Accusing a gay Jew of supporting the Nazis is hateful, vile, and uneducated, and should be treated as such.

The reason the left aways gets bogged down in the US is that for some reason they must treat every comer as a legitimate commentator.
This woman would be unable to be reasoned with – Barney Frank is showing the guts Obama needs to show.
Dismiss the fringe freaks, they’ll only steal your two minutes on TV. Talk to the middle.

Barney Frank speaks for me! He did the right thing!

I am so tired of people invoking the word “Nazi” to negatively sensationalize any issue. He treated her the way she deserved to be treated and he handled it very well. Good for him.

I will love Barney Frank forever. Finally, someone had exactly the right response that question has been begging for ever since the town hall meetings started. You go Barney!! You’re the man!! You’re the absolute bomb!!!

“He prejudged her”?! She was standing there with a picture of the President of the United States altered to resemble Adolf Hitler, and called his proposal “a Nazi policy.” Completely aside from their offensiveness, there is absolutely no factual basis for those comparisons. None, nada, zip, zilch, rien. Are you saying that holding the position that those comparisons are not only justified but accurate is not, to you, an infallible indicator that a person is too stupid to intellectually engage with? No? What would it take, then, Ms. Fields?

she wasn’t asking (or allowing) a civil discussion…she was an intellectual bully herself, with her distortions and lack of respect

Great topic, Hillary! And fair thoughts. I have to say though, I think his response was completely ethical….in the sense that, she has the right to free speech, and so does he. He allowed her the time to speak, raise her question, and then he answered it as he saw fit. If it was unethical for him to answer her in such a way, was it then unethical for her to speak at all (considering her words were just as contemptuous)? I don’t think so.
On another level, I am just *so* happy to see someone respond to these ridiculous accusations in a manner that befits them.

What does she does she think would have happened to someone who acted that way in Nazi Germany?

Barney Frank was not only offended by the gross offensiveness of that woman’s question, comments, and presentation (holding the picture of President Obama as Hitler).
It should be noted that her question and none of the claims made by opponents of the health care plans have any basis in reality, which raises another ethical question that you may find confusing, “Should lies be acceptable in the American political discourse and should honest people be allowed to call dishonest people out when they try to distort the truth or speak hatefully?”
But back to the main point; can you not fathom that it is personally offensive and abundantly repugnant to compare or equate a Jewish person to Nazism. Based on your lack of understanding about what is offensive and what is unethical (or maybe you didn’t know Barney Frank is in fact Jewish), I am not sure that reading your blog “all about ethics” is any better than reading the back of a cereal box.

First post here, Ms Fields and I have to say I disagree with you, on two points…
I understood the “dining room table” comment entirely differently than you. You said,
“Basically, he said he wouldn’t engage the woman because she was too stupid to be worth talking to. (Or, too wooden or inflexible.)”
I took it to mean that a dining room table would no more ‘hear’ any answer he may have given than it seems the woman would.
To her quasi-defence, you suggest,
“While this may potentially be the case, what is the point in coming to a ‘debate’ if you won’t engage in any discussion?”
Sorry, but clearly it was the woman who came to the debate not to engage in discussion but to say, to a Jew’s face, no less, that the policy he supported was somehow like Naziism, and the President himself was a Nazi. That, Ms Fields, is not a “debate” nor a “discussion”.
It was the woman who proved by her very actions that it was she who was unethical.
And it’s about time someone told the liars and the shouters to either contribute to a real (and honest) discussion or let those who would do so unencumbered.

Though I see your point that it behooves a government leader to exercise humility and forbearance, no matter what, sometimes a man’s just gotta do what man’s gotta do. I also would have a hard time keeping my cool in the face of such stupidity as that woman and so many others have demonstrated…I just pray that intelligent thinking Americans still are able to listen only to intelligent debate, not insulting, name-calling, word-loading debate…

Jeff M: Of course I know Frank is Jewish. So am I. And I’m not arguing in favor of the woman’s behavior, which I agree was intensely stupid and ignorant – whether willfully or not. I’m just arguing that perhaps two wrongs don’t make a right. I think Frank saying he’s unwilling to discuss the topic with the woman because she’s a close-minded idiot doesn’t make him look like the better man. Maybe it was necessary. Maybe the meeting had gotten so out of hand he had to finally give up on her and her lunacy. I was just making the greater point that giving up and resorting to calling someone unworthy of dialog makes him look as inflexible as she.

