinionating. It contained misleading information, which I must now correct.

    Contrary to what you wrote, Hillary's Secret War is not a "composite of articles written about the Clintons." In fact, the book does not even pretend to be "about the Clintons." It is about the "New Underground" -- my name for the New Media pioneers who battled the Clintons, through dissident Web sites such as NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, FrontPageMag, JewishWorldReview, The Drudge Report, FreeRepublic and the now-defunct SierraTimes.

    Hillary's Secret War was based on exclusive, in-depth interviews with New Media pioneers such as Joseph Farah, Christopher Ruddy, David Horowitz, Andrew Breitbart, Binyamin Jolkovsky, Missy Kelly, J.J. Johnson, and many more -- including various Freepers who took part in street actions during the disputed election of 2000.

    From this research, I was able to demonstrate that dissident Web sites -- especially FreeRepublic and WorldNetDaily -- played a major role in thwarting Democrat efforts to steal the 2000 election. Not only was this fact unknown to the general public when I wrote the book, but mainstream journalists and historians, to this day, remain completely in the dark regarding those events.

    Let me add that, when I interviewed and wrote about Andrew Breitbart in Hillary's Secret War, most people did not even know that Breitbart existed.

  • Who has read "Hillary's Secret War?"

    05/02/2011 10:48:12 AM PDT · 29 of 36
    Richard Poe to netmilsmom; jla
    jla wrote: "I’ve read it and it was awful. Poe doesn’t reveal anything one cannot find on the www, whether true or not. It’s basically nothing more than a composite of articles written about the Clintons. Very speculative; no hard facts."

    netmilsmom wrote: Are you sure you have the right book? I was just sitting here rereading the part about Andrew Breitbart and marveling at how much it’s similar to Breitbart’s new book."

    Thanks for defending my book (against jla's criticism)!

  • Who has read "Hillary's Secret War?"

    05/02/2011 10:42:32 AM PDT · 28 of 36
    Richard Poe to netmilsmom
    netmilsmom wrote: "If you doubt that, read the book, 'Hillary's Secret War' by FReeper Richard Poe. You will see how it happened back in the 90's. You'll see FReepernames you know, and you'll see Jim Robinson wrote the forward."

    Thanks for the plug!

  • Who has read "Hillary's Secret War?"

    05/02/2011 10:37:47 AM PDT · 27 of 36
    Richard Poe to mnehring; netmilsmom
    mnehring wrote: courtesy ping FRiend.

    netmilsmom wrote:My apologies Mr. Poe, I forgot to ping you.

    Thanks for the pings!

  • Medical Murder (FULL TEXT)

    10/15/2009 4:13:02 PM PDT · 5 of 11
    Richard Poe to knarf
    Since its founding in 1969, “The activities of the [Hastings] Center” included research into “death and dying, behavior control, genetic engineering and counseling, and population control,” according to bioethicist Albert R. Jonsen, writing in his book The Birth of Bioethics.
  • Medical Murder (FULL TEXT)

    10/15/2009 3:37:34 PM PDT · 1 of 11
    Richard Poe
    Please note that Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -- Obama's special advisor for health policy -- is a Hastings Center fellow.
  • Obamacare to be One Big "Death Panel"

    08/20/2009 5:58:10 PM PDT · 1 of 16
    Richard Poe
  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 7:48:42 PM PDT · 73 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    Deagle writes:

    Waiting for a reasonable response from you regarding my responses to your questions...

    Richard Poe responds:

    Sir, you have made no responses to my questions at all, other than crude denials and evasions.

    Deagle wrote:

    I am not unreasonable, just a bit of an old fashioned elderly gentleman...

    Richard Poe responds:

    With all due respect, sir, we have only your word that you are "old-fashioned" and "elderly." It is very easy, on the Internet, for people to pretend to be something other than what they are. For all I know, you may be a college student, pretending to be an "old-fashioned, elderly gentleman."

    Very few 64-year-old men, in my experience, would refer to themselves as "elderly." College students, on the other hand, probably think of 64 as quite an advanced age.

