The Speech & The Public Option

The last ten minutes of Barack Obama's healthcare speech, invoking the legacy of Ted Kennedy and emphasizing concern for others as an essential part of "the American character," were powerful and affecting. Eschewing the professorial tone he has too often struck when discussing healthcare in recent months, Obama spoke instead about "large heartedness" and the "terror and helplessness" any parent would feel to have a sick child go without treatment because of money. He also said "the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little," and that "without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited." This was not FDR in 1936 (see the Michael Lind column to which my last post linked), but it was stated with conviction.

Nobody who listened to the speech – including many of the stone-faced Republicans in the audience – could come away doubting Obama is serious about passing major healthcare legislation. But will this legislation include a public option? The speech left me dubious. In this portion of his otherwise stirring address, Obama sounded notably vague, almost apologetic, telling the members of Congress it was "worth noting" that a majority of Americans support a public option (um, yeah, one would think so), and then chiding those on the left and right who have exaggerated its significance.

This was unfair to people on the left and the right, most of whom see the public option as significant (just as the healthcare industry does) for good reason. I suspect Obama's words heartened a great many insurance executives, and that they will lead, down the road, to a compromise that marks an improvement over the current system but also a missed opportunity.

Comments (369)

1. If the legislation contains a provision for everyone to have insurance, but does not provide a strong public option it should not be passed.

   Obama said that it would be like states requireing auto insurance, ok, but I can choose to not drive a car. I can't accept being forced to pay a private insurer, that is a major give away to the corporations who have caused the mess we are in today (or at least shoulder the majority of the blame). It would be a tax on American citizens that goes to private industry and shareholders. I am sorry but Fuck that! If I am going to pay a healthcare tax I want it to go the country and not some for profit corporations. We need a public option or kill this bill.

   Posted by Extraneous at 09/10/2009 @ 3:01pm

2. If the legislation contains a provision for everyone to have insurance, but does not provide a strong public option it should not be passed.

   Obama said that it would be like states requireing auto insurance, ok, but I can choose to not drive a car. I can't accept being forced to pay a private insurer, that is a major give away to the corporations who have caused the mess we are in today (or at least shoulder the majority of the blame). It would be a tax on American citizens that goes to private industry and shareholders. I am sorry but Fuck that! If I am going to pay a healthcare tax I want it to go the country and not some for profit corporations. We need a public option or kill this bill.

   Posted by Extraneous at 09/10/2009 @ 3:01pm

3. Sorry for double post...

   Posted by Extraneous at 09/10/2009 @ 3:02pm

4. I didn't hear anything in the President's speech last night that would move the ball forward. In fact, I think his constant insulting of everything republican, especially while they were seated before him, further eroded any compromise that he could expect in the near future, Joe Wilson's remark notwithstanding.

   This President has an arrogance about him that makes George W. Bush's arrogance seem like child's play. As an independent, I am leaning more and more to the right of center with every speech this politician makes.

   There will be NO public option and if there is HC reform at all, it will be harder and harder to pass as time goes by, especially once we enter the next election cycle. It's ironic that the abbreviation for health care is also Hillary Clinton's initials. That's unfortunate because we need some reform, the details of which I've pointed out here several times. Congress needs to start with tort reform and end with a REDUCTION in costs. Anything else will be just a waste of time.

   It's perfectly obvious that Nancy Pelosi learned nothing from all the town hall meetings this past August except that she is absolutely deaf, or the more politically correct, hearing challenged. America is not San Francisco.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/10/2009 @ 3:15pm

5. It's perfectly obvious that Nancy Pelosi learned nothing from all the town hall meetings this past August except that she is absolutely deaf, or the more politically correct, hearing challenged. America is not San Francisco.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/10/2009 @ 3:15pm

   I disagree, I think she did learn from the town halls. Just because a few were controlled by the immature and obnoxious like Joe, the vast majority were civilized and respectful. It is usually not the case the those who scream the loudest are also in the majority. Those who are screaming are trying to compensate for thier minority position.

   Posted by Extraneous at 09/10/2009 @ 3:20pm

6. The IRS is now going to be enforcing collections for insurance CEOs. Democrats deserve Zero Support in 2010. I am looking forward to the BS investigations, the BS impeachment hearings, as much as I know the Democrats are looking forward to some really un-restrained compromising with their best friends the Conservatives. F--- the Democrats in 2010.

   Posted by DPGrassley at 09/10/2009 @ 3:46pm

7. Posted by Extraneous at 09/10/2009 @ 3:20pm

   I see your point. The Rev. Wright was quite the screamer.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/10/2009 @ 3:52pm

8. The MAJOR/MACRO issue involved in all of this is who is going to control this country -- the people or the corporations. Since BO is going to allow the corporations to even have a seat at the table, he is telling us which way this issue is going to be resolved.

   On top of that, the Supremes are getting ready to put the last nail in our coffin when they expand the power of corporate personhood by allowing them (the corporations) unfettered control of campaign spending --

   http://www.sonic.net/~taryfast/us.html

   Posted by TarryFaster at 09/10/2009 @ 3:59pm

9. Posted by TarryFaster at 09/10/2009 @ 3:59pm

   Uh, the PEOPLE? Where did you get that idea?

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/10/2009 @ 4:02pm

10. ....It's ironic that the abbreviation for health care is also Hillary Clinton's initials....

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/10/2009 @ 3:15pm

    Count me as one of those who do believe that she would have been more successful at some reform with some GOP support.....Bill would've made sure of it....they want THAT legacy to last and not overturned when the Repubs sweep into power. BHO has no clue.....led by insane Chicago hoodlums who have hidden agendas.

    This admin. is so bad, one `conspiracy' running through the dark recess of my mind, is this is intentional....by his handlers. The mystery, the fun part of this, is why?

    The incompetence of this bunch is truly breathtaking!

    Posted by Happy at 09/10/2009 @ 4:12pm

11. If they pass mandatory insurance without a public option, it will be a major step towards enserfdom. The worst possible outcome. What Extraneous, DPGrassley and TarryFaster said.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 09/10/2009 @ 4:22pm

12. "The incompetence of this bunch is truly breathtaking?"

    Seriously, Happy?

    Dude--- the sheer gall and sanctimonious unction of this current sorry batch of Republicans is repugnant!

    Democrats should've brought some Repub's on board?

    Where the hell have you been? See-- that's the thing about "legislation" and "compromise": both parties have to come to the middle of the dance floor & find a way to get they groove on. When one party's making all the entreaties & concessions, and is standing dancing like a fool 3/4 of the way across the floor from where they started, and the other is firmly clutching the wall, cemented to where they're standing: that does not a mode of compromise make.

    Republicans WILL NOT get every damned thing that they want. Their "all or nothing" "let's all vote no again" posture is just that: politicking and stupid. And a bet on America falling farther and farther behind. So much easier to be a critic than a hard worker.

    Gunslinger, don't even get me started on your disease of the mind. The President insulting the Republicans? After they've spent capital & all their energy doing everything in their power sewing the seeds of fear & dimensia & astroturfing town halls across the nation, bussing in anti-reform lobbyists to deliver zingers, & scaring seniors with outright lies?

    After THAT was their contribution to developing health reform legislation?! No. Hell no.

    You don't get to do that. You don't get to work your ass off to prevent reform, and then claim that "the other guy" is saying you're not helping. Screw that. That don't fly, and it's gotta be called for what it is. Utter crap.

    Posted by HonestAbe at 09/10/2009 @ 4:31pm

13. Utter crap.

    Posted by HonestAbe at 09/10/2009 @ 4:31pm

    Congrats....that's exactly what you have...enjoy crappy Hopey and Changey, or UNHopey and UNChangey, take your choice!

    Posted by Happy at 09/10/2009 @ 4:44pm

14. I have no doubt that the Obamanation is serious about healthcare! This is the greatest opportunity for the Demoncrat party and Unions to coalesce or bureaucratically concentrate future party power and enlarge their socialistic influence over the daily lives of Americans they have ever had! They just can't let it slip through their fingers!!!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/10/2009 @ 4:45pm

15. If the legislation contains a provision for everyone to have insurance, but does not provide a strong public option it should not be passed. Obama said that it would be like states requireing auto insurance, ok, but I can choose to not drive a car. I can't accept being forced to pay a private insurer, that is a major give away to the corporations who have caused the mess we are in today (or at least shoulder the majority of the blame). It would be a tax on American citizens that goes to private industry and shareholders. I am sorry but Fuck that! If I am going to pay a healthcare tax I want it to go the country and not some for profit corporations. We need a public option or kill this bill.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/10/2009 @ 3:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --hear hear!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 4:51pm

16. How about Crappy Happy.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/10/2009 @ 5:22pm

17. Posted by HonestAbe at 09/10/2009 @ 4:31pm

    What? So it's the republicans fault because they went to town hall meetings and blasted their liberal Congressmen and women huh? Well, isn't that the way it's supposed to work? Don't you think that your liberal friends have been handing you a line? My advice to you is to start thinking for yourself and stop blindly following an ideology. That's the real disease of the mind. Your mind is enslaved.

    And yes, Happy is right, (in more ways than one), the democrats are really blowing it. In the end, the democratic Congress will cover their own asses. The only ones who will be behind Obama in the months leading up to the election of 2010 are those from the inner cities and districts where their are heavy liberal constituentcies. That's why the rush now. The rest will say sorry but we really want to be re-elected so we can't do the public option thing. Count on it.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/10/2009 @ 5:38pm

18. A sleeping giant has been awakened. Credit talk radio, Fox News who I don't always agree with, and the election of Barack Obama for that. The vast majority of listeners and viewers are listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Greta and Beck. If democrats were smart, they would innundate these programs with their best advocates so that they would get exposure instead of being afraid to appear on these show. Nobody is watching MSNBC, the networks or CNN anymore. That's why 52%, (and rising), of Americans are against Obama's health care policy.

    The democrats respond by calling senior citizens who beat the depression, Germany and Japan and built this country nazis and thugs. I saw the video of plenty of those town hall meetings, the ones where the politicians had the courage to appear anyway, and I saw a lot of grey hair and decent citizens who have children called baby-boomers by the way. This tact by the democrats is going to backfire so badly.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/10/2009 @ 5:48pm

19. Congratulations Glenn Beck, the victor, congratulations all authoritarian conservatives who post here, your side won. Democrats sold out Americans - tax money for insurance CEOs - mandatory premiums for insurance CEOs - Failed Presidency. Could have been a 40 year majority generational shift. Congratulations insurance CEOs, now Americans got to pay taxes to subsidize poor people who dont get a public option thanks to Bi-Partisanship.

    Congratulations Dick Cheney for getting your Iraq war and your torture - and riding off into the sunset with Billions of Dollars with which to titillate yourself - thanks to Democrat Bi-Partisanship.

    F--- the Democrats in 2010. Republican majority - same as Democrat majority with the exception that they arent Bi-Partisan. Have fun with the Conservatives you respect, Democrats, F--- Democrats - this is personal - Down with Idiots - Zero Support in 2010.

    Posted by DPGrassley at 09/10/2009 @ 6:32pm

20. Posted by DPGrassley at 09/10/2009 @ 6:32pm

    I think DP is upset.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/10/2009 @ 6:34pm

21. Of course all those regressive law makers have government sponsored health insurance as do most regressives in the form of Medicare but as long as we are fat and medically taken care of , like old Jim of South Carolina , be sure that the rest of the "common" people die of treatable diseases - close the possibility of even the most minimal health insurance and medical coverage of common to chronic disease for the majority of the working class to win their vote in 2010...while health insurance companies build their skyscrapers...i get it

    Posted by nonukes at 09/10/2009 @ 6:50pm

22. Real estate, the savings of the middle class and the faith and credit of the federal government are the last major available resources in this country.

    The rich, with their various corporate fronts, put politicians in office, and the politicians help them extract these resources. The faith and credit of the government erodes.

    The Bush administration was particularly generous to war profiteers and drug companies.

    Obama has been alarmingly generous to Wall Street and bankers, while continuing the money flow to war profiteers and drug companies. (Countries that didn't bathe their bankers in gold seem to be recovering at the same rate). Now he's going to add insurance companies to the list.

    Independents and anybody who focuses on economic conservatism are equally disgusted by both parties. Obama is much better for the country in most ways, but not this one.

    We have to start with publicly funded elections and a shorter campaign season or we will continue to have government that puts the needs of campaign underwriters first.

    Posted by PBucking at 09/10/2009 @ 7:09pm

23. The problem is that what was presented did not address the structural problems with health care delivery and that is more than a missed opportunity. As the system has become institutional, it determines the high cost of medical training, the number of primary care physicians, the disincentives for doctors in rural or poorer areas, the over-treating and over-prescribing those covered, etc, etc, all of which cannot be addressed without dealing with costs, which as a percent of GDP is huge, and largely a drain on the economy since little of health care delivery results in trade-able services and products. Some certainly, but the massive amounts in care are not.

    By backing off a viable government sponsored alternative or a system wide regulation of premium costs, the value and effectiveness of what is delivered, a form of customer protection, cost and quality control, I don't see what mechanism is supposed to control private plan premiums, affordability and effectiveness.

    The descriptions of "exchanges" are vague and where defined were limited. Unlikely to drive costs down or even slow cost increases. While there was the expectation of additional customers would slow cost increases, what was emphasized was increases in Medicaid, tax credits and subsidies, which do little with the cost of private plan health delivery. It remains a patch up job of what exists. And at additional cost.

    While increasing affordability and coverage is obviously a real benefit, without a mechanism to control total economic outlay, over time the existing system will continue and over time costs will continue to increase and that will work to defeat initial gains.

    Without dealing with constraint on the total amount to be spent on health care, structural change is unlikely.

    Charlie M.

    Posted by cmsandia at 09/10/2009 @ 7:21pm

24. "Yet Obama is not prepared to grasp the nettle. His speech was even weaker than the spin preceding the joint address to Congress suggested. I thought the Obama people were lowering expectations with a view toward a big positive surprise and they managed to go even lower than the bar they set. He took caricatured positions on single payer in order to create a false "centrist" option. The President has basically has reduced the public option to a marginal welfare style program for 5% of the population, rather than seeing it as a way to break the monopoly of the private health insurance companies, thereby helping to reduce costs. He's basically forcing everybody into a private health insurance run program"

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2 009/09/guest-post-obama's-healthcare-speech-soaring-rhetoric- scant-imagination.html

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2009 @ 8:41pm

25. Want Health Care reform? Use the revitalized VA system as a model and expand it for all Americans. I get great VA care and so do Congressmen. The insurance industry does not cure anyone...it just siphons off millions of man hours and dollars from out economy. What a waste. Be bold and get rid of em. Train the insurance workers to provide health care.

    Posted by notsleepy at 09/10/2009 @ 9:00pm

26. I agree with the first few posters: a law that creates compulsory purchase of private insurance products and no public option is an abject tyranny. If there is no public option, we can only hope that a) the bill fails and that b) we can cripple the Democrats in 2010 by reducing their numbers through lack of support and turnout. Deadlock is desirable in comparison to the sort of "progress" coming from the Obama White House and the Clowngressional officials.

    Posted by syfriendly at 09/10/2009 @ 9:19pm

27. Posted by antisocialist at 09/10/2009 @ 6:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Better upset than a deranged and dimwitted lunatic with too much time on his hands like you.

    Posted by DPGrassley at 09/10/2009 @ 6:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Down with idiots! Absolutely. The country is to borrow the phrase an idiocracy.

    Posted by syfriendly at 09/10/2009 @ 9:21pm

28. Honestabe is completely correct. Also, without a public option, how do we control costs? No one has explained that. If insurance companies can't drop people or refuse to cover those with pre-existing conditions, what will stop them from charging exorbitant premiums?

    Posted by hesse at 09/10/2009 @ 9:25pm

29. .....without a public option, how do we control costs?...

    Posted by hesse at 09/10/2009 @ 9:25pm

    How has the existing age-restricted "public option", known as MediCare, been controlling costs, oh so successfully? (this is sarcasm, in case....)

    Posted by Happy at 09/10/2009 @ 10:06pm

30. I suppose Teddy Kennedy can be lauded in the same way as Strom Thurmond can be, to use his death as a reason, as a goad to pass an Obama health plan, that's sort of low and tawdry.

    The speech was a failure, depending on what his goal was. If he wanted to reach across to the GOP, he failed. He claimed he wanted to transcend petty partisan politics, and then engaged in exactly that. Though much like the rest of the address, that's nothing new.

    The speech was a success if he wanted to worry his "progressives" (left-liberals), but nevertheless animate, even if for a short time, the members of the House who already are with him.

    Joe "you lie" Wilson -- no question an obnoxious thing to do -- didn't do him any favors in my mind. When people are supposed to be talking about the speech, they're having more fun talking about whether "Say it aint so, O" Joe is right or not. But people should remember the terrible things Democrats said about GW Bush (miserable failure, liar, loser, heckling him during the State of the Union -- bring some perspective people).

    The speech will likely be more remembered for Joe Wilson than it will be for any effect on the health care debate. The Blue Dogs still have to go back to their districts, people are still irate.

    The only way it will matter if the details of this (new?) Obama plan moderate the terms of what has been brought forward by Pelosi and company.

    Posted by J. Saxon at 09/10/2009 @ 10:19pm

31. Sen. Lindsey Graham called President Barack Obama's address to Congress Wednesday "a "complete disaster" that demonstrates that "the president has lost his cool" on the healthcare reform issue.

    Graham, a South Carolina Republican, told National Public Radio that he was incredibly disappointed in the tone of Obama's speech and, at times, found the president's tone to be overly combative.

    "[I] believe he behaved in a manner beneath the dignity of the office," Graham said. "I fear his speech tonight has made it more difficult –– not less –– to find common ground."

    Graham said Obama appeared "to be angry at his critics" and "disappointed the American people were not buying the proposals he has been selling."

    Obama's demeanor in delivering the address, which many in opposition to his health care overhaul plan found confrontational and bitter, increased the emotional and political divide, Graham said.

    "I hope the President will learn that true bipartisanship begins with mutual respect," Graham said in response to Obama's fervent criticism of those who oppose him. "Not all criticism is demagoguery," he added.

    Graham said when it comes to the public option, "the President is either being disingenuous or misinformed. The public option, contrary to the president's claims, will eventually lead to a government takeover of our health care system."

    Graham believes Obama's address to Congress is the beginning of a "go it alone" strategy in the push for the government takeover of the health care system.

    "If the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats go down this path and push a bill on the American people they do not want, it could be the beginning of the end of the Obama presidency."

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/11/2009 @ 01:15am

32. Droop and Little P- It seems the only "thing" that is winning in the health care reform "battle" is money. The networks both public and private are raking in advertising bounty. The swing votes such as Conrad and Lincoln get to go the head of the contribution class. We have a chairman(Baucus) who continues to promise us a bill. At this rate it will come out of committee for Halloween just in time to scare liberals even more than they are now.Lindsay Graham and his cohorts have played a great game of doing nothing and reaping rewards from that. Droopy when you get to be 80 see how many times you go to the doctor. The only issue here is greed and does anyone have the guts to stop it. For the conservatives that are gloating over the problems of money"the deficit"and a Democratic administration I say don't forget short term history. An off the books "war" that has cost a trillion. The rhetorical question is ,"are our people worth a trillion." Conservatives flat out say no with reasoning that goes back to the 1770's. Perhaps that is part of the problem, their ideas have lagged that far behind. Greed is the "thread"here,the titans of the insurance industry and their minions are more worried about tax shelters than in providing care and coverage. Last but not least "the sleeping giant" awakened by Rush,etc. I know there is a conservative media bias . Even a simple tax preparer has to be able to count. So Santi when you do the count of people on the air that you know the names of and it is 9-1 then we will agree that you are "right", the right has many more commentators. Again just follow the money and greed. The conservative record is long and consistent.

    Posted by whatizz at 09/11/2009 @ 05:47am

33. Obama said that it would be like states requireing auto insurance, ok, but I can choose to not drive a car.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/10/2009 @ 3:01pm

    Even so, when you ride the bus, part of your fare covers the cost of private insurance. If you ride in a taxi, part of the fare covers the cost of private insurance. If you fly on a plane, part of the fare covers the cost of private insurance. If you take a ferry, part of the fare covers the cost of private insurance.

    Walking, skating, and bicycling are the only modes of transportation that do not involve a risk of significant damage to other members of society. When you put others at risk you must cover the cost of insurance should you hurt them or destroy their property.

    When you don't buy health insurance you put others at risk. If you get hurt or sick, society won't let you die so society will cover a cost that you should be paying yourself.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/11/2009 @ 06:21am

34. If I am going to pay a healthcare tax I want it to go the country and not some for profit corporations. We need a public option or kill this bill.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/10/2009 @ 3:01pm

    That's already in the bill. If you don't purchase from a private company or a non-profit/co-op then the IRS will assess an extra tax to offset the cost of caring for you should you get sick. The size of this tax is roughly equal to the premium you'd pay if you'd purchased insurance from a private company.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/11/2009 @ 06:27am

35. This is the greatest opportunity for the Demoncrat party and Unions to ... enlarge their socialistic influence over the daily lives of Americans

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/10/2009 @ 4:45pm

    If you don't lock your stuff up, someone is eventually going to steal it. That aint right, but that's the way it is.

    The richer our society becomes, the more social protections the people at the bottom will acquire. Maybe that aint right, but that's the way it is.

    Greater protections for the poor are most accurately described as greater collectivism. "Socialism" is an absolute amount of collectism and America is not even close. Granted, President Obama's plan moves us a little closer, but that movement is inevitable given our increasing wealth as a nation, just like theft is inevitable.

    There is a crital mass of public support to "do something" about the unisured. This plan that forces those who can afford it to buy it themselves is not as collectivist as OASDI which intentionally was more collectivist than needed in order to generate long-term support for the program.

    This programs abides by the adage, "the government must never do for a man that which he should be doing for himself."

    The sad fact is our country has millions of people who lack the talent and ability to generate the economic productivity needed to pay for their needs. Our country refuses to let these people suffer and die. Greater collectism in healthcare is going to happen in America. It is inevitable. This plan preserves as much individualism as we can hope for.

    I think you'd be wise to support it rather than mischaracterize it as "socialism".

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/11/2009 @ 06:49am

36. rather than seeing it as a way to break the monopoly of the private health insurance companies,

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2009 @ 8:41pm

    That's not the proper use of the word "monopoly". Granted, only health insurance companies provide health insurance. Just as only car companies produce cars. That's not a monopoly.

    A monopoly is when one entity controls a market.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/11/2009 @ 06:56am

37. we can only hope that a) the bill fails and that b) we can cripple the Democrats in 2010 by reducing their numbers through lack of support and turnout.

    Posted by syfriendly at 09/10/2009 @ 9:19pm

    Look, I'm a Conservative Republican, but I know that in the long run the system only works when everyone has a seat at the table. You are advocating a complete marginalization of Progressives.

    About 40% of people self-identify as Conservative. About 20% self-identify as Liberal. The idea that Liberals had the public support necessary to radically transform one-sixth of our economy was always a fantasy.

    Ask yourself this: What was the goal of healthcare reform?

    Was it to ensure America's poor received adequate healthcare?

    Or was it to radically transform the healthcare industry so as to prove to Americans the benefits of greater collectism?

    If it was the first, mission accomplished. If it was the second, put down the crack pipe: it's not gonna happen.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/11/2009 @ 07:06am

38. Democrats are divided over the public option in both houses, liberals strongly in favor and many moderates against it. Critically, though, it appears that any chance for Republican support would evaporate if legislation permits immediate, direct competition between the government and insurance industry. -- Philadelphia Inquirer +++

    But I thought Republicans, conservatives, and their fascist friends liked competition. Isn't competition the great savior of all mankind?

    Posted by Citizen54 at 09/11/2009 @ 07:20am

39. It should be obvious that Obama has sold out on a public plan. I doubt if he was ever serious about it. He and Rahm are giving the insurance companies just what they want: a mandate with no incentive to keep premiums low. It is a huge win for the vampires. Notice that nothing will go into effect until 2013: after Obama's re-election. Very slick!

    Posted by philbq at 09/11/2009 @ 07:43am

40. This issue explodes the "myth" of competition. What competition, you mean like United Health versus their subsidiary Blue Cross? The issue is "care", all I have read is stand up for yourself,the 10th Amendment says this,we need "tort" reform,etc. Again, this all comes down to money and who does or doesn't have it. Why care if everyone is getting screwed? My conservative buddy actually told me I shouldn't be mad at him because he had a good job with good health care. I told him health care that cost him 13% of his pre tax earnings wasn't good health care. Let's celebrate ,"conservatives" because 40% of the population are us . That number is a fallacy but when all these conservatives have blood running down their legs from these skyrocketing costs that they then realize the insurance "PIGS"are not going to stop charging that is when I will what a surprise.

    Posted by whatizz at 09/11/2009 @ 07:51am

41. A monopoly is when one entity controls a market.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/11/2009 @ 06:56am

    i didn't write that.

    oligopoly is the correct term.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2009 @ 08:38am

42. I'm with you, Sy. The Demos are gutless whores, for the most part.

    Posted by philbq at 09/11/2009 @ 09:04am

43. >>>This was unfair to people on the left and the right, most of whom see the public option as significant<<<

    An option that provides choice and competition and the ability to cover those who are currently not covered IS significant. I think what the president was trying to communicate is that it doesn't matter what you call this.

