« We only play the hits | Main | A Unified Theory of McCain »

October 07, 2009

Comments

What you are complaining about (and what you always seem to be complaining about) is just that the Democratic Party is a broader and more diverse coalition than the Republicans. So members of the Democratic Party coalition react to currents in public opinion that you don't sympathize with.

But the fact that the Democratic Party is a broader and more diverse coalition is also the reason it is in power.

I don't care about caving for domestic reasons, I care about caving for stupid reasons that only become important BY CAVING TO THEM.

Plus, a lot of what I complain about is not people like Blue Dogs on things like social issues. i get upset when they become corporate lackeys and dress it up like working-class populism

I think that you are unfair to Nyhan and other political scientists. From what I have read of Nyhan and other political scientists (particularly at The Monkey Cage) are making the argument that the media should not cover the bump in the numbers as the end-all-and-be-all of the coverage and instead focus on the larger issues. They see the intense focus on what amounts to a small bump as being counterproductive in ways that are similar to the amplification effects that you are talking about.

As a strategy, I think that you are right that Obama's calmness helped redirect the lemmings from the cliff. But, that does not have to do with public opinion as much as shoring up Obama's base from which to operate.

Well, the numbers go up it's a great speech, then the bump ends and it's a great speech anyway. This seems to be a little revisionist. Maybe the numbers just mean what they mean.

"controversy"

i suggest : nontroversy: "A controversy that does not exist until created for political gain."

publius: "And with the Baucus bill getting a good CBO score, health coverage reform is looking very good."

It's looking good for those who aren't covered, and for those with pre-existing conditions. And it will take a tentative step toward allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines. And it will be real good for the insurance companies, who will have a bonanza of new customers, and policies to sell them (there's a Bronze, a Silver, a Gold, a Platinum, and a catastrophic plan for those 25 years or younger who were referred to in the hearings as "Invincibles" or something like that).

But it won't be so good for anybody else. Not the hospitals and doctors who are already subsizing Medicare costs or passing them onto other insured patients, and now will have even more Medicare insured patients added to the Medicare rolls.

And it won't be good for the middle-class overall, because health care costs will continue to rise, and there's no caps in the bill on those increases.

And it will really suck for the elderly, because they're the ones who will end up paying the most for it. The bill will cut payments to the Medicare Advantage program, which may force insurers in that program to drop it, or raise the premiums they charge seniors, forcing millions of them back into traditional Medicare -- where their care will be rationed to pay for the billions in added costs by reducing the time they're allowed to stay in hospitals, and the number of doctors they're allowed to see, and the covered medications prescribed for them.

Really, what do you think 'bending the Medicare cost curve' means? It's a euphemism for rationing.

In other words, throw Momma from the train, and Grandma and Grandpa too... But we'll have universal coverage, and the old folks should feel good about their sacrifice, because they'll be leaving the good old USA better off then they found it..

Jay J. Your lack of facts causing you to have opinion opposite from reality. It is the fact that 18% of medical bills go unpaid. None of it comes from Medicare covered patients. Only from private insured patients, due to insurance denial or high deductibles never paid by patient. Doctors and hospitals even that out by raising the rates. So you want Medicare to cover for skiped bills by private insurees, nice going. Maybe one day you will become covered by Medicare and by then Medicare will be out of funds covering high risk patients and unpaid bills and deductibles.
Also private insurers are causing higher costs of medical billing on health providers. Another point is that Docs have to spend additional time negotiating with private insurer's death panels which tretment is covered. All in all, Medicare with 80% rate is overpaying standard costs of health care which would be lower if there was no private insurers shenanigans. Doctors that take only Medicare come out better in earnings then the ones that take all.
Beside that point Medicare and Medicaid are high risk pools covering old and disabled which makes them covering about 30% of Americans and covering about 50% of total health care bills. Get your facts straight Jay.

