Health-Care: Commodity or Right? (II)

So it appears that Democrats, with control of the White House, the Senate and House, with a mandate that far exceeds anything George W. Bush could ever claim, with a popular leader who trounced his opponent in the 2008 election, facing a rudderless opposition that has never looked weaker, can't bring themselves to rally behind the idea of health-care reform with a direct government role, i.e. a public option.

Some Democrats, that is. Howard Dean, a former doctor, is rightly calling a direct government role "the entirety of health care reform." Representative Anthony Weiner says, "leaving private insurance companies the job of controlling the costs of health care is like making a pyromaniac the fire chief."

But the White House is wavering – no, caving. Obama called the public option "one sliver" of health-care reform at a town hall meeting over the weekend; Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius added that it was "not the essential element of reform." Does that sound like an administration taking a principled stand?

For several decades, Democrats practiced the politics of watering down what they stood for, in the hope that people wouldn't think they were too liberal, and proved that this was a wonderful recipe for defeat. House progressives have vowed to oppose any bill that doesn't have a public option. Let's hope they do.

Comments (352)

1. So it appears that Democrats, with control of the White House, the Senate and House, with a mandate that far exceeds anything George W. Bush could ever claim, with a popular leader who trounced his opponent in the 2008 election, facing a rudderless opposition that has never looked weaker, can't bring themselves to rally behind the idea of health-care reform with a direct government role, i.e. a public option.

   ********************************************************

   Why?

   There must me some reason. The lazy conspiracy theories don't explain it. If you believe there is overwhelming support, yet, it isn't happening the question is why.

   Will you continue to talk about insurance company conspiracies or will you open your eyes to the possiblity that the support believe is there quite simple isn't?

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/17/2009 @ 09:43am

2. PRESS: "......with a mandate that far exceeds anything George W. Bush could ever claim, with a popular leader who trounced his opponent in the 2008 election,..."

   Ahhhhh, the Fatal Attraction of delusions!

   Read Jay Cost's (Real Clears Politics) simple and short expose of your worship of Magic: " Obama Misread His Mandate"! He won far fewer states than most winners over the past 100 years.....he is a creature of the NE and Left Coast far more than any before him.

   Posted by Happy at 08/17/2009 @ 09:43am

3. This is how sick we are as a nation: half the time the conversation over 'public' vs 'private' insurance all centers around 'unfair competition'.

   O GOOD GOD! This is how we all end up 'shaping' a life or death issue - by economic theory.

   Even the advocates of public health care fall into this false dichotomy - as IF the most CRITICAL thing WILL BE- is the poor private insurance companies and their CEOs are having a rough time of it because your neighbor can - via a public option - get that cancer treatment.

   How sick are we that we still allow profit, on some level be THE 'determining' factor in ANY of these discussions!

   What the HELL is wrong with us?!

   Posted by Marlowe_Indeed at 08/17/2009 @ 09:49am

4. What the HELL is wrong with us?!

   Posted by Marlowe_Indeed at 08/17/2009 @ 09:49am

   Be more selective with "us" and make sure you mean the Far Left!

   Most of "us" are NOT ignorant and knows well that we became the most powerful and wealthy country WITHOUT public option and/or single-payer health insurance.....while at the same time, has maintained our status as the most sought-after country for immigration......Inconvenient Truths, ain't they a bitch!

   Posted by Happy at 08/17/2009 @ 09:54am

5. Happy you honestly think we became the most powerful nation in the world BECAUSE we didn't have single-payer?

   I teach college history. Take a refresher course.

   Posted by Marlowe_Indeed at 08/17/2009 @ 09:56am

6. Posted by Happy at 08/17/2009 @ 09:43am

   But HAPP, does that mean you think Dubya had anywhere CLOSE to the mandate (however that is defined) as Obama???

   Posted by Mask at 08/17/2009 @ 10:07am

7. Happy-The reason we are a wealthy and powerful country is because we are large and have tons of natural resources and not because we did not have single payer.Do you really believe that we would be wealthy and powerful if we were a tiny country with few resources?

   Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 10:18am

8. More inanity: "I've never called the Pelosi provisions a 'death panel.' The issue is whether end-of-life provisions should be part of legislation that's about controlling health care spending, and which also creates a government-run health care program, as the Pelosi bill does. Doing so escalates concerns about the rationing of health care, since government-run plans in other countries ration to control spending. Putting end-of-life consultations alongside cost containment and government-run health care causes legitimate concern."

   So that means if our government considers subsidizing those that can't afford a 'doctor end of life consultation' it may lead to rationing, but if the gov doesn't consider subsidizing it at all THAT'S MUCH BETTER!

   Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 10:25am

9. We need the "Death Panels" and more dead humans if we are ever going to reduce man made global warming.

   Posted by abell12ct at 08/17/2009 @ 10:38am

10. Posted by abell12ct at 08/17/2009 @ 10:38am

    As noted on the other thread on "The Notion", abell...

    you might want to drop the whole "death panels" thing...

    given Palin, Limbaugh, and Gingrich also endorsed it.

    Posted by Mask at 08/17/2009 @ 11:00am

11. If having a large population and a lot of natural resources is all that it takes to be wealthy and powerful, why was it the Japanese were buying up America not too long ago and not the Brazilians, Nigerians or Indonesians (and why did the USSR go down the tubes)?

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 11:30am

12. mistral-Where did anyone mention a large population?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 11:33am

13. Speaking of Japan, if you need to reduce the population, all you need is to put the whole world at the economic level of Japan and watch the population decline just as it's projected to there.

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 11:35am

14. Well lets consider for a moment that if we were #1 in life expectancy instead of #45:

    http://tinyurl.com/yvls29

    Or that we had the lowest infant mortality rate instead of #31:

    http://tinyurl.com/2je7aa

    Would we still be able to spend as much on being the #1 military superpower or the #1 healthcare spender?

    UHmmm, now that's 'not' really a tough one...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 11:41am

15. mistral-Where did anyone mention a large population?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 11:33am

    Somebody above had a post that said "because we are large and have tons of natural resources"

    If you just mean "large" in area, with lots of resources, then Kazakhstan, Canada and Argentina should be permanent members of the UN Security Council.

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 11:44am

16. mistral-Canada has terrain and weather problems that makes getting at their resources more difficult as does Russia.Argentina is not nearly as large as we are and they had foreigners exploit their resources.A country does not have to be physically large in order to be wealthy and powerful.A country can do what the British did and that is to use their advanced technology to conquer others and then steal their resources.In Americas case,however,it is our physical size,more gentle weather,and abundance of resources that made us wealthy and powerful and not because we did not have single payer,like Happy suggested..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 11:58am

17. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/17/2009 @ 09:43am

    Why? Perhaps in an open moment, you might draw two columns.

    On the right side, try listing all the groups that have a vested interest in the status quo for health care - such as doctors, hospitals, pharmacuetical companies, medical device manufacturers, insurance companies, people afraid that they will lose their current insurance to a worse one, etc.

    On the left side, try listing all the groups that are in favor of public option in health care - sick people, uninsured people, etc.

    Now, rate each of these groups in terms of their level of organization, financial resources, use of lobbyists, ability to get themselves in the media and present disciplined messaging, etc. on a scale of 1 to 5. Add the totals.

    Yes, you are right. The support is not there. However, I think dismissing the reasons why the support is not there as some form of conspiracy theory is a bit weak. It's a question of organization, and the people that want government provided health care are poorly organized and those that want the status quo are very organized. A small organized and disciplined group can take on a larger group that does not have these qualities and often defeat them. The military examples are legion. Thermopylae is a good illustration.

    Posted by srjenkins at 08/17/2009 @ 12:22pm

18. So does this mean it's just our resources (the "terrain" problems don't seem to prevent the Russians and Canadians from exporting lots of petroleum, natural gas and minerals) that make us powerful, but the British and Japanese built empires based on their "advanced technology"?

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 12:31pm

19. "Most of "us" are NOT ignorant and knows well that we became the most powerful and wealthy country WITHOUT public option and/or single-payer health insurance.....while at the same time, has maintained our status as the most sought-after country for immigration"

    we do have single payer insurance, it's called medicare and medicaid. plus there is veterans insurance. also single payer.

    so, technically, your statement is flat out false.

    or do you want to retract the "most powerful and wealthy" portion of it?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2009 @ 12:41pm

20. and i guess ireland and latvia and china, who have had some of the strongest economic growth over the last 10 years, and who also have single payer insurance, are not that wealthy and powerful either?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/17/2009 @ 12:45pm

21. mistral-Actually,the terrain and weather problems have prevented Canadians and Russians to get at most of their resources until recently and they still have more problems than we do getting at their resources.I have not just mentioned resources and have mentioned other things that contributed to our wealth and power.I find it interesting that you are attacking my factual statements while letting Happy's claim that we are powerful because we did not have single payer to stand.Are you really unaware,like Happy,that we are a large country with an abundance of natural resources and that that is, in large part, why we are a wealthy and powerful country?Are you,like Happy,unaware that it was not until WW2 that we became a powerful country and that it was a left wing semi socialist president who made us into that powerful country?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 12:47pm

22. Most of "us" are NOT ignorant and knows well that we became the most powerful and wealthy country WITHOUT public option and/or single-payer health insurance.....while at the same time, has maintained our status as the most sought-after country for immigration......Inconvenient Truths, ain't they a bitch! Posted by Happy at 08/17/2009 @ 09:54am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Amazing how all that "Arsenal of Democracy" stuff happened with all those overpaid, unskilled UAW lumps busting their ass at plants like Willow Run, eh, Happ?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/17/2009 @ 1:03pm

23. LOL

    talk about your "inconvenient truths".

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/17/2009 @ 1:05pm

24. i'm nobody:

    Actually, I think Happy stated that we became a powerful nation when we didn't have single-payer (just as the UK and Japan did), not that the power was as a result of not having that single-payer system. Or maybe Happy is saying that single-payer is not what makes nations powerful. Or maybe Happy is just answering Marlowe's "What the hell is wrong with us?" query by stating that we are a wealthy and powerful country. None of these considerations has much relevance to the advantages/disadvantages of single-payer, but it appears that "Happy's claim that we are powerful because we did not have single-payer system" is a misreading of whatever Happy said.

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 1:05pm

25. Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 1:05pm

    Isn't it odd that you have to "translate" HAPP?

    How do you know that "we are powerful because we did not have single-payer system" wasn't his claim? Except that he's an ideological ally and you need to defend him?

    He's an admitted ditto-head and surely that's something that Limbaugh would say, as a throwaway line, that somebody who lives and dies by Rush would imitate.

    Posted by Mask at 08/17/2009 @ 1:09pm

26. mistral-We became a powerful nation after implementing socialist programs during the great depression and not before so Happy only showed his ignorance of history no matter how one looks at or interprets his statement.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 1:12pm

27. i'm nobody

    Oh come now, I'm not saying that I agree with Happy, but when you say:

    How do you know that "we are powerful because we did not have single-payer system" wasn't his claim?

    I can only say that you may be right in that this is what Happy THINKS, but this is not what Happy CLAIMED. If you ask Happy and Happy agrees that this is what Happy thinks, then that is Happy's claim. But as for now I have no basis for saying that that is Happy's claim.

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 1:27pm

28. And as far as power goes, yes, the US got the power to fry the whole world in 1945, but even in 1925 (or even 1900) the US was wealthy and powerful compared to the UK, France, Germany, China, the USSR and Japan. How would you order all these nations in terms of national power at that time?

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 1:32pm

29. mistral-The US was not powerful when compared to those other countries prior to WW2 nor could we have conquered any of them prior to WW2, by ourselves.It was not the atomic bomb that made us powerful.It was becoming one country, rather than a nation of states, that had abundant resources that were used in a united effort that made us into a powerful country.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 1:40pm

30. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/17/2009 @ 09:43am

    I'll tell you why: Big business rules this country like an oligarchy. The Robber Barons have returned and this time, they mean to finish what they started. It is the money in the media (conservative), insurance industry (conservative), big Pharma (conservative) that have all gathered round the fire (as it were) to control your life and mine.

    Perhaps you like your life being controlled by the wealthy elite. Perhaps you enjoy big business deciding, in the backrooms of millionaires and billionaires, what you will or will not eat for breakfast, what kind of car you can drive (and how many mph it can get and what it can emit), how much your gasoline will cost on a daily basis, and what standard of health care you have to buy.

    So, while you're driving your toxin-emitting 32 mph car to work (knowing it could be clean and be at least 38 mph, but the auto industry stopped that legislation), listening to your right wing radio station whose content is controlled by conservatives like Rupert Murdoch and corporations like ClearChannel, after eating your drive-through breakfast at McDonald's that will add 1800 calories to your diet (with only four bites, no less!), and paying $3.95 for a gallon of gas at the corner station where ALL the "competing" companies strangely have exactly the same price (imagine that!) and not realize you're in a fascist state in which business runs the government through the revolving doors of lobbyists/politicians.

    I don't like that dystopic vision (which is actually our reality brought to us by years of conservative misrule - since Reagan) because I don't think that was the America our Founding Fathers envisioned.

    Business and government and life must be balanced.

    Koyaanisqatsi.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/17/2009 @ 1:41pm

31. mistral-Prior to WW2 your average American had far less wealth than during and after WW2.Again,it was after the socialist programs were implemented that we became a more wealthy and powerful country.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 1:47pm

32. I teach college history. Take a refresher course.

    Posted by Marlowe_Indeed at 08/17/2009 @ 09:56am

    So? Are we supposed to be impressed?

    I was a flight instructor in the military. Take a flying lesson.

    Posted by fram at 08/17/2009 @ 1:48pm

33. mistral-Happy seems to have forgotten that way back when doctors only charged what the patient could afford making single payer a non issue.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 1:55pm

34. teach college history. Take a refresher course.

    Posted by Marlowe_Indeed at 08/17/2009 @ 09:56am

    So? Are we supposed to be impressed?

    I was a flight instructor in the military. Take a flying lesson.

    Posted by fram at 08/17/2009 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --marlowe's post also implies that no history teachers would agree with you (and thus disagree with him).

    of course, reading about history does not guarantee one understands it, or that there is ever one true understanding or interpretation of cause-and-effect of events that have happened long before any of us were born.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 2:09pm

35. Happy you honestly think we became the most powerful nation in the world BECAUSE we didn't have single-payer?

    I teach college history. Take a refresher course.

    Posted by Marlowe_Indeed at 08/17/2009 @ 09:56am

    Well Professor, as a fellow historian, I may be taking a leap of conclusion if I consider you are pro-single payer? Is so, I would suggest that you take a refresher on the US Constitution and enumerated power.

    Then I suggest you read Madison and Jefferson

    <"James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45:

    "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.">

    And Jefferson

    <"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

    Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817>

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 2:18pm

36. antisocialist-Why do you always quote the salve owners?Why do we have to go by your interpretation of the constitution?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 2:22pm

37. That would be slave owners.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 2:24pm

38. i'm nobody:

    Enough of this historical silliness. Even in 1900, the United States of America was an extremely powerful country. In everything from coal production to naval capital ships to railroad trackage to wheat cultivation to the sheer number of inhabitants it was a top-rank nation. It did not have a large army at the time, because the other powerful nations were thousands of kilometres away, but the American Civil War showed the enormous capacity available, and this was demonstrated later in WWI.

    The US could not have conquered the other nations: UK, France, Germany, China, the USSR and Japan? Well, yes, I suppose not, but they couldn't conquer the US either, or each other (except for Germany's defeat of France in 1870 and near defeat in 1914) could they? (Russia was triple teamed by Germany, Austria-Hungary and Trotsky in 1917)?

    Just for the fun of it, consider the following nations (listed in alphabetical order) and re-order them in terms of national "power" (however you want to define it) as of the year 1900.

    China

    France

    Germany

    Japan

    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

    United Kingdom

    United States of America

    But of course none of this says anything about whether or not a single-payer system is a good or bad system.

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 2:24pm

39. Jefferson is the ideal historical figure: when you like what he says he's the Sage of Monticello and one of the Fathers of His Country, when you don't he's the slave-owner who put his plantation so far into debt his heirs were left with nothing.

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 2:30pm

40. mistral-Prior to WW2 America was a nation of states and we were not a particularly powerful or united country. We did not become a world power until we were united by WW2 and used our resources in a united effort.The reason we could not be conquered prior to WW2 is because of our physical size and not because we were powerful.We even had problems bringing small groups of natives and outlaws under control.The USSR did not exist until after WW2 and China was not a united country until after WW2.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 2:36pm

41. Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 1:32pm

    Actually, Mistral, wasn't PART of the reason we were riding high after World War-II the fact that we were the.....LEAST damaged by it?

    London had been bombed to rubble and the Brits had taxed and borrowed on every capital resource of their fading Empire to keep their war industry going for 6 years (a mere 4 for us).

    The Chinese had been at war with the Japanese for almost a decade...and were a minor player, nearly colonial possession before that.

    The Japanese had seen their capital firebombed and two major cities nukes and every pre-WW-II possession taken from them.

    and the Russians had seen massive casualties on a scale not even approached by the Americans and a third of their nation raped and pillaged for 3 years by the enemy.

    Aside from Pearl Harbor, and a few "fire balloons", almost all of the USA went untouched...and though our casualties were large...percentage-wise, minimal compared to other countries, even the Allies.

    Posted by Mask at 08/17/2009 @ 2:37pm

42. mistral-When have I ever quoted Jefferson?Do not recall ever doing that.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 2:37pm

43. Most history I've read has us coming out as a world power during the Spanish-American War, not World War II. Militarily and economically speaking, we were up there with the traditional old world powers by that time. If not Great Britain, then certainly Germany and France.

    Marlowe_Indeed's early observation that this debate should not be about private insurance companies having a rough time of it because a poor person can go get the cancer treatment through a public option is interesting. Interesting in that European countries with single-payer have substantially higher rates of cancer death than the U.S. They ration or do not even offer the more effective drugs we use to fight cancer. This goes for rich, middle class, and poor Europeans all. Frankly...no thanks.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 2:45pm

44. Most history I've read has us coming out as a world power during the Spanish-American War, not World War II. Militarily and economically speaking, we were up there with the traditional old world powers by that time. If not Great Britain, then certainly Germany and France.

    Marlowe_Indeed's early observation that this debate should not be about private insurance companies having a rough time of it because a poor person can go get the cancer treatment through a public option is interesting. Interesting in that European countries with single-payer have substantially higher rates of cancer death than the U.S. They ration or do not even offer the more effective drugs we use to fight cancer. This goes for rich, middle class, and poor Europeans all. Frankly...no thanks.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 2:45pm

45. Most history I've read has us coming out as a world power during the Spanish-American War, not World War II. Militarily and economically speaking, we were up there with the traditional old world powers by that time. If not Great Britain, then certainly Germany and France.

    Marlowe_Indeed's early observation that this debate should not be about private insurance companies having a rough time of it because a poor person can go get the cancer treatment through a public option is interesting. Interesting in that European countries with single-payer have substantially higher rates of cancer death than the U.S. They ration or do not even offer the more effective drugs we use to fight cancer. This goes for rich, middle class, and poor Europeans all. Frankly...no thanks.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 2:45pm

46. citizen-While the Spanish-American war made the world notice us we were not considered to be a super power until after WW2.We were still using horses when Germany and England were using tanks and we did not become equal to them in military weapons and tactics until WW2.We were a second rate power until WW2 brought us totally into the world of modern warfare..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 2:52pm

47. i'm nobody:

    antisocialist quoted Jefferson. i'm nobody asked "Why do you always quote the slave owners?"

    You're right that the USSR didn't exist in 1900 (should have typed Russian Empire instead), but the USSR did exist before WW2 - I'll assume that you just made a typo there.

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 2:55pm

48. mistral-He never quotes those founders who were not slave owners and I wondered why.Seems like a legitimate question.Yes,the USSR did exist in name prior to WW2,but I was referring to when they became a world power and one of the other super powers, which was after WW2.Should have made that clear.Sorry.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 3:04pm

49. And what's this about the US becoming powerful "after the socialist programs were implemented"? The UK lost power after socialist programs were implemented, China gained power, and the Russians first gained power then faded away. Heck, Bismarck instituted the social welfare state in the first place - is what happened in Germany after that the fault of these programs?

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 3:05pm

50. i'm nobody - antisocialist doesn't quote people like Hamilton, Adams, Jay, etc. who didn't own slaves? I thought they'd be more suitable to the right-wing arguments than the plantation owners like Jefferson.

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 3:10pm

51. CitizenCarrier, you're making it up. Your contentions about European health care insurance systems & their results are utterly false, your comparisons without any basis in fact. You are as irresponsible as Sarah Palin & her death panels.

    Posted by sloper at 08/17/2009 @ 3:11pm

52. antisocialist-Why do you always quote the salve owners?Why do we have to go by your interpretation of the constitution?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 2:22pm

    I quote Jefferson because he is considered one of the perhaps 5 greatest men at the founding of our nation in terms of his intellectual contributions.

    I would rather that there were no slave owners in our history, but I don't have that luxury.

    Rather than the strawman on Jefferson himself who was one of the writers of the constitution, why don't you explain how he got it wrong? And do you also complain that other authors didn't mean what they said?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 3:12pm

53. The question is whether we feel like being a world leader per our military and healthcare costs, or our military and healthcare effectiveness.

    So far the money we've put into our military has given us in return a Military Industrial Complex with a taste for perpetual war and profiteering.

    Not unlike our Medical Industrial Complex.

