Bad Idea, Senator Snowe — You Can’t Play “Nicey-Nice” With The Democrats When You Are A Member Of The Party Of “NO!” Or You’ve Got HELL To Pay…
Alexander Bolton of The Hill (H/T to MemeOrandum yet again) is reporting the infamous “Party Of NO!” is now so confused about whom The AntiChrist really is (at first, they were convinced it was President Barack Hussein Obama), they’re now considering the possibility “She” just might be their Republican Senate Sister, Olympia Snowe, might be that mythical creature for collaborating with the enemy acting in the capacity of a true “Lady” on the Democrats’ healthcare reform issue and actually conversing with and agreeing with them in principle. Of course, utilizing G.O.P. logic (oxymoron? I leave that up to y’all), Ms. Snowe may NOW be their coveted “AntiChrist” but that still doesn’t mean President B.H. Obama isn’t “The AntiChrisp“, does it?
From The Hill:
Do Not Worry Republicans -- Rush Limbaugh Will Keep All The Dittoheads In Line Against Senator Olympia Snowe For Having The AUDACITY To Discuss Issues With Democrats
… A Senate Democrat on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee said Republicans on the panel are threatening to vote against Snowe, who is in line for the senior GOP post that is about to come open.“Wake up,” the Democrat told a reporter last week when questioned if the Republicans would retaliate against Snowe for crossing party lines.
Snowe, a potential swing vote on the Senate Finance Committee, could give Democrats a major boost Tuesday when that panel holds a final vote on Chairman Max Baucus’s (D-Mont.) bill. She could also support the bill in the coming weeks on the Senate floor.
“A vote for healthcare would be something that would weigh on our minds when it came time to vote,” said a Republican on Commerce, who said Snowe would otherwise be assured of the ranking member post if not for the healthcare debate. …
Wow. Nice folks, that Senate Republican bunch, eh? While the vast majority of we bloggers and co-bloggers here at The GTL™ and a handful of other well-known blogs can agree to disagree and treat each other with respect on an issue-to-issue basis, it appears The G.O.P. the Mob in the Senate doesn’t understand that concept…
Just the THOUGHT of these folks having so much power given them by We, The People, is just SLIGHTLY more frightening than the fact We, The People, also support the so-called “opposition party” called the Democrats.
***
Other bloggers weigh in from all sides of the political divide: Drudge Retort (Left), as always, has a colorful discussion going on; Michelle Malkin (Right) predictably joins the G.O.P. Senators in calling Ms. Snowe a “turncoat”; Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice (Centrist) kept up with the action via (almost) live-blogging; Alan Colmes of Liberaland (Left) is also covering this breaking story…
Loading ...
12:57 am on October 14th, 2009 1
No surprise here, but I don’t think Olympia Snowe is that worried about the committee. Also think these Republicans who standing on their angry no, are going to pay for this.
Vote em out!
GawdDayumAmerica Reply:
October 18th, 2009 at 7:43 am
@Amerifawkes, It is the interest on the national debt that makes our future unstable. The exploding size of that burden suggests that, short of devaluing the dollar and taking a large bite out of the middle class through inflation and taxation, there is no way to ever pay down that bill.
As of Sept. 30, 2009, the national debt was almost $12 trillion and interest on that debt was $383 billion for the year, according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. The Congressional Budget Office on Oct. 7 estimated the 2009 budget deficit to be almost $1.4 trillion (about 10% of GDP). In August, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated total government revenues at about $2 trillion. The revenue estimate included $904 billion from individual income taxes. This means the cost of interest on the debt represented more than 40 cents of every dollar that came in from individual income taxes.
WE CANT AFFORD IT. Harry Reid just gave a speech on the floor of the senate saying the true bill for this is going to be 2 trillion dollars………2,000,000,000,000.00
We have to get our fiscal house in order……this is outrageous.
11:32 am on October 14th, 2009 2
The only party of “no” is the the party the socialists and fascists running the government presently are having. “No” debate, “No” compromise, “No” common sense, “No” dissent, “No” accurate or achievable plan to pay for their scheme. “No” intention of allowing any input that doesn’t constitute a single payer scheme. The veil is to thin, Americans see through this. Here is a short list of ideas to actually “reform” the health care industry, presented by Republicans in congress, completely ignored by the leftists hell bent on destroying the most productive, successful health care system…ever.
