Liberal commentators doggedly push the theory that whatever happens, the heathcare bill must be passed. Ezra Klein works that theme here:
Today's televised session between Barack Obama and the Senate Democrats wasn't encouraging to those of us hoping the Democrats are spending their time worrying about how to pass the health care bill. There were questions on the deficit, on jobs, on partisanship, on energy and on judicial nominees. No one bothered to ask about health-care reform....Without healthcare, you don't know the difference between Republicans and Democrats?! There are 2 ways to respond to that:
To Obama's credit, he valiantly twisted questions on things like jobs and partisanship into opportunities to talk about health-care reform....
If we don't pass this, he told the assembled Democrats, "I don't know what differentiates us from the other guys."...
1. National security, taxes, social issues, that $3.8 trillion budget, etc. etc.
2. Since people are drifting toward the Republicans, won't being more like them help you (despite what Jonathan Chait says)?
Posts
147 comments:
"We are lost, but we are making good time."
The people say "Don't pass this stupid bill." And of course the Democrats hear "...pass this ... bill."
In for a penny, in for a pound, the Democrats make the classic error of trying to retrieve sunk costs.
They might instead be thinking 'We're screwed either way, might as well create a permanent entitlement that can't be undone on our way out.'
2. Since people are drifting toward the Republicans,
Cite please!
Is there a point at which Democratic strategists stop and ask whether either of the bills on the table -- the House version or the Senate version -- actually represent a step forward on healthcare?
If a college has a course on underwater basketweaving and they rename it Physics 105, does that make it physics or is it still basketweaving? My point is that one can call it "healthcare reform" but is it really a reform in the sense of improving healthcare for the people of the United States? Or does it, in fact, break a system that had been more or less working?
There's a reason why Scott Brown was elected, and it's not just that Martha Coakley doesn't know who Curt Schilling is.
Miller,
And the best way to stop lynchings was to chop down all the trees.
Or something like that. I'm a black conservative Republican, so this type of thinking doesn't come naturally to me.
Althouse, don't you know "your logic makes the puppy sad."
It's a really shitty position to be in, wasting a year on an abomination of a bill that the mainstream hates, and even the hard left doesn't like because it doesn't go far enough.
Couldn't happen to a better party & better leaders (can't even call Obama that, since he just delegated it to Congress) than Reid & Pelosi: damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Garage Mahal is blind! Garage Mahal is blind!
Quick - whisper something in his ear and see if his hearing's gone, too.
Just need a cite for the claim. It must be based om some sort of tangible evidence? Thanks!
Don't you think the Democratic congressional leadership is actually pursuing an "amnesia strategy?"
They've agreed to stop talking about it until other matters seep into the public consciousness, and then when polls show that most people have forgotten about health care reform, they'll pass it in a lightening flash.
There's also the "oldest Republican" strategy. Two can play at this Kennedy-for-Brown switcheroo. There must be an old Republican who might die and could be replaced by a Democrat in a special election. Or, better yet, appointed by a Democratic governor. I don't think they've given up on getting back up to 60.
Finally, couldn't they call a special session after the November elections? Doesn't matter what they do in November and December. Pass the bill, use reconciliation, pole vaults, whatever. And that whole "I hated the plan but now I'm grateful they passed it" fantasy will surely play out just they like they, assuring a big Dem comeback in 2012.
You think I'm kidding.
Yeah, if the Republicans were in charge the budget would be slightly less. We would still receive essentially no services for the money paid in taxes. And Republicans would still ensure that their friends get the payouts of the big government programs that they institute while pretending to be for "small government".
Bush & Co had eight years, or at least six considering Congressional makeup, to really shrink spending. But noooooo! Spend, spend, spend... they let loose their inner Democrats and made sure to throw our tax money out from the helicopters.
Remember Hank Paulson? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone remember the AIG and other friend-of-the-governemnt payouts that were made on Bush's watch?
Correcting my penultimate sentence:
And that whole "I hated the plan but now I'm grateful they passed it" fantasy will surely play out just they like expect, assuring a big Dem comeback in 2012.
The Dems will be absolutely slaughtered in November if they push healthcare through now.
I don't know whether I like that or not. Don't want the GOP getting too cocky, thinking that no matter what they do people will hate Democrats more, and continuing in the soft-Statism direction.
Generic ballot vote, party ID, independent voters leaving the Democrats, majority of Americans wanting change in Congress...
It's all there.
I think it's more an anti-Democratic sentiment than a pro-Republican mood. But it's there.
Just need a cite for the claim. It must be based om some sort of tangible evidence? Thanks!
I doubt there is one.
Voters aren't "drifting" toward the Republicans. They're fleeing the Democrats. Big difference. Republicans might be the beneficiaries and have been so far. But any hint that the Republicans are going to resume where they left off in 2006 and all bets are off.
Chait and Ezra have been pushing the national healthcare issue hard for the last two years. What will be the next big issue on which they apply their many years of work experience and vast wisdom?
"Since people are drifting toward the Republicans"
Cite please!
Okay.
Julius makes a good point.
The Repub's are only good for a loyal opposition. Once they assume actual power of any kind, they become big spending, crooked, sex scandal involved quasi-Dem's with a penchant for invading other countries. Not to mention an insatiable desire to get into the bedroom and tell people what to do, not do, who to marry etc.
WV jumenia - Hey, I want an apology.
'who to marry etc. '
Which is decided by states not by Washington.
I have a lot of liberal friends and family. The only ones who want the healthcare bill are the few who imagine they will get free care out of it or have no idea what is in the bill and just think it covers poor people. Even my most hardcore Democratic family members hate the health care bill, and they hate it passionately.
I don't get the Dem leadership's obsession with this. It's like watching some bureaucratic, slow motion seppuku.
What Obama is saying is - save my legacy b4 its too late.. lets worry about the iceberg after we hit it.
Obama style leadership.
Once they assume actual power of any kind, they become big spending, crooked, sex scandal involved quasi-Dem's with a penchant for invading other countries
Big-spending and sex scandal plagued compared to who, exactly? The party of Edwards, Clinton, and trillion-dollar structural deficits?
Nobody is honestly arguing the Republicans aren't awful. They're just substantially less awful than Democrats.
"..Bush & Co had eight years, or at least six considering Congressional makeup, to really shrink spending. But noooooo! Spend, spend, spend... they let loose their inner Democrats and made sure to throw our tax money out from the helicopters..."
And now BO has increased spending by a factor of Bush X 4 ..and your point is?
Cite please!
