Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt never hurts to get a sexy movie star on board. In this amusing new ad created by MoveOn.org, Heather Graham stars as the Public Option, showing how she'll force the lazy, bloated private insurance companies to get back in the game and compete for business. After all, competition is as American as apple pie. Featuring actor Peter Coyote as the narrator.
Call Congress today at 202-224-3121 and demand a public health insurance option.
PS: If you have extra time on your hands and want to follow me on Twitter -- a micro-blog -- click here. You'll find (slightly) more personal posts, breaking news, basketball and lots of links.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Felicity Shagwell..
The best of the Powers' girls.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/21/2009 @ 09:18am
First of all we should be discussing a single- payer option instead of this fake watered down public option,and as far as the republicans I wouldn't waste 2 seconds talking to these clowns. Over the last 8 years under republican rule along with George Bush and Dick Chaney who without question were the 2 worst assholes to ever serve this great country. When did the republicans or george bush ever reach out to the democrats , not when they were pushing through tax cuts for the rich or all the dereagulation on wall street which led to the worst economy collaspe since the great depression. So I say to hell with them and all this bipartisent B S and for the democrats to follow there example and ramm health care through thats why the people put you in office!
Posted by C.tubbs at 10/21/2009 @ 11:31am
I was wondering when Hollywood would start to show up. And I live in L.A.
Well done, Heather.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 11:31am
well if Heather Graham is the public-option then i think it would be fitting that Olympic gold medalist Usain Bolt should be single-payer.
the public-option is the administration's option...not the American people's option. i think if there was more push behind single-payer the results would be unanimous.
Posted by jindapee at 10/21/2009 @ 11:35am
Who is Heather Graham and why should any American care what she thinks?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 11:50am
She's a personality. Much like Rush, Glenn, & Sean. Why should any American care what they think.
Posted by SoundGuyChris at 10/21/2009 @ 11:57am
C.tubbs,
You ask: ".....When did the republicans or george bush ever reach out to the democrats...."
You seem to have forgotten how President Bush worked with the Democrats on the education bill that brought about No Child Left Behind, and how he featured and honored Sen. Ted Kennedy (co-sponsor of the bill) when the bill was signed.
You seem to have forgotten how before becoming President Gov. George W. Bush worked with Democrats in the Texas state government successfully to the degree that the Lt. Governor (a Democrat, in Texas Gov. and Lt. Gov are elected separately and not on a "ticket") supported Gov. Bush for re-election over a Democrat.
When George W. Bush became President he found out the hard way that even though he was a "Uniter not a divider" in Texas politics in Washington D.C. were different and Democrats practice it as a blood sport.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 12:04pm
She's a personality. Much like Rush, Glenn, & Sean. Why should any American care what they think.
Posted by SoundGuyChris at 10/21/2009 @ 11:57am
Peter was making a point about this Heather and that it lent importance to the subject. That's why I ask. I've never cared what Rush, Glenn, and Sean think.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 12:43pm
did you know that president bush will enjoy socialized medicine for the rest of his life?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/21/2009 @ 12:44pm
Who is Heather Graham and why should any American care what she thinks?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 11:50am
Because in America, Larry, EVERY American is entitled to an opinion, and every American is allowed to speak. if you don't like what she says, turn off the YouTube.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 12:48pm
When George W. Bush became President he found out the hard way that even though he was a "Uniter not a divider" in Texas politics in Washington D.C. were different and Democrats practice it as a blood sport.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 12:04pm
sjcherm, you're an idiot. Please don't even BEGIN to discuss Texas politics, about which you obviously know nothing.
I am from Texas, which has the weakest governorship of almost any state in the Union. Th reason for that weakness is that Texas don't trust the guy at the top. W was forced to work with Dems in Texas or NOTHING would have been done.
YOU seem to forget that W said, You're either with us or against us, and that was not only a message to the terrorists, but also a message to Democrats in Congress. With the EXCEPTION that was "no Child Left Behind," Bus never tried to work with Democrats in the House and Cheney ruled the Senate ("F you" on the floor of the most august legislative body the planet has ever seen...how's that for working with the Dems?)
