Sorry for the brief respite from blogging the past fortnight. Have had a number of personal projects that I've needed to accomplish. After all trannies don't get dropped out of Fox-body Mustangs by themselves.
With the rest of the gang contributing yeomen work here at Sound Politics the absence is not missed I'm sure...
Especially with the Shark back patrolling the waters AND accepting comments. Huzzah.
Right now I am sitting in a hotel "media" room in Chicago clacking away at the keyboard. I'm attending a political blogger convention being put on by the Sam Adams Alliance this weekend. Depending on how interesting this conference is I'll share some anecdotes about this networking opportunity with conservative-type bloggers from across the country.
Me, I'm just glad the hotel swimming pool was big enough for a guy to actually get some lap swimming in.
Kidding aside one of the trends I've noticed over the past couple years has been the inability of Republicans and conservatives to use the Internet to its fullest potential. This is particularly galling considering it was conservatives (and yes you loveable libertarians) who seemed to originally pioneer the Internet as a way to get their voices heard after being "ignored by the mainstream media". That old chestnut...
Over the past couple years the liberal and "progressive" Netroots community has been able to carve a safe little vocal niche on the Web and have been successful at least in having their little worldview heard. Having wealthy backers plant seed money for these websites doesn't hurt. They also seem to be more closely connected with Democratic candidates serving as campaign axillaries by raising money and coordinating volunteers.
You can argue how much actual influence Netroots participation really plays in elections and whether this contribution is a net positive or negative. But they're out there.
For whatever reason conservative bloggers seem less willing to openly shill for political candidates.
It is surprising that we don't see an army of bloggers out there with PayPal accounts shamelessly soliciting $5, $10, or $50 bucks for Republicans like a Dave Reichert, Cathy McMorris Rodgers or Dino Rossi. When you have a less than charasmatic figure like Ron Paul being the most successful online fundraiser and campaigner there is a problem. Maybe it would be behoove some RNC bright-boy to eat a little crow and ask Dr. Paul to share his secret.
There is no online organized rabble rousing campaign to get sign wavers out to protest anti-war activists or picket the political offices of Democrat politicians.
You don't really see a large nationally conservative "Rightroots" movement out there. There are loan gunslingers out there like Stefan here who have carved out their own little homesteads in the howling political wilderness. And you have the few national types like Michelle Malkin out doing their own thing.
But do you really see too much sharing of ideas or collaboration? Not really. Not like the folks on the other side of the political spectrum.
I've got a couple theories why this is the case but I'll let you readers share your ideas first.
The Netroots phenomenon, by my observation, is still more bark than bite but I wouldn't lay money on this remaining static. At any rate the Internet has been a tool that the Grand OLD Party and conservative donors have left rusting for lack of funding and resources.
That's a great one! I was on the floor laughing at that for a good two or three minutes...
It is surprising that we don't see an army of bloggers out there with PayPal accounts shamelessly soliciting $5, $10, or $50 bucks for Republicans like a Dave Reichert, Cathy McMorris Rodgers or Dino Rossi. When you have a less than charasmatic figure like Ron Paul being the most successful online fundraiser and campaigner there is a problem. Maybe it would be behoove some RNC bright-boy to eat a little crow and ask Dr. Paul to share his secret.
How about that while Ron Paul may be crazy, at least he's honestly pursuing many of the things that real conservatives give a crap about. You know, like strict Constitutionalism, federalism, and government noninterference? The things that Republicans conveniently forget about when it suits their interests?
Posted by: bma on March 29, 2008 10:00 AMAnd that's what Republicans have been promising. Listen to a typical candidate speech. "Lower taxes, less spending, lower taxes, less spending, and, Oh! let me regale you with a story of a dastardly procedural trick those rascally Democrats pulled last month! Vote for me! Thank you!"
Yawn.
As a conservative, I struggle to understand why, as one example among many, my state and federal tax dollars are funding abortion mills. And why Republicans are scared to death of attacking things like this. And if you're not going to "take that hill, or die trying," why should I pull out my checkbook? How excited can I get about more of the same, when I don't even like "the same"?
In contrast, liberals want to throw out everything that works, and substitute government in its place. It may be change for the worse, but change it is, and not everyone can properly identify "worse." And so those who can be led to mis-identify "worse" will become very excited and donate.
Democrats also like to divide everyone into personal identity groups, and throw out "equal treatment for everyone" in favor of "special treatment for groups who typically vote for us." In this respect, they've turned personal identity groups into something very analogous to business groups who donate in order to influence public policy that might impact their industry. The problem for Republicans is that Democrats can also play the commercial side of the game as well, but have a near monopoly on the divide-and-conquer of personal identity.
In order to close the "spirit on fire" gap, Republicans need to get out of the "we're for lower taxes" box and deal with some slightly more exciting issues. The alternative is to try to lay the foundation of institutional knowledge among the voting public of why government solutions to most problems will only make things worse -- a tedious task made extraordinarily difficult by the seven-second attention span of most voters; or to attack the fiscal positions of the Democrats so viciously that it is actually interesting -- although this would come across as negative, which voters dislike even when it's true.
The best sermons are not preached but lived.
Pass it on.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on March 29, 2008 01:59 PMThe best sermons are not preached but lived.
Pass it on.
