Kudos to you John speaking out.

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-14 11:29:50

I'll get right to ridiculing you as soon as I've found some way to climb over the mountain of hypocrisy you've just dumped on the thread.

Whats_up, you're congratulating John for stating that the left is made up of a bunch of ignorant assh@les:

Moreover, the Democrats are now smug, arrogant, AND insane.

It's about time you admitted it, whats_fucked_up.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-14 11:32:56

No King, I applauded John on speaking out against the Right wing fringe, where is your condemnation? No doubt some in the Dem party are arrogant, that comes from winning the elections, same thing happened to the Right. Once the party in the minority gets back into the majority this takes place, happens to both sides. It is an unfortuante byproduct of American politics.

No King, I applauded John on speaking out against the Right wing fringe, where is your condemnation?

It's right next to your constant condemnations of the left. You'll find them, just search for your condemnations, you'll find mine.

No doubt some in the Dem party are arrogant, that comes from winning the elections, same thing happened to the Right.

"Some" are arrogant? If you count 99.999% of Democrats "some," then you're correct.

I have 3 trillion reasons that show the Democrats are arrogant.

Once the party in the minority gets back into the majority this takes place, happens to both sides. It is an unfortuante byproduct of American politics.

2009-09-14 11:46:44

But you're willing to grant more power to these arrogant people (such as socialized medicine). Thank you for proving that you're one of these arrogant assh@les YET AGAIN.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-14 12:05:13

King if you want arrogance look in the mirror, just because someone doesnt agree with you politically doesnt make them arrogant or anything else, only those who find their justification for life in their political party would make such statements, try and get out and do something else King.

Great post, John Hawkins.

It has been a bit disheartening for me to see so many conservatives, including people I personally know and respect, acting every bit as batshit crazy insano as the Dems did when they were in the minority, and it isn't always comfy or convenient to call them out on it (especially when you agree with them on so many other issues), so I'm glad you are doing that here.

Obama and the Dems are providing plenty of legitimate reasons for conservatives (and moderates, and even a fair number of liberals) to be outraged. No need to make stuff up.

King if you want arrogance look in the mirror,

*YAWN!* BOR-RING!

just because someone doesnt agree with you politically doesnt make them arrogant or anything else, only those who find blah blah blah blah…..

2009-09-14 12:17:02

Lying is part of arrogance which is why you're arrogant, w_u.

just because someone doesnt agree with you politically doesnt make them arrogant or anything else

WU's mountain of hypocrisy now dwarfs the Everest.

King if you want arrogance look in the mirror,

*YAWN!* BOR-RING!

Posted by Kingfisher

*SIGH!* – BUT TRUE!

only those who find their justification for life in their political party would make such statements, try and get out and do something else King.

2009-09-14 12:17:02

You're right, w_u. I'll do something else. In fact, I'll start a new segment on RWN: Idiotic postings made by the dumbest people on the planet:

Really, this is your justification. So by that logic it would be okay to profit by endentured servitude, slavery and child labor since nowhere in the Constitution are those things prohibited.

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-08 15:35:56

There, I did something else, w_u. Next question.

I contend Obama himself vacated Godwin's Law when he proposed his civilian national security force that would be as powerful, strong, and well-funded as the military. That's a hell of a statement considering the military has a budget of $400 billion, 1.5 million people on active duty, and the world's premier combat training and equipment.

Just because people say you're acting like Hitler doesn't mean you're not.

The Left did this by completely incorporating them into the mainstream of liberal thought. You’re a communist or think America is the most evil place on earth? Great, we could use you as a college professor. You think white people are “devils?” I think the NAACP has a job opening. You believe Bush had something to do with the bombing of the WTC and that he invaded Iraq for Oil? Great! Let’s put you next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention. When you go that route, not only is it embarrassing, the crazies end up having way too much influence. See the Democratic Party for a perfect example of how that works.

John Hawkins | 11:16 am | Permalink Comments (12) Trackbacks Email this!

Your attempt at objective analysis is noted….and dismissed.

Did you not pay attention to the last election? Easy stereotyping won't work. You should at least try to be more subtle.

Conservatives need to hone their message. Democrats aren't crazy….at least compared to Republicans.

Conservatives need to hone their message.

We're more interested in providing substantive content.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-14 13:05:45

Mike,

this is exactly what John was talking about, taking a speech completly out of context and then trying to make it out like Obama is somehow comparable to Hitler, pathetic.

OK.

Still….you have to admit the message isn't getting across. Could be that blaming the other guys isn't the best way to go.

and then trying to make it out like Obama is somehow comparable to Hitler, pathetic.

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-14 13:28:16

Don't talk badly about Hitler. Realpolitik with get angry. Since you and he are probably one and the same, Nixon bets the site of ol Adolf makes your gay juices flow, doesn't it?

Posted by Dick_Nixon

2009-09-14 13:30:22

Ah yes another intelligent conservative poster, proves Johns point to a tee, thanks Nixon.

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-14 13:31:34

Yup, dixon's lies and gay baiting are the proof John can use.

osted by President_Friedman

2009-09-14 12:20:23

President Friedman

I can only say….!!!!!!.

It does our nation no good to vilify those who disagree with us on some issues.

Because we agree on so many more fundemental issues.

this is exactly what John was talking about, taking a speech completly out of context and then trying to make it out like Obama is somehow comparable to Hitler, pathetic.

I defy you to provide any sort of "context" that would justify what Obama said.

Pssst. Crthns. There's a log in your eye.

I defy you to provide any sort of "context" that would justify what Obama said.

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-09-14 14:15:11

Here's a context….if a President Bush had been elected to a 3rd term he would have said the exact same thing a President Obama said in his first term.

Because that is what the times called for.

Still….you have to admit the message isn't getting across. Could be that blaming the other guys isn't the best way to go.

The last election is proof that blaming the other guy, and sometimes even doing bad things and then blaming the other guy for them, works, Mr. Miller. Obama, but even more so the other democrats, ran on being the anti-Bush. Bush war. Bush deficits. Bush destroyed the economy. Bush tortured people. Bush treated terrorists badly. Bush stole my rights. Bush lied. Bush stupid. Bush evil. Bush this. Bush that.

The democrats and their policies laid the foundation for this financial crisis. The MSM – a big part of why this blame game seems to work for so well for democrats – covered for them and repeated their lies. But anyone willing to do the research can find the underlying issues and problems, and their makers. Same for the deficit spending under Bush when democrats controlled congress and spending. The war? The lies? You name it the democrats blamed the other guy, even going so far as to invent things to blame em for. Then when they win they not only carry on with the Bush policies they went batsh*t over, but often expand those. The war? Treatment of terrorists? Expansion of the power of the Executive branch? Deficit spending? The lying? The stupidity? The only difference between then and now is that many of the things the left disapproved of and too often falsely accused Bush of are actually going on, the MSM has no interest in pointing this stuff out like they used to when republicans were in power, and even though Obama won, the blame game continues. You will pardon conservatives for pointing out the hypocrisy in this.