Husband: (great nickname, btw) you make your point well. I hadn’t thought about that spin on the table comment (ie, that she was listening about as well as a plank of wood). Thanks for pointing that out.
As a Jew myself I was purty darn offended by the lady’s idiocy and the gall it took to say what she said to Congressman Frank, and I secretly got a lot of pleasure out of seeing his retort. I simply didn’t think it made him look statesmanlike. However, statesmanlike or not, I do appreciate him standing up for his views. I just think debate ought to be a give and take. Maybe I’m an idealist…
For the record, I’m definitely NOT defending that woman’s ethics, believe me! I’m only suggesting that there’s a way to defend oneself from the unethical behavior of others, and then there’s losing one’s temper, which doesn’t seem to be the moral high road. Still and all, I’m not sorry he did what he did.

This is the same socialist propaganda that was going on in Germany during WWII. This resulted in a leader who was left, radical, believed in change, and believed in taking away rights from people who he believed didn’t deserve them. I believe that the woman had every right to display Obama as Hitler. They are two in the same. He being an openly gay Jewish man should understand when you try to change people’s constitutional right with legislation; there will be an up rise of people. Why does Frank avoid the question and then reference the first amendment? It seems that is his next agenda, after he finishes screwing up his oversight of the housing financial system. Believe it or not Bush pushed for stronger oversight from the treasury but Frank opposed it in 2003! He mentions “is a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated.” sounds like the he doesn’t want the woman to have the right to deface Obama. Down with Barney Frank!!!(vote him out of office for the liberal sensitive)

From the legislation before the House:
(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph
(1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that—
is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)
If you are in an accident and admitted into a hospital in a vegetative state; it is the hospitals requirement to perform a consultation with or without your input. This document does not require your signature, or your input. This document can result in an order to remove life sustaing equipment. Want to see what people think?
-Always understand knowledge is power.

Casey, your reply implies to me that you think that if a change to a government option (and i would like to emphsise the word option) that would increase coverage for Americans and help drive down prices of competitors would lead to the Obama administration procecuting Jews, going to war aginst all of our allies (some of those countries by the way, have a much more socialistic government than us and I do not see any Hitler ‘staches on them) and driving the country into an oblivion that would make Satan proud. I believe Mr. Frank had full right to say what he said because it’s about time we had a politician that has the stones to call out stupidity. What the woman said was utterly illogical and as a fellow American I am ashamed that what she said and the pictures she carried would be captured on camera and shown to the world. C’mon America we’re better than that.

Ashten, how can you even reach that conclusion from my post? How can you comment on the health care bill without reading it? My first post is referencing a right that the woman has protected by the constitution. I agree with her comparison in relation to events that are currently taking place. Congressmen not listening, corrupt leaders, no bipartisan, society discontent, propaganda, and a variety of other issues, if you want to get into them. For a congressmen; like Frank; to be attacking the First amendment by the undertone that the woman has less rights then he, is absurd. The second post is from the bill that was passed by the house committee pg. 429. If you care to read it!

Was it right for Barney Frank to respond in the way he did. I would say yes, in large part because to try to be responsible and reasonable in the face of a comment that is not an argument but a propaganda statement is actually foolish. The woman is seeking to frame a debate with propaganda that seeks to appeal to base emotions, not make a reasonable political statement or argument. Barney Frank responded with an emotional response that seeks to show that her comment provided no constructive dialogue. A reasoned and thoughtful appeal to such a charged comment lacks the appropriate emotional response. Its time Democratic leaders start calling the propaganda campaign being staged against the healthcare debate what it is. Her statement was not an appeal for a reasoned response, it was a statement in a propaganda campaign. We should all have an emotional response that such an important issue in our nation is the subject of such a blatant propaganda campaign. (Since she used the Hitler card) No one called Hitler a tyrant early on, they tried to be reasonable with a person who did not care for reasonableness.
Its interesting to see how the current opposition to Health Care reform is in many ways a case study in the use of propaganda. See which of the following methods have been used in the last few weeks.
1. Assertion
An enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question.
2. Bandwagon is an appeal to the subject to follow the crowd, to join in because others are doing so as well. Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it.
3. Card stacking, or selective omission, is one of the seven techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It involves only presenting information that is positive to an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it.
4. Name calling occurs often in politics and wartime scenarios. It is the use of derogatory language or words that carry a negative connotation when describing an enemy. The propaganda attempts to arouse prejudice among the public by labeling the target something that the public dislikes
5. Pinpointing is an attempt to simplify a complex situation by presenting one specific group or person as the enemy. Although there may be other factors involved the subject is urged to simply view the situation in terms of clear-cut right and wrong.
6. The plain folks device is an attempt by the propagandist to convince the public that his views reflect those of the common person and that they are also working for the benefit of the common person.
7. Simplification is extremely similar to pinpointing the enemy, in that it often reduces a complex situation to a clear-cut choice involving good and evil.
8. Transfer is an attempt to make the subject view a certain item in the same way as they view another item, to link the two in the subjects mind.
Definitions from the web site.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm

Rory, It is funny how you mention these techniques. These are very similar to how heavily debated task are accomplished. Ideas are thought of. If you ignore the past; you are bound to repeat it. Hilter was oust as a tyrant early on but had the favor of his party.

