http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-ber … 68472.html
Maybe, just maybe, people are waking up.
I'm not surprised. It's another unfunded mandate. I also heard a number of big companies have hired lawyers to see if it would be cheaper to pay the fines than provide the insurance and they determined that it would be waaayyy cheaper to pay the fines. No one has yet announced that they will drop coverage, but you can bet that if it's the difference between a profit or a loss, they will drop the coverage, and once one company does it the rest will follow. Eventually, we'll have a single payer system and a single insure, the government, which has been the plan all along.
Waking up just in time to find out they slept to long. What a mess.....
Your post is an exageration. Must've been too excited to actually read the article.
The count of 41 is a distortion - not an exageration. In 22 states AGs have filed suits - and (surprise) they are all Republicans (except one). In t he other 19 states, there are attemts at a voter refereundum or attempts to introduce legislation. All of which means nothing in terms of the popularity of the bill or the legal merits of any of the suits or legislation.
David Frum is a conservative columnist. he wrote on this:
"Some Republicans talk of repealing the whole bill. That's not very realistic. Even supposing that Republicans miraculously capture both houses of Congress in November, repeal will require a presidential signature."
Most of the suits are even less likely as they presume that the authority of the states can override the federal authority. That was settled almost 2 centuries ago - the states lost. So almost all of this is political posturing to whip up the base for the 2010 elections. What else is new?
Then why bother doing it if it will have no effect?
Your belief in Federal Presumption is very revealing!
The 'effect' is going to be wingnut politicians promoting their careers. A lot of gulable wingnuts will work for the cause of repealing health care by electing conservatives who know damn well that they can't do what they are quite willing to promise.
Federal Law trumps state law. It's not my opinion. It's not new. It's a fact. So if States want to pass a law that declares a federal law null, the state law is actually null from the git-go. But lots of gulable people will sign up and contribute - and lots of cynical conservative politicians will pocket the money and promise an outright lie....
You teabaggers were gonna remove Obama over that birth certificate thing. What happened with that and how much did they scam out of you?
I wonder if you would please clarify my understanding of chronology. I thought the teabag movement began in 2009 (April 15, in fact). "That birth certificate thing," as you call it, was discussed before the election of 2008, pretty much whipped up primarily by one lawyer who took on the issue as a personal campaign and then spread it. That issue definitely preceded the teabag movement, as I recall.
The 'issue' was disproved before the election. One lawyer in particular has been trying to cash in on various incarnations of the suit. But a high percentage of the birthers are teabaggers and vice versa.
Some people will want to take exception to that as unproved, which it is. But it's also true. The same folks who pushed birther theories are teabaggers for the same reasons.
Actually an Attorney who supported Hillary Clinton out of Philidelphia started the whole Birth Certificate question in 2008
Madame allow me to apologize for the lemmings who think that calling people by pornagraphic metaphors is alright.
Its not. I am sorry, you should not have to put up with it.
Thank you Arthur. It's always so heartening to meet a gentleman
Arthur - 'pornnagraphic' is spelled with an 'o'. 'pornographic' is correct.
Federal cannot stand up to state laws.
Federal does not trump State Laws. A State can apply any Law it's citizens deem. Once the State gets Citizen approval via a vote, then Federal Law needs to bend. The Citizens spoke!
Are you posting from an alternate universe operating under different rules? Google 'Federal vs State Law' and you will read over andover with Constitutional citations and Supreme Court decisions.
Well, I am telling you right now. When more and more States begin protesting against Federal authority, in combination with one another. We'll certainly see, won't we.
I don't know about that...an awful lot of states had a problem with No Child Left Behind...because the gvt (Bush) mandated things but gave no funding for them! AND, if states didn't go along with No Child Left Behind, they would lose federal funding!
Lot (dare I say majority?) of people didn't like it. Kind of had no choice if you need money from the fed--and schools do!--you do as they say.
Doug, I can't believe you are correcting someone's spelling/typos.
"Andover" is spelled "and over." You also misspelled "gullible."
Pot, meet kettle.
I am actually notorious (did I spell that right) for posting without proofing.
But Arthur and have such a mutual respect that comes out in friendly rivalry. I call him 'teabagger' and he calls me lemming. All in good fun.
If I'm ever in the same room with him, I'll wear a bulletproof vest.