I do not want vilification. I would like the truth. Nothing seems to be a bigger enemy of the demcorats, the nut job leftists movement that has got them by the balls, and the current administration, more than the truth.

Obama, but even more so the other democrats, ran on being the anti-Bush.

Posted by AlexinCT

2009-09-14 14:29:10

Yes, he did.

He was elected.

"Bush destroyed the economy. Bush tortured people. Bush treated terrorists badly. Bush stole my rights. Bush lied. Bush stupid. Bush evil. Bush this. Bush that. "

I don't understand why you would defend any of those issues.

The American people made their vote.

you have to admit the message isn't getting across

If over one million grassroots conservatives/libertarians rally in Washington DC a scant eight months after election day to protest insane spending behavior, and not even Fox News is willing to point out realistic numbers, do they mark a message that's getting across?

It does our nation no good to vilify those who disagree with us on some issues.

And again with this "do not vilify those who disagree!" hypocrisy. Did the DNC pass that out as talking point this morning?

"Here's a context….if a President Bush had been elected to a 3rd term he would have said the exact same thing a President Obama said in his first term."

Bush did some stupid things, but did Bush blow a trillion dollars on a Porkulus Bill that did zero, zilch, nada to help the economy?

Did Bush propose a government takeover of the health care system? Did Bush back a Cap and Tax plan that would create energy shortages and cost every American family thousands of dollars in needless taxes? Did Bush break contracts to put the government in charge of GM and the UAW in charge of Chrysler?

Did Bush send party goons to political meetings to intimidate and beat people? Did Bush propose creating a paramilitary organization to carry out his policy goals?

Would Bush have tripled his own deficit from the previous year when the country was already broke? Did Bush supress budgetary reports because they were an embarassing rebuke of his policies? Did Bush flat out lie about what his policies would do to the unemployment rate?

Did Bush personally denigrate his political opponents and have the Department of Homeland Security declare anybody that disagreed with him an "extremist"?

Did Bush kick off a trade war with China just to top it all off?

Obama has done all those things and more…yet he's not to blame for anything bad in the country. Amazing how Obama is an innocent bystander in his own Presidency. The Democrat controlled Congress reacts with outrage to bad economic news, as is they haven't been making all the laws since January 2007.

It's going to be great when Obama starts campaigning against Bush again in 2012. None of the deficits or unemployment during his term will have been his fault at all.

The lying and distortions are for the children (as San Fran Nan said) who run the left. The adults in the room need to stick to facts, data, information, details – the stuff the children hate.

For example, I have seen lists of the terrible things in HR3200, some of which, when you actually read the sections of the bill, say no such thing. For example, one part that will "deny coverage to special needs persons" is totally misrepresented. The difficulty comes in that this section modifies an existing section of the Social Security Act; you have to go get the SSA in order to understand what the HR3200 section is referring to. But, people will take such lists at face value without doing the spade work to dig up the details. Leave that to the lefties and LaRouchies.

I don't understand why you would defend any of those issues.

So bashing the adversary does win elections! The only thing worse than your debating skills is your inability to understand why Obama only got a 5 point margin in what should've been a landslide election.

And again with this "do not vilify those who disagree!" hypocrisy. Did the DNC pass that out as talking point this morning?

Posted by smelvertising

2009-09-14 14:49:11

Hypocrisy? The DNC does not need to pass out talking points.

There are people who disagree with you.

Deal with it.

He was elected.

So? Why do you Leftists think that being elected provides one with a solid-gold mandate to do as he pleases with a country (unless he's a Republican, of course). May I remind you that Hugo Chavez was elected? No, wait, you Leftists like that guy. Castro? Nope, you like him too. Well, which dictator who won multiple elections don't you like? Milosevic? Mao? Saddam? Nope, they're all favored by the Left. Geez, about the only brutal dictator you Leftists don't love were Hitler and Mussolini. They were elected, too.

Bush did some stupid things, but did Bush blow a trillion dollars on a Porkulus Bill that did zero, zilch, nada to help the economy?

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-14 14:50:47

Bush started and lost two wars, and from that stems all the problems President Obama has to rectify.

So bashing the adversary does win elections!Posted by smelvertising

2009-09-14 14:53:36

LOL…a landslide election?

So you are saying the Dems deserved to win? And by a larger margin than they did?

What does that say about your side?

It does say this: that conservatives have been unable to convince the American people of the truth of their analysis.

Something I have been saying all along.

Conservatives need to hone their message.

Obama has done all those things and more

Obama did well more than just blame the former president for all the socialist garbage he's passed off as national and foreign policy. He has openly lied to their constituents. Remember when people screamed for eight years that Bush was a liar? It's yet to be proven. Obama can be called a liar, because he is one and it's easily provable that he is.

The alternative is that he is as stupefyingly dumb as the average liberal. You choose.

Regardless, whining that it is hypocritical to call Obama on his (provable) lies while staying disgusted with the left making up all sort of garbage about Bush "lying"… I suppose it can't be helped, when your worldview is that the only difference between those that succeed and those that fail is some vague external force called 'luck'. As long as both sides accuse each other of lying, a liberal will always falsely believe to be a "moderate" if he puts liars on the same level as those who point out lies.

"Bush destroyed the economy. Bush tortured people. Bush treated terrorists badly. Bush stole my rights. Bush lied. Bush stupid. Bush evil. Bush this. Bush that. "

I don't understand why you would defend any of those issues.

The American people made their vote.

Posted by rmiller

2009-09-14 14:46:29

I don't think Alex was "defending" any "issue." He was merely pointing out that the Left slurred the hell out of Bush, and their entire approach towards winning power was based on an extended venomous campaign of hatred and vitriole. A temper tantrum, if you will. “He lied to this country! He played on our fears!” Sound familiar? Where’s the Left’s outrage at the blatant disrespect for the office of the Presidency in THAT disgusting & dastardly rant??

So yes, after years of cynically calculating that war weariness could be their ticket to power the Democrats gained it. But at the price of being beholden and captive to the most radically leftist group of loons this side of Hugo Chavez. In case you haven’t noticed, the winds of popular sentiment are blowing mighty strong, and not in a way good for Democrats. I wonder if you’ll make the same tired statements of “Won!” come 2010? Or will dissent at that point once again become the Highest Form of Patriotism for you?

Posted by rmiller

2009-09-14 14:23:07

Thank you for utterly failing to give me what I asked for.

Did Bush send party goons to political meetings to intimidate and beat people?

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-14 14:50:47

No, he just had them arrested.

Did Bush propose a government takeover of the health care system?

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-14 14:50:47

Once again Mike, Obama isnt doing this.