Funny... I think that you could say the same of Republican candidates.
Posted by: bma on March 29, 2008 02:18 PMEgads. There are times when I wonder where you conjure up these Imaginary Liberals! I don't think that very many liberals advocate for throwing out "everything" in favor of government. However, I'd say that we believe that there are issues and problems that you cannot rely on the private sector to fix, and if you wait for the free market to "find" a solution, you'll be waiting for a long time.
Crow all that you like about it, but I've known many Republicans in my time that complain about liberals one minute, and cash their welfare checks the next.
Posted by: bma on March 29, 2008 02:32 PMName some.
In contrast I know many liberals who complain that the capitalist system is evil and are the very ones getting fat wallets from it. In general, look at Hollywood.
However unlike you bma, I can specifically name a famous individual who is demonstrably a hypocrite as listed above. Jane Fond once famously said :
"If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist. . . . I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism."
Yet look at the millions the old hag has made hawking exercise videos and movies. She is more capitalistic that John Jacob Astor. She;d make Adam Smith blush for her capitalism and Stalin for her deception.
Meanwhile, I still wait for bma to give us a verified Republican name that supposedly collects welfare checks.
Isn't there some sort of irony in praying for a form of government that invariably clamps down on religion?
But seriously, if you assume that Jane Fonda (or Barbara Streisand, Tim Robbins, etc.) is representative of many liberals' views, you're sorely mistaken. Sheryl Crow's views on global warming are just as relevant to me as Tom Cruise's views on religion, Tom Selleck's view on gun control, or Robert Stack's views on health care. (Or Newt Gingrich's views on marriage, for that matter.)
My point is this... Republicans are wonderful at pledging their support to an organization dedicated to dismantling the social safety net. However, when push comes to shove, I don't really see Republicans that I've known refusing welfare checks or support from other government programs. Similarly, I don't really see them taking the savings from tax cuts and increasing their investments to support the unemployment benefits lost, either.
I don't blame them, to be quite honest. But I think that it's dishonest to benefit from a social support system that you want to disassemble. Similarly, I think that it's a bad thing to suddenly turn against these programs when you're no longer reaping the benefits from them.
I'm not for unnecessary or overly wasteful government programs, and I'm not in favor of the nationalization of any industries. So don't throw that "communist" label at me. It's garbage.
Posted by: bma on March 29, 2008 05:49 PMR's tend to be content, happy, successful family types. D's tend to be unhappy whiny losers, dependent on government for their daily existence. That includes doleists, government workers, and teachers (yeah, I know, most teachers are government employees). Sometimes they get rich, but it is usually because of some lucky break, like hitting it big as an actress, marrying into, or inheriting money.
Unhappy people are more likely to be out on picket lines, raising little gobs of money, and generally making nuisances of themselves. Happy people are more likely to be taking their kids to music lessons, helping with homework, or just enjoying each other's company at home. Because they are content with their lives, they aren't out screaming for change, higher taxes, and more benefits for their (comparatively less pathetic) lives.
The institutions for which the happy R's work are useful stable parts of our country. Those institutions support candidates that encourage private business and create more useful, happy R's.
So the D's (and the Paulzis) are inevitably going to be more effective with media like the internet and marches on Greenlake. They will whine and scream about wicked corporate interests dominating our society. What the whiners don't understand is that the Silent Majority is silently supporting the corporate interests by their hard work and contentedness.
So don't worry too much about the nutroots. They are louder, but they just don't have the strength to really make any changes to our powerful, superior nation.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on March 29, 2008 09:42 PMNever mind the fact that many of the social programs were passed under Republican administrations. Simple things like facts that disprove your assertion. Also never mind that welfare reform was passed under a Democrat (Clinton). That also doesn't fit your preprogrammed meme.
"I'm not for unnecessary or overly wasteful government programs, and I'm not in favor of the nationalization of any industries. So don't throw that "communist" label at me. It's garbage."
So you aren't for Obama's or in general any nationalized health care then? Or in PC speak "single payer"?
Did you vote for or against I-912, the gas tax increase?
Posted by: pbj on March 30, 2008 12:02 AMLet's see. Medicare? Medicaid? Social Security? TANF? SCHIP? I'm failing to see where Republicans have made grand strides in improving and strengthening the social safety net. They ain't facts if they ain't true.
And welfare reform definitely was *not* a progressive move on Clinton's part. Of course, with the image of "welfare queens", it's certainly a politically popular program to pick on. He got a lot of mileage out of that triangulation move.
So you aren't for Obama's or in general any nationalized health care then? Or in PC speak "single payer"?
Do you even understand these plans, or are you so seething with hatred of Democrats that you don't listen to what they're saying? Neither the Clinton plan nor the Obama plan will change the provision of insurance for a significant proportion of Americans. It also will *not* institution a single-payer system like that in Canada. The government is not going to "take over" the health care industry, so to call it "nationalization" is just fear-mongering to get votes from weak-minded, paranoid conservatives.
And typical of Republicans to vote against any sort of tax, without thinking of the impacts. A gas tax is the most effective means of raising funds for transportation infrastructure.
I personally have never known a person that would label themselves a republican that would even know how to apply for welfare. It's not
even part of conservative thought process.