??? Funny, ha ha.
Doug: "all in good fun" hardly. Funny, not in the least. Pathetic, yes, at times I think he has his Daddy's photo posted and he is a youngster, one who doesn't even know what a red squiggly line means in his irrational, baseless, and misspelled posts.
That's sweet of you, Arthur, but are you only concerned about Madame X's feelings? What about others (men) who have been called teabaggers? Is it because she is delicate? I do seem to recall her being offended at being referred to as "sugar."
I personally refrain from using the term on the forums, but I also believe it to be a legitimate moniker given its origins.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right- … eabag.html
I do not like the term at all. Considering several people have been banned through their conversations with the lemming, it does not seem right that every conversation is instilled with insults.
I thought for a while that the troll was not sure of the exact definition of the term considering his age and all. I know not only does he know the definition he uses it exactly as it is defined. It is meant as a personal attack.
If someone used the term to refer to an actual Tea Party member that would be one thing. I do not know any self confessed Tea Party members in the forums.
I know I am not.
BTW the link led to an unfound page.
Okay, try the link now, it should work.
My post had two points: First, the term originally was used in a derogatory manner toward Democrats (see the sign in the article), and promoted by politicians on TV, so it should not be surprising when it gets turned around.
Second, maybe you are being chivalrous and that's fine, but to apologize to Madame X and not others who have been subjected to the term in the forums seems to imply that because she is female she shouldn't have to endure the same barbs as everyone else.
Simple, the term has a different meaning when said to a female.
This is an akward discussion LOL.
I hope you understand without me elaborating. (blushes jus a lil)
Why do you object to the interaction between two people on a forum over something of which you have no part? Arthur is a gentleman, and that means he has a refined sensibility. Gentlemen, when they see a cad abusing a woman, step in and give aid to the woman.
And before you get yourself in a wad, that isn't sexist or condescending. It is a part of the settled order of nature of men and women. It's only the stupid "feminist" movement and it's boatloads of propaganda about how "we're all equal" and therefore identical that confuses things.
You know what I say to that?
Viva La Difference!
First, I do not object to any interaction on these forums; I am merely trying to understand. Aren't you the one who started an entire thread about being condescended to? And I seem to recall the term "sexism" being thrown around quite a bit in that thread.
I've never brought up sexism or feminism anywhere on these forums, while you have previously built an entire thread around it. Just trying to find where the consistency lies, which is apparently an impossible task. ;-)
This was, of course, a major digression from the original post, so carry on.
Uh, so what's your point?
Yeah, I started an "entire thread" about how some people here are condescending and sexist. On this thread, Arthur was kind enough to stand up and say that sexism and condescension are unacceptable.
If we ALL decide these behaviors are unacceptable the forums would be a much better place.
Sorry - You can't have it both ways. If you want to dish it out - you have to be willing to take it. Playing the victim after participating in a slash and burn attack is two-faced.
Palin has tried to have it like that - dishing out 'red meat' in mean-spirited attacks on the administration with no regard for the truth of her statements. She ran from office when the queries of journalists got too intrusive. It's a double standard.
I play hard on the forums. TRUE! So do you. So does Arthrur, JW, SAbOh and Ron. But you don't hear me whining even if I am in simultanious debates with 2 or 3 of you. And you DO like to gang up.
The girls are NOT going to get special treatment from me. I have no advantage of height or strenght here. We are equal. If you don't want to take it, don't dish it out.
This is exactly what I was trying to get her and Arthur to see, although
in a less direct manner.
Doug the forums are for discussion. Everyone should be entitled to their opinion.
Starting your post constantly with you wingnut etc... every time someone says something that you disagree with does not open healthy discussion.
It turns into a brawl that honestly is not fun to participate in. Posting in order to anger your opponents does not fit in well within HP rules. Since we are in their playground we need to play by their rules. This is not criticism it is fact. If someone does it to you it is also wrong, it goes both ways.
I do not like labels of any kind. When I respond to a post I respond to the individual not some group that I have decided to place them. It is much easier to have bad feelings towards a group of people then it is to have bad feelings towards a person.
That's great. It doesn't explain your attacks on me. But maybe you have thoght the better of that, and if so, no problem from me.