So? Why do you Leftists think that being elected provides one with a solid-gold mandate to do as he pleases with a country (unless he's a Republican, of course).Posted by CavalierX

2009-09-14 14:59:

Well, being elected means that the people voting want to have the electee do what he claimed he would do.

It's part of the hallmark of a democratic republic….that the President reflects the will of the people.

Nothing Leftist about that. Nor does it mean that the right can do what it pleases with the country, even if elected.

rmiller,

I distinctly remember Obama denying he was the most liberal Senator in the Congress. I also remember him saying he would be a united.

I don't feel united. And Obama stands revealed as a leftist extremist.

It's part of the hallmark of a democratic republic….that the President reflects the will of the people.

Posted by rmiller

2009-09-14 15:08:59

Conservatives had their opportunity to showcase where they thought the country should be headed, and the American voters rejected that platform, thats how politics works in this country, some on the right would do well to remember that.

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-09-14 15:05:00

LOL…you are asking for a 'context' that is fictional. I gave you a fictional (though realistic) context.

Your assesment that it is a failure is laughable.

If I took you seriously, I would cry.

I shed no tears.

"Bush started and lost two wars, and from that stems all the problems President Obama has to rectify."

Obama has already wasted more money in 8 months than was spent on those two wars combined in 8 years.

But if the wars were lost, why is Obama still fighting both of them? Again, the man is a clueless bystander in his own Administration. He's like Ziggy from the comic: a nondescript man who just finds himself in a neverending series of unfortunate situations completely by happenstance.

I wonder if you’ll make the same tired statements of “Won!” come 2010? Or will dissent at that point once again become the Highest Form of Patriotism for you?

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 15:04:11

Is this another one of your famous political predictions CC?

The Democrats would do well to remember that San Francisco is literally off the map when it comes to the political scene of the entire country. The average American is NO socialist, NO leftist, NO radical… the voters that gave Obama the votes he needed to prevail took his professions of moderation (abetted by a disgracefully in-the-tank media) seriously and voted for him because that is what voters DO in a democracy… they assume that neither party is extremist, that an President once elected moves to the center, and that the real choice is not between ideology but between the relative competence of two individuals.

I honestly don't believe the vast majority of that 52% that voted Democrat out of war weariness even began to imagine they were voting to quadruple the deficit within 4 months, voting for $12 trillion in more deficits over the next few years, voted for Cuban-style healthcare, voted for nationalized car industries, nor voted for the political torture of CIA interrogators.

Do YOU?

But if the wars were lost, why is Obama still fighting both of them?

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-14 15:16:41

He's not Mike, we are currently withdrawing from Iraq to focus on the one war we should have been worried about the whole time, Afghanistan.

"Once again Mike, Obama isnt doing this."

You're right, he's demanding Congress can do it. Not even Obama can pass his own legislation.

Hey did you catch the clip of Obama at his latest health care speech repeatedly screaming "GET FIRED UP!" and the crowd chanting back at him? That was completely normal.

Is this another one of your famous political predictions CC?

I seem to remember your own predictions way back in 2004. No need to argue but that one – but I tell you what, this time around Obama's pretense of moderation won't be very convincing.

Do YOU?

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 15:17:22

Yes I believe that the majority of them voted to have a public health care system, wanted to make sure that our intelligence agaencies actually follow the law. They probably did not vote for increased deficits, but because of where we were at they understand what had to be done.

I seem to remember your own predictions way back in 2004. No need to argue but that one – but I tell you what, this time around Obama's pretense of moderation won't be very convincing.

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 15:20:12

We will see wont we, no doubt the Dems will lose some seats in the House, almost always the majority party does, will it be enough to take it back, dont know.

What does that say about your side?

It does say this: that conservatives have been unable to convince the American people of the truth of their analysis.

Your understanding of the reasons behind the Obama election, as usual, barely rate an F-. Here's the whole crux: conservatives are not Republicans, and viceversa. The 2008 election was a Republican loss; that Sarah Palin could come in and close a large margin shows that conservatives, at worst, didn't flinch.

And the True Million Man March shows that they're making nothing but headways.

Yes I believe

Well, there's your problem. You have "beliefs" instead of facts.

"He's not Mike, we are currently withdrawing from Iraq to focus on the one war we should have been worried about the whole time, Afghanistan."

Amazing all the things Obama isn't doing. Bush was such a failure that Obama kept the guy he hired as Secretary of Defense and is executing the exact same plan for withdrawl over the course of more than a year.

Bush must be the first leader in history to lose a war in a largely peaceful country during a slow orderly withdrawl of troops. Obama of course has absolutely nothing to do with it.

They probably did not vote for increased deficits, but because of where we were at they understand what had to be done.

Posted by whats_up

HAD to be done? HAD to be done to prevent what, 8 percent unemployment?

You've awakened a sleeping giant out there, liberals – the American people had NO idea how far left you had gone. Now they do. So YES – here's a famous prediction for you: Democrats are getting their asses whipped BIG TIME in 2010.

And I for one will call for hearings… many many hearings… a flurry of subpoenas about who knew what when about anything we can think of. And after 2012: special prosecuters to allow the Left to feel those CIA interrogator's pain. Oh, I don't care about prison time (though Scooter Libbey might feel different). No, no, my friends: I want a few special czars and such to pay thousands upon thousands in legal defense fees, I want them to lose sleep, I want their spouses to cry, I want their kids to ask "Mommy, is Daddy going to go to jail? What did he do?," just so the Left learns such a bitter lesson about the criminalization of policy differences that they will never EVER dream of doing such a thing again.

I don't think Alex was "defending" any "issue." He was merely pointing out that the Left slurred the hell out of Bush, and their entire approach towards winning power was based on an extended venomous campaign of hatred and vitriole. A temper tantrum, if you will. “He lied to this country! He played on our fears!” Sound familiar? Where’s the Left’s outrage at the blatant disrespect for the office of the Presidency in THAT disgusting & dastardly rant??

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 15:04:11

OK.

I respect that.

Some on the liberal side did that. And I can't blame the opposition for remembering that.

But it seem somewhat hypocritical to engage in the same game that one blamed the other side in engaging.

It's not that I blame conservatives….they have every right to engage in that sort of invective. I know that during the Bush Administration the invective of the left was dastardly.

But when does it stop?

Well, being elected means that the people voting want to have the electee do what he claimed he would do.

And when it turns out he was making empty promises he can't keep, don't the people have a right to oppose him? Or are we supposed to shrug and say "he was elected; he can do whatever he wants?"

It's part of the hallmark of a democratic republic….that the President reflects the will of the people.

Again: and when he lies to get into office, making impossible promises and pretending to be a "centrist" then governing from the hard Left — or, for that matter, the hard Right?

And the True Million Man March shows that they're making nothing but headways.