Senator Martha Coakley
Keep digging that hole, liberals, the light you see is China.
I love the way the lefties on this thread are warning us about the evil Republicans might do in advance of Republicans actually wielding any power. Yes, far better death and destruction under proven killers than potentials.
Aboard the Titanic, Obama holds the women and children back in favor of his moribund Healhcare patient.
Senator Martha Coakley
Dems are ahead 1 seat since Obama took office.
"Dems are ahead 1 seat since Obama took office."
Yes, garage.
And here's hoping y'all bank the entire Dem future on that kind of analysis.
Waterloo becomes a more apt metaphor every day. Obama and the Democrats think they are going to be able to defeat Wellington (now) and then pivot fast enough to counter the Prussians (before the election).
rdkraus, agreed, they're both dith-pickable.
But what are you going for up there, Julian, I'm trying to be your friend here, do you honestly think a tu quoque is cogent with this group? Hahaha. It's actually a bit pathetic. In the words of Instapundit , "time to roll out this old graph."
Look, the point of the post is: the Dems will lose seats with or without healthcare legislation shoved through, but especially with it. Serious political analysts accept this as ineluctable fact. Klein, judging by his opinions, apparently is either too young or too stupid, possibly both to read the signs. Signs that have fallen on the heads of both parties like the proverbial brick house.
There's also the "oldest Republican" strategy. Two can play at this Kennedy-for-Brown switcheroo. There must be an old Republican who might die and could be replaced by a Democrat in a special election. Or, better yet, appointed by a Democratic governor. I don't think they've given up on getting back up to 60.
Interesting point. Looking at the senators over 75, there are three Republicans from states with Democratic governors: Bunning (KY), Hatch (UT) and Inhofe (OK).
Oklahoma law directs a special election for Senate vacancies. Utah law is that the governor appoints an interim from a list prepared by a committee of the state party of the late incumbent. So, if you oppose this plan, pray for Jim Bunning's health.
There are two Democratic senators over 75 from states with Republican governors: Feinstein (CA) and Lautenberg (NJ). In both states, the governor appoints the interim.
Waiting for the President to say to his loyal followers: "We couldn't pass healthcare, so go ahead and riot now."
Real life is funnier than fiction. Obama said today that passage of his Socialist wet dream bill "IS NOW IN THE RED ZONE" The Comrades are talking in code in plain sight.
"Dems are ahead 1 seat since Obama took office."
Yeah and a fat lot of good that's done Obama too.
I wouldn't be tooting the horn of the party that can't seem to unite to pass a bill that Obama campaigned on.
Yes, garage.
And here's hoping y'all bank the entire Dem future on that kind of analysis..
Analysis? They're in Congress!
Waterloo becomes a more apt metaphor every day.
If the 2010 elections go the way they're predicting, Berlin 1945 may be a more apt description.
Analysis? They're in Congress!
And how is that working for you dude? How's health care, cap and trade? Hey we out of Iraq yet? Wait, lets show that idiot Bush how we can really spend money we don't have.
Megan McArdle's reply to Chait is pretty persuasive. "I don't think it is actually true that trying to pass a bill people hate, and then thinking the better of it because it turns out the electorate hates it, is no different from trying to pass a bill people hate, finding out that they really, really hate it, and then ignoring them and pushing it through anyway."
"Analysis? They're in Congress!"
Soon many won't be.
Change we can believe in!
Aboard the Titanic, Obama holds the women and children back in favor of his moribund Healhcare patient.
Are there any presidential primaries scheduled for April 14, 2012?
Just askin' in advance.
The funny thing about Chait's formulation is that if Democrats do pass Obamacare, they'll be looking at a turnout cataclysm as well.
So yes, this is the issue that hoses the Democratic Party for another 12 years.
hahaha, Chip said ineluctable.
It's simple, really.
They want to pass it because they know what's good for us better than we do.
Thin of the health bill as broccoli, or roughage.
Now open wiiide.
"'Controversial' only means 'this will lose you votes'; 'courageous' means 'this will lose you the election'"
- Sir Humphrey Appleby, "Yes, Minister"
What Obama seems to be saying is that Mass was a wake up call... with a tree year snooze button.
Dems are ahead 1 seat since Obama took office.
Brilliant! My hat is off to you sir.
A large majority of Americans are satisfied with their health care situation and a large percentage of those feel the proposed legislation will diminish quality and increase costs. Translation--they don't like it.
No one has spoken more about this from a bigger stage than Obama yet, if anything, the initiative gets less popular.
Any health care reform doesn't equate with good health care. Most people know that, Chait and Klein don't.
I can see how the popularity of this bill has only increased since the Democrats started the process of creating and moving this bill.
So please, Democrats - FULL SPEED AHEAD!
Don't let the whiners and the other people complaining get you down.
Remember, YOU WON! Go for it!
We've come full circle now. If health care fails, Obama's popularity will most likely rise as he tries to change the subject. If they ram this through it's going to be really rough for the Democrats come fall. I think the Democrats are smart enough to figure this out but I've overestimated them before.
Can't my man Yglesias get any love from the Professor? He turned in the same Journolist assignment too.
Two farmers were sharing a two hole outhouse. When one finished his business he stood to pull up his coveralls and when he did some change fell out of his pocket and into the hole. Without slowing he pulled a twenty dollar bill out and dropped in into the hole. The other farmer said "What are you doing throwing $20 into the latrine?" The farmer looked at him and said: "You don't think I'm going down there for 50 cents do you?"
More forest has been lost for stakes to the hart of Healtcare reform than all of Hollywood could have ever dreamed of.
One of these days they are just going to wear us out.
"Dems are ahead 1 seat since Obama took office."
Franken was "elected" the same day as Obama, so the fact it took several months to find enough votes to certify him the winner counts nothing to Obama's credit as president although certainly to his candidacy. Scott Brown will even the score and very much reflect the president's influence (as a president). Re do the math.
Just need a cite for the claim. It must be based om some sort of tangible evidence? Thanks!
Polling data confirms the marked drift -- a 14 point shift to Republicans since January 2009.
"I love the way the lefties on this thread are warning us about the evil Republicans might do in advance of Republicans actually wielding any power."
Well, there is quite a bit of past data on which to base a projection of future behavior... but it does seem that Republicans are much more frugal in opposition than they are when in power. The country was pretty well governed when Bill Clinton was president; I wouldn't mind a repeat of the '90s.
Re: SteveR:
Scott Brown will even the score and very much reflect the president's influence (as a president). Re do the math.