"If the Glenn Becks and Malkins of the world can persuade just a couple of gullible MSM reporters to amplify the story (e.g., Halperin), then a few Democrats get scared. The scared Dems, in turn, then say something unhelpful out of fear, and more MSM reporters jump in. And on she goes, cascading out of control."

So, what you're saying is, essentially, that the Democratic position is so weak that it prevailing requires that the MSM completely shut out all opposition voices?

Darn, even I don't think the Democratic position on health care reform is THAT weak.

No, it's that Democratic politicians are that weak. Something the left has been complaining about since 2002, at least.

Great post! I really like your blog!!
COMMON CENTS
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

ps. Link Exchange?

So, what you're saying is, essentially, that the Democratic position is so weak that it prevailing requires that the MSM completely shut out all opposition voices?

Brett, your position's weakness shows in your throwing "essentially" into the above. It is what allows you, essentially, to completely misinterpret what Publius is saying. There's plenty of room between shutting out all oppositional voices and shutting out complete knuckleheads, and you know it.

I think it's a stretch to say, "The Dems held the line." SOME Democrats did, with a lot of help from the netroots. I hope names are being noted of which Democrats were on which side.

And Jay, Medicare Advantage should be tossed out. It's a complete gift to the insurance companies, which was its original purpose.

This just shows how out of touch the left is. YOU PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO REALIZE THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOESNT WANT YOUR SOCIALISM! So instead of admitting that socialized medicine is failing because America isn't a communist country (yet), you pretend that it's all about the media. EVERYONE KNOWS THE MEDIA HAS A LIBERAL BIAS. Media executives have admitted it. But if a single right of center voice finds its way into the conversation you start crying about the "noise machine." Like Keith Olbermann isn't a noise machine. Like Maureen Dowd isn't a noise machine. YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK!

Since roughly the mid 1980s the S.O.P. for the Democratic leadership has been to behave like the military-political leadership of France in June 1940. Which is to say that at the first serious setback they start losing hope and looking for deals to cut with the other side (encouraged by members who secretly or not-so-secretly sympathize with the other side), despite the fact that the strategic situation is far from hopeless. What we've been lacking is somebody who will act like it is 1914, not 1940, which is to say time to dig in for the long hard slog ahead rather than giving up right away.

So far, so good. Now we need better tacticians.

Irrumator person --

You're correct -- if asked yes or no, most Americans don't want Socialized Medicine. They do, however, very much want Medicare. Thanks to the partisans on the Right, Americans generally, and especially the elderly, see no contradiction in this position. Apparently you don't, either. And your conflation of communism with socialism is a classic.

Chris J,

I don't support medicare. The American right didn't support it in 1965. The contradiction you point out isn't much of a contradiction. If you give people free crap, they'll gladly take it. Just because people are willing to take certain government benefits for themselves doesn't mean they support a system of government where the state controls the means of production. Ignorant people always want bread and circus.

I'm not conflating socialism with communism either. I know the difference, and I bet you don't. The U.S. became socialist under Bush. Obama wants to take the next step and make it communist. Shepard Fairy can do the hammer and sickle posters.

"So instead of admitting that socialized medicine is failing because America isn't a communist country (yet), . . ."
I think most readers will agree this is conflating two different things.
"The U.S. became socialist under Bush."
If Medicare is socialism (which it is, in a way), America became socialist long before Bush.
"Obama wants to take the next step and make it communist."
Your evidence for this? He's barely left of center in his policies. The healthcare proposals floating up from Congress are not even socialist by European standards, none of which countries are communist.

Can you honestly not see the difference between Medicare for the elderly - who have been paying a portion of their income into this, just like Social Security - and a free-for-all whereby anyone who wants can get coverage?

Can you not see how Medicare for the elderly is a whole lot different from Obamacare (open to all, even those who have never paid a dime, even illegal aliens)?

Can you not see how you could support Medicare but be opposed to Obamacare and not be a hypocrite?