Posted by smelvertising

2009-09-14 15:22:57

LOL, you should probably call it the 250,000 man march.

just so the Left learns such a bitter lesson about the criminalization of policy differences that they will never EVER dream of doing such a thing again.

Posted by CoolCzech

CC,

Once again good thing that isnt happening. The only people who have to worry are those that BROKE THE LAW, if they are innocent they have nothing to fear.

Posted by rmiller

2009-09-14 15:15:27

…You haven't the slightest idea what anyone is talking about, do you?

But when does it stop?

2009-09-14 15:26:03

I guess when the mutual pain is so high neither side can stomach it anymore.

We on the right have had our bellyful. Now it's time for the mutual part…

Posted by CavalierX

2009-09-14 15:27:45

You know…I agree with you. It's hard to be a uniter, not a divider.

You know…I agree with you. It's hard to be a uniter, not a divider.

Is that a quote from Stalin, or Obama?

If I took you seriously, I would cry.

I shed no tears.

Posted by rmiller

*Golf clap*

The only people who have to worry are those that BROKE THE LAW, if they are innocent they have nothing to fear.

Funny how that logic never seemed to fly when the right was using it to justify the Patriot Act.

We on the right have had our bellyful. Now it's time for the mutual part…

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 15:31:41

So much hatred for those that disagree with you politically, perhaps you should find something else to occupy your waking time.

We on the right have had our bellyful. Now it's time for the mutual part…

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 15:31:41

But you on the right have had your run of the country for 2 decades. Just because you are disappointed with the results is no reason to blame the liberals.

"But when does it stop?"

Maybe when the President shows his opponents a bit of respect instead of calling us racist extremists that cling to our guns and Bibles.

Go back and read my comments from Spring of 2008. I though Obama was going to live up to his promises of being a pro-religion, reasoned, moderate candidate. I thought he would at least be like Clinton and put his towering ego above his party at times in order to secure high poll numbers and keep his critics off balance.

Instead he's combined the worst qualities of liberalism, Cloward-Piven socialism, and the radical leftist views of his colleagues and mentors. He bitterly attacks anybody that disagrees with him, and resorts to threats and power plays instead of dialogue and compromise.

I gave him a fair shake. In return he's attacked me and the things I believe in. Damned if I'm going to sit around and let him pass his destructive agenda for the sake of politeness.

Funny how that logic never seemed to fly when the right was using it to justify the Patriot Act.

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-09-14 15:33:27

Are you saying it's incorrect logic? Or was it fine when a Repub was in office but now that the shoe is on the other foot its not so good, which is it Mighty?

I gave him a fair shake. In return he's attacked me and the things I believe in. Damned if I'm going to sit around and let him pass his destructive agenda for the sake of politeness.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-14 15:35:07

Bullshit Mike, you didnt give him a fair shake, when he didnt do what YOU wanted you got pissed. Well tough shit, you conservatives had your chance in the election, guess what, the majority of American voters turned you down, they didnt agree with your vision for the country.

Are you saying it's incorrect logic?

Are you saying that "only the guilty have to fear the law" under a Democrat but not a Republican?

Are you saying that "only the guilty have to fear the law" under a Democrat but not a Republican?

Posted by CavalierX

2009-09-14 15:37:25

That seems to be what you are all saying, if it was fun under the Patriot Act why is it not fine now?

If the Left is serious about "restoring civility," it might start with dropping the "tea bagger" humor. And oh yeah – stop referring to concerned mainstream Americans as Swastika-toters because they don't believe in socialized medicine.

"Bullshit Mike, you didnt give him a fair shake, when he didnt do what YOU wanted you got pissed."

Precisely. I wanted responsible spending, trustworthy government, respect for the Constitution, and a President that acted like a public servant. How outrageous, I know.

Instead we got Cloward-Piven socialism, staggering corruption, a tripling of the deficit, bitter personal attacks against Americans from the government, and a President that acts like a malevolent diety.

Damn straight I'm pissed.

..You haven't the slightest idea what anyone is talking about, do you?

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-09-14 15:31:17

Of course I do.

Do I really need to recount your contribution to this thread?

Let me summarize….liberals evil, conservatives good.

That seems to be what you are all saying, if it was fun under the Patriot Act why is it not fine now?

Why are you saying it's fine now, but wasn't under the PATRIOT Act?

He bitterly attacks anybody that disagrees with him, and resorts to threats and power plays instead of dialogue and compromise.

Republicans/Conservatives have no leg to stand on when it comes to this. They controlled the House/Senate/Presidency and did little to not only solve major issues, but also in terms of dialogue & compromise.

Obama doesn't owe Republicans or Conservatives a damn thing. Especially since they've been calling him every name in the book since before he was elected. Now they are in rebuilding mode and the President should make major concessions to them?

Ask yourself if the roles were reversed, would you be demanding a Republican President offer dialogue & compromise to Democrats, or demanding he stick to his principles and the idealogical party line?

Obama doesn't owe Republicans or Conservatives a damn thing.

See, this is the problem. Obama is using his office to reward people to whom he owes favors and votes. That's not what the Presidency is for. Thanks for confirming that Obama is sullying the office with his Chicago mob-like behavior.

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 15:41:02

You know…I'd agree with that…once the fascist and communist labels start dropping.

Detente is a mutual agreement.

If the Left is serious about "restoring civility," it might start with dropping the "tea bagger" humor.

Yeah, because all the jokes about hippies, liberals, commies, mooonbats are soo okay, right?

And oh yeah – stop referring to concerned mainstream Americans as Swastika-toters because they don't believe in socialized medicine.

Maybe they should stop walking around with swastikas, then.

"Now they are in rebuilding mode and the President should make major concessions to them?"

Posted by D-Vega

2009-09-14 15:43:56

Not at all, D-Vega.

I don't want Obama to change a thing. Wanna know the truth? I hope he DOES use to reconciliation to jam thru the "public option."

It will be the death of Liberalism as a major political force in this country for another generation. And getting rid of it will be a wonderful Republican plank for 2010.

Ask yourself if the roles were reversed, would you be demanding a Republican President offer dialogue & compromise to Democrats, or demanding he stick to his principles and the idealogical party line?

The difference is that we are demanding that any President stick to ideals and principles that follow the Constitution, protect our rights and liberties, and promote American exceptionalism. When Bush's policies did not do those things we chastised him for it. If Obama did those things he would be my new hero. Unfortately, he's doing everything the opposite. It's not a "my party, rah-rah-rah" issue here.

Maybe they should stop walking around with swastikas, then.

2009-09-14 15:46:47

Funny, D-Vega – the only people I ever saw with swastikas were Liberals holding photos of BUSH with a Hitler moustache.

And by the way – how soon you forget Liberals have called Republicans fascists since the 1960's. Except NOW it turns out its the Tom Friedmans of the world that admire authoritarian rule. Funny THAT, huh?