    Both are perfectly within the realm of our Government to regulate into effectiveness from their current wastefulness.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 3:13pm

54. Both are perfectly within the realm of our Government to regulate into effectiveness from their current wastefulness.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 3:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --congress certainly has the power to create single payer or even universal health care. it's too bad obama doesn't want to risk his 2nd term...

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 3:20pm

55. mistral-I'm a middle of the road type who has little interest in politics, for the most part.It was 9/11 and the war in Iraq that got me interested in some political stuff.I have no problems with the founders that sound right wing nor have I decided how I feel about single payer.I just want everyone to have access to good health care.I think that the US getting more powerful after the socialist programs were implemented was coincidental.I was just pointing out that implementing socialist programs did not hurt us in the past.I like talking about history more than politics because I do not like or trust politicians.I like hiding in the mountains because politicians are irrelevant there,but I'm stuck in a city for one more year.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 3:22pm

56. So anyway, how would the US rank in terms of "power" in 1900? In the top ten? In the top five? In population it outnumbered everyone on the list except China and Russia. In industrial production, I don't know the figures, but what nations other than the UK and Germany could exceed it? Its navy was a power to match everyone except the British and maybe the Germans. Its army was small and poorly equipped, but let's not forget even the Germans didn't have tanks at the beginning of World War I (or more than a handful at the end).

    Not a super-power? No, of course not, but the word didn't even exist until the Nuclear Club opened its doors. Even in 1900 the US was in the big leagues. Saying it wasn't is like saying China in 2009 isn't a powerful nation.

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 3:23pm

57. I apologize for these triple posts. Something in my computer sends out three when I only hit the button once...

    I'm Nobody, if you'll check history you'll note that the Germans did not field tanks during WWI until the very end and that was only a tepid response to the British, French, and American tanks they'd been encountering. Patton was a commander of American tank forces and American tanks fought at St. Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne. All forces in WWI still used horses for transport, logistics, and hauling artillery. In fact, in WWII, most of Germany's army still consisted of horse transport and marching soldiers, contrary to this image of them as a "motorized, modern force". Only a few of their elite divisions in the 1940s were totally mechanized. America had totally mechanized by then. By WWI, we were easily a world power. At the end of WWII, we had taken the place and role held by Great Britain as leader of the free world.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 3:24pm

58. I apologize for these triple posts. Something in my computer sends out three when I only hit the button once...

    I'm Nobody, if you'll check history you'll note that the Germans did not field tanks during WWI until the very end and that was only a tepid response to the British, French, and American tanks they'd been encountering. Patton was a commander of American tank forces and American tanks fought at St. Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne. All forces in WWI still used horses for transport, logistics, and hauling artillery. In fact, in WWII, most of Germany's army still consisted of horse transport and marching soldiers, contrary to this image of them as a "motorized, modern force". Only a few of their elite divisions in the 1940s were totally mechanized. America had totally mechanized by then. By WWI, we were easily a world power. At the end of WWII, we had taken the place and role held by Great Britain as leader of the free world.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 3:24pm

59. I apologize for these triple posts. Something in my computer sends out three when I only hit the button once...

    I'm Nobody, if you'll check history you'll note that the Germans did not field tanks during WWI until the very end and that was only a tepid response to the British, French, and American tanks they'd been encountering. Patton was a commander of American tank forces and American tanks fought at St. Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne. All forces in WWI still used horses for transport, logistics, and hauling artillery. In fact, in WWII, most of Germany's army still consisted of horse transport and marching soldiers, contrary to this image of them as a "motorized, modern force". Only a few of their elite divisions in the 1940s were totally mechanized. America had totally mechanized by then. By WWI, we were easily a world power. At the end of WWII, we had taken the place and role held by Great Britain as leader of the free world.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 3:24pm

60. antisocialist-As I have said before,I do not care what people say.I only care about what they do and if the words and actions are totally contradictory,like with Jefferson,then I ignore the person and everything they had or have to say.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 3:24pm

61. Actually, you'll note that the Germans manufactured all of 20 tanks during WWI. We certainly topped that.

    You might want to revist the history books...

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 3:28pm

62. Actually, you'll note that the Germans manufactured all of 20 tanks during WWI. We certainly topped that.

    You might want to revist the history books...

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 3:28pm

63. Actually, you'll note that the Germans manufactured all of 20 tanks during WWI. We certainly topped that.

    You might want to revist the history books...

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 3:28pm

64. The repubs would have us believe that corporations and their profits are beyond governmental regulation.

    NOT.

    Falls perfectly within our general welfare and power to regulate commerce and tax; easily applicable to our nation as whole.

    Both are easily understood as national security issues.

    Thusly we have the many federal agencies, departments and commissions like: ACF, AoA, AHRQ, the CDC, that happens to be right next to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, ,,,etc

    http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 3:30pm

65. --congress certainly has the power to create single payer or even universal health care. it's too bad obama doesn't want to risk his 2nd term...

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/17/2009 @ 3:20pm

    Hey, I'll wait for the healthy triathlete female to sing... before rendering my judgement.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 3:34pm

66. It appears that another raving loony-right maniac has been spotted at an Obama event armed, carrying an AR-15 and a semi-automatic pistol.

    The nut wing of the GOP needs to be put on a leash.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/17/2009 @ 3:37pm

67. How much does Obama really care about healthcare? He doesn't seemed to be handling it any more smoothly than the Clintons. Is he spending time on that or on the economy?

    Because really, what can sink an incumbent president? Unless you have a scandal (Ford) or economic problems (Hoover, Carter, Bush - though after 12 years of Republicans Bush may just have been the victim of boredom) incumbents have a habit of being re-elected. If the economy turns around and Obama isn't caught fooling around with an intern who wakes up dead in a DC park or found with a load of cash in his freezer doesn't he have a good chance of sticking around until the centennial of Pancho Villa's invasion?

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 3:53pm

68. Wasn't the AR-15 (M-16) the weapon Bob McNamara and the other Camelot geniuses sent the troops into Vietnam with? Didn't it have a way of jamming in life-or-death situations?

    The irony...

    Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 4:13pm

69. citizen-I did not mention WW1 in my post so I will not have to revisit the history books.While the US army did have tanks during WW1 few in the army understood that they needed to be developed and that new tactics needed to be developed for them.In their minds and often with their bodies they were still riding horses up until we were in WW2.Our military made numerous blunders at the beginning of WW2 because they were still thinking in terms of horse and battleship tactics whereas the Germans had been thinking tank and the Japanese had been thinking aircraft carrier.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 4:52pm

70. It is time for action. A bill without a public option is not acceptable. We liberals need to make our voices heard. Can't we schedule big rallies at least on all the big cities?

    The political pressure of the right in their town hall meetings should be counteracted with our pressure. Our ideas, writings, or signatures will not mean a thing for those Blue dogs ( aka chicken donkeys). It is political demonstrations and our yelling that will do. Are we less capable of organizing a nation wide round of real protests than them? It would be a pity.

    A bill without a public option is not a reform because the cost spiraling will hardly be addressed.

    Posted by Frank42 at 08/17/2009 @ 4:52pm

71. you might want to drop the whole "death panels" thing... given Palin, Limbaugh, and Gingrich also endorsed it. Posted by Mask

    But I am endorsing it also!

    Posted by abell12ct at 08/17/2009 @ 5:02pm

72. antisocialist-As I have said before,I do not care what people say.I only care about what they do and if the words and actions are totally contradictory,like with Jefferson,then I ignore the person and everything they had or have to say.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 3:24pm

    So, you ignore the constitution because it was written by incredibly intelligent and foresighted, but flawed men?

    Since there are no perfect people in the world, I guess you are terribly short of people who's opinions and writings are worthy of you.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 5:31pm

73. Posted by Mistral at 08/17/2009 @ 4:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I guess that's why the looney-tunes kook brought his pistol along, in case his AR-15 jammed during combat.

    (The police in these places are doing an excellent job of protecting us from these freaks - they don't take the guns away, which results in the freaks claiming in front of TV cameras that the totalitarian tyrannical communist/socialist/fascist Obama police state is taking their guns from them - but instead they just surround the freaks with cops who don't once take their eyes off the crazy man with the assault rifle.)

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/17/2009 @ 5:31pm

74. Hahahahahahaha! It's OVER! Obama and the lunatic fringe have FAILED! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.............."mandate"? Hahahahahahahahaha.......that supposed "astroturf" full of "nazi's" was actually a great representation of REAL america and prrof that the "imagined" mandate you jerkoffs thought osama had, was just just false "hope" for evil "change" and it FAILED miserably. Hahahahahahahaha...I'm loving every minute of it and hope for continual failures for the evil loser who sits as pres. of the US. LOL!!!!!!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/17/2009 @ 5:45pm

75. Posted by barry25 at 08/17/2009 @ 5:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Have you considered using a tranquilizer?

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/17/2009 @ 5:50pm

76. Healthcare is absolutely, without a doubt, NOT A RIGHT. None of you loseres has a "right" to be taken care of by ANYONE other than yourselves! Now, grow up, take the gov't nipple out-yo'-mouth, and take care of yourselves, and do it NOW bitches......! The best thing we all can do for our fellow man is to not be a "burden" (ie. "liberal") upon him! LOL!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/17/2009 @ 5:50pm

77. Frank42, sure you can organize protests amongst liberals who support socialism. It's actually FAR easier than oranizing conservatives to protest, because those damn conservatives are usually way too busy working, feeding thier families and others through taxation while most liberals who protest are UNEMPLOYED LOSERS! There are far more LOSERS/TAKERS in america than WINNERS/PRODUCERS, so you have a MUCH larger pool of prospective protestors to choose from. That should give you a little hope....LOL!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/17/2009 @ 5:59pm

78. I just can't express how happy I am at the horrible position our dirtbag president and his cronies have found/put themselves in. No PUBLIC OPTION.....Hahahahahahahaha!!!!! I will toast each and every failure for osama and his cronies for this is the most corrupt, inept and flat out evil admin. in US history and america is quickly realizing this fact. Enjoy it while you can loser-libs, cause the term "liberel" will soon become, once again, a DIRTY, UGLY word describes the worst among us!!!!!! LOL

    Posted by barry25 at 08/17/2009 @ 6:05pm

79. Posted by barry25 at 08/17/2009 @ 5:59pm

    Leave it to a far right repub to take a delusionally wide stance away from reality and go way down that impotently limp road to see it all upside down and inside out. Becoming a shadow of its former self.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 6:07pm

80. antisocialist-Never read the constitution nor care what is in it.I never said that I only listen to perfect people.Slave owners,the BTK killer who claimed to be a good Christian,religious hypocrites,Nazis,Stalinists,Maoists,KKK members,etc,are people I ignore even when they have nice words to say.All humans are hypocritical,but when your words and actions contradict one another to the extreme then I ignore your words.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 6:13pm

81. antisocialist-I do not view slave owners as simply flawed humans.Their actions are evil.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 6:20pm

82. what about slave sellers?

    Posted by barry25 at 08/17/2009 @ 7:17pm

83. antisocialist-I do not view slave owners as simply flawed humans.Their actions are evil.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 6:20pm

    How did such evil people give us the greatest country in mankind's history?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 7:17pm

84. greatest country in mankind's history?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/17/2009 @ 7:17pm

    Now there is pride for ya. We have been in existence about 0.15 of that of the Roman Empire yet, according to Anti we are the greatest in mankinds history...

    Funny. Anti, I am glad you have such pride. But I think the verdict will be out for a bit before we can claim greatest in history. Lets at least aim for 1000 years or about half the lifespan of the Romans before we make such grandiose/egotistical claims.

    Posted by Extraneous at 08/17/2009 @ 7:29pm

85. antisocialist-Most early Americans were not slave owners.Most were against it and it is not just a couple of slave owners who made this country what it became.It was the ones who tried to live the words that made us great.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 7:29pm

86. To Barry 25, You seem to know little or nothing. I am not surprised,you seem like a guy that thinks he should pay more money each year to stand at the bus stop. Why not,he has a job that pays him enough to keep his nose above water.Let's think about this Albert. Which country came out of WW2 unscathed? Which countrie's industrial base was left untouched by this war? Whose banks could borrow money to countries across the oceans? Only one to my knowledge. Guess what Barry it is not Red China like we are doing today. You know the policy, it was started by George ,Dick, And Rummy. Karl was running around telling everyone what to do. Now we have a disaster and you are so stupid you think Obama and his cronies have goofed up 8 years of a good thing. You fraud, guess who had higher unemployment than Obama has right now? That's right your hero Ron Reagan. Do a little research before you shoot off your mouth

    Posted by whatizz at 08/17/2009 @ 7:34pm

87. nobody, stop livin' in the past, psycho....time to just MOVEON.ORG already, and realize that times have changed! Black pres., Black attorney general, NAACP, Condi, Colin etc. What world are you living in ?

    Posted by barry25 at 08/17/2009 @ 7:40pm

88. whatizz, Reagan "inherited" a disaterous unemployment rate from the 2n d worst pres in history, Jimmy " ONE TERM" Cater, you derelict! What history books are you reading? Reagan created 20 million plus jobs,twerp! Obama inherited a disaster created by (let's not forget, dumbass, that the dems controlled congress since 2006, making bush a lame duck the last 2 years) greed on wall street, that was ENABLED by dems like Barney Frank who FORCED banks to make incredibly risky/idiotic loans to unqualified applicants through a scheme called the "community re-investment act", one of the clinton admin.'s pet projects, sonny boy! Now you just sit there, shut your mouth, and listen to more fact. Fannie and freddie, the dem's free piggy bank, guaranteed these loans and now we have a crisis that obama and emanuel have used, without denial, to pass a socialist agenda, you pathetic sissy! Sure, wall strret greed, corruption on both sides, and greed all the way down the ladder to mortgage brokers and home buyers contributed to this, but the door was opened through the dem's "community re-investment act" and Barney still hasn't aplogized, idiot! There is video on youtube that shows BARNEY FRANK AND MAXINE WATERS, both Democrats, berating a REGULATOR (you know, those are the guys that do the "regulation" you always whine about) who was warning them about the looming crises at Fannie and Freddie, you idiotic foolsih moron! Class is dismissed, my newly found little bitch!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/17/2009 @ 7:57pm

89. clowned another lib, my work is done here. LOL

    Posted by barry25 at 08/17/2009 @ 8:01pm

90. Liberal fools at huff post want to boycott whole foods corp because they have a better healthcare plan than the Obamanation and Demoncrats! Lets hope ignorance want win!--

    Fueled by a typically deliberate misrepresentation of the facts by the Huffington Post, "illiberals" in the blogosphere are trying to launch a boycott against Whole Foods because of an op-ed piece CEO John Mackey wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday.

    Proponents of the boycott point to Mackey's supposed insensitivity for suggesting that people should take responsibility for their own health by eating healthful foods, exercising, and avoiding things like alcohol and tobacco. To whom is the suggestion of personal responsibility offensive? Only to liberals who believe -- uniformly -- that the government is wiser than its citizens and should thus direct their every act.

    First, Whole Foods provides health insurance and pays 100 % of the premiums for any employee working 30 hours a week -- a whopping 89 % of its work force. Hardly a reason to boycott a company and put many of those people out of work.

    Mackey's plan relies on a combination of high-deductible insurance for major medical needs--injuries, diseases, and chronic conditions -- and personal savings accounts to cover average health needs -- check-ups, flu, ear infections, etc. Insensitive? Too expensive for the worker? But wait -- Whole Foods funds the employees' savings accounts to pay their deductibles! According to the article, Whole Foods "provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness." And this deserves a boycott?

    Here's how it works, and how it could work for any American:

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/17/2009 @ 8:18pm

91. It begins with a high-deductible insurance policy. Under this plan, insurance premiums are much lower -- as much as half the cost of so-called "full-coverage" or low-deductible plans--because most people don't have catastrophic illnesses and injuries each year and thus don't "use" their insurance. Insurance companies can then do what insurance companies are supposed to do -- amass funds during good years to cover losses during bad years.

    Meanwhile, people literally "save the difference" in their premiums by setting aside money in a government-authorized "Health Savings Account" and drawing on those savings whenever health needs occur. In good years, the funds roll over to the next year. In bad years, the funds in the HSA are available to cover deductibles until the insurance coverage kicks in. The money belongs to the individual, not to the insurance company.

    Under this system, users have an incentive to look for the most appropriate care for each specific problem, and at the best cost. Health care providers have an incentive to offer the best quality care at a lower cost. Best of all, the insurance company can stand aside on day-to-day issues. No longer do you have to ask your insurance company whether your dentist or acupuncturist or ob/gyn is covered. It's your HSA, and it's up to you to decide how to spend it.

    If you get sick, you're covered. And if you don't get sick, you get to keep the money in your HSA until you do get sick. Either way, it's a great program for the user, and a cheaper program for the company. It works for large companies, small companies, and the self-employed. Everyone wins. Except those who want the government to control the health care system.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/17/2009 @ 8:19pm

92. Boycott Whole Foods? Ridiculous! That will only hurt the employees who will be let go when sales drop. I suggest an anti-boycott. Let's call it "An Apple for your Health." Go to your local Whole Foods today and buy an apple. Tell the clerk you're buying the apple for their health -- to keep their jobs and their health care in place. And enjoy the apple--it will be good for your health, too.

    Obamanation and the Demoncrats just can't out think the American capitalist and ingenuity!

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/17/2009 @ 8:20pm

93. So ,let's see Ron had two and a half years after an outsider was President to create his mess. He cut tax rates which you like and started deregulation which you like. The best part of that era was the savings and loans mess. Plenty of Dems involved there. You know ,John Mccain, another hero of yours was up to his eyeballs in being crook of the year in the" Keating 5". I have a feeling you might have a little revisionist history on that to. I want you to get off your posterior and look at all the upper middle class people who are losing their homes. You are all B.S. with no facts but that isn't a surprise because you haven't seen all the big houses in the suburbs that are being sold for pennies on the dollar. I love it when pathetic people who don't know anything act like a stud when they are a pin man. We are in a mess because of fools like you that are fighting a War" on terror. You would know the war when you got shot in the ass and you said "huh". I know it's vFanny and Freddie's fault. I heard Sarah say that too.I'm glad you had a good teacher. Too bad she is so shallow she had to resign.Just a little bit was Wall Street's fault? Can't you read or is everything isvideotaped for you.

    Posted by whatizz at 08/17/2009 @ 8:24pm

94. Posted by barry25 at 08/17/2009 @ 8:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Are you named "barry25" because 25 is your I.Q.? If so, you need to be retested, because I think the name would be overly generous to you.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/17/2009 @ 8:31pm

95. You know Big Pass the head of Whole Foods is like a PETA guy from the right. I'm sure he has the best health insurance for his employees because of the pressure applied by grocery store unions. You know who those people are ,you probably would hide under the table with Barry if they came around.

    Posted by whatizz at 08/17/2009 @ 8:48pm

96. Have Barry is it past your bedtime or did you read for five minutes and your eyes hurt?

    Posted by whatizz at 08/17/2009 @ 8:51pm

97. Posted by whatizz at 08/17/2009 @ 8:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I think the orderly probably came into the room and told him that Sesame Street was starting in the Happy Rainbow Room, and that all his special friends were eating cupcakes and singing along with Big Bird. This no doubt drew his attention away from the Friendly House netbook for a while.

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/17/2009 @ 9:01pm

98. DEMOCRATS ARE PLAYING WITH FIRE WITHOUT PUBLIC OPTION IN HEALTH CARE PLAN

    Without a health care reform plan that includes a public option, the White House and the Senate are playing with fire. Apart from the general cynicism such an outcome would create about politicians, Democrats would surely lose the support of their base. This, without getting any tangible or assured support from Republicans who simply want the President to fail in their zero-sum kind calculation. Even at this moment, we have seen enthusiasm shift to the advantage of the opponents of health care reform while the Democratic base has grown increasing cynical and distrustful of the intentions of Senate leaders, including the White House. What principles are Democrats prepared to stand for firmly on this important debate? Reagan and Bush, even when they might have been wrong on issues, stood firm, and Americans respected that. They both won two terms. Their legacy is in stark contrast to what is happening today on the Democratic side. We know that Republicans are on the wrong side of issues; but they have stood firm--and united--and are gaining grounds. Is there no lesson for Democrats to learn from this? You lose when you are not clear about what you want. You lose when you are seen as wishy-washy and lacking courage to stand for something you truly want even against the most challenge. You lose when you negotiate without a good winning strategy--when you give the store away without being able to commit your opponent to a tangible reciprocity before agreeing to their demands. Democrats indeed don't know how to keep power! They have been outplayed and outmaneuvered by Republicans. Indeed! Dr. Sam

    Posted by drsam8 at 08/17/2009 @ 9:04pm

99. I believe you just might be right.

    Posted by whatizz at 08/17/2009 @ 9:04pm

100. Dr Sam, there is a lot to agree with in your assessment. Basically I don't know if there is any leadership in the White house or Congress. We don't need 6 points of view from the administration we need 1. Is Harry a tour guide at Hoover Dam or is he the Senate Majority Leader? The Republicans just have to do a head fake and the Dems fall all over themselves to screw up. What is worse is the inability to call out the Republicans for what they are. A party that could care less for middle class Americans. The only middle class Americans they know are the ones they have fooled intop thinking thewy don't need health carew.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/17/2009 @ 9:24pm

101. In this day it is a right. To deprive a person of health care is to deprive them of life, which is specifically banned in the Constitution. It is a means test. At the time that were were guaranteed the right to bear arms the authors had no idea what "arms" would eventually become. Just because the best they had at the time were black powder rifles and cannon doesn't mean we are now limited to only those weapons. There is a big variety of powerful weapons that can be obtained, and they're cheap. In the same way, the ability to prevent people from dying horrible deaths from various illnesses with routine and inexpensive medicines didn't exist at the time, now it does. I believe they would view the act of leaving 50,000,000 Americans out in the cold to suffer, by the wealthiest nation on earth, to be barbaric and un-Christian like. To them, it would be viewed as a right.