    He also was trying to communicate that for the first time in several decades Democrats AND Republicans agree on a number of OTHER IMPORTANT REFORMS TO OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. These reforms include holding insurance companies accountable so that they can't refuse to cover pre-existing conditions, drop your coverage if you become sick, drop your coverage when you change employers, increase premiums beyond wage growth, cap the total amount of coverage you can receive, reigning in fraud and abuse in Medicare, computerizing medical and billing records, ending incentives for practicing defensive medicine. <-----These are ALSO significant reforms, and therefore progressives should get behind the president on these as well because they "permanently" change the trajectory of our health care system by making the insurance business much less profitable; and as a result, putting us squarely on the path to UHC.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/11/2009 @ 09:10am

44. There is nothing good about this bill, and quite frankly, if you're looking for a coercive element, its the employer mandate and extra tax for being uninsured. As a point of fact the employer mandate is going to drive down wages. And with the way the "public option" has been structured, I'm failing to see why it would generate significant savings. Essentially this Congress will toss out a few subsidies and dub health insurance as "affordable." The end result will be a nation of nominally insured Americans breaking the bank to purchase it. This is what we're told is reform.

    Here's a better idea for a compromise: take the savings in Medicare and funnel them back into Medicare to lower the eligibility age and eliminate gaps in coverage. Next, use cuts in defense related spending to create a strong public option. The Pentagon could easily withstand a 40% cut and I've never heard a convincing argument for the Department of Homeland Security.

    Posted by nkurland at 09/11/2009 @ 09:30am

45. Can someone explain why ObamaCare would not require Obama himself, and both Houses of Congress, to give up their generous health plans and be subject to the same rationing and bureaucracy as everyone else?

    From the various Town Hall outbursts I've seen or read about, the exact outburst seem to vary from person to person, but they had a common flavor - the President and Congress do not represent the common folk.

    Senator Schumer made a comment to the effect that it didn't matter what the Town Hall crowds said, he was going to help pass ObamaCare anyway. Pelosi took the same stance.

    Is this a case of "all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others?"

    If ObamaCare is so wonderful, why is there no tort reform and why aren't the politcal elites including themselves in the wonderful package?

    Anyone explain that?

    Morris_the_Cat

    Posted by Morris_the_Cat at 09/11/2009 @ 09:33am

46. We have to start with publicly funded elections and a shorter campaign season or we will continue to have government that puts the needs of campaign underwriters first.

    Posted by PBucking at 09/10/2009 @ 7:09pm

    Agreed. What gets these folks elected is air time and what pays for that air time? Campaign money and lots of it from huge corporations (with the same rights as people no less).

    All of our elected officials are loyal to what put them into office and here's a bulletin, it ain't the voters. Evidently people will vote for who they see most on television, in the papers and on youtube. The substance of what they say evidently counts for nil, but the fireside chat with vague promises are par for the course.

    Our elected officials represent the best money that politicians can buy and that's on both sides of the isle. Those on the left who would disagree with this will have to explain why Tim Geithner and Larry Summers are in the positions they are at presently holding and Bernanke was recently reappointed t0o. All three men are of the Freidman neoliberal school now known as neoconservatives. Why would Obama appoint folks like that with a position 180 degrees out of phase with the liberal position? I voted for Obama, but still haven't figured that one out. The only conclusion I come to is that that wallstreet and the banking industry did indeed pump a lot of money into his campaign coffers as they did with McCain so either way, they would have been taken care of.

    Changing how the selection of candidates takes place in the parties along with campaign finance reform are at least a possible suggestion to slow down the outright corrupt system we have now.

    Clinton and Obama were the two most conservative dems running in the democratic primaries.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/11/2009 @ 09:43am

47. politicians can buy ...whoops, should be the best politicians that money can buy.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/11/2009 @ 09:48am

48. "Tort reform" is a phony issue: Only 1.5% of health costs is lawsuits. The reason that insurance for doctors is increasing is pure greed by the insurance companies.

    Posted by philbq at 09/11/2009 @ 09:48am

49. Well said Extraneous!

    Making Healthcare mandatory is ridiculous. Giving in for the insurance companies. Imagine all of these insurance ads trying to scare you into buying health insurance or face huge fines.

    The auto insurance comparision is good, but sends chill on many people's spine. If you don't have a car you can choose not to drive. Even if you drive you get a ticket. Insurance companies sell policies to you with clauses that add to your premium when you choose to have coverage that will protect "you" against uninsured and under-insured. Now what happens in the healthcare?? Will emergency rooms stop treating you if you don't have insurance now that it has become mandatory??

    please. give me a break. I voted for Obama, but this is NOT the Obama I voted for. The speech was good, but to tell people on the left to shut up and to indicate public option as we see it is an exxageration is not right. Single payer is what liberals want. Public option is a compromise to begin with.

    Read my full article at Mayfog.com

    Posted by Mayfog at 09/11/2009 @ 09:50am

50. >>>The only conclusion I come to is that that wallstreet and the banking industry did indeed pump a lot of money into his campaign coffers as they did with McCain so either way, they would have been taken care of. <<<

    I am a BIG fan of campaign finance reform, and actually think the president made a mistake by not focusing on this reform FIRST. Not only would you get truly bi-partisan support for such effort, most of the independent voters who put Obama over the top in states like NC, IN, VA, NV, CO, and NM are all tired of Washington pay-to-play politics as usual.

    Also, starting with campaign finance reform make all of the other reform efforts - including healthcare - a whole lot easier by stifling the moneyed special interest opposition.

    As for Wall Street specifically, there is no doubt that deals were made to keep certain bank alive, and yes their lobby did play a part in that. That said, there really are solid policy reasons for not wanting the US banking system to go under by allowing more major banks to fail. The IPO market, for example, which has been frozen for nearly a year now, requires a robust investment banking system to provide capital for business expansion. Business expansion is CRITICAL for economic recovery.

    I am no fan of Summers, and Geither is not a whole lot better, but Geither is smarter and a lot more creative than Summers. Bernake is just doing what the Fed is supposed to do under these conditions, and I am not sure there is a whole lot more "conventional" things he can do with the tools he has at his disposal. From the president's perspective, there had to be "some" continuity if just for "global confidence" reasons, as anyone who has been involved in the market knows that investor confidence is one of the key market drivers.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/11/2009 @ 10:05am

51. But I thought Republicans, conservatives, and their fascist friends liked competition. Isn't competition the great savior of all mankind?

    Posted by Citizen54 at 09/11/2009 @ 07:20am

    Yes, genuine competition would go a long way to solving this problem. However, what you want isn't competition. What you want is for the gov to be a referee and a player in the same game.

    If you truely want competition, let people buy health insurance, just like they can buy auto insurance, across state lines. Let individuals shop and deduct the cost of health insurance from their taxes, just like employers deduct from their taxes when they provide insurance for their employees.

    Posted by fram at 09/11/2009 @ 10:11am

52. Single payer is what liberals want. Public option is a compromise to begin with.

    Posted by Mayfog at 09/11/2009 @ 09:50am

    I want $100 million, but I'll settle for $50 million. There, that's a compromise so I must deserve it.

    Liberals want single payer but they don't have the public support to get it done. So liberals go to the next best thing: a public option funded by massive income taxes. They don't have the support for that either. Just becuase it's less than they want doesn't mean they've earned it.

    You only get what you generate broad public support for. Fully 80% of the public is satisifed with their own care. There isn't any support for radical changes. Just saying "Liberals want" doesn't mean anything. It's what the public wants and the public doesn't want the Left's version of public option.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/11/2009 @ 10:14am

53. "Tort reform" is a phony issue: Only 1.5% of health costs is lawsuits. The reason that insurance for doctors is increasing is pure greed by the insurance companies.

    Posted by philbq at 09/11/2009 @ 09:48am

    It isn't just the lawsuits, fool. It's the malpractice insurance premiums that drs. must purchase in order to protect themselves before they even hang their shingle on the door. In some cases, up to $250,000 annually.

    Posted by fram at 09/11/2009 @ 10:16am

54. Darin - we all know the public wants healthcare for all. Take a survey and you will find out that most Americans agree that Healthcare should be a basic human right.

    We need a constitutional amendment, to guarantee free healthcare for all Americans. All bi-partisan studies show that Americans are in favor of single payer system. It is the extreme right, some republicans, and the media (mostly controlled by the right, with the exception of few), that paints the message showing the opposite. Either you are one of them, or you are one of those brain-washed by them!!

    Posted by Mayfog at 09/11/2009 @ 10:39am

55. I think you'd be wise to support it rather than mischaracterize it as "socialism".

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/11/2009 @ 06:49am

    Sorry Darin, but your posts this week are more like the radical leftists than your history would indicate.

    I cannot agree with your support of this legislation or your hearty endorsement of Obama's lying speech.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/11/2009 @ 10:42am

56. Here's a little reality check for those of you who rag on and on about insurance company profits. Federal law permits that health insurance companies in each state are heavily controlled/regulated by each state's government. And it's the state government's determination as to which insurance companies are allowed to do business there. Also, it is that government that MANDATES COVERAGES that must be in the policies including everything from substance abuse/alcohol rehab to marriage counseling to psychiatric sessions to hair plugs to chiropractic to podiatry and many others. It does not matter whether you want these protections/services or not. You are paying for them, regardless, within the framework of your policy.

    Is this helping insurance CEO's make money? You bet it is. So where do you suppose his campaign contributions go? Surely you have figured out by now that it benefits insurance companies to be in bed with politicians (of both parties), since it is the POLITICIANS (of both parties) who have set up this cozy little situation.

    If your insurance company is screwing you or anyone, believe me...it is doing so with the blessing of federal and state government. If politicians were honest about increasing competition, you would be able to look beyond state boundries for coverage and companies would not be forced to include treatments you have no use for.

    A government option will ONLY be interested in saving money, not saving lives. Why else would politicians exempt themselves from a bill that the rest of us must be forced to live (or die) with?

    By the way, how can you be so certain that one party is lying to you and be equally certain that the other is being totally honest?

    Posted by fram at 09/11/2009 @ 11:15am

57. We need a constitutional amendment, to guarantee free healthcare for all Americans.

    Posted by Mayfog at 09/11/2009 @ 10:39am

    You have no clue as to how insane this proposal is. Guaranteed free health care for all? Government funded, I suppose? You would have the right to health care up to the point when the government would say "NO MORE". You are too old, too sick, or your condition is not worth it and we are not spending any more money on you.

    "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait and see what it will cost when it's free". P J O'Rourke

    So much for your "guaranteed" right to health care.

    Posted by fram at 09/11/2009 @ 11:30am

58. Healthcare reform - just an interim step.

    How many times has social security been amended:

    http://tinyurl.com/pxmzs

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/11/2009 @ 12:15pm

59. It isn't just the lawsuits, fool. It's the malpractice insurance premiums that drs. must purchase in order to protect themselves before they even hang their shingle on the door. In some cases, up to $250,000 annually.

    Posted by fram at 09/11/2009 @ 10:16am

    No, you're the fool. What philb said was that the malpractice insurance was too high due to insurance companies making a fortune off malpractice insurance in the first place. Do you seriously think the insurance industry would hold malpractice insurance if it didn't pay off for them?

    Say I have a neighbor who I think may want to kill me some day. I go to an insurance company and tell them I want anti-murder insurance. They look at me seriously and say, "well, you are a high risk client since your neighbor does want to kill you (not knowing if he really does or doesn't mind you) so you'll have to pay us double the amount due to your predicament.

    That's what insurance companies do with doctors and everyone else for that matter and of course they pad their estimates.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/11/2009 @ 12:33pm

60. By the way, how can you be so certain that one party is lying to you and be equally certain that the other is being totally honest?

    Posted by fram at 09/11/2009 @ 11:15am

    Agreed there, you can't and shouldn't....ever.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/11/2009 @ 12:35pm

61. Do you seriously think the insurance industry would hold malpractice insurance if it didn't pay off for them?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/11/2009 @ 12:33pm |

    And the fact that the trial lawyers are cleaning up with frivilous lawsuits doesn't matter. Why, since you are sooo concerned with the profits that insurance companies make, check into the trial lawyers and see what their profits are? They are making enough to advertise on television for what they are....ambulance chasers.

    Been in an accident? Did your Dr. screw up? Call Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe!!!

    BTW, if you are worried about your neighbor killing you, either move or buy yourself a firearm.

    Posted by fram at 09/11/2009 @ 12:45pm

62. Proof positive that Obamanation DID LIE and Wilson was right!

    Healthcare negotiators in the Senate are hammering out language to ensure that illegal immigrants can't get access to government funded insurance.

    The issue is being revisited by a small group of negotiators on the Senate Finance Committee who met Friday morning. They are searching for an elusive bipartisan deal on President Barack Obama's health overhaul.

    Members of the group said they thought they'd settled the matter, but it came to the fore this week when Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted, "You lie" at Obama during his speech Wednesday. Obama had said illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered under his health plan.

    Senators said that's forced the committee to work on a provision to verify legal status before an individual can get coverage.

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/11/2009 @ 1:09pm

63. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., took a lot of heat for yelling out "liar" during President Obama's speech Wednesday night, but Wilson's policy argument appears to be carrying the day.

    Senators in the so called "Gang of Six," a group of bipartisan lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee working to formulate a passable healthcare plan, are moving quickly to close the loophole that concerned Wilson, Fox News reports.

    "We absolutely assure that those who are here illegally would not get the benefit of any of these initiatives," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

    Apparently the nation is hypocritical and really does NOT stand for those who are dissenting against political LIES! Imagine that!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/11/2009 @ 1:16pm

64. About 40% of people self-identify as Conservative. About 20% self-identify as Liberal. The idea that Liberals had the public support necessary to radically transform one-sixth of our economy was always a fantasy.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/11/2009 @ 07:06am

    Well there are dem conservatives and then there are repub new cons:

    The Harris Poll. Based on nationwide surveys of adults, conducted over the course of each calendar year.

    "Regardless of how you may vote, what do you usually consider yourself: a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or some other party?"

    Year_____Republican_Democrat _Independent

    2008________26______36_______31

    2002________31______ 34_______24

    _____VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV___

    ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 19-22, 2009. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. LV = likely voters.

    "Overall, which party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?" Options rotated

    02/09 - Democrats - 56, Republicans - 30

    10/02 - Democrats - 39, Republicans - 51

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/11/2009 @ 1:54pm

65. Proof positive that Obamanation DID LIE and Wilson was right! Healthcare negotiators in the Senate are hammering out language to ensure that illegal immigrants can't get access to government funded insurance. Posted by BigPasture at 09/11/2009 @ 1:09pm

    No it already says non US citizens can't benefit from the healthcare reform.

    Apparently what really happened was new con repub extremists can't read at the 12th grade level it was written in and so dems are having to rewrite the same thing at the 6th grade level and see if the new con repub loonies are willing to uncross their eyes long enough to comprehend and retain it this time...

    We can only hope!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/11/2009 @ 2:05pm

66. BTW, if you are worried about your neighbor killing you, either move or buy yourself a firearm.

    Posted by fram at 09/11/2009 @ 12:45pm

    fram, If the trial lawyers are making that much money, and the insurance companies can afford to pay them that much money, how much friggin money do you think the insurance companies are making off the doctors in the first place?

    Another thing you don't seem to be able to comprehend. These trial lawyers have to win their cases. In short, they have to prove negligence took place in a malpractice lawsuit. I would love to see the ratio of successful malpractice lawsuits versus unsuccessful ones. The other data that would be great to see would be the total money taken in from insurance companies versus settlements and lawsuits. Ten to one say that the insurance companies still come out on top, or they wouldn't be in that business. Tort reform my ass.

    Why are you so worried about protecting the bottom line of insurance companies? In the industry by chance? If not, then what's your beef? What makes malpractice insurance so costly is the overhead the insurance companies demand for profit. Also, if the doctors do their job properly, they won't lose in court. If tort reform took place tomorrow, do you still think the insurance companies wouldn't keep malpractice rates the same?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/11/2009 @ 2:20pm

67. Just look at the CBS News latest post. Between 67 to 70 % of Americans surveyed want it. And ABOUT JOE WILSON, GLENN BECK, HANNITY AND BILLO Watching people like Joe Wilson at the Joint Session of Congress, and Glenn Beck, Hannity and Bill O. at Fox news, you would think that Joe McCarthy is back--or worse still, you would think that clansmen are now on TV. Is that what the 21st century has yielded to America? Republicans lost big in the election and they are not taking it well. They are shouting to us that they should be listened to, that their electoral platform is what must be implemented, that they are frustrated, and that they can't take it any more. Yet Obama is implementing the mandate American voters resoundingly gave him on November 4, 2008--on the very issues he campaigned on. That is called democracy by another name. In reality, the people who should be called out as fascists, Nazis, Communists and dictators are those who are attempting to overturn the people's Will by intimidation and force. They are the ones threatening secession and violence. The silent majority should no longer accept the present state of things; they should fight back, peacefully, to re-establish balance and sanity in public discourse and affairs. We must aim to lead by our example; and yet be uncompromising in trying to pull back the cloud of darkness that now hovers menacingly over us all. And perhaps most frightening is the fact that the Republican Party has rejected its intellectual wing. Instead, it has opted for a more intimate alliance with the lunatic fringe, the wackos, weidos, and other authoritarian personalities that threaten us. They are beyond shame, and have set no responsible upper limit of behavior as any civilized society would demand to survive. Indeed

    Posted by drsam8 at 09/11/2009 @ 2:56pm

68. Okay, lets sum this up.

    - 18,000 Americans die each year because they don't have any or adequate health care;

    - The health insurance idustries policies of insuring only the healthy is responsible for those 18,000 deaths;

    - single payer or at least a public option would save 18,000 lives a year.

    Duh....

    As my friend governor George Wallace said, and he was often misquoted; "Single payer today, single payer tomorra', single payer fo'eva."

    Posted by LarryB at 09/11/2009 @ 3:17pm

69. If ObamaCare is so wonderful, why is there no tort reform and why aren't the politcal elites including themselves in the wonderful package?

    Anyone explain that?

    Morris_the_Cat

    Posted by Morris_the_Cat at 09/11/2009 @ 09:33am //////////////////////////////////////////////// If you think the people that are against government run health care are going to give up THEIR government run health care, you are dreaming. They are hypocrites to the highest level.

    Posted by chswad at 09/11/2009 @ 3:19pm

70. Americans were never "mandated" to pay insurance CEOs thousands of dollars a year - not until Democrats gained the majority.

    Insurance CEOs don't deserve a dime. I would rather pay back all the dues I supposedly owe for being bright enough to "game the system" by not paying the insurance CEOs these last 18 years. I would pay it all as a debt, if I could have the Public Option.

    Insurance should be a GUARANTEE that you won't go bankrupt. Insurance should mean that after you paid your premiums, you don't pay anymore!!!

    F--- the Insurance CEOs, F--- the mandate, F--- the Democrats in 2010.

    Wilson for Judiciary Chair in 2010.

    Posted by DPGrassley at 09/11/2009 @ 3:39pm

71. Thank you, Wolf. My point was that the cost of successful lawsuits (very few) is only 1.5% of the total cost of healthcare. The reason for large malpractice insurance premiums paid by doctors is just the overcharging and greed of the insurance industry. There has been no increase in lawsuit payouts. It is a phony issue used by Republicans.

    Posted by philbq at 09/11/2009 @ 4:06pm

72. Posted by drsam8 at 09/11/2009 @ 2:56pm

    I think you are losing it....on the boundary between sanity & insanity....just not sure where you had been?

    Posted by Happy at 09/11/2009 @ 5:04pm

73. Bigpasture, Fram, Happy, Glen Beck - Congratulations! Barack Obama wasnt intelligent enough for you! Failed Presidency, bigtime-loss in 2010 - could have been a 40-year generational shift.

    60 to block the filibuster - make them actually carry out the filibuster - then - 50 plus Biden to pass the bill - presto! Ha ha - no f---ing way the Democrats would really ever fight for Americans - I was just kidding. Wilson for Judiciary Chair in 2010!

    Posted by DPGrassley at 09/11/2009 @ 5:27pm

74. you cannot not cover individuals and expect to save money. let me repeat that, because i know it sounds like a slip of grammar.

    you cannot not cover individuals and expect to save money. either way, you end up paying for anyone who uses the healthcare system. and since healthcare systmes are required to treat everyone, no matter their origin, then we all share the cost.

    so, what is really at the heart of this wilsonian backlash, if you will, is xenophobia. jakobfabian and myself have articulated why this is the case, though we each have taken a different approach to its observation.

    i have just logically proven why it makes no sense to bar a particular group of people from accessing our incredible heatlhcare system, and yet conservatives are so insistent that mr. wilson has a point.

    but what really is his point? that he wants to cut costs, or that he wants to make life miserable for a particular group of people, who, by the way, mow his lawn, take out his garbage, cook his food, wash his underwear, and possibly sell his staff lots of cocaine.

    his point is that he doesn't like other people coming here to do the things that he doesn't really feel like doing, because he's rich and powerful.

    oh well, none of this matters, obama isn't god, and we don't have to respect him at all times, but mr. wilson is a bigot (and apparently doesn't wanna save money either)....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2009 @ 6:25pm

75. there really is no point in engaging the vast majority of the republican party and its followers, because they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

    they are (mostly) angry, confused, and delusional bigots. they haven't clue what socialism actually is, but they prance around crying socialism every time obama wants to spend money (and mostly on things that actually benefit americans), while their hero, george bush, spent money on things that didn't benefit americans whatsoever (two unnecessary wars, egregious tax cuts). they cannot ever admit they were wrong, while for 8 years all they did was call us "unserious, pot smoking whackos" and still do.

    the republican party of today is mentally ill, whereas the democrats and so weak and timid, that they insist on negotiating with these people. and the more they negotiate (amazingly) the republicans STILL think we're moving to the far to the left.

    it's insanity. this country is insane, and i (still) hate george bush.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2009 @ 6:33pm

76. What is the matter with the democrats? Why are they scared to fight? I have to think that chaney or some one else has something bad on them, possiblely like the dems approved torture, or something, there has to be something that we don't know that is keeping them from fighting for us. Well that and all the money they get to not fight for us, oh shit, it makes me want to give up hope, and I don't like feeling that way.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/11/2009 @ 7:01pm

77. I'd like to thank all of the progressives for making sure the issue of illegal immigrants getting affordability credits was so visible. Now that the Senate version appears to be adding language to require proof of citizenship, it will be all the more interesting when that provision, which supports the President's position, mysteriously vanishes in conference committee.

    Posted by sntauri at 09/11/2009 @ 8:22pm

78. they haven't clue what socialism actually is,

    Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2009 @ 6:33pm

    Then tell us what is in store for us.

    Posted by sntauri at 09/11/2009 @ 8:25pm

79. Wilson is a temporary distraction - how long will Americans "not notice" that thanks to the Democrats we now are mandated to pay the insurance CEOs for so-called coverage of ourself and so-called coverage of other Americans. The insurance CEOs will pocket the money, hire attorneys, deny claims, and Americans will still be going bankrupt.

    Wilson is the harvest for the Bi-Partisan BS the Democrats sowed.

    Posted by DPGrassley at 09/11/2009 @ 8:30pm

80. "Then tell us what is in store for us"

    sntauri, your demand is baffling, given the claim i made that conservatives, like antisocialist, don't even know what socialism really is.

    socialism requires (as anyone can learn) involves the "direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources".

    and obviously (that i even need to point this out is proof that people like antisocialist have *no idea* what they are talking about) that is not the case in the united states of america, and even more so in the ridiculously tepid "reforms" obama has proposed for healthcare.

    having said that, me telling you what it is "store for us" seems like a rather odd question, and it's obvious you are completely dodging the issue (which you conservatives tend to do, quite often).

    Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2009 @ 8:47pm

81. There is a much better public option.

    It has just two parts. The first makes now hidden information available . The other creates an incentive for providers, to keep their prices low. Neither costs the taxpayer anything.

    1. Require the medical industry to publish all its charges, the way supermarkets must plainly label the price of everything on their shelves. And just as shops send out circulars with their latest prices and sales, allowing shoppers to compare between stores, so too the medical industry needs to make available monthly the changing charges of doctors, hospitals and pharmacies within given regions.

    2. Remove all that now make it impossible or impractical for the public to shop for aspects of hospital and out-patient care. Everything from a flue shot, x-rays, elective procedures, even scheduled operations, need to become accessible to patient choice. There must be automatic interoperability between all medical providers. Medical records along with scans, can follow the patient. Medications and even the fluids to be administered during hospital stays can be shopped for.

    To make this work, patients and their families must be allowed a significant financial incentive. Where their shopping achieves costs below average for treating a given diagnosis, they receive the first $2,000 saved, with subsequent gains shared with the insurer.

    The insurers' outlays will fall, the providers' desire to be competitive will rise. And an industry of medical cost experts and expediters will mushroom, in the way of travel agents and tax preparers, to help the public make informed decisions.

    Obama's approach, tackling uncontrolled medical costs with a govt insurance, is like treating dysentery with toilet paper instead of targeting the cause of the infection.

    Posted by Pirovano at 09/11/2009 @ 8:48pm

82. "Wilson is a temporary distraction - how long will Americans "not notice" that thanks to the Democrats we now are mandated to pay the insurance CEOs for so-called coverage of ourself and so-called coverage of other Americans. The insurance CEOs will pocket the money, hire attorneys, deny claims, and Americans will still be going bankrupt."

    this is true, but you might be being a tad cynical. pointing out the most likely *outcome* isn't exactly inspiring....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2009 @ 8:49pm

83. "Obama's approach, tackling uncontrolled medical costs with a govt insurance, is like treating dysentery with toilet paper instead of targeting the cause of the infection"

    absolutely horrible analogy. but i digress....

    overally, i think your analysis makes sense, but why not make it even simpler? why not let the government do the cost-bidding, and leave the people out of it? people have enough to worry about, and sorting through medical products, like shopping for food (your analogy, not mine), can get tedious.

    why not just save the people the hassle, and let the government do the shopping?

    it seems to work elsewhere, without "bankrupting" the government, and covering everyone.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2009 @ 8:55pm

84. "Then tell us what is in store for us"

    sntauri, your demand is baffling, given the claim i made that conservatives, like antisocialist, don't even know what socialism really is.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2009 @ 8:47pm

    First, I apologize. Not a demand. I could have stated this more politely. Since we don't know what socialism is, I'm asking if you will share your vision of what it would look like here if you could have it implemented that way you think it should be done. We have been told so many times that references to places such as the old Soviet Union, or Angola, or anywhere are not valid because it hasn't ever been implemented correctly. I'm curious what life is going to be like under Darla-ism.