Brown puts it at 1-1, not because of Franken (elected, yes, back in Nov. 2008, but uncertain until all recounts finished) but the Representative from NY-23, Owens. So Democrats have gained a Representative and lost a Senator. And two governors.
No, wait, forgot about Specter.
Yeah Spector I always thought he was a Democrat anyway. My bad
The country was pretty well governed when Bill Clinton was president; I wouldn't mind a repeat of the '90s.
The impression Sully gave me was that Clinton spending was more restrained than Bush 43.. but according to the numbers I've seen Obama's projected spending leaves 43 in the dust.
"Just need a cite for the claim. It must be based om some sort of tangible evidence? Thanks!"
Althouse is simply taking Chait at his word. In other words, the cite is in the first three lines of the post.
That, and the result of the Virgina, New Jersey and Mass. elections.
"You'll thank me later" is somthing a mother says.
Driving solutions from the top down may hopefully be a thing of the past. The new model may follow the work the NRA has been doing quietly getting states to vote for "shall issue" concealed carry laws by talking sensibly to the voters.
The dems might have been successful pushing health care in state legistlatures, but I guess it's not statist enough, and too much work.
Interestingly, it's the tea party people who may be taking that strategy to heart.
And that whole "I hated the plan but now I'm grateful they passed it" fantasy will surely play out just they like expect, assuring a big Dem comeback in 2012.
You know what's especially stupid about that logic coming from the left? The plan doesn't give anybody benefits until 2014. The only thing the plan will deliver in time for the 2012 elections is higher taxes. Passing the bill simply makes sure that the issue is live and hurting Democrats in 2012.
Oh, and since they'll have to use reconciliation to pass it, they'll set the precedent that it can be repealed by reconciliation in 2013 by the Republicans.
garage is also counting Spector, but fails to understand:
1) Spector was always going to vote with Democrats on their agenda anyway.
2) By having him switch parties, Obama lost the ability to claim any bipartisanship to any part of his agenda. If he had stayed a declared Republican, then Obama and the media would have been all over the airwaves about the "bipartisan bill."
Just another example of how terribly myopic both Obama and the Democratic Congress have been about pretty much everything they have put their incompetent mitts on from the get-go.
They managed to win a few news cycles with the news of their "super-majority," but what they really did was unrealistically raise the expectations of their entire Leftist base who then assumed that all of their wet dream agenda items would sail through.
Now they're going to have to deal with the fallout of having lost that very same super-majority without a single substantive policy achievement within their own base.
After all, what's the point of working to elect Democrats at all when even the presidency, a super-majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House can't get you a single thing that's important to you?
Obama/Pelosi/Reid have done damage to the Democratic Party which is going to reverborate for years after the November 2010 elections, and I'm just talking about within their own party.
Now let's talk about how much damage they've done with regard to independents and socially liberal but fiscally conservative Republican voters they managed to fool into voting for them in 2006 and 2008? What are the odds they'll fall for this "most ethical, fiscally responsible, blah blah federal government ever" again for at least another generation?
For all the political genius and personal popularity of Bill Clinton, there were (and remain) tons of complaints from within his own party about how much damage he did to the Democratic Party with his scandal-plagued tenure in office.
There's gonna be a lot of nostalgia for Clinton before Obama's done destroying the national Democratic Party...
Those who reminisce about Clinton tend to overlook the fact that the economy was in recession and stock markets in collapse before Bush took office.
That said, Republicans deserve all the spending criticism they get. I just wonder what happened to all the fiscally conservative liberals who dominated politics in 2008. It seems they all disappeared on January 20, 2009.
Virgina, New Jersey and Mass.
but it does seem that Republicans are much more frugal in opposition than they are when in power. The country was pretty well governed when Bill Clinton was president
The Republicans weren't "in opposition" under Clinton. They controlled both houses of Congress. Anyone wanting a "repeat of the 90s" should be hoping Republicans win big in 2010.
You can't count Spector. Spector switched parties because he knew he couldn't win the Republican primary in Pennsylvania. He wasn't elected as a Democrat.
Spector ain't much of a Senator, but the Wall of Sound was a great idea.
That 19-years-to-life thing's gotta suck, though.
The country was pretty well governed when Bill Clinton was president; I wouldn't mind a repeat of the '90s.
Clinton prosperity was all about business leveraging, but we’re still deleveraging now. If Dems can pull off that trick again, they just might get people to pull the voting lever for them again instead of pulling the flush lever. But I don’t see it happening anytime soon, especially since they’re taking a bottom-up first approach to prosperity. Nothing but more divisiveness will result.
wv: "minerot" Religious edifices popping up to mark the decline of Western civilization.
Dems...gotta love 'em..."We're gonna crash!"..."Speed up I said!!!"
They are incapable of rationale thought...Thank God obama has FINALLY exposed them for what they are!
Sorry, but the people who are most passionate about health care reform are also the ones who are most convinced that the bill is a fraud.
It's not single payer, there's no public option, and it's a giveaway to insurance companies. Why would passing this make liberals more likely to go to the polls? They've been sold out.
Those who reminisce about Clinton tend to overlook the fact that the economy was in recession and stock markets in collapse before Bush took office.
There is an argument that debt owed by the government yields net income to the private sector. That is, government deficits equal non-government savings surpluses from private holdings of government bonds. Take away debt, and you take away a revenue stream. Wish I were smart enough to tell you if it's really true in the real world.
garage mahal said...
Just need a cite for the claim. It must be based om some sort of tangible evidence? Thanks!
And this is all you have to hang onto.
Obama seems to be planning to nationalize Las Vegas once he runs it down far enough. Then the FED can underwrite the Casinos and then ACORN and SEIU will run the table games until the winnings go into the right pockets. That is the essence of facism as an economic system. Once we have all collapsed financially from Depressed businesses that cannot borrow at banks and new high taxes needed to prevent revaluation of the few remaining dollars we hold, then we will welcome a Friend of Obama who offers to buy up our lives and businesses very cheaply using the FED's credit, all the other banks having conveniently gone out of business.
Those nostalgic for Willie forget he swept all his problems under the rug for the next poor slob (and it could have been the Living Redwood). CRA, Enron, Dot Bomb, and, of course, AQ were all his, first.
As for the original proposition of this thread, you're looking at a couple of hardcore Lefties whistling past the graveyard the same way garage is doing in this thread and his confreres have done in others, trying to tell themselves the people really want BarryCare and that is what will save the Demo majorities and Barry's administration.