And, plese, no BS about "illegals won't be covered!" - just last week, the Democrats on the Senate Finance committee defeated an amendment (for the third? fourth? time)from Sen. Harkin that would have required proof of citizenship before getting any Obamacare.

No enforcement = come on in!

"Since roughly the mid 1980s the S.O.P. for the Democratic leadership has been to behave like the military-political leadership of France in June 1940. Which is to say that at the first serious setback they start losing hope and looking for deals to cut with the other side (encouraged by members who secretly or not-so-secretly sympathize with the other side), despite the fact that the strategic situation is far from hopeless."

This is a negative interpretation of a strategy that has proved remarkably successful, although it took some time. What they have actually done is looked at every issue in terms of how it might or might not broaden their base. They had some missteps but ultimately have honed a messsage that positions them as the reasonable party that represents the most Americans. This requires that they compromise quickly on many issues that don't have strong public support, or have strong opposition in a key constituency that they feel they need to succeed.

The challenge they have is stated here:

No, it's that Democratic politicians are that weak. Something the left has been complaining about since 2002, at least.

by Anarch.

In fact the opposite is true, they simply can't afford to spend political capital and have their negatives go up if they want to have a governing coalition. Inherently the American public is civil and moderate to conservative, they need their share of those people to govern.

I think most readers will agree this is conflating two different things.

What does that prove? Most readers here are leftists, so of course they'll take the leftist line. Yeah, the U.S. took a big step toward socialism with medicare and social security. And no Obama wants to give free medicine to illegals. (Tomaig is exactly right). He's already shown that he has no respect for the rights of his opponents or for American tradition. I don't know and don't care where Obama was actually born, but I do know that BARACK OBAMA IS NOT A REAL AMERICAN. Real Americans need to take our country back.

Irruminator --
Being a socialist (or communist, for that matter) is not incompatible with being a Real American. I'm even willing to consider you to be a Real American.


BTW, Baucus should get credit where it is due. He got a publicly perceived compromise bill out of committee (or will have Tuesday). While it is likely to be rewritten substantially before it is actually on the floor it tempers the public perception somewhat and gives the Democrats just a little more room to manuever.

Those on the left complaining about him should take a step back and understand that, because of him, they are likely to get some HCR this year. Three months ago no HCR was the even money line.


"Can you honestly not see the difference between Medicare for the elderly - who have been paying a portion of their income into this, just like Social Security - and a free-for-all whereby anyone who wants can get coverage?"
I see no substantive difference. Medicare (and Social Security) payments are essentially taxes. So Medicare is a tax-supported health program for the elderly. Many, many of them receive far more in benefits than they even paid in Medicare taxes.

"Can you not see how you could support Medicare but be opposed to Obamacare and not be a hypocrite?'
That would depend upon your reasons for opposing it. If your reason is "socialized medicine," than yes, you are being at least disingenuous, and possibly hypocritical.

Being a socialist (or communist, for that matter) is not incompatible with being a Real American.

With all due respect, I think that goes against the principles upon which this country was founded.

Irrumator,

Please, enlighten me,….what is “The American Tradition.”

excuse me, (I blame our socialist styled public education, our Founding Fathers left us.)

Irrumator,

Please, enlighten me,….what is “The American Tradition?”

Please, enlighten me,….what is “The American Tradition.”

Free market capitalism, limited government, individual freedom, basically everything Obama opposes. I know it's fashionable in certain circles to mock the founders and dismiss them as "dead white men," but dead white men built this country.

"Obama wants to take the next step and make it communist."

Let's get out steps in order here. First, you've got your neutrons and your protons. Then there's your molecules. Then, bingo! brontasaureses and rocky road ice cream.