"Ask yourself if the roles were reversed, would you be demanding a Republican President offer dialogue & compromise to Democrats, or demanding he stick to his principles and the idealogical party line?"

Every major piece of legislation Bush signed save the Tax Cuts had bipartisan sponsorship, vega. The Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the TARP bailout. The Democrats voted with him to authorize the Iraq and Afghainstan wars. Look it up. It's indisputable fact.

Conservatives were quite upset with Bush because of his spending and cooperation with Democrats. You liberals forget because of your blinding white-hot rage toward Bush for the mortal sin of winning two elections.

"Obama doesn't owe Republicans or Conservatives a damn thing. Especially since they've been calling him every name in the book since before he was elected. Now they are in rebuilding mode and the President should make major concessions to them?"

Why is he having so much trouble passing his agenda then? I thought he won the election and public opinion was with him? He has a huge majority in the House and 59 votes in the Senate.

It's all Obama all the time. He won. Conservatism was defeated. Sarah Palin is out of office. The world is united in singing his praises.

So why can't Congress take a simple vote on the health care bill?

It's not a "my party, rah-rah-rah" issue here.

Posted by CavalierX

2009-09-14 15:50:08

You are consistent…and I respect that.

Every major piece of legislation Bush signed save the Tax Cuts had bipartisan sponsorship, vega.

Because he could not get them passed without the Dems votes, Mike. It had nothing to do with whether his goal was including the other party. The Rep House crammed through all kinds of stuff, because they had the votes. There were huge sections of House Dems that did not vote for any of those things.

Conservatives were quite upset with Bush because of his spending and cooperation with Democrats.

My point exactly. And now here you are saying Obama is not engaging in "dialogue and compromise" with Republicans.

The fact is that you need the votes. The Dems will not use reconciliation. At least, the Senate Dems will not. So you will see Obama going down the road of Bush if he sees that he is not getting the votes he needs.

So why can't Congress take a simple vote on the health care bill?

It is major reform, Mike. Something that a host of folks have been unable to pass.

The Republicans aren't the real issue, here. The Gang of Six is.

It's not a simple vote. By far.

The Dems will not use reconciliation. At least, the Senate Dems will not. So you will see Obama going down the road of Bush if he sees that he is not getting the votes he needs.

2009-09-14 16:00:33

That's too bad, 'cause we both know why not.

Truth is, Obama could reach many of his objectives if he just gave up on the Public Option. But he can't get his party moderates to OK that – especially now that tens of millions oppose it. So he'd rather pretend Republicans have no ideas of their own, when in fact they ARE offering real proposals.

You liberals forget because of your blinding white-hot rage toward Bush for the mortal sin of winning two elections.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-14 15:51:37

It's not blinding white hot rage….

its politics as usual. The blinding white hot rage is from conservatives.

How else to explain the current invective?

If the Left is serious about "restoring civility," it might start with dropping the "tea bagger" humor. And oh yeah – stop referring to concerned mainstream Americans as Swastika-toters because they don't believe in socialized medicine.

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 15:41:02

Then perhaps the right should stop reffering to concerned mainstream Americans as communists and Nazi's, civility is a two way street CC.

"Because he could not get them passed without the Dems votes, Mike. It had nothing to do with whether his goal was including the other party."

I see. So Ted Kennedy co-sponsored NCLB why then, for the hell of it? Was Kennedy a conservative Blue Dog Democrat just trying to hang onto his seat? And I suppose Bush "just had the votes" the last two years of his term too, despite the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress?

You liberals won't take responsibility for a damn thing. Now Democrat co-sponsored legislation was a Bush partisan trick, and apparently Pelosi and Reid were just bystanders from January 2007-2009.

All so you can keep justifying your irrational Bush hatred and prop up your own failed President.

And by the way – how soon you forget Liberals have called Republicans fascists since the 1960's. Except NOW it turns out its the Tom Friedmans of the world that admire authoritarian rule. Funny THAT, huh?

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 15:50:11

And Republicans have called Liberals Nazi', communists and traitors since the 1960's, your point here is what exactly CC?

Then perhaps the right should stop reffering to concerned mainstream Americans as communists and Nazi's

If the jackboot fits…

"How else to explain the current invective?"

How about we start with your complete rejection of the facts in exchange for your extremely effective, sophisticated, and compelling "I'm rubber you're glue!" argument?

Are you even trying to be serious anymore?

If the jackboot fits…

Posted by CavalierX

2009-09-14 16:13:44

See my point exactly, Cav is not interested in civility.

Truth is, Obama could reach many of his objectives if he just gave up on the Public Option. But he can't get his party moderates to OK that – especially now that tens of millions oppose it. So he'd rather pretend Republicans have no ideas of their own, when in fact they ARE offering real proposals.

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 16:06:14

You are correct. The Public Option is the sticking point in the debate over health care reform.

My question is this:

Why should private insurers be concerned about a Public Option if the private market is the best alternative?

Isn't this a no brainer? The private market will trump any Public Option, because the market will always provide more efficient alternatives than any public program?

How about we start with your complete rejection of the facts in exchange for your extremely effective, sophisticated, and compelling "I'm rubber you're glue!" argument?

Are you even trying to be serious anymore?

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-14 16:14:29

Mike,

You are one to talk about complete rejection of facts. No Death Panels, no camps and yet you still insist that those are there, tell ya what, you stick to the "facts" and then you can demand the other side does as well, as long as you use lies and deciet that is what you are going to get back.

How about we start with your complete rejection of the facts in exchange for your extremely effective, sophisticated, and compelling "I'm rubber you're glue!" argument?

Are you even trying to be serious anymore?

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-14 16:14:29

"I'm rubber you're glue"? And you're accussing me of trying to be serious?

Let's also remember that the GOP did not control the Senate from 2000-2002 because of Jim Jeffords, and Republicans agreed to an unprecedented power sharing agreement in the Senate as a show of good faith.

I guess that gets forgotten while screaming fanatical devotion to Obama. Really, have you listened to audio of the "GET FIRED UP" speech? Presidents act like that all the time. Perfectly normal.

And Republicans have called Liberals Nazi', communists and traitors since the 1960's, your point here is what exactly CC?

2009-09-14 16:13:18

Actually, the general conservative recognition that the current administration is doing things that should have the ACLU truly alarmed – the flag@whitehouse.com, the editorial by Friedman praising the "enlightened" regime in Beijing, the calling out of SEIU thugs to physically seize townhalls – is something new.

And if Jane Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun pretending to shoot down American fighters was not traitorous… than I'm afraid I don't know the meaning of the term.

Obama doesn't owe Republicans or Conservatives a damn thing. – vega

I agree.

I want you and yours to own it. All of it.