     Posted by Milhaus at 08/17/2009 @ 9:40pm

102. But the right thinks it is O.K. to borrow from the Chinese to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where are our nations ministers ,priests, and rabbis in this great social "fight". Why are they not calling for health care for all . I don't understand how these people can remain silent. What will it take. Perhaps an entire congregation will become unemployed and uninsured.Then perhaps neighbors will reach out to neighbors. On a larger scale people might say then that having insurance is a right. Until then we will be the only industrialized nation without health care for vall its citizens. Doesn't that make you proud to be an American?

     Posted by whatizz at 08/17/2009 @ 10:09pm

103. Eyel Press says that Obama has

     >>> "a mandate that far exceeds anything George W. Bush could ever claim". <<<

     CNN Poll: Obama Approval Drops 10 Points In 100 Days.

     Fact: Americans Liked Bush Better than Obama in an analogous period.

     Obama has dropping approval ratings and significant numbers believing his first six months to be a failure.

     The president has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

     But Eyel Press wants the Administration to use its muscles to get the full bill, though most of the nation is opposed. To argue that such a far ranging measure which touches everyone's life and involves 16% of the economy should be pushed through because the Democrats momentarily control the Congress, tells us the respect The Nation has for the people of this country, and the Left's commitment to democracy.

     Jefferson said long ago, you must not force more "good" on the people than they want. But the desire to do just that is the core instinct of socialists and it is why and how they come to create police states. Socialists ultimately conclude, people are too stupid to know what is good for them, they must push through the hard but necessary measures on their behalf, make them swallow the medicine that is good for them, and by force if necessary.

     That is exactly what Eyel Press is here suggesting. We've got the muscle to give it to them, even if they don't want it. It is okay to act thus, because we are virtuous and know what's best.

     The idea that the people are in large part rather dense and will act against their own interest, and must be reeducated, and the stubborn holdouts, eliminated, is part of this mentality. It is what made Pol Pot and the killing fields.

     Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/17/2009 @ 10:34pm

104. I predicted the housing crash to the "T", dimwit! Much to everyone's shagrin, I was a lone messenger of the looming crisis, because I DO live and work in the real world, fool! The good thing about my predictions coming true: it was the lib friends that REALLY didn't listen, at their, and the american taxpayers', expense! So, my little bitch (whatizz), don't try that mess, it don't fly here. It was easy to predict, if you lived in the real world. All your fellow citizens were, all of a sudden, able to purchase 3 times what they could in the previous 20 years, WITHOUT a rise in average income? Wow, didn't see that one coming. Housing price tripled, gas went through the roof, and income.......not much change there, so obviously it was all FALSE (the term i was using frequently to describe the housing market in 05', you pathetic sissy)! Done wit' you twerp-a-lot!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/17/2009 @ 10:49pm

105. Hey Hugo are you another guy caught up in political theory that no one is practicing. What are you talking about. What shape do you want the poll questions to be in?How about this,what do you think of socialized medical care?Let's have seniors answer this question after some right wing guys ask them to protest at a town hall meeting on health care. Maybe a couple of veteran's can be asked that question before they go to a VA hospital for treatment or surgery. What is wrong with you nuts from the right. Go visit Germany,France,or Japan. I know these economies are in better shape than ours is but they don't have the Wall Street crooks or the nice guys from Big Health making $20 million a year there. I get the feeling you approve of that but then Pol Pot was a rich dictator so you are torn. Philosphy can be a drag sometimes.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/17/2009 @ 11:01pm

106. The idea that the people are in large part rather dense and will act against their own interest, ... is part of this mentality. It is what made Pol Pot and the killing fields.

     Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/17/2009 @ 10:34pm

     More like what got us into an unnecessary war in Iraq... Hundreds of thousands of lives lost and trillions of dollars poof for the mere profit of the very few.

     However, a good reformed healthcare system would benefit the many to the detriment of the few making all the profit.

     UHMmmmmmm, now why would the many argue to make themselves less healthy at more cost?

     Uhmmmm, could it be because the profiteers are selling (lying) the many into a false conclusion?

     Oh YEAH-- BIG TIME!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 11:12pm

107. Are these Hugo's polls? Looks pretty even so far. Considering the +/-3% MoE. We'll need to wait another week or two and see if Obama's polls actually stays down. They tend to move up and down 5% points from week/mn to week/mn anyway.

     Job approval - GWhsuB

     Gallop - 8/24-26/01__55__36

     Pew - 8/21 - 9/5/01__ 51__34

     Job approval - BHObama

     Gallop - 8/12-14/09__55__37

     Pew- 7/22-26/09 ___ 54__34

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 12:17am

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 11:25pm

108. We know that Republicans are on the wrong side of issues; but they have stood firm--and united--and are gaining grounds. .......Dr. Sam

     Posted by drsam8 at 08/17/2009 @ 9:04pm

     Can you be that rare Lib on this board who hasn't (recently) drank the Kool-aid peddled by MASK, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Thomas Frank and assorted staged polls that declared the GOP pretty much dead?

     Maybe you kinda noticed ALL the Cons on this board has pretty much held firm on the key principals.....not that hard when one has them, btw!

     Posted by Happy at 08/17/2009 @ 11:27pm

109. Other polls that don't change much...

     "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?"

     Quinnipiac University Poll. July 27-Aug. 3, 2009. N=2,409 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.

     29___59___12

     Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by FD. July 9-13, 2009. N=800 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.

     29___59___12

     Pew Research Center Poll. June 10-14, 2009. N=1,502 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

     29___56___15

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/16/2009 @ 12:33am

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 11:27pm

110. Could it actually be the far right's inanity in congress is driving Obama's numbers down?

     Naw, how could that be happening?

     Could actually be contagious!

     Repub Poll POX!

     Yet another good reason to quarantine repubs...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 11:40pm

111. Hey happy, when all you care about is yourself it doesn't matter if you have principles. Go play with me/me. I would rather hope for things to go well with we.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/17/2009 @ 11:44pm

112. Public Option Called Essential Democratic Lawmakers Express Concern

     By Anne E. Kornblut and Perry Bacon Jr. Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, August 18, 2009

     Several leading Democrats voiced concern Monday about an apparent White House shift on health-care reform, objecting to signals from senior administration officials that they would abandon the idea of a government-run insurance plan if it lacked the backing to pass Congress.

     In the Senate, where negotiations are now focused, John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.) said that a public option, as the plan has become known, is "a must."

     Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.) said that "without a public option, I don't see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it."

     House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said that the plan will be included in whatever bill is voted on in the House. "There is strong support in the House for a public option," she said, though she did not demand that the administration express support for the idea.

     One Democrat predicted that without the provision, the bill could lose as many as 100 votes in the chamber.

     http://tinyurl.com/letge5

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 11:53pm

113. You know Big Pass the head of Whole Foods is like a PETA guy from the right. I'm sure he has the best health insurance for his employees because of the pressure applied by grocery store unions. You know who those people are ,you probably would hide under the table with Barry if they came around.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/17/2009 @ 8:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Unlike you I doubt they are too stupid to actually read and comprehend their healthcare plan, but hey whatizz is whatizz!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/17/2009 @ 11:54pm

114. Lost Boner On Pharmaceutical...:

     "House Republican Leader John Boehner launched an unusually harsh broadside at an estranged GOP ally Monday, ripping the drug industry for siding with President Obama's health care reform proposal.

     Republicans on Capitol Hill have been grumbling about the defection of the powerful lobby, which is running vague ads in support of reform. The letter is by leaps the most public stab at the group, which is run by a former top Republican congressman, Billy Tauzin.

     "Dear Billy," begins the diatribe. "Appeasement rarely works as a conflict resolution strategy" - an interesting choice of words given the media focus on Nazi symbols at raucous townhall gathering.

     Boehner goes on to compare the White House to a schoolyard bully in sympathizing with PhRMA's predicament. "When a bully asks for your lunch money, you may have no choice but to fork it over. But cutting a deal with the bully is a different story, particularly if the 'deal' means helping him steal others' money as the price of protecting your own."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2009 @ 12:08am

115. citizen-I did not mention WW1 in my post so I will not have to revisit the history books.While the US army did have tanks during WW1 few in the army understood that they needed to be developed and that new tactics needed to be developed for them.In their minds and often with their bodies they were still riding horses up until we were in WW2. -------------------------------------

     You're right. I started talking about WWI because I didn't think anybody would be so ignorant of the history they claim to know so much about to say we were still using horses in WWII. Which is exactly what you said. Now you are trying to modify that by saying we were using a "horse" mentality in WWII, because you've probably by now realized we stopped using horses in the 1930s. We understood the use of the tank by WWII. And as far as the Japanese "thinking" aircraft carrier while we were still thinking battleships, we sent their 4 most important carriers to the bottom before the end of 1942.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 06:58am

116. citizen-I did not mention WW1 in my post so I will not have to revisit the history books.While the US army did have tanks during WW1 few in the army understood that they needed to be developed and that new tactics needed to be developed for them.In their minds and often with their bodies they were still riding horses up until we were in WW2. -------------------------------------

     You're right. I started talking about WWI because I didn't think anybody would be so ignorant of the history they claim to know so much about to say we were still using horses in WWII. Which is exactly what you said. Now you are trying to modify that by saying we were using a "horse" mentality in WWII, because you've probably by now realized we stopped using horses in the 1930s. We understood the use of the tank by WWII. And as far as the Japanese "thinking" aircraft carrier while we were still thinking battleships, we sent their 4 most important carriers to the bottom before the end of 1942.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 06:58am

117. citizen-I did not mention WW1 in my post so I will not have to revisit the history books.While the US army did have tanks during WW1 few in the army understood that they needed to be developed and that new tactics needed to be developed for them.In their minds and often with their bodies they were still riding horses up until we were in WW2. -------------------------------------

     You're right. I started talking about WWI because I didn't think anybody would be so ignorant of the history they claim to know so much about to say we were still using horses in WWII. Which is exactly what you said. Now you are trying to modify that by saying we were using a "horse" mentality in WWII, because you've probably by now realized we stopped using horses in the 1930s. We understood the use of the tank by WWII. And as far as the Japanese "thinking" aircraft carrier while we were still thinking battleships, we sent their 4 most important carriers to the bottom before the end of 1942.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 06:58am

118. "Maybe you kinda noticed ALL the Cons on this board has pretty much held firm on the key principals.....not that hard when one has them, btw!"-----Posted by Happy at 08/17/2009 @ 11:27pm

     Really? Is one of those principals "opposition to any Government-run health care system"?

     If so...

     why aren't you guys (like principled Larry/antisoc does) calling for the elimination of Medicare????

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 07:46am

119. Hey Happy to refresh my memory what principals are those? How to not know whats going on and claim to. Let's screw anyone we can and say it is our right. Let's be for tax cuts for those who don't need it . If someone is poor or unemployed look down upon them and then go to church. Be against health care reform because you like seeing our economy go down the drain at the hands of a few. Ask a few seniors to volunteer as health care protesters. Maybe tell them a few lies to get them stirred up.Come up with new phrasing for discussing living wills. Call the new phrasing "death panels". I believe I just discussed the first layer of your principles. Call your pastor and talk to him about helping your neigfhbors, I hope he's not like the others who are more worried about the collection plate than helping their flock.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 08:02am

120. "Let's be for tax cuts for those who don't need it."

     "Let's screw anyone we can and say it is our right."

     Who gave you the power to determine how much somebody else gets to keep for their labor, time, or ideas? Aren't you right now claiming the "right" to determine how much you think other people "need"?

     "Be against health care reform because you like seeing our economy go down the drain at the hands of a few."

     I'm not against healthcare reform. I just think it should take place in the private sector. And it should have tort reform somewhere in there. And our economy went down the drain largely because of the housing market, not health care.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 08:16am

121. "Let's be for tax cuts for those who don't need it."

     "Let's screw anyone we can and say it is our right."

     Who gave you the power to determine how much somebody else gets to keep for their labor, time, or ideas? Aren't you right now claiming the "right" to determine how much you think other people "need"?

     "Be against health care reform because you like seeing our economy go down the drain at the hands of a few."

     I'm not against healthcare reform. I just think it should take place in the private sector. And it should have tort reform somewhere in there. And our economy went down the drain largely because of the housing market, not health care.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 08:16am

122. "Let's be for tax cuts for those who don't need it."

     "Let's screw anyone we can and say it is our right."

     Who gave you the power to determine how much somebody else gets to keep for their labor, time, or ideas? Aren't you right now claiming the "right" to determine how much you think other people "need"?

     "Be against health care reform because you like seeing our economy go down the drain at the hands of a few."

     I'm not against healthcare reform. I just think it should take place in the private sector. And it should have tort reform somewhere in there. And our economy went down the drain largely because of the housing market, not health care.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 08:16am

123. Well Citizen maybe you have a reading problem. I say that because apparently youv'e missed the 47000 articles on health care costs that have been written by members of all political persuasions. Private health care reform means what to you ? Only a half screw job for the next 3 or so years . Where do you think all the money is coming from to oppose reform? Is it coming out of your pocket? Please say we need more "competition" then i will think you are discussing the Olympics or perhaps India or China making our jeans. The housing sector did cause the economy to collapsae. This was after it was the only sector of the economy that speculators could prop up and not get called out for. You should come see all the$300000 homes that middle class people are losing. Health care costs have skyrocketed and a huge factor in people's lives. Get with it man. Your principles are what makes your party second best.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 08:30am

124. Well, I know where all the money is coming from to oppose the tort reform that would make our healthcare a lot cheaper right now. And I know why one party adamantly refuses to consider it. That's where it's second largest amount of campaign money comes from.

     I won't say we need more "competition" in the private sector. I will say having "government" compete with private insurance companies is patently unfair because government can and does run at a loss. You cannot compete against an entity that is indifferent to market forces. You cannot compete against an entity that draws its resources from the entire taxpaying population whether they are on the gov plan or not. It is immoral to have to compete against something that TAKES your tax money involuntarily from you and then uses it to compete AGAINST you.

     I'm not claiming to have all the answers about how to reform the private sector, but I do know taking the country headlong into entitlement mentality Hell should not be considered.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 08:58am

125. Well, I know where all the money is coming from to oppose the tort reform that would make our healthcare a lot cheaper right now. And I know why one party adamantly refuses to consider it. That's where it's second largest amount of campaign money comes from.

     I won't say we need more "competition" in the private sector. I will say having "government" compete with private insurance companies is patently unfair because government can and does run at a loss. You cannot compete against an entity that is indifferent to market forces. You cannot compete against an entity that draws its resources from the entire taxpaying population whether they are on the gov plan or not. It is immoral to have to compete against something that TAKES your tax money involuntarily from you and then uses it to compete AGAINST you.

     I'm not claiming to have all the answers about how to reform the private sector, but I do know taking the country headlong into entitlement mentality Hell should not be considered.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 08:58am

126. Well, I know where all the money is coming from to oppose the tort reform that would make our healthcare a lot cheaper right now. And I know why one party adamantly refuses to consider it. That's where it's second largest amount of campaign money comes from.

     I won't say we need more "competition" in the private sector. I will say having "government" compete with private insurance companies is patently unfair because government can and does run at a loss. You cannot compete against an entity that is indifferent to market forces. You cannot compete against an entity that draws its resources from the entire taxpaying population whether they are on the gov plan or not. It is immoral to have to compete against something that TAKES your tax money involuntarily from you and then uses it to compete AGAINST you.

     I'm not claiming to have all the answers about how to reform the private sector, but I do know taking the country headlong into entitlement mentality Hell should not be considered.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 08:58am

127. "Well, I know where all the money is coming from to oppose the tort reform that would make our healthcare a lot cheaper right now. And I know why one party adamantly refuses to consider it. That's where it's second largest amount of campaign money comes from. "----Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 08:58am

     But you admit that "all the money" coming to oppose the "public option" is coming from Big Insurance?

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 09:18am

128. citizencarrier-I grew up in a military family and use terms,like riding horses,because that is a term used by old military people to refer to old pre tank tactics.Patton and every other general stated that we did not understand the tank or tank tactics at the beginning of WW2 so you apparently know more than the people who were there.The war with Japan began in Dec of 1941 and not in 1942 making your response about that meaningless since I was referring to our mindset at the beginning of the war.I'm not expressing my opinion here.I'm expressing the opinion of virtually every high ranking officer who at the beginning of the war stated that we were unprepared.It is because we were unprepared and did not understand new tactics that Pearl Harbor happened.We had no idea that you could drop torpedoes from planes in shallow water nor did we realize that new aircraft carrier tactics developed by the Japanese meant that you should not park all your battleships in nice pretty rows.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 09:26am

129. citizen-At the beginning of WW2 we are,also,quite clueless about the importance of the airplane unlike Germany and Japan and we were way behind when it came to plane tactics..Which is another reason that Pearl Harbor happened.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 09:32am

130. "All" the money? No, I wouldn't make a blanket, all-encompassing declaration like that. But money isn't buying every individual American who is happy with the insurance they have right now who have made it clear they do not want this. And why are we to suppose lobby money is "dirty", but the motivations behind shuffling America further into socialism are pure and clean? Is that not a power grab?

     The public option is clearly designed to drive America into a single-payer plan it obviously doesn't want. If an employer is faced with funding his employee's private insurance while at the same time being taxed more to fund goverment insurance for other people, he is clearly going to cut his cost and shuffle his employees into the goverment plan. This is by design. They INTEND for this to happen. To force people into doing something they would not voluntarily do themselves. Is this what you stand for?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 09:33am

131. "All" the money? No, I wouldn't make a blanket, all-encompassing declaration like that. But money isn't buying every individual American who is happy with the insurance they have right now who have made it clear they do not want this. And why are we to suppose lobby money is "dirty", but the motivations behind shuffling America further into socialism are pure and clean? Is that not a power grab?

     The public option is clearly designed to drive America into a single-payer plan it obviously doesn't want. If an employer is faced with funding his employee's private insurance while at the same time being taxed more to fund goverment insurance for other people, he is clearly going to cut his cost and shuffle his employees into the goverment plan. This is by design. They INTEND for this to happen. To force people into doing something they would not voluntarily do themselves. Is this what you stand for?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 09:33am

132. "All" the money? No, I wouldn't make a blanket, all-encompassing declaration like that. But money isn't buying every individual American who is happy with the insurance they have right now who have made it clear they do not want this. And why are we to suppose lobby money is "dirty", but the motivations behind shuffling America further into socialism are pure and clean? Is that not a power grab?

     The public option is clearly designed to drive America into a single-payer plan it obviously doesn't want. If an employer is faced with funding his employee's private insurance while at the same time being taxed more to fund goverment insurance for other people, he is clearly going to cut his cost and shuffle his employees into the goverment plan. This is by design. They INTEND for this to happen. To force people into doing something they would not voluntarily do themselves. Is this what you stand for?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 09:33am

133. antisocialist-Why do you always quote the salve owners?Why do we have to go by your interpretation of the constitution?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/17/2009 @ 2:22pm

     You probably have noticed that ANTI always cherry picks certain passages of quotes that would seem to support his addle minded positions. He will never include the entire context of the quote.

     I have debunked his use of out of context quotes many times. But he still continues to play his tricks. I think he considers this excercise in obfuscation and disinformation entertaining.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 09:58am

134. We were way behind Germany and Japan in plane tactics? They didn't even have strategic, long range, four engined bombers. We'd been taking deliveries of the B-17 since 1937. Japan and Germany were more experienced due to fighting in China and Europe before we entered the war, sure, but our plane technology and production capacity was far beyond them even at the outset.

     Complacency caused Pearl Harbor, not ignorance or backwardness. The British had done the same thing to the Italians at Taranto in November of 1940. It's what the Japanese modeled their attack on.

     And sorry, but I'm not buying the "I meant horse 'mentality' because that's how us old military families refer to it" line. That is a hokey cop out. This is what you wrote:

     "We were still using horses when Germany and England were using tanks and we did not become equal to them in military weapons and tactics until WW2."

     Out of 264 German combat divisons, only 42 were armored or motorized and this was by 1944. The rest still used horses and mules. A typical German infantry division used about 4000 of them. Germany had about 1.1 million horses, and could not have waged war without them. America, even at the beginning, was by far the most motorized of all the belligerents.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:04am

135. We were way behind Germany and Japan in plane tactics? They didn't even have strategic, long range, four engined bombers. We'd been taking deliveries of the B-17 since 1937. Japan and Germany were more experienced due to fighting in China and Europe before we entered the war, sure, but our plane technology and production capacity was far beyond them even at the outset.

     Complacency caused Pearl Harbor, not ignorance or backwardness. The British had done the same thing to the Italians at Taranto in November of 1940. It's what the Japanese modeled their attack on.

     And sorry, but I'm not buying the "I meant horse 'mentality' because that's how us old military families refer to it" line. That is a hokey cop out. This is what you wrote:

     "We were still using horses when Germany and England were using tanks and we did not become equal to them in military weapons and tactics until WW2."