    If you are "old-fashioned," I certainly see no sign of it in your comments. Medical rationing is not an "old-fashioned" concept.

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 7:20:38 PM PDT · 69 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    QUESTION 3

    You claim to oppose Obamacare. Yet you support the key point of Obamacare, which is used to justify all the rest. You support the idea that Grandma and Grandpa must die so Junior can have a good life.

    As you are well aware, sir, this argument leads directly to Obamacare. It cannot possibly lead anywhere else. It is absurd to pretend that people today are going to be left alone to make their own choices about how they will die. The government will decide for them. You know this as well as I do.

    Here is my final question for the night. You have expressed concern for your son. Yet, your support of Obamacare presents a deadly threat to your son.

    Your son will have to live with the consequences of Obamacare long after you are dead. He will live in fear. The government will have the right to end his life whenever it pleases, for whatever reason it chooses.

    Is that what you want for your son?

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 6:59:24 PM PDT · 63 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle; Uncle Chip
    Deagle, actually, the best response to your argument was made by Uncle Chip, in comment 51. He wrote:

    Children worth anything would do all they could to keep their parents around and with them as long as possible. So these kids who you are describing can't be worth diddly squat.

    I would like to hear your response to Uncle Chip on this point.

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 6:42:55 PM PDT · 61 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    Deagle writes:

    Okay...fine... Ask me your DIRECT questions and I will answer them the best that I can...

    Richard Poe responds:

    With all due respect, sir, all of my questions have been direct. You are simply asking me to repeat myself. But never mind. I'll repeat my questions, if you like.

    QUESTION 1

    You are saying that we spend too much money on health care for the elderly and that the young and fit should get that money instead. The problem is that the young and fit don't need that money.

    A 2006 study by the Department of Health and Human Services shows that half the U.S. population “spends little or nothing on health care… with annual medical spending below $664 per person.” The study is talking here about healthy young people.

    Obviously, if you are a healthy young person spending less than $664 per year on health care, you do not need to raid Grandma and Grandpa's piggybank in order to pay your doctor's bills. Grandma and Grandpa don't need to die, so you can live.

    The statistics are clear. Money is not the real issue here. So what is the real issue? Why is it so important to you to convince us that Grandma and Grandpa need to die?

    QUESTION 2

    You say the younger generation would revolt if "we were to think like the '50s." I'm not sure what you mean by that. How did people think about these questions during the '50s? And why do you say that such thinking would cause revolts among the young?

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 6:02:30 PM PDT · 56 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    Deagle writes

    I’m not sure that you either understand or care even after several posts saying the same...

    Richard Poe responds

    Sir, it is true that you have posted several comments saying exactly the same thing, over and over again. However, that is not particularly helpful.

    I am trying to get you to clarify and elaborate your position, rather than simply repeating it. That is why I am asking you questions.

    Rather than running away, I wish that you would stay and answer my questions.

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 5:47:02 PM PDT · 53 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    Deagle wrote:

    Life is a choice and when you are drawing upon your kids' and grand kids' futures to prolong and ease yours, you are selfish. That is my philosophy - like it or not.

    I can understand yours but I do think it is a selfish attitude that continues to prevail today. If we were to think like the 50’s, your ideas would cause revolts in the younger generation for sure...

    Richard Poe responds:

    You say the younger generation would revolt if "we were to think like the '50s." I'm not sure what you mean by that.

    How did people think about these questions during the '50s? And why do you say that such thinking would cause revolts among the young?

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 5:36:04 PM PDT · 50 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    Deagle wrote:

    I was looking at the financial side of health care (not Obama care). ObamaCare is a joke! I am not in any way supporting socialist medicine but am pointing to a fact - elderly require more care. If they gave up a bit of this money to support others, it would help enormously since they consume about 40% of the costs.

    Sir, let's get our terminology straight. You are talking about medical rationing. It doesn't matter whether you call it Obamacare, Hillarycare or Rockefellercare. Medical rationing is medical rationing.