When a Republican, running for the Kennedy Senate seat, long bought and paid for, can win by telling people he'll be the 41st vote against BarryCare, you know the people cited at the top of the thread are smoking some primo stuff.
I wonder if the Democrats will just let the bill sit until November. Then after they get killed in the mid-terms, a lame duck house can pass the Senate bill in December. Obama can sign it and then the Democratic minority in the new congress can filabuster any changes to it.
Sounds crazy I know. But most of the Dems in the House will be on their way out of office anyway or in safe seats. So what would they have to lose. It would just the kind of sleazy maneuver that creatures like Chait and Yglesias would love.
Wish I were smart enough to tell you if it's really true in the real world.
Then it's a good thing that Bush and Obama were smart enough to avoid that mistake!
Chait, Silver, Obama, Begalla, Carville and others making this argument are phonies. They really want health care insurance reform to pass, and they are not up for re-election, so they can make this argument and let others suffer if/when they are wrong.
It also is an argument that can never be proved wrong, which politicians and pundits often make, e.g., it would have been better not to invade Iraq and more jobs would have been lost without the stimilus (although there, Obama is somewhat tripped up by his own contemporaneous forecast of what would happen without the stimilus).
Here, if health care passes, they will claim it lessened the losses and, if it fails to pass, they will claim it increased the losses. No one will be able to determine the truth of the claims.
@Revenant: "The Republicans weren't 'in opposition' under Clinton. They controlled both houses of Congress. Anyone wanting a 'repeat of the 90s' should be hoping Republicans win big in 2010."
You are right of course; it would be more accurate to say 'in opposition to the Democrat in the White House.' The Republicans didn't act as if frugality was a virtue after Bush 43 took office.
And it's true that the economy was heading into recession when Bush took office, but it's a whole lot easier to spend your way out when you have a surplus. The prospect of unending trillion-plus deficits and no plans to halt them is just frightening.
When a Republican, running for the Kennedy Senate seat, long bought and paid for, can win by telling people he'll be the 41st vote against BarryCare, you know the people cited at the top of the thread are smoking some primo stuff.
How could that election be a referendum on ObamaCare, when they already have ObamaCare? And since Scott Brown believes states shouldn't have to pay for other state's healthcare, is he now going to work hard to repeal RomneyCare in Mass?
"How could that election be a referendum on ObamaCare, when they already have ObamaCare?"
Just becuase they have it, doesn't mean they like it. Further, Brown made the good point that why would the people of Massachusetts who are already stuck buying insurance for their own citizens want to pay higher taxes and be responsible for more debt to pay for the insurance of people in other states.
Brown ran as vote 41 to kill Obamacare. And he won with that message in one of the most Democratic states in the Union. You can live in denial all you want. But the polls, the elections, the anicdotes, and every other piece of evidence available says that Obamacare is wildly and broadly unpopular.
You all can say that it's the population turning on Obama and the Democrats, but it's really just turning on the people in power in DC. The exact same thing would be happening if McCain was President, only the people defending Obama would now be attacking McCain, and vice versa.
There may be an extra oomph because of the ham-handed way the legislation has been crafted -- and perhaps for what the legislation contains -- but the end result is always anti-DC.
The minute the Republicans get back some power, they'll reap the whirlwind as well. (After spending money hand over fist).
"The minute the Republicans get back some power, they'll reap the whirlwind as well. (After spending money hand over fist)."
That is the easy thing to say. But I don't think they will. You are right that it is anti-DC. And it is so anti-DC that even the Republicans are getting it through their thick skulls that this time things are different. 2010 will be their last chance before a real third party breaks out. And they know that. Survival instinct does wonderful things sometimes.
Just becuase they have it, doesn't mean they like it. Further, Brown made the good point that why would the people of Massachusetts who are already stuck buying insurance for their own citizens want to pay higher taxes and be responsible for more debt to pay for the insurance of people in other states.
So, the rest of the Union is still stuck paying for RomneyCare? Seems like the only honest thing to do is kill RomneyCare if you are Scott Brown. Besides, they don't even like it, in your words.
What an argument, we have ours, thanks to the rest of the country, but we don't want to pay for yours. Thanks, suckers.
It looks like some dems are starting to form up a circular firing squad: Blanche Lincoln, who, I suspect will soon have other congress critters joining her as they continue to read their approval ratings in their home states and districts. The sine qua non of politics is to get reelected--party loyalty will be the first thing sacrificed.
It looks like some dems are starting to form up a circular firing squad
some of them. Chait, Klein, & Yglesias have formed a circular reacharound.
And it is so anti-DC that even the Republicans are getting it through their thick skulls
I am not sure. People given power have a remarkable tendency to forget things as they rush to even scores.
If Republicans (and Democrats) would ditch their Congressional leadership I would be more convinced that they are hearing any message. The problem is that Republican Leadership will be able to say See!?? I lead us back into power and the gullible fools in the party will believe is was leadership rather than backlash that got them back to a majority.
I maintain that Speaker Boehner is a concept that should fill any young Republican (or just about anyone else in the World outside a 50-mile radius of DC) with dread.
Whereas Speaker Pelosi is the anti-Boehner(sp?)
But I agree with your point. Republican voter need to ask their candidates during the primaries who they will support for house and senate leadership, and make it clear that they are not happy with current and recent past leadership. Democrats would be wise to do the same.
Agree, MadisonMan.
Too bad we can't lock the doors of Congress for a few years while we clean up this economic mess. It's bad enough without politicians mucking things up every day with all their plans to save things.
Sorry, but the people who are most passionate about health care reform are also the ones who are most convinced that the bill is a fraud.
Oh, I don't know about that. Check out Kos. The passionate there seem to think that all us rubes just need to be "reeducated".
The Politicians want this bill. The people, except for a very vocal minority, do not. The politicians are trying to find a way to subvert the will of the people. They are the masters, we are the serfs.
The bill- Hillary Deathcare plus 1500 pages.
wv:entsot=a meeting of drunken Ents
Re: garage:
So, the rest of the Union is still stuck paying for RomneyCare?
Wait, are we? Are we bailing out Massachussetts's failed health care reform experiment too? If so, that's absolutely unfair.
"Whereas Speaker Pelosi is the anti-Boehner(sp?)"
I don't know about that, but she's definitely the anti-boner..The ultimate cure for priapism.
Re: Bella:
The Politicians want this bill. The people, except for a very vocal minority, do not.