     Out of 264 German combat divisons, only 42 were armored or motorized and this was by 1944. The rest still used horses and mules. A typical German infantry division used about 4000 of them. Germany had about 1.1 million horses, and could not have waged war without them. America, even at the beginning, was by far the most motorized of all the belligerents.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:04am

136. We were way behind Germany and Japan in plane tactics? They didn't even have strategic, long range, four engined bombers. We'd been taking deliveries of the B-17 since 1937. Japan and Germany were more experienced due to fighting in China and Europe before we entered the war, sure, but our plane technology and production capacity was far beyond them even at the outset.

     Complacency caused Pearl Harbor, not ignorance or backwardness. The British had done the same thing to the Italians at Taranto in November of 1940. It's what the Japanese modeled their attack on.

     And sorry, but I'm not buying the "I meant horse 'mentality' because that's how us old military families refer to it" line. That is a hokey cop out. This is what you wrote:

     "We were still using horses when Germany and England were using tanks and we did not become equal to them in military weapons and tactics until WW2."

     Out of 264 German combat divisons, only 42 were armored or motorized and this was by 1944. The rest still used horses and mules. A typical German infantry division used about 4000 of them. Germany had about 1.1 million horses, and could not have waged war without them. America, even at the beginning, was by far the most motorized of all the belligerents.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:04am

137. But you admit that "all the money" coming to oppose the "public option" is coming from Big Insurance?

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 09:18am

     Why is it the left always refers to "Big Insurance", "Big tobacco", "Big Pharma", etc, but never "Big Labor", "Big Trial Lawyers", "Big NEA"?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 10:15am

138. The public option is clearly designed to drive America into a single-payer plan it obviously doesn't want. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 09:33am

     New Poll numbers from NBC/Wall Street Journal indicate that 76% support the choice of a Public Plan Option.

     "obviously doesn't want"? Maybe in Alter-World.

     Americans are badly informed on a straight up Single Payer plan. Although that is the simple solution. But Americans are slow to accept reform. Mostly because of the difficulty in separating the truth from all the static in the form of disinformation.

     Some of us were lucky enough to have the opportunity to experience the benefits of a single payer system in other countries.

     Many post those experiences here. As I have. But obscure blog posts on the Nation Magazine can hardly be considered mainstream.

     This information just doesn't get out. Although it is there for those who spend the time to find it.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 10:22am

139. citizen-In my statement about riding horses I mentioned weapons and tactics and our tanks were poor compared to Germany's and only a few,like Patton,had given tank tactics much thought...Pearl Harbor had been placed on alert several times prior to the attack and defenses were put into place.We were not complacent.We even had our aircraft carriers out looking for the Japanese and parked our battleships in rows because old tactics said they were safer there..We not only had no idea about torpedo bombers in shallow water,but actually believed that it could not be done,but the Japanese did it.The Germans did continue to use horses,but that is irrelevant to the subject of tactics and mindset.They did not use WW1 tactics when they used their horses,but used them with modern warfare tactics.If we had so much knowledge about plane tactics then why did few have any idea that Pearl Harbor could be attacked from the air without the use of Japanese battleships?Our plan was to engage them with battleships once the aircraft carriers located them.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 10:26am

140. i'm nobody

     I suggest you read Liddell Hart, the inventor of modern tank warfare.he was ignored by England and the US but the Germans were paying attention.

     they used to dig in tanks and line them up all in a row.

     Napoleon already realized that speed is of the essence.

     Guderian put Liddell Harts ideas into practice.

     L.H.'s history of WW2 is essential reading. enjoy.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 10:27am

141. The Big Business threat.

     I had to point this out to a cousin of mine a few months ago, but Big Government has always posed a bigger threat to my freedom or quality of life than any one Big Business.

     Big Business cannot draft us into war, seize our property through taxes, declare me an unfit parent and take my kids away. It was government that took that woman's house away in Kelo v. New London, not Big Pharmaceutical. It was FDR who put all those Japanese-Americans in interment camps, not Standard Oil. It was Wilson who put thousands of war protestors in prison, not Coca Cola. Segregation? Government. Patriot Act? Government. Most infringements or challenges to your liberty or property do not come from Big Business, but Big Government. Even when it is Big Business, 9 times out of 10 they are using Big Government to achieve those ends.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:28am

142. The Big Business threat.

     I had to point this out to a cousin of mine a few months ago, but Big Government has always posed a bigger threat to my freedom or quality of life than any one Big Business.

     Big Business cannot draft us into war, seize our property through taxes, declare me an unfit parent and take my kids away. It was government that took that woman's house away in Kelo v. New London, not Big Pharmaceutical. It was FDR who put all those Japanese-Americans in interment camps, not Standard Oil. It was Wilson who put thousands of war protestors in prison, not Coca Cola. Segregation? Government. Patriot Act? Government. Most infringements or challenges to your liberty or property do not come from Big Business, but Big Government. Even when it is Big Business, 9 times out of 10 they are using Big Government to achieve those ends.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:28am

143. The Big Business threat.

     I had to point this out to a cousin of mine a few months ago, but Big Government has always posed a bigger threat to my freedom or quality of life than any one Big Business.

     Big Business cannot draft us into war, seize our property through taxes, declare me an unfit parent and take my kids away. It was government that took that woman's house away in Kelo v. New London, not Big Pharmaceutical. It was FDR who put all those Japanese-Americans in interment camps, not Standard Oil. It was Wilson who put thousands of war protestors in prison, not Coca Cola. Segregation? Government. Patriot Act? Government. Most infringements or challenges to your liberty or property do not come from Big Business, but Big Government. Even when it is Big Business, 9 times out of 10 they are using Big Government to achieve those ends.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:28am

144. emile-Will read that.Thank you.My dad was an officer who commanded tanks in WW2 and was one of the ones rushed through the new school to teach the new tank tactics after we figured out that the Germans were way ahead of us when it came to tank tactics.My dad,no doubt,read the book since he knew all things related to tanks.Used to play in them as a kid..

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 10:33am

145. ""All" the money? No, I wouldn't make a blanket, all-encompassing declaration like that."----Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 09:33am

     Oh, you wouldn't?

     "Well, I know where all the money is coming from to oppose the tort reform that would make our healthcare a lot cheaper right now. "----Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 08:58am

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 10:34am

146. BTW, Citizen...any way you can make you "Submit" clicks a little less "sticky"???

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 10:35am

147. Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 10:15am

     Why does the Right refer to "union thugs" and "enviro-nuts" and "femi-nazis", Larry....

     which are more pejorative than the apt descriptive of "Big _____" since they are?

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 10:52am

148. Even when it is Big Business, 9 times out of 10 they are using Big Government to achieve those ends.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:28am

     That is what happens when you have a Totalitarian Corporatocracy or fascism. The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a certain segment of the population.

     When you have monopolies that have so much power that they can wrench the apparatus of Democracy from the people and dictate their own policies by co-opting government then fascism results.

     When this happens, as many of the founding fathers feared, the only thing that can bring back balance is the people.

     When 1% of the people hold half the wealth of a country, it is far past time for the people to act.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 10:58am

149. Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 10:26am

     I was wondering if you ever play BF 1942, Call of Duty or Rome-Total War? Very realistic stuff when played on a powerful PC.

     Although I am a pacifist for the most part. I have to admit a guilty pleasure in some of these games.

     It is difficult to overcome a certain genetic fascination with War.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 11:09am

150. It may be the result of my being sent to military school when I was 4. My dad was a Master Sergeant in the Army during the Korean conflict.

     Living in my house was more than a little like "bootcamp". :)

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 11:18am

151. BTW, Citizen...any way you can make you "Submit" clicks a little less "sticky"???

     I've tried to figure out what causes this. I even thought about asking Microsoft, but they want $60 for help. Google searches have turned up nothing so far. Don't know why it sends everything I post in threes. Very annoying.

     Mask, good call, you got me there. I did use the word "all". No two ways about it.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 11:20am

152. BTW, Citizen...any way you can make you "Submit" clicks a little less "sticky"???

     I've tried to figure out what causes this. I even thought about asking Microsoft, but they want $60 for help. Google searches have turned up nothing so far. Don't know why it sends everything I post in threes. Very annoying.

     Mask, good call, you got me there. I did use the word "all". No two ways about it.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 11:20am

153. BTW, Citizen...any way you can make you "Submit" clicks a little less "sticky"???

     I've tried to figure out what causes this. I even thought about asking Microsoft, but they want $60 for help. Google searches have turned up nothing so far. Don't know why it sends everything I post in threes. Very annoying.

     Mask, good call, you got me there. I did use the word "all". No two ways about it.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 11:20am

154. I've tried to figure out what causes this.Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 11:20am

     Could be your mouse sensitivity setting.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 11:24am

155. Citizen, why do you want to pay money to people who don't care what happens to you?Why would you patiently pay 10-20% more each year for "coverage that is poorer in quality than it was the previous year. This is like what the car companies did with the exception there isn't a Japanese insurance company to turn to as an alternative. Wait a minute maybe China will insure us. That would help them keep the"market open so there economy could flourish. Oh that's right we are already helping them do that already.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 11:26am

156. chaoszen-I tried to play war games,but they induced flashbacks to Viet Nam and increased my pill and alcohol consumption. So, I decided it was best not to play them.I can see where they would be fun,though even for a pacifist.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 11:27am

157. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 08:16am

     I'm not against healthcare reform. I just think it should take place in the private sector.

     What does that mean, "take place in the private sector"? Do you have something specific in mind or is this just bullshit?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 10:15am

     Big Labor has long been used by conservatives. It's right up there with Big Government. You didn't get the memo?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:28am

     Economic liberty is the necessary prerequisite for every other type. The control of big business over the economic landscape where they use their economies of scale and collusion to eliminate local competition is as much a threat to liberty as the government.

     With government, one can always tell the draft board to get stuffed and go to jail. But where does one go when you cannot make a profit in your own business and have to sell your labor to big business to live?

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 11:09am

     "The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a certain segment of the population."

     Fascism, last I checked, is generally defined by significant government control over business, labor and individuals in the service of the party and by proxy, the nation. While it has a general tendency to define some portion of the population as "the Other" and attribute social ills to them, it is not the goal of fascists to promote or deny equality to anyone or any segment because the most notable feature of fascism is that it puts the state above any person or segment.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/18/2009 @ 11:31am

158. I can see where they would be fun,though even for a pacifist.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 11:27am

     Forget the others then and try Rome-Total War. It is very inexpensive and you can download it from Direct2Drive.

     It is a great strategy game that will even allow you to play accurate historical battles. No guns of course. It would be unlikely to kick in those flashbacks.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 11:37am

159. chaoszen-I do enjoy the games and will check that one out.Roman tactics could be interesting.Thank you.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 11:40am

160. Why does the Right refer to "union thugs" and "enviro-nuts" and "femi-nazis", Larry....

     which are more pejorative than the apt descriptive of "Big _____" since they are?

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 10:52am

     Why does the right refer to Union thugs, enviro nuts and femi-nazis? I would suggest because it's often true.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 11:50am

161. Fascism, last I checked, ccc While it has a general tendency to define some portion of the population as "the Other" and attribute social ills to them, it is not the goal of fascists to promote or deny equality to anyone or any segment because the most notable feature of fascism is that it puts the state above any person or segment.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/18/2009 @ 11:31am

     More gobbledygoop from jenkins. You said:

     "is generally defined by significant government control over business, labor and individuals in the service of the party and by proxy, the nation".

     The problem with this statement is that you confuse government control over business with corporate control over government. The government is ideally, "We the People".

     And when powerful corporate interests co-opt the peoples government and corrupt public servants so that they no longer represent the people, we have a Totalitarian Corporatocracy.

     This is currently accomplished through the use of lobbyists and corporate personhood. When you give a corporation the same rights as a single living human being, fascism will result. Corruption of Government will result. And the power has been stolen from the people and placed in the hands of the Corporation.

     Why is this so hard to understand? It has been happening in one form or another throughout history.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 12:11pm

162. "Fascism, last I checked, is generally defined by significant government control over business, labor and individuals in the service of the party and by proxy, the nation."

     Fascism is actually a bit harder to define than one might imagine. SRJenkins, your definition of fascism would by necessity include most of the communist states that ever existed.

     I prefer this definition, although I did not come up with it:

     "Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action."

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:12pm

163. "Fascism, last I checked, is generally defined by significant government control over business, labor and individuals in the service of the party and by proxy, the nation."

     Fascism is actually a bit harder to define than one might imagine. SRJenkins, your definition of fascism would by necessity include most of the communist states that ever existed.

     I prefer this definition, although I did not come up with it:

     "Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action."

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:12pm

164. "Fascism, last I checked, is generally defined by significant government control over business, labor and individuals in the service of the party and by proxy, the nation."

     Fascism is actually a bit harder to define than one might imagine. SRJenkins, your definition of fascism would by necessity include most of the communist states that ever existed.

     I prefer this definition, although I did not come up with it:

     "Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action."

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:12pm

165. Union thugs: Obama's boys over there at SEIU that beat down a black conservative at a town hall meeting. Racist Thugs: Obama's RACIST boys in the Black Panthers who committed a vile act of voter intimidation at a polling place only to be let off the hook by another Obama racist:Eric Holder! How truly evil and embarrassing the low-life racist himself and his THUGS truly are!!!!!! Both instances are FACT, and it's on videotape, so don't even try it. Your party is evil, and "liberalism" will once again become one of the dirtiest words in the english language, thanks to osama!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 12:13pm

166. Oh, I almost forgot.....hahaahahahahahahahahhahahaha, single-payer is down the drain, you lose, Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! LOL!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 12:15pm

167. testing mouse sensitivity adjustment.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:22pm

168. testing mouse sensitivity adjustment.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:22pm

169. testing mouse sensitivity adjustment.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:22pm

170. Now, what conservatives needs to do is bottle up and package what the left, MSM, and the Dem's have done in the lst year, concerning dissenting opinions, and use it to DESTROY the left. We need to constantly remind the American people of how the left treated dissent in 09'. We need to display to our fellow americans how the left demeaned, disparaged, and attacked REAL americans who were expressing thier 1st amend. rights! We need to show the left screaming "protest is patriotic" and "dissent is patriotic" in 08", when a FEW lunatics in PINK were acting like idiots over Bush, and the very next year, trying to suppress the voices of grandma and grandpa. This can ruin the left for decades if we can gets the FACTS to the American people! This is the only hope for our country.

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 12:25pm

171. "Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action."

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:12pm

     It would be nice if you could adjust your mouse sensitivity so that you would not be spamming us with stuff you pulled out of your ass. Like the above statement. Which is geared towards your perverse ideology.

     The term "Fascism" is unfortunately confused with many other meanings. It is not a well defined word. That is why I prefer "Totalitarian Corporatocracy".

     Which is the current State of our Nation.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 12:27pm

172. Nope. Not the problem. Anyway, I'll stop cluttering up the forum here with my unintentional multiple posts. It was interesting discussing this stuff, for the most part without acrimony. That seems to be a rare thing lately.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:30pm

173. Nope. Not the problem. Anyway, I'll stop cluttering up the forum here with my unintentional multiple posts. It was interesting discussing this stuff, for the most part without acrimony. That seems to be a rare thing lately.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:30pm

174. Nope. Not the problem. Anyway, I'll stop cluttering up the forum here with my unintentional multiple posts. It was interesting discussing this stuff, for the most part without acrimony. That seems to be a rare thing lately.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:30pm

175. barry25-History teaches that neither side is ever destroyed and one side will only lose power for a very short period of time.Sorry to burst your bubble,but the left,like the right,will continue to be influential.History teaches that you need both sides in order to be free because any time one side gets too much power the country will become less free.Typically,far less free.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 12:31pm

176. Hey Barry glad you could get up from your ten hour nap. You couldn't find a fact if you were at the library. I have to go back to work. You on the other hand can listen to Rush and Shawn. That means you will learn nothing but how to scare peoplke that can't read. Good luck with your afternoon.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 12:36pm

177. Why does the right refer to Union thugs, enviro nuts and femi-nazis? I would suggest because it's often true.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 11:50am

     Ahhhh...so like "stereotyping to reinforce bigoted views"...

     "It's okay when I do it!".

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 12:39pm

178. whatizz, what's Barney Frank pay a fluffer in his bathhouse? Does he provide you with health insurance, and if so, does it cover the cost of gerbles? LOL

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 12:43pm

179. Obama's disapproval rating has fallen 5 points (yippeeeeeeee) in the last 3 days. LOL...it's sinkin' fast.

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 12:46pm

180. We need to constantly remind the American people of how the left treated dissent in 09'.Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 12:25pm

     As a member of the actual "far left", I view dissent as an integral part of Democracy. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism". -Thomas Jefferson-

     But vocal dissent has a place and a time. If you are demonstrating dissent outside of a public forum, then go ahead and yell and scream. March up and down the street with your signs and placards.

     But if you find yourself in a public forum of debate and an exchange of ideas, you should conduct yourself appropriately. This is obvious to most of us. Screaming and shouting in a public forum with the sole purpose of shutting down the debate is abhorrent in a Democracy.

     There is a time and a place for everything.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 12:47pm

181. barry-Bush had a low approval rating and got reelected.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 12:48pm

182. (yippeeeeeeee) in the last 3 days. LOL...it's sinkin' fast.

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 12:46pm

     How old are you? If you are 25 as your nic might suggest. Then you are somehow an 8 year old person in the body of an adult.

     I would advise therapy.

     Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 12:51pm

183. Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 12:47pm

     And I guess Barry considers "carrying an assult rifle to the President's town hall meeting" to be "dissent" that only "oppressive liberals" would object to, huh?

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 12:55pm

184. I sgree that we need 2 viable parties, at the very least, to ensure checks and balances, but I'd like to see the Dem's DESTROYED and another, more moderate party, evolve with decent human beings running it, but that's probably a pipe-dream. Regardless, the actions of the MSM/left/dems in the last year, if promoted effectively, can ruin them and keep them at bay for at least ten years. We must REPEATEDLY remind the people of what the dems did concerning dissent, just like the MSM/LEFT/DEM's did by repeating the LIE, for 8 years, that Bush supposedly"lied" when he used foreign intel along with Clinton's intel to go to war. They repeated a lie so many times, that idiotic americans just accepted it as truth. If we can do the same with the "truth", repeat it over and over and never let die awareness of the evil actions of the MSM/LEFT/MEDIA cabal in 09' and before.

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 12:55pm

185. Mask, was anything illegal done with that assault rifle, and if not, what's you problem with it?

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 12:57pm

186. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:28am

     It's called reparation after a nation commits an inequity in order to make amends.

     But along a similar line-- imagine if the nation of Japan had lobbied our gov after bombing Pearl Harbor, demanding the USA not to go to war with them-- negotiating only that they'd reduce the amount of their bombing of us...

     Now, I'd say fine to no public option if the Medical Industrial Complex had already insured our poorest. Rather they only state they'll bomb the rest of us less. Our poorest already being dead to them.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2009 @ 12:57pm

187. Mask, just wondering how you feel about Obama's black panther thugs intimidating voters at polling places with billyclubs, and then having the charges dropped by another racist, Eric "terrorist sympathizer" Holder? Let's see how consistent you are on this one. Remember, voter intimidation is a crime that the left usually get's all hot and bothered over. What ya' got? Do you feel cornered? Don't worry, i do this to all idiots!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:01pm

188. Ahhhh...so like "stereotyping to reinforce bigoted views"...

     "It's okay when I do it!".

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 12:39pm

     Mask, Mask, Mask. I know sometimes you get confused when you leap to conclusions without really reading what has been written, but I keep hoping for you to improve.

     Often does not equate to a stereotype

     <A stereotype is a type of logical oversimplification in which all the members of a class or set are considered to be definable by an easily distinguishable set of characteristics.>

     Often does not equal all or always. It means many, it doesn't even mean the majority or most.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 1:02pm

189. barry25-You want two parties.One conservative and one moderate..That is not both sides.Moderates are in the middle.There would be no balance of power under your system.Most democrats are moderates.It is the GOP that has moved farther to the fringe and chasing moderate republicans into the democratic party..If you want decent people running political parties then you need to get rid of politicians.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 1:03pm

190. barry25-You never corner anyone and just stroke your own ego, like Happy and others.Why do you guys feel the need to come on a blog in order to stroke your own egos?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 1:06pm

191. Choazin, how'd you react when conservatives were shouted down and attacked while speaking on college campuses for the last eight years? Did you condemn the actions? If not, you are hereby certified as a hypocrite! What was your reaction when Bush was constantly interrupted during various speeches by lunatic libs screaming incessantly? What was your reaction, during the 09' pres. campaign, when McCain was continually interrupted and distracted during his speeches by luntic liberals? What was your reaction when Bush had a shoe thrown at him? Did you jump out of your seat and claim "there's a time and a place for shoe-throwing"? If you said nothing and condemned nothing during these events, then you are once again certified as a hypocrite. You people make it soooooooooo easy! LOL

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:08pm

192. It ain't braggin' if you can do it!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:09pm

193. barry25-I'm quite happy that you got to declare yourself victor and stroke your own ego.You,Happy,and LRJones should get together and stroke each others egos so you guys will not have to stroke alone.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 1:11pm

194. the gop IS moderate. We haven't had a true conservative since Reagan, and my god, Mccain's a liberal!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:11pm

195. barry25-You have nothing to brag about then.Like Happy, you declare yourself the winner before you play the game.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 1:12pm

196. Choazin, where are you? Taking a while to save face ain't it. Take a little longer so as to make sure you don't put the other foot in your mouth. Don't worry, i'm compassionate, so take your time and maybe go to the "liberal handbook: how to react when losing a debate" to find an answer to the quagmire i just put you in. On page one you'll fing the liberal answer to your quagmire: call me a racist!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:15pm

197. Still waiting! getting bored.....

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:17pm

198. Stumped em'! hahahahahahahahahahahaha.....now i'll forward this page, like many other's, to firends and family, including libs, to show them the hypocrisy, and juvenile thought of the left. Thanks for the ammo!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:20pm

199. barry25-Since you are bored you should spend some time trying to figure out why you need to stroke your own ego on a blog rather than declare yourself to be the winner of a discussion that is based on opinions.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 1:22pm

200. Posted by chaoszen at 08/18/2009 @ 12:11pm

     The problem with your comments is that you tend to read in ass out ideas into other people's postings and you mistake the ideal world you imagine with the actual one. More to the point, comments like the one that follows bastardized terms like fascism and use them in ways that are not congruent with their meaning.