I'll be completely convinced if you come to my defense when someone on your list of fans invites me to move to a foreign land because I posted a quote of Thomas Jefferson that contradicts his view of reality.
That hasn't happened. I get the attacks and I see the same group yuckin' it up like something clever has been siad when I am insulted. So IF it goes both ways, fine. I will see it - or not - in your posts. But if the strategy is to get me to put my hands behind my back so they can be tied - and the usual gang beats up on me, don't expect me to just take it.
This was posted by youngbuck on the ronpaulforums:
Kind of interesting post, isn't it Doug? Is it?
Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, has apparently hired a cadre of left-wing, Democrat campaign bloggers to troll through the Internet looking for news stories and blog posts that denigrate the Obama agenda. After such websites are found it is the job of these secret lefty bloggers to leave comments that come to the support of Obamaism in the comments sections. It seems that Eric Holder has created his own little propaganda unit in a valiant effort to become the Bloggi Riefenstahl of the Obama era.
As reported at The Muffled Oar, a blog that first broke the story of Holder’s secretive blogging unit — dubbed the “Blog Squad” by blogger Isaac Muzzey — Holder has housed this unit in the Office of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice. It also appears that former John Edwards staffer Tracy Russo is part of this special unit.
A site called whorunsgovdotcom reported back in May that DOJ hired Russo to do “media outreach for the whole department.” It is, according to whorunsgovdotcom, the first time such an effort has been made at DOJ.
Of Russo’s duties, The Muffled Oar says:
Not only is the Department of Justice Blog Squad going to reach out to nontraditional media like TPM Muckraker or the Muffled Oar, but they are also tasked with fostering anonymous comments at conservative leaning blogs such as the Free Republic. They are also tasked with fostering anonymous comments, or comments under pseudonyms, at newspaper websites with stories critical of the Department of Justice, Holder and President Obama.
If indeed this is what DOJ media outreach does it would most certainly qualify as “astroturfing.” Astroturfing is the action of using fake commenters and multiple screen names on all sorts of sites to push a similar opinion to create the appearance of a grass roots movement and make it seem as if there are all sorts of individuals naturally supporting a product or political movement.
It most certainly is a creepy, propagandistic sort of effort that Holder’s office is involved in and it is one that certainly seems an immoral one. After all, it most certainly is lying to the public if there are a handful of DOJ employees casting about on hundreds of different websites pretending that they are just your average citizen coming to the support of the Obama administration. But is it illegal? Hans von Spakovsky of National Review’s the corner blog certainly thinks so.
I doubt that the Office of Public Affairs (OPA) has received an ethics opinion from Justice’s Professional Responsibility Advisory Office (PRAO) saying that it is acceptable for OPA employees to be harassing critics of the department through postings that deliberately hide their DOJ affiliation (a practice that is not very “open” or “transparent”). DOJ lawyers also ought to be aware of ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. If the report in The Muffled Oar is correct, tax dollars are being used directly for such dishonest, deceitful behavior.
I must say, it’s hard to disagree with von Spakovsky (if that’s his real name! — a little joke there).
Mr. von Spakovsky also makes a perfectly pertinent point to wrap up his blog post on this matter. He wonders if the Obama administration will ever learn the difference between political campaign and the “entirely different responsibility it now has to enforce this nation’s laws in an objective, nonpartisan, nonpolitical manner”?
I think that the question is a good one. After all, after nearly a year in office, we have yet to see the end Obama’s constant blaming of Bush for every little problem he runs up against not to mention the constant campaign speeches and appearances on TV at every hour, day and night. One gets the uneasy feeling that President Barack Obama has yet to put in an actual day’s work as he constantly campaigns for office instead.
You are brave, Arthur, kudos to you, and it will be interesting to see who is brave enough to respond coherently to your post, or if it is buried with zero attention.
"the constant campaign speeches and appearances on TV at every hour, day and night. One gets the uneasy feeling that President Barack Obama has yet to put in an actual day’s work as he constantly campaigns for office instead."
Where are you watching these 24 hour a day speeches on TV? And did you protest when Bush corrupted the DOJ and held political rallies there during work hours. The hearing was hilarious.