Funny... while you say that, I'm not really seeing it. You claim up and down that the Democrats are the shiftless and lazy ones, but I've known many conservatives that are real competitors for that title. And again, the difference is that at least the liberals that I know don't loudly and selfishly object to supporting those programs once they don't need them.
Posted by: bma on March 30, 2008 12:51 AMI despise the man, for his politics, for his public betrayal of his faith on his abortion and fo his private, yet very puvlic failings. I think he is the worst caricature of blowhard career politician.
THAT BEING SAID, Teddy, news of a bill you are co-sponsoring shocked me this morning. Perhaps you are getting wiser, perhaps you realizated your age, perhaps you calculated the distance between yourself and our common church, these baby steps you have taken make for a glad heart.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 30, 2008 10:34 AMThe fact that you think those alphabet soup programs are a good thing says all about you and your fellow travelers. America used to be about rugged individualism. Now it's about the nanny state. Cradle to grave fucking pussies all of you.
Posted by: FreedomLover on March 30, 2008 12:38 PMYou're just a small, stupid, selfish hypocrite. Probably one of those armchair cowboys that wouldn't last for a minute in a situation where real individualism would be required.
Posted by: bma on March 30, 2008 01:16 PMBzzzzt Lie detector just went off.
It was under Nixon that social spending came to exceed defense spending for the first time. Social spending soared from $55 billion in 1970 (Nixon's first budget) to $132 billion in 1975, from 28 percent of the federal budget when LBJ left office to 40 percent of the budget by the time Nixon left in 1974.
And welfare reform definitely was *not* a progressive move on Clinton's part. Of course, with the image of "welfare queens", it's certainly a politically popular program to pick on. He got a lot of mileage out of that triangulation move.
It was under BJ Clinton. Try to BS and spin it, but BJ passed it in 1996.
"Do you even understand these plans, or are you so seething with hatred of Democrats that you don't listen to what they're saying? Neither the Clinton plan nor the Obama plan will change the provision of insurance for a significant proportion of Americans. It also will *not* institution a single-payer system like that in Canada. The government is not going to "take over" the health care industry, so to call it "nationalization" is just fear-mongering to get votes from weak-minded, paranoid conservatives.
"And typical of Republicans to vote against any sort of tax, without thinking of the impacts. A gas tax is the most effective means of raising funds for transportation infrastructure."
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt Lie detector just went off.
As usual, liberals lie blantantly. You are a big liar. In fact, this video shows Obama lying about it from his own mouth when in fact he is a big proponent of a "single payer" - liberal code for Socialized Medicine. YOU'VE BEEN BUSTED!! You are no more fooling anyone by calling Nationlized Health Care/Socialized medicine "single payer" than you are fooling anyone that you are not a liberal when you call yourself a "progressive". Now you can add liar to that list as well.
"Funny... while you say that, I'm not really seeing it. You claim up and down that the Democrats are the shiftless and lazy ones, but I've known many conservatives that are real competitors for that title. And again, the difference is that at least the liberals that I know don't loudly and selfishly object to supporting those programs once they don't need them."
Funny how you cannot actually NAME anyone, but we should just "trust" that you know some. I named names. You are lying. There, I said it. In fact you cannot prove you know ANY such conservatives while in contrast I named Jane Fonda as an example of liberals that tell us all how about evil capitalism and then when our backs are turned they are the first little piggies in the slop bucket. Either PROVE what you say or it is a lie. No one here would trust the word of a liberal.
If the label fits....
But seriously, if you assume that Jane Fonda (or Barbara Streisand, Tim Robbins, etc.) is representative of many liberals' views, you're sorely mistaken. Sheryl Crow's views on global warming are just as relevant to me as Tom Cruise's views on religion, Tom Selleck's view on gun control, or Robert Stack's views on health care. (Or Newt Gingrich's views on marriage, for that matter.)
They are liberals and they are representative. You simply don't like that fact so you make up something. Jane Fonda, Oprah and others draw huge crowds of liberals. Liberals certainly do not disavow them. Quit the opposite, they embrace them. So yes, they are representative.
Posted by: pbj on March 30, 2008 03:01 PMActually, I do listen. That is the problem. Apparently you do not listen.
Here are some Democrat words for you to hear. Listen closely. Then come back and tell us all how Obama isn't really for a single payer system (e.g. Socialized Medicine).
What's that $336 million, Ragnar?
Well, I'm glad you asked.
$336 million is the anount of GOVERNMENT funding (you know, those pesky tax dollars) given to Planned Parenthood.
Why does that matter, Ragnar?
Well, I'm glad you asked.
Planned Parenthood just release its 2006-2007 annual report. Lo and behold, while Planned Parenthood made $972 milion in its 2005-2006 annual report, last fiscal year it brought in $1.017 billion.. Planned Parenthood reveals it has doubled "excess of revenue over expenses" funds from $55.7 million in 2005 to $112 million in 2006.
Where's the hue and cry over evil corporate profits... er, excess of revenue over expenses, hypocrites... er, liberals?
It was under BJ Clinton. Try to BS and spin it, but BJ passed it in 1996.
I really enjoy how you're calling me a liar, but again, it's just showing that you're nothing but a paper tiger. Name-calling won't make your morally and intellectually bankrupt position true.