Well, elements of the bill -- including some of the elements I hate -- are actually quite popular. The ban on excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions is quite popular, for example, because (a) people don't like having to worry about pre-existing conditions when there's a break in their continuity of coverage because they lose their job or something, and (b) everyone likes laws that let them free-ride off other peoples' money. What people don't like is the various other things that you need to do, in order to tamp down all the problems and distortions such a law creates, punitive taxation to force people to buy health insurance being the one the public hates most. Essentially, it's the same problem you always encounter with government spending -- everyone wants government goodies, but only if someone else can be forced to foot the bill.
"Since people are drifting toward the Republicans, won't being more like them help you (despite what Jonathan Chait says)?"
Uh, no.
Independents don't have many ideological preferences upon which to base their vote. They vote for what bin Laden referred to as "the strong horse". Which is an idea that your party seems to want to run with.
Any other bin Ladenisms appeal to your crowd lately?
There actually isn't any logical problem with supporting the sort of health care in Mass and opposing a similar (or not) program for the nation.
Maybe this is the sort of thing that ought to be done by states and not the federal government.
Maybe the *rush* to get Mass Care federalized is because it sucks.
If it's great and good, then getting a similar program enacted federally becomes easier the longer people have to see the success in one state.
Or if there are problems, we can see how they are solved.
Or another state can try something a little different and see if their system works better.
Or not.
Why is this even something that has to involve the federal government? About the only thing, it seems to me, that would rationally involve the feds is if something about health care involved interstate commerce.
Bottom line, though, there is no reason whatsoever that a person supporting a state level public health care system MUST support a federal one.
To insist that Brown MUST either support both or reject both is irrational.
Bal -
I don't know where garage got the idea that the rest of the country is paying for Massachussetts health care plan, but unless he has information to the contrary I don't believe that's true.
As far as supporting MassCare but not supporting ObamaCare, there's a world of difference between the two:
1) The individual insurance mandate in ObamaCare is unconstitutional. The federal government has never had the power to institute something like this. You can use the income tax as an example: it took an amendment to the Constitution for the federal government to institute it.
2) Each state should decide for itself how to deal with its own uninsured citizens. Maybe Alabama wants to leave them on their own, maybe Massachussetts want to pay for them. That's the way our country was designed: each of the 50 states should have a broad amount of leeway to conduct their domestic affairs without undue interference from the federal government. I wouldn't be for it in my state, but if the citizens of Massachussetts want it for themselves then more power to them. Just leave me and mine out of it.
3) ObamaCare has always been the Trojan Horse for government control over every aspect of our lives. After all, if government is providing our health insurance then it has the responsibility to make sure all citizens live healthy. Which translates into more and more opportunities to regulate away our freedoms in the name of controlling health costs.
Sorry, all you Leftists can go take your Orwellian nightmare to another country. We're not having it here.
4) Let's not even get started on all the corrupt bargains struck with wavering senators, labor unions, pharmaceutical companies, the AMA, AARP, etc. That level of corruption should never be rewarded with success. Even if for no other reason, this legislation should wind up in a bonfire rather than on the president's desk.
(Watching Pogo's true colors coming out at 5:12.)
;-)
Ritmo -
"Any other bin Ladenisms appeal to your crowd lately?"
It's funny that you were the only talking about bin Laden - because, of course, if you're making a point about "strong horses" that he is the only one who has ever made such a point.
Comparing your opponents in an argument to bin Laden is no better than comparing them to Hitler, so by the corollary to Godwin's Law you have just pronounced yourself the loser of the argument.
You are now dismissed.
Oh yes, oh yes! The governors of Virginia and New Jersey are so emblematic of the GOP and Rovian Palinism! What a lesson in Republican party platform self-righteousness those elections provided!
Sorry gumps. But your ideas aren't winning out either. The people are voting for pragmatists, not conservative ideologues.
Synova -
ObamaCare is about control, not about health care. If it were truly just about health care and the Democrats' burning desire to have it, then every state where the legislature and governorship would already have some form of universal care enacted.
But this is like the gay marriage issue, it's not about the marriage itself or about health care: it's about using the power of the federal government to jam your agenda down other people's throats in states where you lack the ability to enact your agenda.
This is about New Yorkers trying to make the people in Texas shoulder the bill for something they want in New York. It's about Californians wanting to force their lifestyle choices on the people of Kansas.
ObamaCare was the Trojan Horse to gain control over people's lives - bending the entire country over so that our Leftist betters can have their way with us.
Now their dreams of cultural control are going up in smoke, and what you're hearing now is what psychologists call "an extinction burst." The final temper tantrum thrown by a child before they finally recognize that they're really, really not going to get their way no matter how loudly they cry or how much they stomp their feet.
It's funny that you were the only talking about bin Laden - because, of course, if you're making a point about "strong horses" that he is the only one who has ever made such a point.
Comparing your opponents in an argument to bin Laden is no better than comparing them to Hitler, so by the corollary to Godwin's Law you have just pronounced yourself the loser of the argument.
I compared no one to bin Laden; I made a comparison to the sort of people he wants to appeal to. And bin Laden isn't Hitler, and Islam isn't communism, and I am very curious to know what Mike Godwin would think of this self-righteous and ignorant slippery slope you just concocted.
Ritmo -
Oh, I see. You didn't talk about bin Laden out of the clear blue in any attempt to issue any ad hominem attacks designed to end a debate because you're clearing losing.
You just wanted to draw a clear comparison between murderous Islamofascists and those who oppose ObamaCare.
Thanks for clearing up the obvious distinction without an iota of difference.
Thanks for further clarifying just how despicable you're willing to get when you lose.
You're still dismissed. Have a great rest of the day somewhere else.
Jim, I don't disagree.
After all, why *don't* more states enact their own health care reform?
Yes, it's about getting other people to pay for it. States know what their budgets can cover. Now, it's true that the federal government collects far far more of our pay checks than are collected by the states. But the idea that the source of the money is the federal government remains.
So, yes, it's about wanting other people to pay your bill.
I also think that it's an assumption based on ideology that places the federal government in a particular and unquestioned role. There just isn't any question that the federal government *should* do whatever it can. The only question is how much can be pushed through, how much can be *done*.
Which, of course, brings us to the "getting this done" thing, where there really doesn't seem to be much importance on doing something that works. The "works" part is either unimportant or assumed. Which? But it's all *do something* and *get something passed, get it done*.
Bleh.
I think not, Jim. And as long as you want to lie and mischaracterize what I said, I'll stick around as long as it takes to rub your nose in the mess you made.
Of course, since you're so bad at understanding the obvious, it's hard to see what's the use in explaining where exactly you f*&%ed up as badly as you did. But I'll try.