YoungBuck is to be commended as well, whomever he is, for his bravery. Looks like his words are being taken as yours here. But of course if it is someone who works 3 jobs and so can't possibly realize that Obama is regularly on tv speechifying, unless of course all 3 jobs are desk jobs with a tv, in which case, they wouldn't be arguing with you honestly anyway, with you or YoungBuck about Obama's tv time, but anyway, if you work 3 jobs it's really hard to stay on top of current events, been there, done that, so it's impressive if someone so time challenged can speak to YoungBuck's statements, and for sure to somehow twist his words and come up with a Bush corruption of the DOJ as feeble defense. Hilarity -- a personal thing.
Don't see a thing here that says "24 hours a day". See lots of other pertinent and alarming things to address -- but, nope, don't see "24 hours a day" tagged to our President in YoungBuck's words. An overt distraction.
Doug I have thought about it and I do have remorse.
First, I have been suspicious of you working towards a political agenda by disrupting forums. This does not make it true.
By doing this I have placed labels on you which have been hypocritical to my beliefs.
Regardless of your motives you are a person and an individual. You are due the same respect I would give to any other person.
I am sorry I responded to the labels which I placed on you instead of responding to the person.
That's because he has no idea how to govern, only to campaign. That's what we get for electing someone inexperienced and unqualified.
Hubpages is tolerant of just about any idea. They have criteria for banning for personal threats and repeated personal attacks.
You (Arthur) aren't clear who has been banned or over what contact. I don't think I have gotten anyone banned. Conservatism is moving in the direction of fascism - I mean that in a literal and exact way, not the imprecise way teabaggers toss around 'isms' they don't understand.
Arthur doesn't like that I don't grant the respect to fascist ideas that he may think they deserve. He's entitled to think so, but I intend to play as rough on the forum as the rules allow to discredit with facts and rational argument that movement in opposition to the ideals this country was founded on.
I know, you are a propagandist... You are not here for intelligent debate. The value you add to the forums is diminishing rapidly.
We ALL know what you are! A cad!
I'd be okay with you calling Doug out like that, if you'd also call out others here who are disrespectful and condescending. From my perspective, they were here being disrespectful and condescending long before Doug arrived. Maybe he is merely fighting fire with fire?
I have no problem with Doug expressing himself. I think intelligent debate requires some difference of opinion to be interesting.
What he is allowed to get away with is not his fault. I see this. I know a scorpion will sting me if I play with it.
When people are rude to me, that's OK.
If I fight backI am a 'cad' or "sexist".
I am a counterpuncher. That's my style.
Arthur has asked why my post privileges havent been lifted. I will tell you. Any time I crossed the line with a comment that could have gottem my ticket punched for crossing the line - it was in respnse to an attack that HAD crossed the line. And I rarely - very rarely push the report button.
Arthur - responding to the rumor you posted about the DOJ hiring bloggers to put out the Administation position... I don't know.
I read over the articles online about the subjhect and they all spin conspiracy theories without proof. Occasionally a conspiracy theory turns out to be true. The arguments so far have all the factual basis of the birther conspiracy theories, and I'm inclined to file the story under BS.
As I poined out elsewhere, I am a working guy. I don't have a computer at work and most of my day is spent outside. Usually in the sun but sometimes I get drencehd in the rain. It comes with the job, and my job is NOT with the DOJ blogging for Obama. MadamX was WAY outa line to make the accusation. If you want to defend the lie, that's your business.
Ok you are a hard working man trying to support your family. I respect that. In all honesty, which it is a forum so how would I know the difference, Are you affiliated with Acorn, Moveon, or the SEIU?
You do not have to answer that is your choice. The thing is I have never seen anyone get so personally offended by any criticism of the Administration.
Arthur, this is just ridiculous. I agree with 90% of what Doug posts here and a lot of other people do, too. Do we all work with Acorn, Moveon, or the SEIU?
Your credibility just dropped to about zero.
I am simply trying to start a civil discussion with Doug. You misinterpret my intentions. Doug denies it, which is fine. I wanted to ask his opinion on Obama's speech yesterday. The commencement address where he kind of alluded to the people having too much access to information.
I was anticipating his reply.
Occasionally a question is more revealing than any possible answer. MadamX accuses me of being a government employee whose job is to disrupt forums. You post an article on that. Then you ask if I am 'affiliated' with Acorn, MoveOn or SEIU. You and MadamX are stuck on the idea that I am part of some organization or conspiracy. For a lot of conservtives on this forum, there's an underlying paranoia - Read MadamX - 'A Blatent Lie' - and then follow the comments waaay down until she admits what got her suspended. Even though she's later shown to be wrong, she never retracts or corrects the accusations in her hub.