After that comes the Caliphate and socialism. The moderately anti-American denizens of the foreign confederacy called Redstate believe Obama's next step is the Weimar Republic, and we know what happened next, don't we? Once the Germans got pretty good healthcare, why, they took a good look around and decided the next step was gassing the Jews and the Gypsies. I take Redstate to mean that if Obama improves healthcare coverage in the United States, the Republican Party will take this as a signal that it's time (it's not their fault, one thing leads to another in history, don't you know; ask the Poles) for the bohunks in the Republican Party to start throwing the Jews down a well, because when you give some Republicans a free colonoscopy, their first reaction is to load their Jewish doctor on a train and ship him and his relatives to Auschwitz, because they'll be damned if they are going to stand for a second free colonoscopy.

Then came Rosa Luxembourg, Henry Miller, and Warner Brothers cartoons.

Let's not forget Joseph Stalin and string licorice in the grand historical linkage.

If Obama could incorporate the best features of Nazism (sidecars on motorcycles, monocles, holding cigarettes between the forefinger and thumb, Schubert, goosestepping) and combine them with my favoritest features of Communism (Dagny Taggert's sex drive, free colonoscopies, synchronized swimming, grocery store coupons, big beefy, florid guys in greatcoats attending the Bolshoi, and Sammy Sosa's olympian steroid intake) and throw in some all-caps statements of pure irreducible horseshit, he'd keep my vote.

Just a general note: do not feed the troll.

There are those on this thread making serious arguments on various sides of this issue. And there is someone else who is tossing epithets, SPREADING BIRTHER NONSENSE IN ALL CAPS, and generally hijacking the discussion in an entirely unenlightening way, i.e. trolling.

Don't give him the attention he craves.

Ben Alpers,

If you're referring to me, I'm not a "birther." I have no opinion on that issue, which is what I said. My criticism's of Obama were based entirely on the traditional American philosophy of government.

I don't expect everyone here to agree with me. And if someone wants to make a principled defense of socialism, I'm willing to hear him or her out. But instead of responding, you're simply trying to ostracize me by calling me names.

instead of responding, you're simply trying to ostracize me by calling me names.

Given that your first post on this thread called us, collectively, "stupid" and said that we make you sick, this complaint is... rather rich.

Jim Parish,

Ok, well I apologize for that. It was just hyperbole. But dismissing dissenting opinions with the insult of "troll" isn't much better. I shouldn't have said that though.

DNFTT.

Irrumator,

"the traditional American philosophy of government"

Please, enlighten us, what does that mean?

In fact the opposite is true, they simply can't afford to spend political capital and have their negatives go up if they want to have a governing coalition.

Marty, the Democrats don't need to have a "governing coalition"--they have a majority in both houses. They just act like they have to govern in coalition with the Republicans, because otherwise people like Irrumator will call them communists and lord knows we can't have that.

That's kind of the whole point of the original post.

Just a general note: do not feed the troll.

I'll heartily second that, but only with the qualification that John Thullen is free to feed whoever he damn well pleases.

Irrumator --

Since you're interested in American traditions, it seems to me you should consider others besides your favorite ones. Sending small children into coal mines to work 12 hours a day, for example, and then discarding them when they are injured. Mixing dead rats into sausage, for another. Having the state militia shoot striking workers (and burn their families in their houses) for yet another. We don't do these things anymore because of another American tradition, which is recognizing the social good. So we have things like the FDA, Social Security, Medicare, all of which limit the horrific abuses of free-market capitalism that occurred during the Gilded Age.

So if you want to hold back any possibility of any component of socialism in America, that train left the station over a century ago. The people have decided. We're simply arguing now about the details. So by all means oppose healthcare reform if you like, but claiming "socialism" is a straw man.

someotherdude,

I already responded the last time you asked that. I said, "Free market capitalism, limited government, [and] individual freedom." Do you disagree with any of those? Which one? Until recently all would have been fairly noncontroversial.

You guys just don't get the performance going on here. We have commenters playing the role of the noise machine (Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin) trying to get others to pick up their story. It's what Publius is describing in his post on a smaller scale within the comments on the very same post. It's pure genius. It's the play within the play. The rest of us are the MSM, only we don't know it. Wacky, huh?