Bin Laden and al Qaeda are involved in a political struggle that makes as much use of non-terrorists (American, Muslim or otherwise) as it makes of so many terrorists. Or as you call them, "Islamofascists".
Not that such a distinction makes much difference to someone who is so tyrannical in his approach to politics and life as to smugly, proudly believe that not being an "Islamofascist" provides much difference to his somehow distinctly non-Muslim quirks.
I can criticize someone for engaging a mindset that works for bin Laden's goals without calling him, let alone deeming him, an "Islamofascist". Sorry if that hurts your brain to have that pointed out. I would try to speak in a simpler way but sometimes membership in the group known as Homo sapiens requires thoughts a tad more complex than you're willing to consider.
How is everyone's loaf pinching going?
And anyways, identification with a group who ends up helping the cause of bin Ladenism (whether he's a bin Ladenist or not) is beside the point.
We were talking about following the "strong horse".
Theoretically however, this allows me an interesting opportunity to backtrack. Because if people who condone the adulation of power are brought into a situation where bin Laden is seen as victorious over all his adversaries, I suppose they would then become bin Ladenists. Or, as you call them, "Islamofascists".
I merely take a step back and criticize both the philosophy of "might makes right" as well as those who would condone the use of it as a strategy - as you and your fellow-travelers here are doing.
The Muslim aspect seems to become quite trivial when one's need for power is so acute that might makes right.
Think about that one, for a minute or two, and then get back to me.
Hey, I have been trying to keep hope alive for some entertainment here with my discussion of Sarah Palin's breasts!
If you leave out Sarah and breasts how are we going to reach 200 comments?
Keep hope alive Titus!
Did you actually read what you wrote?
You're trying to defend pulling bin Laden into a discussion over ObamaCare by saying essentially "I didn't say that they were ACTUALLY mass murderers, just that they think like and enable mass murderers."
Gotcha.
Sorry. But while your oh so nuanced brain may attempt to draw some kind of imaginary line between those who are doing the actual beheading and those who provide the infrastructure for them by calling them "non-terrorists," then there's something seriously wrong with your worldview. In everybody else's world, that's considered being part of the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and makes them equally guilty of the same act as the person holding the knife.
But hey, if you think that little post constitutes "rubbing my nose in it," then you can take your two remaining functional brain cells, rub them together for heat and get yourself through the long cold night of your ignorance if that makes you happy.
You can keep going down this road of attempting to defend the indefensible, but you only reinforce my point every time you post: you are trying to compare opponents of ObamaCare to bin Laden's particular brand of Islamofascism and nothing you have said changes that.
You tried to go hyperbolic because you lost an argument. I called you out on it, and now you're just compounding your stupidity with your poor attempt at some sort of faux nuance.
I'd give you a "nice try," but that would be giving you more credit than it deserves.
Eschew obfuscation, Ritmo.
If Ritmo wasn't trying to play "enact Obamacare or the terrorists win", then why did he say
Any other bin Ladenisms appeal to your crowd lately?
It is clear from this comment that he's not just talking about bin Ladin's "strong horse" comment, he's suggesting that opponents of Obamacare share other opinions with bin Ladin.
Well, like bin Ladin, I believe that the sun rises in the east. Like bin Ladin, I put my pants on one leg at a time. And like bin Ladin, I think that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet.
Ritmo believes all these things too.
Ritmo -
"Obamism" - the cult-like following of Barack Obama is a much better example of following the "strong horse" leading up to the 2008 election and throughout the last year.
(And notice how quickly people are dismounting from the saddle now that he's no longer perceived to be the strong horse that will be able to execute the agenda of his most diehard supporters and lift his Democratic cohorts to victory in the upcoming elections.)
But I understand why you wouldn't to call the mindless following of a mass of people who just so happen to be similar to you in their political aspirations by a term which might disparage your leader. You just happened to pick a murderous Islamofascist, purely by coincidence you see, to characterize those with whom you disagree politically.
Gotcha. But you're completely innocent of any complaint that you've gone far afield in your attempt to demonize your opponents as being terrorist thugs...Not you. You're pure as the driven snow. Yep. Absolutely.
We believe you. Honest.
What you gratutiously are calling "bin Ladenism" has nothing to do with bin Laden except so far as you want to use the name of bin Laden to tar your opponents as "being just like bin Laden and his followers."
You should just admit that you went too far, and that you had no business dragging bin Laden into a discussion over ObamaCare.
Really.
If we don't pass this, he told the assembled Democrats, "I don't know what differentiates us from the other guys."...
The difference will be, the other guys will be in Congress, and the Dems won't.
The horror the horror the horror of Obama
Versus Sarah's perky breasts,
He of the pinched demeanor
Versus she on whose chest we can rest our heads.
garage mahal said...
When a Republican, running for the Kennedy Senate seat, long bought and paid for, can win by telling people he'll be the 41st vote against BarryCare, you know the people cited at the top of the thread are smoking some primo stuff.
How could that election be a referendum on ObamaCare, when they already have ObamaCare?
Maybe because they hate what they're stuck with?
And since Scott Brown believes states shouldn't have to pay for other state's healthcare, is he now going to work hard to repeal RomneyCare in Mass?
Since he's about to be sworn in as a US Senator, that would be difficult.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
Oh yes, oh yes! The governors of Virginia and New Jersey are so emblematic of the GOP and Rovian Palinism!
Rovian Palinism? I don't think even Andy Sullivan has had that nightmare yet. Trooper, as Ann would say, let's take a closer look at those breasts.
Oh sorry. I forgot to say not safe for work.
2. Since people are drifting toward the Republicans,
Not at all. If the same people who voted last year voted this year the results would be liberal.
Chait is correct, that Democrats have failed to produce, ergo many Democratic voters are staying home. So passing health care reform might get some of them to return.
What you are seeing is a different group of voters. Don't think so, check the RCP presidential approval poll results. You'll see that Obama has a net negative in polls with 'likely voters,' but a net positive (in some cases even a pretty healthy net positive) in polls of 'adults' or 'registered voters.'
If? Let? Die? HA!!!!!
Mass. voters pulled the plug and buried it in a pile of concrete...sorry :)
What is it, a point of honor with the lefties to deny the significance of NewJerseyVirginiaMassachusetts? The smart thing to do would be to tack to the center. Then when the great unwashed fall asleep you can whack us over the head again...for our own good of course. There. Free advice. But don't take it. Continue hard left. It will inoculate the next generation against you. Sadly, only when people get the leftist horror full in the face are they cured of the leftist temptation.