I'm not 'affiliated' with Acorn - have never been a member or participated in activities with Acorn. I am not associated with MoveOn.org - haven't been a member, and to my best recollection, have never contributed to them. I am a union member and supportive of workers rights, but not part of SEIU. I'm not much of a joiner - I have always had liberal politcal leanings. My opinions are my own.
Regarding Obama's speech - I read it. The part you seem to find interesting would be...
" in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't rank all that high on the truth meter. With iPods and iPads; Xboxes and PlayStations; information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment."
What's significant about the statement is the distain President Obama showed for those in the media who have no regard for the truth. Spouting off a wild accusation with not one iota of fact would qualify as a disregard for truth. It's symptomatic in a small way of the desparate way some news outlets spin EVERYTHING against the president. Distorting the news to bring down the administration is and should be legal - but my opinion of the particpants is that they are slime.
Some news organizations do spin everything against Obama.
Some fail to report on stories that might be detrimental to his administration.
In all media I believe Obama has gotten a fair shake.
As to information being dangerous. That is a scary statement coming from the first Internet president.
BTW: I have read some of your hubs and was afraid to leave a comment so as to not give my IP address. I am 99% sure that I am wrong in my suspicions but I am not sure. This leaves me with giving the benefit of a doubt that you are exactly what you say you are. It is not your fault I have these suspicions and I wish I did not have them but I do. Full Disclosure.
How in the world did you and Madame X decide that Doug is working for the government to infiltrate this forum? Do you have any evidence at all besides the fact that he's liberal and he's outspoken?
If you don't, then you should be ashamed of yourself. Seriously.
I have never had a discussion with MadameX about Doug outside of the forums. So me and nobody else did not decide anything. I had a suspicion, and I was willing to admit that it was within me and not Doug's fault.
I need evidence to think?
Why? I feel like I have done the right thing. I am not responsible for my suspicions. It is a sorry state of affairs in society that someone should feel paranoid about their government. I have the feelings, I do not consciously create them.
"This is the year where hope fails you
The test subjects runs the experiments
And the b+st+rd you know, is the hero you hate
But cohesing is possible if we try
Theres no reason, theres no lesson
No time like the present, I'm telling you right now
What have you got to lose, what have you got to lose
Except your soul... who's with us?!" SLIPKNOT
"Most of the suits presume that the authority of the states can override the federal authority."
No, they do not.
I don't usually read the Huff n Puff but the fact does stand out that 41 states are putting together lawsuits against this bill no matter what your need to spin that for yourself.
Facts are not spin, they are actually in the article you linked. It is a shameful exageration to claim as you did that 41 states want to repeal the bill.
The SPIN is in the article. The facts are in the MAP!
In Michigan, which is one of the states which allegedly "want to repeal the health care reform bill," polls show that a majority support the reform. We have a Dem majority here, a Dem governor
and two Dem senators. A conservative Republican attorney general, Mike Cox, who has jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon in his primary campaign for the GOP nomination for governor is the one who filed the suit against the health care reform bill. It is doubtful that a majority in the state support his action. However, this doesn't mean that the Tea Party rabble isn't a significant factor in the state.
"With the news that 41 states are trying to repeal part or all of the recent health reform law"
Is this not a fact?
I mean it could be a lie, it is the Puffington post.
So instead of trying to modify a bill, that all presidents since the early 1900/s wanted, just kill it? Makes no sense to go backwards. We can send 70 billion a year to Africa to control aids, but I'm to believe we don't want to help millions of children and americans with health care? Who is this majority? An MSNBC or FOX news poll? Polls have no merit. How many of you have ever been polled? What part of the country can determine results. Income can determine the results. So let's just kill a health bill and watch many young children and American die for lack of health care. Is that the American and Christain way?
So this rendition of a health care bill has been in place since the early 1900's? Chokes me up, my abject Ignorance. But, given that, then why, please tell me, and everyone, why! this bill had so many unknown financial issues, had to be shoved through Congress? ......... issues that are only slowly leaking out like the puss from a sore that needs real health care?