Which party was in control of Congress in 1974? In 1996? Additionally, Nixon and Clinton were atypical members of their party. Nixon instituted price controls and created the EPA, Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall and signed DOMA. Pointing to Nixon as being an example of a strong social spender is weak, just like positing to Clinton as being a strong social conservative. Hard-liners in their parties did not support their actions.
But even moving from that, the programs that I refer to weren't created by Republican presidents. So the simple truth is that your statement, "Never mind the fact that many of the social programs were passed under Republican administrations," is false. Be a man, admit it, and just go on.
You are a big liar. In fact, this video shows Obama lying about it from his own mouth when in fact he is a big proponent of a "single payer" - liberal code for Socialized Medicine. YOU'VE BEEN BUSTED!! You are no more fooling anyone by calling Nationlized Health Care/Socialized medicine "single payer" than you are fooling anyone that you are not a liberal when you call yourself a "progressive". Now you can add liar to that list as well.
There's no way that the American system will ever rely on a single-payer system right now. It's the simple truth. The health care industry has too many vested interests in maintaining the system largely as how it exists now. Universal coverage is really only possible through a mixture of market incentives and penalties, similar to what exists in Massachusetts. I'm a political realist, and I'd rather focus on what is acheivable than on pie-in-the-sky goals.
Now, would single payer be good for the country? I'm not sure. I think that as companies with aging and retiring workforces get squeezed, there will be more of a call for healthcare reform than there is now, maybe even along the lines of a single-payer system. This is especially true given increased competition with companies in countries which have socialized health care. I do see, though, that a single-payer system controlled by the government would probably be poorly-financed. Therefore, I'm more agnostic... I think that universal *coverage* should be the goal, but I'm open minded about the path to get there.
And liberal = progressive. Take that bee out of your bonnet, big fella.
And stop calling me a liar. It's just making you look stupid.
Funny how you cannot actually NAME anyone, but we should just "trust" that you know some. I named names.
You brought up Jane Fonda. How is that a "name"? I'm not gauging the strength or the weakness of your position by what Joe Pesci or Dennis Miller or whomever does.
Do you want me to say an example like, "a family friend who lived down the street and was on disability but consistently voted Republican?" Would that work for you? I could provide other examples, but would they really mean that much for you? Should I photocopy their licenses and birth certificates?
No one here would trust the word of a liberal.
Funny that y'all seem to run off at the mouth around here, with really no need to back up what you're saying.
But one thing that I will say is that one's word has nothing to do with their political allegiances. I've known trustworthy and untrustworthy liberals and conservatives.
They are liberals and they are representative. You simply don't like that fact so you make up something. Jane Fonda, Oprah and others draw huge crowds of liberals. Liberals certainly do not disavow them. Quit the opposite, they embrace them. So yes, they are representative.
I'm sorry, but first of all, *I* don't base my opinion on what those people think, nor am I "changing the facts". As I said, conservatives get an incredible amount of mileage out of pointing at these celebrities and claiming that they are out of touch with Main Street America.
And you know what? You're absolutely right with *that* point. Many of these people are not great representatives of liberal causes, but decide that they need to stick their damn fool noses into certain issues when they don't really know the ins and outs of it. And anyone that suddenly believes in global warming because of what Sheryl Crow has to say about it is just as stupid as someone who suddenly believes in gun rights because of what Magnum PI or Spartacus have to say about it, or suddenly becomes vegetarian because of what Pamela Anderson has to say about animal rights.
Here are some Democrat words for you to hear. Listen closely. Then come back and tell us all how Obama isn't really for a single payer system (e.g. Socialized Medicine).
Hey, it's one possible end point, and I think that it should be open for discussion. However, again, the plans put forth by the Democrats are for universal coverage, and *NOT* for socialized medicine. It's merely a plan to try to get the uninsured on some sort of insurance, so that people that don't have medical care aren't dying for easily treatable diseases. It is something that is politically feasible, and socially desirable.
So you're keen on people being uninsured? Seems like a real fiscal conservative would be focusing on the impacts of the uninsured (and Medicare patients, I'll admit) on EDs across the country. The way that you're talking, you're probably just keen on people dying on the streets to keep a few measly dollars.
Because medicare worked out so well NOT, why not F up the rest of our health care system too.
That is another point that I will concede to you. Medicare is not the best run system, there are plenty of people that use it for minor, paltry little things, and the administration has had some distorting economic effects. But to look at the ways that the for-profit health care operates in this country as being any kind of success is a stretch.
Hmmm, imagine how much health care could be bought with $336 million.
Imagine the health care that could have been purchased with $1 trillion! Seems like that would have been better than an ill-fated expedition in Iraq.
Planned Parenthood just release its 2006-2007 annual report. Lo and behold, while Planned Parenthood made $972 milion in its 2005-2006 annual report, last fiscal year it brought in $1.017 billion.. Planned Parenthood reveals it has doubled "excess of revenue over expenses" funds from $55.7 million in 2005 to $112 million in 2006.
Because Planned Parenthood has shareholders that are directed towards making money at all costs?
And if you're going to go there, I'd be tempted to bring into the discussion the businesses run under the umbrella of tax-free "religious organizations". Seems like that should be more of a concern for people interested in giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
Posted by: bma on March 30, 2008 04:42 PMPlanned Parenthood has shareholders? I'd sure like to see that proof. Which market are they traded on? I did a quick search... it ain't on any of the American indices.