     "That is what happens when you have a Totalitarian Corporatocracy or fascism.

     Fascism is government control, period. A corporatocracy is, by definition, not government control -which basically means this comment is nonsense.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 12:12pm

     "SRJenkins, your definition of fascism would by necessity include most of the communist states that ever existed."

     Communism is defined as common ownership of the means of production, presumably to create an egalitarian society. Fascism, on the other hand, has significant control for promotion of the state. So, this statement is false.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/18/2009 @ 1:22pm

201. I can shut you fools down without breaking a sweat. I can clown you twerps, "with half my brain tied behind my back." "Today was a good day" (Ice Cube), bitches!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:23pm

202. barry25-If you can shut this fool down then why haven't you done so?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 1:26pm

203. Ok, i'm done spewing facts to you idiots and waiting for you to answer questions that you're afraid to answer, or can't answer. I can't believe how easy it is to stump you idiots....you're just like my poli-sci instructor back in the day.......indoctrinated into CLUELESSNESS, and easily clowned!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:27pm

204. If you want to answer any of the questions that you cohorts are afraid to answer, just swing away!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:29pm

205. barry25-I'm happy that you got to stroke your own ego and can now have a cigarette and enjoy the after glow that one has after one strokes themselves.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 1:29pm

206. Okay, one last post, then I'll go.

     The guy with a rifle at the protest is a jackass. I'm an NRA Life Member and I even have a few rifles like that guy. I just won three medals in events at the National Matches at Camp Perry. The guy in the cubicle next to me is also an NRA member and is at this moment telling another guy on the phone what a jackass the rifle dude is.

     In what possible way does this help debate the creep of socialized medicine? It is a distraction. One that the other side is going to eagerly embrace and mine for talking points. About the only saving grace here is the guy's skin color, which precludes charges of "racism".

     I'll admit that during the Clinton years, the fringe elements of conservatism got somewhat wacky. Just as during the Bush years the "truthers" and "Code Pink" types fulfilled the same role. One of the things I truly dreaded about an Obama win was that it would be my side's turn to "go full retard" again ("Tropic Thunder" reference there).

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 1:30pm

207. Okay, one last post, then I'll go.

     The guy with a rifle at the protest is a jackass. I'm an NRA Life Member and I even have a few rifles like that guy. I just won three medals in events at the National Matches at Camp Perry. The guy in the cubicle next to me is also an NRA member and is at this moment telling another guy on the phone what a jackass the rifle dude is.

     In what possible way does this help debate the creep of socialized medicine? It is a distraction. One that the other side is going to eagerly embrace and mine for talking points. About the only saving grace here is the guy's skin color, which precludes charges of "racism".

     I'll admit that during the Clinton years, the fringe elements of conservatism got somewhat wacky. Just as during the Bush years the "truthers" and "Code Pink" types fulfilled the same role. One of the things I truly dreaded about an Obama win was that it would be my side's turn to "go full retard" again ("Tropic Thunder" reference there).

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 1:30pm

208. Okay, one last post, then I'll go.

     The guy with a rifle at the protest is a jackass. I'm an NRA Life Member and I even have a few rifles like that guy. I just won three medals in events at the National Matches at Camp Perry. The guy in the cubicle next to me is also an NRA member and is at this moment telling another guy on the phone what a jackass the rifle dude is.

     In what possible way does this help debate the creep of socialized medicine? It is a distraction. One that the other side is going to eagerly embrace and mine for talking points. About the only saving grace here is the guy's skin color, which precludes charges of "racism".

     I'll admit that during the Clinton years, the fringe elements of conservatism got somewhat wacky. Just as during the Bush years the "truthers" and "Code Pink" types fulfilled the same role. One of the things I truly dreaded about an Obama win was that it would be my side's turn to "go full retard" again ("Tropic Thunder" reference there).

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 1:30pm

209. Don't smoke, gonna answer anhy, or are you scared too?

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:30pm

210. barry25-What cohorts?What questions did you ask that required thought and showed that you live in reality?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 1:30pm

211. barry25-Well,I'm sure you can find a way to enjoy the after stroking yourself glow even though you do not smoke.No.I'm not afraid of your questions.I just find them to be irrelevant and nonsensical.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 1:33pm

212. Carrier, I had that same fear, and we should condemn the actions of idiots on the fringe right which would be the polar opposite of how the left "FULLY EMBRACES" the actions of the "Kooks" on thier side, never condemning ANY of them, including the acts of "voter intimidation" done by the black panthers only to be excused by obama's peeps and eric holder. I think that dude with the rifle is a jackass, a "perfect poster boy" for liberals to use against the right, but i'll defend his actions if they are lawful, even if I think they're idiotic actions that ultimately hurt the right!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:36pm

213. Nobody, they were very simple questions regarding dissent among other issues. If you can't read, or you're just scared, either an swer, or i'm done wit you cause I'm tired of dealing with juveniles on this site, i want people of character, who welcome challenge (questions!) and attack them with passion, BY ANSWERING THEM! This requires pride, intelligenca and self-respect, which disqualifies you.

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:40pm

214. barry25-You have yet to address anything I said to you and ran away from it and just declared yourself to be brilliant.You sound like Happy and LRJones.You are juvenile as your ranting posts clearly show and if you want to be treated respectfully then you should do the same towards others rather than go for childish put downs and stroking your own ego..

     Posted by i'm nobody at 08/18/2009 @ 1:50pm

215. We need the "Death Panels" and more dead humans if we are ever going to reduce man made global warming. Posted by abell12ct at 08/17/2009 @ 10:38am |

     You first.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/18/2009 @ 2:01pm

216. "We haven't had a true conservative since Reagan"---Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 1:11pm

     Not even then...

     http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.html

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 2:06pm

217. Happily we haven't had a conservative like Ron the Frontman Reagan. No i take that back we have Pat Buchanan who doesn't know which end is up. I am happy 20 years of giving away the farm hopefully are over. It is just the greatest going to manufacturing facilities across the Twin Cities and seeing them run at if they are lucky 50% capacity. Where are all the free traders to tell me how great that theory is? The guy bwith the rifle is a kook who is getting pushed by conservative talkers. By the way ,I don't think anyone is going to say the radio waves are dominated by liberals are they? How could Rush be on all these channels if conservatives didn't dominate the ownership of the airwaves. On the video side who besides Rupert Murdoch could have survived $100 million in losses to get Fox News running. So if any of you conservatives wonder why the message is getting out so well I guess that might help you understand. For us liberals that just shows us how much climbing we have to do . The "liberal"media is really the corporate media hoping to cash in.Why else would Chuck Grassley get a second glance during the Congressional recess.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 3:01pm

218. I'm done waiting, you people are pathetic! Whether it's the media asking simple questions to robert gibbs or me asking SIMPLE questions to you losers, we can't get an answer. That techn ique is found in "liberal handbook: how to get your dumb ass out of hot water?..deny, deny, deny, and never answer a direct question"! LOL

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 3:04pm

219. Ask me the question Mr. Pin or shut up.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 3:23pm

220. the radio nwaves are DOMINATED by conservatives, in the EXACT same way the MSM/ACADEMIA/HOLLYWOOD AND THE MUSIC INDUSTRY ARE dominated BY THE LEFT. You guys have it real good, a huge advantage in ability to push propaganda, and you still lose elections. If the playing field were equal, you wouldn't ever win another election! Conservatives own talk radio due to the simple fact that you can listen to it while you're WORKING, in the real world, unlike many loser-unemployed liberals!!! LOL!!!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 3:23pm

221. Gibbs is the most embarrassing, lying, pathetic excuse to -his-momma's-vagina, press sec. EVER! What a joke this dude's life is. He's like a cartoon character, a flat out LYING cartoon character. This is embarrassing, and the white house is in deep! Hahahahahahahahah ! I absolutely LOVE watching these evil bastards go down! Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 3:28pm

222. You are a laughable fool. You have to pay to see a movie you don't to listen to the radio. More people have access therefore conservatives win the media battle. How many movies are made a year ? When these movies come out they are a year behind time wise. The radsio waves are controlled in real time .Even with your limited capacity for rational thought you can figure this out can't you?

     Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 3:28pm

223. Please, Obama admin, continue to break the law, stick your noses up in the air and live in denial, keep showing disdain for the elderly and their right to dissent, continue marginalizing americans based on race and political affiliation, and just continue being you self-absorbed, soulless selves...please! I'm enjoying watching you evil bastards crash and burn far more than I thought possible, and i need more. I live in Ca. and there are sooooo many loser-liberals, dumbed down to the core, that suck off the few of us that actually PAY taxes, and basically make me sick to my stomach every day by their very existence and the fact that i must walk amongst their sorry asses, that i need something positive, and Obama's failure will definitely suffice!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 3:34pm

224. AARP is losing tens of thousands of members due to OBAMA....Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! This couldn't have anything to do with those "astroturf" dissenters being marginalized by the supposedly "pro-dissent" obama admin/state run media? Hahahahahahahaha! It's sinking fast losers, whatcha got to say now? Tens of THOUSANDS Hahahahahahaha! I'm sending e-mails to ALL family and friends URGING them to immediately leave the AARP, hahahahahahahahahaha!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 3:38pm

225. Today is definitely a GOOD day, and...wait a second....I hear that Glenn Beck is ACTUALLY really HAPPY about something, and he's gonna go into it tonite on his TV show that's DOMINATING/DESTROYING/CASTRATING the liberal competiion, well it's not really competition if you look at the #'s! I wonder what could make Glenn happy? Could it be some type of FAILURE for the Dem's and osama? I surely pray so!!!!!!!!!!!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 3:42pm

226. Do you realize by BARRY's own standard...

     he hasn't had any support in Congress or the White House in over 21 years?!?!??!?

     (even ignoring that Reagan raised taxes and increased the size of Government!)

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 3:43pm

227. I know i really irritate you twerps, and I'm gleeful over, for you are part of the problem. Have a great day loseres, I sure will....Hahahahahaahahahaha!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 3:44pm

228. Well Barry I live in Minnesota and i live around both my mother and mother-in-law. they survive because oif Medicare and Soc. Security. The media I just spoke about is scaring them to death. You sound like it will be years until you are older. Guess what these people felt like when their investments went south. They pissed on themselves and we rewarded the crooks who caused the collapse. The problem is not liberals dumbed down it is conservatives who are the dummies. Any group that watches Glenn Beck should lose their right to debate for a while. That guy is a fear mongering fraud. You think you should get a blue star for paying taxes like I do. I will clap my hands for you because you are a real American.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 3:46pm

229. Exactly, and was still considered a conservative! Mask, don't forget 20 million plus new jobs created! Obama will have negative job creation at the end of his only term! Obama and Carter= miserble failures! Clinton, not so bad, I actually kinda miss the lying, narcissistic-sociopath, when we have and downright evil racist as pres. now!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 3:48pm

230. Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     have you seen Beck tearing up, crying maudlin tears? makes me wanna puke.

     as his advertisers flee, perhaps they'll throw him back under the rock from which he crawled.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 3:49pm

231. "Exactly, and was still considered a conservative! Mask, don't forget 20 million plus new jobs created!"---Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 3:48pm

     So you can raise taxes and increase the size of Government and still be considered a conservative?

     Weird.

     Posted by Mask at 08/18/2009 @ 3:52pm

232. I was hoping you lived near Dearborn, Mi. the land of the religion of peace where preaching christianity (in the us) is a crime. Hopefully, you and all other libs will be the first victims of the jihad coming your way in the futrue from that area and "the religion of peace", because, like i've stated numerous times, "those that defend, enable and empower our enemies (radical islamic terrorists) should become the first victims of the crimes of those they support". That would include you! Furthermore, I'm not against a rational social safety net, but I am against the gov't RUNNING anything, due to their historical failures in running almost everything. You see, dumshit, gov't has ABSOLUTE power, which results in NO FREEDOMS, the private sector, as long as competition exists, can make you do nothing. How stupid does one have to be to critcize and villianize corporate america/private business, and then entrust man with "absolute power" by handing everything over to bureaucrats? I mean really, are you a fan of Stalin, Mao, Hitler etc? How stupid are you?

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 3:57pm

233. Um, message to moron, Hollywood (movies), is more than just "movies" you moronic jackass, they also make TV shows! Do you know what TV SHOWS are, little jonny? Do you know that movies can be watched daily on tv, FOR FREE, little jonny? Did you know that carttons carry liberal messages to the masses too, little jonny? Do you know how to read, little jonny? Did you read the part about the MSM/the music industry/ and an Academia that is funded with taxpayer subsidies? Did you miss that part, you moron? And you think little ol' am radio reaches anywhere NEAR the people those previously named entities of propaganda do? You are hereby certified to be the "idiotic moron of the day"! What a dumbass, foolish, embarrassment to your mother you are. Unless you start being rational, I'm gonna have to stop wasting my time educating your pathetic ass!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:05pm

234. Well Barry you can think of something else can't you. You didn't really get a book out and read about Ron did you. The front man was the inspiration for the book "puppet on a chain". Was he really the man who opened the hispanic door with his" hire don't tell program." You now are crying the blues about all of the hispanics who live in your state. The business owners in your state are to blame. Ron was standing tall with them.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 4:07pm

235. whatizz

     I suspect Bush one was running the country during the Reagan years, like Cheney ran his son.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 4:10pm

236. I switched computers to see if that would eliminate my triple post problem. It didn't. It appears to be a quirk of the network I'm on. Can't make it go away, so I'll just stop cluttering up the place. But one last thing.

     Communism is defined as common ownership of the means of production, presumably to create an egalitarian society. Fascism, on the other hand, has significant control for promotion of the state. So, this statement is false. --------------------------------------

     No, it is not false because none of the communist states that ever existed had "common ownership" of the means of production. "The People" did not own or direct anything in them. They had no decision-making power. A small group of unelected men or even one man ran everything. And they NEVER answered to The People. They never consulted The People. There were never California-style ballot initiatives in those countries. There was no free press. No real elections. No other political parties. No televised debates. No loyal opposition. The State was everything. You could be arrested or shot just for trying to walk across the border to start a new life. In Soviet elementary schools, the librarian picked out the books she thought you should be reading. Egalitarianism never entered into it, except as an "opiate to the masses" to replace religion.

     The Soviets and everybody else who adopted that was just as fascist as you please.

     And you seem to want to reduce fascism to a mere economic system. It is more than that. It is an ethos. An ideology. A belief that the State can and should "organize" the lives of the masses along a common theme. It can be a jack-booted theme, or a theme with a big smiley face on it, but it is still fascism all the same.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 4:13pm

237. I switched computers to see if that would eliminate my triple post problem. It didn't. It appears to be a quirk of the network I'm on. Can't make it go away, so I'll just stop cluttering up the place. But one last thing.

     Communism is defined as common ownership of the means of production, presumably to create an egalitarian society. Fascism, on the other hand, has significant control for promotion of the state. So, this statement is false. --------------------------------------

     No, it is not false because none of the communist states that ever existed had "common ownership" of the means of production. "The People" did not own or direct anything in them. They had no decision-making power. A small group of unelected men or even one man ran everything. And they NEVER answered to The People. They never consulted The People. There were never California-style ballot initiatives in those countries. There was no free press. No real elections. No other political parties. No televised debates. No loyal opposition. The State was everything. You could be arrested or shot just for trying to walk across the border to start a new life. In Soviet elementary schools, the librarian picked out the books she thought you should be reading. Egalitarianism never entered into it, except as an "opiate to the masses" to replace religion.

     The Soviets and everybody else who adopted that was just as fascist as you please.

     And you seem to want to reduce fascism to a mere economic system. It is more than that. It is an ethos. An ideology. A belief that the State can and should "organize" the lives of the masses along a common theme. It can be a jack-booted theme, or a theme with a big smiley face on it, but it is still fascism all the same.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 4:13pm

238. I switched computers to see if that would eliminate my triple post problem. It didn't. It appears to be a quirk of the network I'm on. Can't make it go away, so I'll just stop cluttering up the place. But one last thing.

     Communism is defined as common ownership of the means of production, presumably to create an egalitarian society. Fascism, on the other hand, has significant control for promotion of the state. So, this statement is false. --------------------------------------

     No, it is not false because none of the communist states that ever existed had "common ownership" of the means of production. "The People" did not own or direct anything in them. They had no decision-making power. A small group of unelected men or even one man ran everything. And they NEVER answered to The People. They never consulted The People. There were never California-style ballot initiatives in those countries. There was no free press. No real elections. No other political parties. No televised debates. No loyal opposition. The State was everything. You could be arrested or shot just for trying to walk across the border to start a new life. In Soviet elementary schools, the librarian picked out the books she thought you should be reading. Egalitarianism never entered into it, except as an "opiate to the masses" to replace religion.

     The Soviets and everybody else who adopted that was just as fascist as you please.

     And you seem to want to reduce fascism to a mere economic system. It is more than that. It is an ethos. An ideology. A belief that the State can and should "organize" the lives of the masses along a common theme. It can be a jack-booted theme, or a theme with a big smiley face on it, but it is still fascism all the same.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 4:13pm

239. Once again, the loser liberal just flat out lies!!!! I don't have a problem with all the "hispanics" in the state, given the fact that about 30% of my close friends are HISPANIC you pathetic excuse for a turd! I do, however, have a problem with "illegal aliens" whether they are "hispanic" or not! This is exactly why "liberalism" truly IS a mental disorder. The liberal has been so dumbed down by the bumper-sticker, "play the race-card first" left to the point that if you have an issue with non-us citizens breaking our laws, stealing our services, bringing previously unseen crime levels to our cities, essentially destroying them, you have an issue with an ENTIRE race. That LAME-BRAINED idiotic thinking is embarrassing, and I am ashamed for you, and your mother especially. What a complete moron. This is what is wrong with our country. A grown adult, like this idiot whatizz, thinking, acting and living like a 5 year old, easily indoctrinated, and easily kept on the gov't nipple through bumper-sticker rhetoric and flat out LIES! Pathetic! LOL!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:20pm

240. This is exactly why there can be no rational debate. Liberals won't answer questions, and when you disagree with them on anything from big gov't to marxism to healthcare reform to taxation to obama, you get the same, predictable yet pathetic standard response of: " your just a racist"! Wow, you lib's truly give new meaning to the term: "deep thinkers". LOL!

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:26pm

241. JFK cut taxes and boosted defense (anybody remember that little issue called the "cuban missle crisis" brainiacs?) , does that make him a neo-con, my little bitch? You just keep diggin' your own hole, little jony, now isn't it time for a diaper change, sonny boy?

     Posted by barry25 at 08/18/2009 @ 4:30pm

242. I think the only one concerned with race in this conversation is you. I can't help it that there are illegals running wild in California. You seem freaked out by them. Meanwhile you say nothing and think about illegal aliens a lot . Really you schmo, why did they come to California? Were they looking for work? I guess they must have found work. Who hired them,YOU? The point is Mr. Dense people don't keep coming to an area to sit on their hands. You know , like eating now and then. I worked for a meat company you ass and i have many hispanic friends also. On to other things you know enough about to bring up. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the continuation of a long policy of Containment of Communism. You remember this now don't you. Here is the continuation "pin man",George ,Dick, and their pals borrowed from Communist China to finance the Iraq war. It looks like the"Commies" are beating us at our own game. You know whats worse is this ,your father would spin in his grave if he knew we were sponsoring China by buying all our goods from them.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 5:05pm

243. What barely25, Liver and Ziticin-Carrion are doing here is what the repubs are doing with the townhalls, the MSM, it's beyond astroturfing, it's carpet bombing their bullshit to drown out real dialog and the concerns of those in real need.

     Most think that greed trumps need if the MSM bends over and takes it like a greedy little whore.

     Not so with Beck.

     Which then begs the question-- is Obama just waiting for the lunatic right to go too far too?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2009 @ 6:04pm

244. I don't understand what exactly about single-payer health care or a public option has the right-wing and neo-cons so worked up. Once those 50,000,000 uninsured people, and many more, are free from the bonds of corporate employment sponsored private insurance entrepreneurial activity will explode like wild fire. The reason we are stagnating is that people can't afford to take any risks, the primary motivator is that they will incur lapses in their coverage while starting new businesses. They are being cowed into submission by the fear of hurting their families, rather than elevating their situation. You have to let go of the idea that community supported health care is "socialism". If that is true then we are already socialists in 100 different way, ways that people will refuse to give up like roads, fire, and police protection. The people who tell you it's socialism are paid entertainers making hundreds of millions of dollars because their banter attracts ratings. Think hard about what is important. Right now you're fighting for a tiny number of elitists who think of you as cattle regardless of your political position. Don't be a pawn. Think about what will make Americans strong. If private health insurance was working to lower costs, there wouldn't be a problem. They had their chance, now it's time to do it the right way.

