Health-care: 'Promise, disappointment'

ONE CAN ONLY HOPE!!!!
*
Five Reasons It Might Not Pass

Obamacare tests Lincoln’s adage that without public sentiment nothing can succeed.
*
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzM3MzBiNDM0NzU0ZWU3ZmYyNWY5YTFhMTlhYmNhODU=

Typical Swamp coverage of an issue: Democrats quoted 13 times as much as Republicans (to be exact, Dems 1,594 words, Republicans 119).

And no link to the actual text of the bill, so that people can read the bill for themselves.

What are the Democrats, and agenda-driven Democrat journalists, afraid of?

HEARD OF CASH FOR CLUNKERS??? WELL THIS IS CASH FOR CLOTURE!!!!

Change Nobody Believes In
*
A bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve.
*
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

By Robert Samuelson

As the real-life (as opposed to rhetorical) consequences unfold, they will rebut Obama's claim that he has "solved" the health care problem. His reputation will suffer.

It already has. Despite Obama's eloquence and command of the airwaves, public suspicions are rising. In April, 57 percent of Americans approved of his "handling of health care" and 29 percent disapproved, reports The Washington Post-ABC News poll; in the latest survey, 44 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved. About half worried that their care would deteriorate and that health costs would rise.

==========
Looks like a case of winning a battle but losing the war (of 2010).

Why is there such a rush to pass this bill now? It's because the President of the United States recognizes that it is hurting his numbers, and he wants it off the agenda. It might not be ready to be passed. In fact, it's obviously not ready! Yet that doesn't matter. The President wants this out of the way by his State of the Union Address. This is nakedly self-interested political calculation by the President - nothing more and nothing less.

What makes this all the more perversely political is that the bill's benefits do not kick in for years. Why? Politics again! Democrats wish to claim that the bill reduces the deficit, so they collect ten years worth of revenue but only pay five years worth of benefits.

The Congress and the President are rushing to wait - not because that's best for health care, but best for the political careers of Washington Democrats

I'm very happy this NObamacare is nearing completion. They are ramming this down everyones throats, its been typical dirty politics, of bribes, pork barrel spending and old fashioned arm twisting, regardless of what the majority wants. Well, go ahead and past it and when you people finally come to grips that this is a disaster waiting to happen and its too late to go back, then it will be time to pay the piper. Mark my words this is going to be not only NObamas' waterloo its going to be curtains for Senators and Congressmen like Durbin, Waters, Jordan, Harkin, Murtha, and the list goes on and on,
go can throw in several Republicans in this list, The public is finally beginning to wake up, Thank God.

Typical Swamp coverage of an issue: Democrats quoted 13 times as much as Republicans
Posted by: Bruce | December 21, 2009 9:26 AM

Gosh Bruce...it took 10 seconds to google up a quote from republicans....."No".

What happened to reaching across the aisle...

Hey losers--that's you conservatives/republicans, etc:

This may not be the bill the rest of us wanted, with a public option, but we'll get there. We're on the way. Just watch...

The best thing about this whole process has been watching Mitch McConnell go into hysterics. What a Christmas present.

What is greatly disappointing about all of the above comments and in some cases, grunts, are their total lack of satisfaction, that we at least began the process of getting the Healthcare Insurers out of our doctors office and away from our doctor's expertise. That and the fact that the reprehensible business practices didn't upset many in the opposition is also, disappointing, to say the very least. I know that America, once billed as a capitalistic democracy, is in reality a capitalistic nation, with some "democratic" elements, at play. Citizen's rights take a back seat to capitalism's tenets. To put it bluntly, corporate greed before citizen's need !! A capitalistic oligarchy that insists it has constitutional rights and is prepared to deny other citizens their rights, to prove that an economic entity, the Corporation, has " constitutional rights ", is the next sepulcher, we must flush out, of our democratic nation !!
This Healthcare Reform, while not what many of us had hoped for, is a far cry, and I do mean, cry, from what is masquerading as healthcare, now !! I am ecstatic that the reform process has begun !! One hundred years later, untold lives lost and dollars wasted, for the whole gaggle of Healthcare Profiteers, to maintain their " privileged " position, of power and greed, may be finally beginning it's death-rattle. I hope so, for, too many Americans were sacrificed on their bloody altar, of greed and power. May it soon, began to disappear from our nation's and our citizen's lives !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BEING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO THE MEN AND WOMEN OF OUR ARMED FORCES.

Republicans concerned about reforming Health Care you say?Republicans would support Health Care Reform if it allowed products and services to be sold across state lines you say? Well we know this is pure garbage and nothing but a lie. We know this because Republicans fought tooth and nail against Democrats who want to make it legal to buy prescriptions from Canada. Just more proof Republicans are in the pockets of Insurance companies and drug manufacturers and the mouthbreathing dolts and TeaBaggers who carry their water are too stupid to know they are fighting against their own interests.

Senators Durbin and Burris have disappointed the taxpayers of the State of Illinois by voting for this health care bill.

The bill requires additional spending, i.e.mandates, for Medicaid. This will lead to higher taxes for the citizens of Illinois.

Senators Durbin and Burris should of demanded similar help for the taxpayers of their state that the taxpayers of Louisiana and Nebraska received!

It's been quite some time since I've been so discouraged about our country's future, particularly economically. Read the Newsweek Samuelson piece linked above. This bill has very little to do with reforming how we get health care except to ensure premiums are jacked skyhigh. All you people so happy about this? Just wait when you're paying far more and getting far fewer benefits. Wait until you're forced to buy insurance, wait until you have to wait an interminable amount of time to get in to see your doctor. Wait until entitlement spending is an even bigger part of our budget. Wait until this country goes bankrupt. All because of Barack Obama and 60 spineless senators.

What's even more nauseating are the bribes that we ALL pay for, but which benefit just a chosen few.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/health/Government+reverses+policy+Alberta+Hospital/2363175/Health+project+calls+radical+change/2333839/Health+system+quickly+going+broke/2288601/story.html

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/health/Government+reverses+policy+Alberta+Hospital/2363175/Health+project+calls+radical+change/2333839/More+operating+rooms+close+over+holidays/2305899/story.html

The great Canadian healthcare system - the one everyone says is so wonderful. Cardiac, cancer, joint replacement - elective surgeries. Just like a nose job. They can wait. Maybe there will be some more money. And now we're going to get the same. Merry Christmas.

And as usual Silva makes no mention of the horse trading and bribes that secured the 60 votes. Ben Nelsons state gets federal medicare funding forever, while all the other states will need to pay up, Bernie Sanders is getting 10 billion for clinics in his state, the mysterious 100 million dollar payoff that was inserted into the bill and the Democrats would not say who it was for has been solved....It's for Chris Dodd and conneticut, merry christmas Chris! and last but not least we should not forget the 300 million dollar "louisiana purchase that bought Mary Landrieu's vote.
The Democrats seem to forget that this is OUR money that they are bribing these senators with and we will show them what we think about this when we vote them out in 2010.

The best thing about this whole process has been watching Mitch McConnell go into hysterics. What a Christmas present.
Posted by: Kenneth Janowski | December 21, 2009 10:51 AM
--------------------

Yeah Kenneth J., one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor. The lingering image that I will have will be that video of Harry Reid, framed by bug-eyed Durbin to his right and slimey smoozy Schumer on his left.

There is something clever about dogs playing poker, overlayed on velvet, but this was just pure butt-faced U-G-L-Y. I have already awoken, “tortured” in the darkest hour of the night.

What a nightmare, and there is still plenty more to come.

Kenneth J., that Reid-Durbin-Schummer image is so U-G-L-Y that, in this hour, in this moment, I am planning dinner with Cris, her sister, two cousins that specialize in "torture", and Cris's closest running buddy ~ Five, the number 5, Pretty Latinas. That is my only hope to get this satanic image out of my mind. We pray that it will work.

Saluki Slayer, last week the democrats in the senate refused to allow a proposed amendment to the health care bill that would allow Americans to buy drugs from Canada or other countries. Both Illinois senators voted against the amendment. Who's fighting "tooth and nail"?

ARE YOU UNDER 30? HERE, HOLD THIS . . . FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!!!
*
This week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 218-214 to raise the debt limit to $12.4 trillion. Including all unfunded liabilities, such as Medicare and Social Security, federal obligations have reached $106 trillion.

Just the cost of paying back the borrowing from President Obama’s Stimulus plan will cost you $280 per month for the rest of your life. Imagine buying and trashing an iPod every month for the rest of time – that’s the practical impact of just one of the many planned expansions of government from Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Boxer.

All of you neocons, Bla Bla Bla!! Obama primised health care reform suring his campaign. He won the election because of this promise. If you cant see why this is the begining of a better and healthier American then you guysa are all a bunch of deaf dumb and blind rats!
We are the only western country without universal healthcare... our life span is less than most countries, 68% of US bankruptcies are from healthcare costs, our healthcare costs more than all western countries and yet you fight this change?? Whats wrong with this picture? I'll tell youwhats worng, youre all jealous and angry that your own loser party couldnt and wouldnt comeup with a better plan!! So what ifyou vote the democrats out in 2010 ( I dounbt it though) the bill will be passed as promised!! Wah Wah!!!

From the piehole of Senator Harry "Crooked Land Deal" Reid,

"And a Harvard study found that 45,000 times this year - nearly 900 times every week, more than 120 times a day, on average every 10 minutes, without end - an American died as a direct result of not having health insurance."

First the Harvard study has been debunked. Second, assume what Harry says is true. Why is it that the benefits of this legislation does not kick until 2014? By not starting the benefits until 2014,180,000 people will die. Are tghey just sacrificial lambs for this bill?

"This bill also strengthens our future by cutting our towering national deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion dollars over the next 20 years". Save this pile of manure for the spring and the farm fileds. This is only true if the medicare cuts take place - everyone with honesty does this isn't going to happen.

Sadly the gibster is correct. As Senator Harkin put it "What we are buying here is a modest home, not a mansion. What we are getting here is a starter home". TSadly, this is a first step tyowards single payer health care. I wonder when the left will propose single payer hosuing, single payer food provider, single payer clothing, single payer transportation?

Can you just imagine the whining that must have occurred in Washington when social security was passed? Medicare? Any other programs aimed at improving the lives of ordinary citizens instead of fattening the pocketbooks of the power brokers?

The best Republican amendment to this bill was one by Tom Coburn, which would have forced senators voting for the bill to certify that they had read it and understood it.

The Democrats rejected this.

Posted by: A Once and Future Skeptic | December 21, 2009 1:10 PM
;
And why did you fail to also not that Democrats succeeded w/ the help of Republicans?

Posted by: A Once and Future Skeptic | December 21, 2009 1:10 PM
;
And why did you fail to also note that Democrats succeeded w/ the help of Republicans?

Look Grandma! The Republicans are giving aid and comfort to the enemy (al-Qaeda) again!!