Chris J,

I think that is a goof response. I certainly oppose "Having the state militia shoot striking workers (and burn their families in their houses)." But how is that an American tradition? Just because something happened doesn't make it a tradition. Americans have never defined themselves as a people by their propensity to burn families in houses. That's like saying that cutting your ex-wife's head off is part of the American tradition because OJ Simpson did it.

Child labor and adulterated foods raise a serious questions, however. You're right that those things are deplorable. However, I don't think government regulation was the right thing to do. A capitalist economy will continue to allow economic development. When a society reaches a certain level of prosperity the market will no longer tolerate those activities. For example, people shop at places like Whole Foods these days. Upscale consumers would not buy sausages with rats in them. That only occurred in the 19th century because we weren't as advanced. You see similar things in China today. But as China becomes wealthier they will go away. Thank you for your thought-provoking comment though.

Also, for the record I am agnostic about which county Barack Obama was born in.

Cogent arguments on specific points can be the basis of worthwhile dissenting opinions. Making sweeping, buzzword-filled generalizations so broad as to be meaningless - not so much. It's just nonsensical ranting that can't be effectively argued either way. When done on purpose, it's trollery.

Chris J, I am terribly sorry. I meant to say good response, not "goof response." The keys are next to each other and I have fat fingers.

"Sending small children into coal mines to work 12 hours a day, for example, and then discarding them when they are injured. Mixing dead rats into sausage, for another. Having the state militia shoot striking workers (and burn their families in their houses) for yet another. We don't do these things anymore because of another American tradition, which is recognizing the social good. So we have things like the FDA, Social Security, Medicare, all of which limit the horrific abuses of free-market capitalism that occurred during the Gilded Age."

Actually, not that I object to the overall argument, none of these things outside Medicare is the the least bit socialist, and as Medicare is buying from a much larger market it only controls some portion of the production capability so it is mildly socialist in nature.

Too much government and socialism are not equivalent statements.

"Free market capitalism, limited government, [and] individual freedom."
Free market capitalism for whom?
Limited Government for whom?
Individual Freedom for whom?
You claim to adhere to “tradition”, well the tradition, within the US, had a certain group of people in mind for this. Do you agree with that tradition?
Acquiring land from Indians and shipping Africans into chattel slavery were all tax subsidized. Slave ships were not cheap, and private entrepreneurs could not maintain them alone. Enforcing Jim Crow and making sure “certain elements” stayed away from “traditional Americans” cost quite a bit of money. Enforcing “traditional values” can cost a “limited government” quite a bit. An Empire is expensive, and “Free market capitalism, limited government, [and] individual freedom” is not, usually, what one associates with an expansive State, like the United States.

Please, regal me of the “misty, water-colored memories of the way were” please.

I await, breathlessly.

Too much government and socialism are not equivalent statements.

No. The first is purely a matter of opinion, while the second is definitional, though opinions can vary on what fits within the definition and what doesn't. But I wonder how the FDA and SS are not the least bit socialist.

Upscale consumers would not buy sausages with rats in them.

But here's the thing: without government inspections/regulations, those upscale consumers wouldn't know!

"Too much government and socialism are not equivalent statements."

I understand you completely. I was answering his sweeping generalization about "American traditions" with an equally sweeping one of my own. In my defense, I think right wing ideologues fail to make this distinction.

My point was that one's perspective matters, and mine differs from his. He thinks mine goofy; I don't think his is. I disagree with it, but that's a different thing.

When Charlton Heston pretends to be Moses, that's a "performance". If Charlton Heston believes he is Moses, that's something else.

I would like to imagine that commenters who claim to know "the American public" or "the traditional American philosophy of government" are merely giving us a "performance". But it could be something else.

--TP

"You guys just don't get the performance going on here. We have commenters playing the role of the noise machine (Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin) trying to get others to pick up their story. It's what Publius is describing in his post on a smaller scale within the comments on the very same post. It's pure genius. It's the play within the play. The rest of us are the MSM, only we don't know it. Wacky, huh?"