·~”Pools” of insurance. It would let states, small businesses and others group together to offer lower-cost, health care plans. Such pools would have to offer, at a minimum, any coverage that is provided in a majority of states.
·~Medicaid transfer. It would allow Medicaid users to take the value of their Medicaid benefits and transfer/apply those to a private health care plan instead.
·~Boosting of health care savings accounts. It would increase incentives for people, especially those in lower income brackets or over 55, to build up HSAs.
·~Automatic insurance. It would encourage employers to sign up their workers for health insurance automatically, so that employees would have to “opt out” of coverage if they didn’t want it.
This Republican alternative bill also contains several ideas that are increasingly championed by both parties.
·~Longer coverage for youths. It would allow dependent children to stay on their parents’ policies until they are 25.
·~Promotion of wellness at the workplace. It would encourage employers to reward employees for improved health.
·~Expansion of community health centers.
·~Mobile health care. It would allow Americans to maintain their specific health insurance policies when they lose or leave jobs.
·~In-home care. It would provide financial help and encourage more in-home care over institutions.
·~Limitations on malpractice lawsuits. There is general agreement over limiting such lawsuits, but a deep divide exists over exactly how much.
(cnnmoney.com)
After years of democrats saying no to any reforms of anything, (welfare, housing and lending, social security, and health care). After decades of “No” development of industry, No exploration or development of energy sources, No Building or progress, unless of course it is another liberal yuppie housing development on top of a salmon rearing stream. plenty of those around. Now because the republicans refuse to accept a foolish and expensive government takeover of a private industry that represents a large portion of our economy, suddenly they are the party of “No”.
NO, I don’t think so.
vegofish Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
@vegofish, Just in case anyone wants to check, her a list of bills presented by house Republicans, that the psychotically partisan Pelosi has refused to even be heard on the floor of the house.
H.R. 77; H.R. 109; H.R. 198; H.R. 270; H.R. 321; H.R. 464; H.R. 502; H.R. 544; H.R. 917; H.R. 1086; H.R. 1118; H.R. 1441; H.R. 1458; H.R. 1468; H.R. 1658; H.R. 1891; H.R. 2520; H.R. 2607; H.R. 2692; H.R. 2784; H.R. 2785; H.R. 2786; H.R. 2787; H.R. 3141; H.R. 3217; H.R. 3218; H.R. 3356; H.R. 3372; H.R. 3400; H.R. 3438; H.R. 3454; and H.R. 3478.
I am surprised that you buy into this party of “no” and the “republicans have no plan” BS GTL. It is obviously disingenuous to make those statements. It is very revealing that democrats have had to resort to partisan propaganda, ambiguity, and outright lies to advance their agenda on health care. The full truth would obviously sink their ship before they even cast the lines.
12:52 pm on October 14th, 2009 3
How ’bout those health insurance companies really shooting themselves in the foot, lately? Not only do they pay for and release a report that ran contrary to every other report out there (only to have the accounting firm that compiled it come back and say that it wasn’t accurate and the report itself say as much in the footnotes), but then they went and canceled the insurance for the son of a Blue Dog (who was previously opposed to a public option) over a torn ear drum!
Of course, it was never helping them that the opposition against health care reform is led by an industry lobbyist and a guy who stepped down as his company pled guilty to massive Medicare and insurance fraud. But that aside, it’s like they’ve been beaten unconscious with a stupid stick over the past couple months.
1:16 pm on October 14th, 2009 4
Senators and Representatives should vote according to the will of their constituents. It is not surprising that Olympia Snowe, being from a traditionally blue state, would take the side of the antichrist Obama on this issue. There will ultimately be ‘turncoats’ on both sides of the aisle.
As far as the treatment she is receiving from the GOP, it is much less extreme than the reaction of the Democrats to Sen. Lieberman (who now sports an ‘I’ after his name instead of a ‘D’).
JThompson Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
@Fandb, An excellent point. So you think women that’re raped and locked in a shipping container shouldn’t be able to seek justice in court? I’m guessing since all the people that fought against it were from traditionally red states, that must be what Republicans are in favor of. After all, being allowed to sue your company works against the free market, or something.