OOPS.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America is a not-for-profit organization.... except of course they DOUBLED their death PROFIT in one year.... OH excuse me, they doubled their "excess of revenue over expenses".
Really dude, tell me you are not that stupid.
And, I don't know about your church, and I sure as hell don't know about Obama's (where they can build the wrong Rev Wright a $10 MILLION dollar home), by MY church and most churches are NON-PROFIT... that means they are a usually zero sum game, where they take in barely enough to pay the bills and fund their particular missions.
What mission is Planned Parenthood funding? Oh yes death ships across the world: baby killing for fun and profit ... er, "excess of revenue over expenses".
OK. Kind of like the way you were able to justify a slightly off topic post by wandering further east to Massachusetts. Thanks for the effort:-)
Posted by: Don Ward on March 30, 2008 07:59 PMNo it's showing that I am unafraid to call you out - liar.
"Which party was in control of Congress in 1974? In 1996? "
I said ADMINISTRATION. Now I know you liberals are dense so I will explain. That means the party that held the White House sport.
"Hard-liners in their parties did not support their actions."
You must mean people like the Grand Kleagle, Democrat Sen Robert KKK Byrd who filibustered that Civil Rights Bill. Of course he was just following the guiding principles of the Democrat Party since 1840. Say, where is old Gran Kleagle today? Oh yeah, he is STILL a Democrat and STILL in the Senate.
"But even moving from that, the programs that I refer to weren't created by Republican presidents. So the simple truth is that your statement, "Never mind the fact that many of the social programs were passed under Republican administrations," is false. Be a man, admit it, and just go on."
No it is true. The only thing that is false is the assumption that you received a decent education in the NEA controlled public school system. Clearly that it NOT the case.
There's no way that the American system will ever rely on a single-payer system right now. It's the simple truth. The health care industry has too many vested interests in maintaining the system largely as how it exists now. Universal coverage is really only possible through a mixture of market incentives and penalties, similar to what exists in Massachusetts. I'm a political realist, and I'd rather focus on what is acheivable than on pie-in-the-sky goals.
Now, would single payer be good for the country? I'm not sure. I think that as companies with aging and retiring workforces get squeezed, there will be more of a call for healthcare reform than there is now, maybe even along the lines of a single-payer system. This is especially true given increased competition with companies in countries which have socialized health care. I do see, though, that a single-payer system controlled by the government would probably be poorly-financed. Therefore, I'm more agnostic... I think that universal *coverage* should be the goal, but I'm open minded about the path to get there.
YAWN. Well that was a nice red herring now wasn't it? However that diversion had absolutely NOTHING to do with the origianl point which was that in post #15 above, you specifically stated "Neither the Clinton plan nor the Obama plan will change the provision of insurance for a significant proportion of Americans. It also will *not* institution a single-payer system like that in Canada."
So there you go. Caught in your own lie AGAIN! Once again, please watch Obama's lips in this video where he is shown clearly lying about it.
And stop calling me a liar. It's just making you look stupid.
No, your lying is making you look stupid. And lying about your lying even MORE so. Obama is in after a single payer system. You are an Obamapologist who will lie like Saint Obama did when he denied he was for single payer yet was caught red handed. CLICK HERE to watch Obama lie.
Verdict - YOU LIE.
"You brought up Jane Fonda. How is that a "name"?
Um is that or isn't that her name? You want me to say Jayne Seymour Fonda??? Again you are throwing out red herrings.
"I'm not gauging the strength or the weakness of your position by what Joe Pesci or Dennis Miller or whomever does."
I don't care what you gauge. You are a partisan hack schilling for liberals. You would say the sun shines out of the Democrats asses no matter what. It is the rest of the independent readership that matters here.
Do you want me to say an example like, "a family friend who lived down the street and was on disability but consistently voted Republican?" Would that work for you? I could provide other examples, but would they really mean that much for you? Should I photocopy their licenses and birth certificates?
There is no one you can name. All you can do is make stuff up. I provided a verifiable example. You lie.
Funny that y'all seem to run off at the mouth around here, with really no need to back up what you're saying.
Listen to the pot calling the kettle black. Not one single solitary time have you EVER provided a link or source for the bullshit you spew here. Now that may work for your welfare dependent sheeple you have as indentured servants to the Democrat Party, but too bad for you that people here don't take the words of liberals because a liberal's word is a good as Jayson Blair or Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" words.
"But one thing that I will say is that one's word has nothing to do with their political allegiances. I've known trustworthy and untrustworthy liberals and conservatives."
You are on the internet here sonny. Anyone can claim they are a triple PhD with a few miracles under their belt. What separated the bullshitters from the big boys is the verifiable evidence they provide to back up their statements. To date you have provided none.
I'm sorry, but first of all, *I* don't base my opinion on what those people think, nor am I "changing the facts". As I said, conservatives get an incredible amount of mileage out of pointing at these celebrities and claiming that they are out of touch with Main Street America.
Then you are in the minority. The truth of the matter is that many people on the left follow what the celebrities say. That the conservatives get a lot of mileage out of that truth is unfortunate for your side I guess.