I'll answer that with a question, don't you believe saving millions of young lives and Americans is important? Are you prolife? If you are, does prolife end after birth or should everyone have the advantage of health care? If you lost your job or was unable to afford health insurance, would you have a different opinion? What price do you put on anyone's life?
There is nothing more disingenuous than a conservative lecturing about 'real health care'. The GOP had Congress for 8 years, the White House for 8 years. Six of those years overlapped. Over the decade involved, assemble a list of 'real health care' reforms.
Conservatives never had - then or now - any intention of providing 'real' health care reform. With all the talk about repealing - look for a specific plan that would REPLACE the existing bill.
The prospective benefits are health care for 22 million Americans who don't have it and couldn't afford it. Until all features of HCR kick in, 45,000 annual deaths continue for lack of health insurance. Dispute the exact number if you like, but the truth is - if conservatives had their way - that death toll would continue year after year - for the sole purpose of making rich people richer.
There is nothing more pathetic than an indoctrinated liberal twisting up words to suit their purpose, and it is such a long tradition of farce, and nothing is more boring or wasteful of everyone's time.
I'd imagine if you took a poll, an honest one, you'd find most conservatives want to see everyone have access to affordable health care, including themselves, and I'd imagine, if you took a poll, most who were gung ho this admins health care plan, are a bit disappointed in the timing of its onset.
As well, I'd imagine, if you took a poll, most liberals would swear that Biden did not say explicitly that the fed will now control health care, and thus a large chunk of our lives and economy. How much profit margin do you think the fed needs to pay the growing bloated fed employees? No doubt much more than private insurance.
Should I ever again make the error of responding to any of the ignorant and baseless and incendiary crap you post -- do tell me where to go.
Only a conservative would believe Bush when he said, lowering taxes on the rich would create incentive to invest in new business and generate real jobs. And amazingly enough, the GOP is saying the same thing today...even though Bush's tax reduction created no new jobs but hording of the extra money by those given the tax break. And only a conservative would have believed Bush when he said by pooling small businesses together, health insurance would become affordable to all. But given the opportunity to pass that bill, it sat on his desk for years unsigned. Again, the same GOP promises to fix the mess we're in. Old ways don't seem to have worked and if they could work, are never implimented.
I suppose Obama's likening of himself to Reagan in the early months of his appearance on the national stage ..... was just bogus, and earlier poor George was just boon-doggled by the bogus, as I presume you think, success of Republican Reagan's policies.
As for Bush letting a more workable and economical health care bill sit on his desk...you tell me, why did he do that? You clearly know more than I do on that score, or so it appears.
And on what basis do you premise your statement that Bush's term saw no new jobs? I'd like to know.
I think it's more accurate to say that while there was job growth in the Shrubbie years, real wages fell. The deficit peaked under Shrubbie as it did with Reagan. They were both working the same playbook, lowering taxes for their rich constituants, running up the federal credit card, and promising that economic growth would create more revenue than was lost in the tax cuts, a formual Bush the Greater called 'voodoo economics'.
The sudden conversion on the part of the GOP to fiscal discipline is bogus. Pure political oportunism. But the fat cats who pull the strings withthe GOP are afraid they will have to pay up when the democrats get around to balancing the budget. The last time we had a budget surplus was under Clinton. Here's a link to a superb graph -
JW - I don't want you to think I don't trust you, but if you want me to comment on sometthing Biden said, give me a link so I can see what it was in context. Speaking generally, I like Joe because he's sincere and he does go off-script, which is fun. It does occasionally leave him with a case of athelete's tongue.
How about if you actually informed yourself of all the facts....what a novel approach.
I am not the one who keeps saying "but if you took a poll" in my posts. How many polls have you actually took?
And I do indeed believe you "inform yourself." I can't see any other way you get some of the junk you put out there. You told yourself, so it must be true. LOL!
How droll, you take a post of for instance 'if you take a poll' and use it to support yourself and your ideals -- or is it ideas? How many polls have you actually taken? Do tell us. And why would you object to a poll on the issues mentioned by me in regard to 'if you took a poll'? Let us all guess why you would object. Facts are scary aren't they, majority public opinion these days is scary, is it not?