Please, encourage the Democrats to continue to push their statist agenda! They really need to double down their election bet, pretty please!
Our local representative is a strong conservative and his likely Democrat opponent this fall wants to push earmarks and tax increases; "Tax the Rich!" She needs to go for it. Yep, that's the stuff. "Screw the little people, that's the stuff!"
"What you are seeing is a different group of voters."
That makes sense, at least as an element in addition to a slight shift from the in-party to the out-party. Certainly part of the reason Republicans lost in 2006 and lost by a significant margin in 2008 (I think they'd have lost anyhow, simply due to war fatigue,) was because Republican voters stayed home.
The mistake was that so many people decided that this meant that the Republicans should purge the religious conservatives and god botherers, anyone too far right for comfort, and move to the center. Get rid of people like Palin or at least assert some distance.
Although it's true enough that the people saying so were more personally comfortable with a more liberal stance. I don't think it's at all true that moving there would have meant more votes.
It does make sense that many of those Democrats who think that the Obama administration is too far right (I know this takes some mental gymnastics) or who are upset at him for failing various promises about Gitmo or DADT, are staying home and skewing numbers.
But will moving leftward regain more Democrat votes than it loses? Particularly as Obama doesn't really have the ability to do some of the stuff he promised to do. He just can't.
I don't understand how big or how dumb an asshole one has to be to not understand that a statement like this:
"2. Since people are drifting toward the Republicans, won't being more like them help you (despite what Jonathan Chait says)?"
pertains solely to the political tactics of following the "strongest horse" and not the morality of suicide bombing.
However, if you want to condone an appeal to power for merely its own sake, then it's safe to say there are no moral lines you will not be willing to cross. It might not be suicide bombing today. But tomorrow, who knows?
You're the one who's been "got" by condoning tactics at a cost you're not willing to define. The specific policy in question is beside the point. You've revealed yourself as uninterested in policies specifically, or in governing a democracy generally, and that you only care about power for its own sake.
Of course, you could always decide to clarify and explain when appealing to power for simply its own sake becomes too corrosive and malign a strategy to condone. But you won't. And that's because you can't.
So in that sense, yes. You're like bin Laden, but more importantly, like every other authoritarian. You refuse to define any limits on the pursuit of power for simply its own sake, or at least the appearance thereof. And that puts you in a moral category that is less American than it is... well, you know.
Otherwise, show your fucking guts and declare when power is not the only political ideal. Prove that you have some principles that are actually compatible with politics in a democratic republic. If you can.
Well now, so telling others "You're a dumb shit" is the way to win friends and influence people? RB, guess you've got your winning ways, so double down and make your winning suggestions to Pelosi and Reid.
I'm not sure if I can win friends and influence stubbornly partisan and ideological people, no matter how nice I am to them, Old Grouchy. And I suppose I could decide, nevertheless, to bend over backwards being kind to them anyway. But then again, we're talking about people who seem to have no problem expressing themselves in the following manner:
"then you can take your two remaining functional brain cells, rub them together for heat and get yourself through the long cold night of your ignorance if that makes you happy."
"...and now you're just compounding your stupidity with your poor attempt at some sort of faux nuance."
I have to say, all this sensitivity would be touching - if you weren't so selective in when y'all choose to apply it.
Synova, I'm tired and I may be misinterpreting and misreading what you wrote, but it seems to me that it's the Republicans who are now running towards the center. New Senator Brown, for example, certainly isn't a social conservative. (He doesn't appear to be one, at least) And what's-his-name in NY 23, who had Palin's endorsement, and lost: he was farther right IMO than Brown. And he lost!
I think the Republican Party is trying to reclaim the Center -- and the Democratic Party is making that pretty easy by skewing hard left.
Ritmo -
You're changing your argument into some kind of intellectual mush about authoritarianism and the pursuit of power so that you can justify claiming that your opponents are somehow one step away from strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing up civilians.
If that isn't the definition of moronic argumentation, then Webster's need to do some catch up work with whatever definition you're working from.
The authoritarians are the ones arguing FOR ObamaCare. YOU are the one who needs to justify just how much personal liberty and freedom you're willing to take from American citizens in order to justify your personal pipe dream of universal health care.
In case you hadn't notice, it is the individualists - the ones who actually value freedom of action and freedom of individual choice - who are fighting the hardest against passage of this massive government intrusion into our personal lives.
Where is your limit to the exercise of government power in pursuit of your personal pet projects? You have shown absolutely ZERO consideration of the constitutional overreach that ObamaCare constitutes. And you have the gumption to claim that it is your opponents who are the power-hungry authoritarians?
Evidently those two remaining brain cells aren't providing sufficient warmth. Perhaps you can huddle together with your fellow denizens of the depth of dKos and work up some decent heat between the lot of you because the level of thinking you've shown this far should be embarrassing to you if you had the self-awareness required to experience embarrassment.
Madison Man-
True, Hoffman was further to the right than Brown. However, he was not the Republican candidate. Scozzafava was the Republican candidate, picked as a moderate, and she had to drop out. Hoffman may well have won if he had the party backing him from the start.
MadisonMan -
For all the false claims of the extremism of the Tea Party movement, Tea Partiers have shown more pragmatism than many in the Republican Party establishment. They are not letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.
Pelosi and Obama are busy expunging the more moderate elements of their party via the ballot box in November: they have intentionally sacrificed those members in the pursuit of a goal which they knew from the outset would be tantamount to those members committing political suicide if they were corraled into voting for it.
They are doing the exact opposite of tacking to the center, they have eliminated the option of moving the Democratic Party to the center. Who will lead them there? The folks that are facing certain defeat in November due to their votes on cap-n-tax and ObamaCare would have been the natural leaders, but they're going to be too busy getting their resumes together to help them out.
Meanwhile, Tea Partiers are looking at individual candidates and saying: hey, he/she may not be perfect, but I've seen how much damage the other candidate is likely to do and I'll take a squish who may only be with me only 75% of the time over someone they know will be against them 100% of the time.
I agree that Hoffman might have won if he was the Republican candidate from the start.
Anyway, I'm not claiming who should move which direction, only that lots of people have conflicting ideas about that, which means that a whole lot of people are wrong, one way or another.
However, all of that said, I think that the only way to interpret the Republicans as moving toward the center is to start with the boogy-man scary-far-right fantasy Republicans that were in office for 8 years trying to make Bush into a hereditary King and usher in the Theocracy... and anything is farther to the center than that! The fact that the fantasy didn't ever actually exist might be a problem, but if it hasn't been a problem so far.