     Posted by Milhaus at 08/18/2009 @ 6:21pm

245. barry25:

     I actually like the progressives here. They are simply wrong about a lot of stuff. Why don't you spend a little time over at Daily Kos or Eschaton. Your writing style seems more attuned to theirs. More vibrant, edgy, perhaps young and urban. You'll enjoy feedback that is not as polite and reasoned as it is here.

     [This comment reflects the opinion of the author. It is neither a confirmation nor a denial of any particular position. Mask's approval, disapproval, or in between was neither offered nor solicited. No writers of The Nation were harmed during the writing of this post. All rights reserved. Copyright 2009]

     Posted by sntauri at 08/18/2009 @ 6:23pm

246. Posted by Milhaus at 08/18/2009 @ 6:21pm

     The difference is that medical care is a service, not a right. Our constitution requires that the people be secure against invaders and any other threat to the national security. it is required to ensure that the republic of states known as the US ensure the freedom of movement of persons, goods, and services among the various states.

     The constitution empowers the states individually to provide police, fire, and other safety protection of their persons and property.

     One of the ways that we guard against socialism or other totalitarian govts is by our constitution being formed to limit the power of govt and then divide the power among the states. this ensures that we don't have an all powerful central govt. It is essential in maintaining our liberty which remains unique in the world.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 7:15pm

247. Posted by sntauri at 08/18/2009 @ 6:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     humor is not your line. don't quit your day job, as we say in show business

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 7:39pm

248. humor is not your line. don't quit your day job, as we say in show business

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 7:39pm

     That's ok, I quit my day job 7 years ago.

     As I said, the progressives here are ok. You're particularly cranky, but I just can't help but like you. Must be the dry wit.

     Posted by sntauri at 08/18/2009 @ 8:08pm

249. Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 7:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     That is a highly extrapolated argument about what the constitution allows, for someone claiming that the protection of life in America excludes the right to health care. You know for a fact that you're stuffing words into those articles. It's to easy, so I'll move on. The patriot act is totalitarianism, btw. If you don't understand that, you don't have an inkling of the historical facts which led to our present, so don't even bother trying. Pooling any resources at all is socialism. If you drive on a public roadway, you are a socialist. You know the rest. Businesses rely on what you call socialism in order to exist at all. If you had your way the U.S. would be nothing but a bunch of illiterate mud farmers because no one would have school houses. Your position is loaded down with hypocrisy and childish naivete. I know it's impossible for you to understand, but most people care their neighbors' well being.

     Posted by Milhaus at 08/18/2009 @ 8:16pm

250. Howard Dean in 2012! Let's have a President with guts to stand up for the people.

     Posted by Citizen54 at 08/18/2009 @ 8:23pm

251. but I just can't help but like you. Must be the dry wit. Posted by sntauri at 08/18/2009 @ 8:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     flattery will get you everywhere.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/18/2009 @ 8:41pm

252. snat what do you know. Barry is just a punk I hope you ncan at least write a sentence or two.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/18/2009 @ 10:17pm

253. Posted by Milhaus at 08/18/2009 @ 8:16pm

     go get some real education instead of the marxists who trained you.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/18/2009 @ 11:38pm

254. antis, Do you know what a real education is. How about Marxism, what is it besides a term. Have you actually met a Marxist? I don't think you are old enough. Maybe you ran into a Chinese trade delegation. Oh wait ,they were Maoists. I will concede the fact you read a book and watched three documentaries.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/19/2009 @ 05:48am

255. hsuBfools at 08/17/2009 @ 11:25pm said:

     >>> Are these Hugo's polls? Looks pretty even so far.<<<

     Are they even?

     Obama won by a landslide last November. Bush, won by a hair.

     But after half a year Obama is on all fours with Bush. What does that tell you? The country is changing its mind about this president. Most of the country wants no part of his medical insurance program.

     Eyal Press however, argues that the administration should use its strength in the Congress to pass the bill it wants, even if the country does not want it, because the Administration was so popular before it showed its colors.

     How honest is that? How respectful of the people and of democracy?

     And it may happen. Because the Left, though it considers itself the party of the people and feels for the masses, champions the masses, actually considers them dumb. They are not really smart enough to know their own interests and to govern themselves.

     That was Leninism and that is still how the Left feels in its heart. Which is why all those People's Democratic Republics were not republics, were not democratic and were not run by the people, but by apparatchiks who felt virtuous and smart enough to know best what the people needed. Such a paragon is your Eyel Press.

     Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/19/2009 @ 07:27am

256. hsuBfoos wrote: "What barely25, Liver and Ziticin-Carrion are doing here is what the repubs are doing with the townhalls, the MSM, it's beyond astroturfing, it's carpet bombing their bullshit to drown out real dialog and the concerns of those in real need." -----------------------------------

     Actually, I came here because I wanted to discuss this stuff with people I do not necessarily agree with. You'll notice that I've not been snarky or overly sarcastic, used foul language, or made personal attacks. Controlled-environment conservative forums are too often an echo-chamber. Just like Democratic Underground. Frankly, repeating agreed-upon maxims with people of like mind all the time gets a bit dull.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/19/2009 @ 07:54am

257. hsuBfoos wrote: "What barely25, Liver and Ziticin-Carrion are doing here is what the repubs are doing with the townhalls, the MSM, it's beyond astroturfing, it's carpet bombing their bullshit to drown out real dialog and the concerns of those in real need." -----------------------------------

     Actually, I came here because I wanted to discuss this stuff with people I do not necessarily agree with. You'll notice that I've not been snarky or overly sarcastic, used foul language, or made personal attacks. Controlled-environment conservative forums are too often an echo-chamber. Just like Democratic Underground. Frankly, repeating agreed-upon maxims with people of like mind all the time gets a bit dull.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/19/2009 @ 07:54am

258. hsuBfoos wrote: "What barely25, Liver and Ziticin-Carrion are doing here is what the repubs are doing with the townhalls, the MSM, it's beyond astroturfing, it's carpet bombing their bullshit to drown out real dialog and the concerns of those in real need." -----------------------------------

     Actually, I came here because I wanted to discuss this stuff with people I do not necessarily agree with. You'll notice that I've not been snarky or overly sarcastic, used foul language, or made personal attacks. Controlled-environment conservative forums are too often an echo-chamber. Just like Democratic Underground. Frankly, repeating agreed-upon maxims with people of like mind all the time gets a bit dull.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/19/2009 @ 07:54am

259. "Which then begs the question-- is Obama just waiting for the lunatic right to go too far too?"----Posted by hsuBfools at 08/18/2009 @ 6:04pm

     Swastikas on protest signs?....swastikas painted on vandalized signs?....ASSAULT RIFLES taken to a Presidential event in Arizona?...

     SUBBY, you might be onto something!!!!

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 08:00am

260. Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 08:00am

     Yeah, like it was way legal for airline cockpits not to have security locks too, once, until...

     Hasn't Obama already gotten more death threats than any president in history?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 11:56am

261. " McInturff is one of the most respected pollsters in Washington, and his work is often treated as straightforward and honest. But the pollsters' decision to alter the language of their August survey has raised the eyebrows of industry observers.

     Instead of asking whether people should be given a choice between a public and private plan -- as NBC/WSJ had done in its June 2009 survey -- the pollsters dropped the word "choice" and asked whether people favored or opposed creating a public plan to compete with private insurers. Whereas two months ago, 76 percent of respondents said they felt it was either extremely or quite important to have a public option, in August that number was down to 43 percent.

     "I think it's a very big deal to drop the word," said Wendell Potter, a former vice president at the insurance giant CIGNA. "This has been a strategy the industry has had for many years. They ask questions in many ways, knowing the way they are asking the questions will skew the result. Dropping the word choice is very important. It plays into some of the fears some of the people have been hearing lately, that the government would leave them without an option."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 12:09pm

262. "The debate sparked by McInturff and Hart's decision to drop the word "choice" from their survey extends well beyond questions of conflict of interests. Progressive proponents of health care reform insist that the change unfairly prejudiced the results.

     "Poll after poll shows that large majorities of Americans support reform that offers a choice of a public health insurance plan or private insurance," said Celinda Lake, the president of Lake Research Partners. "In fact, Americans strongly support having that choice rather than access to only private insurance. Choice is a key value."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 12:43pm

263. "The debate sparked by McInturff and Hart's decision to drop the word "choice" from their survey extends well beyond questions of conflict of interests. Progressive proponents of health care reform insist that the change unfairly prejudiced the results.

     "Poll after poll shows that large majorities of Americans support reform that offers a choice of a public health insurance plan or private insurance," said Celinda Lake, the president of Lake Research Partners. "In fact, Americans strongly support having that choice rather than access to only private insurance. Choice is a key value."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 12:43pm

264. Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 11:56am

     More pointedly towards the Town Hollerers, is Barney Frank not taking any "Nazi" guff from one of the nutters who showed up at his.

     Once a bully (which the screamers are...while claiming that THEY are the "bullied") is called on it....they collapse.

     But smart cons like David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer saw the danger weeks ago of the Rabid Right being unleashed...and their Masters unable to get them tied back to the tree....

     and GOP Congressional people forced into voting for a "more liberal" health care bill to distance themselves from the Fringe Right.

     Fortunately, Rush, Sean, Glenn, Levin, etc. don't care about the GOP or even stopping health care reform...but ratings. And Frothing-At-The-Mouth Types make for good ratings.

     Posted by Mask at 08/19/2009 @ 12:54pm

265. It's a Privilege, not a Right.

     Posted by william.harry13 at 08/19/2009 @ 2:52pm

266. How is it that in the entire existence of our country, we did not realize we have a right to demand everybody else pitch in and pay our medical bills? That everybody else should have to subsidize the consequences of every bad lifestyle decision an individual makes, such as smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, heavy drinking, or drug use?

     And if we have the right to demand other people give up their earnings to subsidize those choices, what other things might we demand as rights?

     Should we demand homes as well? Not crappy, Kruschev-style ant farm apartments, but real houses with yards. Is not shelter and food even more essential to life than medical care? Why aren't the rest of you people giving up some more of your paycheck to fill my grocery bags?

     I have a right to eat, don't I? And my rights should never be limited by that tired, bourgeoisie notion that I have to supply myself with the elements of those rights through my own effort and labor.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/19/2009 @ 3:15pm

267. How is it that in the entire existence of our country, we did not realize we have a right to demand everybody else pitch in and pay our medical bills? That everybody else should have to subsidize the consequences of every bad lifestyle decision an individual makes, such as smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, heavy drinking, or drug use?

     And if we have the right to demand other people give up their earnings to subsidize those choices, what other things might we demand as rights?

     Should we demand homes as well? Not crappy, Kruschev-style ant farm apartments, but real houses with yards. Is not shelter and food even more essential to life than medical care? Why aren't the rest of you people giving up some more of your paycheck to fill my grocery bags?

     I have a right to eat, don't I? And my rights should never be limited by that tired, bourgeoisie notion that I have to supply myself with the elements of those rights through my own effort and labor.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/19/2009 @ 3:16pm

268. How is it that in the entire existence of our country, we did not realize we have a right to demand everybody else pitch in and pay our medical bills? That everybody else should have to subsidize the consequences of every bad lifestyle decision an individual makes, such as smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, heavy drinking, or drug use?

     And if we have the right to demand other people give up their earnings to subsidize those choices, what other things might we demand as rights?

     Should we demand homes as well? Not crappy, Kruschev-style ant farm apartments, but real houses with yards. Is not shelter and food even more essential to life than medical care? Why aren't the rest of you people giving up some more of your paycheck to fill my grocery bags?

     I have a right to eat, don't I? And my rights should never be limited by that tired, bourgeoisie notion that I have to supply myself with the elements of those rights through my own effort and labor.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/19/2009 @ 3:16pm

269. And you seem to want to reduce fascism to a mere economic system. It is more than that. It is an ethos. An ideology. A belief that the State can and should "organize" the lives of the masses along a common theme. It can be a jack-booted theme, or a theme with a big smiley face on it, but it is still fascism all the same.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 4:13pm

     Frankly, repeating agreed-upon maxims with people of like mind all the time gets a bit dull.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/19/2009 @ 07:54am

     So maybe you just like anarchy instead of a democratically elected government "organized" to function as a nation? The whole "we the people in order to form a better union... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - thing is just a lot of "dull" fascism to you?

     BS doesn't necessarily have to be snarky, foul or plain stupid, just so so very wrong qualitatively and so so very spacious quantitatively.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 3:26pm

270. Taking my argument and equating it to anarchy is reductio ad absurdum. I was merely stating that fascism is not some simple "government gets in bed with the corporations" formula. Fascism is when a dictator or small group of elitists uses the coercive power of government to infiltrate and organize the lives of individuals.

     For example, one of these concepts is more in the direction of fascism than the other.

     One. Parents receive a voucher representing the money they've paid for school taxes which allows them to send their child to a school of their own choice. It might be a religious school, or secular. Private, charter, whatever. It's their money, so it's their choice. They could even homeschool if they desire.

     Two. Parents get no voucher. If they want their kids to go to a private school, they have to pay for it themselves while continuing to pay for the public schools their kids aren't attending. Vouchers are not available because local government, under pressure from teacher's unions, would prefer kids continue to go to government-run schools with government and union-approved curricula.

     Of the two, which one leans more toward fascism? A small group attempting to "organize" the larger body of people?

     And which of the two more bespeaks of individual liberty?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/19/2009 @ 3:43pm

271. Taking my argument and equating it to anarchy is reductio ad absurdum. I was merely stating that fascism is not some simple "government gets in bed with the corporations" formula. Fascism is when a dictator or small group of elitists uses the coercive power of government to infiltrate and organize the lives of individuals.

     For example, one of these concepts is more in the direction of fascism than the other.

     One. Parents receive a voucher representing the money they've paid for school taxes which allows them to send their child to a school of their own choice. It might be a religious school, or secular. Private, charter, whatever. It's their money, so it's their choice. They could even homeschool if they desire.

     Two. Parents get no voucher. If they want their kids to go to a private school, they have to pay for it themselves while continuing to pay for the public schools their kids aren't attending. Vouchers are not available because local government, under pressure from teacher's unions, would prefer kids continue to go to government-run schools with government and union-approved curricula.

     Of the two, which one leans more toward fascism? A small group attempting to "organize" the larger body of people?

     And which of the two more bespeaks of individual liberty?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/19/2009 @ 3:43pm

272. Taking my argument and equating it to anarchy is reductio ad absurdum. I was merely stating that fascism is not some simple "government gets in bed with the corporations" formula. Fascism is when a dictator or small group of elitists uses the coercive power of government to infiltrate and organize the lives of individuals.

     For example, one of these concepts is more in the direction of fascism than the other.

     One. Parents receive a voucher representing the money they've paid for school taxes which allows them to send their child to a school of their own choice. It might be a religious school, or secular. Private, charter, whatever. It's their money, so it's their choice. They could even homeschool if they desire.

     Two. Parents get no voucher. If they want their kids to go to a private school, they have to pay for it themselves while continuing to pay for the public schools their kids aren't attending. Vouchers are not available because local government, under pressure from teacher's unions, would prefer kids continue to go to government-run schools with government and union-approved curricula.

     Of the two, which one leans more toward fascism? A small group attempting to "organize" the larger body of people?

     And which of the two more bespeaks of individual liberty?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/19/2009 @ 3:43pm

273. Hey citdropper, Why do you feel insurance companies have the arbitrary right to raise their rates all based upon executive compensation. I won't waste my time on people you feel are worthless"it seems like most people". I just wonder how we as a nation can pay twice the amount of money as any other country on health care and be ranked #34 in the world in overall quality. What do you do for a living ? Maybe a political consultant that convinces people to vote against their interests perhaps? Can't be a political theorist because the theories don't hold up. An elitist perhaps, maybe has wealth from an inheritance so that makes him feel smart. Doesn't like common folk because they made fun of him years ago.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/19/2009 @ 4:15pm

274. 3X - Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/19/2009 @ 3:43pm (speaking of compensational issues)

     Wrong on so many levels. Your definition and example are simply inanity for inanity sake.

     First of all, your underlying premise can apply to any organization be it a nation, state, company or congregation that have expenses which pool funds; an open ended porous contour of convenience. And one those of your ilk can then feel justified to place on anyone McCarthy-like. Hey Obama you scare us-- have a swastikas and Hitler mustache! Talk about ones fear leading to feelings of inadequacy and a need for compensation-- add a gun to your wardrobe why don't you... IT'S FREEDOM! Hah, scaredy cats.

     Secondly, your comparison example is way weak. Roads for instance aren't driven on by everyone equally or at all by some, yet everyone that can-- pay their taxes. Some pay more for their car(s) others less; same road. Schools and healthcare and roads, are a few shared needs that effect everyone. The need for a nation to function as a whole does require shared funding to benefit all.

     Stop whining. Why do you hate the USA?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/19/2009 @ 4:37pm

275. Obama has been making these sellout-statements for months, and it never meant anything. Two months ago Obama sent Rahm Emanuel out to say that he wasn't committed anymore to the Public Option.

     WE ARE GONNA WIN!!!!!

     DOWN WITH BI-PARTISANSHIP!!!!!

     F--- Conservatives, Double-F--- Moderate Wimps!!!!

     Posted by DPGrassley at 08/19/2009 @ 4:50pm

276. Chuck-Jr.-win what a free haircut? Think clearly and make real statements. What I have seen is a chorus of people all having their chance to comment. Every comment is from a different section of the building. I don't believe in head fakes. I believe in consistency,where has Rahm been? Control all the talkers and have one message.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/19/2009 @ 5:15pm

277. Assuming your comment was addressed to me, hey, I could be dis-honest, I could say that we won't win, I could lie, then maybe you might be happy - but I won't do that - you see I believe in telling the truth - we ARE gonna win, we ARE gonna get the public option. That's not positive thinking thats just the facts. Pessimism is a good thing - I love pessimism - but even being pessimistic I would still have to tell the truth. We are gonna win. There will never be an individual mandate without a public option - the mandate is a crown jewel and it isnt free, its going to cost them. Pull your TV apart and dismantle CNN. Ignore the odds - call your Senators some more - we are gonna win.

     Posted by DPGrassley at 08/19/2009 @ 6:04pm

278. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/19/2009 @ 3:16pm

     Your school voucher example of "fascism" is just another example of how you don't understand the term. If anything, public education is an example of socialism. Further, trying to reduce communism as experienced in the Soviet Union or China to the fascism of Italy or Germany shows you don't have a good grasp of the concepts of communism or fascism (or likely socialism, liberalism or other modern political philosophies).

     At base, it appears that you have a naive belief in libertarianism and confuse the classical liberalism of the Founding Fathers with it. The whole point of creating the Constitution and the associated federalism is a rejection of the libertarian world you imagine.

     As for your triple posts, I suspect it's a browser problem. Try another.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/19/2009 @ 11:35pm

279. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/19/2009 @ 3:15pm

     I would suggest checking out the following link.

     http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

     Bascially, you could make the kinds of arguments you are making regarding any new technology. Who says everyone should have access to railroads, the telegraph, electricity, potable water, sewage systems, highways, computers, the Internet, etc.? Medicine is a new technology and is no different than getting potable water in cities or any of the examples above. So, in short, you need to come up with better arguments.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/19/2009 @ 11:40pm

280. "Your school voucher example of 'fascism' is just another example of how you don't understand the term. If anything, public education is an example of socialism."

     Fascism and socialism are not mutually exclusive terms. For example, remember that "socialism" was the main ingredient of National Socialism. The fascist movements of the 1920s and 30s were all left wing, socialist movements. Even this publicataion had nice things to say about them in the 1930s.

     Another example. Had Hillary's book "Tt Takes a Village" instead been written in 1936 by the head of the Hitler Youth, none of us would've thought it was out of character for a fascist to write a book with the premise government and "society" needs to assume more of the roles traditionally taken by parents.

     And I do not "hate" America. I am talking about the difference between government that is responsive to The People and government that expects The People to be responsive to it. For example, were great masses of people beating on the doors of Congress demanding Cap and Trade? Or ending secret ballots for unionization votes? Or toilet bowl water useage mandates?

     No, the people were not clamoring for it. Did not ask for these things. On a number line of politics running from liberty to totalitarianism, government that conducts itself that way is not trending towards responsive, representative government.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 06:54am

281. "Your school voucher example of 'fascism' is just another example of how you don't understand the term. If anything, public education is an example of socialism."

     Fascism and socialism are not mutually exclusive terms. For example, remember that "socialism" was the main ingredient of National Socialism. The fascist movements of the 1920s and 30s were all left wing, socialist movements. Even this publicataion had nice things to say about them in the 1930s.

     Another example. Had Hillary's book "Tt Takes a Village" instead been written in 1936 by the head of the Hitler Youth, none of us would've thought it was out of character for a fascist to write a book with the premise government and "society" needs to assume more of the roles traditionally taken by parents.

     And I do not "hate" America. I am talking about the difference between government that is responsive to The People and government that expects The People to be responsive to it. For example, were great masses of people beating on the doors of Congress demanding Cap and Trade? Or ending secret ballots for unionization votes? Or toilet bowl water useage mandates?