And you know what? You're absolutely right with *that* point. Many of these people are not great representatives of liberal causes, but decide that they need to stick their damn fool noses into certain issues when they don't really know the ins and outs of it. And anyone that suddenly believes in global warming because of what Sheryl Crow has to say about it is just as stupid as someone who suddenly believes in gun rights because of what Magnum PI or Spartacus have to say about it, or suddenly becomes vegetarian because of what Pamela Anderson has to say about animal rights.
I hardly think there is a equivalence between real life celebrities and fictional characters. You might have thrown in Charleton Heston if you wanted to avoid a non sequitur. The number of self identified conservatives in Hollywood is so small, it is difficult to even make a similar case for conservatives.
"Hey, it's one possible end point, and I think that it should be open for discussion. However, again, the plans put forth by the Democrats are for universal coverage, and *NOT* for socialized medicine. It's merely a plan to try to get the uninsured on some sort of insurance, so that people that don't have medical care aren't dying for easily treatable diseases. It is something that is politically feasible, and socially desirable."
And yet what does that have to do with the original point in 15, where you told me that no Democrat candidate was after single payer? Just admit you lied and we will move forward here.
"So you're keen on people being uninsured? Seems like a real fiscal conservative would be focusing on the impacts of the uninsured (and Medicare patients, I'll admit) on EDs across the country. The way that you're talking, you're probably just keen on people dying on the streets to keep a few measly dollars."
Red herring. That wasn't the point we were discussing, it was your LIE in post 15 stating that no Democrat was for single payer. For GOD's sake you twit, just ADMIT you lied and we can move forward!
"That is another point that I will concede to you. Medicare is not the best run system, there are plenty of people that use it for minor, paltry little things, and the administration has had some distorting economic effects. But to look at the ways that the for-profit health care operates in this country as being any kind of success is a stretch."
Looking at the Canadian system as a success is a big stretch. In a 2003 survey of hospital administrators conducted in Canada, the U.S., and three other countries, 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery. link
Canada can't even provide adequate neonatal care for all of its patients so they send them to the US .
Medical technology in the US leads the world. People come from all over the world to get treated in US hospitals.
I said ADMINISTRATION. Now I know you liberals are dense so I will explain. That means the party that held the White House sport.
Aha. So let me get this straight. I corrected you when you weakly asserted the "fact" that Republicans have presided over passing "many of the social programs". And now you're calling me a *liar*? Rich.
And my POINT was that the Nixon and Clinton Administrations took actions in part because they were facing opposition from a Congress dominated by the other party. They were *both* quite anomalous in terms of their policies, and to point at them as examples of the standard Republicans or Democrats is pretty far off the mark.
You must mean people like the Grand Kleagle, Democrat Sen Robert KKK Byrd who filibustered that Civil Rights Bill. Of course he was just following the guiding principles of the Democrat Party since 1840. Say, where is old Gran Kleagle today? Oh yeah, he is STILL a Democrat and STILL in the Senate.
On the other hand, the Dixiecrat candidate for president in 1948 bolted for the Republicans in 1964, and was lauded by the Senate Minority Leader at the end of his career. In fact, in that speech, it was said that the country would have been better off if he had been voted into office. What's your point?
YAWN. Well that was a nice red herring now wasn't it? However that diversion had absolutely NOTHING to do with the origianl point which was that in post #15 above, you specifically stated "Neither the Clinton plan nor the Obama plan will change the provision of insurance for a significant proportion of Americans. It also will *not* institution a single-payer system like that in Canada."
My point still stands. You're confusing rhetoric with the actual plans. The simple truth is that Democratic candidates will be able to talk about single-payer health insurance until they are blue in the face, but they will not be able to institute it. These plans represent reasonable compromises to ensure that people that do not have coverage can get coverage. Single-payer insurance may be an "end goal", just like deporting all brown people from the country is the end goal of certain conservatives, but it doesn't mean that it's going to happen.
No, your lying is making you look stupid. And lying about your lying even MORE so. Obama is in after a single payer system. You are an Obamapologist who will lie like Saint Obama did when he denied he was for single payer yet was caught red handed. CLICK HERE to watch Obama lie.
The debate skills that you learned in grade school are *really* paying off! What this proves is that he has a personal belief in single-payer insurance, *NOT* that his current plan proposes a single-payer system.
I don't care what you gauge. You are a partisan hack schilling for liberals. You would say the sun shines out of the Democrats asses no matter what. It is the rest of the independent readership that matters here.
And you're a partisan hack schilling for Republicans. Point? At least I have some semblance of decency, in that I give a crap about something other than myself.
Listen to the pot calling the kettle black. Not one single solitary time have you EVER provided a link or source for the bullshit you spew here. Now that may work for your welfare dependent sheeple you have as indentured servants to the Democrat Party, but too bad for you that people here don't take the words of liberals because a liberal's word is a good as Jayson Blair or Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" words.
You've provided one link, and that is pretty weak evidence of... well... something. I'm not sure what. I'll do better next time.
You are on the internet here sonny. Anyone can claim they are a triple PhD with a few miracles under their belt. What separated the bullshitters from the big boys is the verifiable evidence they provide to back up their statements. To date you have provided none.
And you've provided a fully-annotated book report? Sheesh. You think too highly of your abilities.
I hardly think there is a equivalence between real life celebrities and fictional characters. You might have thrown in Charleton Heston if you wanted to avoid a non sequitur. The number of self identified conservatives in Hollywood is so small, it is difficult to even make a similar case for conservatives.