I don't read Kos, and never have, so you can fuck off with your presumptuous partisan condescension, Jim.
Further, for friction to provide heat, you need something bigger and more durable than two cells. The joke's become old and was just as lame the first time.
BTW, Webster doesn't have a definition for "moronic argumentation". That's some subjective bullshit that you'll have to answer for. And besides, who's the one who's shifting the argument? I talk of tactics. Your buddies on the right care about nothing but that. All you care about is remaining in power, and have no long-term vision for how to use it to the benefit of the country. That's the point, Jim. You want to talk of policies? I don't mind. But stop being an ideologue and remind yourself to get someone to pinch you when you keep shifting the argument from one of tactics (i.e. approach to politics) and strategy (i.e. how the policies will keep us out of debt to China when American companies are too strapped with the rising costs of health care to compete effectively).
As for how you'll keep warm when your freedom is owned by the authorities in Beijing? I guess you'll have to figure that one out on your own. Suffice it to say, I doubt that they'd have any compunction about bashing your own brains out and wrapping your body in the bloody mess. Hope that'll keep you warm.
As for how that'll keep you free, well you tell me, Brainiac. I'm sure the Chinese premier will really care a lot about Hannity's and O'Reilly's talking points re: your freedom to bankrupt your country at that point. Hell! By then those two whores will probably be saying what the premier's speechwriters tell them to say anyway. We all know they only care about the money so if they have to follow it to Beijing, and to hell with their American freedoms, I wouldn't be surprised.
I hope you'll enjoy it, too. And if your fellow Americans string you up for being the kind of unpatriotic goon that cheered on this mess and didn't prevent it from happening, all I'll be able to say to them is that I told you so.
Ritmo -
1) So you don't have any answer at all to how far you'll go in the pursuit of your personal political projects. You have ZERO limitations on how intrusive the government can or should be in people's lives - so long as that intrusion serves your imaginary "greater good." Thanks for clearing up just how authoritarian you are prepared to be, and how hypocritically dishonest you are in accusing others of behaving in precisely the way that you are and are encouraging Democrats to be.
2) As far as ruthlessness in "remaining in power," again you engage in some serious projection. Remind me again which party controls both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government as well as the majority of state governorships and legislatures? Oh yeah...those guys who have displayed breathtaking ruthlessness including voter intimidation, vote fraud, beating Tea Party protestors, hiring union thugs to exclude opposing points of view, etc. But you keep talking about the ruthlessness of those who want to remain in power, the tactics and totalitarian impulses have been on full display. The American public has swallowed the intimidation, lies and the corrupt tactics engaged in by the Democratic Party, and they're vomiting them up whole. But hey, those rubes are just more Islamofascist-wannabes to you anyway, what do you care?
3) For someone who is full-throated in supported the $2.5 trillion boondoggle that is ObamaCare, you really should stop with the hypocritical bleating about the Chinese owning my future. If you had half an iota of seriousness about the federal debt, your first priority would be putting an immediate end to this abomination and doing something realistic about controlling long-term entitlement spending and costs. You can't do both: either you're serious about controlling the debt or you're not. And you have demonstrated that you only want to make unsupportable claims about the debt if you think your opponent is stupid enough to swallow your lies. Too bad for you that there's no market for that here.
4) As to my vision for the future, you have no idea what they may or may not be. You've prejudged me as a wannabe-Islamofasict without the slightest hint as to what solutions I might have support. All you know is that I don't support this corrupt bargain called ObamaCare and that's all it takes for you to hike off into some ridiculous comparison of me to a follower of bin Laden.
Let's not forget that's where this conversation between you and I started. You jumped off with an unsupportable accusation, and you keep doubling down on stupid with every subsequent post. All you've shown is an inability to think beyond the garbage stereotypes of ObamaCare opponents. So who's the rigid ideologue desperate to cling to a failed plan?
You'd be much better spending some serious mirror time before you go projecting your own failings on to somebody else.
Your empty rhetoric is just that. The sooner you realize that, the less time you'll have to spend regretting what a fool you make of yourself every time you regurgitate it.
Jim, don't waste your time and energy on him.
Jim, we pretty much just ignore Ritmo.
He changes his moniker/icon frequently. He was "Montana Urban Legend" for a while, and then "Brasilian Samba Rhythm," and now he's "Ritmo Brasilero." I wouldn't treat him with any more respect than the spammers who post on this blog hoping we'll click a link to free purses or some such nonsense.
Once again I see that the trifecta showed up. Titus - Trooper York - Ritmo.
I'm pretty sure Ritmo believes in AGW....just like Bin Laden!
Hey Allen, I resemble that remark.
You know you can never be my faithful Indian companion if you keep talking like that.
1. I don't care how health care costs are decreased but support the argument that, unless they are, your country will only bankrupt itself further. Other than that, I've supported no breaches of any constitutional protections on our liberties. None. You can go on with vague talk that presupposes I would, and you can continue omitting any concrete examples of which one would be a breach and how. But that is because you live in a fantasy that allows you to forego backing up your assertions with facts or evidence.
2. Keynesian economics allows me to support spending in order to avoid a depression in the short-term, while objecting to it after the economy has righted itself in the long-term. However, because you may not understand Keynesian economics, or the difference between short-term and long-term scenarios for that matter, you are free to publish the ignorant assumptions that rest upon such staggering, gaping deficiencies on your part.
3. I don't make any comparison to an advocate of might-makes-right politics by virtue of their support for a policy area as wonky and debateable as health care. I make comparisons on the basis of one's inability to stand not having power. If that doesn't apply to you personally, you have my apologies. If, however, the shoe fits, then so be it.
4. Anyone proposing that one party has a greater hold on virtue than the other is an idiot. And anyone proposing that everyone affiliated with a certain party (which, if you cared to ask, I'm not - thanks for asking) is as corrupt and power-hungry as the worst examples in it, is not worth having a discussion on anything.
It's called stereotyping and engaging in groupthink, Jim. And you seem to love it.
However, you do have the support and encouragement of your friend, Miller - who believes that a one-time occurence (at most, two - but only miller would count the trivial, second modification) is an example of doing something "frequently". Which is nice. And Fen never had a thought that he could call his own. So if keeping company with the unoriginal and witless, I hope that keeps you warm at night!
Especially if your deep-seated anger doesn't.
Although your inability to have a conversation with the majority of your country, including tens of millions who disagree with much of what you believe, certainly leaves you with a lot of hot air to blow around. Maybe that's how you stay warm.
Post a Comment