Methinks Mark spent a little too much time playing with his grandchildren in the global warming-induced snowstorm and cold gripping the Northeast and Middle Atlantic. He wonders what the American people think of the health care bill as 68 percent are unhappy with Congress, which includes Republicans.
Mark, EVERY poll shows MOST Americans are not in favor of ObamaCare for a multitude of resons: It will cost more, doesn't improve service, worsens service, will add to the debt, will increase taxes, will ration, doesn't tackle issues such as tort reform, and will just expand government.
The American people are not on board with this and do want ObamaCare. Plain and simple.

Posted by: Bobby Mobbie | December 21, 2009 1:16 PM

And how much do we have to pay the rest of our lives from Bush's historic deficit?? You forget about that one right? Where the heck were you while he was building the largest deficit and largest government in history prior to Obama??? Where were you Bobby??? WHat's good for the goose isnt good for the gander? Do as I say not as I do?? You guys are full of BS man! Big time!! Hypocrites!! I'd rather pay for the rest of mylife for the health of my own people then that of Iraqi's free healthcare that we pay right now! How about that? Any comments about that?? MORON!!!!

Healthcare alone will bring this country down unless there is real CHANGE! Change healthcare providers. Not from private to government. FROM DOCTORS TO GOD! As long as you have Satan's agents giving healthcare you are disobeying God! When you disobey, God gives you more disease as a curse. Isn't 2 trillion a year and we are getting sicker than ever, a curse?

The Senate is on the verge of passing health care reform for the first time in decades. The House has a better bill, and committee awaits. While it isn’t everything, it’s something. Those who prematurely wrote off health reform simply got it wrong. Those who recognize how dysfunctional the Senate has become got it exactly right. But as many commenters have noted, the vibrant discussion has been on the center-left as to how to proceed, while the right has had only "death panels, socialized medicine and Hitler". No new ideas, no part in the discussion. Self-exile is painful to watch, and bad for the country. This could have been a better bill with Republican input. Instead, Eric Cantor disease has spread to the Senate, and "Just Say No" substitutes for policy discussion. It’s sad, and it’s also not going to help Republicans get back in power.

The much-pilloried Harry Reid led an increasingly undemocratic and dysfunctional institution to a stunning victory for the majority party. He deserves an apology from any number of prominent Washingtonians. His House counterpart, Nancy Pelosi, burnished her reputation as one of the most powerful and effective Speakers in the history of Congress. Together they succeeded in unifying a fractious party representing diverse constituencies and rightfully fearful of the electoral consequences of their action or inaction.

And on another note, and seriously, does the Republican Party have any new ideas at all? ...

In reality, both parties have plenty of ideas that they would like to implement if given the political power to do so. Republicans’ policy ideas primarily involve cutting marginal tax rates and regulations for Billionaires, period, end of story. The question isn’t whether the Republican Party has any ideas. The question is whether the party has any relevant ideas.

Are Scot S. Blakely and Don Fitzgerald the same person?

Count me among those who consider this an awesome achievement for Democrats and President Obama. It’s a seriously flawed bill, we’ll spend years if not decades fixing it, but it’s nonetheless a huge step forward.

It was, however, a close-run thing. And the fact that it was such a close thing shows that the Senate — and, therefore, the U.S. government as a whole — has become ominously dysfunctional. The minority party (Republican) has abused the fillibuster, useing it as a way to beat back the will of the majority of Americans who voted Republicans out of office. This needs to be changed.

Thanks to the hard work of Pres Obama and the Democrats, 30 million people are on their way to gaining health care coverage and the rest of the population is gaining some bare bones regulatory protection, while less than 30% of the population (aka Republicans) are desperately trying to stop that from happening because it would be too great a political achievement for Democrats.

That’s not sausage, it’s small minded lack of vision. It’s time we recognized it for what it is. There was room, time and interest in Republican input, but the Grand Old Party has shown itself uninterested in governing. It only expends effort in chasing after Teabagger parties (when it’s not organizing them), and is going to learn the hard way that those who are unhappy with DC (and there’s plenty of reason to be) aren‘t going to gravitate to a political party that provides no solutions. Even having their own cable network won’t help them spin this. This will be a Democratic Party achievement, and the party will have to sink or swim with what they craft. And the message to Congress is this: if you’re not interested in working on solutions to America’s problems, go home or you’ll be sent home.

Little Scotty, Bozo's deficits make spending on the war seem quaint. Maybe your selective hearing missed it but many repubs railed on Bush for his and Congress' spending habits. But those were the good old days. Now we have a fool in charge that obviously failed economics. He is so out of touch the Chinese need to lecture him on how he is destroying this country.

As for this government takeover, I'm just glad I won't live long enough to feel the full effects. Libs... too stupid to pay for their own health care and willing to relinquish their lives to control by the government. It should get interesting when the next Bush/Cheney admin takes over and has the power of life and death over you. Bozo the facist won't always be around to blow smoke up your butts.

"The bill offers insurance to millions of uninsured Americans"
Should read 'the bill REQUIRES everyone to have insurance, or go to jail'.
I can hear it now.
"So what are you in for?"
"Armed robbery."
"What are you in for?"
“Breaking & Entering."
"And you?"
"Not having health insurance."

All the while Terrorist from Gitmo are being set free to Afghanistan to kill our troops.
Brilliant…. NOT!

When the media narrative (not Faux) about the bills passage becomes about how bad the Republican Party is, President Obama's repeated attempts to reach out to Republicans looks less like a fantasy and more like a great strategy to me.

And that can only help unite Congressional Democrats with future legislation. When far right Republican nutjobs like Jim Demint are saying things like if the HCR bill passes they will never be able to stop any other legislation, it can't be all bad.

From the very start Republicans were trying to stop HCR because it would be too great an achievement for Dems is not only a small minded lack of vision, it is hateful. And Republicans praying for the incapacitation or death of another Senator (Byrd) in order to continue their obstruction for that same reason shows them to be the morally corrupt, low-life, sleazy, vile, vulgar, pieces of crap that they are to the core.

I have come to feel that this entire HCR debacle has been a struggle between good (Dems) and evil (Repubs).

Dumb-to-the-hilt Scot Blakely, Bush's deficits never passed $500 Billion. Obama has $1.5 trillion deficits for the next three years and none of his deficit projections for the nextm 8 years falls below $500 billion. In fact, by the end of his two terms, if he should serve two terms, deficits actually begin to RISE again to over $600 Billion!
Bush and the GOP Congress spent too much money. Conservatives have railed against that for years now. But Bush deficits pale compared to Obama deficits.

Eight years of Republican leadership has left America choking on a $12 trillion national debt, a $787 billion taxpayer bailout, 10.2% unemployment and two wars whose purposes and astronomical costs are still unclear, with no end in sight. Middle America wants jobs, fiscal responsibility, affordable healthcare and quality public education for its children, none of which were delivered under a Republican administration and Republican Congress. Republicans had eight years to produce for America and they failed, breaking the spirit of Middle America along the way.

I love listening to Republicans on here expressing their hypocritical and phony 'concern' for spending. Obama could take the rest of his first term and do nothing but spend and he still wouldn't come CLOSE to deficit spending the way Republican administrations from the past 25 years have - and they spent it on crap like the Military Industrial Complex and tax cuts for Billionaires, over and over and over again.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
- Dick Cheney

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/03/27/deficits/
*
http://brsparty.com/images/FederalSpending.jpg
*

“What is greatly disappointing about all of the above comments … are their total lack of satisfaction, that we at least began the process of getting the Healthcare Insurers out of our doctors office and away from our doctor's expertise.”
* * * * *
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | December 21, 2009 10:51 AM
.
Don,
.
You are suffering delusions (again). None of the health care bills in Congress take any steps to get healthcare insurers out of our doctors’ offices. Quite to the contrary, the efforts of Congress, if passed into law, will effectively put corporate insurance companies in charge of health care for the foreseeable future. Indeed, it will give them much more power than they ever had before, because it will force everyone into the market, even against their will - thus leaving the insurance industry absolutely no incentive to innovate or help people unless required by federal law. When the law becomes the outside measure of morals or motivation, we are guaranteed to have efforts to push the limits of the law. No longer can the disapprobation of the public, or the withdrawal of their patronage, have any effect on the policies of the industry.
.
If, on the other hand, you think that federal regulation is going to keep them in line, you have another thing coming. The public option is already out of the Senate bill, as are all other provisions that might create competition for insurance companies. It is unlikely that the public option is going to make it back in during the reconciliation process. The insurance industry has better lobbyists, and more of them, that we do. If they don’t like the terms set by Congress, they have better means to see to it that they are changed. They have some leverage because, while Congress may set prices for approved healthcare plans, there is nothing that requires all health care insurance companies to provide the approved plans. Some may very well specialize in providing supplemental health insurance - so that the wealthy can still get health care benefits to which the (subsidized) poor have absolutely no access. In short, the insurance industry has been guaranteed full employment for the foreseeable future. There is no death rattle. This is just another one of your delusions.
.
I am also amused at your little tirade about how “[a] capitalistic oligarchy that insists it has constitutional rights … is prepared to deny other citizens their rights …” Tell me, Don, what rights, constitutional or otherwise, do people have that the big bad capitalistic oligarchy is preparing to deny? I hope you aren’t talking about health care. Nobody has a constitutional right to force others to pay for necessary services - including health care. People are supposed to pay for their own needs, such as food, clothing, housing, and even health care. I realize this is heresy to orthodox Democrats who believe that government should be employed to allow everyone to live at the expense of everyone else. It is, however, the truth.
.
If a constitutional right to health care existed, you would be entitled to it by virtue of your state constitution or the federal constitution without the need for further legislation. If that were the case, then you should immediately sue your state and federal government for the fact that you have been denied that right. The fact that Congress has to go through the elaborate process of enacting two separate bills and then reconciling them - just to supply what you deem to be a right - is a good indication that it is not a right after all.

"And Republicans praying for the incapacitation or death of another Senator (Byrd) in order to continue their obstruction for that same reason shows them to be"
-------------------------------------
And if the left continues to spew out-n-out, baldfaced, over the top lies, such as the one just quoted, the Liberal/Socialist will never hold office again.
Here is Coburn exact quote "What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight,"
Not once mentioned incapacitation or death or ANYTHING even remotely similar on ANY Senator.

Posted by: John D, still right, as usual | December 21, 2009 5:43 PM

And the rest of you neocon freeks. God forbid you should lose your jobs and health insurance along with it or you couldnt afford your health insurance anymore, lets see how you feel about this healthcare bill then ok! Ingrates

To all you libs celebrating a bill that hasn't been written yet, the devil is always in the details. Your support of a backroom deal that collects taxes for four years before providing benefits that don't even cover all of the uninsured shows exactly how brain dead you have become.