How in the Hell can you ask if Barney Frank’s response was appropriate??? A grossely misinformed individual confronts a Jewish person with a Hitler image, give us a break…He could have been even more sternly.

Bill, he is a politician, a representative of the people. He needs to be held to a standard that is expected by his constituents. The question about Barney Frank’s response was appropriate and legitimate. It was a picture of Obama with a mustache similar to Hitler’s. If the woman feels this way; then she should have the right to express it. The representative’s job is to listen and answer questions but he never did. A simple answer that he doesn’t believe this is a Nazi policy, and explanation as to why he feels that way would have been the preferred method. I don’t believe she geared the question towards his heritage.

It was such a relief to me that he did speak out. When someone comes to a meeting, a public one at that, displaying a picture comparing President Obama to Hitler, then this is someone who can’t be reasoned with. Healthcare policy should be debated with respect. Not with those type of incendiary tactics. He was as polite to her as she deserved. I applauded him.

My initial response to a poster with a mustached Obama on it would have been to ask the lady, “What are you trying to say with that poster? What do you mean by ‘Nazi’?” There’s no point trying to have a discussion with somebody until you know what they are really saying. However, in all likelihood, the lady wouldn’t have been able to explain herself well enough to argue with. I’ve been in such “discussions” myself, and they make me angrier than merely being called a commie-hippie-feminazi, out of sheer frustration. My guess is that Frank was similarly motivated, and that the lady in question was the 11th one he had dealt with that day.

Barney Frank is perfectly right to air his opinion in any way he sees fit. It is exactly this ‘know nothing’ attitude masquerading as fact that has the rest of the world saying wtf. Enough is enough it’s time to tell these racist misinformed troglodytes to stay uninsured if they want but not to turn up to these debates with inverted arguments or guns for that matter.
There are very real issues that need to be discussed at these forums and this form of first amendment right is just time wasting.
The republicans have hijacked these events by mobilizing the uninformed with stupid arguments like death panels, euthanasia, socialized medicine. All of which, I don’t think need to be re-iterated on how ludicrous they are on this website.

Barney Frank IS The Man! What he said is the honest truth – You can not have a discussion with someone who won’t listen. The woman in the video came to that meeting (as so many others like her have gone to other meetings) “armed for bear”. Back in the 60s and early 70s people like her were bused in from all over the country for demonstrations and riots – this is no different. The intent (by the private insurance companies and Big Pharma) is to disrupt and bring chaos to any attempt at exchange of honest information.
The definition of a “townhall meeting” is an informal community meeting where people can voice their feelings in an attempt to help decision making. Shouting someone down and silencing them through intimidation does nothing to further open discussion or progressive decisions. Even in debate, both sides state their perspectives using facts and/or logical assumptions based on the facts.

Bully:
One who is habitually cruel to smaller or weaker people.
(American Heritage Dictionary-4th edition.)
Barney Frank is a bully and he enjoys it. As a representative of the
people, he does need to be held to higher ethics. He was wrong in his
comments. It wasn’t refreshing. He showed his holier than thou ego
and his contempt! He has done this in every interview he has given and
unless you agree with him, the person gets Barney’s bullying.

Barney Frank is a bully and he apparently enjoys being a bully.
He loves to put others down(unless you agree with him.)
As a representative of the people, he should be held to higher ethical standards. He is incapable of doing so. He should not have made those remarks and it doesn’t matter how many people he had to deal with on that day. He reacts like this in every interview or speech.

I think the woman was a plant. This was a sham designed to make dissenters look bad. Think about it. The woman didn’t say anything about the issue; she just went straight for Obama the Nazi, even toting a ready-made picture which Frank recognized instantly. Then the Democrat operative spammed the video incessantly to get it to the top of the YouTube most views.
Democrats have done this before. Earlier, a “heckler” at a New York rally was shown to be an aide of the Congressman having the town hall. Obama had shills “swoon” at his rallies, always sitting in front, always there for Obama to conveniently summon “medical assistance for”. This occured six times during the Obama campaign.
Hillary did it too. Like the piped question at the campaign Q and A at Grinnell College in Iowa. Bottom line is Democrats lie.

The real disgrace is not the LaRouche-affil. woman who asked a question about Nazi style rationing of health care. The bigger disgrace than the arrogant Barney Frank are the boomers (age 50-60) willing to jump on a $20-30/a month possible discount on health insurance, by agreeing to kill people slightly older through health care rationing. As Ezekiel Emanuel has pushed it, IMAC, MEDPAC on Steroids, and death panels are the same thing.

Jerry, shills are not strictly a Democrat party device; “W” used shills and planted people just the same.

Hello. And Bye.