    You are saying that we spend too much money on health care for the elderly (and, by implication, on health care for the disabled and the gravely ill at any age).

    You are saying that it would be more fair to give that money to the young and fit.

    One problem with your argument is that the young and fit don't need the money -- at least not for health care. They hardly need any medical care at all.

    According to a 2006 study by the Department of Health and Human Services, five percent of the U.S. population accounts for nearly 50 percent of health care spending in America. Who are those five percent? Most are people over 65 years of age with serious, chronic illnesses.

    By contrast, the study notes, half of the U.S. population “spends little or nothing on health care… with annual medical spending below $664 per person.” These, of course, are mostly healthy young people – people without serious, chronic illnesses.

    Obviously, those healthy young people who spend less than $664 per person per year on health care do not need to kill off Grandma and Grandpa in order to insure that they get enough health care dollars for themselves. They already have enough.

    So what exactly are you selling? Why are you so eager to convince us that Grandma and Grandpa need to die?

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 4:22:08 PM PDT · 36 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    Deagle writes:

    I’m 64 and would gladly give up a few years for the hope of the younger generation - including my son.

    Sir, I think most parents would give up their lives for their children.

    I'm not sure, though, what this has to do with Obamacare. Obamacare is about government bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies.

    Once you have conceded life-and-death power to the government, your children will have to live with the consequences of your decision, long after you are dead. They will live in fear. The government will have the right to end their lives whenever it pleases, for whatever reason it chooses.

    Is that what you want for your children?

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 3:56:29 PM PDT · 20 of 81
    Richard Poe to plangent
    Plangent wrote:

    Here’s an interesting factoid from Dr. Zeke Emanuel posted earlier on FR.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2287233/posts

    Ezekiel Emmanuel MD, Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, is “Special Advisor for Health Policy” to the Office of Management and Budget (Peter Orszag), is described by the Huffington Post article as engaged in a very important mission: redesigning the US health care system.

    Thanks, Plangent.

    I'm not allowed to post the entire 7,000 words of my Whistleblower article here, but below is a small excerpt from it which touches on Dr. Emmanuel and his age-weighted rationing policies:

    QUOTE FROM WHISTLEBLOWER ARTICLE FOLLOWS:

    In a Jan. 31 article in the British medical journal Lancet, Emmanuel advised steering health dollars toward the young and fit, specifically those between the ages of 15 and 40, while reducing health spending for the elderly.

    Weirdly, Emmanuel -- along with his co-authors Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer -- made a special point of arguing that age-weighted medical rationing does not violate the rules of political correctness. They wrote:

    "“Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination … Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

    In other words, if we decided to let the elderly die because we think of them in “stereotypical” terms – say, if we thought of them as useless old dodderers – we would be guilty of “ageism.” However, if we let them die for a “good” reason – for example, because we decide that they have already had their chance at life, and now it’s time to give someone else a chance – then letting them die is perfectly OK.

    In Emanuel’s view, letting old people die is not the problem. The problem is finding the right words to justify it.

    END QUOTE FROM WHISTLEBLOWER ARTICLE

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 3:22:16 PM PDT · 1 of 81
    Richard Poe
  • Obama's Mentor and the Radicalism He Backed

    03/09/2009 6:26:43 AM PDT · 6 of 7
    Richard Poe to Richard Poe
    FROM ARTICLE

    "One year before his death in 1972, Alinsky published 'Rules for Radicals,' whose dedication page features what may be the clearest distillation of Alinsky’s true beliefs.

    "Alinsky dedicated his book to 'the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.'"

  • Obama's Mentor and the Radicalism He Backed

    03/09/2009 6:20:12 AM PDT · 3 of 7
    Richard Poe to Richard Poe
    FROM ARTICLE:

    “'Somebody once asked me whether I believe in reconciliation,' Alinsky used to tell his followers. 'Sure I do. When one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we’ll have reconciliation.'

    "For Alinsky, compromise was just a trick, a way to get your enemy off guard while you plotted your next attack. 'If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you’re 30 percent ahead,' he wrote."