Never has legislation this unpopular been passed exclusively by a single party. Everyone's costs, not just the rich, will increase because of this government takeover of a sixth of the economy. It is telling that only a handful of people have a clue as to what is in these bills, no idea what form the house senate compromise will take and yet posters are on here proclaiming how great this is. It is the same stupidity that got people signing onto mortgages they couldn't afford.

If you want to pay for your neighbor's heath care so they can buy a new car, go ahead Some of us stayed in school, didn't have children we couldn't afford, saved money rather than blowing it on Nikes and Starter jackets and lived within our means. You might find next fall that we support whomever will dismantle this earmark filled legislation.

John W.:

I hope you typed slowly so the loony libs may understand. Well stated.

Bob

Obama killed the public option because he is owned by the insurance industry. Obama, the current Senate and the current House traded womens' bodies for the insurance industry stimulus bill. Doesn't this make Obama and the legislators pimps? Now Obama and his generals will put American woman soldiers in jail if they become pregnant. 51% of the voters will remember this in 2010 and 2012--in time for Obama's eminent loss. Time right now to dust off the Federal Tort Claims Act.

******************************************************
Bush and the GOP Congress spent too much money. Conservatives have railed against that for years now. But Bush deficits pale compared to Obama deficits.

Posted by: John D, still right, as usual | December 21, 2009 5:43 PM
_____________________________________

Lil' Johnny DoughyPantload,

Not only did you Wingnut simpletons NOT rail against the BushCo Republicans and their out of control spending (on nothing), you cheerleaded for them.

Republicans like Lil Johnny D here are the worst kind of hypocrites and liars. They don't give a damn about spending or the deficit until they're out of power and then they start whining about it with fake outrage hoping that they can score some political points.

Bush and Cheney left a steaming pile of crap on Obama's doorstep on Jan 20, 2009 and when he starts doing the only thing he can do - spend to create jobs and keep us from falling into a full blown depresson -, the Wingnut hypocrites, instead of trying to help fix the mess they made, start trying to make things worse in the hopes that they will be voted back into power again.

Past Republican administrations are the reason why we have a deficit problem in the first place.
*
http://www.headybrew.net/images/content/budget_deficit_or_surplus.gif
*

"Mark my words this is going to be not only NObamas' waterloo its going to be curtains for Senators and Congressmen...The public is finally beginning to wake up."
Posted by: Paul

Don't fool yourself. A redneck base stupid enough to rally against its own self-interests--as the Republican power brokers have successfully pimped its lunatic ilk into doing--has hardly awakened from its moronic slumber. Republican minions remain as pathetically dim and feckless as they've always been.

ATTENTION SWAMP POSTERS!

Ignore the posts from the poster who calls herself 'Bobby Mobbie'. She's paid by a right wing partisan group to post anti Democratic party posts and to provide links to far right wing whackjob sites like Fox, Rush, Free Republic, The Murdoch Street Journal, Michelle Malkin, World Net Daily etc.

The person who calls herself 'Bobby Mobbie' has also already been banned from various other political sites because she was outted by other posters on those sites.

Thank you....

CNN POLL: OBAMA'S APPROVAL RATING JUMPS UP TO 54% ON EVE OF HEALTH CARE BILL PASSAGE!

Some very exciting numbers coming in from CNN: Obama's approval rating is back up to a formidable 54%, with 42% of Americans now supporting the Senate's health care plan. Both of these figures are up dramatically from earlier in the month, when Obama's approval was at 48% and HCR was at 36%.

The trend is obvious: passage of the bill on 12/24 by the Senate will only further bolster these promising numbers for Obama and the Democrats in Congress, making prognostications of their doom from Left and Right a tad bit premature.

Most notable to me is that the increase in approval of the bill has come exclusively from Democrats, jumping up 10% from the most recent CNN poll. Despite the highly vocal progressive clamoring for killing the bill and blustery claims that its enactment will lose Obama his base for all time, it's now apparent that more unpopular than anything was the process, not the final product. Once the bill is passed and Obama's first major accomplishment is on the books, I think the Dems will cruise to a very comfortable midterm election and Obama will have plenty of capital to spare for the rest of his first term agenda.

Whether or not you approve of the content of the bill, the fact remains that Obama's base is still with him and he has shown the same patience and grace as an executive that he did as a candidate. We would never have arrived at this moment if he had fallen prey to the rabid 24/hr news (Faux News) cycle/blogosphere's microanalysis of every anonymous leak and Congressional development. I say congrats to President Obama and Leader Reid at getting this thing passed.
*
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/21/cnn-poll-6-point-jump-in-support-for-health-care-bill/
*

This is soooo patheitc and so typical of todays Republican party.

Republican Tom Coburn wanted people to pray hoping that at least one Democratic senator "can't make the health care vote tonight".

I guess this means that even Republican Jesus doesn't like the Republican party and wants the health care legislation to pass, which it will.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/robert-byrds-death-seemin_n_399038.html

This bill has been so watered down that it is practically worthless. They have taken away single payer and the public option which would have meant real reform. What is left is a bill that mandates that people have to buy insurance from the very people that are responsible for healthcare spiraling out of control while doing nothing to contain those costs. I am very disappointed in the Democrats.

So we are to believe that this tax-and-spend bill is actually going to do what the crooks in DC say it will! Let's see the Democrats have sold out to the unions, AARP, the drug companies,and the lobbyist. I keep hearing how the Republicans never tried to introduce legislation for healthcare reform. That is a lot brought to us by the mainstream media. A House bill was introduced in March, but, seeing how the Democrats control the House and never came out of committee. Now the Senate bill and the House bill will go into committee to reconcile the differences between them. Congresspeople must now go home for three weeks and if you think for a minute that they're not going to hear about this your kidding yourself. 66% believe that this bill will increase their taxes and lower the quality of their health care. And today, because of this Obama's ratings are at their lowest ever. 2010, I still believe will be a very bad year for the Democrats.

This bill has very little to do with reforming how we get health care except to ensure premiums are jacked skyhigh. All you people so happy about this? Just wait when you're paying far more and getting far fewer benefits. …
What's even more nauseating are the bribes that we ALL pay for, but which benefit just a chosen few.
Posted by: Beth | December 21, 2009 11:19 AM
--------------------

Beth,

We are of the same mind, but unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that logic and reason ever works with democrats. They believe in this stuff. They are susceptible to any scam that a charismatic, fairly good looking, leftist politician can sell. They are totally incapable of any kind of analysis that goes beyond the superficial. The Constitution, as written, means absolutely nothing to them, one way or the other.

“Are people happy about this?”, you ask. Maybe you meant that rhetorically, but I would offer that your average democrat does not have a problem with any of this because they CAN NOT project how political power is abused, how it is used to take away choices, the subtle ways that it reduces your individual freedom to choose, and the direct or indirect ways that it strips away your income and your savings. Even in America.

To democrats, 2,000 + pages of Health Care Gobbledy Gook is all an act of great benevolence, long overdue. A legislative achievement that mean and hateful Republicans would always fight against. Republicans are, of course, opposed to everything that the people are entitled to, and should be given, for free, of course. It is somewhere defined in their distorted interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, a living, breathing, organic document.

I do know democrats. My small number of relatives are all yellow-dog democrats. They can agree with any point or examples that I can make with them, but at election time, they will be marking the (D) box. Straight Ticket, probably. My Catholic brethren are some of the finest humans that anyone can know. But being a democrat, as a matter of tradition I can only guess, trumps the abortion issue 11 to 9, or better.

My Latino brethren heed the democrat hustle too, but here I do think that there is some cause for “hope”. They LEFT socialism to have a better opportunity, and they don’t need anyone to tell them that. For all of their hard work, they do expect to hold onto a few dollars at the end of the work week. If everything is to be taken away from them as fast as it materializes, then they will be receptive to a message more conducive to allowing wealth to be built. Keep hope alive. The inherent advantage that my Latino brethren have is they already know how oppressive a government can be. Unfortunately, the average American does not seem to have even the slightest clue.

Unfortunately elections do have consequences. America’s 44th president is a Marxist, with 3 years + one month remaining in his allowable loose reign of terror. A Marxist-socialist runs the House of Representatives. There are 60 socialist democrat senators all ready to accept a properly offered bribe plus two RHINOs ready to join in at the right moment. We cannot expect too much.

We can only “hope”, but when you get down to the California Model of Government, there may be way too much to be fixed. The socialism of Mexico is slightly understandable. There is nothing that can be easily understood about America’s infatuation. We can only “hope”.

Middle America wants jobs, fiscal responsibility, affordable healthcare and quality public education for its children, none of which were delivered under a Republican administration and Republican Congress.

Posted by: Mick Hendrix | December 21, 2009 5:50 PM
--------------------

Mick Hendrix,

We, of course, are unlikely to find common agreement.

- “Middle America wants jobs”. No kidding. I had many excellent job opportunities during most of the years of the Prince of Darkness regime. My work now, is week to week, and all things considered, I am lucky to even have that. Having a 2nd degree is the only thing that has saved me. I’m not better off and it IS a direct result of the policies, or lack of, of the current regime. I do not foresee anything that is going to make job opportunities suddenly, magically, materialize for the presumably legal, technical work that I still do.

- “Fiscal Responsibility”. There was a war waged on the al Queda organization during the previous regime. G. Bush 41 retrieved a country and re-unified the Republic of Germany. “Hopefully” that is a good thing. Raygun rebuilt a depleted military and destroyed a militaristic communist system. We Republicans are never happy with the deficit spending, but the current regime has taken it to a whole ‘nother level, for reasons not very easy to honestly understand.

- “Affordable Healthcare”. I had and STILL have good “Affordable Healthcare”. I don’t know WHAT I will have in a year or two from now.

- “Quality Public Education”. I spent two years as a Mathematics teacher in the public school system. I would have to tell anyone that the current system is beyond repair. This is NOT the fault of any Republican president. I would attribute it to New Age thinking in the World of Education and an extremely misguided understanding of Bloom’s taxonomy. Teachers know of which I speak. Trust me.

I would surely have to take a very personal exception to your particular comments.

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

“…No longer can the disapprobation of the public, or the withdrawal of their patronage, have any effect on the policies of the industry….”

Posted by: John W. | December 21, 2009 5:59 PM
---------------------

Don Fitzgerald and fellow Liberals,

You don’t have to admit to anything, but it would do you much to the good if you could just expend a little effort to understand the underlying message in just that one statement. Just saying.

****************************************************
My Latino brethren heed the democrat hustle too, but here I do think that there is some cause for “hope
Posted by: Django - N Exile In/Around the 30th Parallel | December 21, 2009 9:47 PM
________________________________

First of all you right wing sociopath, you are NOT a Latino and you have NO idea what is and isn't good for Latino's. I know from reading your past rambling screeds on here that you're nothing more than a doughy middle aged white entitled rich guy.