What are you talking about? I can name ten conservative celebrities without breaking a sweat.
And the Magnum PI and Spartacus references? An attempt to be funny. Seriously, can't you even take a small bit of humor?
And yet what does that have to do with the original point in 15, where you told me that no Democrat candidate was after single payer? Just admit you lied and we will move forward here.
And I quote from what I said: "Neither the Clinton plan nor the Obama plan will change the provision of insurance for a significant proportion of Americans. It also will *not* institution a single-payer system like that in Canada. The government is not going to "take over" the health care industry, so to call it "nationalization" is just fear-mongering to get votes from weak-minded, paranoid conservatives."
How exactly did you disprove what I said? I'm just not seeing it.
Red herring. That wasn't the point we were discussing, it was your LIE in post 15 stating that no Democrat was for single payer. For GOD's sake you twit, just ADMIT you lied and we can move forward!
Watch the hands. You're using the Chewbacca defense again. Stop it.
Medical technology in the US leads the world. People come from all over the world to get treated in US hospitals.
Even, of course, the uninsured in the U.S., which are costing taxpayers billions more than necessary.
I'm just not getting how you can think that the U.S. system is *better*. Pointing to select cases from the Canadian system is really great as proof that your bogeyman exists, but there is no way that the system that they've instituted there will ever be instituted here. There are flaws in our system that need to be fixed, and you can either shove your head in the sand and pretend like it won't affect you, or take the steps to do something about it.
And quoting from a shill from the Discovery Institute isn't "proof", by the way.
Posted by: bma on March 31, 2008 12:51 AMI said Administrations, not Republicans. What you are doing is called a straw man. You misrepresent the original point, disprove that and conclude you have disproven the original point. You debate like a kindergartener.
Bush passed his prescription drug plan, his father signed the Family Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilies Act. The ADMINISTRATIONS. Furthermore many Republicans did sign onto those programs as well. Also the landmark Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was passed with overwhelming Republican support despite the obstruction of Democrats. In the House, 96 Democrats and only 34 Republicans voted against its final passage. In the Senate, 23 Democrats and only 6 Republicans opposed ending the filibuster against it. In the most important social bill of the 20th century, there were more Democrats opposing it than Republicans.
Again, you are a liar.
"And my POINT was that the Nixon and Clinton Administrations took actions in part because they were facing opposition from a Congress dominated by the other party. They were *both* quite anomalous in terms of their policies, and to point at them as examples of the standard Republicans or Democrats is pretty far off the mark."
Again, you invent a strawman, knock it over and declare victory. No where in my original post did I tall about motivations, I merely talked about results.
You must mean people like the Grand Kleagle, Democrat Sen Robert KKK Byrd who filibustered that Civil Rights Bill. Of course he was just following the guiding principles of the Democrat Party since 1840. Say, where is old Gran Kleagle today? Oh yeah, he is STILL a Democrat and STILL in the Senate.
"On the other hand, the Dixiecrat candidate for president in 1948 bolted for the Republicans in 1964, and was lauded by the Senate Minority Leader at the end of his career. In fact, in that speech, it was said that the country would have been better off if he had been voted into office. What's your point?"
So Trent Lott throws a bone to a dying old man. Did anyone lose their job over it other than Lott? Is that Dixicrat still in office? Is he still alive? Are we going after dead people now? Because if so, I can tell you the history of the Democrat Party, how the first African Americans elected to congress were Republicans in a time when the KKK was birthed by the Democrat Party and they FIRST Civil Rights Bill of 1877 was killed by Democrats. Is that where we are going now???
On the other hand, the Democrat Grand Kleage Byrd, who vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas. And to this day the old racist still throws around the N Word.
YAWN. Well that was a nice red herring now wasn't it? However that diversion had absolutely NOTHING to do with the origianl point which was that in post #15 above, you specifically stated "Neither the Clinton plan nor the Obama plan will change the provision of insurance for a significant proportion of Americans. It also will *not* institution a single-payer system like that in Canada."
"My point still stands. You're confusing rhetoric with the actual plans. The simple truth is that Democratic candidates will be able to talk about single-payer health insurance until they are blue in the face, but they will not be able to institute it. These plans represent reasonable compromises to ensure that people that do not have coverage can get coverage. Single-payer insurance may be an "end goal", just like deporting all brown people from the country is the end goal of certain conservatives, but it doesn't mean that it's going to happen."
Oh bullshit. Go look at the video. What liberals say when they are among friends is much more telling than what they put out in public. You are a liar and refuse to admit it. I cannot say I am surprised.
The debate skills that you learned in grade school are *really* paying off! What this proves is that he has a personal belief in single-payer insurance, *NOT* that his current plan proposes a single-payer system.
That isn't what he said. You obviously didn't watch the video.
And you're a partisan hack schilling for Republicans. Point? At least I have some semblance of decency, in that I give a crap about something other than myself.
Bullshit. I can criticise Republicans when they need an ass whooping. Apparently you have never read my tirades on McCain. On that I am legend.
You've provided one link, and that is pretty weak evidence of... well... something. I'm not sure what. I'll do better next time.