And if Jane Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun pretending to shoot down American fighters was not traitorous… than I'm afraid I don't know the meaning of the term.

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 16:19:56

So that justifies labeling all liberals as traitors? Cmon man I expected a little intelligence on your part.

ee my point exactly, Cav is not interested in civility. – crthns

Pssst. That log is still sticking out of your eye, dude.

"No Death Panels, no camps and yet you still insist that those are there,"

I don't know what "camps" you're talking about as I've never argued that point. I did however, copy and paste the exact text of the health care bill that would create Ted Kennedy Memorial Death Panels (we have to keep him in the debate, like Obama said). You just chose to pretend it never happened since you're more comfortable not reading the bill and trusting that the Great and Powerful Obama will make it rain puppies and unicorns instead.

Why should private insurers be concerned about a Public Option if the private market is the best alternative?

2009-09-14 16:15:50

BECAUSE:

1. Companies paying for private insurance will have no reason not to simply drop their plans and tell employees to go public. In fact, Obama intends to penalize companies that DON'T drop their existing plans with additional taxes.

2. Government can dictate to hopsitals and doctors what they have to accept, a power that private insurers don't have. That may seem like a neat idea, but there is no such thing as a free lunch: if you force hospitals and doctors to accept far less money, you'll have fewer of both. AND it will be the death of medical research in this country, when government does the same trick to pharmacy companies.

Right now, the government is already underpaying for hospitals and doctors, forcing both to jack up rates for the privately insured. Where is the slack going to get picked up once there are no more privately insured?

Bottom line is, it's an obvious untruth that you can extend coverage to 40 million more people and NOT to either ration care or raise taxes.

And if Jane Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun pretending to shoot down American fighters was not traitorous… than I'm afraid I don't know the meaning of the term.

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 16:19:56

The debate has changed since then…as has the world.

<Cmon man I expected a little intelligence on your part.

2009-09-14 16:22:43

Don't "come on" me!

Kerry did something equally horrible – slurring millions of American vets as "the army of Genghis Khan" that raped and murdered and looted – and the left rewarded him with a lifetime Senate seat AND a Presidential nomination.

I don't know what "camps" you're talking about as I've never argued that point. I did however, copy and paste the exact text of the health care bill that would create Ted Kennedy Memorial Death Panels (we have to keep him in the debate, like Obama said). You just chose to pretend it never happened since you're more comfortable not reading the bill and trusting that the Great and Powerful Obama will make it rain puppies and unicorns instead.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-14 16:24:38

See, when you want to deal with "facts" get back to us, until then you get what you give Mike, dont whine to us when you deal in lies and deceit.

"I'm rubber you're glue"? And you're accussing me of trying to be serious?"

How else would you characterize the above exchange? You dismiss my claim of blinding white hot rage against Bush by saying "the blinding white hot rage is from conservatives" while providing no other factual or argumentative evidence.

The desperation coming from you guys is palpable.

Kerry did something equally horrible – slurring millions of American vets as "the army of Genghis Khan" that raped and murdered and looted – and the left rewarded him with a lifetime Senate seat AND a Presidential nomination.

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 16:27:02

Once again how does that justify claiming all Liberals are traitors?

The desperation coming from you guys is palpable.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-14 16:27:57

Mike,

Its not desperation, its amusement.

"See, when you want to deal with "facts" get back to us, until then you get what you give Mike, dont whine to us when you deal in lies and deceit."

I've buried you in facts, you've responded "nuh-uh!"

And I see you convieniently forgot to address my question of why if you're right and I'm so wrong, the Democrat agenda hasn't sailed through Congress already? You're here throwing a fit and stamping your feet when you should be lighting a cigar and touting your new liberal order.

"You won the election", right? Right??

Once again how does that justify claiming all Liberals are traitors?

2009-09-14 16:27:58

I don't believe I said "all" Liberals are "traitors."

Just deeply, deeply misguided.

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-14 16:16:42

Well except the death panels are in the bill, No they are not called death panels but that is what they would be. So it's not really a lie, like Odrama's BS about illegals not being covered.

Well except the death panels are in the bill, No they are not called death panels but that is what they would be. So it's not really a lie, like Odrama's BS about illegals not being covered.

Posted by bthewolf

2009-09-14 16:31:26

Once again with the lies, you guys are desperate arent you, cant simply have a true debate, the question is why not?

How about Obama's lack of transparency? A 6 year old girl has to show a birth certificate to be a Jr. Pro football cheerleader – why not have to show one to be president of the US? McCain did it when there were questions.

John, how about bashing Obama's lack of transparency?

BTW: It's not that he was born in Kenya; it's that his race is listed as caucasian… :):):):):):)

he desperation coming from you guys is palpable.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-14 16:27:57

I'm rubber you're glue :)

seriously, though, I don't understand why the charge of desperation in arguement applies to one side, but not the other?

Conservatives accuse liberals of not understanding, and liberals accuse conservatives of not understanding.

Am I more desperate than you?

I don't think so :)

"Once again with the lies, you guys are desperate arent you, cant simply have a true debate, the question is why not?"

Please look up the Monty Python Argument Clinic sketch.

When all you liberals do is reflexively disagree, it's not an argument. Just a contradiction. Try offering a fact or at least a resoned difference of opinion. Then we can call it a debate. Until then it's just you being schooled.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-14 16:40:24

When all you conservatives do is reflexively disagree, it's not an argument. Just a contradiction.

"The Republicans aren't the real issue, here. The Gang of Six is. It's not a simple vote. By far."

Hey a fact! Almost missed it. So by your own admission, Obama didn't just win the election and get free reign to impose his agenda.

So far he's demanded compliance and servility from everyone in his own party and the Republicans. Did it ever occur to you that maybe Obama would be served by softening his positions instead of issuing threats and holding fanatical rallies with screaming zealots?

How are his opinion numbers doing today?

Hey a fact! Almost missed it. So by your own admission, Obama didn't just win the election and get free reign to impose his agenda.

Of course. No President does. Although Bush claimed so in his effort to reform SS. Which failed miserably.

So far he's demanded compliance and servility from everyone in his own party and the Republicans.

No, he hasn't.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Obama would be served by softening his positions instead of issuing threats and holding fanatical rallies with screaming zealots?

First of all, his positions have already softened from his campaign pledges. And in return, the Reps have offered squat.

Second of all, I wouldn't start pointing fingers when it comes to fanatical rallies and screaming zealots.

How are his opinion numbers doing today?

Seems fine to me, its not like there's an election anytime soon.

Conservatives accuse liberals of not understanding, and liberals accuse conservatives of not understanding.

Conservatives understand. Liberals do not.

And liberals, because they'd rather continue not understanding, keep putting the two on the same level. Much easier than admitting the truth, especially when it would reveal the fundamental truth that the difference between success and failure is not 'luck'.