And secondly, if you think Latino's are ever going to vote for your beloved Republican party that is choke full of racists, haters and bigots then you are dumber than I thought you were.

PS - California is 'drowning in a bathtub' because idiot minority Republicans (thanks to the 2/3's law) have to much power, not to mention a REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR.

The Department of Health and Human Services played host in July to a three-day conference in Washington to promote investment in health information technology. "Electronic health information will provide a quantum leap in patient power, doctor power and effective health care," Tommy G. Thompson, the health secretary, said.

I think the funniest part about this whole thread is how desperate Teresa (also known as -Bobby Mobbie and -Thank God I'm Conservative) is to get her cut and pasted right wing troll posts to be noticed on here.

SHE HAS BECOME SO PARANOID THAT NO ONE IS READING HER RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA THAT SHE HAS RESORTED TO POSTING IN ALL CAPS - JUST IN CASE YOU WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO HER THE FIRST TIME!!!!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
Here is Coburn exact quote "What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight,"
Not once mentioned incapacitation or death or ANYTHING even remotely similar on ANY Senator.

Posted by: MAJMark | December 21, 2009 6:21 PM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Really Private Marky?

Then why didn't Coburn bother to clarify that point when he was given the opportunity to do so?

I'll tell you why Marky, because Coburn, just like the rest of you brainless Teabaggers, is a goon and a thug who has no business whatsoever holding elected office.

Blast you, Paul Krugman.

Stole my thunder again.

But that's what you get the big bucks for, right?

Big point: how hopelessly dysfunctional the Senate is.

You'd think they were passing Women's Suffrage or the Civil Rights Act, for Xsakes.

Instead of a law, essentially, to rein in predatory rapacious insurance companies.

AMA got on the bandwagon of course.

They want to be on the inside ----ing out rather than vice versa.

However, they're nearest the door and may find themselves pushed out.

Next step is to vastly increase slots in medical schools and produce more , more, more doctors.

That's the only thing that will really "bend the cost curve".

"Public option"?

Maybe in about 4 years.

One thing McConnell would probably vote for in a health care bill:

More research on how to soothe sore Republican a--holes.

Which is a lot of sore ones at the moment.

Incriminating pregnancy is disturbing. Why does the Obama W(hope)H want to be associated with such a policy? The fact that the military has found a justification for it is completely sickening. What century am I in? Stopping at nothing for a victory may win the battle but is no way to win any war. Seems democratic principles can be negated and negotiated by the, so why stop there..... let's end abortion (right up BOs abortion mental health exception dance). I mean our birthrate could use a jolt facing hard times during which people are less likely to have kids. This will take care of all deficits, and provide the shamans in around out of the capital with a steady set of patients and expensive "labor" costs, the type associated with labor and delivery or life .. .

* * * * *
Posted by: Bobby Mobbie | December 21, 2009 6:54 PM
.
I am reminded of the line by the little girl “Newt” in the movie Aliens when told the marines were there to protect her from the monsters. She said: “It won’t make any difference.”
.
Tell these guys something? It won’t make any difference. Somehow, the fact that something is being done trumps (in their minds) the fact that the means chosen are not well suited to accomplish the end sought, that such ends are neither efficient nor constitutional, and that they will cause the loss of liberty and create great mischief in the years to come (just as Social Security and Medicare are threatening to do now). They couldn’t care less. It is precisely as though some great, deceiving fog has fallen upon politicians and the masses alike, or as if someone has poisoned the water supply and everyone has gone mad.
.
If I wrote what I did any slower, they would read it slower yet and misunderstand it all the same.

It is necessary to make sure that the bill should be prepared in a manner which can solve the purpose of promises given to the public during elections. Else government has to face some serious problems in next elections.

DaveB,

Socttie and FITZ are two different people. FITZ thinks he gets paid by the word for his stupidity. He is a city worker ghost payroll from Chicago who loves Blago and Burris.

Scottie just states his stupidity and screams MORON. He went to Canada to go get his free health care

The bigger sell for the president will be with the public. He needs to convince them why this bill is "historic" and his biggest achievement in office to date.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

HEY K, YOU SCREECHY LOONY LEFTIE LIBTARD. I AM A HE. A MAN. UNPAID. I JUST HATE TO SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE SOCIALISTS IN CHARGE OF THIS COUNTRY.

GOT IT?
======

ATTENTION SWAMP POSTERS!
Ignore the posts from the poster who calls herself 'Bobby Mobbie'. She's paid by a right wing partisan group
Posted by: K | December 21, 2009 8:04 PM

The r-cons answer to healthcare reform is what they like to call tort reform. This is a measure to keep citizens from having their rightful day in court when the medical experts make critical errors. The insurance cartel and their
useful idiots don't want accountability. All they want is money and power:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hiv_bungle_nightmare_octTwbbLrPMde82e5VcNwO

To the insurance cartel,and their congressional buddies, this is the real issue: passing laws to protect them at the expense of ordinary working people who they don't give a rats rear end about. They care only about money and profits.

I don't know why everyone is so excited about this Senate bill passing. Even if Obama signs a bill it won't even kick in until 2014. So, for the next 4 years you get nothing - I don't think you can put medical problems on hold for the next 4 years.

Django: (snipped)
I do know democrats. My small number of relatives are all yellow-dog democrats. They can agree with any point or examples that I can make with them, but at election time, they will be marking the (D) box. Straight Ticket, probably. My Catholic brethren are some of the finest humans that anyone can know. But being a democrat, as a matter of tradition I can only guess, trumps the abortion issue 11 to 9, or better. (snip)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Healthcare reform is not a referendum on abortion, no matter how hard you
anti-healthcare reform useful idiots of the insurance cartel
attempt to tie it in.
The Hyde Amendment already prohibits federal funding of abortion.
I am pro-life and that includes those who are already here and die needlessly because of the money-grubbing insurance cartel who have placed a value on everyones life. I am absolutely shocked that the right to life movement has chosen to get on the wrong side of this issue when abortion has nothing to do with it.
Life doesn't begin at conception and end at birth.

WHAT IS THIS, CHRISTMAS!?! I NEED MY SWAMP REPORTS ASAP. WHERE ARE THEY? MAKE IT HAPPEN, SILVA.

LOVING YOU!!!

Posted by: John D, still stupid, as usual | December 21, 2009 5:43 PM

Crazy John,
You seem to forget that all GWB's war spending was off budget.
In an attempt to have a more honest budget number, BHO has included all the extra war spending in the budget.

Stop lying.

Posted by: Bobby Mobbie | December 21, 2009 9:29 AM

BMobbie = Grand Old BTK Party

Obama did say he was against a mandate when he ran for president. Hillary wanted the mandate. Hillary was not elected. She told the truth. See campaign footage--esp. on the debates. Obama lied by omitting his choice for a mandate, and many, many Americans voted based on that lie. I see a very huge case here.
*
I'm mandated to buy car insurance if I want to drive, however, I may choose not to drive at all--not buy the insurance--and take public transportation instead. There needs to be the public transportation option (public option) part of the puzzle in the insurance stimulus bill--or it will be crazy, insane illegal.
*
Tax me 40% on a 'Cadillac' insurance policy? Who decides what that is? And, a longshoreman will not have to pay the 40% tax. Shouldn't teachers at Columbine be exempt? Shouldn't Family Services workers be exempt? Shouldn't the guy feeding the sharks at Sea World be exempt? Why only longshoremen? Who said they were golden? Are not all workers golden? Obama shreds the Constitution like W. Bush. Obama never mentioned a 40% tax on health benefits in his campaign--ever. I really dislike snakes.
*
Can't tax my benefits when they were offered as part of the reason for my taking the job. Is the US government in the negotiations business for all employees & employers now? Americans currently working are grandfathered in with the benefits agreed upon when they were hired in their current jobs. Taking 40% of benefits will be cause for grievance. Then, the government and employer can go at it.
*
Why not tax the president 40% of the value of the lifestyle he lives in the White House? Why not tax the Senate and House members 40% on the value of their security and drivers? Or, any pres or WH staff on 40% of the value of the visually stimulating gardens surrounding the WH--which, by the way, improves anyones health just by the act of viewing--if they are lucky enough? We should all be so lucky to have such an untaxed benefit. Why not 40% of the value of the underground parking garages that members of the House and Senate get? Or 40% of the value of the little 'train' they take back and forth between the garage and their office buildings? What about taxing politicians 40% of the value of the space both houses give to their barber and shoeshine guys in the Capital building? It's all part of the job--like my health insurance. Where are the tax payments to the IRS from the politicians' for all their flowery job benefits--which they voted in for themselves?

*
Why are health industry stocks today at a 52 week high, and why are a majority of Americans today cringing and want a public option--or NO bill at all? The 52 week high and Americans cringing tells us all that there will be a huge financial imbalance of power and fairness between the insurance companies and American citizens--who will have guns pointed to their heads due to a mandate--esp. with no PO. Obama, the Senate and House will have bought the guns and shells with bribe money from the insurance and Rx industry. Only coercion here--no matter what they call it, or vote for it to be. Contrarily, I've heard most gangs and the so called mob have some sort of morals and live by some sort of rules.

Rasmussen polls yesterday show only 41% support this bill where the 4% opposed. President Obama's daily tracking poll is now at -21%. The looney liberals come to forums acting like they're the majority but in reality they are only 20%. I am not talking about parties I am talking about ideologies. Conservatives are at around 40% the rest are independents or not affiliated with other parties. It that block of voters (conservatives and independents) who the Democrats need to fear. 66% of all voters disapprove of how the Democrats are doing their job. Now the Congress members must go home for the holidays and face the people that voted for them. In January when they returned to DC and vote the way the people back home want them to or the way the lobbyist paid them to. Six Democratic members of the House have announced that they will not run for reelection and one is switching parties. A few of the six no hope of being reelected because of their stance on the healthcare bill. I still believe that 2010 will not be a good year for the Democrats or the looney liberals.

Django--just intuition--but I'm wondering if your ancestors actually emerged from somewhere closer to the Arctic Circle.

Sorry it should have said 54% opposed

Posted by: John D, still right, as usual | December 21, 2009 5:43 PM

Crazy John,
You seem to forget that all GWB's war spending was off budget.
In an attempt to have a more honest budget number, BHO has included all the extra war spending in the budget.

Stop lying.

Posted by: TheReamer | December 22, 2009 4:58 PM

Reamer, sorry, but war spending or not, no Bush deficit surpassed $500 billion (still way too high). To say that Obimbo's $1.5 trillion or even $600 billion deficits are because of Iraq and Afghanistan is a lie.

The Left, still stupid, still wrong, still demented, as usual.

This Senate bill, spawned by shady back room deals/bribes, pleases no one. Conservatives hate it because the government is taking the unprecedented step of requiring all citizens to purchase a service from private companies, and by using fuzzy math to try and convince us that we are going to expand coverage through government spending, yet save money. Hey, that’s great. We’ll all eat cake. To pay for it, we should increase taxes on anyone making more money than I do.

----------

Liberals hate the bill because there is no public option, no expansion of Medicare, strong anti-abortion language, as well as anti-illegal immigrant language. Just as a side note – why aren’t pro-choicers fighting more on this abortion language? Isn’t abortion legal in this country? Why take this lying down? Answer – The voice is weak. The pro-choice lobby does not have the cash. You need Big Pharm or Trial Attorney money to get in bed with BO/Pelosi/Reid.

-----------

I hope people appreciate the irony of BO spinning his tale of good v. evil, where the health insurance industry is Snidely Whiplash, and then gift wrap 300 million Americans for that same industry. At least BO pretended to go after that industry. He did not even pay lip service to an industry fleecing Americans far more than the health care industry - pharmaceuticals. But BO/Pelosi/Reid are in bed with Big Pharm. They are bought and paid for.

-----------

Ben Nelson was also purchased last week. By us. Harry Reid committed the money on our behalf, and now we own Nelson. In exchange, we have to subsidize Nebraska's Medicaid system indefinitely, but hey, the Dems had to pass something. That's what it really came down to. The Dems had to pass a bill. Any bill, so they can save face politically. It doesn't matter if it will do any good. They know they have a great speaker in BO who can use his charisma to snow people into believing any bill that passes is working (see stimulus). Joe Biden told me it’s already doing great things in some non-existent district of Arizona. The nuts are running the asylum.

"I'll tell you why Marky, because Coburn, just like the rest of you brainless Teabaggers, is a goon and a thug who has no business whatsoever holding elected office.
Posted by: GENRipper | December 21, 2009 11:49 PM"

Well put. Low cretins like Coburn and Inhofe and others, don't seek office to conduct the business of the nation. They get elected to score culture war points with their base.

At least the House is somewhat responsive to the results of a given election.

The Senate, on the other hand, is the most un-democratic institution in the Western world.

To make any real progress the Senate needs to be defanged. Problem; How do you get the Senate to reform itself?

The Dems missed an opportunity back in '05' (?) when Dr. Megele (Frist) threatened the 'Nuclear Option'. The Dems should have let them do it. The Repubs were already getting most of what they wanted anyway due to the Blue dogs. This would have paved the way to majority rule in the Senate.

I think the organization of the House and the Senate need to be ripped from their hands. The problem is; How is that accomplished?

Whether the majority of people supported a public option depended on what that meant.

Most were against a public option that would cause people to leave the private, employer provided insurance plans.

A November poll (Rasmussen) incidentally showed that 47% believe private rather then federal government can do a better job at keeping health care costs down and quality up. 33% felt government could, with 20% undecided.

“PS - California is 'drowning in a bathtub' because idiot minority Republicans (thanks to the 2/3's law) have to much power, not to mention a REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR.”
.
* * * * *
.
Posted by: Cecilia Muñoz | December 21, 2009 11:28 PM
.
Ms. Muñoz,
.
You are either delusional or the victim of false Democrat propaganda if you believe for a second that California’s financial woes stem from the two-thirds rule, the Republican minority in the State Legislature or the Governator. As a longtime resident of the Golden State (50 years this last October) and observer of all things political here, I can tell you that our money problems stem directly from the State Legislature’s inability to spend only what the State has. Over the past several decades, California has received increasing amounts of revenue every year. Our glorious Legislature, however, finds new and different ways to spend all of what it takes in revenue. In past few years, it has found ways to expand the State’s budget and spend more than what the State takes in revenue - which has left us with yearly deficit.
.
Think about it: How could the two-thirds rule, which restricts the Legislature’s ability to spend, be responsible for too much spending? How could the Governator, who has exercised his line-item veto power to reduce spending even more, be responsible for the State’s enormous debt? In general, how could California be deep in debt if it was living within its means? A person doesn’t go into debt without spending more than he or she has in the bank. States are no different. Hopefully, you can now see the falsehood in the propaganda you have been fed.
.
If the two-thirds rule were ever repealed, we would be in serious trouble, because it would allow the State Legislature to sink us further and further into debt. The problem is that, unlike the federal government, the State of California can’t print more money to pay its bill, and it has only a limited ability to sell bonds to cover deficit spending. (As a matter of fact, California bond issues are rated just above “junk bonds.”) That is why services have been cut to juggle the budget each year. You should be thankful that the rules don’t permit the Democrat majority in the State Legislature to ruin us completely.

First of all you right wing sociopath, … you're nothing more than a doughy middle aged white entitled rich guy.

PS - California is 'drowning in a bathtub' because idiot minority Republicans (thanks to the 2/3's law) have to much power, not to mention a REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR.
Posted by: Cecilia Muñoz | December 21, 2009 11:28 PM
--------------------

John E.

“Right wing sociopath”, I kind of like that. But “doughy”, c’mon now. Slick and algore ~ there are your pastry dough guys. Those two need to let up on the Big Macs and find a little sun.

Actually, Django really did a great job in selecting his skin tone. Me and the Pretty Latinas argue that one all the time. I say though, that they did better. They insist that Django did. We really need to resolve that issue.

California. Is there a more miserable place to try to hold onto survival than California. It will take far more than one Republican Governor, first elected in a recall referendum, to undue all the economic damage perpetrated by years and years of democrat rule and irresponsible democrat socialist legislators driving the state into bankruptcy at every opportunity. But why you gotta blame Governor Schwarzenegger? It’s Prince’s fault. I know that you know that. Will you be burning any flags today?

Oh Terry you are so funny! And your point is irrelevant as usual.

Healthcare reform is not a referendum on abortion, no matter how hard you…
Posted by: writerofwrongs | December 22, 2009 12:26 PM
--------------------

WriterofWrongs ~ WoW, as it were. Absolutely Healthcare reform should not be about abortion, but when there are democrats in the mix, it ALWAYS is. It never goes away. Abortion is at least 1/3rd, 33.3333% of the democrats Holy Trinity.

Beyond the issue and arguments of abortion, you seemed to have missed the point. I am not trying to tie anything to anything. Abortion is not my “Go to Jail, Throw me in a Gulag” issue, but my fellow Catholics do have considerable passion for stopping or backing down the abortion movement. Yet, they will ROUTINELY support the democrat party 55% of the time. Of course, there may be other issues in play, but in general, being passionately anti-abortion and voting for any democrat would seem to be quite a paradox. I surely could not explain it. That was the point that you seemed to have missed

Django--just intuition--but I'm wondering if your ancestors actually emerged from somewhere closer to the Arctic Circle.
Posted by: Vivian | December 22, 2009 11:29 PM
--------------------

Well Vivian, there is some chance that we all could have hiked down from the Arctic Circle. Like that forlorn looking, desperate, polar bear on the ice floe, we all may have been trying to escape all of this Global Warming. We, Vivian, could be cousins. Now I do admit that would surely be a revolting thought, but stranger things have been known to happen.

Vivian, how is your TX boycott coming along? At some level, it could become problematic. To make your TX boycott most effective, you need to drain the gasoline, the transmission fluid, and the motor oil OUT of whatever car, truck, or SUV you may be presently driving. Start with the motor oil. That would be the easiest. Now, the ‘Check Engine’ light is going to come on, but don’t be discouraged by that. It’s just a light, an orange one probably. Drive through that. Please though, have your cell phone handy and keep it charged. That’s an important safety tip, given the magnitude of this particular undertaking.

Let’s be true and faithful to our well-thought out Left Wing political cause and get this done today, without delay. It is very likely that the motor oil, or the transmission fluid, has done time in TX. Those backwards TX hillbillys like to say: ‘Git-r-dun’. Translation - Get It Done.

More Liberals need to imitate your noble, courageous strength of convictions. Your cell phone is a very reliable friend and wrecker drivers probably are very friendly wherever you are. I “hope”. TX Naphthenic Grade “A” Lube oils ~ $17,995 a quart, and a relative bargain. Just Git-r-dun.

* * * * *
Posted by: writerofwrongs | December 22, 2009 12:26 PM
.
Your point regarding the Hyde Amendment is not well taken. If two acts of Congress are irreconcilable so that they cannot operate concurrently, the most recent in time will be considered a repeal of the former by implication. Repeal by implication also occurs when newer legislation occupies an entire field so as to cover the whole subject of the first. This is true even if there is no provision in the new law expressly repealing the former. Here, it is obvious that the current bills seek to change the entire subject of federal financing for health care. Thus, unless the Hyde Amendment is specifically preserved in so many words, there is a strong risk it will eventually be deemed repealed by implication. Thus, you can’t simply waive the Hyde Amendment around as some proof that the current batch of health care bills won’t change the subject of abortion funding.

C.Morris :
"The Senate, on the other hand, is the most un-democratic institution in the Western world."

The Senate was not set up to be democratic in the sense you are trying to force on it.

The Senate was set up represent the States. The House was to represent the people. The Senate is there because otherwise the House based on population could allow more populated States to pass laws that were not in the interest of less populated States. It isn't meant to be democratic, it is meant to be a republic.

Democracy sucks. The majority rules and stomps all over any right of the minority they can. Majority and minority are not applicable to race alone, they also apply to political views.

django: (snipped )
Yet, they will ROUTINELY support the democrat party 55% of the time. Of course, there may be other issues in play, but in general, being passionately anti-abortion and voting for any democrat would seem to be quite a paradox. I surely could not explain it. That was the point that you seemed to have missed

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's one thing to be anti-abortion but another thing to be pro-life. The R2L movement's leader, Randall Terry,came out against healthcare reform which was mind-boggling to say the least and curious that he would take such an anti-life position.
Apparently, those living don't matter; only the unborn. After birth,to RT anyway, they're on their own and at the mercy of the cartel and their own " right to life" agenda. Mr. Terry should have kept a neutral position and his mouth shut but somehow through twisted logic, he made it into an anti-abortion issue and chose to be a useful idiot.for the corpo-fascists. Very curious position, indeed. This was never about abortion but with some creative networking with the teabaggers, it became one.

The r-cons try to strong arm church people by claiming that if you vote for anyone besides them and their platform, you are evil, misguided and an anti-American babykilling commie. Noticeably missing from their
"pro-life" bantering are valid reasons why 45,000+ Americans are dying because of a lack of healthcare insurance options or the 100,00+ killed over oil and gas in Iraq, the scandel of homelessness and hunger. These are pro-life issues, too.

Ther-cons are full of crap.

Let us at least realize what the actual truth is?

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

I don't know why everyone is so excited about this Senate bill passing. Even if Obama signs a bill it won't even kick in until 2014. So, for the next 4 years you get nothing - I don't think you can put medical problems on hold for the next 4 years.

Posted by: vla | December 22, 2009 11:49 AM

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

Truth be told, this statement is just that. However, lacking in this expose' is the fact that to even begin funding this massive "all things to all people" legislation, we Americans will begin paying right away!

We will begin paying now for promises of future euphoria!

How wonderful is that? To those who don't pay anything anyway, this is a magical and plentiful wonderment to look forward to. If they don't die first from the very things they are crynig about at this moment.

Thank You vla, for showing others the delayed benefits to a more expensive and languished health care system.

Or as Don Fitzgerald's good friend once said, "I would gladly pay you for two hamburgers next Tuesday for just one hamburger today".

“California. Is there a more miserable place to try to hold onto survival than California[?]”
* * * * *
.
Posted by: Django - N Exile In/Around the 30th Parallel | December 23, 2009 12:33 PM
.
Actually, Django, there is. It’s called Michigan. It’s Democrat controlled government has run up a deficit that has since necessitated deep budget cuts, layoffs and loss of services. It has nearly as many legislators as California although it has less than one third of its population. It has the highest unemployment rate in the entire nation, and its industries are in the toilet. Its largest city, Detroit, looks like the major urban areas depicted in the movie “The Day After.” The only critters impervious to the government insanity there are the Democrats, the wild moose, the free-roaming elk, and wolves. We can only be thankful that its governor is Canadian born, meaning that she can’t run for president.

Django--Texas boycott is going well. Six of us were deciding between Austin and Seattle for a trip--we went with Seattle. I feel bad for Austin--they have a lot going for them--music, beauty, food, universities--but they'll always have the deal breaker of being in Tx. They need to denounce Bush, or something. They need street banners stating they are an un-Bushed city of Tx.

Looks like a few folks went through posting withdrawl. Tip of the hat to you, Silva.

Scottie Girl,

My point might be funny and irrelevant, but I notice you didn't say incorrect.

john w:
Your point regarding the Hyde Amendment is not well taken. If two acts of Congress are irreconcilable so that they cannot operate concurrently, the most recent in time will be considered a repeal of the former by implication. Repeal by implication also occurs when newer legislation occupies an entire field so as to cover the whole subject of the first. This is true even if there is no provision in the new law expressly repealing the former. Here, it is obvious that the current bills seek to change the entire subject of federal financing for health care. Thus, unless the Hyde Amendment is specifically preserved in so many words, there is a strong risk it will eventually be deemed repealed by implication. Thus, you can’t simply waive the Hyde Amendment around as some proof that the current batch of health care bills won’t change the subject of abortion funding.

~~~~
sorry, John. I don't buy it. The Hyde Amendment is specific law is specific about the use of federal funds for abortions and has been upheld by various courts. If there are taxpayers funds, then it's illegal. End of story.
I know the teabaggers have been bringing this up because as useful idiots of the cartel, they have to keep spouting the same talking points their r-con leaders have drilled into them. Never mind that until recently and only because they got outed, the RNC itself offered abortion coverage in their healthcare plans.
Nothing more than another emotionally charged smoke screen; like unplugging gramma and euthanasia.

* * * * *
Posted by: writerofwrongs | December 23, 2009 5:57 PM
.
You obviously didn’t understand my point. I don’t give a rat’s rear end for what the Repelicans or teabaggers think. I’m not one of them. Nor am I claiming that the Hyde Amendment is unconstitutional or otherwise defective so as to be susceptible to a court challenge.
.
I’ll make it plain for you. Congress, by enacting the current health care bill, can be viewed as overturning the Hyde Amendment. Since the new health care bill entirely occupies the field of federal regulation and funding for health care, it can be viewed as an implied repeal of the Hyde Amendment. This is not an argument someone would make in court to attack the Hyde Amendment. It is something that would occur without court intervention as a result of Congress’ passage of the health care bill with the President’s concurrence. That is why people are concerned whether the current bill has strong enough language to preserve the Hyde Amendment in effect.
.
Do you need a further explanation? Perhaps illustrations with places to color in or connect the dots might help?

*******************
Posted by: John W. | December 23, 2009 12:28 PM
--------------------------------

Thanks, John W. Ceclia Munoz, I am certain, is just one of John E's cowardly pseudo-names.

I am slightly hesitant to get into the problems of other states because I don't live there and I may miss or not understand some of the subtleties. That would be an easy thing to do. Your explanation and my understanding are, however, in near-perfect agreement. WE DON'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP. Truth and reality, whatever it may be, are more than good enough. Defending the Un-defendable is what Liberals do.

Yes, Michigan would be worse. I did have a moment of regret in my CA Call-Out. I don’t make a point of hating every aspect of an entire state. That, again, is more what Liberals would be inclined to do. It would be hard to find a bigger L.A. Dodger fan or S.F. 49ers fan in TX, than me. I will always have “feel” a special connection to The Doors and Jefferson Starship despite all of the krazy stuff that they were probably engaged in during their prime. We should have a natural right though, to expect more from our representative government than acts that seem to have been the hand-work of Rock and Roll folks still working down their special chemical dependence.

Liberals would be more tolerable if they just took a step back every once in a blue moon, and tried to reason through their logic-challenged political views. WHAT do they put in their DNA that prevents that. That’s a totally rhetorical question. Thanx John W.

Django--Texas boycott is going well. Six of us were deciding between Austin and Seattle for a trip... They need street banners stating they are an un-Bushed city of Tx.

Posted by: Vivian | December 23, 2009 4:16 PM
--------------------

Vivian,

So, the boycott is just on a ‘Where We Gonna Go’ kind of basis. I could say that you are not giving this boycott thing an all-out effort, but in that you did not come at me with a personal attack, I can likewise refrain as well.

Please allow me to tell you this about Austin, or Travis County, as I always prefer to reference it. It is ALL those things that you stated. When life and the world was still sane, I would go to Antoine’s club in downtown Austin (Travis County) and listen to the great Stevie Ray Vaughn. I would chat with him in between songs. He was not yet famous and the ambience of Antoine’s was most excellent to allow Django to make that special spiritual connection. Those were the halcyon days of days past.

Here’s one more thing that you need to know. Austin, (TC) is an enclave of Liberalism, practically on par with SF, Cambridge, or anyplace else of this notoriety. In Austin (TC), a Republican would be lucky to get 30% of anything. I cannot tell you that Austin (TC) would go so far as to throw up a ‘We Hate Prince’ kind of banner, but he would not likely be electable to anything above or below the level of dog-catcher. You should never have to worry about that.

Seattle is fine too. I’m not a Hater of cities, or states, but I can, and I do, question their sense of what constitutes good governance. There may be no way around a balanced budget at some point in the process.

“Hope” you enjoyed Seattle. Don’t feel bad for Austin (TC). They have a nice statue of Stevie Ray Vaughn at Town Lake. I sometimes go there with my acoustic guitar and keep him company.

The only critters impervious to the government insanity there are the Democrats, the wild moose, the free-roaming elk, and wolves. We can only be thankful that its governor is Canadian born, meaning that she can’t run for president.
Posted by: John W. | December 23, 2009 3:39 PM
--------------------

Mountain goats, John W., they never seem to be bothered by very much either. I like how they just seem to cling to the side of the mountain and gaze off into the great beyond. Just reminds me of democrats. BUT, the problem here, I guess, is that they are NOT indigenous to MI, so we / I can’t throw them down like that. They may take serious exception to being placed into that kind of company, as well.

Governor Granholm certainly seems to have a special affinity for more taxes. Wasn’t aware that she was of Canadian citizenship, but that would only be one of those little Constitutional details. An Axelrod kind of guy could probably find an opening through that little argument.

And I like Motown. I like the Tigers, if the Red Sox are out of the mix. We can only “hope” that future democrat mayors or governors were smoking pot in the men / ladies room on the day that Keynesian Economics was being pimped. There’s bound to be a better work than “pimped”, but I don’t know what it would be.

Please stop wearing out my species. We're not that close. Your "forlorn look" is just me passing gas. We're not that lonely, we've got the Danish, Canadians, Russians, and Americans keeping us company. When the ice thaws we're getting our very first underwater Exxon Mobil gas station.

It's one thing to be anti-abortion but another thing to be pro-life… Ther-cons are full of crap.
Posted by: writerofwrongs | December 23, 2009 2:19 PM
--------------------

WoW, I do get your perspective on the argument that you are making here. I don’t know exactly who said or did what to whom or when or any of that. In this instance, however, I can appreciate neither the product nor the process. How could I, when so much was done late at night in Harry Reid's back room.

When something like this is 2,000 + pages long, there is invariably all kinds of extraneous garbage stuffed in there. This could have been done in maybe 25 pages, but anyone desiring to understand the total impact of all of this forced-upon business, has to ply through an additional 1,975 pages of God only knows what.

And when Barbara Boxer (or Dianne Feinstein) is involved, there invariably is going to be some new allowances made for abortions. These two NEVER let up, and Boxer was involved more than enough, making her ‘never say die’ abortion pitch. In addition to “Deficit Reduction”, they would surely be inclined to turn it into “Expanded Abortion Rights and Opportunities” for the chosen unlucky. This is what they always do. This is what I saw being advocated by Boxer. Excuse me, the honorable Senator Boxer.

WoW, you have managed to hit on one of my many issues with democrat designed legislature. It may be presented as “for something” but there is always “something else” that they are going to also shove down your throat.

My stance on abortion is the same as my Catholic brethren, but unlike them, I would not be ready to take it all the way to the Gulag. They are much better than me. Given the passion that many Catholics do have though, I am still standing firm on “How can my fellow Catholics support democrats to the tune of 55%?”. Catholics are generally for all of those other wonderful health things that you mentioned, but the overall level of support for the total democrat experience should be more like 10% not 55. There may be some plausible reason. I surely would not know what that is. Most people just don’t pay any real attention one way or the other. Yellow dog inertia wins. That’s a brain-dead method of having a political philosophy that I rejected a long time back. It is what it is, but it is not going to make any sense to me.

john w:
snip
.
I’ll make it plain for you. Congress, by enacting the current health care bill, can be viewed as overturning the Hyde Amendment. Since the new health care bill entirely occupies the field of federal regulation and funding for health care, it can be viewed as an implied repeal of the Hyde Amendment. This is not an argument someone would make in court to attack the Hyde Amendment. It is something that would occur without court intervention as a result of Congress’ passage of the health care bill with the President’s concurrence. That is why people are concerned whether the current bill has strong enough language to preserve the Hyde Amendment in effect.
.
Do you need a further explanation? Perhaps illustrations with places to color in or connect the dots might help?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I still don't buy that arguement.
There have been a number of attempts to overturn the Hyde Amendment to no avail, so why should that be considered any different ? Just add the language and be done with it. Maybe if the anti healthcare reform useful idoits were more forthright in their position, instead of screaming about socialism and unplugging gramps and Trig, they would have some credibility.

Please stop wearing out my species. We're not that close. Your "forlorn look" is just me passing gas. We're not that lonely, we've got the Danish, Canadians, Russians, and Americans keeping us company. When the ice thaws we're getting our very first underwater Exxon Mobil gas station.

Posted by: polar bear | December 23, 2009 9:21 PM
--------------------

O.K., Mr. Polar Bear, I may have to bequeath a special dispensation on that request. And I do say Mr., due to the pass gas thing. Ladies don’t do that.

You just looked so discombobulated out on that damn diminutive ice floe. It probably was one of those ‘Thelma and Louise’ kind of deals where you likely had a few drinks and then suddenly you decided that you wanted to spend some time in South America. So the first ice floe that comes by, you jump it. Then, 45 minutes into your odyssey, the damn thing starts to break apart. “What the hell were you thinking’, one would have to ask. Didn’t bring a salmon sandwich, no paddle, no summer wear, no passport, no American Express, no jazz chord charts, nothing but the fur on your back and now the damn thing is undergoing a molecular change of state. It is fusing with the ocean. This is Politburo planning. It will only get you, and ALL the comrades, killed.

Underwater ExxonMobil gas station ~ a somewhat novel concept. The serial number on that will surely be 0001-10a. The 10 is the year that it will be built (21st Century inferred), and the trailing “a” means it does not come in a box. But I’m telling you, polar, if it can be done, ~ ExxonMobil. Yes, ExxonMobil will be the ones to do it.

ExxonMobil won’t be issuing no statements or talking with any reporters associated with The NY Times, Washington Post, or Chicago Tribune. EM Model 0001-10a will surely remain proprietary until they can extract some licensing fees from those that would see only a most excellent, new, opportunity in operating in the penumbra cast by ExxonMobil.

In today’s environment those ExxonMobil IRORs probably would have to be around 392% before anyone even looks for a shovel. You never know when you are about to be nationalized and handed over to someone, someone more familiar with the dynamics of an anchor than any component normally associated with the propulsion system of a fine, mega-horsepower piece of machinery.

OK, polar, when there are no more Stratocasters, Martins, or pretty Latinas, due I’m sure, to Global Warming, I will be far worse off than you are in the present. “Forlorn” will be an inadequate description of my rejected personage, a thousand ways to Sunday. This is a Daniel in the Lion’s Den / Jonah in the Whale kind of situation that has my total empathy.

Actually, there are better biblical parables, I just don’t know what they are. I sometimes set a bad Catholic example, but ‘Hope’ allegedly never abandons you. Having said that, that very first decision that was made, made by you, may not necessarily lend itself to reversibility, either. But alas, Yorick, Keep ‘hope’ alive just the same. 3:57 a.m. in the morning, IS Stratocaster time. Peace America, and don’t nobody get sick.

Shouldn't the guy feeding the sharks at Sea World be exempt? Why only longshoremen? Who said they were golden? Are not all workers golden? Obama shreds the Constitution like W. Bush. Obama never mentioned a 40% tax on health benefits in his campaign--ever. I really dislike snakes.
Posted by: Vivian | December 22, 2009 10:42 PM
--------------------

Vivian, Clearly the Prince of Darkness would never be your guy. I surely understand that, and that is o.k. You do seem to see the hypocrisy of the current regime, and best of all, you reject Elitism. Just that one detail would mean a lot if America could sharpen up a little and likewise recognize that most undesirable, ersatz quality of leadership. This, (you at 10:42 p.m.) is thoughtful stuff. Seriously. Don’t drain those hydrocarbon based fluids that took up residence in your car just yet, as someone suggested earlier. I see “hope” and I sure would want “hope” to always prosper. Seriously.

Bats---Dingbat---never seem to be bothered by the dark. I like how they cling upside-down to the roof of a cave and stare into the black abyss. Just reminds me of Republicans---always looking on the upside of things. Just curious---does Exxon require its exiles to spend some time out in the wilderness? Mountains maybe? Appalachian trails? Chasing buffalo or counting blue grass? Collecting tumbleweeds in jars? Counting the number of windows in spiderwebs? Take an Arctic Sabbatical? Smoke lettuce? You have become quite the Darwinian expert for a "former" oil sells-man. Thank Joseph---for John W, who has chosen to live in a corrupt state for 50 years!---because if it wasn't for him, we would get a constant stream of what the world SEEMS like according to you. Mountain goats don't cling to anything---that is why they prosper in high altitudes. You know what other nonchalant expert sorted people with animals like animals? Hitler--cattle cars. At times, you offer that these bleeding hearts are a good thing, and then turn around each time to denigrate that as a quality in the larger scheme of things to "know" or denigrate it by denigrating those who you assign that quality to. That's right---banjo---Democrats don't know--cling--cry--and--cuddle kiwis (required by the BO administration as part of the of the reach-across-the-aisle-to-the-flightless-ball-and-chain program). Stop offering your praise for the bleeding hearts of liberals as genuine and stop offering your attempts at reaching out as genuine. You're incapable of giving genuine praise or of genuinely reaching out. The fact that this "praise" and "civil exchange" is contingent on what liberal you are talking to tells everyone the tell of a Texan bull wrapped in sheep wool. You might also be surprised by this---a polar bear dies every time you throw him under the bus to make a point.

* * * * *
Posted by: polar bear | December 24, 2009 3:20 PM
.
Hold on there for one second, Cochise. I never said California was a corrupt state. I believe that what has gone wrong with the state government in recent years stems from foolish, but honestly held, views on how things ought to be run. Former Governor Gray Davis wasn’t corrupt. He was a very nice man. (Indeed, he had the presence and demeanor of Fred Rogers.) But his sincere adherence to his “progressive” agendum nearly ruined us (before we booted him out of office). The problem is that we have a lot more like him in the State Legislature.
.
Furthermore, my views of what go on around here aren’t just what SEEMS to be the case. I have a fairly sane and rational view of the world. I didn’t drink the Kool-Aid. And speaking of sane, your post reads like you wrote it after getting high. I mean, crimony, your grammar and syntax are almost identical to Don Fitzgerald’s. Now, if that isn’t a proxy for loony, I don’t know what is.

LOL. I never said that you said CA was corrupt---I DID. Are you challenging my notion that CA is a corrupt state? If you are, then there is no need for you to get defensive. Furthermore, unless you're dingbats ghostwriter, I never said you go on about what seems to be the case. Far from it, I acknowledged, just as dingbat did, you know more....then the typical talking points (those would be my words, also). You know what you are talking about in the parameters of your political leanings; even if they are different from my own or too long for others to read. The more lawyer-like objective stuff you post under your normal post name, and for how you really feel you post under another name. I can understand why as it can get pretty ugly in the Swamp. You don't do well when you are being presented with the possibility, no matter how small, that something is being implied of you. For all the wing-nuts on Don Fits patrol: it says more about you then it says about Don. Real smart individuals who believe themselves superior don't get off on beating down those they deem inferior. (I noticed how Inky never makes the nut radar. Apparently, some banter is more appropriate.) Further, I wouldn't be so quick to throw out your empty bottle of kool-aid. You have your moments. Something about cats and democrats, but then again I know how stream of consciousness wears you out.

* * * * *
Posted by: polar bear | December 27, 2009 3:44 PM
.
1. YES, I am challenging your notion that California is a corrupt state. We tend to clean up (and clean out) corruption here. We tend not to promote corrupt politicians like they do in Illinois. Here, term limits are more common political career enders than indictments. But that doesn’t mean our politicians and social leaders aren’t foolish. They sure can be.
.
2. Pardon me if I found it difficult to plumb your prose. I didn’t know, for example, that your comments about ‘bats’ or ‘dingbats’ referred to a particular person. I thought they were ornaments of your James Joyce/Tom Robbins, semi-hallucinogenic writing style.
.
3. I don’t view Don Fitzgerald as an inferior being, or that I am somehow superior to him or anyone else. I view him as a typically misguided L-winger of the kind that swallows all of his party’s propaganda, sewage-like as it is, and cherishes it as God-given truth. If I thought I was “better” than him, I would consider it beneath my dignity to respond to him, now wouldn’t I? I am sure he is an intelligent person who simply refuses to apply his intellect to test the truth-content of what he is told. He just makes a good sounding board, in spite of himself, to help me express my objections to his particular point of view (and, YES, to vent my frustration that people actually believe such things).
.
4. Another correction is in order: I don’t do well when I perceive that something mistaken is being said about me. I am fully capable of accepting the truth.
.
5. And one more: I DO resent the label wing-nut. I am not a Republican, and I do not believe in a government controlled society. I believe in true Liberalism - which is making people freer rather than more beholding to, or controlled by, big government. This is an area in which I believe both Democrats and Republicans have failed. The government doesn’t own us. If someone wants to live on the federal plantation, that’s their personality defect at work, not mine.
.
6. In case you never noticed, EVERYONE has their “moments.” (I am sure that if I knew who was hiding behind the screen name ‘polar bear’ I could tell you about a few of yours too.) Intelligence is no proxy for sanity, or vice versa. Even the smartest and sanest fail, at times, to see things realistically, or exercise their rationality in place of their emotions. Being rational 100% of the time takes a kind of discipline that very few possess. Even Einstein had his moments.
.
7. BTW - there are a lot of people who like cats and appreciate them for the independent critters they are. It is hardly reflective of drinking (hallucinogenic) Kool-Aid when one does so. (And - BTW - I have never heard of Kool-Aid coming out of a bottle, with or without acid. If you have, you may have been cheated.) I’m sorry if you didn’t see the humor in my remark about Democrats being unable to appreciate cats due to their independent spirit. Independence, as a personal character trait, hinders those who believe that everyone ought to live on the plantation. I’m sure, however, that polar bears can appreciate independent spirits (especially since plantations are too hot). It gives them the noble polar bear something to hunt and eventually eat.
.
Please come on back. We’ve lined up the busses.

Jesus.
.
1.NO, you were taking issue with me over what you thought I ascirbed to you. You said, "I never said California was a corrupt state." Anything you wrote after this sentence is in context of that sentence. Additlionally, your #2 supports my insights into your misguided motivation.
.
2.You've lived in CA for 50 years. During those 50 years California did not pass refoms becuse it was the shinniest state in America. (BTW ---comparisons to other states are irrelevant. I hope the differnece between no reform and reform is not the difference between corruption and foolishness, or indictments and term limits --- nice band-aid. I'm sure the revolving door/ rotation of governemnt officals makes up in preventative corruption measures what it lacks in putting a dent in those spending practices. )
.
3. A tip: next time, if it doesn't address you directly, referenece you directly, or mock your words directly, it probably has nothing to do with you. This style is universal. (BTW--It is never wise to respond to the shear mention of your name without becomeing better aquainted with the flow of converstaion. If you're still in doubt, ask before you alledge.)
.
4. John, aren't you being a little paranoid? I don't think anyone other than Don, himslef, can believe in what Don writes. If you feel he offers you a soundingboard, fine. If you feel you are doing the readership at-large a service by protecting their feeble minds from what Don writes by countering the same ol' rhetoric with the same ol' rhetoric, fine. It's not like you're getting through to Don and his people. You of all people can appreciate the difference between practicle and predatory. However, don't teach me about implied inferiority. "I mean, crimony, your grammar and syntax are almost identical to Don Fitzgerald’s. Now, if that isn’t a proxy for loony, I don’t know what is." You may be surprised but lunacy (insanity or foolishness) are an inferior state of mind. "If I thought I was “better” than him, I would consider it beneath my dignity to respond to him, now wouldn’t I?" Engagement is not a measure of or a pre-requiste for dignity; it's civility. BTW- wing-nutS, it was always plural. See, my #3.
.
5. "I don’t do well when I perceive that something mistaken is being said about me. I am fully capable of accepting the truth." Sure, after shooting from the hip, and asking questions later. See, my # 1.
.
6. Why do you make an argument out of everything? Maybe your ability to take up issue with the simplest things makes one believe you may be incapable of accepting the truth; including your ability to bounce between figurative and literal expressions. I'm sure there is some figurative vessle used to house the figurative expression. You're also in luck because half of these figurative vessels are used in literal life to house all sorts of liquids and drugs. The other kool-aid does come in a bottle. http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2495/img17232pm5.jpg I know people have their moments, and I never said I didn't, so you can stop confusing the issues. "You don't drink the kool-aid." Leading me to #7.
.
7. "I’m sorry if you didn’t see the humor in my remark about Democrats being unable to appreciate cats due to their independent spirit." Probably becuse there are way too many factors to widely accept, enough to make a solid basis for a joke, that Democrats don't appreciate cats for their indapendant spirit. Annnnnnnd probably becuse cats are a plantation style animal. "In our Winter 2006 survey, we found that Conservatives were more likely to own dogs and Liberals were more likely to own cats.....Dogs, if unencumbered by their owners, will quickly organize into small packs with a hierarchical dominance structure.Cats are a different matter. Cooperative hunting is rare, since cats, unlike lions, hunt game smaller than themselves. Consequently, their loose social structure is based more on sexual selection and kitten management.....will stake out areas even in the midst of high-density feline environments. They will also engage in territory-sharing with selected other cats, usually closely related, which function to better control their territory against intruders." http://neuropolitics.org/defaultmar06.asp (Also, liberals more likely to live in the city, living in the city with pets can be tricky, and many liberals own cats becuse of the independance factor.)
.
9. Sure polar bears can appreciate indepandant spirits. After all, they are a solitary species. They're very big on the survival of the fittest. Their best kept secret can withstand everything, and has ensured their lineage for eternity.

* * * * *
Posted by: polar bear | December 28, 2009 7:41 PM
.
1. DON’T invoke the name Jesus as an epithet or expletive when addressing me. I find it offensive even if you aren’t addressing me.

2. Re: items 1 above in your post and mine. I don’t give a darn what we were talking about before. I meant (and mean) to convey the idea that I take issue with what you are saying about California NOW regarding corruption. If you are saying that California is corrupt, I am telling you that it isn’t. Corruption, to me (and most other people) implies a certain level of self-dealing and criminal inclination like that involved in taking bribes or kickbacks, campaign finance abuse, and the like (like Blago, Ryan, Kerner and Stratton did in Illinois). That is not our problem. California is governed by well-intended fools, not corrupt ones. The last high level state official prosecuted in this state occurred in 1993 when the Superintendent of Public Instruction was convicted of crimes for conflict-of-interest. We’ve never had a Governor who was impeached, indicted or convicted.
.
California has addressed its shortcomings through legislation and popular initiatives on many occasions during the past 50 years. I would hardly say that “no reforms” have occurred despite its reputation as a shining state.
.
And, actually, the term limits in California have not helped to make things better. Experience has shown that politicians close to being termed out care less for their constituents and more for their party ideology. This has polarized politics and, in turn, has made political compromise difficult. This is one reason why our State Legislature suffers so much gridlock over budget and taxation issues. Thus, while they might be a check against corruption, term limits offer no protection against foolishness.
.
3. See my point 2, in my previous post, above. I found it difficult to determine where your raving left off and any reference to me began. Perhaps I should have asked for clarification before jumping in. I’ll be truly embarrassed if you turn out to be the next James Joyce or Ken Kesey.
.
5. I don’t think I’m being paranoid. Don Fitzgerald is hardly the only person who believes what he writes. I have read many posts on the board in which others have express his ideas. Some have taken issue with my criticism of his posts, taking his position against mine. Indeed, there are actually bigger and more vehement Democrat cheerleaders out there than Don. In addition, I have only seen one Democrat (Vivian) take issue with Don on any of his positions, and that was only because Don attacked her views. If others think he is so far out to lunch, why doesn’t anyone else from the left tell Don to take a breather? Thus, some objective evidence exists that Don is, at a basic level, a Democrat everyman. Taking on his ideas is, therefore, not simply an exercise in beating him up. It is more often than not a challenge to the basic assumptions that Democrats have about government and their leadership.
.
6. In the comment, “I mean, crimony, your grammar and syntax are almost identical to Don Fitzgerald’s. Now, if that isn’t a proxy for loony, I don’t know what is” - the proxy for loony was Don Fitzgerald’s grammar and syntax, not Don Fitzgerald. Otherwise I would have said, “Now if HE isn’t a proxy for loony …” etc., rather than “[n]ow if THAT isn’t a proxy for loony …” etc. In which case, the statement was a comment on your writing style (and Don’s) rather than your respective mental states. A writer can write in a dense, indecipherable manner that one could call “loony” without meaning to denigrate the person. Some people write that way on purpose. James Joyce made a living at it.
.
I will admit, however, that my use of the word “loony” was unfortunate, in that someone could construe it to mean I was implying something was wrong (or inferior) with the persons under discussion. If that is what you understood by it, I apologize. That was not my intent. I, in this instance, am just as guilty as you were in writing with less than full clarity of expression. The next time you bump into Don (without hurting yourself), convey this message.
.
7. Why do I make an argument out of everything? Let’s see. I have spent the past twenty five years of my adult life arguing as part of my professional activities. I think that is most of it. Furthermore, I love challenging people to actually think about what they hold to be the truth.
.
8. Final observations: I stand corrected in believing that Kool-Aid is not dispensed in bottles. I never knew that. The last I knew, it was dispensed in a packet of powder that had to be combined with water and/or sugar.
.
With regard to cats and Democrats: It was Mr. Silva who expressed his preference for dogs over cats, no? He is a Democrat, no? He must, then, be an exception to the trend of cat ownership among Democrats, no? And, in any event, regardless of how much Democrats like cats, they certainly don’t like the same cat-like independent spirit in people. Such people are difficult to tame for plantation living, and plantation life is what Democrats are all about. That’s why my comments to Silva were funny. Do we get it yet, yes, no?

.
Mary Mother of God.
.
If I were you, I WOULDN'T be so sure of myself. I could have typed, what I typed, in adulation. It is in praise that we find the strength to carry out the hard tasks placed before our feet.
.
A/ Yeah, well, wanking offends me, but it hasn't stopped you from using the reference. I'm a sucker for "feelings," but I've read enough to realize your incessant victim-hood is self-serving. Don't tell me what I can and can not do and/or say. You're not the moderator, you're not my pastor, and you're not my conscience. There's plenty of time before 01.01.10 strikes, and the new rules are issued. Until then, you are as free, as I am, to say (almost) anything. If you choose to say something, you're free to say it in the least offensive way possible; insofar, as long as it doesn't infringe on your boundless, emphasis on boundless, creativity.
.
B/ You can't take up the issue with me over my calling California a corrupt state when you, yourself, have admittingly missed the context in which I made that comment; essentially, in a post addressed to someone else. You can't take up an argument with me while disregarding the issue at hand in exchange for a better one as an exercise that leads me to question what I hold to be the truth. You jumped the shark. You created an argument in your head from the start, alleged I made it, and continue to blindly insist I partake in; while, hijacking what little response I gave YOUR argument as your own. It is quite apparent that you are capable of having an argument without a second party involved. You don't need a sound board to say what you want to say. You have no basis to continue to question my notions after I made myself clear.
.
C/One would think an individual who has practiced the art of argument for 25 years would be more put together.
.
D/I said I DON'T have a problem with your need to help the readership at-large. In my opinion you sound like a welfare state on a mission; looking for the first sign to help the, figuratively, mentally downtrodden.
.
E/I don't need to be tested, and I am not convinced that you didn't know what you were doing when you picked a misguided in into my post.
.
F/On THAT note, in response to a majority of your last post to me, I emphasize:
.
G /I am very aware of how cats land on their feet.
.
Random odds and ends: I DID know that you were referring to the syntax and grammar being a proxy for loony. Notice, in response, I addressed the writing issue referring to a stream of consciousness. Don's writing is more true to form than mine ever could be. Regardless of how you later word that "loony" sentence, using HE or THAT, the implication still remains. Moving on, loony is rarely used to refer to something as specific as a dense manner of writing; more over in a political forum where it's used in poor taste to refer to incompetence. It's not like it doesn't happen, but it's just highly unlikely that it was intended any other way. This is the second time you've made the Kool-aid mistake. I think you might have made it with Vivian the last time. On the note of Vivian. If it wasn't for her recent response to Don, you'd compound the tired and true "but everybody thinks this crazy stuff is true" with the tired and true "no liberal has taken it to Don to prove otherwise." All it takes is ONE, but you're incapable of remembering one because you're so busy bothered by everyone. I'm shocked liberals don't prevent Don from drumming the drum beat. Maybe liberals, like conservatives, welcome anything registered to vote as long as he or she is in the ball park of the party's corral. Maybe, because they don't want to add to the right's preoccupation with Don they sit and watch. It's more like the truth: is it is better to let a fool speak for themselves than to speak for them. You don't know for sure if the liberals you speak of identify with Don. I have yet to see them back-patting him on his contribution to the cause. The only thing to come close was a drive-by post by one of the post-it liberals telling Don to ignore the onslaught by some on the right. The "joke" about the cats lacked a good foundation. You've brought this Democrat/cat issue up before. Each time your sense of seriousness defies your sense of humor. I see, it will take Silva acquiring a cat to break the curse. It sounds like nothing short of liberal denouncement of socialism will change how liberals feel about the pet they chose to own, but don't appreciate.
.
BTW-- IM not apologizing for anything. You know, you can do that, you can apologize
for something without having to implicate another person or apologize without having to apologize for the other person; or, what's WORSE, apologize for the way they took what what you did or didn't do/intend. If there ever was an insincere apology, that last one would be it. I'm so sorry that you misunderstood the dense style I used to mock Django.