I’m referring of course to the 30 republicans that voted against the amendment that Franken put forward. Google Jamie Leigh Jones if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Or just watch the “rape nuts” clip from the Daily Show.
Fandb Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
@JThompson, What the f ARE you talking about?
Is that supposed to imply that you disagree that dems treated Sen. Lieberman worse than republicans have reacted to Sen. Snowe?
PS. I’ve heard the talking points, but NO ONE fought against the rights of any woman or women who had been raped to seek justice in court. That’s what you call “disinformation” and/or “propaganda” being spread by the left.
Kaye Harris Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
@Fandb,
Propaganda? Disinformation?
I beg to differ, Fandb. In the back door policies of some of your Republican heroes, like former Halliburton CEO, Dick (head) Cheny, the issue is Mandatory Arbitration.
Now I’m sure none of the above mentioned 30 republicans would dream of supporting a woman being rape, but guess what…? because this woman signed an arbitration agreement, which is HUGELY supported by members of your party, it took more then 3 yrs for her to even win a civil victory over an employer whom, if they did not actually “allow” this sorta behavior, refused to prosecute the perpetrators:
“…KBR Told Victim She Could Lose Her Job If She Sought Help After Being Raped, She Says.
Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped “both vaginally and anally,” but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers. Her legal saga started after Halliburton failed to take any action against her alleged attackers, and the Justice Department and military also failed to prosecute. Jones then tried to sue the company for failing to protect her. But thanks to an employment contract created during the tenure of former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney, Jones was forced into mandatory binding arbitration, a private forum where Halliburton would hire the arbitrator, all the proceedings would be secret, and she’d have no right to appeal if she lost…”
ABCNews.com
Even though Ms. Jones case has dealt a death blow to mandatory arbitration and helped with the passage of recent legislation that will ultimately ban it all together, I’m sure it will be years before (if ever) this woman finds any real justice.
Thought you might like this:
“On Tuesday night, the Minnesota Democrat got his first piece of legislation passed by the United States Senate via roll call vote. The amendment stopped federal funding for those defense contractors who used mandatory arbitration clauses to deny victims of assault the right to bring their case to court. It passed by a 68-30 (wanna guess who those 30 were?) margin with nine Republicans joining each voting Democrat. And in the immediate aftermath, Franken was granted the chance to revel, ever so slightly, in his victory.”
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/franken-gets-first-amendm_n_312399.html
Fandb Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 11:29 am
@Kaye Harris, As long as you get your news exclusively from left leaning sources, e.g. HuffPo (that would be equivalent to me using World Net Daily as a source), or ABC “News” (aka the All Barack Channel), then you will only hear decidedly left leaning disinformation, much as that which you quoted above. Narrow news views for a narrow mind, I guess.
The 30 republican senators voted against further intrusion of the government into private issues between employers and employees. By the way, generally speaking, arbitration rulings go in favor of the employee much more often than court cases do (about 20% more often according to the National Workrights Institute). When these cases do go to trial, gnerally the Employees are less financially able to hire the most talented legal representation, while the company is in a much better position financially to do so, or may even have its own legal staff. Obviously, this works against the employee. In arbitrations, the employee can usually effectively represent him/herself, but just try that in court – you’ll have a fool for a lawyer. Arbitrations are also much faster, corporate lawyers can drag court cases out for many years, most arbitrations are done in months if not weeks.
The dummycrats voted in favor of further crippling the industrial base of this country as retribution against Dick Cheney – face it, that’s exactly what those democrat idiots were trying to do. Kaye’s comment above demonstrates this – her assumption about what I think of Dick Cheney (which was wrong by the way) reveals more about Kaye, her prejudices, and what the dem’s think of Cheney than it does about anything else, in particular what I think of Dick Cheney.
The language of HR 3326 was much broader than it needed to be in order to address the issue at hand – it was poorly written legislation, unless the intent WAS to make it broader in scope than it appeared on the surface so it would affect all businesses, not just defense contractors or government contractors. That is why 30 intelligent republicans voted against it. Their vote had nothing to do with the rape case. The stupid sheeple democrats probably didn’t read this bill either – they just relied on what Franken TOLD them it said, then they voted. Friggin’ idiots.