So, you and Doug just don't want to hear Biden himself in his glee and joy proclaiming the federal government now controls health care? Your problem, your Ignorant Choice if you choose not to Inform Yourself.
I try hard to address each of your questions. But you tend to ignore those asked of you. Instead of answering you want the questioner to answer them for you. You have repeatedly ignored questions posed to you by myself and others.
What use is it to say "if you took a poll" and then act as if I, or anyone else took a poll it would support your argument. If you want to use an actual poll to prove your point, fine. Everyone can look at the results and make up their own minds.
But suggesting that IF a poll were taken it would support your opinion is worthless. Your imaginary polls do not help your opinion. Why not just use actual polls or data?
Care to answer this time?
That poll thing again, it's getting old, and NO you don't address my questions, you answer with BS and rhetoric, and your audience is getting bored and judgmental of your abilities.
You "try hard to address each" of my questions, how endearing, let's all scroll back and check that specificity out in regard to me and others. If you want your liberal benefactors to take an informative poll and report to the masses, then do so, I'm too poor to fund a poll, what a silly notion, and not in the least impressive to anyone. Worthless. A very good word.
Makes me think of Biden. Still don't want to hear him say that the fed now controls the health care system? Thought not.
So now you are speaking for the audience too. Take a poll did you? HAHAHAHA!
At least I'm not scared to answer, whether you agree with me or not. The poll thing was old before you began using it in your posts, not just in this thread either.
I do answer your queries, you just don't like the response.
"If you want your liberal benefactors to take an informative poll and report to the masses, then do so, I'm too poor to fund a poll, what a silly notion, and not in the least impressive to anyone."
Then don't use imaginary polls as something supporting your views. And you do not speak for "anyone" either.
Why don't you just speak for yourself instead of using imaginary supporters?
And just who are you speaking for Mr. Godwin? Just yourself, and not the mass of Americana that are so screwed in your view historically and need liberals to set things right? If not, just who?
And you've yet to demonstrate any direct answer to any query, and your poll thread avenue of personal attack is really .....deep sigh.....tiresome.
And don't recall having any imaginary supporters -- that would be your purview.
If you are so out of the loop from watching mainstream media that you don't know that Biden, in his endearing and off the cuff way, said clearly that the federal government now controlled the health care system.....then you have only yourself to blame, and you can do your own research, if you dare, and find the quote and link yourself and post it here for your cohorts too contemplate. I heard it live, clearly you didn't, and don't wish to. Surprise. As for trust, I find it odd you would even use the word.
It sounds like the issue is just that we'd like to hear the quote. Could you please post a link to it?
Also, I'm interested by your definition of someone being "out of the loop" because they watch "mainstream" media. If something is "mainstream," then how could it also be "out of the loop"?
As for me, I don't get to watch nearly enough media of any kind, so I tend to prefer links to websites so I can catch up on what I've missed.
Poor dear, as you are so pressed for time, here's a link, Randy -- and someone watching 'mainstream'media' can be 'out of the loop' if they refuse to ever watch unbiased news sources. Mainstream has new connotations these days doncha know, kind of like the word 'teabaggers'.
The article is essentially an argument in favor of the Law.
Example: "It seems reasonable to me that this could make people who are being responsible and paying their fair share kind of mad".
The mandate that Big Brother knows what is good for you and that everyone should PAY into the system for the benefit of all... well that's socialism.
This implies that people who can not afford or who chose not to have insurance are "irresponsible".
Health care is not a right, it's a privileged. And SICK CARE is not HEALTH CARE.
People who think that the Government can make people healthy are clearly mistaken. If the Government cared at all about Health Care they wouldn't let the Food Industry contaminate the Food Supply.
And I support the rights of states to govern locally.
Am I to believe socialism in this country doesn't already exist? Seems to me anyone on social security, disability, medicare, medicaide, etc are all, what could be considered, socialism. If a person loses their health insurance and can't afford the cobra irresponsible? If a plant closes and a person can't find gainful employment irresponsiblee because they have to choose between health care and food? If you were to lose your job and unable to afford insurance make you irresponsible? How many folks with insurance even know, much less can afford their deductible? or what the lifetime cap is? How many insured have insurance but can't afford to use it? Every American has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So if health care is a right, then who gives those deciding the Right to choose who lives or dies (young and old)?