When Bush got to the WH, he had a Republican Senate, A Republican House and he didn't HAVE to work with Dems to get done everything he wanted: like destroy the foundation of the Constitution, torture people illegally, start two wars, lose two wars, wreck the economy, and what else...oh yeah, illegally identify a covert CIA operative, leave New Orleans soaking in floodwater...shall I go on?
W was the worst President EVER! He managed to make even me miss Nixon, who was a criminal.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 12:55pm
Who is Heather Graham and why should any American care what she thinks?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 11:50am
Because in America, Larry, EVERY American is entitled to an opinion, and every American is allowed to speak. if you don't like what she says, turn off the YouTube.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 12:48pm
That still doesn't tell me who she is. I agree that everyone has the right to their opinion.
But as I asked before, Peter wants people to support something because of this woman and I have no idea who she is or why her influence should mean anything.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 1:52pm
Stephen_Carver1,
You say I don't know anything about Texas politics, but I can plainly see that your view of Texas politics is from the lib perspective, and your being from Texas yourself does not change the fact that you are a lib.
The being a lib part cancels out any crediblity you try to invoke just because you are from Texas.
You offer no explanation why a Democrat Lt. Governor would endorse a Republican governor over a Democrat when George W. Bush was running for re-election. Perhaps not every one in Texas, including Democrats, see things through your leftist prism.
George W. Bush started two wars to defend our country against treats present now and those that would have been present in the future, and he did not lose either one.
Iraq is for the most part won and Afghanistan is now Obama's to win or lose.
He did not wreck the economy, a lot of circumstances including risky loans encouraged by Democrats helped bring that about.
Lib governance for years kept the people of New Orleans in poverty and thus unable to protect themselves when Katrina hit, aided by complete incompetence from Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco.
You forget it was Richard Armitage that idenfified Valerie Plame, and you forget that her husband Joesph Wilson lied about what he said he did during his "investigation" about the uranium in Niger. (and you probably forget also that the Brits stand by that story to this day).
You ask if you should go on....go on or don't go on, suit yourself....basically you are just going in circles like a broken recording repeating canards that have appeared over and over again here at The Nation and that have been refuted over and over again as well.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 1:52pm
"Peter wants people to support something because of this woman"
not "because" of this woman. but because a public option is what is needed.
and the quote of the day comes from chermak:
"George W. Bush started two wars to defend our country against threats present now and those that would have been present in the future, and he did not lose either one"
Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 1:56pm
sjchermak, sounds like your doing exactly what your accusing Steven_Carver of doing, going round and round repeating canards that have been refuted by the nation here and elsewhere as well, hmmmm?
Posted by Denise29 at 10/21/2009 @ 1:58pm
Ok, I looked her up through Google. I saw that she was in Austin Powers, Spy who Shagged Me and in Twin Peaks. One was 10 years ago and the other 18 years ago. other than that, I've never seen anything else her credits list.
Obviously the 2 things I saw her in years ago made not lasting impression on me.
She seems like just another star wannabee who decides to get in the limelight to save their career by getting political. Look at Janeane Garofalo; if it wasn't for her leftist politics, she probably couldn't get a job.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 1:59pm
That's funny, because I think Heather Graham would make a better president than Shrub did. She's certainly smarter.
Posted by brantl at 10/21/2009 @ 2:01pm
PETER: 'After all, competition is as American as apple pie."
Saying something you don't actually believe in, Peter?
Posted by Happy at 10/21/2009 @ 2:22pm
..basically you are just going in circles like a broken recording repeating canards that have appeared over and over again here at The Nation and that have been refuted over and over again as well. Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 1:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Then, it would seem, this is a pretty silly place to hang out in.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/21/2009 @ 2:32pm
Cute video. Rollergirl didn't even have her roller skates on. Well I guess it's better than Rosie O'Donnell.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/21/2009 @ 2:39pm
Who is Heather Graham and why should any American care what she thinks?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 11:50am
Because in America, Larry, EVERY American is entitled to an opinion, and every American is allowed to speak. if you don't like what she says, turn off the YouTube.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/21/2009 @ 12:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You're sure this "British Subject" is now an American?