The democrats all pretend like they’re voting for the common man or some such crap, when in reality, their vote makes it EASIER for government/defense contractors to tie up any claims inside years and years of extensive and expensive litigation.
So they are either flat out lying to their constituents, or are too stupid to realize the ramifications of a simple vote on a simple bill.
How the hell can they be trusted with something as complicated as national health care?
Gawd, 2010, you can’t get here fast enough. The kids have been playing long enough, it’s time to put the adults back in charge.
Kaye Harris Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
@Fandb, You crack me up Mr. Fandb… Of course, Binding Mandatory Arbitration is fair to one and all. Being striped of my Constitutional right to have a grievance heard in a court of law? What could be so bad about that? Ha!
When a corporation includes a BMA requirement in its contracts it means should one find themselves in a dispute with the contractor, the dispute must be decided by a private arbiter of the CONTRACTOR’S choice, not their own. Furthermore, because BMA clauses are “binding,” one must abide by the decision and forfeit all right to appeal.
Yeah, I like this idea, dang. Think I’ll go right out and start up a new corporation. Think I’ll call it, hmmm, let’s see, how ‘bout Blowin Sunshine Up Your Butt, Inc? Now all I have to do is get a bunch of da’s (dumb asses) to sign a pre-employment contract w/ me, and when my company screws them (sometimes literally) I’ll just whip out my trusty BMA contract. Then I’ll hire me my own personal arbiter, cause remember; they can’t sue my ass… and we all live happily ever after… Because, we didn’t have to pay a bunch of high priced sharks to represent us in a real live court of law… whew! taking a breath now…
Now then, I realize that most of us have already signed a whole bunch of these things w/out even knowing it. Hellfire, there everywhere: health insurance contracts, telephone contracts, car contracts, rental clauses, babysitting clauses, credit cards, bank loans, nursing homes, summer camps, house repairs—you name it. Hey, remember this one from back in July, the Minnesota attorney general sued one of the nation’s biggest arbitration firms, the National Arbitration Forum, after discovering that it had financial ties to debt collection companies that used its services to collect credit card debts. Not surprisingly, the NAF ruled in favor of the credit card companies in virtually every case, and fired arbitrators who sided with consumers.
Did you know that virtually every major consumer group in America opposes Binding Mandatory Arbitration, Fandb? Or maybe that’s just too liberal an idea for you to even entertain; American consumer groups I mean… what may have began as a noble concept, using arbitration instead of the courts to settle many disputes, has developed into a grossly unfair commercial justice system. Some days I have to agree whole heartedly with the author of this here blog when he rants about our American Oligarchy. Corporate Influence unbalances justice, sir.
As to being childish; I have to say, at 50 yrs old, I’m not opposed to being viewed as such. I’ve always seen children as so much more open to the wonder of life & new experiences; open to trying different ways of doing things; hopeful, creative and full of life… So much more exciting then a bunch of change fearing old white men doing dirty deals in backrooms. Or corporate greed mongers who would put a contract before justice for a 21 year old girl who’s been gang raped, locked in a shipping container and had to watch her attackers go free and unpunished for their crimes… Yeah, I really do prefer being child like in my hope & innocence ~big silly kid grins~
Fandb Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
@Kaye Harris, The worst part is, you democrats don’t even realize what your party did to you with this legislation.
Now you get to fight – your lawyer against the corporations lawyers – instead of using an arbiter.
As I said before, employees win more cases that go to arbitration than they do in court.
SJ Reply:
October 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
@Fandb,
This was actually a good discussion until Kaye reverted to the racism/sexism card – what many liberals play when they give up on making a reasoned argument.
Seriously, FandB just pointed out reasonble concerns (along with a few digs at “dumb” Democrats to be fair) from his side about the broad reach (and POSSIBLE unintended consequences) of legislation like this – no matter how well meaning.
Kaye’s response:
White people are bad, White men are even worse (especially if the make alot money and inhabit “boardrooms”). I get it.
Kaye Harris Reply:
October 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
@SJ, Whether you realize it or not, SJ, things like race, sex, sexual orientation, religion and socio-economic status strongly pre-determines which side of the political spectrum one falls on… If you don’t believe that statement, may I suggest that you check out the large body of research available (online even) which examines how these demographics influence voting behavior in the United States.