I understand the performance. I'm just more of an optimist, I suppose.

Irrumator, I'll believe in a liberal media bias the day I see the mainstream media take seriously lefty ideas like single-payer health care, taxation as progressive as most EC nations', habeas corpus, penal rehabilitation programs, pot legalization, limits on corporate campaign financing, antitrust, non-abstinence sex education, a good enforcement budget for the SEC, FEC, and DOE, lower military spending, individualized advance warrants for wiretapping, low-harm suppression training for police, etc. If we have a liberal media, how come the "Truthers" got so much less press or airtime than the "Birthers?"

Check out Project Censored, http://www.projectcensored.org/
for some examples of the sort of story that just never gets covered.

IMHO, whatever corporate media head said most MSM had a liberal slant wouldn't know a real liberal if one bit them. Also, do you have a cite for that supposed quote? I recall a poll result that most reporters vote Democratic, but that's not at all the same thing as saying that editors, publishers and producers produce liberally-themed newscasts.

None of those lefty ideas I listed come close to communism, btw. But that's a whole 'nother rant.

"But I wonder how the FDA and SS are not the least bit socialist."

Sorry, as you point out opinions do vary. Mine is that actual government control of production, by ownership or effective ownership, is a criteria. I recognize it is my opinion. SS is not socialism so much as government retirement insurance which could be interpreted as socialism, the FDA is regulatory and, at most, could fall into too much government. imo

I know the game, I'm just feeling..."randy"[?]and bored...I'll drop it.

Marty, I think you're a tad confused on this point:
as Medicare is buying from a much larger market it only controls some portion of the production capability so it is mildly socialist in nature.

Medicare is, as you say, buying products (actually services, but whatever). The government doesn't require exclusivity from the producers, so it does not even indirectly own or control production through Medicare. How is this "socialist"? Is the DoT "socialist" because it buys asphalt?

If you want a "socialist" camel's nose in medicine, try the VA.

"Medicare is, as you say, buying products (actually services, but whatever). The government doesn't require exclusivity from the producers, so it does not even indirectly own or control production through Medicare. How is this "socialist"? Is the DoT "socialist" because it buys asphalt? "

While I agree on the VA, Medicare is the second nostril, the public option would be the hump. I do not consider Medicare socialist, I would characterize it much the same as yours with the exception that as it insures more people it gains more de facto control of the market, thus the means of production. Thus my minimially socialist view. Socialism wouldn't and won't be implemented carte blanche in America, it would be death by a thousand little changes (or not, I am not making the argument it will happen, only HOW it would).

I would also add that the VA is unique in the moral obligation incurred by ALL Americans for the segment it supports.

Tomaig: “just last week, the Democrats on the Senate Finance committee defeated an amendment (for the third? fourth? time)from Sen. Harkin that would have required proof of citizenship before getting any Obamacare.”

To be accurate, they defeated an amendment that required photo identification as part of the proof of citizenship documentation. The bill they wanted to amend reads as follows:

“Eligibility Verification: In order to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing the state exchanges or obtaining federal health care tax credits, the Chairman‘s Mark requires verification of the following personal data. Name, social security number, and date of birth will be verified with Social Security Administration (SSA) data. For individuals claiming to be U.S. citizens, if the claim of citizenship is consistent with SSA data then the claim will be considered substantiated.”

When it was pointed out to the Senators how easy it was to acquire phony social security numbers, and that a photo ID would make identity misrepresentations more difficult, the Democrats turned a blind eye and deaf ear to that suggestion , and voted down the change, without credible explanations why they were doing so.

But you needn't worry much about illegal immigrants with false ID’s accessing the new health care exchanges or obtaining federal health care tax credits – those numbers will be negligible compared to the 10 or more million who will become legally entitled to health care when the next Amnesty bill is enacted.