Are you more desperate than the rest of us? You don't think; that is most definitely true. Here's the proof:

The debate has changed since then…

Understanding of major issues: F-. It's still individualism, capitalism, and freedom vs. collectivism, socialism and tyranny. Nothing has changed since then, except the labels that those on the side of tyranny give themselves to perpetuate their self-delusion that they are on any other side.

There are people who disagree with you. Deal with it.

See? There it is again. You've been convinced that having no opinion, no adherence to reality, nor any individual thought is the same as "disagreement". I am dealing with people like you, it's sad that even the most basic point flies far above your head but *shrug* I'm not the one who's used by the politicians he votes like a toilet brush.

Posted by CoolCzech

2009-09-14 16:25:03

"1. Companies paying for private insurance will have no reason not to simply drop their plans and tell employees to go public. In fact, Obama intends to penalize companies that DON'T drop their existing plans with additional taxes."

That hardly seems a reason. You are saying that private insurance companies will go voluntarily out of business. If that's the case, then there was no private alternative in the first place to compete with a public option.

"2. Government can dictate to hopsitals and doctors what they have to accept, a power that private insurers don't have. That may seem like a neat idea, but there is no such thing as a free lunch: if you force hospitals and doctors to accept far less money, you'll have fewer of both. AND it will be the death of medical research in this country, when government does the same trick to pharmacy companies."

That already happens…only it's the insurance companies that dictate what hospitals can charge and what will be paid. Why is it worse for the American people if the insurance companies or the government determines what the rate of pay is?

"Right now, the government is already underpaying for hospitals and doctors, forcing both to jack up rates for the privately insured. Where is the slack going to get picked up once there are no more privately insured?"

Exactly. The slack will be picked up where it is picked up now…by the public. The only underpaying being done by the public is those who are opting out of paying for medical insurance. The young and healthy and the uninsured.

The government is picking up that tab.

Why not formalize that?

And that analysis totally begs the question of why private insurers have any reason to fear a public option?

We do so anyway.

Why should private insurers fear a gov't program?

Private insurers are more efficient and deliver better services, after all. So those who can afford to do so will opt for private insurance.

They shouldn't, rmiller. Anymore than FedEx or UPS should fear the USPS.

Or banks should fear the U.S. Federal Direct Student Loan program, or any number of gov't mortgage programs.

Or health insurance companies should fear Medicaid or Medicare.

Posted by smelvertising

2009-09-14 16:56:06

I see you've been reading your Ayn Rand…I am therefore I am right.

Why should private insurers be concerned about a Public Option if the private market is the best alternative?

As long as the government restricts us to getting health care through our employers and won't allow us to buy insurance from another state, there is no "market." Employers will generally decide based on what's best for their bottom line, and it will be far cheaper for most employers to drop their health care plans. Private insurers will start going out of business… except the biggest companies, which will still be able to offer offer private insurance plans to the wealthy and powerful.

Private insurers are more efficient and deliver better services, after all. So those who can afford to do so will opt for private insurance.

Ah hah… my point exactly.

The gov't doesn't restrict you to getting health insurance from your employer.

You can purchase private insurance anyway you like.

And I agree fully on buying insurance interstate. I've been wanting that for years.

Posted by CavalierX

2009-09-14 17:12:59

I don't know of any legislation that would restrict individuals from getting insurance from a private insurer.

Why the resistance to reform?

The gov't doesn't restrict you to getting health insurance from your employer.

I misspoke. I should have said government bureaucracy forces us to get insurance through our employers. The garbage one has to go through to get individual private health insurance is unbelievable. As a self-employed consultant for many years, I gave up trying to get health insurance entirely because it was impossible to wade through the paperwork and the payments were ridiculously high for me. It was cheaper and easier for me to just pay doctors out of my own pocket, as long as I stayed healthy and avoided serious injury.

Why the resistance to reform?

Insurance reform would be great. Let's get rid of those rules that prevent cross-state competition, and get some tort reform on the table. That's reform. What the Democrats are proposing is destruction of the health care system, and I'm opposed to that.

I understand that.

My wife had to deal with insurance companies and it drove her crazy.

Would gov't health care be any worse?

Not saying better…just saying….

Would dealing with a gov't beauracracy be any worse than dealing with the private health insurance industry?

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-14 16:34:55

WHAT F'N Lies, what else do you call a panel that gets to decide who gets what treatments and can, at it's discretion, cut off advanced or new treatments based almost soley on their cost? And what of the whole end of life counseling, pay the doctor an incentive, all to explain the benefits of euthansia?? Really those things aren't death panels? Really???

"Or banks should fear the U.S. Federal Direct Student Loan program, or any number of gov't mortgage programs."

No, the mortgage industry is doing great because of the government! What a great example of government success!

Seriously? You libs are setting new lows for stupid today.

Are you saying it's incorrect logic? Or was it fine when a Repub was in office but now that the shoe is on the other foot its not so good, which is it Mighty?

Wow, you're not even trying to hide your blind, mindless partisanship. You've outright admitted that you're operating under a "it's good for me but not for thee" mentality.

Well Whats_up, you tell me. Is it incorrect logic? If it's okay now, does that mean there was nothing wrong with the Patriot Act all along? Does this mean you officially retract every complaint towards the Patriot Act and towards George W. Bush for passing it?

Do enlighten us, Whats_up. Were liberals horribly wrong about the Patriot Act, or are you gigantic hypocrites?

Would dealing with a gov't beauracracy be any worse than dealing with the private health insurance industry?

Sheesh. Clearly you've never had to deal with a government bureaucracy before.

Yes, dealing with a govt bureaucracy would be MANY TIMES worse than dealing with a private health insurance industry. Thank you for asking the most retardedly obvious question in this entire thread.

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-09-14 17:46:22

Just as clearly, you've never had to deal with private insurance companies before…

otherwise, you'd know what the rest of us are talking about.

My wife had to deal with insurance companies and it drove her crazy.

Would gov't health care be any worse?

Yes, by several orders of magnitude. Private companies are at least accountable to stockholders, if not the law. The Federal government is not. Imagine trying to sue the Federal government in court. Good luck… you'll need it. Plus, it's possible to "vote with your wallet" with any private company (and would be much more so, if we could get rid of the cross-state restrictions). Where are you gonna go when Uncle Sam screws you? And that's not even the point — the government should not be in competition with the private sector. Oversight, fine. Control, never!

Posted by rmiller

2009-09-14 17:51:07

What was it Mike_M said about the Monty Python Argument Clinic sketch?

Contradiction is not argument, Rmiller. Yes, private health insurance bureaucracies can be difficult to deal with. Government health insurance bureaucracies are still many times worse.

This is why I accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about. You're clearly trying to compensate for a severe lack of knowledge on this subject. Otherwise you would have answered my post with some sort of refutation complete with facts and evidence supporting your argument rather than just saying "nuh uh! I know you are but what am I!"