There’s valid research to support that electoral outcomes in the United States are strongly influenced by inequality between men and women and between whites and nonwhites, with that inequality being rooted in such things as occupational segregation, for example. Republican candidates receive their strongest electoral support in locations where occupations are highly segregated by sex and by race, particularly in settings where segregation is most vulnerable to penetration, i.e. fields dominated by white men who fear loss of status to black men and women.
Furthermore, the agenda of the Right is now enshrined in the Republican Party platform, the result of the takeover of the Republican Party by its right wing. If you were to be honest, I think you would agree it fair to say that the Christian Right now has a stranglehold on the GOP. And from ABSOLUTELY everything I know of the Right, it is non-inclusive. Let me ask you this if I may? How do you feel about Gay marriage? How do you think the other right wingers here feel about it? Inclusive?
It seems unlikely to me that many gay people would support the political party that uses the demonization of homosexuals as a central recruitment theme. It seems equally unlikely that gays would support the party that stonewalled addressing the AIDS epidemic because its bigotry allowed it to demonize those who are HIV-positive. The party that has organized anti-gay referenda across the country seems an unlikely place for gays to park their loyalty.
Now then, you say I’ve played the “race card?” Maybe so. I just find it ironic for a party that always complained about quotas and affirmative action to now find themselves with one. I’m speaking specifically of the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. Since y’all couldn’t get a token woman elected you at least got yourselves a token African American…
Even though your party puts on it’s inclusive face publicly, I really, really believe the Republican Party is not willing to step in to the future just quite yet. It’s true they found a black face to lead the party, but he has literally been a whipping boy for the party’s favorite mouthpiece, Rush Limbaugh, from day one. Now that’s a race card if I ever saw one.
And how about this? Since the election of President Obama, the New York Post (Republican Rag) has published a cartoon depicting the commander in chief as an out of control chimpanzee that had to be put down. A traditional President’s Day display at the Peterson Air Force Base commissary always included a picture of the current president, until this year when complaints were raised about a picture of the current commander in chief. A Republican appointed member of the Staten Island Community Education Council sent around a racist cartoon strip mocking President Obama. In Florida a bookstore display was altered so a picture of a monkey was prominent as the focal point of a selection of books about the new president and stayed that way for days with no complaints. A Republican mayor sent around a picture showing the White House surrounded by a watermelon patch.
Yes, these are isolated incidents and I do know that one should not infer that the Republican Party is racist just from a few examples. But it is clear that the only political party where racists can find comfort is the Republican Party.
When racists hid behind sheets it was an unwitting expression of shame and a desire to hide from a community that may not approve. Now the white sheets are off, and what lies underneath is ugly and destructive. For too long Republicans have gamed the officials, the press, and cowed them into framing any discussion of race in an evenhanded way so as not to appear partisan. But we live in a time where we know that allowing a small minority to grow increasingly angry can lead to terrorism. And I’m not speaking of Muslim terrorist either.
Who knows if Timothy McVeigh had found other avenues for his frustrations and had not found comfort in The Turner Diaries what else he may have done? What if the American Baptist Christians who taunted visiting Muslim students, by stealing their shoes when they went in to pray had any respect for religious liberty? One of those students was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the purported mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
I know that it’s easy to suggest that hate leads to violence; it is harder to predict where one’s hate speech inspires another’s violence. We don’t limit speech in this country for good reason; it stifles debate and the free exchange of ideas. But if hate speech isn’t challenged, if it is filtered through the mainstream media (Fox News) in the desire for fair and balanced reporting it becomes an accepted part of the milieu. Just like here on this blog, SJ, we all have a right to express our opinions.
The way I see it, the Republican Party has a choice, either accept that the world is changing in a positive way, or continue as Luddites refusing to accept that a black man, a woman or a homosexual should have equal opportunity to achieve and succeed in this country. The Republican Party can put a black face out in front and he can attempt to keep a lid on the boiling bigoted, racist rage in his party. But the steam just continues to leak out. At some point he has to turn down the flames or we will all get burned.
SJ Reply:
October 17th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
@Kaye Harris,
Wow, there’s alot in there. Maybe I’m just not that deep of a thinker. I voted for a 3rd party candidate for President in 2008. I voted for 3 parties on the ticket in ‘08. Quite simply, the reason I voted 3rd party was that both main parties are bankrupting the country. I don’t care whether the spending is for war or hungry orphans. If you don’t have it, don’t spend it (or print money in this case). Therefore, I’ll let a Republican respond your post – as most of it for me is irrelevant.
You did ask me a pretty direct question on homosexuality. I do happen to be a Christian and thus homosexuality is clearly a sin per the old and new Testaments (assuming you believe the bible is the word of God – not all those who claim Christianity do). I have not had to deal with this particular sin personally, but I have more than made up for it with others such as pride, covetousness, drunkenness etc. Since we don’t outlaw the sin of pride, for example, there is quite a strong case for not discriminating against homosexuals. After all, God loves ALL people and ALL people are sinners (Rom 3.23). If not Christ would not have needed to die. Of course, we do outlaw stealing, but that is clearly a case when that sin infringes the property rights of the thief’s victims (don’t get me started on eminent domain, ha!). That said, the states should be free to have (or not have) gay marriages (or civil unions). This is of course, as long as they leave churches alone who do not wish to marry gays. Religious liberty goes both ways. Incidentally, faith based initiatives should be eliminated as well. The Feds need to leave churches alone, period.
Kind of hard to sum up complex issues like this in blog commment, but I’ll try to answer if you have any questions.
Now, weren’t you and FandB discussing the merits of the Franken bill?
Steve
Kaye Harris Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
@SJ, My apologies for putting you on the spot, Steve; a terrible way to begin a discussion, especially w/ one who likes to keep it lite, no heavy thinking…. I’m usually much more gracious. Just something about the hot-headedness ‘round here that seems to be contagious.
Fandb Reply:
October 18th, 2009 at 12:19 am
@Kaye Harris, That was very long Kaye. Too bad you used so many words to say absolutely nothing. Everything you accused republicans of can easily be found on both sides of the aisle. If you think that there is no bigotry, no racism, no sexism, no anti-homosexuality, and especially, no HATE on the democrat side then you are truly looking at the world through rose colored glasses. Or, if you re3ally believe that all republicans believe in all the terrible things that you seem to think the republican party represents, then you are simply jaded, and do not see the world clearly.
I won’t even get into what your comments about Michael Steele actually say about you.
Also, just because you assume that I am a republican, does not mean that I agree with every eccentricity of the republican party. In fact, most of my political views are conservative, but I do not claim to be a republican and am not registered as one.
It is not a conservative approach to fiscal matters that get people or governments into trouble.
It is not a conservative approach to government that causes it to grow uncontrollably. (In biological terms, uncontrolled growth is typically called Cancer.)
It is not a conservative approach to race relations that causes violence and hatred.
There are many more examples of the effect a conservative approach has compared to a liberal or radical approach. But in all cases, the true conservative approach produces the least intrusive, and most equitable result.
One thing that I have stated many times on GTL’s blog is that I believe that the only way to solve a problem is to attack the root cause – not the symptoms, not the manifestations, but the root. Quite often, finding out exactly what the root cause truly is is much harder than correcting it once it is found. But that is really the one and only way to really solve a problem.
Kaye Harris Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
@Fandb, Well now, as I’m sure you must realize by now Fandb, I can be rather wordy, especially when I feel passionately about something. Fortunately, it’s been one of those manic Mondays around here so you’ll not to have to suffer yet another long winded reply…Of course, I can’t resist the shortest bit of a come back. ~smiles~
As to the content of my original reply; I feel as though I had plenty to say. Perhaps the reason you read “absolutely nothing” is that you are in fact, a closed minded person. Your reply to my reply seems to illustrate perfectly the attitude of one who hears only what compliments his narrow world view. We both know that a typical response from someone who feels threatened is to try and discredit their opponent… As my opinions and views are obviously in opposition to yours, I’m not surprised that you would choose such a ploy…shrugs.