There you go lying again. So blatant, so obvious. Looking at my post @27, I count FOUR links in total. One was repeated for you since you are so slow. That makes THREE unique links in one post.
Please go back and count the number of links in post 27 and report back to us how many there are.
And you've provided a fully-annotated book report? Sheesh. You think too highly of your abilities.
Hell yes I have. It is called backing up your statments with facts. You should try it sometime instead of simply making shit up.
And the Magnum PI and Spartacus references? An attempt to be funny. Seriously, can't you even take a small bit of humor?
Obviously you watch too much TV. A small bit of humor? You think too highly of your abilities.
How exactly did you disprove what I said? I'm just not seeing it.
I showed exactly what Obama's intentions are. Watch the video.
Watch the hands. You're using the Chewbacca defense again. Stop it.
Medical technology in the US leads the world. People come from all over the world to get treated in US hospitals.
Even, of course, the uninsured in the U.S., which are costing taxpayers billions more than necessary.
Many of which aren't even citizens but invaders from our southern border.
I'm just not getting how you can think that the U.S. system is *better*. Pointing to select cases from the Canadian system is really great as proof that your bogeyman exists, but there is no way that the system that they've instituted there will ever be instituted here. There are flaws in our system that need to be fixed, and you can either shove your head in the sand and pretend like it won't affect you, or take the steps to do something about it.
It would be believable if not for the liberal history of promising one thing and delivering what they said would not happen. Take for instance the Social Security system. FDR and his liberal cabal promised that the SSN would not be a national idenifier. Yet how many credit cards or college applications can one fill out without supplying this number? Never mind the fact that system will be broke before you or I ever get to see the money. It is a government ponzi scheme.
Look at the medicare system. Even you admitted in a previous post it was a disaster. Do you really think we want to trust the people that gave us Medicare to expand into all health care?
There are steps being taken to address health care. They aren't flashy like smashing the current system that supplies the world with medical innovations, but they are slowly helping the situation. One example is the move towards electronic medical records, drug interactions, test range flagging and other uses on applying information technology to reduce one of the wastes in the US system, namely adminstration.
Also, in comparing the US to other countries, it should be noted Americans have unhealthier lifestyles than other nations, so their health care needs are going to be inherently more expensive. So this must be kept in perspective when making comparisons.
And quoting from a shill from the Discovery Institute isn't "proof", by the way.
Considering you have not provided ANY sources, that's rich.
And I got it from Wikipedia. If nothing else, I hope you now agree wikipedia is not an accurate source of information.
Posted by: pbj on March 31, 2008 03:09 AM1) Actually back up the small government talk with action. And not small government with limitless power, I want small government with limited constitutional power.
2) When they aren't hypocrites about their accusations of adultery or immorality. Whining about Clinton getting a blowjob is pretty lame when your hero McCain cheats on his wife, leaves her after a debilitating accident, and then marries a new model wife. Or whining about the sanctity of marriage and how gays are going to destroy it - when you've been married 7 times.
3) When they actually do what they say
4) When they actually protect the free market instead of what's happening today
Paul is the only politician that I've ever donated money to. Given the situation now, it's likely that he'll be the last, unless someone else takes up the flag and continues the march.
It's really up to all of you.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on March 31, 2008 12:01 PMThat is really a pathetic attitude: Boo hoo, you don't like the way things ARE so you will sit in a corner until SOMEONE ELSE changes it.
Personally I approve of the whiners sitting things out and wish more of them (especially of the liberal vaiety) would get out of the way.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 31, 2008 12:59 PMI'm a man of production, and a man of action. That's why I gave money to the first guy that came along who wanted to fix these problems. I doorbelled, I campaigned, I donated money, I became a PCO.
But go ahead, whine some more about liberals and people who aren't falling in line with your point of view. That'll earn my vote!
Not.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on March 31, 2008 08:01 PMIt's not surprising though. All Republicans can do is point fingers at Democrats and whine that people don't want to buy what they're selling anymore. Perhaps you should pass a law saying that in the New Free Market people have to buy what you're selling ideologically whether they like it or not.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on March 31, 2008 08:07 PMHis secret is simple. He opposes wasting over a trillion dollars on military operations that gain us nothing.
Posted by: thehim on April 1, 2008 11:18 AMI'm not sure about the drift towards a healthcare discussion (although it's worth noting that many GOPers believe in every American having helath insurance- they just disagree with Democrats on how to do it. Newt Gingrich and Rep. Jim Crery are two great examples. Also, Mitt Romney gave it a good go in MA before he had to disavow his MASShealth program when he ran for Prez, but I digress...), but the blog stuff is interesting.
I think your impression that a few large donors are running the netroots is faulty. (We have far fewer "Soros'" than you have "Scaiffe's") Also, the netroots often takes on "lost causes" that the party brass don't think are winable.
For example, Rep.-elect Bill Foster, the guy who won Hastert's seat in IL, was championed by the netroots way before the "establishment" found him viable. Same goes for Rep. Ben Chandler in KY, and a few others. ALso, were it not for the Ned Lamont being supported by the netroots, Joe Lieberman would still be a Democrat. Thanks to the netroots, Joe will get his chance to run for VP again- this time with John McCain.
Posted by: Will on April 1, 2008 11:21 AMWould that were true Don!
Posted by: Daniel K on April 1, 2008 11:27 AM