Posted by rmiller

2009-09-14 17:51:07

No offense, Mr. Miller, but I've had quite a bit of experience with my insurance company over the last couple of years. I've found them remarkably cooperative and helpful. In fact, moreso than many medical providers. They've largely seemed eager to be of service. Honestly, for all the portrayal of insurance companies as the big, bad, wolf, my own experience is that they've been very reliable.

They shouldn't, rmiller. Anymore than FedEx or UPS should fear the USPS.

Great, Vega, so you're telling us that the government is going to create a monopolistic competitor that charging below marginal cost (enough to get a Justice Department anti-trust investigation for any private company) run with all of the efficiency and prudence of the Post Office.

Posted by Bill_Dalasio

2009-09-14 18:20:46

That is fair.

But also, part of this debate should be the fact that an individual who is in business for herself has been driven out of that business because of the time involved in dealing with the insurance companies.

Claims that are lost, misplaced, denied, needing hours of follow up, negotiation about coverage, etc. Hours spent on hold, only to be told that it was the wrong department.

In fact, dealing with the insurance companies, despite being on the boards and registered with them, made no difference in the way the claims were handled. It was always a fight to get paid for services rendered.

I am glad that your experience is different.

I never claimed that gov't or the public should take over the insurance industry. I only wonder why, if the market is so efficient, a gov't intrusion would be so disasterous?

Wouldn't the efficiencies of the market drive out a public option?

I only wonder why, if the market is so efficient, a gov't intrusion would be so disasterous?

Well, as has been pointed out, the government has the ability to subsidize their product. As a result, they are able to charge less than the marginal cost for their product. As I noted, a private company that did such a thing would get a visit from the Justice Department's anti-trust division.

Wouldn't the efficiencies of the market drive out a public option?

Well, like the USPS's running deficits and immenent insolvency has driven it from the marketplace? Or maybe like the actuarial and financial nightmare that is Medicare and Medicaid have driven them out of business?

I'm only partly trying to be a wiseacre here. But, the point stands, the entire point of a government program is that it is immune from the dictates of the marketplace.

Posted by Bill_Dalasio

2009-09-14 18:51:02

wiseacre noted….and point contemplated.

I'm not trying to be difficult either. There is a reason why this issue has hit the fan. And it isn't just liberals trying to expand the reach of gov't power.

If we had a Pres. McCain, the issue would still be on the national radar I suspect.

crthns: Once again good thing that isnt happening. The only people who have to worry are those that BROKE THE LAW, if they are innocent they have nothing to fear.

More of your twisted and misguided logic on display crthns? You still on this discredited and ridiculous bandwagon? Do you never get tired of removing any doubt that you are nothing but a petty and weak mind driven by base and vile instincts, anger and jealousy? Do you have any shame? Never mind. We all know the answer already. But let me rehash for you how easy it is to take your stupid lie apart.

Contrary to every post you keep making, pretending that you or any other leftist twit cares about the law, let me point out with some facts that like the crooks in charge, you also seem to have no interest in the law. If they did half of the democrats in congress, most of the people tied to this WH, including the president, the leadership all union organizations and all the usual donkey apparatchiks like ACORN, would all be in line for some serious jail time. I wonder why your interest in the law wanes so quickly when real crimes and law breaking takes place, and only seems to be targeted at this particular witch-hunt. Calling you a hypocritical scumbag is an insult to hypocrites, scumbags, and hypocritical scumbags in general. As was pointed out: there will be a payback someday. Tit-for-tat. The democrats better believe and remember that. Democrats seem to get particularly incensed when people use their tactics on them.

Besides, I would love to see the actual law you claim was broken before the fishing expedition/witch-hunt takes off. Let me guess! They will know that after the witch-hunt. The law.. yeah, right.

rmiller: But you on the right have had your run of the country for 2 decades. Just because you are disappointed with the results is no reason to blame the liberals.

I am used to something a lot more intelligent from you Mr. Miller. Did one of our usual mentally challenged trolls steal your account or is it being sock-puppetted by crthns or one of the other village idiots that do drive bye stupid posting perhaps? Because I figured at a minimum you where bright enough to know that not only was the right was blocked at every an all opportunities by the very left that now claims they should be allowed to do things unobstructed, but that most of the things that have gone wrong was the things the right let the left do. If the “right” had been running the country for real, we would not have the problems we have now.

Posted by rmiller

2009-09-14 19:03:03

Sorry, I'm not so sure that this is a real crisis. I'm willing to believe that there are problems and insufficiencies with the status quo. But, I haven't seen much in the way of evidence that problems are at crisis levels. Healthcare strikes me as an issue that the Democratic political class has chosen to take on. It's hardly like the healthcare was a central issue in the debates, and it's hardly like Pres. Obama made this the central issue of his campaign. The 2008 election was about the economy and, to a lesser extent, foreign policy. To his credit, Obama gave a pretty clear indication of seeming cool and in control with regard to the financial crisis, while McCain ran around like a chicken with his head cut off. So, do I think this is a scheme to expand government power? No. I do however believe that the impetus for this plan was the political calculus that he who robs Peter to pay Paul can count on the vote of Paul. Given the economy (and the increase in uninsured from unemployment), the Democrats calculated that there would be an unusually large constituency for a healthcare bill. Why not satisfy their left flank at the same time with a public option.

So, if we had a President McCain, do I think we'd see healthcare as a major issue on the national radar? Not necessarily. And if we did, it would be dramatically different in content.

Claims that are lost, misplaced, denied, needing hours of follow up, negotiation about coverage, etc. Hours spent on hold, only to be told that it was the wrong department.

And government healthcare would be immune to these problems how exactly?

At least with private insurance you can sue the company or buy from a competing firm if your insurance company screws you over. But what do you do and where do you go if a government healthcare bureaucrat decides to screw you over?

Posted by snohomish

2009-09-15 00:19:07

My God; you are a f*ing moron. Have you not read anything about the NHS or Canadian systems? Rationing and waiting for an appointment will ensure the deaths of far more people than the private system we currently have…

Posted by snohomish

2009-09-15 00:19:07

Shut up, hoggo. Nobody cares what you think.

The trouble with the appraoch that the privates take is that they sometimes get it wrong and incorrectly deny benefits to some of their policy holders.

You mean, just like the government under Medicaid?

However, cancer waits for no one.

As the cancer in your brain is certainly proving.

It is small comfort to win a monetary judgement when you had to watch a love one die becase they were wrongly denied coverage under their health care insurance plan.

You mean, just like the government under Medicaid? The reason why I'm asking is because my mother-in-law was denied Medicaid coverage.

Posted by snohomish

2009-09-15 00:19:07

Which explains the vast difference between the cancer survival rates in the U.S. vs the UK.

NOT