Furthermore, I lost my rose-colored glasses along time ago, for your information. (Haven’t seen them laying about have you?) Does that make me cynical? Perhaps, but I prefer to think of myself as realistic. And in answer to your question; no, I’m not naive enough to believe that bigotry, racism, sexism, anti-homosexuality, and especially, HATE aren’t alive and well everywhere one looks these days, sadly. I just happen to believe that the people who subscribe to these negative characteristics are much more comfortable on the conservative side of the aisle; we liberals seem to make them very uncomfortable with all of our touchy-feely, hope & change speak. You know, that “all for one & one for all” thing that we “dummycrats,” all like so much…? As opposed to the attitude of, “I got mine, now go get your own,” that conservatives seem to represent…
Now then, within this one comment you’ve accused me of looking at the world thru rose colored glasses, and then, within a few lines, you’ve told me how “jaded” you think I am… Which is it? A little heads up; I’m probably closer to the jaded side then I care to be. Twenty six years as a social worker doing work w/ both victims & perpetrators of violent crime tends to cast its shadow I assure you. However, I still dare to dream, that God, in all her infinite wisdom, has no party affiliation, Fandb.
Happy Monday!
Fandb Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
@Fandb, I’m not talking to myself, the ‘Reply’ link didn’t show up in your post Kaye.
Understandable, I can be wordy too, I just hope I say something relevant when I am.
“We both know that a typical response from someone who feels threatened is to try and discredit their opponent… As my opinions and views are obviously in opposition to yours, I’m not surprised that you would choose such a ploy” — Interesting, because you used the same ploy on me… hmmmmm…
The ‘rose colored glasses’ and ‘jaded’ comments were presented as an either/or scenario — I didn’t try to say you were both at once.
I would strongly disagree that “HATE” isn’t comfortable in the democrat party. Just look at all the Hatred spewing from the left against anything traditional or anything counter to the extreme liberal point of view. HATE isn’t just comfortable in the democrat party, it has found a home there.
I totally agree that God has no party affiliation.
Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
@Fandb, Well friend, I may have been duped by an elaborate hoax , but within the past 10 minutes of researching Franken’s amendment that passed 68-30 seems like a solid report, a good law, and deserving of bipartisan support. I really don’t see any connection between that story and your previous posts so I don’t know why JT framed the question that way. But I don’t really get what the 30 nays where opposing.
Kaye Harris Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
@JThompson, Bravo! Exactly what you said Mr. JThompson!
SJ Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
@Kaye Harris,
Hi Kaye,
I couldn’t reply to you last comment to me as there was not a button. Thanks for being so gracious. I will try to keep my comments short (short as in length, not nastiness ha ha ha) also.
Steve
4:05 pm on October 14th, 2009 5
I would have sworn that I had a post on this thread. Ain’t here now.
Anyway, Didn’t Queen Nancy threaten some Dem members of the lower house when they didn’t want to vote the party line? I seem to recall some committee asignments and chairs being shuffled because some broke ranks. Or at least the threat was there.
5:18 pm on October 14th, 2009 6
I welcome Olymia Snowe’s vote.
Let her stand tall when America Goes bankrupt. Her living legacy will be the only Republican to vote for the demise of America.
STand Tall Ms. Snowe. Or perhaps Obama can send you to China every 3 months to beg them to buy more Tbills to fund this health care fiasco.
Reform to the democrats is a public option that still leaves 24 million uninsured. The reason those 24 million will be uninsured is that those republicans who had nothing to do with crafting the bill and were dont like the poor.
Yeah thats the ticket. The party of NO hates the poor and spends all their waking hours trying to figure out how much taxes they can save Michael Moore next election cycle.
6:46 pm on October 15th, 2009 7
I see the CONS are listing all the GOP talking points here. When look at these points one at a time, they fall apart……with the exception of the cross-state movement and the TORT reform.
I admit that us leftys are JUST as partisan as the hard-right CONS, but when you see what happened today with the Republicans voting down all the risky derivative regulation to protect consumers and the economy at large.
vegofish Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
“I see the CONS are listing all the GOP talking points here. When look at these points one at a time, they fall apart……with the exception of the cross-state movement and the TORT reform.”
Both of which should keystones in any true “reform” of the health care industry, but have been completely ignored by the democrats.