Might I gently suggest that if y'all don't know what the word "irrumator" means you might want to look it up. Then consider what his chosen handle says about him and DNFTT.

I'm a little put out choice-wise that Whole Foods won't sell free-range, organic rat meat.

I'll bet I could start a rat meat canning operation in the Marianas using all child-labor for pittance wages and do a land-sale business importing the stuff to enlightened America.

We are advanced. As long as it tastes like chicken and the price is right.

Further, I'm pretty sure prominent Republican politicians would travel to my operation and extoll my rational free-market, anti-union principles and the affordable nutrition I'm providing to American consumers.


bayesian:

Yes, "Oliver Twist" written by Irrumator would have the latter with his hand on the back of Oliver's head while he explained: "Keep sucking, kid, as soon as we become more properous, it will no longer be rational for me to make you keep doing this."

Free market capitalism, limited government, individual freedom

As I read it, the American political tradition from the Mayflower Compact to now is about the following:


  • Self-government
  • Rule of law
  • Respect for individual human liberty

"Free market capitalism" as the founders would recognize it would be something like what Adam Smith described, which has about as much resemblance to the modern system of finance and investment as the boys on the Lexington village green have to Blackwater mercenaries. And, in any form you care to name, it goes absolutely unmentioned by any of the founding documents.

And although the concepts are related, and in common usage often interchangeable, I suspect that what the founders intended by the word "liberty" is not precisely what you intend by "freedom".

Further, I'm pretty sure prominent Republican politicians would travel to my operation and extoll my rational free-market, anti-union principles and the affordable nutrition I'm providing to American consumers.

You'd ALREADY have the prize Newt Gingrich took back from the Porn Queen 'entrepeneusse'...

"And although the concepts are related, and in common usage often interchangeable, I suspect that what the founders intended by the word "liberty" is not precisely what you intend by "freedom"."

This would be an interesting stump speech, but the founders were not of a single mind on interpreting those words, as we are not today.

This would be an interesting stump speech, but the founders were not of a single mind on interpreting those words, as we are not today.

Agreed, but as regards our pal with the rude name, I'm pretty comfortable standing behind my statement as written.

Lately, the place has been infested by right-wing nihilists.

woodwork squeaks and out come the freaks.

Name-calling --- the last resort of a failed argument.

My 4:34 was a reply to someotherdude's 4:27, and is simply a "what he said" rejoinder to his observation about the irruption of trolls here.

Musical trivialists will recognize it as a quote from and old Was/Not Was tune.

You'll find my argument in my 4:06.

If you have a substantive reply to make, the floor is yours.

Sorry, JJ, I wasn't referring to you, it was meant for the Roman gentleman (Irrigator).

Since America seems to have spent an awful lot of money on blowing up foreigners over the years, I think that it would only be just for them to now spend money to give foreigners healthcare :)

Name-calling --- the last resort of a failed argument.

Posted by: Jay Jerome | October 08, 2009 at 05:35 PM

I wouldn't hang my hat on this if I were you, junior.

Chris J., I didn't mean to call you goofy; it was a typo, and I apologized:

"Chris J, I am terribly sorry. I meant to say good response, not 'goof response.' The keys are next to each other and I have fat fingers."

"Free market capitalism, limited government, [and] individual freedom."
Free market capitalism for whom?
Limited Government for whom?
Individual Freedom for whom?

For all. I realize that we haven't always lived up to these ideals in practice, but that doesn't discredit them as ideals. It just means we have work to do.

And, in any form you care to name, it goes absolutely unmentioned by any of the founding documents.

Hamilton certainly understood the principles of free market capitalism. Doesn't he count as a founding father?

If we have a liberal media, how come the "Truthers" got so much less press or airtime than the "Birthers?"

How do birthers get a lot of airtime? If they're mentioned at all by the MSM it's to ridicule them. Ridiculing right-wingers hardly proves the media aren't liberal

Sorry for the Italics.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad