There isn't much more one can add to what has already been said about the GOP's kamikaze plan to shut down the government. People who care about this country see the Teapublicans' obsession to defund and ultimately repeal the ACA for what it is: a fool's errand.
Nothing good can come of it.
via Daily Kos, here are some thoughts on what the crazies in the GOEP (Grand Old Extortionist Party) plan to do to our country:
ATUL GAWANDE:
"Conservatives keep hoping that they can drive the system to collapse. That won’t happen. Enough people, states, and health-care interests are committed to making it work, just as the Massachusetts version has for the past seven years. And people now have a straightforward way to resist the forces of obstruction: sign up for coverage, if they don’t have it, and help others do so as well."
Bill Clinton via TPM:
"There's nothing to negotiate with. He shouldn't delay the health care bill. It's the law and we're opening the enrollment on October 1. We're ready," Clinton said on This Week. They're in better shape now than the country was to implement President Bush's drug program, which everybody's forgotten. Go back and look at the polls, even more unpopular than health care reform is now." "So I think that's a non-starter," Clinton said.
And this truth by James Fallows, which we all need to read and understand, since the dishonest pols in the GOEP will try to place the blame for the disaster on President Obama:
James Fallows:Your False-Equivalence Guide to the Days Ahead
As a matter of journalism, any story that presents the disagreements as a "standoff," a "showdown," a "failure of leadership," a sign of "partisan gridlock," or any of the other usual terms for political disagreement, represents a failure of journalism*** and an inability to see or describe what is going on.
For instance: the "dig in their heels" headline you see below, which is from a proprietary newsletter I read this morning, and about which I am leaving off the identifying details. This isn't "gridlock." It is a ferocious struggle within one party, between its traditionalists and its radical factions, with results that unfortunately can harm all the rest of us -- and, should there be a debt default, could harm the rest of the world too."
Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
62 comments:
I do agree with Obamacare is the law and it should be implemented for all Americans, nasty corporations, unions, congress and all then the non entitled commonly referred to as the middle class.
The way it is now it discriminates against the young and the middle class American who works for small business. I thought the democrats were opposed to discrimination or is that only about race.
If exemptions are good enough for congress, unions and big business, why aren't they good enough for the middle class.
The huge majority of Americans don't like obamacare but that doesn't matter to the democrats because this is not about what Americans want, it is about politics and showing up the republicans.
Let obamacare start and implode on it's merits.
The republicans want a year exemption, just like big business, for all Americans. They also want a repeal of the MDET because you can't lower costs by adding taxes, unless you are a yellow dog democrat of course.
5. Congress is exempt from Obamacare. False.
Chain email, Jan. 6, 2013
Even a few sitting lawmakers [AND THE ALWAYS MISINFORMED SKUDRUNNER!] have repeated this claim, but it’s not true.
Congress is not exempt from Obamacare. Like everyone else, lawmakers are required to have health insurance. They’re also required to buy insurance through the marketplaces. The idea is to have lawmakers and their staff buy insurance the same way their uninsured constituents would so they understand what their constituents have to deal with.
Most Americans who already get insurance through work are left alone under the law; members of Congress have insurance through work but are treated differently in this regard.
Recently, a rule was added so that lawmakers’ could keep the traditional employer contribution to their coverage. But they weren’t exempt from requirements that other Americans face. We rated this claim False.
Number 5 on 10 Myths about Obamacare, from PolitiFact.com
That should be "16 myths" about Obama care.
skudrunner again deposits rumors, lies, and misinformation; doesn't back any of his claims up; expects people who read his comments to believe what he's written because...why?
Here's more information on misinformation, distortions, and just plain lies by the GOP and their lackeys on the ACA.
Unions don't have to comply with Obamacare, says Crossroads GPS.
This is a "PANTS-ON-FIRE" LIE.
We can only guess why folks like skudrunner go to liberal blogs and spread misinformation and lies. Maybe he's being paid by the Koch brothers to do it; who knows. But as you can see, he's not shy about running here and making statements that are false. He's a GOP supporter; maybe that explains it.
More on lies and misinformation--brought to you by Ted Cruz:
via USAToday: REPEATED CLAIMS
We also heard some claims that we have debunked before, including these:
Cruz repeated the false claim that members of Congress are exempt from the health care law. As we have writtennumeroustimes, the law requires congressional members and their staffs to get insurance through the newly created exchanges, so they are not exempt. In fact, the law prevents them from getting insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, like other federal employees. However, the federal government, will continue to make contributions toward the premiums of lawmakers and their staffs — just as most large employers do for their employees.
Cruz said, "Obamacare has a philosophy: empower government over your life, put a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor." But, as we've said, the law doesn't create a government-run system. If anything, the law comes between you and your insurance company, forbidding them from capping your coverage or charging you more based on health status.
Skud makes perfectly good sense this morning, despite the faintly discernible trace of sarcasm, which in this case seems warranted.
No one hom I know on "my" side wants to collapse the entire system. NO ONE! Thats nonsense –– a canard bruited about by Democrats and their RINO allies to justify their own power-mad intransigence.
I realize Senator Cruz's heroic gesture was an exercise n futility –– and so, of course, did he –– but those of us who vigorously oppose this unwieldy, ill-conceived, poorly-cobbled-together piece of legislation that more closely resembles a crazy quilt made from scraps of dirty dishcloths, worn out underwear, and old clothes not fit to be taken by The Salvation Army, do so, because we know full well that once a "law" is enacted no matter how bad it turns out to be it will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be rescinded. We'll be stuck with it from here to Eternity.
The only exception I know to that rule was the revocation of The Volstead Act -- better known as Prohibition." And look at all the harm THAT did before we rid ourselves of it.
If the ACA is the wonderful, blessed, helpful thing Democrats aver, WHY have the president and the rest of that gang of miscreants on Capitol Hill EXEMPTED so very very MANY of their cronies from various pressure groups from its strangling provisions?
If Democrats and their RINO compatriots really have the best interests of The American People at heart, why are they shamelessly sticking it to Middle America while exempting the Ruling Class from this crippling legislation --why are the DEMOCRAT-RINO Alliance trying to BREAK the BACKBONE of America?
F.T.,
I countered skudrunner's misinformation and falsehoods with facts.
Can you back up what you've written, likewise? No fair using World Net Daily.
Thanks.
via CNN Political Ticker:
FACTS:
When Obamacare was passed into law, Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican, attached language to the bill that mandated members of Congress and their staffers would have to buy health insurance on the newly created health insurance exchanges. What nobody accounted for at the time was that members of Congress and their staffers currently have health insurance through their employer – the federal government. No other employer has been legally required to drop its employee’s health care plan and have them buy coverage on the exchanges.
Like most other large employers, the federal government contributes a portion to the premiums of its employees. In fact, like many employers, the federal government pays most of the premiums for its workers; an average of 72 percent on Capitol Hill. The law didn’t account for the continued employer contribution for these federal workers who would now be buying their insurance on the exchanges. The exchanges were designed to help people without health insurance and people with overly expensive health insurance. It became clear that without their employer contribution, members and their staffers would essentially be getting a cut in pay and benefits equal to thousands of dollars. Even Grassley, the provision’s author, had said the government should continue to contribute to lawmakers’ and staffers’ premiums. What the Obama administration has done is ruled that the congressional workers will continue to receive the employer contribution to help them buy their insurance on the exchange.
VERDICT:
False. Congress is no more exempt than any other employer who drops coverage and then helps employees purchase insurance on the exchanges.
Here's a sincere question: How many times and from how many sources do you and skudrunner need to learn that you are repeating misinformation and just plain lies before you finally acknowledge you've been deceived?
Congress is NOT EXEMPT.
Skud, you are implying that politics should be about implementing the will of the people. Really?
Let's just assume that you are being accurate and that while Americans may not approve of the ACA, or "Obamacare" it has nothing to do with the fact that many liberals despise it because it does not have a single pater system, like Medicare. In other words, many people do not like it because it does not go far enough.
In your mind, and based on your comment here where you said , it seems as if you, like Rep Stutzman of Indiana believe public opinion should drive Congressional action.
Did you believe that view when a majority of Americans voted for Al Gore?
Did you believe that view when a majority of Americans thought we should leave GITMO?
Did you believe that view when a majority of Americans thought we should have left Iraq earlier?
Did you believe that view when a majority of Americans elected Barack Obama and reelected President Obama after he campaigned on universal health care?
Did you believe that view when a majority of Americans wanted Congress to pass the Assualt Weapons Ban earlier this year?
Did you believe that view when a majority of Americans said they wanted higher taxes on people with incomes above $150,000.00 a year?
Finally, do you believe that view when a majority of Americans support passing a clean continuing resolution to fund the government and increasing our debt ceiling?
Or, like many conservatives, do you only advocate for the will of the American people when they support your views?
You're a piece of work Skud. You and your increasingly extreme conservative brethren have stood against the will of the people throughout the tenure of President Obama.
To now try and claim the right to speak for America and her people, after opposing the clear views of a majority of Americans starting on day 1 of the Obama Admin is incredible.
Congress and an Exemption from ‘Obamacare’?
Another source that refutes the LIE that Congress is exempt.
What source does skudrunner and Free Thinke have to back up their claim?
So far, I've seen nothing.
Shaw... sorry about my long post above... here's a nice article on the idiocy from Roger Simon...
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/the-frauds-on-the-hill-target-obama-97537.html?hp=l3
Way to lay on the smack down Dave!
Free... no one on "your side" wants to collapse the whole system?
You can't really believe that can you? think about some of the commenters at some of the conservative sites where you comment.
There is no sense that our government should do anything about creating a health care system for everyone.
Their attitude is perfectly summed up in Sen Cruz's response to a question about people getting health care. He said, let them get a job.
Free, I have a job, but my employer cannot afford to provide health insurance to me, or my family. It is a small non profit and that cot would end our work. my wife works part time for the University of Nevada in a granted position, so there is no insurance their either.
Because of some pre-existing conditions, neither my wife, nor I can even qualify for health insurance from private companies. Our applications have all been turned down, or quoted at a rate that is astronomical.
I for one am looking forward to tomorrow. Because tomorrow I can sign up for the opportunity to purchase health care at a reasonable care and know that on January 1, 2014 when I will once again shell out $1500.00 for my wifes monthly prescription, that finally, some of that cost will be born by a health insurance policy.
Really, the only difference between my health care and yours will effectively be this... I will need to petition a private company for reimbursement. Yours, via medicare, will come directly from the government.
Dave, no need to apologize. I have a difficult time understanding people who willfully misrepresent something as important as this health care law for purposes only known to them.
I personally know of two family members who will sign up and finally have affordable health care, something they could NOT attain due to various circumstances that are not their faults.
Both will have a chance now to pay for something that will allow them coverage that they have lacked for years. One of these people has been employed full time, did not have health insurance through the company he/she worked for, and could not afford insurance from private insurance.
This person had some emergency room treatments for possible life-threatening issues, which he/she could not pay--the bills were thousands of dollars--which were passed onto the general public--people like F.T. and skudrunner, who can't put themselves in the shoes of people like the one I've just described--a person, who now will be able to obtain normal preventative health care so that he/she doesn't have to use an emergency room and pass that HUGE liability onto the rest of the people in his/her state.
If only the GOP had worked with the Democrats to make this law less cumbersome and more user friendly, we wouldn't be where we are today.
Unfortunately for America, we have only ONE political party. The other group that has an elephant for a mascot is more like a mob of extortionists, using people, like the person I wrote about above as helpless pawns.
Thank you, Dave, for that link.
Shaw, well said...
I love when people say that no one os denied health care in this country simply because they cannot pay the bill.
While that is technically true, here is how it works and your family members will attest, i am sure to its' accuracy.
If you have no health care and something serious happens, you do in fact, go to the ER. that bill reaches thousands for even the simplest of visits. I had one of these visits a couple of years ago and it cost over $5000.00.
Of course they treated me, gave me my bills and sent me on my way. But follow up care? No one would see me because I could not pay upfront.
Come January 1st, I will finally get the tests that I have long postponed for lack of an ability to pay.
I finally paid my bills to the hospital. Unfortunately, many people in my situation do not have an ability to make those payments, or the bill is just too high.
And in those cases, we all pay in the form of increased premiums, higher costs, etc.
Skud and Free, what is your solution to covering people with preexisting conditions and making quality ongoing health care and insurance available to all?
Do you even believe people should have the right to access the system?
Dave, I'm afraid folks like skudrunner and F.T., and the people who comment over at the conservative blogs you visit detest the idea of the government offering universal health care and want to see the United States continue to be an outlier in the community of civilized nations that, in some form or another, offers people health care.
We are the 3rd most populous country on the planet. If everyone were to be part of an insurance pool, the premiums would be low, and those who have the least but need it the most could be covered.
But we can see what this would mean: it would put the huge insurance corporations that make huge profits from people's miseries and misfortunes out of business.
This is what we are up against and what is driving the resistance from the GOP. Others who repeat lies and misinformation are nothing more than lackeys doing the dirty work of the multi-billion dollar insurance conglomerates.
It's clear to me that those who have had the luxury of being able to afford health insurance throughout their working lives are the same folks who haven't the ability to understand nor the compassion to feel how damaging it is to be without health care in this very rich, very advanced society.
I am relieved to hear that you and your family will benefit from Obamacare, as will the family members I cited in my comment above.
I may not be happy with everything Mr. Obama has done in the past 5 years, but I will be forever grateful for his courage in passing a law that allows people to be able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
Without your health, those pursuits are unattainable.
The conservative bloggers have allowed someone who stole my name and avatar to post in their comments. I've told them that if they link on my name, they will see I started blogging in August 2013.
The fake George Whyte has his profile blocked.
This happened at Dervish Sanders blog, but he caught on very quickly. The conservative bloggers are not as quick on their feet as the liberal blogger. No surprise there.
This is a example of their lying and cheating to stop people from telling the truth. I don't comment on their blogs, only here and at Dervish Sanders blog.
Idon't comment at their blogs because all they do is insult and mock anyone who doesn't conform to their ideology.
This is to let any of your conservative commenters know that unless they can link to my profile they are hosting a damn lying cheating faking fraud--a perfect example of their kind. They can't win arguments with facts, so they attack and mock the commenter.
Disgusting dishonest crooks.
David, Nice diatribe, had nothing to do with the topic but very well thought out.
1. I support the popular vote deciding elections but that has never been the case for presidential elections.
2. I remember this being an election promise that has not been kept by the current president.
3. Another election promise that was delayed by the current president.
4. The majority of Americans are against obamacare because it is a cluster F. This is one of the most corrupt laws ever passed. It was a backroom deal that no one knew anything about but the incompetents in DC voted for it anyway. Americans elected Obama because the GOP are idiots not because Obama did anything.
5. Majority of voters in some states but not nationally, This is and should be a State's issue.
6. Two things on this issue. People making over 150K AGI do pay more taxes. The majority of Americans do not make 150K or above so they have no skin in the game. I favor the Fair Tax that way it is "Fair".
7. I believe that politicians are corrupted by power and they see their role as spending taxpayers money and getting more so they can keep their job. I believe living within your means be it an individual or a government. I also believe in personal responsibility but that is a different topic.
Ms. Shaw
Our elected crooks do have a great taxpayer provided healthcare for life and full salary for life. If you believe they should not have to pay for some of their benefits like most Americans, that is your opinion.
True, congress is not 'exempt' from Obamacare. They just enjoy the good great fortune to work for an incontinent employer stupid enough to pay the ridiculously high employer contribution.
Would that the rest of us be that fortunate! But the reality is, no private entity could be as improvident in its use of funds and remain in business.
Does anyone remember back when dissent was patriotic?
Anon, yes we do remember when dissent was patriotic... but that ended with the Dixie Chicks and opposition to the Iraq war.
That was when one side of the aisle decided to brand anyone against the majority view of the war as UnAmerican.
You want to take a guess as to whether that was liberals or conservatives?
"Does anyone remember back when dissent was patriotic?"
We remember Anon@12:42 how the dissenters in the run-up to the Iraq war were labeled traitors and unAmerican.
As Dave noted in his excellent comment, majority rule and dissent are legitimate and patriotic ONLY when the cons practice them.
Anon: "They just enjoy the good great fortune to work for an incontinent employer..."
I don't believe anyone would find it fortunate to work for an incontinent employer. However, if the employer took advantage of what Obamacare offers vis-a-vis health care, perhaps he could find a way to cure his unhappy condition.
Dave, we were typing the same thing, and you were a few minutes ahead of me.
:)
Skud, you put no qualifiers on your first comment. You simply implied that the will of the people should be respected.
But your comments about Pres. Obama making and not keeping promises fails to acknowledge that the GOP worked to thwart his policy initiatives even when the public clearly supported them.
Like many who take on the "will of the people" mantle, you find a way to not apply the concept universally when you are not in agreement. i.e. gun control, GITMO and the current budget debacle.
You can favor the "Fair" tax all you want, but you cannot deny that a majority of Americans believe that people making more than 150K should pay a higher percentage, and by extension, more, than us working stiffs in the under 50K crowd.
And thanks for the complement, but it was not a diatribe...
Prolixity is not a virtue.
Answering questions with questions does not answer questions.
It's good for us to believe sincerely in the positions we take, but not to confuse our assertions and pet ideas with the Truth.
Facts are to Truth what individual tiles are to a large-scale mosaic.
What may appear to be true from one angle may look entirely different when viewed from another.
.
“... the GOP's kamikaze plan to shut down the government. People who care about this country see the Teapublicans' obsession to defund and ultimately repeal the ACA for what it is: a fool's errand.”
The TeaBagging RepublicanT Party members, their supporters, and their paymasters are being disingenuous. The saddest part is that they know it. They don’t even try to hide the deceit.
The ACA law was written by the people's Congress. The ACA law was debated and amended by the people's Congress. The ACA law was passed by the people's Congress. The ACA law was signed into law by the people's President. The ACA law was declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court.
ACA is the law of the land. If the TeaBagging RepublicanT Party members want to over-turn/change the law, they must go through the Constitutionally proscribe legislative process.
Last November the voters could have elected a president who promised to repeal the ACA by executive fiat on his first day in office. Instead the voters overwhelmingly reelected Barrack Obama. The message to congress, to conservatives, and most especially to the Tea Party extremists, was clear and unequivocal: their philosophy was soundly rejected by the people and the country they claim to represent. ALL OF WHICH, DOES NOT MATTER TO THE REPUBLICANT PARTY!
RepublicanT Party hate USA.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
The Republican House has voted 43 times to repeal Obamacare and it was never repealed. To continue to do the same thing over and over and expect expect a different outcome is the definition of insanity.
This insanity carries over to their desire to shut down the government as a way of coercing the president into carrying out their agenda, an agends rejected twice by the American voters.
What don't they understand about that? Aren't there more important issues the Congress should be addressing rather than wasting their time repeating these acts of insanity?
"The Republican House has voted 43 times to repeal Obamacare and it was never repealed. To continue to do the same thing over and over and expect expect a different outcome is the definition of insanity."
Not at all. It is an example of perseverance in sticking to your principles no matter how unpopular it makes you.
Principled people are NEVER out to win popularity contests.
But...but...Ema! The GOP--the party of God, Country, and Law and Order Patriots--wanted to nullify what the American people voted for, TWICE, and what the SCOTUS ruled constitutional.
What can we say about that sort of narcissistic recklessness.
Right now, the stock market is taking a hit. Stocks are down. Fear is up. The GOP extortionists are creating financial havoc and folks like you and me will be the ones to suffer.
The insurance conglomerates who are financing this travesty (not to mention the lackeys doing their dirty work) will not be affected one iota.
The GOP has made a terrible, terrible calculation in this.
"Not at all. It is an example of perseverance in sticking to your principles no matter how unpopular it makes you.
Principled people are NEVER out to win popularity contests."
If your perseverance involves beating your head against a brick wall, then I don't consider that a virtue; it's lunacy.
There's no legitimate "principle" involved in what the GOP is doing, what they are engaging in is nullification.
Free... you said "Not at all. It is an example of perseverance in sticking to your principles no matter how unpopular it makes you. Principled people are NEVER out to win popularity contests."
Please tell us why, if you really believe that, that when liberals stick to their principles, as they are in the current budget debate and with Obamacare, conservatives do not laud their character and perseverance?
While it might show some gumption and a certain ability to stick to it, we are talking about governing here. When you know the other side is not going to accept your offer, does a good negotiator offer something more agreeable to the other side, or does he double down and offer worse terms?
How are we to govern if negotiation and compromise is not a viable option?
"FreeThinke said...
I said this at PROGRESSIVE ERUPTIONS earlier today. naturally, it was met with the usual "Can you PROVE your unfounded assertions with FACTS?" nonsense."
This was left on a conservative blog...they actually believe that asking for facts to back up an assertion is nonsense...this is why people have no respect for these knuckleheads...that has to be the most crazy-assed statement I've read today...shaw gave several links against what that skudder wrote and proved he was wrong...free tinke says using facts is nonsense.
someone said they're lunatics...the guy who wrote thet facts that don't agree with him are nonsense in the above is a good example of lunacy.
Ms. Kenaw said:
"yes we do remember when dissent was patriotic... but that ended with the Dixie Chicks and opposition to the Iraq war.
That was when one side of the aisle decided to brand anyone against the majority view of the war as UnAmerican.
You want to take a guess as to whether that was liberals or conservatives?"
------------------
So conservatives do a bad thing and liberals follow suit?
That's a poor defense. You might want to rethink it.
Anonymous@2:49 wrote: "Ms. Kenaw said:
"yes we do remember when dissent was patriotic... but that ended with the Dixie Chicks and opposition to the Iraq war.
That was when one side of the aisle decided to brand anyone against the majority view of the war as UnAmerican.
You want to take a guess as to whether that was liberals or conservatives?"
------------------
So conservatives do a bad thing and liberals follow suit?
That's a poor defense. You might want to rethink it."
First of all, Anon, I didn't write that, Dave Miller did.
Second, you're focusing on the wrong thing. We're not calling anyone traitors or unAmerican here.
We're saying that the GOPers in the House and their counterparts on the blogs are trying to undo what the American people voted FOR when they voted FOR Barack Obama in '08 when he said he'd do all he could to get a universal health care law passed; when they voted FOR President Obama over the man who promised to repeal it if he was elected.
The GOPers know that the ACA will NOT be repealed. What they're doing is holding a gun to the country's head until they get their way.
Dave,
Its a Rorschach pattern. Your side views "compromise" as unconditional surrender to your position. Anything less is severely chastised and labelled as "Obstructionism."
I see many remarks here reviling the Tea Party, as though it we some unholy, illegitimate, demonic invention of "The Koch brothers" or a devil-born monster that sprung fully-armed out of the ground.
Well, it DID sprung up from the ground -- as in grassroots. It was a spontaneous uprising all over the country from the many millions of people who, quite rightly, felt "steamrolled" by the thuggishly overbearing tactics of the Pelosi Congress.
A huge number of American citizens felt outraged, almost miraculously got themselves organized, held demonstrations all over the country, marched peacefully-but-determinedly on Washington, and much to everyone's surprise had a PROFOUND impact on the congressional election that year resulting in the routing of many Democrats who had voted to steamroll Obamacare across the Face of the Nation, and an overwhelming majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives.
People in your camp HATE this -- not because there is anything illegitimate about it -- but because it has had an inhibiting effect on your agenda. When The People speak in YOUR favor, you're all for it, but when they speak AGAINST you, their voice has be characterized as hateful, bigoted, illegitimate, cruel, unfair, immoral -- you name it -- and therefore NULLIFIED by any means fair or foul.
It's an old old story, and it never gets any more appealing no matter how many times it gets retold.
What Democrats steadfastly refuse to admit is their patently obvious yearning to see any and all opposition completely eliminated and placed under the sod.
The militantly Self-Righteous stance of the would-be despot can be very intimidating. I can well understand why the few of us left willing to stand up to it and try to face it down could be infuriating to those who share your convictions.
And listen, Anonymess. If anyone wants to know what is going on at so-called Conservative Blogs, they can easily go there to find out for themselves. We don't need Tattlers of your depressing ilk to inform us.
May I politely suggest to everyone try reading what others have to say, and if it doesn't set well with you, then politely try to tell them why.
All this name-calling and these pious orgies of spiteful, self-indulgent, frankly childish rhetoric do no good whatsoever.
Forgive me if I offend anyone here, but I really do believe that EVERYONE should have the right to share his or her views without being shouted down and excoriated.
This is why I cannot abide Bill O'Reilly or any of the others who constantly interrupt and speak over their guests or other members of a panel. I'd rather watch a rerun of Leave it to Beaver than subject myself to that.
Just because "The RIght" indulges in rude, insolent behavior at times doesn't mean that "The Left" should too -- and vice versa. That in my opinion is the crux of everything that has gone wrong in attempting to govern this fair country.
Free Thinke:
"Its a Rorschach pattern. Your side views "compromise" as unconditional surrender to your position. Anything less is severely chastised and labelled as "Obstructionism."
I'm afraid that is just not true:
In January, 2010: Obama holds a meeting with Republicans in Baltimore, where he allows for a candid question-and-answer session in order to hear directly from the opposition and allow them to express their skepticism. A month later, he speaks with Republicans in what will be dubbed the “Healthcare Summit.” Obama compromised his initial plan for a single-payer system, instead seeking a Republican-promoted individual mandate mirroring the one Mitt Romney created as Governor of Massachusetts in the 1990s.
Republican response in October, 2010: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell states that the most important objective of the Republican Party is to make Obama a one-term president, not fixing our budget/debt issues, our broken healthcare, education or immigration systems, and certainly not protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.
4) Obama compromises on 2010 budget deal
In December, 2010: Obama compromises on his previously-stated goal of not prolonging the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy by agreeing to a budget deal. By doing so, Obama provides for the continuation of unemployment benefits to the needy, establishes a payroll tax holiday, renews the inheritance tax, and ensures that the government continues paying its debts.
Republican response by Spring of 2012: Senate Republicans have blocked Obama’s judicial nominees at an unprecedented rate, delaying their being placed on the bench by greater than four times more than Democrats ever did to Bush judicial nominees.
5) Obama compromises on "fiscal cliff"
On January 1st, 2013: Obama once-again compromises on a “fiscal cliff” deal by raising the threshold of the income level for whom taxes would rise from $250,000 to $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families and pushing back sequestration of funds allocated to the military. His deal-making resulted in the Federal government receiving even less revenues than Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner had previously offered to allow.
MORE COMPROMISES HERE
Someone here quoted you as saying putting up facts and evidence is nonsense. But here real evidence of real compromise by Obama and the liberals which cannot be refuted.
With these examples, and more in the link, it is not correct to say Mr. Obama demanded "unconditional surrender." That is blatantly not true.
F.T.:
"I see many remarks here reviling the Tea Party, as though it we some unholy, illegitimate, demonic invention of "The Koch brothers" or a devil-born monster that sprung fully-armed out of the ground."
Other than a comment from George Whyte, that accusation is not correct either. I just re-read all of the comments and no one is calling the Tea Party "unholy, illegitimate, or demonic." Not one commenter.
I don't blame George Whyte for his anger. Someone commenting over at the conservative blog AOW stole his name and avatar and posted a comment pretending he was G.W. He told me in an email that another conservative posting at Dervish Sanders did the same thing to him. How would you expect someone to react when they've been misrepresented like that? His anger is wholly justified, IMO.
As for the claim that the Tea Party was "grass roots," I think that remains to be seen. I remember visiting in Boca Raton on April 15 of 2009 and witnessing a T.P. demonstration downtown, people were yelling "We want our country back!" President Obama had been in office exactly THREE MONTHS, and these folks were screaming that they wanted their country back? Before Mr. Obama took office the drug addict Rush Limbaugh said to his millions of followers that he hoped Obama would fail.
How does anyone account for madness like that?
F.T. "All this name-calling and these pious orgies of spiteful, self-indulgent, frankly childish rhetoric do no good whatsoever."
As I pointed out above, none of that is going on here. It happens, however, over at Geeeez's and AOW's blog where their commenters incessantly talk about me in the most disgusting terms. I think you may have mixed their rude commenters up with mine.
Please re-read this thread and you will see it is pretty innocuous, considering the emotional subject.
Ms. Shaw. I rarely quote the objects of my criticisms directly, instead I tend to interpret the meaning I believe I see above, around, behind and between the lines.
Once upon a time and not so very long ago, people understood the used of figurative language, allusion and analogy. Today, I believe, discourse is being hampered -- even crippled -- by a literalistic, legalistic approach to discussion.
I try not to make direct accusations at anybody, but merely share my perspectives on various issues. If that feels like an accusation at times, I'm sorry, but it can't be helped, unless I were to retreat in silence.
I try to base my thinking on underlying principles rather than allowing myself to get all tripped and mired in myriad specifics.
If you read me correctly, you would see that I am VERY hard on Republicans. In fact I am so disgusted at the quasi-farcical performance of the Republican establishment I have formally disassociated myself from the party. I find them an embarrassment, and have said so in many ways numerous times. here and elsewhere.
That does not mean, however, that I could possibly support the Democrats. In truth I am thoroughly disenchanted with American politics at the federal level.
I've often voted for Democrats, by the way, in LOCAL elections, because in those situations the candidate was far superior, and I had the good sense to see it, admit it, and abide by it. So I am hardly a mindless ideologue -- not that I ever thought you thought I was.
It would be awfully nice if we had access to unbiased sources of information, but Alas! we do not. People quite naturally want to believe what seems to agree most closely with their personal feelings. That's a given. Unfortunately, there are plenty of "sources" quite happy to pander to a particular viewpoint to the exclusion of all others.
Since we are quite literally at the mercy of the DISTRIBUTORS of what-passes-for News and Information, it is unlikely we, the great American Public, will ever get the truth, the whole truth and nothing-but the truth. These gatherers and distributors pick, choose, select, censor, interpret, and thus CONTROL what we the public are PERMITTED to learn.
I, personally, believe it's very likely that we were better off BEFORE the great worldwide media was created.
"If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise," said the poet Thomas Grey in his famous Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.
I have to agree.
ALSO:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing."
The implication of these sentiments are vast, and deserve much sober contemplation.
Mr. FreeThinke said...
"If anyone wants to know what is going on at so-called Conservative Blogs, they can easily go there to find out for themselves. We don't need Tattlers of your depressing ilk to inform us.
May I politely suggest to everyone try reading what others have to say, and if it doesn't set well with you, then politely try to tell them why.
All this name-calling and these pious orgies of spiteful, self-indulgent, frankly childish rhetoric do no good whatsoever."
I heartily agree and congratulate him for saying it. I too am tired of the back and forth tittle-tattle.
We had a pleasant exchange at FreeThinke's this weekend where both Ms. Kenaw and AOW participated, and it was blessedly free of partisan bickering and rabid back-biting.
I wish everyone would remember that we are all human beings beneath our blogging personas.
What's the business about "Congress going on Obamacare?"
The point of the plan is to provide health insurance. Members of Congress already have insurance.
Next thing you know Wal-Mart will pitch in and offer affordable insurance and the right can complain about that.
"Let's Just Say It: "The Republicans Are The Problem."
Of course er would be SO much better off if only we had just the DEMOCRATIC PARTY in America.
One PARTY and ONE ring to bind them all!
Perhaps I am inferring too much here BUT...?
RN,
No one is saying that.
You're being dramatic.
It would be so much better if the GOP were SANE.
Don't people understand that the only TWO TIMES a political party has shut down the government has been under TWO DEMOCRATIC presidents?!!! Is there a pattern here?
It is apparent that the GOP and their minions do not respect the voting public, and that they believe only they should run the government, whether or not the voting public has other ideas.
It is ONE party--the GOP--that has become the hostage-taking party.
The ACA has been voted on by the American people and litigated.
The GOP will not accept this fact.
So they are holding the country hostage until they get their way, which is NOT what the last two elections delivered.
And yet you make it seem as though the Democrats are being unreasonable?
Seriously?
And you claim you're neutral in this?
Take a close look at what you're saying.
No one want ONE PARTY. We just want the opposition to act like responsible opposition, not like kamikaze maniacs.
Did you notice the stock market today?
In just over 2 years, Republicans have been successful in extractingaround $1.7 trillion in budget cuts or 72% of the total deficit reduction over that period. Under President Bush the government never shut down and the debt limit was raised five times with bipartisan support and without conditions.
And RN thinks the Democrats are a problem?
Nope, not concerned. My post today pretty much said it all.
Clarification... RN thinks American political parties are a problem.
I'll sleep well tonight. No time for political melodrama. Yawn.
Oh come on, Ms Shaw! Please stop spouting Shawbboleths, and try not to caricature the opposition in QUITE so grotesque a manner. I just wrote a post at my place saying precisely the same to thing to a "conservative" whose blind chauvinism and cliché-ridden boilerplate rhetoric is an embarrassment to the principles I believe in.
We are not insane. You know that, because you know ME, and I hope you would I agree that I don't deserve to be put into a straitjacket and frog-marched into a padded cell.
My honest opinion is that BOTH parties have been acting very badly over this.
And deny it though you will, it really does seem from where I sit that if the GOP dried up and blew away it wouldn't faze you one little bit.
Of course, IF we disappeared altogether, it would be a very sad day for Democrats, indeed, because then they would have no one to BLAME for the misdeeds of government.
With woodenheaded individuals like John Boehner and that miserable Mitch McConnell, whom we TRUE conservatives call "The Turkey Gobbler," at the helm, it's no wonder the GOP is the flaccid, dull-witted, dyspeptic, pathetic FRAUD that it is.
I will say one thing for us conservatives, however, at least we occasionally ADMIT we have flaws -- something I have NEVER seen from the Party of Perpetual High Dudgeon and Righteous Indignation. ;-)
We DO have our humanity in common, you know -- something of which we too often lose sight when the chips are down.
Underneath all this belligerent ballyhoo and blather LOVE unites us, whether we want to acknowledge its presence or not. If that were not true, humanity would have extinguished itself long before the emergence of Athens.
RN a drama queen?
NO !
F.T., don't you know when your ribs are being tickled?
Moi? I think all the drama is coming from other quarters.
T-56 min. Harry ain't looking too good.
Each side blaming each other (and lying while they do it) as the train wrecks.
Republicans will get the blame. Ouch!
This is not a "train wreck." It is a calculated and well orchestrated political melodrama. The blue monkeys and the red monkeys jockeying for posistion going into the 2014 mid term election
The monkeys will find more bananas.
Calm down drama queen. Train wreck is a common usage NOT inferring it was not planned, but to describe the mess left over. A mess created by Republicans which you supported for decades.
Wow wizard, so very interesting. Keep up the amazing partisam work.
"Partisam?"
Just point out a mistake by you and off you go to LA LA land. Must be a left over of your decades of being a Republican.
More drip from the wiz. Entertaining.
Join reality.
Convenient to blame both parties, especially when the fault lies with the party you have supported for decades. Hurts to be wrong, but man up and learn your lessons.
Further taunting will be deleted.
Please take your fighting elsewhere.
The Management.
Consider it done. I have zero time for imbeciles. Anon is all yours Shaw.
" ... don't you know when your ribs are being tickled?"
I do, indeed, Ma;am. The question is , "Do YOU?" ;-)
The crying need for a bit of levity is everywhere in evidence these days. Remember Shakespeare employed bits of comic relief even in the midst of his most bloodthirsty and lugubrious tragedies.
Post a Comment