    Posted by sntauri at 09/11/2009 @ 9:37pm

85. , but mr. wilson is a bigot (and apparently doesn't wanna save money either)....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2009 @ 6:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You LIE as you have no proof Sen. Wilson is a bigot other than his calling the Obamanation a Liar which even the Senates action on trying to resolve coverage inclusion of illegals is proof he lied!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/11/2009 @ 9:41pm

86. Socialism is impractical, utopianist hogwash for the same reason that libertarianism is.

    In order for either to work, it requires human beings who have not and never will exist on this earth. Perfectly altruistic beings.

    Someone once wrote the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives try to make a world in which human beings, as they exist, can enjoy the maximum amount of freedom to achieve their individual goals, yet be compatible with an orderly society.

    Liberals seem to want to create better people with which to populate the earth.

    Conservatism has always appealed to me because it starts from the understanding that people do not change. It's why people still watch Shakespeare plays. Hundreds of years later and we still "recognize" the motivations, flaws, and passions. Because people don't change. Attempting to force or indoctrinate them into behavior inimical to their basic nature is fascism.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/11/2009 @ 10:20pm

87. My, things do seem to happen on weekends...

    The Census Director has sent a letter to the National Headquarters of ACORN notifying the group that the Census Bureau is severing all ties with the community organizing group for all work having to do with the 2010 census.

    "Over the last several months, through ongoing communication with our regional offices, it is clear that ACORN's affiliation with the 2010 Census promotion has caused sufficient concern in the general public, has indeed become a distraction from our mission, and may even become a discouragement to public cooperation, negatively impacting 2010 Census efforts," read a letter from Census Director Robert M. Groves to the president of ACORN.

    Posted by sntauri at 09/11/2009 @ 10:52pm

88. "Since we don't know what socialism is"

    yes, i know. you don't know what socialism is. that's what i just said.

    sntauri = genius

    "We have been told so many times that references to places such as the old Soviet Union, or Angola, or anywhere are not valid because it hasn't ever been implemented correctly"

    really trying to understand what your point is here.

    "Conservatism has always appealed to me because it starts from the understanding that people do not change. It's why people still watch Shakespeare plays."

    if only shakespeare were around to here this. can someone tell me what this person means? conflating shakespeare and modern conservativism is like comparing tantric sex with eazy cheese.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/11/2009 @ 11:50pm

89. This person's point was that liberalism's goal to socially engineer "better" people in the world is doomed to fail because people do not change. Human nature does not change.

    Any ideology that has roots in utopianist thinking is doomed to fail, but usually not before killing a lot of people while trampling on their individual rights in the vain attempt to force them to behave to a standard a small elite group considers "rational".

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/12/2009 @ 01:10am

90. It's clear that a lot of the same people that create Astroturf organizations, post here too. Say what you will in your ignorant, right wing, close minded rants... but don't for a moment think your actions will serve you. You are not a part of the elite corporate class who's side you are taking... you are their pawns and they will not thank you.

    If this country must go one way or another, toward corporatism or socialism, I'd prefer the latter... because at it's idealistic base is the equitable distribution of wealth, prosperity and the fruits of labor. In the corporate world we will be only a illusion away from a true two class system... and most, if not all of us posting here, will be on the bottom. Yes, even socialism is a corruptible system... but the answer is not to discard it or dismiss it's potential, but instead to keep the power with the people it is meant to serve. We have socialistic aspects to our government already... take Medicare and Social Security. Certainly these are good.

    We need a government that is ONLY beholding to the people and a political system that cannot be influenced by money. We need politicians that are subject to the same daily struggles we are... not those who live lives of privilege. We need a society where every child is born with an equal chance in education, nutrition, health, opportunity and choice. We need laws that will not allow families to hold wealth from generation to generation... especially since all real wealth is produced by the working class and the wealthy only serve to consume it.

    If closed minds and conservative values only serve to enslave, repress and deny you and your children of their present happiness and future potential... why do you not face your fears and fight the moral, just and essential fight?

    We need change... and yes, there is no doubt that Democrats are not faultless... but the answer is NOT to run to the conservative fold. There is no real comfort or clarity there.

    Posted by clearsite at 09/12/2009 @ 06:10am

91. Since we don't know what socialism is"

    yes, i know. you don't know what socialism is. that's what i just said.

    sntauri = genius

    "We have been told so many times that references to places such as the old Soviet Union, or Angola, or anywhere are not valid because it hasn't ever been implemented correctly"

    really trying to understand what your point is here.

    sted by darladoon at 09/11/2009 @ 11:50pm

    No problem. I'll just assume my writing is terrible and I'm not being clear.

    I'm trying to give you unfettered access to the soapbox. Since I (I won't speak for anybody else) don't begin to understand socialism, you get to explain it to us if you want. No hostility, no snark, no irrational outburst on my part. Just be specific. Don't tell us it is great and wonderful. Tell us how stuff works. The people own the means of production. That is fine. For example, does the government run the air transport system? Or are there two or more airlines? Do they compete? Is there a stock market? Or do only the workers of a specific company own the assets of that company? Are there more than one automobile company? If so, why? Does the government do all research, or are there private efforts? President Darla has won the white house, her party controls congress, has a majority of like minded individuals on SCOTUS, has all 50 governors and state houses with veto proof majorities. What do you do now?

    Posted by sntauri at 09/12/2009 @ 10:26am

92. The One has no clothes and anyone not fond of Kool-Aid but has COMMON SENSE, knew BHO was lying!

    Here's how one smart-as-a-cookie black man, coins this:

    September 12, 2009

    Obama's Rhetoric vs. Common Sense

    By Thomas Sowell

    ....Charlatan-in-Chief, Barack Obama, whose speech to a joint session of Congress was both a masterpiece of rhetoric and a shameless fraud.

    To tell us, with a straight face, that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpa and an insult to anyone's intelligence....

    Did we really need CBO experts to tell us that there is no free lunch? Some people probably did and the true believers in the Obama cult may still believe the President, instead of believing either common sense or budget experts....

    One of the secrets of being a glib talker is not getting hung up over whether what you are saying is true, and instead giving your full attention to what is required by the audience and the circumstances of the moment, without letting facts get in your way and cramp your style. Obama has mastered that art.

    Con men understand that their job is not to use facts to convince skeptics but to use words to help the gullible to believe what they want to believe. No message has been more welcomed by the gullible...than the promise of something for nothing. That is the core of Barack Obama's medical care plan.

    ....Obama tells us that he will impose various mandates on insurance companies but will not interfere with our free choice....But if he can drive up the cost of private insurance with mandates and subsidize government insurance with the taxpayers' money, how long do you think it will be before we have the "single payer" system he has advocated in the past?

    Posted by Happy at 09/12/2009 @ 10:35am

93. Sowell cont'd:

    Mandates by politicians are what have driven up the cost of insurance already. Politicians love to play Santa Claus and leave it to others to raise prices to cover the inevitable costs....

    Barack Obama's insistence that various dangerous policies are not in the legislation he proposes sounds good but means nothing. Unbridled power is a blank check, no matter what its rationale may be. No law gave the President of the United States the power to fire the head of General Motors, but TARP money did.

    When there are "advisory" panels on what treatments to approve and the White House's existing medical advisor has complained of Americans' "over-utilization" of medical care, what does it take to connect the dots?

    ==================================

    Folks, what does it take to "connect the dots" that we have an Empty Suit but a FULL-BLOWN CHARLATAN as President?

    Posted by Happy at 09/12/2009 @ 10:38am

94. I will be very interested in the coming days to see if anyone here at The Nation from Katrina on down does any journalistic pieces about the scandal with ACORN.

    It's already a disaster that the main stream media didn't even know what's going on with the so-called community organizers. It took Fox News to bring the corruption to light. Most people here probably don't even know what I'm talking about because they don't watch Fox.

    Two young journalists posing as a prostitute and a pimp entered two ACORN offices and at both places were advise how to defraud the government while video taping the entire conversations. Startling. The personnel at those two offices have been fired. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. ACORN has been exposed. The census Bureau has cut all ties to ACORN because it is now obvious that they are a corrupt organization who unless disbanded, will recieve billions in stimulus money.

    They refuse to open their books to federal or state scrutiny. Are you listening Mr. President? We know all about your ties to ACORN but unless you don't want to go down with the ship, you had better make a public statement about the scandal and call for and investigation immediately. This is bigger than Watergate and Monica.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 11:02am

95. ACORN Employees Fired as Scandal Grows By Shannon Bell

    Before the 2008 election nobody I'm guessing had even heard of ACORN; the activist group with ties to the President of the United States. Now, just days after a story breaks involving a hidden camera, a couple of young Americans who want to expose the group for what it really is, and a phony story about prostitution, the ACORN scandal grows seemingly by the minute. A couple days ago, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles walked into the ACORN Baltimore office posing as a pimp and his prostitute girlfriend seeking housing assistance. What followed was shocking, ACORN officials not only didn't care about the prostitution ring, but they were willing to help the pair obtain housing as well as gave them advice on how to cheat the IRS. ACORN promptly cried that they had been defamed in some way, saying that the allegations were false. Despite the fact that the incident was caught on tape, and ACORN fired the two employees involved. If there was no incident, then why fire the women caught on tape? The ACORN scandal deepens, while officials for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now were crying foul and claiming that the two "frauds" had perpetrated this stunt in other ACORN offices and failed, another video tape has surfaced today. The second tape, this time in the Washington D.C. office shows the same two individuals, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles playing the same role and getting the same result. In both instances, ACORN fired the employees involved. But don't think it's for ethical or moral reasons. This is pure CYA on the part of Barack Obama's former community organizing group. Yes in case you didn't know, the President once served as a "trainer", as well as a lawyer for ACORN. Now ACORN scand

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 11:12am

96. To this point, FoxNews has been the only MSM source that has even mentioned the ACORN scandal. And like all good community organizing groups, this one is crying racism. Nice try.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 11:13am

97. The liberals blogs are starting to catch up with this story but so far, it seems that The nation is closed for the weekend. I'll look forward to a huge piece by either John Nichols or Katrina herself on Monday.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 11:20am

98. The liberals blogs are starting to catch up with this story but so far, it seems that The nation is closed for the weekend. I'll look forward to a huge piece by either John Nichols or Katrina herself on Monday.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 11:20am

    The Nation writers and the leftist bloggers will perform their usual Alinsky trademark counter offensive. Instead of castigating ACORN, they will go after those young journalists who exposed ACORN. You can count on it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 12:13pm

99. Liberals seem to want to create better people with which to populate the earth. Conservatism has always appealed to me because it starts from the understanding that people do not change. It's why people still watch Shakespeare plays. Hundreds of years later and we still "recognize" the motivations, flaws, and passions. Because people don't change. Attempting to force or indoctrinate them into behavior inimical to their basic nature is fascism. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/11/2009 @ 10:20pm

    What shear drive for Idiocracy!

    No wonder new con repubs are anti-education, anti-science, anti-humanity, anti-history; ironically, all for pro-profiteering by drowning the baby.

    Can new con repubs see no beauty in the world, no truth in non-marketable or non-profiteering ways?

    All things change otherwise we'd have no educational system, no research and development, no entrepreneurs, no new wave anything; even our language evolves as we do.

    Sadly then, it appears to be a new con repub is to be a frustrated, hopeless, fearful, mean spirited and so short sighted as to become dysfunctional, insane and to act in insane ways.

    New con repub insanity can only be feeding on their own fear and insecurity.

    And fear, being one of our most basic survival instincts-- is contagious. A catch 22 that spreads even as we try to over come or dismiss an insane lie that caused the fear in the first place.

    In order to be fearless, our first brain must always be active. Our first brain is not the confused and fearful new con repub used cold blooded reptilian part.

    Our first brain is our heart! Our center which created and sustains us. To ignore that is to ignore our common bond; be cast out.

    Repubs last hope is to once again recognize and use theirs.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 12:23pm

100. Koan: Why do blood sucking ticks want the dog, they're feeding on, to take a flea and tick bath?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 12:31pm

101. "FoxNews has been the only MSM source that has even mentioned the ACORN scandal"

     gee, i wonder why.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 12:38pm

102. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 12:23pm

     Don't you get tired of lying about others?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 12:40pm

103. "FoxNews has been the only MSM source that has even mentioned the ACORN scandal"

     gee, i wonder why.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 12:38pm

     Here they come as predicted. Defending those who receive Federal funds and were caught red-handed teaching people how to get away with a criminal activity.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 12:42pm

104. "Defending those who receive Federal funds and were caught red-handed teaching people how to get away with a criminal activity"

     of course, when a wal-mart employee steals from wal-mart, then it doesn't necessarily follow that wal-mart itself has committed a crime. it is wal-mart's responsibility to allow law enforcement to do its job and investigate the crime.

     simply juxtapose wal-mart with any large corporation or non-profit or ngo, and you have the same narrative.

     the same goes with acorn. it has thousands of employees and volunteers, and cannot possibly expect all of them to follow the law.

     there is no story here, and the only reason fox news is interested in it, is because they want to destroy president obama.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 12:57pm

105. " President Darla has won the white house, her party controls congress, has a majority of like minded individuals on SCOTUS, has all 50 governors and state houses with veto proof majorities. What do you do now?"

     so we've moved from my correct claim that republicans have been falsely accusing obama of socialism, to this?

     ok. whatever.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 12:59pm

106. WASHINGTON (AP) - The Census Bureau on Friday severed its ties with ACORN, a community organization that has been hit with Republican accusations of voter-registration fraud.

     "We do not come to this decision lightly," Census director Robert Groves wrote in a letter to ACORN, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

     "It is clear that ACORN's affiliation with the 2010 census promotion has caused sufficient concern in the general public, has indeed become a distraction from our mission, and may even become a discouragement to public cooperation, negatively impacting 2010 census efforts," Groves wrote.

     Up to now, the Census Bureau had defended ACORN's involvement, explaining it was one of 80,000 unpaid volunteer groups that the bureau hoped would be able to raise local awareness. But in his letter, Groves said it no longer had confidence that ACORN was effectively managing its partnership.

     In recent months, Republicans have become increasingly critical of the census' ties with ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The group, which advocates for poor people, conducted a massive voter registration effort last year and became a target of conservatives when some employees were accused of submitting false registration forms with names such as "Mickey Mouse."

     ACORN fired two employees who were seen on hidden-camera video giving tax advice to a man posing as a pimp and a woman who pretended to be a prostitute. Fox News Channel broadcast excerpts from the video on Thursday. On the video, a man and woman visiting ACORN's Baltimore office asked about buying a house and how to account on tax forms for the woman's income. An ACORN employee advised the woman to list her occupation as "performance artist."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 12:59pm

107. Don't you get tired of lying about others?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 12:40pm

     Well at least I wasn't giving an address to a room full of supposedly dignitaries....

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 1:02pm

108. "FoxNews has been the only MSM source that has even mentioned the ACORN scandal"

     gee, i wonder why.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 12:38pm

     Maybe because FOX doesn't consider helping folks setting up brothels and evading taxes in the very communities they are ostensibly `organizing' and `helping' are what our charitable dollars are supposed to be used for, you think?

     At least, I don't think that the type of community the Great Society meant to built, but in fact, DID, with the helpful folks of ACORN, black slave masters extraordinair!

     Posted by Happy at 09/12/2009 @ 1:04pm

109. .....there is no story here,...

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 12:57pm

     Just as the Legacy Media treated Van Jones as a "no story" until after the fact!

     This is exactly the type of "no story" I knew, our country will suffer under with a black man as POTUS who had no prior achievements but gave white Libs the absolution from their ancestral guilt toward slavery.

     It's a tragedy that because our President is black, racism is now THE EXCUSE for any and every thing that doesn't jive with your chip-on-shoulder being.

     Posted by Happy at 09/12/2009 @ 1:09pm

110. Maybe because FOX doesn't consider helping folks setting up brothels and evading taxes...

     Posted by Happy at 09/12/2009 @ 1:04pm

     Er, they were helping her to report the income so she could pay taxes!

     If you're going to be outraged please get your facts straight at least.

     You're outraged because someone was fooled by a fake prostitute into showing some compassion for her embarrassment by not stating 'how' she preformed for her income.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 1:09pm

111. "ACORN fired two employees who were seen on hidden-camera video giving tax advice to a man posing as a pimp and a woman who pretended to be a prostitute"

     exactly my point: "acorn fired two employees...."

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 1:10pm

112. ok. whatever.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 12:59pm

     Fine. Republicans have accused Obama of socialism. Bad Republicans! Bad, bad. They don't understand socialism. Don't understand. But Darla understands socialism. If Darla would explain, then everyone would want it and nobody would be afraid. But we can't figure out how to ask Darla to explain socialism. We could try, "Darla, please explain socialism to us!" But, I just don't think this is going to work.

     Posted by sntauri at 09/12/2009 @ 1:14pm

113. the same goes with acorn. it has thousands of employees and volunteers, and cannot possibly expect all of them to follow the law.

     there is no story here, and the only reason fox news is interested in it, is because they want to destroy president obama.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 12:57pm

     You're outraged because someone was fooled by a fake prostitute into showing some compassion for her embarrassment by not stating 'how' she preformed for her income.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 1:09pm

     One location, that is simply a bad employee incident.

     When the same advice is given at multiple locations, that is corporate oversight and planned.

     These employees were instructing how to cheat the govt and to do so by shielding the fact that the homes were part of laundering money from criminal activity.

     They consciously and purposely at both locations were instructing someone to commit fraud.

     And just as we predicted, the left falls over themselves defending criminal activity.

     Had this been a conservative organization, Every Nation writer would probably already have a thread running to condemn the Republicans.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 1:15pm

114. These employees were instructing how to cheat the govt... Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 1:15pm

     Cheating-- she was asking how 'to pay' her taxes without stating "whore" as her income.

     Why shouldn't anti state on his taxes, that he's a "professional charlatan", rather than only 'performing' an insurance salesman, not cheating?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 1:28pm

115. And yes the intrapped got fired. They lost their jobs. But it's ACCORN's fault?

     Isn't this a Minority Report pre-cog crime accusation?

     Again, the new con repub looniness devolution continues its exposure.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 1:38pm

116. er, Again, the new con repub devolution into looniness, continues its exposure.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 1:45pm

117. Had this been a conservative organization, Every Nation writer would probably already have a thread running to condemn the Republicans. Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 1:15pm

     No because it's a non-story and it most likely never saw print unless it was a very public co.

     Hard to prove a negative though.

     And why new con repubs so enjoy pulling those gaseous mushroom clouds out of their asses continually.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 1:54pm

118. Here's the part Bushfools leaves out-I guess because either he supports child prostitution or he knows he can't really support this criminal activity but won't admit it.

     <The firings came less than 24 hours after another pair of ACORN officials from the group's Baltimore office were canned for instructing the "pimp" and "prostitute" how to falsify tax forms and seek illegal benefits for 13 "very young" girls from El Salvador that pair said they wanted to import to work as child prostitutes.

     As he did in the taping in Baltimore, O'Keefe told the Washington officers that he had plans to bring as many as 10 women from El Salvador to work as prostitutes in Giles' "business."

     "There's like 10 girls," O'Keefe says. "There's ten El Salvodoreans."

     The ACORN staffer replies, "I understand what you are saying.">

     http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549241,00.html

     So is that your thing Bushfools? You support importing minor age girls to be prostitutes?

     And didn't the Nation run articles on the problem of slavery here and worldwide with a special emphasis on the problem of sex slaves?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 2:03pm

119. So is that your thing Bushfools? You support importing minor age girls to be prostitutes?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 2:03pm

     There is no AP mention of an imaginary minor/child prostitute ring:

     http://tinyurl.com/nnd78d

     And no I do not even support prostitution where it's legal in the USA; much less any form of child slavery.

     But neither will I condemn a woman that wishes to become a professional in that area of endeavor.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 2:15pm

120. antisocialist seems not to realize the rather obvious fact that these employees were fired.......by acorn.

     "One location, that is simply a bad employee incident. When the same advice is given at multiple locations, that is corporate oversight and planned. These employees were instructing how to cheat the govt and to do so by shielding the fact that the homes were part of laundering money from criminal activity. They consciously and purposely at both locations were instructing someone to commit fraud. And just as we predicted, the left falls over themselves defending criminal activity."

     sounds like.....guantanamo, abu ghraib, bagram, etc

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 2:35pm

121. the same goes with acorn. it has thousands of employees and volunteers, and cannot possibly expect all of them to follow the law.

     there is no story here, and the only reason fox news is interested in it, is because they want to destroy president obama.

     Posted by darladon at 09/12/2009 @ 12:57pm

     You can't be serious. There's NO story here? The only reason Fox News is interested is to destroy Obama?

     Well here's a couple of questions for you. Do you think that these two young investigative journalists just happened to wander into the ONLY two ACORN offices where corrupt practices were taking place and what are the odds of that? Also, why aren't you concerned that ACORN is not willing to open it's books even though they will be getting billions in stimulus money? You should be concerned. Maybe you are just trying to protect Barack Obama.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 2:39pm

122. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 1:09pm

     Guess you didn't see the entire tape. What were you watching, Olbermann?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 2:43pm

123. exactly my point: "acorn fired two employees...."

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 1:10pm

     So far. There are more tapes coming.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 2:44pm

124. There is no AP mention of an imaginary minor/child prostitute ring:

     http://tinyurl.com/nnd78d

     And no I do not even support prostitution where it's legal in the USA; much less any form of child slavery.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 2:15pm

     That's what we are talking about. News organizations are selectively reporting what really happened. Here you can watch.

     Watch the ACORN woman not even blink about bringing in underage girls to be prostitutes. She advises how to deal with it taxwise.

     Shameful, shameful, shameful

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtTnizEnC1U

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 2:45pm

125. As far as the AP report, were the ACCORN employees fired for giving the fake prostitute the wrong term for filing her 1040?

     They should told her to put "independent contractor":

     "Brothel prostitutes work as independent contractors and thus do not receive any unemployment, retirement or health benefits. They are responsible for paying Federal income tax and their earnings are reported to the IRS via form 1099-MISC. Nevada does not have a state income tax."

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 2:49pm

126. Shoulda, coulda, woulda...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 2:51pm

127. gee, wonder why fox would spearhead a mission to take down ACORN, just as healthcare reform (which would stand to benefit ACORN's target groups) heats up?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 2:52pm

128. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 1:38pm

     Do you really want to go on record as defending ACORN. That's a big mistake in my opinion. This is an organization that uses community organizers to teach poor communities how to get money from the government without working for it. That's what they are all about. That's what Barack Obama did before he became a politician. This was all covered by, yes, Fox News and talk radio BEFORE, the Presidential election. Wasn't anyone listening.

     I will bet that within a year, ACORN will be investigated and will reorganize under a different name. There is story after story coming out now about their corrupt practices. Shame on any elected office holder of either party who does not call for a prompt investigation into this organization. Their books MUST be opened. They are taking taxpayer money.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 2:52pm

129. sounds like.....guantanamo, abu ghraib, bagram, etc

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 2:35pm

     WTF?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 2:55pm

130. Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 2:52pm

     ACORN is taking themselves down. Fox is just reporting it.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 2:58pm

131. "ACORN is taking themselves down. Fox is just reporting it."

     (quote of the day)

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 3:00pm

132. gee, wonder why fox would spearhead a mission to take down ACORN, just as healthcare reform (which would stand to benefit ACORN's target groups) heats up?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 2:52pm

     So Darla, do also support minor age girls being used as sex slaves?

     The tax issue is minor compared to the lack of interest by the ACORN reps that these people were talking about 14 and 15 year old sex slaves being brought in from El Salvador.

     The hypocrisy of you people seemingly has no limits.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 3:01pm

133. "This is an organization that uses community organizers to teach poor communities how to get money from the government without working for it"

     (quote of the day - tied with previous)

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 3:02pm

134. "The hypocrisy of you people seemingly has no limits"

     this is what they call 'projection'

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 3:03pm

135. acorn is now taking legal action against the makers of the film which antisocialist has posted, as well as fox news.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 3:09pm

136. acorn is now taking legal action against the makers of the film which antisocialist has posted, as well as fox news.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 3:09pm

     That should be fun...ACORN will be laughed out of court.

     Do you support lawsuits against liberals who attempt to expose criminality by conservative organizations?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 3:11pm

137. acorn is now taking legal action against the makers of the film which antisocialist has posted, as well as fox news.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 3:09pm

     That should be fun...ACORN will be laughed out of court.

     Do you support lawsuits against liberals who attempt to expose criminality by conservative organizations?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 3:11pm

     Let me correct that.