Glad you feel the same about Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Bozell, and other prominent right wing spokesmen and writers!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 5:56pm
and the quote of the day comes from chermak:
"George W. Bush started two wars to defend our country against threats present now and those that would have been present in the future, and he did not lose either one"
Posted by darladoon at 10/21/2009 @ 1:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--------------------------
deaths of soldiers don't bother me as much as civilian deaths."
"soldiers are trained to kill. so if they die, oh well."
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
QUOTE OF THE CENTURY! from the most honest leftist HATER we know! ?
We know Darlaloon hates herself and all American soldiers who she would rather see DEAD! She is the Islamic fascist terrorist best friend at home!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 6:00pm
Heather Graham played a porn star in the Mark Walberg /Burt Reynolds movie, Boogie Nights.
It should be noted neither she, nor the others in Hollywood that some yutz here was celebrating getting involved in the health care debate,...will ever use.
neither will any of the Dems loons in Congress or TV land...
and neither will I nor will I let my family near the govt program. I value their health and lives too much to turn it over to idiots who think the Post Office is a great efficency model and the TSA stops terrorists.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/21/2009 @ 10:42pm
to turn it over to idiots who think the Post Office is a great efficency model and the TSA stops terrorists.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/21/2009 @ 10:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You forgot digital television if you can get the signal! They are closing more Post Offices everyday which is what they will do to hospitals and Dr. offices once they get their plan through!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/21/2009 @ 11:03pm
But as I asked before, Peter wants people to support something because of this woman and I have no idea who she is or why her influence should mean anything. Posted by antisocialist at 10/21/2009 @ 1:52pm |
"It never hurts to get a SEXY MOVIE STAR on board."
Are you daft or something?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/22/2009 @ 08:41am
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/21/2009 @ 10:42pm |
No, they won't use the public option...nor will most of us (contrary to the opinions of chicken-little screamers like Cherm who fears for the safety of insurance companies in a world with competition), but they will bear more of the cost since they are closer to the top 0.1% than you or I (for now).
The post office IS efficient...at least as efficient as Fed Ex, if not more so, considering that they can't decide which markets to skip out on and have to handle metric-shit-tons of junkmail every week.
Agreed on the 'thousands standing around' though; the affectation of security is a dangerous thing.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/22/2009 @ 08:47am
I dunno PETER, if I buy this Public Option thing, does Nurse Heather give the physicals? I might be tempted to go in for irresponsible spending if THAT were the case.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/22/2009 @ 12:07pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/22/2009 @ 12:07pm |
Okay, but she insists that the rollerskates stay on.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/22/2009 @ 12:25pm
snowball777,
As you must know (because I have to believe it has been explained to you over and over again by now) the public option is not competition for the insurance companies.
The public option price can be set at whatever the government wants to set it at, because unlike a private company, the government would not need to set a price necessary to raise revenue to cover costs.
The government can cover it's cost by getting money from somewhere else in the government, or quite likely, just running up debt.
Thus the pricing by the governemnt would be at a level that would possibly be deemed illegal or predatory if a private company were to set similar prices.
And thus this "competition" will drive insurance companies out of the market altogether, which is no doubt the endgame of the Obama administration to begin with.
Conservatives are not chicken little screamers fearing for the safety of insurance companies, we are simply trying to point out one of the endgames of this drive to socialist medicine by Obama.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 12:32pm
Ha!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/22/2009 @ 1:07pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2009 @ 1:52pm
I tire of you, sir.
Saying that Iraq is "won" might be a surprise to those to whom you give the credit to (and the generals who are still losing men and women, and the families of those men and women. Oh, and if Afghanistan is now Obama's to lose, wouldn't that also make Iraq Obama's to win, since Iraq is far from over?
While you may say that my "lib" ness might not make me qualified to discuss Texas politics, I will bet that against you're being from (insert place here) that I know a hell of a lot more about Texas politics than you do.
Everything George W Bush has done in his life has been because of what his Daddy could get him. The only exception to that is the fact he became clean and sober, for which I applaud and admire him. Other than that, he has failed at every business attempt, every leadership attempt, and his policies sent this country into an economic tailspin the likes of which haven't been seen since the Great Depression, which my father, god rest his soul, grew up in. But that's what usually happens to the first boy in a rich, society family likes the Bush's. You don't think that "homespun" crap is real, do you?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/22/2009 @ 1:10pm
Stephen_Carver1,
You say:
"......I tire of you, sir. ....."
I would imagine so....I refute what you say and it must drain you after a while.
At any given state or any given location there can be complete opposite opinons of the local officeholder, based on political ideology. (althought the more local one gets the less ideology there is as issues at city or town levels seemed less framed by left/right ideology as are national issues).
Thus it is not a matter of what you do or don't know about Texas politics or what I do or don't know that I was referring to.
Since you are lib, I certainly am not surprised you would be opposed to George W. Bush. But - there were many in Texas who were big supporters of George W. Bush.
How do you explain that? Apparently insight/knowlege/participation/familiarity of Texas and Texas politics does not lead to a unified negative opinion about George W. Bush.
He got re-elected, remember? Apparently not all in Texas agree with you.
Thus you are on weak ground by attempting to claim that your local insight into Texas politics gives you special credibilty into your negativity about George W. Bush.
How about Texas supporters of George W. Bush.....by your logic their opinions are credible too........and cancel yours out since he got re-elected.....after 4 years in office if he was that bad he would not have been re-elected.
Anybody can see the fallacy of your argument, even people outside of Texas, like me.
You are probably really tired of me now.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 1:26pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 1:26pm
It has become evident to anyone who actually investigates and researches charges, allegations, and claims, that Stephen has a superman/kryptonite aversion to facts and the truth.
Like many on the far left, they prefer to glean their "truth" from the numerous radical left websites that spin this kind of garbage on a daily basis. These websites being on the internet are not hampered by requirements to report honestly and factually. Instead, they propagated with repetition, their lies and fantasies. Then, those like Stephen, who want to believe only the worst about anyone who does not share their radical left vision for America and the world, go on website blogs like the Nation and with their other radical left friends and regurgitate ad naseum, these lies, distortions, and unsubstantiated rumors.
Having done so, they pat themselves on the back for their "courageous" efforts to battle the evil of conservative philosophy.
Remember, for the far left, conservatives can never simply be people who hold a different viewpoint or opinion; NO, for them, conservatives are evil, brainless, sociopaths who are destructive to all the "good" that the far left is trying to bring.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 1:40pm
"Like many on the far left, they prefer to glean their "truth" from the numerous radical left websites that spin this kind of garbage on a daily basis. These websites being on the internet are not hampered by requirements to report honestly and factually. Instead, they propagated with repetition, their lies and fantasies. Then, those like Stephen, who want to believe only the worst about anyone who does not share their radical left vision for America and the world, go on website blogs like the Nation and with their other radical left friends and regurgitate ad naseum, these lies, distortions, and unsubstantiated rumors."
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 1:40pm
Sort of like posting selective Alinsky quotes from the website of a woman who thinks Harry Potter is the work of the devil?
Posted by FLaim at 10/22/2009 @ 3:01pm
If you guys would actually pay attention and maybe read something (and stop watching MSNBC) you would realized that the public option is just a sneaky, underhanded typical Democrat backdoor route to a single payor. So, you will get what you want.
Public option is supposed to make the private insurers more competitive. The problem is that the private insurers are for profit and the public option is not. The only way for the private insurers to compete with the public option is to lower their premiums and increase coverage. This leads to losses (the opposite of profit), and the private insurers begin to fail. If any private insurers try to keep their premiums at the levels of the public option, the public option will just keep lowering its premiums. It is not for profit, losses mean nothing as our taxes will rise to cover the losses (like any other good government program) and the private insurers will continue to fail. Evenutally all private insurers will fail and the public option becomes the single payor. Sweet.
Posted by wredner at 10/22/2009 @ 4:18pm
To me, Heather Graham will always be Rollergirl from Boogie Nights. Which then of course makes sense that she's the one now running for the public option and not letting this skate by...
BTW, she has 67 performances sited on imdb at:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001287/
It's amazing that she's about to be 40! Definitely a very healthy choice.
Excellent metaphor. I'll watch it a few more times.
However, I think more celeb's of a differing stripe need to switch-out with her part though. Kinda like the 'Got Milk' advertising. Isn't the Governator for the public option? And I can see Rachel Maddow in there if asked. Musicians, sports types of course, visual artists, doctors, etc.
Good, works.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/22/2009 @ 4:34pm
You are probably really tired of me now. Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 1:26pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 1:40pm
You both flatter yourselves.
Perhaps he's just tired of the turgid throw weight of people who have 24 hours a day to post with, evidently, very little if anything else to do, based on volume and frequency alone, then bitch about the undaunted and continued liberality of the site they insist on posting in.
Just throwing it out there. He may just be exhausted from the banality.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/22/2009 @ 4:40pm
Whoops. Gotta get back to WORK...
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/22/2009 @ 4:43pm
Max Baucus is determined to set up a sweetheart deal for his insurance industry contributors. If the free-market is always best for everything, what fear do they have of competing with a supposedly inefficient federal insurance option? -- saw a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Posted by reg373 at 10/22/2009 @ 4:55pm
Like many on the far left, they prefer to glean their "truth" from the numerous radical left websites that spin this kind of garbage on a daily basis. These websites being on the internet are not hampered by requirements to report honestly and factually. Instead, they propagated with repetition, their lies and fantasies. Then, those like Stephen, who want to believe only the worst about anyone who does not share their radical left vision for America and the world, go on website blogs like the Nation and with their other radical left friends and regurgitate ad naseum, these lies, distortions, and unsubstantiated rumors.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 1:40pm
What a funny thing to say. We've been at this impasse before and what's really needed to lend credibility to your 'argument' is full disclosure of your own news sources. The internet, with all of it's pitfalls and faults, is an excellent source for news if you want to keep an open mind and always vet information before you form an opinion and post it. That being said, I've had this 'discussion' with CHERMAK before. He always demurs, all the while slinging the tired old 'those on the left' categorization around. And now you yourself are delving ever deeper into this borderline ad hominem definition of most of your opponents.
Go ahead. List your news sources to lend credibility to your point of view. List books or publications in paper form as well, even radio shows. I admit to being curious. CATO? Rightwingnews? CHERMAK led me there, but denies it now.
The tired device of defining an opponent as either 'left' or 'right' is not an efficient method of finding the ever elusive consensus in our national debate. No, it just fans the flames unnecessarily.
Posted by ficheye at 10/22/2009 @ 5:36pm
Go ahead. List your news sources to lend credibility to your point of view. List books or publications in paper form as well, even radio shows. I admit to being curious. CATO? Rightwingnews? CHERMAK led me there, but denies it now.
The tired device of defining an opponent as either 'left' or 'right' is not an efficient method of finding the ever elusive consensus in our national debate. No, it just fans the flames unnecessarily.
Posted by ficheye at 10/22/2009 @ 5:36pm
I have done this before, but am glad to do so again.
Daily:
Pacifica Radio (KPFK Los Angeles)
Free Speech TV
Link TV
CNN
CCTV (Chinese TV)
Realclearpolitics.com
Regular basis, but not daily:
Mark Levin radio show
Federalist Papers
US Constitution
Patriot Post which provides US and global historical documents back to the Code of Hammurabi
http://64.203.107.114/histdocs/
jeruasalempost.com
c-span.org
Counterpunch.org
washingtonpost.com
The online libraries of some of the founders (Jefferson's is very good).
I used to read the Islamic Republic Wire until they quite putting up an English translation site last year.
Financial Times of London online
Less Regular:
Guardian online
BBC online
Washington Times online
Breitbart
Drudge
Revolutionary Worker
World Socialist Website
History News Network (from George Mason University)
larryelder.com
That covers a large part of my reading, watching, and listening as relates to blogging here.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 6:58pm
ficheye,
We certainly have had "this" discussion before, and you have no idea nor will you after this post where I go on the Internet to get information on what is happening and what the issues of the day are.
1. You still remain fixated that one should not be slinging "on the left" characterizations......and we have discussed before and I have explained before that on many of the major issues of the day there is a very clear demarcation of difference between what the left thinks and what the right thinks. There are some whose opinions do not fit the usual pattern on a given issue here or there, but MOST of the people you will find who are politically active or active participants in blogs such as this are pretty much in one category or the other on all the issues.
Obviously, there are a lot of people in this country who can not be strictly defined as liberal or conservative and whose opinions may vary, but most of those people's interest lies elsewhere when it comes to going on the Internet and you won't find them in blogs such as this. They can have strong opinions about things but they don't for the most part engage in a place like this or participate actively in local, state or national political organizations. They are voters whose main expression of their political belief is done in private on election day.
You will find that those who are active in expressing their opinion or active in a political organizations up to and including campaigning for or holding political office are mostly of one belief (left) or the other (right) most of the time. .....and these are the ones who are of concern when I express my opinion and use the labels "left" and "right" because these people are the most influential in determining paths we take in this country.
to be continued
Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 7:23pm
ficheye,
I have never figured out this aversion to the left vs right labeling you have in a forum such as this.....it is just some kind of game you play, I guess.
2. You make a call for people to disclose their news sources in order that credibility be lent to their arguments.
Credibility in whose eyes? Yours? Since when did you become the arbiter of what is credible or not?
It is hilarious that you keep bringing up "rightwing news .com" or whatever it is.
I quite obviously at some point in the past was searching for something to back up a point I was making and a list of links that came up in Google included one to an article on that site that I must have used in a reply to you.
And you have fixated on it ever since. I do not go to that site, don't have any awareness of what is there and most likely have not been back since however long ago it was that I copied an article from there. I am not going to indulge you by going there now to find out what floats your boat about that site.
It must be that it is a fringe site that you believe does not put Conservatism in a good light, otherwise you would not keep fixating that I led you there and lie that I lied about leading you there.
You are not some arbiter, moral or otherwise, who must approve whether my posts or anybody else's posts are credible in order for they to be considered so.
You are a pompous ass who is full of himself and far too impressed with himself.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 7:40pm
That covers a large part of my reading, watching, and listening as relates to blogging here. Posted by antisocialist at 10/22/2009 @ 6:58pm
An impressive list. Sorry to make you post it again, as I missed it the first time.
Posted by ficheye at 10/22/2009 @ 7:48pm
You are a pompous ass who is full of himself and far too impressed with himself. Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 7:40pm
CHERMAK. I am rarely pompous, while you invariably are. I AM sarcastic, however, and freely admit to it.
To have you respond so voluminously to a fairly benign post can only mean one thing... that you are vastly insecure. In this case I wasn't talking to you, only about you. And you shouldn't take the bait about rightwingnews.com. While it's true that you referred me to the site once, you distanced yourself, backpedalling so to speak, when you knew how over the top it was. It's one way to get you to come out of your cave and I use it as such.
Your writings are becoming a lot more cogent in that the use of proper english is maintained... I commend you on that (Now THAT was pompous). But I opine a lot less than you do in general and don't take myself so seriously. I seek a consensus in this world... you seek to win an argument and rub your opponents nose in the dirt. You NEED to win. It's like chess to you. I can sense your fingers trembling over the keyboard.
And we ALL seem to be 'moral arbiters' here at the Nation... that is generally the source of our agreements or disagreements, since all the topics require a moral stance of one sort or the other. And these topics involving morality don't always fall neatly to the left or right as you would have it.
As to the name calling... I'll leave that to you. I'd rather place you as a character in some short fiction. Right where you belong.
Posted by ficheye at 10/22/2009 @ 8:14pm
ficheye,
As always, when you are called on something you declare you were baiting.
I don't know from personal experience how over the top or not over the top "rightwingnews.com" is. I only know that because I assume it must be because you fixate on it.
But, once again I am sure I have just taken your bait!
You say that I seek to win an argument and rub my opponents nose in the dirt.
How is that different from any of the efforts of the Obama administration since they took office?
That seems like an apt description of what they are doing. Do you somehow think that is OK, trying to steamroll their agenda through without concern if there is any Republican consensus or not, and then to top it off they claim Republicans are the ones not cooperating!
That question of mine to you is off of the topic of your comment but your description of me wanting to rub my opponent's nose in the dirt led me to thinking about it and thinking what your opinion of how they (the Obama administration) have conducted themselves is.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 8:27pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 8:27pm
Well, now. Maybe we are getting somewhere. A rather abrupt topical switch, but I'll take it on.
Because I don't really think that the current administration is doing a very good job.
And that's probably a surprise to you, because I'm supposed to be a 'liberal', or maybe someone who blindly ascribes to a political party.
Also, I have a problem with 'the bailout' if they are not going to force the banking institutions to make loans readily available like they said. That was supposed to be the bargain.
I have a problem with Obama running on 'a public option' and then seeming to backpedal on it. Because I believe that we need one.
I have a problem with us being in Afghanistan period. Soft american forces don't have the willpower to deal with hardened, tough tribal fighters who are used to that country. We will disagree on this, I'll guess. The usage of drones will also create a larger problem in the long run; that of increased resentment of america, leading to more devious thinking about how to get back at us with more terrorist acts. Common right wing thought would say "That's why we should stay there - kick their asses over there NOW!" I would disagree with that solution, however.
In conclusion, I DO always say that I'm baiting you. In this instance I wasn't talking to you, just about you, so you took the bait most certainly. I mean, mentioning rightwingnews isn't a topic, it's.... a provocation. When you stop reacting to it, I'll stop using it. You oughta go there sometime! ;-)
Posted by ficheye at 10/22/2009 @ 9:11pm
After seeing this poll, it will be hard to see the Obamanation re-elected much less any Demoncrat since they will purposely leave the door open to illegals in thier healthcare bill which they first said they would post online and now DON'T DARE out of fear!
A new national poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation indicates that nearly three-quarters of all Americans would like to see a decrease in the number of illegal immigrants crossing the nation's borders.
According to CNN, 73 percent of the survey responders wanted a drop in the number of illegal immigrants -- with 22 percent saying the number should remain the same.
In other poll findings:
3 percent stated that there should be an increase in the number of illegal immigrants.
37 percent wanted to see all illegal immigrants deported.
23 percent said that the number of illegal immigrants in the country should be decreased significantly.
"Support for deporting all illegal immigrants is highest among older Americans and people who live in rural areas. It's highest in the South and Midwest and nearly as high in the Northeast, but only one in four Westerners think that all illegal immigrants should be deported," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
CNN also advised that the 73 percent figure was the highest recorded since the question was first asked four years ago.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 11:57pm
BigP is so overcompensating for some particular reason, he'll soon want to find/post polls about making it illegal to sale food to illegals...!
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/23/2009 @ 12:41am
BigP, don't tell me-- you want to pecker them to death-- am I right, am I right?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/23/2009 @ 12:43am
Wow, It's not often I get called "a sexy movie star"! Thank You. The Republicans do protest too much, and I can figure out why in a heartbeat. Less moolah in their big already full pockets. They don't want to make their lobbyists cry, or cause them to have to drive instead of riding in their private jet!
Posted by sheila60 at 10/23/2009 @ 08:22am
Thus you are on weak ground by attempting to claim that your local insight into Texas politics gives you special credibilty into your negativity about George W. Bush.
You are probably really tired of me now.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 1:26pm
My point about Texas politics was not to somehow give me credibility on my hatred of George W. Bush as our President (and yes, I hated what he did to our great country). It was to point out the weakness of the Texas governors office, so that all you people who voted for him because he had this record of "working with the Democrats" and "executive experience," would understand that that was all simply marketing and political BS, because he was FORCED to work with the Dems (or nothing would get done and he wouldn't have been reelected) and that Texas doesn't like strong executive power, so saying the W was a strong executive was only so much malarkey.
And yes, you really tire me now. Not because you refute what I post, but because your mind is so obviously closed to facts that I find it tiring to deal with you. Then again , I find that true of most right wingers because your are so blind because of ideology that you refuse to use your brains and open your minds to other possibilities. I am tired of the "my way or the highway" mentality most of you use. You care nothing for experimentation; you must be "right" all the time. You care nothing for finding different solutions; your "proven" methods always work (even when proven they don't) and yes, I find that tiring.
You are pro-business over being pro-people. I find that tiring. You are pro-military over pro-people. I find that tiring. I find your mundane rantings tiring.
I am starting to find this entire site tiring.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/23/2009 @ 11:51am
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/23/2009 @ 11:51am
Guess what Stephen, it's a 2 way street.
"And yes, you really tire me now. Not because you refute what I post, but because your mind is so obviously closed to facts that I find it tiring to deal with you. Then again , I find that true of most left wingers because your are so blind because of ideology that you refuse to use your brains and open your minds to other possibilities. I am tired of the "my way or the highway" mentality most of you use. You care nothing for experimentation unless it's govt controlled and funded; you must be "right" all the time. You care nothing for finding different solutions apart from govt;
I find your mundane rantings tiring.
Yeah, that about sums it up.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 12:12pm
<i>Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/23/2009 @ 11:51am </i>
I think both your post and anti's subsequent post bring up an interesting point. The debate between liberals and conservatives has often become calcified because one often refuses to accept any solution that doesn't involve government and the other refuses to accept any solution that requires government action.
In other words, remember your post on another thread, anti, where you talked about how there wasn't likely to be a moderate Republican running? I think your and Stephen's posts nicely illustrate why I think that's a bad thing. Creativity and nuance isn't a bad thing.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/24/2009 @ 12:37pm
In other words, remember your post on another thread, anti, where you talked about how there wasn't likely to be a moderate Republican running? I think your and Stephen's posts nicely illustrate why I think that's a bad thing. Creativity and nuance isn't a bad thing.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/24/2009 @ 12:37pm
And I would contend you are wrong and that history demonstrates against you.
Our strongest presidents have been those with strong convictions (which moderates lack). But the reality of the presidency requires running to the strength of your base while attracting enough moderates and independents to garner the margin necessary for victory.
Subsequent to election, those with either conservative or liberal convictions then make political calculations on what types of moderate positions they can implement that will not damage their overall agenda that aligns with their base, thus engaging in what is commonly referred to as incrementalism.
But when you start from a position of moderation, you become another Carter or Franklin Pierce, or Millard Fillmore. the jury is still out on Obama. He may end up being another FDR or a Franklin Pierce.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 2:06pm
Posted by BigPasture at 10/22/2009 @ 11:57pm |
How many of the people polled happened to be Lou Dobbs?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 11:51pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/22/2009 @ 12:32pm |
"As you must know"
Four words before you made an ASSumption; a record!
"The public option price can be set at whatever the government wants to set it at, because unlike a private company, the government would not need to set a price necessary to raise revenue to cover costs."
Or a price to raise revenue well beyond costs. Aetna takes in $25B in premiums and pays $20B in medical costs.
They spend $133 for each of their 15M charges on overhead (mostly denying care) whereas Medicare (with the elderly) pays $65 for each of 40+M.
"The government can cover it's cost by getting money from somewhere else in the government...would be at a level that would possibly be deemed illegal or predatory if a private company were to set similar prices."
If you want to bust a trust, try the insurance companies themselves:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/ news04/2006/04/ama_insurance_study.html
"And thus this 'competition' will drive insurance companies out of the market altogether, which is no doubt the endgame of the Obama administration to begin with."
So you're arguing that everyone in the US will run out and buy the Yugo of health insurance rather than stick with say Kaiser, like me?
Are you getting enough oxygen to your brain?
"Conservatives are not chicken little screamers fearing for the safety of insurance companies, we are simply trying to point out one of the endgames of this drive to socialist medicine by Obama."
You've extrapolated so far that you have a tree which grows to the sky (you know, that thing you'll claim will fall on us...in your fantastical dystopian vision of the future).
Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 12:12am