     No, the people were not clamoring for it. Did not ask for these things. On a number line of politics running from liberty to totalitarianism, government that conducts itself that way is not trending towards responsive, representative government.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 06:54am

282. "Your school voucher example of 'fascism' is just another example of how you don't understand the term. If anything, public education is an example of socialism."

     Fascism and socialism are not mutually exclusive terms. For example, remember that "socialism" was the main ingredient of National Socialism. The fascist movements of the 1920s and 30s were all left wing, socialist movements. Even this publicataion had nice things to say about them in the 1930s.

     Another example. Had Hillary's book "Tt Takes a Village" instead been written in 1936 by the head of the Hitler Youth, none of us would've thought it was out of character for a fascist to write a book with the premise government and "society" needs to assume more of the roles traditionally taken by parents.

     And I do not "hate" America. I am talking about the difference between government that is responsive to The People and government that expects The People to be responsive to it. For example, were great masses of people beating on the doors of Congress demanding Cap and Trade? Or ending secret ballots for unionization votes? Or toilet bowl water useage mandates?

     No, the people were not clamoring for it. Did not ask for these things. On a number line of politics running from liberty to totalitarianism, government that conducts itself that way is not trending towards responsive, representative government.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 06:54am

283. Citizen,

     Should we get "road vouchers" for people to decide which roads they want to drive on?

     How about "war vouchers"....only pay for wars that you want to support?

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 08:08am

284. Citi zen - you're still being very confused and redefining easily understood terms and their meanings and their process as used.

     We elect our officials/representatives to create our laws. And we hire police to carry them out. To protect and serve, means us and the laws we initiated a la our system of government.

     Your logic would make as a whole the process of law creation and application themselves fascism!

     Is it simply that you hate the USA because you're too simplistic or an idiot? If you are purposely idiotic in order to hate the USA, there's an argument to be made that are you really a terrorist!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 08:10am

285. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 06:54am

     "Fascism and socialism are not mutually exclusive terms."

     Hitler has a quote conservatives like to quote: "Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

     In the context of the educational system, you could have argued that socialized education contributes to socializing human beings in the best traditions of fascism. If you had done that, you would have been right and shown you understand what fascism is and its relationship with socialism.

     However, you didn't do that. You talked about vouchers and paid taxes - which has no relationship to fascism. You could implement a fascist program of "socializing people" just as easily with vouchers using a national directed standards test as you could from a socialized educational system.

     Then you really jump the shark by trying to paint Hillary Clinton as especially fascist. More so than Paleoconservatives? See any fascism in this comment:

     "Today, in too many of our schools our children are being robbed of their innocence. Their minds are being poisoned against their Judeo-Christian heritage, against America's heroes and against American history, against the values of faith and family and country. Eternal truths that do not change from the Old and New Testament have been expelled from our public schools, and our children are being indoctrinated in moral relativism, and the propaganda of an anti-Western ideology." - Pat Buchanan

     Isn't Pat arguing for a program for education that smells much more of fascism that Hillary's Village?

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 08:08am

     I like this line of thought.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/20/2009 @ 09:15am

286. Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 08:08am

     I like this line of thought.----Posted by srjenkins at 08/20/2009 @ 09:15am

     Why not? Given Citizen's desire for "freedom" and "choice"....I'm sure he'll support "war vochers". If we support the war, we "sign them over" to the Pentagon. If we don't, we get to keep the money and save it for a war we DO support.

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 09:58am

287. Actually I proposed something along these lines back when it was fashionable to declare people "chickenhawks" for supporting the war, but not joining the military to fight it.

     What I proposed was that anti-war protestors make a gesture equivalent to "joining the military" in order to demonstrate their true committment.

     In effect, stop paying taxes. Send the IRS a letter saying you will not fund an illegal war. Enough people do it, there won't be enough jails to hold them all. And you get to demonstrate your committment to your cause in the same manner you derided "chickenhawks" for not showing theirs. I had no takers that I'm aware of. I don't think even Cindy Sheehan stopped paying her taxes.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:29am

288. Actually I proposed something along these lines back when it was fashionable to declare people "chickenhawks" for supporting the war, but not joining the military to fight it.

     What I proposed was that anti-war protestors make a gesture equivalent to "joining the military" in order to demonstrate their true committment.

     In effect, stop paying taxes. Send the IRS a letter saying you will not fund an illegal war. Enough people do it, there won't be enough jails to hold them all. And you get to demonstrate your committment to your cause in the same manner you derided "chickenhawks" for not showing theirs. I had no takers that I'm aware of. I don't think even Cindy Sheehan stopped paying her taxes.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:29am

289. Actually I proposed something along these lines back when it was fashionable to declare people "chickenhawks" for supporting the war, but not joining the military to fight it.

     What I proposed was that anti-war protestors make a gesture equivalent to "joining the military" in order to demonstrate their true committment.

     In effect, stop paying taxes. Send the IRS a letter saying you will not fund an illegal war. Enough people do it, there won't be enough jails to hold them all. And you get to demonstrate your committment to your cause in the same manner you derided "chickenhawks" for not showing theirs. I had no takers that I'm aware of. I don't think even Cindy Sheehan stopped paying her taxes.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:29am

290. Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 09:58am

     A repub dream come true, never paying for the common welfare our nation provides them too.

     The thing is though how far are they willing to go with their little twists of logic in order to produce their climatic conclusion to it, a Timothy McVeigh?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 10:30am

291. In effect, stop paying taxes.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:29am

     Wow he answered my question a minute before I asked!

     Yep, that would also effectively bomb our nation. And then blame the liberals for doing it for icing on the cake!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 10:37am

292. "Your logic would make as a whole the process of law creation and application themselves fascism!"

     No, I have not argued for the abolition of government or the creation of laws. I am talking about the difference between a government that is responsive to us versus a government that expects us to respond to them.

     Another example? The difference between the tax cuts of Reagan or Bush and that of the tax cuts or rebates under this administration.

     Reagan/Bush tax cuts were reductions in the rate of taxation with no or very few strings attached. The government takes less of your money, you do with it what you want. Conversely, the tax cuts or rebates under this administration serve to "reward" or "encourage" certain behaviors approved by the State. Trading in an older car to buy a newer one, putting a metal roof on your house, buying a tankless water heater, and other things. In effect, it is "demand-side" economics. Government creates a demand using coercion that the market itself, or consumer preference, would not have created itself. It creates an artificial demand.

     Sure, it is "smiley face fascism", but there is no escaping the fact it is a small group applying it's political ideology to socially engineer the larger majority. This country, this government, was not founded in order that a small group should impose it's worldview on the majority through the coercive power of government. It was founded to respond to the will of the People, not to treat them like Pavlovian dogs in some "carrot and stick" deal.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:40am

293. "Your logic would make as a whole the process of law creation and application themselves fascism!"

     No, I have not argued for the abolition of government or the creation of laws. I am talking about the difference between a government that is responsive to us versus a government that expects us to respond to them.

     Another example? The difference between the tax cuts of Reagan or Bush and that of the tax cuts or rebates under this administration.

     Reagan/Bush tax cuts were reductions in the rate of taxation with no or very few strings attached. The government takes less of your money, you do with it what you want. Conversely, the tax cuts or rebates under this administration serve to "reward" or "encourage" certain behaviors approved by the State. Trading in an older car to buy a newer one, putting a metal roof on your house, buying a tankless water heater, and other things. In effect, it is "demand-side" economics. Government creates a demand using coercion that the market itself, or consumer preference, would not have created itself. It creates an artificial demand.

     Sure, it is "smiley face fascism", but there is no escaping the fact it is a small group applying it's political ideology to socially engineer the larger majority. This country, this government, was not founded in order that a small group should impose it's worldview on the majority through the coercive power of government. It was founded to respond to the will of the People, not to treat them like Pavlovian dogs in some "carrot and stick" deal.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:40am

294. "Your logic would make as a whole the process of law creation and application themselves fascism!"

     No, I have not argued for the abolition of government or the creation of laws. I am talking about the difference between a government that is responsive to us versus a government that expects us to respond to them.

     Another example? The difference between the tax cuts of Reagan or Bush and that of the tax cuts or rebates under this administration.

     Reagan/Bush tax cuts were reductions in the rate of taxation with no or very few strings attached. The government takes less of your money, you do with it what you want. Conversely, the tax cuts or rebates under this administration serve to "reward" or "encourage" certain behaviors approved by the State. Trading in an older car to buy a newer one, putting a metal roof on your house, buying a tankless water heater, and other things. In effect, it is "demand-side" economics. Government creates a demand using coercion that the market itself, or consumer preference, would not have created itself. It creates an artificial demand.

     Sure, it is "smiley face fascism", but there is no escaping the fact it is a small group applying it's political ideology to socially engineer the larger majority. This country, this government, was not founded in order that a small group should impose it's worldview on the majority through the coercive power of government. It was founded to respond to the will of the People, not to treat them like Pavlovian dogs in some "carrot and stick" deal.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:40am

295. "In the context of the educational system, you could have argued that socialized education contributes to socializing human beings in the best traditions of fascism. If you had done that, you would have been right and shown you understand what fascism is and its relationship with socialism."

     You will note that I did write about the preference of government and unions in keeping children in public schools with government and union-approved curriculum.

     That is certainly what I was alluding to.

     Indeed, Hillary Clinton once argued against vouchers by saying she was concerned that parents would freely chose to send their kids to "the school of the White Supremacist". She said, "So what if the next parent comes and says, I want to send my child to the School of Jihad? I won't stand for it."

     Those are direct quotes. Hillary saying the power of the State should have precedence over the choice of parents for their own children because she might not approve of where the kids are sent. Her hyperbolic, extremist "examples" of schools notwithstanding, the fact remains she was making the same argument any German or Italian fascist would've made in the 1930s against any form of education that was not "state approved".

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:49am

296. "In the context of the educational system, you could have argued that socialized education contributes to socializing human beings in the best traditions of fascism. If you had done that, you would have been right and shown you understand what fascism is and its relationship with socialism."

     You will note that I did write about the preference of government and unions in keeping children in public schools with government and union-approved curriculum.

     That is certainly what I was alluding to.

     Indeed, Hillary Clinton once argued against vouchers by saying she was concerned that parents would freely chose to send their kids to "the school of the White Supremacist". She said, "So what if the next parent comes and says, I want to send my child to the School of Jihad? I won't stand for it."

     Those are direct quotes. Hillary saying the power of the State should have precedence over the choice of parents for their own children because she might not approve of where the kids are sent. Her hyperbolic, extremist "examples" of schools notwithstanding, the fact remains she was making the same argument any German or Italian fascist would've made in the 1930s against any form of education that was not "state approved".

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:49am

297. "In the context of the educational system, you could have argued that socialized education contributes to socializing human beings in the best traditions of fascism. If you had done that, you would have been right and shown you understand what fascism is and its relationship with socialism."

     You will note that I did write about the preference of government and unions in keeping children in public schools with government and union-approved curriculum.

     That is certainly what I was alluding to.

     Indeed, Hillary Clinton once argued against vouchers by saying she was concerned that parents would freely chose to send their kids to "the school of the White Supremacist". She said, "So what if the next parent comes and says, I want to send my child to the School of Jihad? I won't stand for it."

     Those are direct quotes. Hillary saying the power of the State should have precedence over the choice of parents for their own children because she might not approve of where the kids are sent. Her hyperbolic, extremist "examples" of schools notwithstanding, the fact remains she was making the same argument any German or Italian fascist would've made in the 1930s against any form of education that was not "state approved".

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:49am

298. "Yep, that would also effectively bomb our nation. And then blame the liberals for doing it for icing on the cake!"

     Actually, it would've been the most effective anti-war statement made en masse in the entire history of this country, short of recalling and/or impeaching public officials.

     And I certainly would not let the fact people I disagree with would "blame" me stop me from exercising my convictions. If liberals were afraid of "owning" defeat in Iraq, they would not have positioned themselves as defeat's loudest cheerleaders.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:54am

299. "Yep, that would also effectively bomb our nation. And then blame the liberals for doing it for icing on the cake!"

     Actually, it would've been the most effective anti-war statement made en masse in the entire history of this country, short of recalling and/or impeaching public officials.

     And I certainly would not let the fact people I disagree with would "blame" me stop me from exercising my convictions. If liberals were afraid of "owning" defeat in Iraq, they would not have positioned themselves as defeat's loudest cheerleaders.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:54am

300. "Yep, that would also effectively bomb our nation. And then blame the liberals for doing it for icing on the cake!"

     Actually, it would've been the most effective anti-war statement made en masse in the entire history of this country, short of recalling and/or impeaching public officials.

     And I certainly would not let the fact people I disagree with would "blame" me stop me from exercising my convictions. If liberals were afraid of "owning" defeat in Iraq, they would not have positioned themselves as defeat's loudest cheerleaders.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:54am

301. "A repub dream come true, never paying for the common welfare our nation provides them too.

     The thing is though how far are they willing to go with their little twists of logic in order to produce their climatic conclusion to it, a Timothy McVeigh?" ------------------------

     Or a Weather Underground? Or a Symbionese Liberation Army? Come off it.

     And why the assumption that I want to place us on the slippery slope towards a "climactic conclusion"? I actually like America exactly as it is, for the most part. I would tweak it here and there, but if it were to stay exactly the same as it is now for the rest of my life, I would consider myself a most fortunate, lucky, and grateful man.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 11:03am

302. "A repub dream come true, never paying for the common welfare our nation provides them too.

     The thing is though how far are they willing to go with their little twists of logic in order to produce their climatic conclusion to it, a Timothy McVeigh?" ------------------------

     Or a Weather Underground? Or a Symbionese Liberation Army? Come off it.

     And why the assumption that I want to place us on the slippery slope towards a "climactic conclusion"? I actually like America exactly as it is, for the most part. I would tweak it here and there, but if it were to stay exactly the same as it is now for the rest of my life, I would consider myself a most fortunate, lucky, and grateful man.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 11:03am

303. "A repub dream come true, never paying for the common welfare our nation provides them too.

     The thing is though how far are they willing to go with their little twists of logic in order to produce their climatic conclusion to it, a Timothy McVeigh?" ------------------------

     Or a Weather Underground? Or a Symbionese Liberation Army? Come off it.

     And why the assumption that I want to place us on the slippery slope towards a "climactic conclusion"? I actually like America exactly as it is, for the most part. I would tweak it here and there, but if it were to stay exactly the same as it is now for the rest of my life, I would consider myself a most fortunate, lucky, and grateful man.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 11:03am

304. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:29am

     Not a novel idea. War Resisters League has a book on it. The easiest way to do this and not go to jail is to make little money, which plenty of people choose to do. I prefer to make money than ask why it is that it is being spent on things I don't approve of and why people that don't pay taxes have a say in how my money is spent.

     http://www.warresisters.org/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=2

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:29am

     "Reagan/Bush tax cuts were reductions in the rate of taxation with no or very few strings attached."

     Perhaps you missed the doubling of the deficit - both under Reagan/Bush I and Bush II. That is most certainly a string attached.

     "This country, this government, was not founded in order that a small group should impose it's worldview on the majority through the coercive power of government. "

     Perhaps you should do a little reading of books by Charles A. Beard.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:49am

     What about a school started by the National Association of Man/Boy Love? Do you want to argue that you want to provide school vouchers for Madrasah advocating the violent overthrow of the US government and the establishment of an Islamic theocracy? Really? This is a disingenuous argument where you pretend there aren't limits on state support for education and that any limit amounts to fascism. That's weak.

     I think we can draw reasonable lines that give a lot of leeway for people to educate their children as they see fit, but at the same time, we can also acknowledge that certain ideas are either false (a class on Flat Earth physics) or reach a limit of what is morally/socially acceptable (schools advocating for and training people to commit acts of violence).

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/20/2009 @ 11:30am

305. In effect, stop paying taxes. Send the IRS a letter saying you will not fund an illegal war. Enough people do it, there won't be enough jails to hold them all.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:29am

     No, I have not argued for the abolition of government or the creation of laws. I am talking about the difference between a government that is responsive to us versus a government that expects us to respond to them.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:40am

     Er, the 'us' you're talking about and the real 'us' of our country, are two very different entities. Your us, is effectively just you and a few other anarchists that want to bring the USA to it's knees one way or another, rather than use our consensus created democratic political system 'to improve it for all'. But wait no, not even that, you do not want to improve it for all but to break it-- and even then in order to only benefit your own obscure inane ideology.

     Sounds just like a USA hater type attitude to me.

     Ever consider just writing science fiction books?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 12:21pm

306. hsuBfools, how does one make the journey from arguing for limited government responsive to the people to anarchist? How can one state he is largely happy with they way things are now, but would not care to take them any further towards socialism/collectivism/fascism and still be branded an anarchist. I would like to know because in your mind I have effectively made that journey. Although I have no memory of making the trip myself.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 12:36pm

307. hsuBfools, how does one make the journey from arguing for limited government responsive to the people to anarchist? How can one state he is largely happy with they way things are now, but would not care to take them any further towards socialism/collectivism/fascism and still be branded an anarchist. I would like to know because in your mind I have effectively made that journey. Although I have no memory of making the trip myself.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 12:36pm

308. hsuBfools, how does one make the journey from arguing for limited government responsive to the people to anarchist? How can one state he is largely happy with they way things are now, but would not care to take them any further towards socialism/collectivism/fascism and still be branded an anarchist. I would like to know because in your mind I have effectively made that journey. Although I have no memory of making the trip myself.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 12:36pm

309. "Today, in too many of our schools our children are being robbed of their innocence. Their minds are being poisoned against their Judeo-Christian heritage, against America's heroes and against American history, against the values of faith and family and country. Eternal truths that do not change from the Old and New Testament have been expelled from our public schools, and our children are being indoctrinated in moral relativism, and the propaganda of an anti-Western ideology." - Pat Buchanan

     Isn't Pat arguing for a program for education that smells much more of fascism that Hillary's Village?

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 08:08am

     I like this line of thought.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/20/2009 @ 09:15am

     you're both wrong. He makes no call for any programs of indoctrination. He rails against the indoctrination that is currently used in accordance with the goals of John Dewey. Dewey's plan was to indoctrinate children away from Judeo-Christian beliefs, something the NEA seems passionate about doing.

     That is why I say that all Christians and Jews should not place their children in the public education system.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 12:42pm

310. "Perhaps you missed the doubling of the deficit - both under Reagan/Bush I and Bush II. That is most certainly a string attached."

     The deficit comes from spending.

     There was nothing wrong with tax revenues following those cuts. Tax revenues during these Bush years were all above the historical average.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 12:46pm

311. "Perhaps you missed the doubling of the deficit - both under Reagan/Bush I and Bush II. That is most certainly a string attached."

     The deficit comes from spending.

     There was nothing wrong with tax revenues following those cuts. Tax revenues during these Bush years were all above the historical average.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 12:46pm

312. "Perhaps you missed the doubling of the deficit - both under Reagan/Bush I and Bush II. That is most certainly a string attached."

     The deficit comes from spending.

     There was nothing wrong with tax revenues following those cuts. Tax revenues during these Bush years were all above the historical average.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 12:46pm

313. hsuBfools, how does one make the journey from arguing for limited government responsive to the people to anarchist?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 12:36pm

     Have you been to counseling to find out?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 1:19pm

314. Big Government has always posed a bigger threat to my freedom or quality of life than any one Big Business.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/18/2009 @ 10:28am

     In effect, stop paying taxes. Send the IRS a letter saying you will not fund an illegal war. Enough people do it, there won't be enough jails to hold them all.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:29am

     This country, this government, was not founded in order that a small group should impose it's worldview on the majority through the coercive power of government.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:40am

     I actually like America exactly as it is, for the most part. I would tweak it here and there, ...

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 11:03am

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 1:49pm

315. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 10:29am

     Works the OTHER way too, doesn't it, CC?

     All you "I hate Big Gov't" types can stop paying income taxs, Medicare, and Social Security FICA....won't be "enough jails to hold you all"...and you'll return the Federal Gov't to it's "Constitutional authority"...aka the way it was before 1913?

     Oddly....you aren't.

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 2:05pm

316. That is why I say that all Christians and Jews should not place their children in the public education system.----Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 12:42pm

     Larry, didn't YOU go to public school?

     How did you escape John Dewey's nefarious plans?!??!?

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 2:06pm

317. Larry, didn't YOU go to public school?

     How did you escape John Dewey's nefarious plans?!??!?

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 2:06pm

     I went to school in Orange County CA when it was one of the most conservative places in the US. Nearly all of my teachers were conservatives at that time. And I had the benefit of parents who required me to read extensively, including reading 2 newspapers (the editorials and the sports were my favorites) every morning before school. I was also politically active at the age of 10. I was active in Scouts which was also very conservative.

     Even when I went to a public college prior to attending seminary, my biology professor as an example taught against evolution.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 2:27pm

318. Interesting in that European countries with single-payer have substantially higher rates of cancer death than the U.S.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/17/2009 @ 2:45pm

     Also just not true:

     http://tinyurl.com/lbwb6s

     http://tinyurl.com/no8g75

     http://tinyurl.com/kqmx4b

     Jus' sayin'...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 2:38pm

319. Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 2:27pm

     Wow, sounds almost exactly like my upbringing growing up in South Texas.

     SEE-- the Depleted Uranium did affect you!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 2:42pm

320. "More than three out of every four Americans feel it is important to have a "choice" between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage, according to a public opinion poll released on Thursday.

     A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June.