Sure - if Republicans gain 20% more seats in the Senate and nearly the same in the House AND they win the White House BEFORE the provisions providing health care (and subsides for employers) kicks in fully in 2014. Once in place, this is likely to be popular. Repeal the bill? -the end of the world is more likely.
Sometimes. They meander. Sometimes it's legitimate meandering and sometimes it's plain old hijacking
I believe the "night and day" comment was use of hyperbole. Obama does love the public attention. Out of his first year in office, there were only 21 days when he didn't have a press conference or public appearance. He didn't spend as much time on vacation as W, but O played a lot more golf. Here's the scoop from CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … 03544.html
Arthur, I respect your honesty! As for Doug, he's actually a Hollywood television scout. He's now on the prowl for four women to star in the new version of "The Golden Girls."
You had to tell EVERYONE???!!!! Now I will be mobbed by women offering whatever in exchange for an audition - and I'm almost out of Viagra.
Doug, you must be quite the dynamic individual to have garnered such negative attention. People are afraid of you. Do you feel special? lol
You don't understand. It looks like negative attention but Habee is one of my fans! What my non-fans say doesn't bear repeating...
I have a personality like your avitar, but I'm misundertood. (sigh)
Doug, I think you can get it at a big discount by ordering online!
And ladies, forget about playing Rose - that role's mine!
Yeah, Doug kinda grows on ya! We agree on very little, actually, but I still like him! If the dems and repubs in DC could get along like this, imagine what we could get accomplished??
I agree we don't agree on much, but you have an unmistakable affinity for truth. You are willing to look at ideas that don't seem to fit in the usual conservative narrative. From such an attitude McCain worked with Feingold (and he's LIBERAL) on camapign finance reform - Bush worked with Kennedy on Education issues. The fact is bipartisanship to SOLVE problems has a long and noble history. Til now.
Tomorrow we can begin disagreeing abut why that is.. For the moment, I will just agree with Rose. Still 3 slots open and the vigra is going fast.
Aww...thanks, PP! Hmmm...that doesn't sound very nice, does it? lol
You can call me PP anytime! I promise not to report you. lol
Suspicions are one thing; to publicly accuse another hubber of being a government shill is another.
Of course you don't need evidence to think; but airing your suspicions on a public forum without evidence leads others to question your judgment.
I give you credit for being honest, though. Truce?
"Paranoia is transmissible from mind to mind, but it does not go by the route of reason. It can therefore change its rationalization while remaining essentially the same."
— William Nicholls (A History of Hate)
Those of you who are concerned about health care reform may want to catch "Doctor Knock, or the Triumph of Medicine" which is currently playing at the Mint Theater in New York City. It's a revival of a 1923 French play spoofing the medical profession.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/theat … amp;st=cse
Well the CBO finally came up with a partial estimate of the cost in the healthcare bill. Sorry to say the white house, Obama and the Dem's estimates were way low.
The difference is in the $ 100 billions more cost and in some parts of the bill it was impossible to calculate the additional cost.
There will be more states that will join in the future.
The press and the news medias have been silent for some time, wonder why
P s Let's not forget that the student loan take over was in the bill, that cost has not been checked as yet..
Was that "Oh Happy Day" playing in the background? And are you sure that isn't a photo of Teddy Kennedy you are using for your profile pic?
by fishskinfreak20086 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110103/ap_ … are_repealThey've been screaming about this for months, but of course, it still hasn't happened yet. And THE SENATE, the more important of the 2...
by egiv7 years ago
And also to those who claim liberals don't argue with statistics:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opini … ref=global
by Kathryn L Hill21 months ago
If we do not repeal Obama Care...what will happen to the nation?Will we ever enjoy the same amount of liberty that we had before?For instance, I was fined $200.00 for not having health insurance.I know others who were...
by Jillian Barclay5 years ago
Dear Friend,Over the past two years, especially during the election, Republicans and a select few Democrats did everything they could to derail health care reform. Now they've fulfilled their campaign promise and voted...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
I was sitting in the Kaiser pharmacy waiting to fill some scrips today. CNN was one the tube. All of a sudden this ad came on. Came home and researched the organization behind the ad.So my question is this: Do you...
by rhamson7 years ago
The latest vote to pass health care reform in congress has failed. Do we need to drop the issue or negotiate a new one?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.