     Do you support legal action against liberals who attempt to expose criminality by conservative organizations?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 3:12pm

138. antisocialist, always asking the wrong questions.

     let me put it this way: wal-mart and acorn have roughly the same number of people working for them.

     if a group of wal-mart employees sell drugs, and the company fires them, is that somehow an indictment of wal-mart?

     no, it's not.

     and that is *EXACTLY* what is going on here. a few "bad apples" as it were.

     ironically, the "bad apples" excuse was given by the bush administration to justify: torture.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 3:14pm

139. tell me, antisocialist, what's your case against acorn?

     i want full details, evidence, etc. not just your opinion, as translated through fox, i want evidence, intent, etc, etc.

     you have no idea what you're talking about, and you get all of your information from right wing sources.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 3:15pm

140. "Do you support legal action against liberals who attempt to expose criminality by conservative organizations?"

     this question has no relevance whatsoever.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 3:16pm

141. tell me, antisocialist, what's your case against acorn?

     i want full details, evidence, etc. not just your opinion, as translated through fox, i want evidence, intent, etc, etc.

     you have no idea what you're talking about, and you get all of your information from right wing sources.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 3:15pm

     First of all, I am not making a "case" against ACORN.

     I noted at the beginning of this thread that the Nation and liberal bloggers instead of attackhing the behavior at ACORN is wrong, would instead attack the young journalists and FOX news for reporting it.

     That's exactly what has happened.

     Secondly, as I also previously stated, your walmart argument would hold up if this merely happened at one location

     Since virtually the same response by ACORN employees was experienced at both locations, that indicates that either ACORN teaches this response to illegal activity, or that they hire people in their screening process that have these attitudes.

     Finally, for some bizarre reason, you continue to express no outrage over the fact that these ACORN employees were actively providing guidance on how to best use minor age sex slaves.

     What kind of feminist does that make you Darla?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 3:22pm

142. "Do you support legal action against liberals who attempt to expose criminality by conservative organizations?"

     this question has no relevance whatsoever.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 3:16pm

     Sure it does. You seem to support ACORN suing these two young people who exposed these employees.

     I'm simply asking if your standards apply to liberals engaged in the same type of journalism?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 3:25pm

143. you have no idea what you're talking about, and you get all of your information from right wing sources.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 3:15pm

     Darla, I do know what I'm talking about because like anyone else who wishes to, I have watched the videos. I even posted one of them in a previous post.

     I didn't get any of this from right wing sources. I don't watch FOX news and have made that clear for a number of years on this website. I watch mostly liberal to far left television. From MSNBC to Free Speech TV, IndyTV, and LINK TV.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 3:28pm

144. Watch the ACORN woman not even blink about bringing in underage girls to be prostitutes. She advises how to deal with it taxwise. Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 2:45pm

     I could not tell that the ACCORN employee even understood what the Salvadoran kids were going to be doing until the very end of the 1st tape. The voice over kept saying it, but the ACCORN employee never reacted to it. Even then at the end she sounded as though it was simply voluntary underage work like baby sitting. If the tape wasn't altered--- since it obviously had major cuts and pastes, over voicing and flash card dubs that did not respond to what they were actually saying, she should've ended it right there and told them she could not help them. Trafficking is a federal/international crime and she'd be implicated. Then she should've reported them.

     I can see why she got fired if that's the case.

     Any organization would've fired her.

     However, my first impression of the tape is that it does come off as somewhat of a fake cut and paste altered job.

     I'd need to see it uncut. I bet the feds are.

     Even on the second tape the ACCORN employees kept saying that ACCORN would know nothing. And then when the ACCORN employee said they couldn't cover them if anything bad happens, but the dubbed over box message said that ACCORN couldn't cover them. When the employee already said that ACCORN didn't know any of what they were doing happened! The employee obviously knows what she's doing isn't sanctioned by ACCORN.

     I guess they couldn't figure out how to completely edit out that part?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 3:41pm

145. See this is a perfect example of how new con repubs will always go ape shit and throw as much of it against their cage to see what sticks in order to alter the debate.

     It's no longer about how to better reform costly healthcare so everyone can be covered, it's now look at all the shit new con repubs threw against the wall.

     And it's never a pretty picture.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 4:08pm

146. In commenting on Eyal Press's remarks, I will distinguish 1. The Speech from 2. The Public Option.

     Re 2. The first post said about as much as as can be soundly insisted on at this general level of L-R vote discourse. "If the legislation contains a provision for everyone to have insurance, but does not provide a strong public option it should not be passed."

     Re 1. As a performance, not just text, the speech was so strong, pure, American soul it caused the double liars (about "death panels" and "illegal immigrants) to poison themselves -- only to come back projecting (with reversal) "hyprocisy!"

     There was a double black sun/son shining through the mental atmosphere inside the Congressional rotundum, the nation's 9.9.9 moment in our own womb-surround on the Potomac.

     Obama hurt 'em bad; the sheer whiteness of his soul reversing whatever racism self-hating whites, or blacks, was reacting to off his black skin (don't tone it down; ramp it up; and bring back Rev. "God Damn Bush's America" Wright.

     Now The Man has got to throw major Mojo at: the Blue Gill moron 'neocon' Democrats; all Zionists, but especially the AIPAC Jewish contingent w/ Presidents of 52 Major Jewish organizations urging war on the Taliban and other abominations; admit that his own case is an exceptional clusterfuck, and kick out those who lack legal certification of birth, plus all dual citizens; WARN ABOUT THE REAL POISON DANGERS IN SWINE FLU VACCINE -- TO PREVENT "HEALTH CARE" FROM BECOMING OXYMORONIC -- AND KEEP HIM FROM BECOMING POISONER IN CHIEF -- which will fit, as the recombinant fraknen-viruses squalened into the bloodstream will do to America what the Jews were thought to do to Hitler's Germany -- which is what lead to Nazism as program to preserve pure Aryan blood.

     Posted by jones at 09/12/2009 @ 5:18pm

147. What an incredible exchange.

     hsuBfools, tune in Monday to O'Reilly or Hannity or even Greta and you'll see a lot more of the tape. But you already know that. This story isn't going to die. I'll ask I ask you rhe same question that I asked darladoon. Do you think that these two young journalists juat happened to visit the ONLY two offices of ACORN where corrupt employees worked? Can I get an honest answer here? They suggested that there will be more tapes coming. I think they protected themselves pretty well.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 5:19pm

148. See this is a perfect example of how new con repubs will always go ape shit and throw as much of it against their cage to see what sticks in order to alter the debate.

     It's no longer about how to better reform costly healthcare so everyone can be covered, it's now look at all the shit new con repubs threw against the wall.

     And it's never a pretty picture.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 4:08pm

     These incidents are unrelated to the Healthcare reform issue. It is only those like yourself who try and link it.

     I have yet in these past months to hear a single conservative link ACORN to the subject of healthcare reform.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 5:26pm

149. I have yet in these past months to hear a single conservative link ACORN to the subject of healthcare reform.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 5:26pm

     They will. Because it's all about milking the government and getting all the freebies possible. ACORN wants free HC for its people above and beyond what they already have. You know that.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 5:43pm

150. Do you think that these two young journalists juat happened to visit the ONLY two offices of ACORN where corrupt employees worked? Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 5:19pm

     It did not stick where they said they visited lots of other ACCORN offices. As far as I can remember it was only one. The AP article I recall only mentioned one.

     However, it would make sense to have tried other ACCORN offices. Do you think they would have showed a tape(s) where their con didn't work out this well?

     And can you honestly say that the tape wasn't altered more than it already obviously was to make it even more prejudicial and condemning?

     And lastly, do you think that there are unpublished hsuB/cHeney secret memos approving slave trafficking too or is it just limited to torture?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 6:24pm

151. It did not stick where they said they visited lots of other ACCORN offices. As far as I can remember it was only one. The AP article I recall only mentioned one.

     However, it would make sense to have tried other ACCORN offices. Do you think they would have showed a tape(s) where their con didn't work out this well?

     And can you honestly say that the tape wasn't altered more than it already obviously was to make it even more prejudicial and condemning?

     And lastly, do you think that there are unpublished hsuB/cHeney secret memos approving slave trafficking too or is it just limited to torture?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 6:24pm

     They did; here is the video from the ACORN Washington DC office

     http://tinyurl.com/qy3cgt

     What you have to deal with is their words. Editing doesn't change their words.

     If you are an honest liberal, simply condemn these kinds of attitudes.

     No, I do not believe there are any Bush/Cheney memos approving slave trafficking.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 6:44pm

152. ACORN doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this thread. I expect they are a fine organization, overall, for the service they do (with is American, if it is anti-Reagan in re El Salvador).

     Acorn (the touchis teabag brain media minded have to have some tittle word like "Acorn" to titilate their snake brain jollies) It is a proxy take-out issue Health Care poisoners use to hide behind.

     My post under Melber, and above, explains what is going on with the "YOU'RE THE LIAR" 9/9/9 siblingesquerie. Unless you read and digest them, you won't know, anymore than you have known about anything about what has happened during this Jewish/Catholic neocon "Israel first" regime under President Boobus, if you believe 911 wasn't an inside job. You'll just keep poking your best black sun darts into each other's pinyata, every whack well deserved.

     Go to it, stupids.

     Posted by jones at 09/12/2009 @ 6:45pm

153. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 6:24pm

     It's too bad you didn't see Hannity interview the two young journalists that exposed ACORN. They were on last night. If you did see it, you wouldn't have written what you just did.

     And lastly, do you think that there are unpublished hsuB/cHeney secret memos approving slave trafficking too or is it just limited to torture?

     This is just silly nonsense. We suffered a serious attack eight years ago on the scale of Pearl Harbor. It's the President and his administration's job to keep us safe. It's complicated but I have no sympathy for terrorists. I wonder how Barack Obama would have handled the same situation. By the way. I didn't support the invasion of Iraq. Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose. I would reccommend waterboarding or worse, anyone who has information of his whereabouts so that our military can find him and kill him just like we avenged Pearl Harbor. Where are your priorities?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 6:48pm

154. What you have to deal with is their words. Editing doesn't change their words.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/12/2009 @ 6:44pm

     And lastly, do you think that there are unpublished hsuB/cHeney secret memos approving slave trafficking too or is it just limited to torture?

     This is just silly nonsense. We suffered a serious attack eight years ago on the scale of Pearl Harbor. It's the President and his administration's job to keep us safe. It's complicated but I have no sympathy for terrorists.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/12/2009 @ 6:48pm

     Editing has everything to do with words and how we perceive what may be happening and how it's connected to anything else.

     I just connected hsuB/cHeney to ACORN, child prostitution and torture. While you're defending it. Doesn't matter if it were true or not, they're now linked. Now get a few MSM entertainment news to carry it for a day or two... viola, smear.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2009 @ 7:35pm

155. Yes gunslinger1, the only reason this is a story is because fox wants to destroy Obama, as do the teabaggers, and all the other groups who want to take Obama down, it is that simple, they don't like him because he is black or because he is a liberal, or because he is a democrat, etc., etc., etc., and you actually believe in this crap. Sad commentary if I have ever heard it, and the sad part is that there is nothing people of the liberal bent can do to convince you guys. You fight against your own best interest except maybe Happy who is actually Greedy in a not so good a disguise. What a great country, sarcasm off.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/12/2009 @ 8:15pm

156. Anti, I do not approve what these aholes did in the name of acorn, they were crooks and dishonest to the extreme, but they were fired, which is exactly what should have happened, and I might add DID happen, why do you want to take down Obama for this, doesn't the punishment fit the crime, after all they lost their jobs and will possibly face criminal charges for this. What , do you literally want their heads? I mean what the hell do you guys want?

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/12/2009 @ 8:27pm

157. Ya know gunslinger1, just the fact that you take anything Hannity says as gospel is a big ole red flag, 'nough said.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/12/2009 @ 8:34pm

158. "would instead attack the young journalists and FOX news for reporting it"

     antisocialist actually thinks fox does "reporting"!

     oh, baby! i'm not sure i can take much more of him now....

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 8:52pm

159. antisocialist, you are basically toeing the extreme right wing line/lie on almost every major topic. you're barely a sliver away from the biggest right wing stooge on the planet: glenn beck. these so-called indictments of acorn are just complete, fabricated crapola, stirred up by the most extreme, hate-filled groups and politicians and their sympathetic friends at fox news. these same groups think that obama is a radical, black nationalist muslim, who secretly hates america, will kill grandma, and enslave the white middle class with communism. these people are about an inch away from the psych ward, and you're right behind them.

     same goes for sntauri, gunslinger, jomamma, happy, bigpasture, usc1, pontificus, et al.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 8:59pm

160. Well that is a big clue, Anti want to take foxes word on anything,gunslinger1 too.What can anyone say, the world has gone crazy, truly really crazy, and we are witness, amazing and very, very scary!

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/12/2009 @ 9:17pm

161. Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2009 @ 8:59pm

     whatever.

     Posted by sntauri at 09/12/2009 @ 10:51pm

162. Just look at the tea bagging crowd descending on D.C. on 9/12/09, they're so easily manipulated.

     I don't think most of those people know what they're talking about. They just get their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh and the creeps at Fox News.

     If Obama was giving everyone gold bricks encrusted with gems, those assh*les would be yelling "I don't want no God damn socialist jewel encrusted ingot!"

     Posted by koroviev at 09/13/2009 @ 01:27am

163. Obama's speech on Sept. 10th to Congress offered nothing new. He ignored the misgivings expressed by the majority of Americans, concerning their dislike of the public health care option and was dishonest in saying that it would'nt affect the doctor and insurance options they now have. Even though the bill, itself, says nothing about eliminating private insurance, Obama knows better than anyone that the government option will eventually put private insurers out-of-business because they can't compete, leaving us with a massive and inefficient government bureaucracy that will be far less responsive than the private bureaucracies we now have.

     Further, since government bureaucracies have no history of downsizing and becoming more efficient, Obama's so-called "savings," resulting from his "plan" to cut back on "waste" and "fraud" would be unlikely to happen, leaving a much higher debt than now. We only have to look to public health coverage in Oregon, Massachusetts, Canada, and Britain to see how rationing will result to keep costs down and how deficits will result, nonetheless. As for enacting spending cuts in other areas, if the savings don't materialize, Congress has a low probability of doing so to the degree needed, given the strong resistance of most politicians (primarily members of your party) to make such cuts.

     In conclusion, Obama's speech on health care as a waste of Congress' time and ours, since he said nothing new. So, though Rep. Joe Wilson was wrong for saying it, when he did, he voiced a belief held by most Americans that Obama lied about more than one element of his health care plan. What's worse, though, is that we'll have to live the damage of those lies, if - God forbid - Obama's health care "plan" should pass.

     Posted by skeetjr at 09/13/2009 @ 01:48am

164. Response to koroviev at 09/13/2009 @ 01:27am

     "Just look at the tea bagging crowd descending on D.C. on 9/12/09, they're so easily manipulated..."

     -----------------------

     Response: Actually the reason the "tea bagging" crowd is descending on D.C is because they're NOT easily manipulated. If they were, they wouldn't be in D.C. at all. Rather, having drunk the Obama Koolaid spiked with a leftist chaser, they'd be in Minnesota, attending the Obama rally, wildly cheering his speech on his health-care "plan," basking in the aura of the "anointed one," and hoping to touch the hand of the "dear leader."

     Posted by skeetjr at 09/13/2009 @ 02:06am

165. leaving us with a massive and inefficient government bureaucracy that will be far less responsive than the private bureaucracies we now have.

     Posted by skeetjr at 09/13/2009 @ 01:48am

     This is speculation presented as fact.

     Further, since government bureaucracies have no history of downsizing and becoming more efficient, Obama's so-called "savings," resulting from his "plan" to cut back on "waste" and "fraud" would be unlikely to happen, leaving a much higher debt than now.

     Posted by skeetjr at 09/13/2009 @ 01:48am

     More speculation.

     We only have to look to public health coverage in Oregon, Massachusetts, Canada, and Britain to see how rationing will result to keep costs down and how deficits will result,

     Posted by skeetjr at 09/13/2009 @ 01:48am

     The insurers do the rationing now and do a damn good job, just check their profits...By the way, why not explain how the massive profits of the health insurers benefit anyone except those companies?

     Here is some speculation that you can bank on...

     When the Trojan Horse of tort reform is implemented, rationing of healthcare will occur like never before.

     Posted by koroviev at 09/13/2009 @ 02:07am

166. Response: Actually the reason the "tea bagging" crowd is descending on D.C is because they're NOT easily manipulated.

     Posted by skeetjr at 09/13/2009

     They lost and hate it. That's what they're pissed about. (Just my opinion but that's what I think.)

     I saw photos of elderly tea baggers screeching about "no govt. healthcare" despite the fact that they are probably using medicare. But, regardless if they use it or not, everyone at that rally benefits from medicare, medicaid and the VA because these programs lower costs.

     The simple fact is health insurance through employers is being paid for presently so why couldn't it be paid for if the government ran it as a non profit program?

     Posted by koroviev at 09/13/2009 @ 05:19am

167. why couldn't it be paid for if the government ran it as a non profit program?

     Posted by koroviev at 09/13/2009 @ 05:19am

     I suggest you direct your question to darladoon. She will give you an answer I'm sure you will appreciate.

     Posted by sntauri at 09/13/2009 @ 08:57am

168. Posted by Denise29 at 09/12/2009 @ 8:34pm

     I am an independent. I listen to all sides of an argument and then I usually come down on the side that makes the most sense. I've disagreed with Hannity plenty. I have no blind alligances. I suggest you and others here free your minds and start to listen to all sides. There are good points to be had on each. You have the right to your own opinion but if you close your mind to one side then you are not worth listening to. Sorry.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/13/2009 @ 09:45am

169. I could say the same about you gunslinger1, all I've read here is you taking the side of fox, if you have good things to say about Obama and his administration, I've never heard them.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/13/2009 @ 09:50am

170. Also, no need to be sorry.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/13/2009 @ 09:51am

171. Almost all the Governments have money to spend on arms, and for wars.They give hundreds of billions to fraud financial institutions and cos. Mr.Obama, here is the solution for the money for the benefit of the American people. be it for health or ,for the New Orleans people , who lost everything after hurricane Katrina .PULL THE TROOPS FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.Correct the crimes committed by George W Bush and his coterie.By doing that ,you are saving your country from further humiliation.It will save millions of innocent lives.

     Posted by Dastu11 at 09/13/2009 @ 09:54am

172. Anti, I do not approve what these aholes did in the name of acorn, they were crooks and dishonest to the extreme, but they were fired, which is exactly what should have happened, and I might add DID happen, why do you want to take down Obama for this, doesn't the punishment fit the crime, after all they lost their jobs and will possibly face criminal charges for this. What , do you literally want their heads? I mean what the hell do you guys want?

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/12/2009 @ 8:27pm

     I have made no comments related to Obama on this ACORN issue of the prostitution and sex slaves.

     Obama has no connection to this and no attempt to link him is warranted. So I don't know why you make this accusation towards me?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/13/2009 @ 10:25am

173. Well that is a big clue, Anti want to take foxes word on anything,gunslinger1 too.What can anyone say, the world has gone crazy, truly really crazy, and we are witness, amazing and very, very scary!

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/12/2009 @ 9:17pm

     I have already stated that I don't watch Fox News and I didn't get my information on this from Fox News.

     I merely stated to another blogger that their attack on Fox News for merely running the story is unwarranted. They didn't create the story.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/13/2009 @ 10:27am

174. The insurers do the rationing now and do a damn good job, just check their profits...By the way, why not explain how the massive profits of the health insurers benefit anyone except those companies?

     Posted by koroviev at 09/13/2009 @ 02:07am

     If you think that a profit of 3% is massive, you must really hate lawyers.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/13/2009 @ 10:30am

175. "They didn't create the story"

     and here we come back to square 1.

     fox news actually *did* create the story. literally.

     that's the entire *point* anti. fox literally "creates" or "fabricates" stories.

     this entire acorn episode is a fox new-creation. rupert murdoch, and his army, want to destroy president obama, and more specifically, want to destroy even the most tepid reforms obama has proposed.

     "If you think that a profit of 3% is massive, you must really hate lawyers."

     you left out one crucial aspect of this, anti: how much health insurers make in the context of total healthcare spending. how much do they spend on:

     advertising, administrative, CEO salaries, etc?

     *way* more than the government would.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/13/2009 @ 11:07am

176. 1 of 2

     From koroviev at 09/13/2009 @ 02:07am:

     "leaving us with a massive and inefficient government bureaucracy that will be far less responsive than the private bureaucracies we now have.

     Posted by skeetjr at 09/13/2009 @ 01:48am

     This is speculation presented as fact." ---------

     Response: It's an outcome based on historical precedent and fact, in accordance with economics 101. If you have one entity that's much larger than its competitors (i.e. the gov't.) and can charge much less than them and if it's cheaper for companies to pay the tax and move it's employees from their insurance option to the government's, the gov't plan will put the private ones out of business. So no matter how hard you try to spin in favor of a government option, you can't hide this foregone conclusion. -------------- From: From koroviev at 09/13/2009 @ 02:07am:

     "Further, since government bureaucracies have no history of downsizing and becoming more efficient, Obama's so-called "savings," resulting from his "plan" to cut back on "waste" and "fraud" would be unlikely to happen, leaving a much higher debt than now.

     Posted by skeetjr at 09/13/2009 @ 01:48am

     More speculation." -------------------

     Response: Again a prediction, based on historical fact and precedent. Not one gov't agency created in the past has disappeared or gotten smaller. Rather, the gov't's gotten larger and, as Medicare shows, operates inefficiently and with significant waste and fraud on a consistent basis. So it makes no sense, whatsoever, to expand gov't control to the entire country, given the gov't's inability to handle a much smaller program, like Medicare, efficiently and effectively.

     ...Continued

     Posted by skeetjr at 09/13/2009 @ 11:07am

177. "So it makes no sense, whatsoever, to expand gov't control to the entire country, given the gov't's inability to handle a much smaller program, like Medicare, efficiently and effectively."

     inability to "handle" medicare?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/13/2009 @ 11:09am

178. Word Darlaloon, and that is what I meant Anti, sorry if I falsely attributed that to you.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/13/2009 @ 11:24am

179. I could say the same about you gunslinger1, all I've read here is you taking the side of fox, if you have good things to say about Obama and his administration, I've never heard them.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/13/2009 @ 09:50am

     Denise, you are probably gone now but I'll try to answer you this way. I have complimented President Obama, you just either didn't see my comments or only read what you want to which is a big problem in this country, that being people who only see what supports their own position. The opinions of the people who gathered in Washington yesterday are every bit as important as the anti-war demonstrators who gathered there during the Bush Presidency.

     President Obama is a good man, a gifted speaker and a wonderful family man. But he is a politician who used his gift of oratory and some slimy tactics to win the Oval Office. I firmly believe that if George W. Bush was a better speaker and a whole lot more intelligent, the republicans would still have the WH today, for better or worse.

     We have serious problems in this country. There is a great divide. So far, Barack Obama has done nothing to bridge that divide. Blame the republicans if you want and on some points I will agree. But Obama is supposed to lead, not divide. That was Bush's downfall. He was the great divider.

     My advise to you is to listen when the President speaks. Listen for the code words and the partisanship. Look at where he's coming from based upon his resume. Working people have had it with freeloaders and blacks distrust whites and visa versa. Obama was elected on his promise for change and because he followed a very weak, (poll wise), Bush. He will be a one term President if he doesn't stop talking and start listening. As for Fox, look at their ratings.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/13/2009 @ 11:45am

180. gunslinger1, I have listened to Obama, and as far as I can see he has tried to reach across the isle and been more than rebuffed for doing so. There are some things he is continuing that Bush was doing that I don't agree with but this is more than disagreement. What is going on and being feed by the right, with these teapartys and Joe Wilson, and Grassley, limbaugh, hannity, hitler, socialism, marxism, McCarthyism, etc.etc.etc., in to infinitum is nauseating and dishonest and dishonorable.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/13/2009 @ 1:31pm

181. I believe the whole problem has been separate wings of the Democratic party fighting each other for control. The Republicans have just said no. Add fear and hysteria to the mix. Fan the flames with control of the airwaves and here we stand. Obama has had so many messages as have his minions that the Republicans have just stood there and hit them all with a ballbat. Joe Wilson is a disgrace to "all politicians. For him to not resign is a disgrace to our political system. Why? Politics have now more than ever become an extension of business. In the private sector he would not have lasted through the speech. Things are as polarized politically today as any time in the nations history. For that reason there can be no mixed signals coming from the President. The fracture of the Democrats had better be healed or they will face disaster in 2010. I commented before about Max Baucus and his group getting a bill out of committee by Halloween. Max has to figure it out that he is screwing his party. He loves the limelight. Who knows maybe this group can't handle being the majority party.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/13/2009 @ 1:51pm

182. "So far, Barack Obama has done nothing to bridge that divide"

     (most ridiculous "insight" of the day)

     if obama reached any further across the aisle, he'd be giving john boehner a lap dance.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/13/2009 @ 2:11pm

183. So if the Democratic party was "firm" or "ideologically solid" would they not be playing the same game Republicans played under Bush? What legislation are we going to pass besides taxing cigarettes to provide health care for kids? I thought there was a Democratic caucus? Do they meet in 5 different rooms? Some conservatives have to have a conscience don't they?

     Posted by whatizz at 09/13/2009 @ 2:38pm

184. Darlaloon, Ha Ha, perfect way of putting it!

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/13/2009 @ 3:08pm

185. Posted by Denise29 at 09/13/2009 @ 1:31pm

     C'mon. Denise. Where were you when the democrats were crucifying George W. Bush. They had him on the cover of Mad magazine portrayed as alfred E. Newman for God's sake. And I seem to recall a lot of Hitler references and fascist comments directed his way. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you act as though democrats are some kind of saints. They are ALL politicians and they all play dirty, especially those from Chicago.

     As for Obama's reaching across the aisle, well, how about if he gets together with Nancy Pelosi and tells her to lighten up. Every amendment that the republicans have offered, as a compromise with Pelosi and the democrats, have been voted down or otherwise rebuffed. The democrats are the ones who are holding up passage of health care reform. They control everything. You are not being honest or fair.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/13/2009 @ 3:32pm

186. Posted by whatizz at 09/13/2009 @ 2:38pm

     A good number of democrats come from districts that can go either way with their politics. Those Congress people are going to cover their own asses. They know that the magic has disappeared from Barack Obama. As I've said it was a combination of things that got him elected, most notably, people's disenchantment with the Bush Administration. They were tired of war and tired of being called un-American because they were tired of seeing our troops blown up. Not they're being killed in Afghanistan in larger numbers.

     If it comes between voting on a HC bill that's going to anger most of the independents in their constituencies, or voting it down, they will vote it down. A politician's survival is the most important thing to them.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/13/2009 @ 3:40pm

187. I agree it is a re-election game. Don't kid yourself though, the Republicans laughed at the Dems and George got most of the flack. At the end of the day the economic mess we are in is Republican mess. There is no way around it. It was a long time in coming and the offensive machine that is saying it is Obama's economy is the way to lay the blame at his feet. What bothers me is the architects of policy Dick and Karl are out and about in the Wall Street Journal And on Fox News shooting at Obama verbally. This is the real axis of evil. The people that led our country to the brink of economic ruin are getting performance bonuses and telling us how well they protected us after 3000 people were killed. We get to see both former executives daughters grace the airwaves. Again will somebody with one ounce of credibility prove the liberal bias of the media? It leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/13/2009 @ 4:20pm

188. Posted by whatizz at 09/13/2009 @ 4:20pm

     In order to understand the liberal bias of the media, you'd have to watch plenty of Fox. You will hear and see things on that network that you will not see covered on the other networks, namely, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and of course ABC and CBS. Fox is seen as biased by that side. So it is good to have a balance but you will not see the difference unless you make the effort.

     A couple of recent examples are this incident involving ACORN. Fox News exposed it and all those other networks barely reported it. It IS a big deal because several billions from the stimulus is targeted to go to ACORN. The Census Bureau disassociated themselves after Fox Exposed the corruption in ACORN. You would have never heard about it if you only watched the 'liberal' networks. And, ACORN refuses to open it's books for audit. Did you see that on Maddow or Olberman? Nope.

     Another instance is the recent dust up involving Van Jones. Again, you would have never know about this guy's extreme views if it were not for Glenn Beck at Fox. Jones had no business even getting close to the WH.

     Then there is the massive demonstration yesterday in Washington. Fox News gave it extensive coverage, because after all, these are people who also need their voices to be heard. Today on Meet The Press, that rally was covered for about three seconds, with a very small view of about four or five demonstrators.

     It goes on and on. Fox, however doesn't really always present liberal views in the most flattering way. But they do have quite a few lefties on, those that have the guts anyway, and their ratings are through the roof, especially O'Reilly's.

     Don't know if you find me credible but I do watch all sides and record often. Those are my observations.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/13/2009 @ 4:39pm

189. Joe Wilson is a disgrace to "all politicians. For him to not resign is a disgrace to our political system. Why? Politics have now more than ever become an extension of business. In the private sector he would not have lasted through the speech. Things are as polarized politically today as any time in the nations history. For that reason there can be no mixed signals coming from the President. The fracture of the Democrats had better be healed or they will face disaster in 2010. I commented before about Max Baucus and his group getting a bill out of committee by Halloween. Max has to figure it out that he is screwing his party. He loves the limelight. Who knows maybe this group can't handle being the majority party.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/13/2009 @ 1:51pm

     Were you calling for Harry Reid to resign when he called Bush a liar and a loser? And more than once.

     <Interview with Senator Harry Reid, NBC's

     Meet the Press, December 5, 2004

     MR. RUSSERT: When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.">

     http://tinyurl.com/nu5fht

     <Reid Calls Bush a 'Loser'

     By Mike Allen

     Washington Post Staff Writer

     Saturday, May 7, 2005

     "The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said in response to a question about Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser."

     http://tinyurl.com/kjn2ov

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/13/2009 @ 5:06pm

190. Don't know if you find me credible but I do watch all sides and record often. Those are my observations.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/13/2009 @ 4:39pm

     Despite what these Lefties often claim, all of us Regulars not on the Left that post here, are automatically among those that actually "watch all sides".....at a minimum, reading the views of The Nation's journos.

     Posted by Happy at 09/13/2009 @ 5:07pm

191. Here's some liberal "respect" for Bush as president.

     <Dem Congressman Compares President Bush to Hitler

     Freshman Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler, while implying that the White House was involved in the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11.>

     http://newsbusters.org/node/14103

     <Nancy's Nazi Shock: Did She Forget the Bush Years?

     By John Leo

     Nancy Pelosi is shocked by the presence of some swastikas at protests against Obamacare. Who ever heard of such a thing? Well, any mildly alert American old enough to remember the anti-war protests of 2003-2007. Images of George Bush with a Hitler mustache and a Nazi uniform was everywhere at swastika-choked marches and rallies. "Stop the Fourth Reich-Visualize Nuremburg," said one sign at a Hollywood march. "The Fuhrer already in his bunker," said another. Lots of Nazi regalia appeared at protests in Pelosi's San Francisco as well.

     Both Senator Robert Byrd and billionaire Democrat George Soros said Bush reminded them of Herman Goering.

     During the 2004 presidential campaign, Al Gore used the term "brownshirts" (Nazi street thugs) to refer to Republican computer teams assigned to respond to criticism of Bush and the Iraq war.

     Vanity Fair magazine nominated Richard Perle for the Goebbels role, running photos of both men under the headline "Separated at Birth?"

     http://tinyurl.com/nlmleo

     Let me be clear on my viewpoint. It was not right with Bush, and it's not right with Obama. Neither is a fascist. Neither is a new Hitler.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/13/2009 @ 5:18pm

192. gunslinger1, do you remember the cover of Obama as a terrorist, and Michell with bullets hung around her chest? You come on, this shit has been going on since the election began, at least Bush had until after 911 before all hell broke loose, actually way beyond 911. And he actually deserved it with the weird stuff he was pulling. But these birthers and deathers and tenthers, are just puckey, and do nothing to help the situation, but plenty to inflame it.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/13/2009 @ 5:32pm

193. at least Bush had until after 911 before all hell broke loose, actually way beyond 911. And he actually deserved it with the weird stuff he was pulling. But these birthers and deathers and tenthers, are just puckey, and do nothing to help the situation, but plenty to inflame it.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/13/2009 @ 5:32pm

     You actually believe that Bush deserved to be called a Nazi and another Hitler.

     I thought you had more class than that. I feel sorry for you Denise

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/13/2009 @ 5:33pm

194. oh come on anti, I don't believe either side should do that, and you know it, no where did I say it is alright, just saying both sides do it, OK

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/13/2009 @ 6:58pm

195. I think Bush and his cabal deserved the demonstrations against the wars, I was and am against the wars, and I don't approve of what Obama is doing concerning the wars. But the teabaggers are really taking it to the extreme with their behavior, and some of the politicians on the right are encouraging this behavior. And I do believe it is worse than what the antiwar protestors did, I saw no guns at the antiwar protests. I saw hateful posters on the left, but the right beat that all to heck, the extreme right is about as hateful as it gets.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/13/2009 @ 7:09pm

196. Santi-Did Harry the tour guide call George a liar at a Presidential speech before Congress? No he did not, Joe Wilson did. In other words you are giving Joe a free pass. You just went down 2 notches in my mind over this tit for tat. George should never have been called AH because that is just so wrong. I think George took heavy flack for Karl because of his hackishness. Harry isd ahack in my mind and one of the reasons fopr the flailing that is going on. The Van Jones thing is another poor job of vetting people,a time bomb waiting to happen. My problem with it is Glenny. He has no credibility with me . He is a fraud,an "actor"for the right. His rant on Obama hating white people is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. Just on principle he should go. The guy on the street in Arizona with the rifle would have had cement dust in his stomach if he did that before a Bush appearance. The hate posters are the worst thing I have witnessed in my 51 years. It is like watching 10 groups of people with nothing in common but hate for Obama trying to outdo one another in their protests. It is obvious that there is a stage master behind it by watching how the people move. But if you want to feel good about this type of behavior I hope you sleep well. I will not defend the actions of liberals who called out AH to George. I know what that really meant, the darkest period in world history

     Posted by whatizz at 09/13/2009 @ 7:43pm

197. Posted by antisocialist at 09/13/2009 @ 5:18pm

     I'm sure the list of politicians saying crude and rude things - to the media - about a president is long.

     Are there incidences of Reid and others in Congress yelling "loser, "liar', or something similar at Bush while he was giving a speech to Congress? Probably. Just don't recall any.

     Posted by winyahn at 09/13/2009 @ 9:29pm

198. No, there is no history of that because it never happened before. Joe Wilson should resign tomorrow ,he is a disgrace to Congress. To heckle the President during an address is simply not done. This is a precedent,a first in modern U.S. history. The Republicans cannot justify the outburst.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/13/2009 @ 9:36pm

199. Posted by whatizz at 09/13/2009 @ 9:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     We expect his resignation to be added to the TOP of the pile of Demoncrats who outrageously and loudly Boo'ed the Hon. G.W. Bush in his address to the congress! When may we expect them?

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/13/2009 @ 11:29pm

200. No, there is no history of that because it never happened before. Joe Wilson should resign tomorrow ,he is a disgrace to Congress. To heckle the President during an address is simply not done. This is a precedent,a first in modern U.S. history. The Republicans cannot justify the outburst.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/13/2009 @ 9:36pm

     I've stated several times that Wilson was wrong to do it in that setting and he apologized for it.

     On what basis should he resign? For a bad mannered comment? If so, at some point nearly every member of Congress should be forced to resign. Sorry, but his ill-spoken utterance is simply not sufficient for him or any other Congressman to resign from either party.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 12:20am

201. oh come on anti, I don't believe either side should do that, and you know it, no where did I say it is alright, just saying both sides do it, OK

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/13/2009 @ 6:58pm

     Actually you did Denise. That's what triggered my reaction.

     <You come on, this shit has been going on since the election began, at least Bush had until after 911 before all hell broke loose, actually way beyond 911. And he actually deserved it with the weird stuff he was pulling. But these birthers and deathers and tenthers, are just puckey, and do nothing to help the situation, but plenty to inflame it.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/13/2009 @ 5:32pm>

     You state here that George Bush deserved to be called a Nazi.

     So which is it? He deserved it or you don't agree with that behavior. You've said both.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 12:54am

202. Posted by winyahn at 09/13/2009 @ 9:29pm

     False equivalency. They want to convince you that Al Gore speaking at a liberal group is "the same thing" as a Congressman screaming out in the middle of a Presidential address in the House.

     Wilson did worse than embarass them (actually not too important to them)...he hurt the agenda. He linked himself and the "Town Hollerers" to the GOP opposition to health care reform and made them look like a bunch of screaming idiots and not a "loyal opposition".

     Posted by Mask at 09/14/2009 @ 07:20am

203. Back in the day, Barack Obama would have had to challenge Wilson to a duel. Having said that, this isn't the first time a President has been disrespected in front of Congress, politicians one and all. Some people have selective memory. Washington exists in a bubble that is filled with a lot of hot air. No wonder nothing gets done.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/14/2009 @ 07:44am

204. I firmly believe that if George W. Bush was a better speaker and a whole lot more intelligent, the republicans would still have the WH today, for better or worse.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/13/2009 @ 11:45am

     Oh worse by far, we'd be so, so, so, SO MORE screwed:

     http://tinyurl.com/ku29ga

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 08:50am

205. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/14/2009 @ 07:44am

     Thank you, Zell Miller.

     Posted by Mask at 09/14/2009 @ 08:56am

206. And by Obama reaching across the isle and change the wording here and there so new con repubs don't have a leg to stand on otherwise, is forcing new con repubs into even more extreme and more obviously indefensible positions. The loonier the new con repubs get, the harder for a new con repub leader to be moderate or emerge; the more independents run away.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 08:56am

207. er, And by Obama reaching across the isle and 'changing' the wording here and there ...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 09:07am

208. "C'mon. Denise. Where were you when the democrats were crucifying George W. Bush"

     (quote of the day)

     "crucifying" = giving bush everything he wanted, and then some, and then some more......

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 11:08am

209. and besides, bush did indeed destroy the country with his awful decisions.....so if the democrats did attempt to "crucify" him, it was probably deserved.

     whereas obama, who's only major spending priority, besides afghanistan (which republicans support), is giving healthcare to the uninsured, something 77% of the population wants.

     and he is deserving of crucifixion?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 11:13am

210. DEMOCRATS MUST STAND STRONG. FORGET DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS FOR 2012 This is bogus science aimed simply at making Democrats to back down on their most pressing agenda and embrace again the status quo--for ever. It is part of the politics of fear that some sections of the media and those opposed to progressive politics have employed repeatedly to sabotage the people's will. If Democrats dare summon the courage to stubbornly challenege the nay sayers and implement their progressive agenda, the country will return them to power for the next quarter century al least. Where they fail to do so, they will face defeat. And don't forget the current Democratic coalition of Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Middle Easterners, Jews, young people, intellectuals (not the wackos), unions, and sizable share of white men and white women. And don't forget the power of Presidency and Obama's communication and persuasive power. Republicans, and their media enablers, are whistling only in Disneyland!

     Posted by drsam8 at 09/14/2009 @ 11:24am

211. "This is what is so strange and remarkable about these tea-party protests. The people who win when government acts aren't the poor, minorities or illegal immigrants -- the prime targets of these protesters' resentment. Their plight only worsens by the day. In Washington, members of those groups are even more powerless than "middle-income Americans." That's so obvious. The people who win whenever the federal government expands its power are the ones who, through their massive resources and lobbyists armies, control what the government does: the richest and most powerful corporations. And yet -- in an extreme paradox -- those are the people who are venerated by the Right: they simultaneously spew rage at what's happening in Washington while revering and defending the interests of the oligarchs who are most responsible.

     What's really happening with these protests is that the genuine rage and not unreasonable economic insecurity of these citizens is being stoked, exploited, distorted and manipulated by movement leaders for entirely different ends. The people who are leading them -- Rush Limbaugh, the Murdoch-owned Fox News, Glenn Beck, business-dominated organizations of the type led by Dick Armey -- are cultural warriors above everything else. They're all in a far different socioeconomic position than the "middle-income Americans" whose anger they're ostensibly representing. Their principal preoccupation is their cultural contempt for various groups (illegal immigrants, the "undeserving" poor, liberals) and their desire to preserve the status quo whereby the prime beneficiaries of government policies remain themselves: the super rich and the interests that control Washington. "

     (from glenn greenwald, this morning)

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 11:36am

212. "In order to understand the liberal bias of the media, you'd have to watch plenty of Fox"

     (quote of the day, gunslinger's second)

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 11:37am

213. "This is what is so strange and remarkable about these tea-party protests. The people who win when government acts aren't the poor, minorities or illegal immigrants -- the prime targets of these protesters' resentment.

     (from glenn greenwald, this morning)

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 11:36am

     Further evidence that Glenn Greenwald, like most arrogant leftists, doesn't have a clue what the millions of conservatives and a growing number of moderates are actually angry about.

     It's not minorities, it's not immigrants.

     IT'S THE GOVT! It's the arrogance of Washington, both Republicans and Democrats. It's their inability to actually control spending. It's their inability not to engage in power grabs of private industry. It's their insatiable desire to seize more and more of the average Americans wages.

     And people like Darla, merely encourage and affirm these arrogant elitists.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 11:45am

214. "It's not minorities, it's not immigrants"

     no. never. and joe wilson is "an american hero."

     i suggest you read the entire post, anti. greenwald is correct. and all the proof we need of that is that these people were NOWHERE TO BE FOUND during bush's out-of-control spending in eight years in office.

     and what was bush spending money on? things that people actually *need*? no. he was dropping bombs, spying on americans, torturing muslims, and invading countries who weren't a threat us. oh, and passing tax cuts that *only* benefitted large corporations and extremely wealthy individuals.

     now, when obama timidly attempts to pass healthcare reform, which, by the way, *would benefit the insurance companies,* and not the poor, the right wing masses protest against.......what?? a public option. uh-huh, right.

     here's more from taibi, via greenwald:

     "After all, the reason the winger crowd can't find a way to be coherently angry right now is because this country has no healthy avenues for genuine populist outrage. It never has. The setup always goes the other way: when the excesses of business interests and their political proteges in Washington leave the regular guy broke and screwed, the response is always for the lower and middle classes to split down the middle and find reasons to get pissed off not at their greedy bosses but at each other. That's why even people like [Glenn] Beck's audience, who I'd wager are mostly lower-income people, can't imagine themselves protesting against the Wall Street barons who in actuality are the ones who fucked them over"

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 12:00pm

215. OK Anti, plain language, I don't approve calling anyone hitler on the right or the left, but I do believe the right is more dangerous, and playing with fire, then the left.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/14/2009 @ 12:03pm

216. antisocialist,

     spending isn't always "out of control." you spend on food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment, yeah? do you consider that "out of control"? probably not.

     so when the government wants to spend money to give healthcare to its citizens, why is that "out of control"?

     wouldn't "out of control" mean = invading and occupying two countries who had nothing to do with 9.11?

     wouldn't it mean= giving tax cuts and bonusses to the wealthiest americans?

     a real, honest to god tea party protest should have happened under bush, not obama (who, btw, has not even come close to racking up the amount of debt that his predecessor did).

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 12:04pm

217. the essentinal right wing meme always goes like this:

     "i don't want my hear-earned dollars going to someone else"

     and who is that "someone else", anti? the poor? the lazy? the........dare it say it.......minorities?

     who are those so undeserving of your hard-earned money? anyone?

     not very christian of you.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 12:07pm

218. and he is deserving of crucifixion? Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 11:13am

     It's their insatiable desire to seize more and more of the average Americans wages. Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 11:45am

     Even though every accounting illustrates that more money gets filtered to the rich during the new con repub reigns than moving the other way around during the dems reign, new con repubs will succeed in convincing those that also distain science and facts into blaming Obama for all their fears-- as the muslim, non-citizen, nazi dictator, anti-christ, ...etc.

     New con repubs and loonies seem to catalyze each other into such an alternative universe that the rest the world is simply standing in the way of creating their heaven on earth. Of course as everything proves out-- their heaven is our hell...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 12:08pm

219. "Even though every accounting illustrates that more money gets filtered to the rich"

     yeah, you see, anti. the OPPOSITE is true.

     republicans redistribute wealth upwards, and democrats downwards (somewhat).

     so when democrats want redistribute wealth downwards, that's "out of control".

     funny that anti doesn't see the obvious limitations in his claims on this particular issue....

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 12:19pm

220. wouldn't "out of control" mean = invading and occupying two countries who had nothing to do with 9.11?

     Posted by darladoon

     Not necessarily. "The Jihad" does not think of itself in terms of "boundaries" or nation-statehood.

     In terms of Iraq, there was about 11 years worth of justification for resumption of hostilities that had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam pretended to still be pursuing WMDs in violation of the cease-fire agreements, so the cease-fire was rendered null and void by his actions. Saddam told his FBI interrogator that on 9/11 he realized he made a colossal mistake with his 11 years of jaw-jutting braggadoccio, but it was too late to avoid the consequences.

     Am I to assume your 2nd country is Afghanistan? Are you saying Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11? The Taliban aiding and abetting al Qaeda, providing them with a safe operating haven and then refusing to hand over Osama and other conspirators very much made Afghanistan a key player in the 9/11 attacks. Or to put it another way, if I harbored a team of men, provided them with training facilities, support, etc. and that team eventually broke into your house and killed your family...would you or would you not find me partly to blame?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 12:51pm

221. wouldn't "out of control" mean = invading and occupying two countries who had nothing to do with 9.11?

     Posted by darladoon

     Not necessarily. "The Jihad" does not think of itself in terms of "boundaries" or nation-statehood.

     In terms of Iraq, there was about 11 years worth of justification for resumption of hostilities that had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam pretended to still be pursuing WMDs in violation of the cease-fire agreements, so the cease-fire was rendered null and void by his actions. Saddam told his FBI interrogator that on 9/11 he realized he made a colossal mistake with his 11 years of jaw-jutting braggadoccio, but it was too late to avoid the consequences.

     Am I to assume your 2nd country is Afghanistan? Are you saying Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11? The Taliban aiding and abetting al Qaeda, providing them with a safe operating haven and then refusing to hand over Osama and other conspirators very much made Afghanistan a key player in the 9/11 attacks. Or to put it another way, if I harbored a team of men, provided them with training facilities, support, etc. and that team eventually broke into your house and killed your family...would you or would you not find me partly to blame?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 12:51pm

222. wouldn't "out of control" mean = invading and occupying two countries who had nothing to do with 9.11?

     Posted by darladoon

     Not necessarily. "The Jihad" does not think of itself in terms of "boundaries" or nation-statehood.

     In terms of Iraq, there was about 11 years worth of justification for resumption of hostilities that had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam pretended to still be pursuing WMDs in violation of the cease-fire agreements, so the cease-fire was rendered null and void by his actions. Saddam told his FBI interrogator that on 9/11 he realized he made a colossal mistake with his 11 years of jaw-jutting braggadoccio, but it was too late to avoid the consequences.

     Am I to assume your 2nd country is Afghanistan? Are you saying Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11? The Taliban aiding and abetting al Qaeda, providing them with a safe operating haven and then refusing to hand over Osama and other conspirators very much made Afghanistan a key player in the 9/11 attacks. Or to put it another way, if I harbored a team of men, provided them with training facilities, support, etc. and that team eventually broke into your house and killed your family...would you or would you not find me partly to blame?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 12:51pm

223. And people like Darla, merely encourage and affirm these arrogant elitists.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 11:45am

     And....they are critical to the rise of the conservatives! Like the Legacy Media's suicidal death march/rally, we need them to keep doing what they have been since Bush was POTUS.......they don't realize they are the ruling "arrogant elitists" and that the bucks now stop, with them and their Messiah!

     Posted by Happy at 09/14/2009 @ 12:56pm

224. "Are you saying Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11?"

     yes, i am.

     "In terms of Iraq, there was about 11 years worth of justification for resumption of hostilities that had nothing to do with 9/11"

     what?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 12:58pm

225. More bizarre, the DOW was almost exactly where it was 8 years previous on 09/10/09...

     On september 10 2001 the dow ind closed at 9605.51.

     On september 10 2009 the dow ind opened at 9546.54, closed at 9627.48

     Granted hsuB is no FDR, but alternatively, consider greater tragedy if a new con repub had been there instead of FDR! Considering where we were before hsuB/cHeney and after - versus - before and after FDR! Luckily hsuB/cHeney only had 2 terms.

     Bottom line, new con repubs want gov out of the way in order to create industrial/corporate kings and public serfdom a la going medieval on our world.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 1:09pm

226. "And people like Darla, merely encourage and affirm these arrogant elitists."

     "arrogant elitist" = an eduated liberal who makes an insightful criticism of the republican party.

     yup, that's all you have to do: point out that bush massively f*cked up the country, and continues to do so through his proxies (dick armey, limbaugh, et al), and you're an "arrogant elitist"....

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 1:12pm

227. Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 12:00pm

     I've yet to see Greenwald correct about anything. He is a radical leftist who is a serial liar (having been exposed as such by a number of individuals). He was a failed lawyer who was let go from his law firm for incompetence.

     Let me remind you that the constitution provides for financing war in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.

     And like most ignorant leftists, you continue to spout the lie that the Bush taxcuts only benefited large corporations and the "extremely wealthy". I have repeatedly corrected you on this with the documentation. But you are not one to ever let facts get in the way of your hate.

     Conservatives are protesting how Obama is BANKRUPTING the nation. He has quadrupled our debt since taking office. Not because of Bush, but the spending programs of Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Our deficits our projected by the Non partisan CBO as being over 1 trillion dollars for the next DECADE. The deficit in 2008 (2009 Fiscal year) was 460 billion. Obama's deficit this year is 1.8 trillion.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 1:14pm

228. republicans redistribute wealth upwards, and democrats downwards (somewhat).

     so when democrats want redistribute wealth downwards, that's "out of control".

     funny that anti doesn't see the obvious limitations in his claims on this particular issue....

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 12:19pm

     Ample evidence that Darla will never come to grip with the facts since they completely refute her ignorant class warfare.

     Out of control SPENDING Darla, as noted in my previous post.

     Under Bush, the lowest tax rate was reduced 1/3 from 15% to 10%.

     Here's what the Bush taxcuts accomplished that specifically target lower and middle class individuals and families.

     <Specifically, the legislation increased the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 per child in 2003 and 2004; increased the alternative minimum tax exemption for married taxpayers filing joint returns and surviving spouses from $49,000 to $58,000 and for unmarried taxpayers from $35,750 to $40,250; and increased the taxable income levels for the 10-percent tax bracket for single individuals from $6,000 to $7,000, and for married taxpayers filing joint returns from $12,000 to $14,000, among other reductions.>

     Just the child tax credit alone. A single mother with 3 children receives $1800 more in refundable tax credits (that means a check) than before the Bush taxcuts.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 1:27pm

229. "I've yet to see Greenwald correct about anything. He is a radical leftist who is a serial liar"

     uh, right.

     "Let me remind you that the constitution provides for financing war in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution"

     so, what? it doesn't provide for infinite financing of war against countries who are not a threat to us. and even if it DID provide for that, they aren't cost-free wars. the taxpayers pay for it, so if bush decides to start two completely botched, unnecessary wars and occupations, then we taxpayers pay for them. and we are paying for them, every single second of the day.

     "And like most ignorant leftists, you continue to spout the lie that the Bush taxcuts only benefited large corporations and the "extremely wealthy"

     oh, i forgot! you're soooooo right, antisocialist. the glorious bush tax cuts benefitted *all* americans equally, and our currenct deficits have absolutely *NOTHING* to do with them. it was all about 'out of control' spending, and had *nothing* to do with tax cuts.

     you can't have it both ways, anti. you cannot claim that the tax cuts benefitted america, and then not claim that the current deficits had nothing to do with them. same goes for the wars.

     "Out of control SPENDING Darla, as noted in my previous post."

     again, ALL about spending. never has anything to do with tax revenue in your mind.

     "Conservatives are protesting how Obama is BANKRUPTING the nation"

     bush bankrupt the nation, anti, not obama. where were YOU when bush was bankrupting the nation? cheering him on, that's what you were doing!

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 1:59pm

230. "Out of control SPENDING Darla, as noted in my previous post."

     again, ALL about spending. never has anything to do with tax revenue in your mind.

     "Conservatives are protesting how Obama is BANKRUPTING the nation"

     bush bankrupt the nation, anti, not obama. where were YOU when bush was bankrupting the nation? cheering him on, that's what you were doing!

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 1:59pm

     Darla,

     More education for you.

     Tax revenues after the implementation of the tax cuts INCREASED. They did not decrease.

     Deficits are produced by too much spending.

     Tax cuts never produce a deficit.

     And you better believe I was cheering the tax cuts. This nation taxes too much and spends too much.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 2:03pm

231. "Tax revenues after the implementation of the tax cuts INCREASED"

     (quote of the decade)

     not sure i've ever given one for 'the decade', but this has to be the most incredible blog-based claim i've ever read in the last decade.

     let's just print that one more time:

     "Tax revenues after the implementation of the tax cuts INCREASED"

     so, bush plunged the country into the largest debt it has ever seen, and yet the tax cuts (and the wars) had nothing to do with that.....nothing at all.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 2:09pm

232. wait a second, i thought deficits didn't matter?

     now, under a black liberal prez, oh boy do they matter!

     but when bush was pushing TWO UNNECESSARY foreign wars, deficits didn't matter. he was protecting the country. he was a patriotic chrisitian man.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 2:11pm

233. "This nation taxes too much and spends too much"

     who cares if we spend so much? what matters, anti, and it is crazy that you don't even understand this, is WHAT THE COUNTRY GETS IN RETURN.

     what did we get in return for bush's two wars? a lot of dead bodies, huge deficits, etc.

     but when obama wants to make EXTREMELY TEPID reforms to our healthcare system (which sucks), then, and only THEN, do deficits suddenly matter?

     antisocialist: ignorant, fraudulent, racist christian.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 2:13pm

234. it's one thing to be for less government and lower taxes, but it's an entirely different thing to claim:

     a) that obama is responsible

     b) and that bush is not

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 2:22pm

235. A lot of us weren't happy with Bush's deficit spending. It was one of the reasons there was not much enthusiasm for McCain. Still, Bush spent a lot for national security. We're fine with that spending. What we don't like is "spreading the wealth around". When I spread my own wealth around, it is doing something directly for me and the person or entity with which I do business. When government spreads my wealth around, it often entails my money not doing anything directly for me (like funding abortions in other countries for non-U.S. citizens) and benefitting people who have no moral claim on what I've earned, nor had anything to do with facilitating my earning it.

     WHAT THE COUNTRY GETS IN RETURN

     Well, let's talk about that, not about what the INTENTIONS of this plan, but what the consequences will be.

     It won't be deficit neutral. It will cost money. And it will cost far more than what is being projected. Reason is that the "public option" will have many employers cutting costs by dumping their health plans. And rather than face a $3000 fine, people will be driven into Obamacare. Far more than the 47 million cited. And businesses in competition will have to follow suit in order to stay competitive. This will likely be the death nell of private coverage in America.

     So what we get in return is Soviet-style single payer and the nationalization of 7% of the economy, to be controlled by a government which cannot profitably run the post office or keep Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security in the black. Additionally, taking the profitability out of medicine will give rise to more mediocre doctors and care and far, far fewer advancments in new medicines and proecdures. Why innovate?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 2:35pm

236. A lot of us weren't happy with Bush's deficit spending. It was one of the reasons there was not much enthusiasm for McCain. Still, Bush spent a lot for national security. We're fine with that spending. What we don't like is "spreading the wealth around". When I spread my own wealth around, it is doing something directly for me and the person or entity with which I do business. When government spreads my wealth around, it often entails my money not doing anything directly for me (like funding abortions in other countries for non-U.S. citizens) and benefitting people who have no moral claim on what I've earned, nor had anything to do with facilitating my earning it.

     WHAT THE COUNTRY GETS IN RETURN

     Well, let's talk about that, not about what the INTENTIONS of this plan, but what the consequences will be.

     It won't be deficit neutral. It will cost money. And it will cost far more than what is being projected. Reason is that the "public option" will have many employers cutting costs by dumping their health plans. And rather than face a $3000 fine, people will be driven into Obamacare. Far more than the 47 million cited. And businesses in competition will have to follow suit in order to stay competitive. This will likely be the death nell of private coverage in America.

     So what we get in return is Soviet-style single payer and the nationalization of 7% of the economy, to be controlled by a government which cannot profitably run the post office or keep Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security in the black. Additionally, taking the profitability out of medicine will give rise to more mediocre doctors and care and far, far fewer advancments in new medicines and proecdures. Why innovate?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 2:35pm

237. A lot of us weren't happy with Bush's deficit spending. It was one of the reasons there was not much enthusiasm for McCain. Still, Bush spent a lot for national security. We're fine with that spending. What we don't like is "spreading the wealth around". When I spread my own wealth around, it is doing something directly for me and the person or entity with which I do business. When government spreads my wealth around, it often entails my money not doing anything directly for me (like funding abortions in other countries for non-U.S. citizens) and benefitting people who have no moral claim on what I've earned, nor had anything to do with facilitating my earning it.

     WHAT THE COUNTRY GETS IN RETURN

     Well, let's talk about that, not about what the INTENTIONS of this plan, but what the consequences will be.

     It won't be deficit neutral. It will cost money. And it will cost far more than what is being projected. Reason is that the "public option" will have many employers cutting costs by dumping their health plans. And rather than face a $3000 fine, people will be driven into Obamacare. Far more than the 47 million cited. And businesses in competition will have to follow suit in order to stay competitive. This will likely be the death nell of private coverage in America.

     So what we get in return is Soviet-style single payer and the nationalization of 7% of the economy, to be controlled by a government which cannot profitably run the post office or keep Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security in the black. Additionally, taking the profitability out of medicine will give rise to more mediocre doctors and care and far, far fewer advancments in new medicines and proecdures. Why innovate?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 2:35pm

238. "So what we get in return is Soviet-style single payer and ...."---Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 2:35pm

     So now it's not even the old tired "Canadian-style"...it's "SOVIET-style"?!??!?!??

     Think I figured out why even Rasmussen sees some turning of the tide.

     Posted by Mask at 09/14/2009 @ 2:41pm

239. The Success of American Communes. By Thies, Clifford F. Publication: Southern Economic Journal Date: Saturday, July 1 2000

     A little light reading for the collectivist minded.

     Posted by sntauri at 09/14/2009 @ 2:44pm

240. What we get in return:

     On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially. The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

     Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.

     But few would argue that national economic policy is irrelevant to economic outcomes. And rightly or wrongly, voters still judge presidents and their parties largely by the economy's performance during their watch. In that assessment, few measures do more than the Census data to answer the threshold question of whether a president left the day to day economic conditions of average Americans better than he found it.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 2:48pm

241. (continued)

     If that's the test, today's report shows that Bush flunked on every relevant dimension-and not just because of the severe downturn that began last year.

     Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent.

     That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms, notes Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The median household income increased during the two terms of Clinton (by 14 per cent, as we'll see in more detail below), Ronald Reagan (8.1 per cent), and Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (3.9 per cent). As Mishel notes, although the global recession decidedly deepened the hole-the percentage decline in the median income from 2007 to 2008 is the largest single year fall on record-average families were already worse off in 2007 than they were in 2000, a remarkable result through an entire business expansion. "What is phenomenal about the years under Bush is that through the entire business cycle from 2000 through 2007, even before this recession...working families were worse off at the end of the recovery, in the best of times during that period, than they were in 2000 before he took office," Mishel says.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 2:49pm

242. (continued)

     Bush's record on poverty is equally bleak. When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008.

     The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent.

     The story is similar again for access to health care. When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million. By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million or 20.6 per cent.

     The trends look the same when examining shares of the population that are poor or uninsured, rather than the absolute numbers in those groups. When Clinton left office in 2000 13.7 per cent of Americans were uninsured; when Bush left that number stood at 15.4 per cent. (Under Bush, the share of Americans who received health insurance through their employer declined every year of his presidency-from 64.2 per cent in 2000 to 58.5 per cent in 2008.)

     When Clinton left the number of Americans in poverty stood at 11.3 per cent; when Bush left that had increased to 13.2 per cent. The poverty rate for children jumped from 16.2 per cent when Clinton left office to 19 per cent when Bush stepped down.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 2:49pm

243. (continued)

     Every one of those measurements had moved in a positive direction under Clinton. The median income increased from $46,603 when George H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to $52,500 when Clinton left in 2000-an increase of 14 per cent. The number of Americans in poverty declined from 38 million when the elder Bush left office in 1992 to 31.6 million when Clinton stepped down-a decline of 6.4 million or 16.9 per cent. Not since the go-go years of the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson administrations during the 1960s, which coincided with the launch of the Great Society, had the number of poor Americans declined as much over two presidential terms.

     The number of children in poverty plummeted from 15.3 million when H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to 11.6 million when Clinton stepped down in 2000-a stunning decline of 24 per cent. (That was partly because welfare reform forced single mothers into the workforce at the precise moment they could take advantage of a growing economy. The percentage of female-headed households in poverty stunningly dropped from 39 per cent in 1992 to 28.5 per cent in 2000, still the lowest level for that group the Census has ever recorded. That number has now drifted back up to over 31 per cent.) The number of Americans without health insurance remained essentially stable during Clinton's tenure, declining from 38.6 million when the elder Bush stepped down in 1992 to 38.4 million in 2000.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 2:50pm

244. Obamacare in and of itself is neither Canadian or Soviet. I'm saying that the ultimate consequence, the road it will inevitably put us on, WILL be the Soviet style. Unless you care to tell me how it wouldn't be. What the differences would be.

     My idea of "single-payer" is me buying my own policy from a private insurer. My money takes care of me, as it should. There are reforms that can be made to make this possible. Keep the government out of my bedroom? Yes, certainly, but let us start demanding that it also stay out of my doctor's office and out of my wallet to the degree practicable.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 2:50pm

245. Obamacare in and of itself is neither Canadian or Soviet. I'm saying that the ultimate consequence, the road it will inevitably put us on, WILL be the Soviet style. Unless you care to tell me how it wouldn't be. What the differences would be.

     My idea of "single-payer" is me buying my own policy from a private insurer. My money takes care of me, as it should. There are reforms that can be made to make this possible. Keep the government out of my bedroom? Yes, certainly, but let us start demanding that it also stay out of my doctor's office and out of my wallet to the degree practicable.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 2:50pm

246. Obamacare in and of itself is neither Canadian or Soviet. I'm saying that the ultimate consequence, the road it will inevitably put us on, WILL be the Soviet style. Unless you care to tell me how it wouldn't be. What the differences would be.

     My idea of "single-payer" is me buying my own policy from a private insurer. My money takes care of me, as it should. There are reforms that can be made to make this possible. Keep the government out of my bedroom? Yes, certainly, but let us start demanding that it also stay out of my doctor's office and out of my wallet to the degree practicable.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 2:50pm

247. (continued)

     Looking at the trends by shares of the population, rather than absolute numbers, reinforces the story: The overall poverty rate and the poverty rate among children both declined sharply under Clinton, and the share of Americans without health insurance fell more modestly.

     So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this: Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.

     Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.

     Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.

     Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent. Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture from another angle.

     Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush's single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47, 614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980.

     But despite that income growth, both overall and childhood poverty were higher when Reagan rode off into the sunset than when he arrived. The number of poor Americans increased from 29.3 million in 1980 to 31.7 million in 1988, an increase of 8.4 per cent. The number of children in poverty trended up from 11.5 million when Carter left to 12.5 million when Reagan stepped down, a comparable increase of 7.9 per cent.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 2:51pm

248. (continued)

     The total share of Americans in poverty didn't change over Reagan's eight years (at 13 per cent), but the share of children in poverty actually increased (from 18.3 to 19.5 per cent) despite the median income gains.

     The past rarely settles debates about the future.

     The fact that the economy performed significantly better for average families under Clinton than under the elder or younger Bush or Ronald Reagan doesn't conclusively answer how the country should proceed now. Obama isn't replicating the Clinton economic strategy (which increased federal spending in areas like education and research much more modestly, and placed greater emphasis on deficit reduction-to the point of increasing taxes in his first term). Nor has anyone suggested that it would make sense to reprise that approach in today's conditions. But at the least, the wretched two-term record compiled by the younger Bush on income, poverty and access to health care should compel Republicans to answer a straightforward question: if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?

     --National Journal researcher Cameron Joseph contributed.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 2:53pm

249. wait a second, i thought deficits didn't matter?

     now, under a black liberal prez, oh boy do they matter!

     but when bush was pushing TWO UNNECESSARY foreign wars, deficits didn't matter. he was protecting the country. he was a patriotic chrisitian man.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 2:11pm

     Why do you keep inserting race into this? I have yet to comment on race with Obama, except when I stated that his election was a good thing regarding race for this nation. It has nothing to do with his politics.

     Neither war was unnecessary. Unless you believe with the case of Afghanistan that it is alright to attack this country. The Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden because Mullah Omar not only married into Bin Laden's family, he endorses worldwide jihad.

     Iraq was a legally justified war as a resumption of hostilities under international law.

     I complained about deficits all through the Bush Administration and in 2006 said that unless the Republicans changed their ways on spending, they deserved to be voted out of office.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 3:26pm

250. Darladoon, I don't know much about you but if I had to guess I'd say you are a black woman. I can tell by your posts that you have a giant sized chip on your shoulder and you can never ever see the other side of an argument. Am I correct?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/14/2009 @ 3:29pm

251. Anti is correct and there were a lot of republicans unhappy with there leaders for all the pork. That's not a reason why Obama was elected though. John McCain promised that any bill that had on cent of pork in it would not be signed. If people were really worried about spending, they could have voted for McCain. But I don't think they really woke up until Obama was elected and plunged the country in to double the debt almost immediately.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/14/2009 @ 3:33pm

252. "if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?"

     If government spending is truly a better means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did FDR's Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau write:

     "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and IT DOES NOT WORK. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ...And an enormous debt to boot."

     It would appear that the government should limit it's spending to that which it is supposed to spend money on. I mean by the Constitution and not looking for more burdens to take on and charge us with. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is never the wrong answer. Taking more and more away from them, oftentimes is the wrong answer.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 3:35pm

253. "if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?"

     If government spending is truly a better means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did FDR's Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau write:

     "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and IT DOES NOT WORK. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ...And an enormous debt to boot."

     It would appear that the government should limit it's spending to that which it is supposed to spend money on. I mean by the Constitution and not looking for more burdens to take on and charge us with. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is never the wrong answer. Taking more and more away from them, oftentimes is the wrong answer.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 3:35pm

254. "if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?"

     If government spending is truly a better means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did FDR's Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau write:

     "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and IT DOES NOT WORK. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ...And an enormous debt to boot."

     It would appear that the government should limit it's spending to that which it is supposed to spend money on. I mean by the Constitution and not looking for more burdens to take on and charge us with. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is never the wrong answer. Taking more and more away from them, oftentimes is the wrong answer.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 3:35pm

255. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 3:35pm

     Agreed, agreed, agreed!

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/14/2009 @ 3:58pm

256. antisocialist: ignorant, fraudulent, racist christian.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 2:13pm

     I put up with being called a lot of things, but I draw the line at being called a racist.

     I have lived nearly my entire life battling racism. It is insidious and has no place among mankind.

     Perhaps Darla, you think that I am racist towards my children, grandchildren, and hundreds of relatives who are either black, hispanic, or both? How about the hundreds of people who have asked me over the years to be their pastor who are black and hispanic? Do you think they would desire a racist to be their pastor? How about the incredible South Africans I lived with from the Khosa and other tribes? Those that I built schools and churches for. the thousands of children that I fell in love with over there.

     You, Darla are the bigot and racist. It comes out in nearly every thread you participate in.

     This though was my final straw with you. You are now on ignore unless or until someone reposts showing you have apologized.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 4:06pm

257. "Still, Bush spent a lot for national security. We're fine with that spending. What we don't like is "spreading the wealth around"

     one of primary reasons why conservatives are so painfully stupid is that don't realize that military spending IS "spreading the wealth around".

     they take YOUR money and "spread it around" to defense contractors, which apparently you are more in favor of than spending it on healthcare.

     "My idea of "single-payer" is me buying my own policy from a private insurer"

     omg.

     "Iraq was a legally justified war as a resumption of hostilities under international law"

     sure, whatever. and dick cheney also claimed that iraq was working with al qaeda. some other guy claimed that it would last 6 weeks, "i doubt 6 months." and another guy said the oil revenue would pay for it.

     LIES!!! all LIES!!

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 4:10pm

258. "I put up with being called a lot of things, but I draw the line at being called a racist"

     no, no conservative could ever be racist! that's simply unthinkable!

     they just support the most racist, vile, disgusting, bigoted, hate-mongering lawmakers in dc, whose policies have done so much damage to racial minorities, that it cannot be overstated.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 4:16pm

259. It would appear that the government should limit it's spending to that which it is supposed to spend money on. I mean by the Constitution and not looking for more burdens to take on and charge us with. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is never the wrong answer. Taking more and more away from them, oftentimes is the wrong answer. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/14/2009 @ 3:35pm

     Kinda like what FDR (new deal reforms) or LBJ (war on proverty) or Ike (roads) did? Sans the war/energy/healthcare profiteering of course (like what hsuB/cHeney did)-- could actually work!

     Since the regulation healthcare commerce and levying taxes easily comes under the constitutional powers of our gov, making corrections and regulating its monetary application vis a vie taxes for a non prof public option would put more money in the most people's hands!

     New con repubs tendency to put more money in less hands, is what's at fault for most of our nations downturns.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 4:17pm

260. Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 4:06pm

     Lighten uo anti. You know that the left always cries racism when you get the best of them and they have no other answer. That's pretty sad.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/14/2009 @ 4:25pm

261. that was lighten 'up'.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/14/2009 @ 4:25pm

262. Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 4:10pm

     When the lights go out, you will also understand.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/14/2009 @ 4:27pm

263. The latest on the ACORN story: Maryland State Atty. says that the audio portion of the tapes showing corrupt ACORN operations may have been illegal. (Linda Tripp?) No problem going after the whistle blowers but forget about going after ACORN.

     The black community has so much built up hostility because of so many years of being kept down by republicans and thrown scraps from democrats that they could care less about the law. This is their time and they'll be damned if Fox or other rightwing media is going to spoil it for them. Where's Congress? This organization is in line to recieve billions in stimulus money? WHERE'S CONGRESS?

     Also, ACORN spokespeople are claiming that the tapes were doctored to make it look like their employees had done something wrong. So they fired them all just in case.

     Tomorrow there will be yet another tape released. The left wing media will be forced to report the story sooner or later. I hope The Nation will take the lead.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/14/2009 @ 4:45pm

264. "You know that the left always cries racism when you get the best of them and they have no other answer"

     i honestly do not believe that racism is not an integral component of the tea party protests, as well as the larger anti-obama campaign in general.

     in fact, i don't believe it, i know it.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/14/2009 @ 5:11pm

265. "Hey, some of my best friends (relatives) are...."

     Kinda like the person that says they have friends that are hearing impaired but don't need to know ASL.

     And I'm sure they communicate the same thing of you from the other side of that cultural divide!

     And since neither can walk in the others shoes, empathy and open (liberal) arms, (not the apathetic new con repub fists), are what's needed to create the bridges allowing our minds to know and the safety nets for our hearts flow.

     Yeah ok, that's even too sappy for me.

     But on the other hand...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 5:19pm

266. Also, ACORN spokespeople are claiming that the tapes were doctored to make it look like their employees had done something wrong. So they fired them all just in case. Tomorrow there will be yet another tape released. The left wing media will be forced to report the story sooner or later. I hope The Nation will take the lead. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/14/2009 @ 4:45pm

     The tapes are clearly edited. What's on youtube even have worded dubs contradicting what the people actually say. What's needed is the un-edited tapes. And yes-- even all the ones that didn't pan-out as being controversial. That would put to rest that 'all' ACCORN locations do the same thing.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 5:30pm

267. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 5:30pm

     There's more than enough evidence by any reasonable standard to investigate an organization that is in line to recieve billions in stimulus funds. President Obama spoke before this group, prior to his election, and assured them that they would have significant input into policy in his administration.

     Now we find all these instances of corruption. There are credible reasons to believe that it may be more wide spread. The Census Bureau has cut them loose. I say, as long as they are recieving taxpayer money, they should be forced to open their books to federal audit. What's up with the kid glove treatment?

     Would you like to see them investigated?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/14/2009 @ 5:51pm

268. Lighten uo anti. You know that the left always cries racism when you get the best of them and they have no other answer. That's pretty sad.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/14/2009 @ 4:25pm

     No, that was personal. She knows that my wife and children, and thus also some of my grandchildren of black/hispanic race and ethnicity.

     She is a racist bigot and she finally crossed the line with me.

     And Bushfools is just about as bad, suggesting'

     <"Hey, some of my best friends (relatives) are...."

     Kinda like the person that says they have friends that are hearing impaired but don't need to know ASL.>

     I don't know about you, but I don't think of my wife, children, and grandchildren as "some of my best friends are".

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 5:19pm>

     This is the bigotry of some on the left laid bare. Racism is bad enough, but when they attack you as being racist towards your own children, only the worst kind of person engages in trash like that. I have no use for any bigot, left or right that speaks that way.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 5:52pm

269. This is the bigotry of some on the left laid bare. Racism is bad enough, but when they attack you as being racist towards your own children, only the worst kind of person engages in trash like that. I have no use for any bigot, left or right that speaks that way. Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 5:52pm

     Hey I qualified it by stating: "..they have friends that are hearing impaired but don't need to know ASL."

     And I'm sure you've marched with your black friends and relatives for the NAACP or black pride week, etc.

     And I'm sure Obama would totally empathize for your predicament:

     "...my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 6:09pm

270. er: And I'm sure Obama would totally empathize 'with' your predicament...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 6:13pm

271. And I'm sure Obama would totally empathize for your predicament:

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 6:09pm

     My family is not a predicament. They are not a weight on my life. They are the loves of my life.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 6:15pm

272. Anti- you are perfectly correct-- my humblest apologies. I should have written, "And I'm sure Obama would totally empathize with your family's predicament."

     So I take it you've never marched in a black pride parade or with the NAACP?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 7:39pm

273. Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 5:52pm

     Sorry anti. I really wasn't aware of all that. Darla comes off as some kind of kook in my dialogue with her. As I said, she seems to be a very angry person with a huge chip on her shoulder.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/14/2009 @ 8:01pm

274. Darla is entitled to write on these threads as you are anti and gunslinger1, and some people think you guys are kooks too.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/14/2009 @ 9:46pm

275. And anti, I watched the crowds at the teabaggers protest and I saw no blacks, latinos , indians, asians or for godsake italians!!!! What is up with that huh? You talk out of both sides of your mouth when you say you stand up for people of color, but then you don't? What the hell is up with that?

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/14/2009 @ 9:52pm

276. test

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/14/2009 @ 11:03pm

277. Well I still am trying to figure out the love affair with George and Dick. Was it their war records that gave them credibility? Was it hacks like Karl Rove that made them lovable? How about the Trillion dollars worth of "borrowing" for our war on terror?The reconciliation tax cuts for the richest one tenth of one percent of Americans? To think we are debating if all citizens of this country deserve health care? I wonder if our state governments who regulate insurance companies,discriminate against certain companies. Why else would certain companies control 90% of a states policies. On the other hand these companies have vall done business for years. They know when and where to compete. I think that point kills the BS on competition. That is why a public option is needed. I also think it could turn a profit. The difference is that the profit would go to cut the national debt. No bonuses for the administrators.Lets cut that boondoggle (remember Fannie,Freddie) out of the equation. There are still some honest Americans left to work for the government and not be like Teddy Stevens isn't there.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/15/2009 @ 12:08am

278. We can do away with private primary care health insurance altogether. It's ok to completely get rid of that middle man. Especially considering their 30% "administrative" costs. They are not, and have never been a necessary or legitimate business.

     Posted by Milhaus at 09/15/2009 @ 06:47am

279. "Iraq was a legally justified war as a resumption of hostilities under international law. "----Posted by antisocialist at 09/14/2009 @ 3:26pm

     Anybody doubt next time "international law" is brought up in some OTHER context...

     Larry will oppose it???

     Posted by Mask at 09/15/2009 @ 07:14am

280. Torture?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/15/2009 @ 07:47am

281. I thought that war was handed down from father to son. We are attempting to become the "British Empire" of our time. Over extended,morally right,nation building, and financially bankrupt.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/15/2009 @ 07:49am

282. So I take it you've never marched in a black pride parade or with the NAACP?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/14/2009 @ 7:39pm

     I don't march in any parades of any kind.

     But I do work in many other ways to make sure that people of color are not mistreated and that they receive their equal rights.

     I mean do you think I want my children and grandchildren mistreated? Don't you think that simple parental pride is sufficient cause to fight for them?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 08:51am

283. Darla is entitled to write on these threads as you are anti and gunslinger1, and some people think you guys are kooks too.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/14/2009 @ 9:46pm

     You are now an apologist for a racist? Are you so beholden to liberalism that you find racist comments and insults to bloggers family's acceptable?

     Did you even read the posts.

     Darla knows that I have a family that is black/hispanic and that I have been pastor of congregations that were primarily for people of color. That I have lived in places like South Africa helping the poorest of the poor improve their lives. That I ran food and clothing programs in South Central LA for mostly people of color.

     Sorry, but your defense of someone's racism and bigotry is not defensable.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 08:55am

284. I mean do you think I want my children and grandchildren mistreated? Don't you think that simple parental pride is sufficient cause to fight for them? Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 08:51am

     Actually if I had read that my father was willing to feed me depleted uranium to prove an ideological point demanded by his corporate god; knowing it's been proven to cause birth deformities and death. I know I'd be highly suspicious of his professed love being to my benefit.

     I suppose it's christian in an old testament sort of way, sacrificing ones child to a voice in your head. But then that would make me...

     Nah.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/15/2009 @ 09:21am

285. Actually if I had read that my father was willing to feed me depleted uranium to prove an ideological point demanded by his corporate god; knowing it's been proven to cause birth deformities and death. I know I'd be highly suspicious of his professed love being to my benefit.

     I suppose it's christian in an old testament sort of way, sacrificing ones child to a voice in your head. But then that would make me...

     Nah.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/15/2009 @ 09:21am

     I'd feel the same way about someone who would do such a thing. But what does that have to do with me?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 09:37am

286. On the 233rd day of his presidency, Barack Obama grabbed the country's lapels for the 263rd time--that was, as of last Wednesday, the count of his speeches, press conferences, town halls, interviews, and other public remarks. His speech to Congress was the 122nd time he had publicly discussed health care. Just 14 hours would pass before the 123rd, on Thursday morning. His incessant talking cannot combat what it has caused: An increasing number of Americans do not believe that he believes what he says.

     He says America's health-care system is going to wrack and ruin and requires root-and-branch reform--but that if you like your health care (as a large majority of Americans do), nothing will change for you. His slippery new formulation is that nothing in his plan will "require" anyone to change coverage. He used to say, "If you like your health-care plan, you'll be able to keep your health-care plan, period." He had to stop saying that because various disinterested analysts agree that his plan will give many employers incentives to stop providing coverage for employees.

     He deplores "scare tactics" but says that unless he gets his way, people will die. He praises temperate discourse but says many of his opponents are liars. He says Medicare is an exemplary program that validates government's prowess at running health systems. But he also says Medicare is unsustainable and going broke, and that he will pay for much of his reforms by eliminating the hundreds of billions of dollars of waste and fraud in this paragon of a program, and in Medicaid. He says Congress will cut Medicare (it will not) by $500 billion--without affecting benefits.

     He says the nation's economic health depends on controlling health-care costs. Yet so important is the trial bar in financing the Democratic

     Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2009 @ 09:44am

287. On the 233rd day of his presidency, Barack Obama grabbed the country's lapels for the 263rd time--that was, as of last Wednesday, the count of his speeches, press conferences, town halls, interviews, and other public remarks. His speech to Congress was the 122nd time he had publicly discussed health care. Just 14 hours would pass before the 123rd, on Thursday morning. His incessant talking cannot combat what it has caused: An increasing number of Americans do not believe that he believes what he says.

     He says America's health-care system is going to wrack and ruin and requires root-and-branch reform--but that if you like your health care (as a large majority of Americans do), nothing will change for you. His slippery new formulation is that nothing in his plan will "require" anyone to change coverage. He used to say, "If you like your health-care plan, you'll be able to keep your health-care plan, period." He had to stop saying that because various disinterested analysts agree that his plan will give many employers incentives to stop providing coverage for employees.

     He deplores "scare tactics" but says that unless he gets his way, people will die. He praises temperate discourse but says many of his opponents are liars. He says Medicare is an exemplary program that validates government's prowess at running health systems. But he also says Medicare is unsustainable and going broke, and that he will pay for much of his reforms by eliminating the hundreds of billions of dollars of waste and fraud in this paragon of a program, and in Medicaid. He says Congress will cut Medicare (it will not) by $500 billion--without affecting benefits.

     He says the nation's economic health depends on controlling health-care costs. Yet so important is the trial bar in financing the Democratic

     Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2009 @ 09:45am

288. Posted by whatizz at 09/15/2009 @ 12:08am

     "Well I still am trying to figure out the love affair with George and Dick. Was it their war records that gave them credibility? Was it hacks like Karl Rove that made them lovable? How about the Trillion dollars worth of "borrowing" for our war on terror?"

     Bush spent way too much money. No doubt about it. But as you lefties should know better than anyone else, it seems nobody gets elected in America anymore without promising free stuff to people. And that costs money. And it certainly explains why Bush/Cheney did not have the guts to cut spending.

     "The reconciliation tax cuts for the richest one tenth of one percent of Americans? "

     Tax cuts, by definition, always go to those people you hate and which you and other people call 'the rich' - because they're the people who pay most of the taxes in the first place. So by definition, any tax cut goes to 'the rich'.

     "To think we are debating if all citizens of this country deserve health care?"

     I think everyone in the country deserves free health care too; plus, a villa in the south of France. The difference between me and you is that I think the country should be able to afford it first.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2009 @ 10:06am

289. Posted by whatizz at 09/15/2009 @ 12:08am

     "I wonder if our state governments who regulate insurance companies,discriminate against certain companies. Why else would certain companies control 90% of a states policies. On the other hand these companies have vall done business for years. They know when and where to compete. I think that point kills the BS on competition. "

     You think every time certain companies tend to dominate, it's because of corruption in government? Here's an idea - take the government out of decision making and influence on the private sector to the largest extent possible (Thomas Jefferson supported that idea too). The only problem is, Obama's philosophy does precisely the opposite.

     "That is why a public option is needed. I also think it could turn a profit. "

     So, you think the government is capable of running businesses efficiently? Can you think of a single example where this is so? I'm thinking...Post Office...Amtrak...IRS...(and I'm sure you lefties would like to bring up $1,000 hammers in the military!) Sure, it's possible that after failing 100 percent of the time, they may succeed in health care; it's just not very likely.

     "Lets cut that boondoggle (remember Fannie,Freddie) out of the equation."

     Fannie/Freddie are perfect examples of why you DO NOT want the government involved in private financial transactions. At least, that's the lesson you SHOULD have learned.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2009 @ 10:13am

290. Never had a love affair with Bush or Cheney. When they did things I approved of, I approved of it. When I disagreed, I disagreed. There seems to be a belief that Republicans have no choice but to defend every policy decision Bush made. Why should I do that?

     By and large, I happened to agree moreso with stuff Bush did (or even Clinton did, in hindsight), than I am in these 7 odd months with Obama. I would hardly categorize that as a love affair.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 10:27am

291. Never had a love affair with Bush or Cheney. When they did things I approved of, I approved of it. When I disagreed, I disagreed. There seems to be a belief that Republicans have no choice but to defend every policy decision Bush made. Why should I do that?

     By and large, I happened to agree moreso with stuff Bush did (or even Clinton did, in hindsight), than I am in these 7 odd months with Obama. I would hardly categorize that as a love affair.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 10:27am

292. Never had a love affair with Bush or Cheney. When they did things I approved of, I approved of it. When I disagreed, I disagreed. There seems to be a belief that Republicans have no choice but to defend every policy decision Bush made. Why should I do that?

     By and large, I happened to agree moreso with stuff Bush did (or even Clinton did, in hindsight), than I am in these 7 odd months with Obama. I would hardly categorize that as a love affair.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 10:27am

293. If we've got some three hundred million people in the country and Pres. Obama says thirty million of them do not have health insurance, (10%), wouldn't it make sense to scale back his plans to overhaul the entire HC system and just do something about the thirty million? Seems like he'd get a lot more co-operation from rebublicans and objectors in his own party if he keeps thing manageable. Unless of course, he has and agenda. Socialism?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/15/2009 @ 10:39am

294. I heard an interesting thought last night. Barack Obama is not the 'black' President of the United States, he's the 'President of the United States' period. I think if everyone looked at it that way, there would be much fewer charges of racism directed towards anyone who disagrees with his policies. Just because he has black blood in him doesn't give any particular group a 'right' or a 'reason' to own him or claim him as their own. He is the President of 'all' the people and as such will be challenged by the opposing political viewpoint. Hell, it happened to Bush all the time.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/15/2009 @ 10:46am

295. The Senate votes 83 to 7 to cut of any further funding for ACORN's housing program pending further investigation. Will the House follow suit. Never. Not this House. ACORN has registered several hundred thousand minorities to vote and guess who they voted for. Ethics be damned. This is about getting out the vote.

     Glenn Beck says he will reveal evidence of ACORN corruption that will, "Peel the skin off your face", tonight at five on Fox.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/15/2009 @ 10:50am

296. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/15/2009 @ 10:39am

     It's not even 30 million, really. And Obama just scaled back from the 46.3 million the Census Bureau reports because he didn't want to get caught including 10 million illegal aliens in his 'these people need free health care!!' schtick. I had a discussion about this with Nicole Gaouette, a reporter from Bloomberg news, and she said she'd 'have to ask the White House for a clarification', since she had been quoting the 46.3 million in her news pieces and wasn't aware that Obama's facts had shifted again. No word from her yet, BTW, and I suggest that like minded people send emails to news reporters like this so we can assist them in getting their facts straight.

     When you back out all the phony cohorts (people who think they're not insured but who actually are; people who make plenty of money but still don't buy insurance; thirty million is STILL about 20 million too high.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2009 @ 10:51am

297. Posted by pontificus at 09/15/2009 @ 10:51am

     Do we not send Mexico aid every year? Why not announce that we are cutting off all aid to Mexico and boycotting their tourist spots and use the money instead to help their citizens, who are in 'our' country illegally with their sniffles?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/15/2009 @ 10:55am

298. But what does that have to do with me? Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 09:37am

     "Yet, U.S. DoD studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.[4] In addition, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service in early 2004 attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[9][10] Also, a 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[11]

     DU is considered both a toxic and radioactive hazard that requires long term storage as low level nuclear waste in very large quantities.[citation needed] Its use in incendiary ammunition is controversial because of potential adverse health effects and its release into the environment. [58][59][60][61][62][63] Besides its residual radioactivity, U-238 is a heavy metal whose compounds are known from laboratory studies to be toxic to mammals.

     Although slow, metallic uranium is prone to corrosion and small pieces are pyrophoric at room temperature in air.[24] When depleted uranium munitions penetrate armor or burn, they create depleted uranium oxides in the form of dust that can be inhaled or contaminate wounds. Additionally, fragments of munitions or armor can become embedded in the body."

     I believe your proposition in defending DU was that you weren't worried even if you did expose it to your own family.

     You still believe that?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/07/2009 @ 3:43pm

     absolutely.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 4:32pm

     Van Jones Exit Isn't Right-Wing Win, It's an Obama Surrender...posted by JOHN NICHOLS 09/06/2009

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/15/2009 @ 11:04am

299. "I think everyone in the country deserves free health care too; plus, a villa in the south of France. The difference between me and you is that I think the country should be able to afford it first."

     most of the country currently cannot afford the cost of private health insurance. and that also goes for people who are already insured.

     but......being pontificus, and being monumentally brain-deficient (like most republicans), you cannot grasp that reality, and would rather stick your head deep into the rocky soil, plug your ears, and yell "i can't hear you!"

     can someone please tell me why republicans are so painfully stupid? please?

     i mean, even people like george will and howard fineman are like "this country is full of stupid people"

     Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2009 @ 11:13am

300. Hey, PONTI...good to see you back.

     What's your head count on the protest Saturday?

     the Michelle Malkin/Daily Mail number?

     or the Fox News/Everybody else number?

     Posted by Mask at 09/15/2009 @ 11:27am

301. The only way this country can take back democracy for the people and by the people from the current democracy by and for bussiness is to amend the constitution that inhibits non-human entities (business) from contributing to people running for office's campaign funds. Persons running for political office can not be allowed to set up a PAC(Political Action Committee), receive money from a PAC other than the National party PAC(DNC,RNC and congress'counterparts). Business will also not be able to donate to PACs. When a politician ceases to run for office and has money left in their campaign fund they will have to pay taxes on that fund at a rate of 60% and the monies will go to a fund that is given to all candidate requesting federal money Or they many give all the extra money to their national party headquarters with no tax liability.

     This is a good start. Then we need to change the tax law that restricts what business write off for expenses to lobbying groups and or associations that have a lobbying arm.

     Remember we are a Democracy first and foremost! A version of capitalism is only our mode of business. Things like capitalism, free markets in their pure forms are only theory in textbooks and they will never exist in pure form anywhere in the the world. Some of you just....Get over it!!!

     Posted by glory253 at 09/15/2009 @ 11:38am

302. Posted by Mask at 09/15/2009 @ 11:27am

     Why do you want to put those people down? Don't you think that this corruption needs cleaning up? That's what these people are all about. Have you listened to their speeches? They now have viable candidates interested in challanging incumbants and if the mood stays the same, we may have another 1994.

     What ever count you believe, believe this, there were hoards. Besides that rally, there was another rally on the same day that drew thousands more. It was at the site of the historical Lincoln/Douglas debate. Crowd estimate was up to ten thousand during the course of the day. Chicago papers didn't report it.

     Got to give them credit. They're out there raising their voices while we're here typing.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/15/2009 @ 12:17pm

303. Posted by glory253 at 09/15/2009 @ 11:38am

     In other words, you'd like to go back to the pre Andrew Jackson days. Good luck. It would be easier to reinvent the wheel. There is no easy fix but the answer lies in people being informed. As I've said before, people are busy and politicians know that. That's why they are putting down the Tea Party movement. They simply cannot have people asking questions.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/15/2009 @ 12:21pm

304. "there were hoards"

     yeah, hoards of total morons who have embraced the most paranoid fantasies imaginable.

     "Don't you think that this corruption needs cleaning up"

     what corruption are you talking about? the banks? the fed? what?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2009 @ 12:28pm

305. Posted by glory253 at 09/15/2009 @ 11:38am

     Yeah wasn't it a SCOTUS decision that gave person-hood to corporations? Like a corporation can die in battle or have one vote!

     Good luck getting the current right-wing slanted supremes, those that inserted the worst president in the modern era, usurping our vote and election process for the CEO/unitary executive, to then rule big business loose control or cut off their puppet strings as constitutional.

     Myself, I'd have the supremes institute a DNA rule per new science-- if the entity has no human DNA, it can't vote or petition our gov, no lobby, zippo.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/15/2009 @ 12:33pm

306. All I saw of that protest was lots WASPS. I also saw alot of inflametory signs and posters.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/15/2009 @ 12:42pm

307. That would mean that no entity comprised of a group of individuals could lobby.

     You see, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is a group that in and of itself has no DNA. Nor the AFL/CIO or teachers unions. Individual members do, but the group doesn't.

     Just as any business concern does. Why would a labor union be able to lobby government, but not the management or stockholder representatives of General Motors as well? Businesses are made up of people too, and as people they have the right to lobby their government. Even if they decide to do it as a group or as a collective interest.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 12:46pm

308. That would mean that no entity comprised of a group of individuals could lobby.

     You see, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is a group that in and of itself has no DNA. Nor the AFL/CIO or teachers unions. Individual members do, but the group doesn't.

     Just as any business concern does. Why would a labor union be able to lobby government, but not the management or stockholder representatives of General Motors as well? Businesses are made up of people too, and as people they have the right to lobby their government. Even if they decide to do it as a group or as a collective interest.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 12:46pm

309. That would mean that no entity comprised of a group of individuals could lobby.

     You see, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is a group that in and of itself has no DNA. Nor the AFL/CIO or teachers unions. Individual members do, but the group doesn't.

     Just as any business concern does. Why would a labor union be able to lobby government, but not the management or stockholder representatives of General Motors as well? Businesses are made up of people too, and as people they have the right to lobby their government. Even if they decide to do it as a group or as a collective interest.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 12:46pm

310. All I saw of that protest was lots WASPS. I also saw alot of inflametory signs and posters.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/15/2009 @ 12:42pm

     How many WASPS were at the "million man march" and how much complaining did you do about the lack of them? I suppose the unspoken insinuation here is that ethnic people were specifically made to feel unwelcome. Nope. I'd love to have more such participation, but sadly, it does not appear that individualism, limited government, fiscal restraint, and liberty animates ethnic minorities to the extent it does WASPS. They tend to show up more for group identity politics greivance sessions.

     I just sat through about 8 years of signs equating Bush to Hitler. Equating either Bush or Obama to Hitler is patently ridiculous and shows a supreme ignorance as to just what National Socialism was. It was not conservatives who destroyed civil discourse in this country. That tone was set and that bar was lowered back in the 1960s by outfits like SDS and the Weather Underground. A radical activism that believed politeness, good manners, and decorum was a bourgeoisie affectation that needed to be eradicated from our midst like Western Civilization studies on campus. You guys embraced this "direct action" garbage. Some of the more embarassing (and sometimes dangerous) antics of anti-abortion activists and terrorists got their scripts directly from the loudmouth, sometimes terroristic actions of 1960s and 70s left wing radicals.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 1:06pm

311. All I saw of that protest was lots WASPS. I also saw alot of inflametory signs and posters.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/15/2009 @ 12:42pm

     How many WASPS were at the "million man march" and how much complaining did you do about the lack of them? I suppose the unspoken insinuation here is that ethnic people were specifically made to feel unwelcome. Nope. I'd love to have more such participation, but sadly, it does not appear that individualism, limited government, fiscal restraint, and liberty animates ethnic minorities to the extent it does WASPS. They tend to show up more for group identity politics greivance sessions.

     I just sat through about 8 years of signs equating Bush to Hitler. Equating either Bush or Obama to Hitler is patently ridiculous and shows a supreme ignorance as to just what National Socialism was. It was not conservatives who destroyed civil discourse in this country. That tone was set and that bar was lowered back in the 1960s by outfits like SDS and the Weather Underground. A radical activism that believed politeness, good manners, and decorum was a bourgeoisie affectation that needed to be eradicated from our midst like Western Civilization studies on campus. You guys embraced this "direct action" garbage. Some of the more embarassing (and sometimes dangerous) antics of anti-abortion activists and terrorists got their scripts directly from the loudmouth, sometimes terroristic actions of 1960s and 70s left wing radicals.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 1:06pm

312. All I saw of that protest was lots WASPS. I also saw alot of inflametory signs and posters.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/15/2009 @ 12:42pm

     How many WASPS were at the "million man march" and how much complaining did you do about the lack of them? I suppose the unspoken insinuation here is that ethnic people were specifically made to feel unwelcome. Nope. I'd love to have more such participation, but sadly, it does not appear that individualism, limited government, fiscal restraint, and liberty animates ethnic minorities to the extent it does WASPS. They tend to show up more for group identity politics greivance sessions.

     I just sat through about 8 years of signs equating Bush to Hitler. Equating either Bush or Obama to Hitler is patently ridiculous and shows a supreme ignorance as to just what National Socialism was. It was not conservatives who destroyed civil discourse in this country. That tone was set and that bar was lowered back in the 1960s by outfits like SDS and the Weather Underground. A radical activism that believed politeness, good manners, and decorum was a bourgeoisie affectation that needed to be eradicated from our midst like Western Civilization studies on campus. You guys embraced this "direct action" garbage. Some of the more embarassing (and sometimes dangerous) antics of anti-abortion activists and terrorists got their scripts directly from the loudmouth, sometimes terroristic actions of 1960s and 70s left wing radicals.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 1:06pm

313. CC you were able to post one post once-- why can't you do that again? These triplets are really tiresome.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/15/2009 @ 1:21pm

314. That would mean that no entity comprised of a group of individuals could lobby. ... Businesses are made up of people too, and as people they have the right to lobby their government. Even if they decide to do it as a group or as a collective interest. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 12:46pm

     Why doesn't voting, when whole groups of people petition our gov, not also require that we each also slide a few thousand dollars attached to a ballot for it to be taken seriously?

     You were right with: "That would mean that no entity comprised of a group of individuals could lobby. ..."

     Exactly.

     Open petitions from all the people in the state/county/city/nation to sign, (i.e. recall vote, for amendments)-- with no monetary attachments, should be sufficient.

     Limit campaign contributions to individuals with DNA to a max amount and that's it. Leave money making corporations (mostly multinationals anyway) out of petitioning our gov completely.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/15/2009 @ 1:54pm

315. er, Limit campaign contributions to individuals with 'human' DNA ...

     (ha)

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/15/2009 @ 3:27pm

316. "I just sat through about 8 years of signs equating Bush to Hitler. "

     oh, poor you. and it was those *signs* that bothered you, and not the:

     *two trillion dollar wars

     *catastrophic debt

     *torture

     *wiretapping

     *katrina

     *etc, etc

     ??

     Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2009 @ 4:01pm

317. "That tone was set and that bar was lowered back in the 1960s by outfits like SDS and the Weather Underground"

     really?

     "I'd love to have more such participation, but sadly, it does not appear that individualism, limited government, fiscal restraint, and liberty animates ethnic minorities to the extent it does WASPS"

     really?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2009 @ 4:07pm

318. CC you were able to post one post once-- why can't you do that again? These triplets are really tiresome.

     I hate them as much as you do. Like I said, the one time I tried to explain to you that my server here at the office sends things out in threes for some reason, it posted my explanation just once. I've tried other machines. It's all the same.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 4:12pm

319. CC you were able to post one post once-- why can't you do that again? These triplets are really tiresome.

     I hate them as much as you do. Like I said, the one time I tried to explain to you that my server here at the office sends things out in threes for some reason, it posted my explanation just once. I've tried other machines. It's all the same.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 4:12pm

320. CC you were able to post one post once-- why can't you do that again? These triplets are really tiresome.

     I hate them as much as you do. Like I said, the one time I tried to explain to you that my server here at the office sends things out in threes for some reason, it posted my explanation just once. I've tried other machines. It's all the same.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 4:12pm

321. Double standards always bother me.

     No, the wars didn't bother me so much. I was in Baghdad in 2005, and again in Kuwait last year. That would give me more genuine cause to "hate" them more than you do. But I don't. Saddam was all but asking for a resumption of hostilities all during the Clinton years, but was confident he would get away with it. Evan Obama calls Afghanistan a "good" war.

     One cannot be a conservative and not be bothered by the debt incurred by Bush's "compassionate conservatism". I disagreed with that level of government spending. And yes, much of it was on the expansion of social programs. Your problem is that a Republican was doing it. In the same speech, Obama managed to blame Bush for the deficit because of spending, and then a few minutes later say that he would've spent MORE than Bush had he been the President. Can't have it both ways.

     Torture is something you do to human beings. I am not of the opinion that Khalid Sheik Muhammad is really a human being. One cannot plan and perpetrate the acts that he did and remain so. No more than you could if you were a willing and enthusiastic guard at Auschwitz. If Khalid got his head dunked a few times, lost some sleepy time, etc. and in return for that we got intel that prevented hundreds, perhaps thousands of deaths around the world...I can live with that. So WILL hundreds, perhaps thousands of other people this man may have killed through his plans and deeds.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 4:29pm

322. Double standards always bother me.

     No, the wars didn't bother me so much. I was in Baghdad in 2005, and again in Kuwait last year. That would give me more genuine cause to "hate" them more than you do. But I don't. Saddam was all but asking for a resumption of hostilities all during the Clinton years, but was confident he would get away with it. Evan Obama calls Afghanistan a "good" war.

     One cannot be a conservative and not be bothered by the debt incurred by Bush's "compassionate conservatism". I disagreed with that level of government spending. And yes, much of it was on the expansion of social programs. Your problem is that a Republican was doing it. In the same speech, Obama managed to blame Bush for the deficit because of spending, and then a few minutes later say that he would've spent MORE than Bush had he been the President. Can't have it both ways.

     Torture is something you do to human beings. I am not of the opinion that Khalid Sheik Muhammad is really a human being. One cannot plan and perpetrate the acts that he did and remain so. No more than you could if you were a willing and enthusiastic guard at Auschwitz. If Khalid got his head dunked a few times, lost some sleepy time, etc. and in return for that we got intel that prevented hundreds, perhaps thousands of deaths around the world...I can live with that. So WILL hundreds, perhaps thousands of other people this man may have killed through his plans and deeds.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 4:29pm

323. Double standards always bother me.

     No, the wars didn't bother me so much. I was in Baghdad in 2005, and again in Kuwait last year. That would give me more genuine cause to "hate" them more than you do. But I don't. Saddam was all but asking for a resumption of hostilities all during the Clinton years, but was confident he would get away with it. Evan Obama calls Afghanistan a "good" war.

     One cannot be a conservative and not be bothered by the debt incurred by Bush's "compassionate conservatism". I disagreed with that level of government spending. And yes, much of it was on the expansion of social programs. Your problem is that a Republican was doing it. In the same speech, Obama managed to blame Bush for the deficit because of spending, and then a few minutes later say that he would've spent MORE than Bush had he been the President. Can't have it both ways.

     Torture is something you do to human beings. I am not of the opinion that Khalid Sheik Muhammad is really a human being. One cannot plan and perpetrate the acts that he did and remain so. No more than you could if you were a willing and enthusiastic guard at Auschwitz. If Khalid got his head dunked a few times, lost some sleepy time, etc. and in return for that we got intel that prevented hundreds, perhaps thousands of deaths around the world...I can live with that. So WILL hundreds, perhaps thousands of other people this man may have killed through his plans and deeds.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 4:29pm

324. Wiretapping again failed to illicit much concern from me. Mainly because I have a historical perspective and know that what Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 pales in comparison to what FDR did during WWII, Wilson during WWI, and Lincoln during the Civil War. Under the old switchboard technology of half the last century, somebody else could always hear what you were saying. And yet the Republic survived. Additionally, the government would find my personal phone conversations to not be of much value. Basically, I do not expect this country to conduct itself when it is at war the same way it does when at peace. Neither would you. You probably just don't want to acknowledge that we are at war. The other side sure thinks we are.

     Katrina didn't bother me as much because I saw that it as a failure of city and state government to react quickly. They had plans, they had transportation, they failed to use or implement any of it. They are the first responders and they failed miserably. The state learned from this and replaced it's governor. New Orleans did not learn from this and re-elected Nagin for obvious reasons of racial solidarity, not because of his inspiring leadership abilities. He was no Guiliani. That other states respond to hurricanes every year without the Feds, and that Louisiana failed so badly at it reflects more on Louisiana, it's politicians, and it's voters than it does on Bush.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 4:41pm

325. Wiretapping again failed to illicit much concern from me. Mainly because I have a historical perspective and know that what Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 pales in comparison to what FDR did during WWII, Wilson during WWI, and Lincoln during the Civil War. Under the old switchboard technology of half the last century, somebody else could always hear what you were saying. And yet the Republic survived. Additionally, the government would find my personal phone conversations to not be of much value. Basically, I do not expect this country to conduct itself when it is at war the same way it does when at peace. Neither would you. You probably just don't want to acknowledge that we are at war. The other side sure thinks we are.

     Katrina didn't bother me as much because I saw that it as a failure of city and state government to react quickly. They had plans, they had transportation, they failed to use or implement any of it. They are the first responders and they failed miserably. The state learned from this and replaced it's governor. New Orleans did not learn from this and re-elected Nagin for obvious reasons of racial solidarity, not because of his inspiring leadership abilities. He was no Guiliani. That other states respond to hurricanes every year without the Feds, and that Louisiana failed so badly at it reflects more on Louisiana, it's politicians, and it's voters than it does on Bush.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 4:41pm

326. Wiretapping again failed to illicit much concern from me. Mainly because I have a historical perspective and know that what Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 pales in comparison to what FDR did during WWII, Wilson during WWI, and Lincoln during the Civil War. Under the old switchboard technology of half the last century, somebody else could always hear what you were saying. And yet the Republic survived. Additionally, the government would find my personal phone conversations to not be of much value. Basically, I do not expect this country to conduct itself when it is at war the same way it does when at peace. Neither would you. You probably just don't want to acknowledge that we are at war. The other side sure thinks we are.

     Katrina didn't bother me as much because I saw that it as a failure of city and state government to react quickly. They had plans, they had transportation, they failed to use or implement any of it. They are the first responders and they failed miserably. The state learned from this and replaced it's governor. New Orleans did not learn from this and re-elected Nagin for obvious reasons of racial solidarity, not because of his inspiring leadership abilities. He was no Guiliani. That other states respond to hurricanes every year without the Feds, and that Louisiana failed so badly at it reflects more on Louisiana, it's politicians, and it's voters than it does on Bush.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 4:41pm

327. Let's see,1 in 10 unemployed, 1 in 10homes in the foreclosure process, and "only" 1 in 10 uninsured. I sure think that the "TEA BAGGERS" have a lot to complain about.Were they complaining about their costs insurance costs rising?Or is that another liberal myth?Were they complaining about H. C. rationing?Perhaps they figured it out that was happening already. Maybe it was Johnny Isaksson's provision on end of life "counseling that they were questioning? Enough on that nonsense. You want to investigate Acorn?How about the FED? How about the Wall Street derivative crash partnership? What a bunch of small people.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/15/2009 @ 4:46pm

328. "I'd love to have more such participation, but sadly, it does not appear that individualism, limited government, fiscal restraint, and liberty animates ethnic minorities to the extent it does WASPS"

     really?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2009 @ 4:07pm

     What else would one assume? That there's an overt, implied "unwelcome" mat out there against ethnic minorities participating in a protest against government spending and creeping, nanny-state intrusion into our day to day lives?

     Do you suppose the people at these tea partys or D.C. marches would be unhappy if more latinos and blacks joined their ranks and shared their views? How could that possibly make sense? "Gee, we'd love to have you on our side...but you just don't look like traditional members of the Kiwanis Club, if you know what I mean."

     Are you kidding? Politically speaking, I'd be overjoyed if blacks threw off the yoke of government dependency and remember that more of them were entering the middle class and at a faster rate before The Great Society, than they did after it's implementation.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 4:56pm

329. "I'd love to have more such participation, but sadly, it does not appear that individualism, limited government, fiscal restraint, and liberty animates ethnic minorities to the extent it does WASPS"

     really?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2009 @ 4:07pm

     What else would one assume? That there's an overt, implied "unwelcome" mat out there against ethnic minorities participating in a protest against government spending and creeping, nanny-state intrusion into our day to day lives?

     Do you suppose the people at these tea partys or D.C. marches would be unhappy if more latinos and blacks joined their ranks and shared their views? How could that possibly make sense? "Gee, we'd love to have you on our side...but you just don't look like traditional members of the Kiwanis Club, if you know what I mean."

     Are you kidding? Politically speaking, I'd be overjoyed if blacks threw off the yoke of government dependency and remember that more of them were entering the middle class and at a faster rate before The Great Society, than they did after it's implementation.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 4:56pm

330. "I'd love to have more such participation, but sadly, it does not appear that individualism, limited government, fiscal restraint, and liberty animates ethnic minorities to the extent it does WASPS"

     really?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2009 @ 4:07pm

     What else would one assume? That there's an overt, implied "unwelcome" mat out there against ethnic minorities participating in a protest against government spending and creeping, nanny-state intrusion into our day to day lives?

     Do you suppose the people at these tea partys or D.C. marches would be unhappy if more latinos and blacks joined their ranks and shared their views? How could that possibly make sense? "Gee, we'd love to have you on our side...but you just don't look like traditional members of the Kiwanis Club, if you know what I mean."

     Are you kidding? Politically speaking, I'd be overjoyed if blacks threw off the yoke of government dependency and remember that more of them were entering the middle class and at a faster rate before The Great Society, than they did after it's implementation.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 4:56pm

331. Thats exactly it Citizen Carrier, there is an overt "Unwelcome" mat out against all who oppose what the teabaggers stand for, you just don't get it. You may be overjoyed but alot of those people would not be happy with people of color in their ranks. There is alot of racism going on at these protests in case you haven't noticed.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/15/2009 @ 5:31pm

332. Why would "those who oppose" what the tea parties stand for want to be seen and included in their ranks?

     The criticism was that there weren't a lot of minorities at these protests.

     I countered that minorities must by and large be fine with more government spending and intrusive, nanny-statism, so would therefore not be present in the ranks of people protesting those things.

     Racism doesn't enter into it. If you don't believe in protesting deficit spending and nanny-statism, why would you go take part in a protest that does?

     The guy carrying the gun at that rally out west was black. And many conservatives closed ranks with him to defend his decision. Mostly white people. I happened to disagree with his move, but the fact remains. He had his defenders and they didn't care one whit what his color was.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 5:43pm

333. Why would "those who oppose" what the tea parties stand for want to be seen and included in their ranks?

     The criticism was that there weren't a lot of minorities at these protests.

     I countered that minorities must by and large be fine with more government spending and intrusive, nanny-statism, so would therefore not be present in the ranks of people protesting those things.

     Racism doesn't enter into it. If you don't believe in protesting deficit spending and nanny-statism, why would you go take part in a protest that does?

     The guy carrying the gun at that rally out west was black. And many conservatives closed ranks with him to defend his decision. Mostly white people. I happened to disagree with his move, but the fact remains. He had his defenders and they didn't care one whit what his color was.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 5:43pm

334. Why would "those who oppose" what the tea parties stand for want to be seen and included in their ranks?

     The criticism was that there weren't a lot of minorities at these protests.

     I countered that minorities must by and large be fine with more government spending and intrusive, nanny-statism, so would therefore not be present in the ranks of people protesting those things.

     Racism doesn't enter into it. If you don't believe in protesting deficit spending and nanny-statism, why would you go take part in a protest that does?

     The guy carrying the gun at that rally out west was black. And many conservatives closed ranks with him to defend his decision. Mostly white people. I happened to disagree with his move, but the fact remains. He had his defenders and they didn't care one whit what his color was.

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/15/2009 @ 5:43pm

335. Thats exactly it Citizen Carrier, there is an overt "Unwelcome" mat out against all who oppose what the teabaggers stand for, you just don't get it. You may be overjoyed but alot of those people would not be happy with people of color in their ranks. There is alot of racism going on at these protests in case you haven't noticed.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/15/2009 @ 5:31pm

     Denise, you are becoming just another regurgitator of leftist spin.

     How come CNN didn't find all of this racism you say was going on at the DC protest? The only places citing racism are leftist sources

     And I still don't understand why liberals who believe so strongly in the right to protest, have become such hate-filled bigots against the right of conservatives to protest. You are just as guilty.

     This is the repeated strawman argument used by liberals when they don't want to debate issues. They play the race card when it isn't even involved in the subject matter. It is the cowards way out of actually having to debate and engage in democracy.

     If you keep shouting racists, you can justify to yourselves that you are able to escape actually engaging in democracy.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 6:14pm

336. Its covert Anti, come on! You have got to be kidding me, you and citizen C think there were no people of color, NONE, at the protest because they ALL want to live off the Govt? All of the minorities felt this way Citizen C and Anti? I don't think so, and neither do a whole lot of people of color.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/15/2009 @ 6:29pm

337. No one should mistake my comments for a denial that racism still exists and can be found even at protests like last weekend.

     Racists will always avail themselves of the opportunity to make themselves visible.

     That does not mean though that most of the protestors are racist. Those who are attempting to do so miss the genuine anger that has risen up against both political parties. It was evident for a long time by the far left. Now it has spread across the political spectrum and a recent ABC poll proves this out.

     <Democratic allegiance has slipped to a two-year low in this poll and Republican affiliation is back near its lowest ever; instead 43 percent of Americans now identify themselves as independents, the most since ABC/Post polls began 28 years ago.>

     http://tinyurl.com/qv9yqz

     And from Gallup

     <Since last year, there have been declining perceptions among independents that each party is about right in its ideological orientation -- from 31% to 25% for the Republican Party and from 43% to 38% for the Democratic Party. Most of the decline in regard to the Democratic Party has been associated with in an increase in seeing the party as "too liberal.">

     http://tinyurl.com/kskpuk

     And indications of the cause of the protests by this Gallup poll result

     <PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are markedly cynical about the amount of waste in federal spending, more so than at several other times in recent history. On average, Americans believe 50 cents of every tax dollar that goes to the government in Washington, D.C., today are wasted.>

     http://tinyurl.com/nqnx25

     It seems like it always takes more to get conservatives riled up. I believe they have reached that tipping point. But not because of Race---it's the growth of govt.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 6:34pm

338. Its covert Anti, come on! You have got to be kidding me, you and citizen C think there were no people of color, NONE, at the protest because they ALL want to live off the Govt? All of the minorities felt this way Citizen C and Anti? I don't think so, and neither do a whole lot of people of color.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/15/2009 @ 6:29pm

     I never made that claim.

     In my family which on my wife's said, is almost all people of color, it is very mixed politically. I would say from our years of family talks, that we are nearly 50/50 conservative/liberal. And I know many other families of color that are the same way.

     It is a liberal myth that people of color are liberal. Most Blacks are conservative by their lifestyle but have been mostly voting Democratic since LBJ and his massive Federal enslavement program which deceived Blacks into thinking that the Democrats actually cared about them. It was just a power play with taxpayer money to grab their vote. It worked, but Dems did nothing to improve their lives. The projects and welfare merely created a new form of slavery.

     Likewise with Hispanics. Most Hispanic families are very conservative in their personal lives. But the pull of taxpayer money and the race card played by Democrats has a powerful effect.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 7:00pm

339. Oh what a bunch of crap, tax money and the race card is an equal opportunity for both the left and the right, the left can actually care and the right can actually not care as the right can sometimes care, as the left may not. It works both ways, but what I've seen in my lifetime is it usually the right that does not care for the common good nor the common man (or woman). And I've been around for a while.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/15/2009 @ 7:59pm

340. Santi- What you are saying is the Republicans are the reason for big government. You are not going to say Dollar Bill's 8 years of power out did the Repub's 20 years are you?

     Posted by whatizz at 09/15/2009 @ 8:08pm

341. "And I still don't understand why liberals who believe so strongly in the right to protest, have become such hate-filled bigots against the right of conservatives to protest. You are just as guilty."

     let's see, bush invaded and occupied two foreign countries; tortured, imprisoned and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people; spied on his own people without warrants; destroyed the global economy; and politicized the executive branch to unprecedented levels.

     obama, on the other hand, has attempted to lower health care costs.....

     there is simply no equivalence between the anger directed at bush and the anger directed against obama.

     thus, one can only conclude that, without the plethora of justifiable reasons to be angry at bush, the anger directed at obama is, in part, racist.

     why else, may i ask, do people doubt his citizenship? his loyalty? why do they (honestly) think he's a marxist?

     he's black, he's multi-racial, he's liberal......ergo, he's a "threat"......it's that simple. because the vast majority of these teabaggers are (obviously) ignorant stooges....

     Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2009 @ 10:11pm

342. what never ceases to amaze me is that republicans believe that what they're feeling now is what we liberals were feeling back during the bush era, which is (obviously) preposterous.

     the vitriol directed at we liberals during the bush era was, quite frankly, astounding.

     and the thing is, we were RIGHT about the war, about the economy, about civil rights, about tax cuts....

     and now, the right wing? what are they actually against? "out of control" spending? really?

     if that is the case, then why weren't republicans protesting en masse during the bush era??

     Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2009 @ 10:19pm

343. and obama is even continuing some of the most radical bush counter-terrorism policies......why don't the republicans applaud him for that?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2009 @ 10:20pm

344. proof that there is NO equivalence between liberals and conservatives in terms of dissent?

     where were the swarms of riot police at last weekend's event?

     nowhere to be found.

     but at *our* protests? they're everwhere.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2009 @ 10:25pm

345. Rachel Maddow made an astute observation along with her guest Jonathan Alter, Newsweek senior editor, explain how each and every popular democratic president had right wing loonies to contend with:

     FDR had Reverend Coughlin

     http://tinyurl.com/no6ewc

     Truman had McCarthy

     http://tinyurl.com/qwrxtt

     Kenndy had the Birchers

     http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm

     Clinton had the vast right wing conspiracy, all the murders, conspiracy investigations, etc.

     Obama now has all the previous right wing failures replay the old playbook yet one more time, but this time the fringe are not a few repubs it's all the repubs. The GOP is now the fringe-- Birchers/ McCartys/ Rev. Coughlins/ Limppaws/ Hammitys/ Colders/etc. all.

     http://tinyurl.com/lcqz6s

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 01:02am

346. LBJ and his massive Federal enslavement program. Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 7:00pm

     Clearly you've never been, seen, understood, nor have the faintest idea what it is to be a slave.

     Sad deluded far right loony.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 01:08am

347. "Tea Party" Leader Melts Down On CNN: Obama Is An "Indonesian Muslim Turned Welfare Thug" (VIDEO)

     http://tinyurl.com/qtrhrh

     If these new con repub racist anti-christian thugs had even an once of equity they'd been attacking the rich just as insistently concerning their 'enslavement' to their wealth and their consistent enormous lack of charity as proven by the increase in the numbers of poor getting poorer while the rich got richer during repub reigns.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 06:59am

348. Clearly you've never been, seen, understood, nor have the faintest idea what it is to be a slave.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 01:08am

     Who in America currently living ever has?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/16/2009 @ 07:52am

349. Clearly you've never been, seen, understood, nor have the faintest idea what it is to be a slave.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 01:08am

     Who in America currently living ever has?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/16/2009 @ 07:52am

350. Clearly you've never been, seen, understood, nor have the faintest idea what it is to be a slave.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 01:08am

     Who in America currently living ever has?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/16/2009 @ 07:52am

351. Clearly you've never been, seen, understood, nor have the faintest idea what it is to be a slave. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 01:08am Who in America currently living ever has? Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/16/2009 @ 07:52am

     Clearly not the new con repubs protesting they need more greed for the already filthy rich they're supporting in order to bring down the first african american president. But no can blame them they're only following their racist leaders:

     http://tinyurl.com/lqyce5

     Clearly you've never been, seen, understood, nor have the faintest idea what it is to be a slave. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 01:08am Who in America currently living ever has? Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/16/2009 @ 07:52am

     Clearly not the new con repubs protesting they need more greed for the already filthy rich they're supporting in order to bring down the first african american president. But no can blame them they're only following their racist leaders:

     http://tinyurl.com/lqyce5

     Clearly you've never been, seen, understood, nor have the faintest idea what it is to be a slave. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 01:08am Who in America currently living ever has? Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/16/2009 @ 07:52am

     Clearly not the new con repubs protesting they need more greed for the already filthy rich they're supporting in order to bring down the first african american president. But no can blame them they're only following their racist leaders:

     http://tinyurl.com/lqyce5

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 09:27am

352. Posted by darladoon at 09/15/2009 @ 10:25pm

     I know this will probably be an exercise in fultility but I'll give it my best shot.

     First of all, the Tea Party movement is a peaceful one. These people aren't radicals but people who for the most part never protested anything in their lives but are now releasing pent up anger.

     There wasn't one single arrest at the rally. No-one intentionally engaged police as is usually the case at radical left rallies. That's why no riot police were deployed. Take one look at the crowd photos or video and you will understand clearly that there would be no violence at a Tea Party rally unless agitators from the radical left made it their business to start something. They didn't.

     Now for the larger issue.

     You're right about the difference in the parties regarding race relations but you are looking at it from the perspective of a liberal. Here's my take as an independent.

     I see republicans as people who are fed up with forking over their hard earned money to people who don't deserve it, not the poor, but the abusers and the groups like ACORN, who thanks to a couple of kids, have been exposed.

     I see democrats as people who will take from the right, every penny they can because somehow they think they are entitled to. This is an over-simplfying the problem but race is definitely an element. Why else would white families have run for the hills, (suberbs) in the sixties and seventies? It was about race then and it probably is now, although the present generation has made great strides in improving race relations as was witnessed by Obama's election and the youthful make-up at his campaign rallys.

     There simply is not enough room in this little space to expound further so I'll continue.......

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 10:34am

353. Continued.....

     Take hip-hop and rap for instance. What ever happened to real music? Black music in this country has a rich history from Duke Ellington and Count Basie the roots of rock and roll with the likes of Muddy Waters, Fats Domino and Chuck Berry to the bluesy sounds of B.B King and then onto the ledgendary Motown. All of a sudden in the 1990's to the present, black music morphed into something that is an abomination to the ear. Bill Cosby would agree.

     My own impression of rap and hip-hop are angry black men using a mechanical drum beat and shouting obscenities into a mike while strutting around the stage. These people actually get awards and sell millions of CD's. What ever happened to taking music lessons and learning how to play an instrument or learning how to sing?

     This is not a blanket indictment because there is still some incredible talent in the black community, Beyonce, Whitney, John Mayer, Robert Cray, etc.

     My point is that we are accepting mediocrity as a rule and that is bad for America period. Witness Kanye West. There is acceptance of mediocrity in pop music in this country that is startling.

     The young generation buys into this culture as though it is meant for them. It isn't. There just aren't enough good talented groups or artists anymore to compete for their dollar. The black community, on the other hand has pretty much dominated the industry for the last decade.

     Point is, it is a culture that middle-aged whites cannot identify with and actually despise. While the cultural divide among young people is narrowing, the divide amonge anyone over forty is widening.

     That's why racism is once again entering the discussion. Sooner or later it will come to a head. I'm hoping that President Obama will unite us.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 10:58am

354. But I'm not holding my breath.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 10:59am

355. the abusers and the groups like ACORN, who thanks to a couple of kids, have been exposed.

     (Kids? Were these two 'journalists' not in their 30's?)

     I see democrats as people who will take from the right, every penny they can because somehow they think they are entitled to.

     (So righties are the only ones making over 250K?)

     This is an over-simplfying the problem but race is definitely an element. Why else would white families have run for the hills, (suberbs) in the sixties and seventies? It was about race then and it probably is now, although the present generation has made great strides in improving race relations as was witnessed by Obama's election and the youthful make-up at his campaign rallys.

     (So there were racists rallying for and voting for Obama in the general election? But now they're really acting like racists?)

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 10:34am

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 11:26am

356. But I'm not holding my breath. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 10:59am

     Oh please do...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 11:28am

357. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 11:26am

     (Kids? Were these two 'journalists' not in their 30's?)

     He is 25, she is 20. They're kids to me.

     (So righties are the only ones making over 250K?)

     No, of course not. There were plenty of democrats at the Washington rally and in the Tea Party in general. It doesn't matter what political stripe you are, you still want to hold onto as much of your hard earned money as you can but contribute to responsible government programs with taxes. The key word is responsible.

     (So there were racists rallying for and voting for Obama in the general election? But now they're really acting like racists?)

     Yes. Redistrubition of income will bring out the worst in people. Any more questions?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:36am

358. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 11:28am

     Why? Don't I have a right to express my opinion? Doesn't the Tea Party have a right to express theirs? I think it's time you read the Constitution again my friend. Or maybe for the first time.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:39am

359. (So righties are the only ones making over 250K?) No, of course not. There were plenty of democrats at the Washington rally and in the Tea Party in general. It doesn't matter what political stripe you are, you still want to hold onto as much of your hard earned money as you can but contribute to responsible government programs with taxes. The key word is responsible.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:36am

     You have it backwards. That are many more dems earning over 250K that aren't greedy bastards and aren't at the greedy kooky racists rallies.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 12:04pm

360. (So there were racists rallying for and voting for Obama in the general election? But now they're really acting like racists?) Yes. Redistrubition of income will bring out the worst in people. Any more questions? Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:36am

     Now that's shear insanity-- no racist would vote or be for Obama getting elected president of the USA in the first place-- BECAUSE THEY ARE RACISTS.

     You obviously do not understand the term.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 12:07pm

361. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 11:28am Why? Don't I have a right to express my opinion? Doesn't the Tea Party have a right to express theirs? I think it's time you read the Constitution again my friend. Or maybe for the first time. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:39am

     Obviously confused what I meant.

     You were saying that you weren't bothering to wait for a reply or positive action from either Obama or Darla. And I was saying you should.

     Now if you had taken me literally, I suppose you would have not replied-- per being passed out...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 12:33pm

362. Yes, I do understand the term but I'm not painting with a broad brush the way you are. I'm merely stating that race is also a factor. one can have degrees of prejudice in their heart ans still want to give a guy like Obama a chance. The dynamics of the last election prooved that.

     Anyone who denies that completely is not thinking clearly. I don't think you are thinking very clearly either. You are calling racist, some very proud American citizens who have worked hard, served their country and paid for those who haven't all of their working lives. guess what, some are even black. Imagine that.

     I was merely stating that people who do have prejudice will probably act in a way that they normally would not, unless you threathened to take more of their hard earned money and give to to people who don't deserve it. That's what this ACORN thing is all about.

     I realize full well that there is a huge race problem in this country. It's inevitable. We are not all English or French or Italian or African, we are Americans and we are going to clash. But in a pinch, we'll come together and kick the shit out of anybody who threathens American ideals or freedom. In other words, we take the good with the bad, fight and go on.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:34pm

363. Yes, I do understand the term but I'm not painting with a broad brush the way you are. I'm merely stating that race is also a factor. one can have degrees of prejudice in their heart ans still want to give a guy like Obama a chance. The dynamics of the last election prooved that. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:34pm

     So now you're saying it's Obama's fault that new con repubs turned into racists, because they once voted for him and now because he's doing what he said he was going to do-- they're turning on him?

     I'd like to see you prove that insanity.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 12:49pm

364. Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 12:49pm

     I feel like I'm talking to Darladoon here. When did I say it was Obama's fault. Don't tell me you have a chip on your shoulder too.

     And, you still haven't answered my questions. Do I have a right to my opinion? Does the Tea Party? Do you???

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 1:04pm

365. John Mayer?

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/16/2009 @ 1:14pm

366. John Mayer?

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/16/2009 @ 1:14pm

     Sorry, I meant John Legend. I know John Mayer is white, and a great guitarist. Brain fart!

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 1:41pm

367. You are calling racist, some very proud American citizens who have worked hard, served their country and paid for those who haven't all of their working lives. guess what, some are even black. Imagine that.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:34pm

     So are you're telling me that they're good racists because you have some insight on these people and can possibly see into their soul?

     And I did not see any black people at the greedy racist 60k rally.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 1:49pm

368. When did I say it was Obama's fault.

     (And this is in ref to the 60k greed /racist rally:( "I'm merely stating that race is also a factor. one can have degrees of prejudice in their heart ans still want to give a guy like Obama a chance. The dynamics of the last election prooved that. ")

     And, you still haven't answered my questions. Do I have a right to my opinion? Does the Tea Party? Do you???

     (Opinion yes-- insanity no. There's a good reason why we put the insane in padded rooms.)

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 1:04pm

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 1:56pm

369. I was merely stating that people who do have prejudice will probably act in a way that they normally would not, unless you threathened to take more of their hard earned money and give to to people who don't deserve it. That's what this ACORN thing is all about.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:34pm

     And if the tapes are 70-80% bogus-- with another 80% that they're not showing because they're on the up and up?

     ACORN helps poor people. Of course greedy rich people are resentful to share anything.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/16/2009 @ 2:01pm