     But the numbers tell another story, as well.

     Earlier in the week, after pollsters for NBC dropped the word "choice" from their question on a public option, they found that only 43 percent of the public were in favor of "creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies."

     Which means that as long there's a choice-- most in the USA wish for the public option to be in healthcare reform. Take away choice and support wains. Thus the BS from repubs about 'big gov' taking everything over, pulling gma's plug, socialism, fascism,...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 3:05pm

321. How normal people see healthcare reform:

     Public Option = Uninsured Access/Shared Burden/Lower Costs

     New con repubs see it this way:

     Public Option = Assured Castration/Sheared Profits/Lower Boasts

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 3:37pm

322. hsuBfools wrote: "Have you been to counseling to find out?"

     This glib response is all you have to offer in defense of your assertion that my arguing for limited, constitutional government responsive to the people, and NOT an engine for a small group of elitists engaging in social engineering is in fact a call for anarchism?

     Or are Straw Man argumentative fallacies and glib one-liners the low hanging fruit you prefer?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 3:49pm

323. hsuBfools wrote: "Have you been to counseling to find out?"

     This glib response is all you have to offer in defense of your assertion that my arguing for limited, constitutional government responsive to the people, and NOT an engine for a small group of elitists engaging in social engineering is in fact a call for anarchism?

     Or are Straw Man argumentative fallacies and glib one-liners the low hanging fruit you prefer?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 3:49pm

324. hsuBfools wrote: "Have you been to counseling to find out?"

     This glib response is all you have to offer in defense of your assertion that my arguing for limited, constitutional government responsive to the people, and NOT an engine for a small group of elitists engaging in social engineering is in fact a call for anarchism?

     Or are Straw Man argumentative fallacies and glib one-liners the low hanging fruit you prefer?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 3:49pm

325. Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 2:27pm

     So the Vast Left-Wing John Dewey Conspiracy was staved off in Orange County in the 1950s????

     Flouridation must have not reached it yet.....but in time....it did. Muh-hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

     Posted by Mask at 08/20/2009 @ 3:56pm

326. hsuBfools wrote:

     "Also just not true:

     http://tinyurl.com/lbwb6s

     http://tinyurl.com/no8g75

     http://tinyurl.com/kqmx4b"

     Actually, your last link there shows that America has a breast cancer mortality rate of 19.2. Northern Europe, by your citation, has a 22.6 mortality rate. Your citation also shows Western Europe to have a 22.3 breast cancer mortality rate. And Australia/New Zealand with a 19.4 mortality rate. All this even though it shows America has a higher rate of incidence. If we had a higher rate of incidence, yet a poorer healthcare system, one would logically assume we would have a higher mortality rate from breast cancer. But we do not.

     And frankly, your second citation there is patently ridiculous. It is so out of date it lists two Germanies. The old federal one, and the Democratic People's Republic that was anything but democratic or republican. Did you even realize you were posting data from 1992?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 4:02pm

327. hsuBfools wrote:

     "Also just not true:

     http://tinyurl.com/lbwb6s

     http://tinyurl.com/no8g75

     http://tinyurl.com/kqmx4b"

     Actually, your last link there shows that America has a breast cancer mortality rate of 19.2. Northern Europe, by your citation, has a 22.6 mortality rate. Your citation also shows Western Europe to have a 22.3 breast cancer mortality rate. And Australia/New Zealand with a 19.4 mortality rate. All this even though it shows America has a higher rate of incidence. If we had a higher rate of incidence, yet a poorer healthcare system, one would logically assume we would have a higher mortality rate from breast cancer. But we do not.

     And frankly, your second citation there is patently ridiculous. It is so out of date it lists two Germanies. The old federal one, and the Democratic People's Republic that was anything but democratic or republican. Did you even realize you were posting data from 1992?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 4:02pm

328. hsuBfools wrote:

     "Also just not true:

     http://tinyurl.com/lbwb6s

     http://tinyurl.com/no8g75

     http://tinyurl.com/kqmx4b"

     Actually, your last link there shows that America has a breast cancer mortality rate of 19.2. Northern Europe, by your citation, has a 22.6 mortality rate. Your citation also shows Western Europe to have a 22.3 breast cancer mortality rate. And Australia/New Zealand with a 19.4 mortality rate. All this even though it shows America has a higher rate of incidence. If we had a higher rate of incidence, yet a poorer healthcare system, one would logically assume we would have a higher mortality rate from breast cancer. But we do not.

     And frankly, your second citation there is patently ridiculous. It is so out of date it lists two Germanies. The old federal one, and the Democratic People's Republic that was anything but democratic or republican. Did you even realize you were posting data from 1992?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 4:02pm

329. And even though your second citation was out of date, IT STILL doesn't prove your assertion because there are many socialized medicine countries there that have higher rates of cancer than the U.S.

     Canada, Germany, Denmark, Iceland, England, Austria, Switzerland...

     Even in 1992, they all were worse off. So exactly why did you cite that stuff to show I was wrong about European countries having higher mortality rates from cancer when all it proves is that I was right?

     hsuBfools wrote: "Public Option = Uninsured Access/Shared Burden/Lower Costs Public Option = Assured Castration/Sheared Profits/Lower Boasts"

     Actually, when I think of public option I think of the efficient, cost-effective way Medicare and Medicaid have been run. You know, those programs running at a loss and running out of money? Or Obama's allusion to how awful the Post Office is in comparison to it's public counterparts.

     When I think Public Option, I see VA hospital-level quality care. I see the same people who brought us bankrupt social security and not even the competence of running a simple program like "cash for clunkers" right.

     And ultimately, I see it driving out the private sector insurance. If I'm an employer paying my employee's healthcare privately, but will also be faced with having to pay both that AND increased taxes for a government plan my people aren't even using...well, I'm going to cut costs. If I have no choice but to pay the government tax for healthcare, but have a choice on whether or not to pay private...which do you suppose is going to get the axe? Yeah, my people are going to be shifted into the public option just out of sheer expense. The plan doesn't "force" people directly, but it is there nonetheless.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 4:14pm

330. And even though your second citation was out of date, IT STILL doesn't prove your assertion because there are many socialized medicine countries there that have higher rates of cancer than the U.S.

     Canada, Germany, Denmark, Iceland, England, Austria, Switzerland...

     Even in 1992, they all were worse off. So exactly why did you cite that stuff to show I was wrong about European countries having higher mortality rates from cancer when all it proves is that I was right?

     hsuBfools wrote: "Public Option = Uninsured Access/Shared Burden/Lower Costs Public Option = Assured Castration/Sheared Profits/Lower Boasts"

     Actually, when I think of public option I think of the efficient, cost-effective way Medicare and Medicaid have been run. You know, those programs running at a loss and running out of money? Or Obama's allusion to how awful the Post Office is in comparison to it's public counterparts.

     When I think Public Option, I see VA hospital-level quality care. I see the same people who brought us bankrupt social security and not even the competence of running a simple program like "cash for clunkers" right.

     And ultimately, I see it driving out the private sector insurance. If I'm an employer paying my employee's healthcare privately, but will also be faced with having to pay both that AND increased taxes for a government plan my people aren't even using...well, I'm going to cut costs. If I have no choice but to pay the government tax for healthcare, but have a choice on whether or not to pay private...which do you suppose is going to get the axe? Yeah, my people are going to be shifted into the public option just out of sheer expense. The plan doesn't "force" people directly, but it is there nonetheless.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 4:14pm

331. And even though your second citation was out of date, IT STILL doesn't prove your assertion because there are many socialized medicine countries there that have higher rates of cancer than the U.S.

     Canada, Germany, Denmark, Iceland, England, Austria, Switzerland...

     Even in 1992, they all were worse off. So exactly why did you cite that stuff to show I was wrong about European countries having higher mortality rates from cancer when all it proves is that I was right?

     hsuBfools wrote: "Public Option = Uninsured Access/Shared Burden/Lower Costs Public Option = Assured Castration/Sheared Profits/Lower Boasts"

     Actually, when I think of public option I think of the efficient, cost-effective way Medicare and Medicaid have been run. You know, those programs running at a loss and running out of money? Or Obama's allusion to how awful the Post Office is in comparison to it's public counterparts.

     When I think Public Option, I see VA hospital-level quality care. I see the same people who brought us bankrupt social security and not even the competence of running a simple program like "cash for clunkers" right.

     And ultimately, I see it driving out the private sector insurance. If I'm an employer paying my employee's healthcare privately, but will also be faced with having to pay both that AND increased taxes for a government plan my people aren't even using...well, I'm going to cut costs. If I have no choice but to pay the government tax for healthcare, but have a choice on whether or not to pay private...which do you suppose is going to get the axe? Yeah, my people are going to be shifted into the public option just out of sheer expense. The plan doesn't "force" people directly, but it is there nonetheless.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 4:14pm

332. We are gonna win!!! We are gonna get the public option!!! There will never be an individual mandate without a Public Option. You can pay the insurance company tens of thousands of dollars for decade after decade. I saved more than $20,000 by not having insurance for the last 10 years - that $20,000 would have went straight into the pockets of the lawyers the companies would have hired to help them deny any claims I might have made. That $20,000 wouldnt have insured me against bankruptcy. Americans are going bankrupt even with insurance - even after they paid all that money for insurance Americans are going bankrupt. 60% of American bankruptcies are medical-related and 75% of those were Americans who had so-called "insurance". Insurance companies will spend $9,900 in court to avoid spending $10,000 in claims. If an insurance company calculates that you won't be able to sue, they won't even bother paying an attorney to find a way to rip you off legally. We are gonna win. F--- Conservatives. F--- whining rich people who expect to be worshipped for supposedly working hard. MOST OF ALL, F--- MODERATES AND THEIR STUPID BI-PARTISAN B---S---!!!! MOST OF ALL, F--- MODERATES AND THEIR STUPID BI-PARTISAN B---S---!!!! we are gonna win!!!!

     Posted by DPGrassley at 08/20/2009 @ 4:40pm

333. Orange County has long been known as a Republican stronghold and has consistently sent Republican representatives to the state and federal legislatures. Republican majorities in Orange County helped deliver California's electoral votes to Republican presidential candidates Richard Nixon (1960, 1968 and 1972), Gerald Ford (1976), Ronald Reagan (1980 and 1984) and George H. W. Bush (1988). Orange County has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1936 landslide re-election for a second term. Although Democrats have made inroads in the northern end of the county since the mid-1980s, Orange County politics are still dominated by Republicans. Five of the county's six U.S. Representatives, four of its five State Senators and seven of its nine State Assembly members are Republicans, as are four of the five members of the County Board of Supervisors.

     Santa Ana has a high portion of Republican voters from culturally conservative Asian-American, Middle Eastern and Latino immigrants, many came as refugees from wars and dictatorships, are strongly loyal to policies of the Republican party to defeat communism and radical Islamic terrorism. High numbers of Vietnamese-Americans in Garden Grove and Westminster are also Republican loyalists for the party's anti-communist policies. Republican Assemblyman Van Tran was elected to become the first Vietnamese-American to serve in a state legislature and is tied with Texan Hubert Vo as the highest-ranking elected Vietnamese-American in the United States.>

     http://tinyurl.com/klosh5

     The OC Register which I read for most of my life is a libertarian newspaper.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 4:44pm

334. Posted by DPGrassley at 08/20/2009 @ 4:40pm

     Are you even old enough to vote? By your posts you appear to be in high school.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 4:46pm

335. Or are Straw Man argumentative fallacies and glib one-liners the low hanging fruit you prefer?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 3:49pm

     You accusing me of using a straw dildo is cute when that's all you've been exercising with your multiple fascism arguments.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 4:59pm

336. If we had a higher rate of incidence, yet a poorer healthcare system, one would logically assume we would have a higher mortality rate from breast cancer. But we do not.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 4:02pm

     Do you have breasts?

     The USA is ranked #9 highest cancer death rate and there are 52 European counties; that leaves 46 other European countries with a lower mortality rate than the USA. Do the math.

     Health Statistics > Death from cancer (most recent) by country

     SOURCE: OECD Health Data 2004

     #1 Netherlands: 433 deaths per 100,000 people

     #2 Italy: 418 deaths per 100,000 people

     #3 Hungary: 411 deaths per 100,000 people

     #4 Luxembourg: 409.7 deaths per 100,000 people

     #5 Slovakia: 405.3 deaths per 100,000 people

     #6 Ireland: 357.6 deaths per 100,000 people

     #7 Czech Republic: 335.4 deaths per 100,000 people

     #8 New Zealand: 327.3 deaths per 100,000 people

     #9 United States: 321.9 deaths per 100,000 people

     #11 Norway: 289.4 deaths per 100,000 people

     #12 France: 286.1 deaths per 100,000 people

     #13 Austria: 280 deaths per 100,000 people

     #14 Sweden: 268.2 deaths per 100,000 people

     #15 Finland: 255.4 deaths per 100,000 people

     #16 United Kingdom: 253.5 deaths per 100,000 people

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 5:19pm

337. http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/europe.htm

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 5:24pm

338. Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 12:42pm

     While I haven't read Dewey since college, I seem to recall his primary focus was getting students to be involved in their learning as something to be experienced rather than memorizing the ideas of others. I don't think that is terribly contraversial.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/20/2009 @ 12:46pm

     This is possibly the dumbest comment I've seen you make. A deficit is created by the following equation: revenues - expenses = surplus/deficit. It is beyond stupid to blame a doubling of the deficit that occurred after cutting revenues on the expenses. It is particularly stupid in the case of Reagan/Bush I and Bush II because of the amount they spent on proxy wars and the regular kind. Cutting taxes given such spending is irresponsible.

     Posted by srjenkins at 08/20/2009 @ 6:46pm

339. Yeah, Citi zen's big argument is that the stats for USA cancer death rate was better a long time ago...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 7:56pm

340. Healthcare in the U.S. is handled like a commodity with a profit oriented viewpoint. Healthcare is actually a utility and it should be "regulated" like one, just like water and electricity are. Using the healthcare machine is not an option, it's just a matter of time. As a healthcare professional I see it all the time, people trying to make a ton of money off of your disease. Diseases even come with prices ( ICD-9 codes) and procedures also come with prices (CPT codes).

     Posted by stilgar at 08/20/2009 @ 8:07pm

341. http://tinyurl.com/lbwb6s

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2009 @ 8:18pm

342. hsuBfools, the fact remains that you cited a graph that shows Americans have a higher rate of breast cancer than Europeans, yet a higher rate of survival than Northern and Western Europe. If we have more instances of breast cancer, yet a higher rate of survival than countries that hand out "free" healtcare...does that not illustrate something vital to the core of this argument?

     And no, I do not have breasts. Then again, neither do you...but that did not stop you from posting that graph. So what's your point? Does that mean I should only care about health problems that I might personally face? If that is what you are saying, then why do you care about socialized medicine if you think people should be focused only on themselves?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/21/2009 @ 07:58am

343. hsuBfools, the fact remains that you cited a graph that shows Americans have a higher rate of breast cancer than Europeans, yet a higher rate of survival than Northern and Western Europe. If we have more instances of breast cancer, yet a higher rate of survival than countries that hand out "free" healtcare...does that not illustrate something vital to the core of this argument?

     And no, I do not have breasts. Then again, neither do you...but that did not stop you from posting that graph. So what's your point? Does that mean I should only care about health problems that I might personally face? If that is what you are saying, then why do you care about socialized medicine if you think people should be focused only on themselves?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/21/2009 @ 07:58am

344. hsuBfools, the fact remains that you cited a graph that shows Americans have a higher rate of breast cancer than Europeans, yet a higher rate of survival than Northern and Western Europe. If we have more instances of breast cancer, yet a higher rate of survival than countries that hand out "free" healtcare...does that not illustrate something vital to the core of this argument?

     And no, I do not have breasts. Then again, neither do you...but that did not stop you from posting that graph. So what's your point? Does that mean I should only care about health problems that I might personally face? If that is what you are saying, then why do you care about socialized medicine if you think people should be focused only on themselves?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/21/2009 @ 07:58am

345. This forum software will not let me post long urls for citation of source.

     Here's what I did. A Yahoo search of the words "American European cancer survival rates". You do it, you'll come up with the same hits.

     First hit on the list is from the American Cancer Society. 2000 publish date. These are American vs. European percentages.

     prostate (81% vs. 56%) melanoma (86% vs. 76%) colon (60% vs. 47%) rectum (57% vs. 43%) breast (82% vs. 73%) uterine cancer (83% vs. 73%)

     Second hit down on the Yahoo hits uses 2007 data. American woman still alive 5 years after a cancer diagnosis 63%, European 56%.

     American men 66%, European men 47%.

     That data shows Americans with a higher survival rate for 13 out of 16 types of cancers than Europeans. We also do better than Canada, if you read a bit further down.

     2nd from last hit (although ALL the hits talk about America's better survival rates) is about colon cancer. Europe has a 43% five year survival rate, we have a 62% five year survival rate.

     Our system might be more expensive, but their system is more likely to put you in the grave quicker.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/21/2009 @ 08:40am

346. This forum software will not let me post long urls for citation of source.

     Here's what I did. A Yahoo search of the words "American European cancer survival rates". You do it, you'll come up with the same hits.

     First hit on the list is from the American Cancer Society. 2000 publish date. These are American vs. European percentages.

     prostate (81% vs. 56%) melanoma (86% vs. 76%) colon (60% vs. 47%) rectum (57% vs. 43%) breast (82% vs. 73%) uterine cancer (83% vs. 73%)

     Second hit down on the Yahoo hits uses 2007 data. American woman still alive 5 years after a cancer diagnosis 63%, European 56%.

     American men 66%, European men 47%.

     That data shows Americans with a higher survival rate for 13 out of 16 types of cancers than Europeans. We also do better than Canada, if you read a bit further down.

     2nd from last hit (although ALL the hits talk about America's better survival rates) is about colon cancer. Europe has a 43% five year survival rate, we have a 62% five year survival rate.

     Our system might be more expensive, but their system is more likely to put you in the grave quicker.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/21/2009 @ 08:40am

347. This forum software will not let me post long urls for citation of source.

     Here's what I did. A Yahoo search of the words "American European cancer survival rates". You do it, you'll come up with the same hits.

     First hit on the list is from the American Cancer Society. 2000 publish date. These are American vs. European percentages.

     prostate (81% vs. 56%) melanoma (86% vs. 76%) colon (60% vs. 47%) rectum (57% vs. 43%) breast (82% vs. 73%) uterine cancer (83% vs. 73%)

     Second hit down on the Yahoo hits uses 2007 data. American woman still alive 5 years after a cancer diagnosis 63%, European 56%.

     American men 66%, European men 47%.

     That data shows Americans with a higher survival rate for 13 out of 16 types of cancers than Europeans. We also do better than Canada, if you read a bit further down.

     2nd from last hit (although ALL the hits talk about America's better survival rates) is about colon cancer. Europe has a 43% five year survival rate, we have a 62% five year survival rate.

     Our system might be more expensive, but their system is more likely to put you in the grave quicker.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/21/2009 @ 08:40am

348. hsuBfools, the fact remains that you cited a graph that shows Americans have a higher rate of breast cancer than Europeans, yet a higher rate of survival than Northern and Western Europe.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/21/2009 @ 07:58am

     Yes I put up 3 graphs. You seem to be fixated on only one without connecting the dots.

     I'm happy that women in the USA survived from breast cancer at a 'slightly' higher rate than some countries back in the 1980's, but then I'm sad that they/we all then are 'more currently' (2004) dying from all the other cancers at a somewhat higher rate than most every other nation except for eight.

     But that's ok with you as long as we saved a few women's breasts back in the 80's!?!

     Is it perhaps a Raygun thing with you?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2009 @ 08:47am

349. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 08/21/2009 @ 08:40am

     I'm glad that the USA cut out more tumors and give more radiation treatments than Europe to the number that die...

     But what do you make of the fact that we 're, the USA is #9 highest death rate from cancer than all the others?

     More treatment does not equal better if more are dying at a higher rate.

     Think man!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2009 @ 08:57am

350. That's what happens when science meats ideology...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2009 @ 10:11am

351. Ok, digested all that so far CitizenC?

     Then the argument for a single payer system makes a lot more sense! For-profit healthcare just means more expensive care while giving us a faster and higher death rate!

     So nothing really all that healthy in the profit motive; same as with war profiteering not being to our common welfare benefit. (Just got us perpetual war.)

     A single payer system eliminates the profit motive that would benefit from keeping us sick as all tax payers would now benefit from preventative care cost-wise and not the Medical Industrial Complex profit schemes.

     Not getting cancer is way more cost efficient than cancer operations and chemotherapy.

     The only thing that our current healthcare system has scientifically proven is that it has more expensively gotten us dying faster and at a higher rate than most other countries with a universal/public option/socialized healthcare system.

     And it's just getting worse and more expensive.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2009 @ 11:16am

352. Just keep remembering that the survival rate is way different from our death rate.

     If you treat more people, some that would survive in any case anyway without treatment, it ups the survival rate, lowers the death rate to treatment ratio.

     But if you add up all those that die due to cancer and compare that number to those in other countries-- that's the tell: the Medical Industrial Complex flinches at those numbers because that is the bottom line.

     We're dying quicker at higher numbers more expensively with more pills, treatments and operations than almost all other countries that have some form of public healthcare.

     I truly believe that if we take the profiteering out of our healthcare system and our military war making ability-- eventually our nation will be a thousandfold stronger, healthier, better.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2009 @ 11:52am