Amerifawkes Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 11:27 am
@vegofish,
I agree these two important items have been ignored by the DEMS, but there is a reason for it. If Obama gets 2 terms I’ll dollars to donuts he’ll be pushing for tort reform.
Give him some time. I don’t believe for a second he is TRYING to “ruin the country”, and I don’t believe he is a whacked out “socialist”. What is is PUSH-BACK. Push back against out of control spending on military whims and the re-regulation of Wall Street and Health Care. (and you KNOW he’s never gonna have the votes to enact a socialist America even if he DID want that)
Generally speaking, the people will do the taking at the polls. If he goes to far left, he’s gonna get tossed in one term. If you goes to far right he would get tossed in one term. If gets to far STUPID he might get 2 terms with the help of some swift-boaters turd blossoms (but that idiot is gone now)
I think Obama (and most importantly his team) are very slippery political animals that know how to play the game. Don’t you want your leaders to be really fucking smart when it comes to dealing with foreign policy.
Obama’s America is a hell of allot better than Bush’s American, or Clinton’s America. If you work hard and have a brain you will still make allot of money, and you will still have an amazing life. What exactly do the true conservatives think Obama’s America is going to take away from them?
6:54 pm on October 15th, 2009 8
You know it makes me wonder where the outrage is coming from the GOP and Republicans when it comes to the health care insurance company greed?
I know the REPs have shown anger about the scam Bush and Paulson started (and Obama finished) with the bailout, but now they blame Obama for the WHOLE deal, and they credit BUSH for any signs of improvement in the economy or the DOW.
Mike 300 spartans Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 10:19 am
@Amerifawkes, Please! I beg any Democrat to have a discussion about greed with me. Tell me, is any greed good? If your answer is no, then why not regulate the pay of everybody and everything? Corporations could be limited to operating costs and the rest can go to the government. Hollywood stars, no more than 20 dollars an hour, 30 per hour after an 8 hour day of standing around waiting for technicians getting the lighting right. Is that what Democrats want? A completely regulated society from top to bottom. (I believe in their hearts their answer is yes but they wouldn’t admit it openly.) So I’m guessing the answer is either No, or partly no. Ok, we won’t have government control greed on all society, just essentials. Essentials like the banking industry-check-got that, education-check-got that, security-check got that (and Rupub support on that one since it is an actual function of the government enumerated in the Constitution of the United States) car manufacturing- check-got that. Energy- no check mark here but working on it with cap and trade. Where does the list end? With health care? Let me ask you, if health care insurance is so wildly profitable why don’t you with other investors open your own health insurance company and become so rich you need all your time managing your money you wouldn’t have time to blog? My answer to my own question is there is so much stinking regulation particularly at state level it stifles competition. It is monstrous volumes of regulation that is precisely the reason that some industries get away with unfettered greed! There we are, back to greed. Of course we need regulation, we can’t let chemical companies dump poisons in our water supplies and we can’t let burger shops sell us ostrich burgers as beef, but free markets and competition are what slams corporations and individuals from getting too greedy. While some degree of regulation is necessary in almost all things, if one industry is truly too greedy and getting away with it, you can be damn sure it isn’t from too much competition. Ok, this post is pretty long, but on the subject of greed, not exhaustive. Bring it on. Tell me how pehaps you think public option is going to bring competition into the industry, or anything else, but lets try to stay on the subject of greed, if you dare.
6:23 am on October 16th, 2009 9
Vegofish: I’m a conservative and you are absolutely right in everything you said. I think the problem has been that too many of us thought that Congress would act in a way that would be in the interests of the United States’ citizens before anything else. Bush was incompetent when it came to domestic stuff. He, like many others, thought the government was the answer and not the problem. Obama, however, is the “anti-Christ” when it comes to government spending. He’s the worst we’ve ever had and the biggest spender we’ve ever seen. Surely you can see by his policies and other things that he is nothing but a redistributionist. He’s bankrupting our country and he’s doing it on purpose from what I can see. I don’t think Bush ever wanted that to happen but I can see Obama is actually doing it. He hasn’t appropriated ten cents into things that would actually stimulate the economy and you must see it. He’s doing something we’ve never seen before in the history of this country and most of us are getting pissed off and aren’t going to take it. You don’t “stimulate the economy” by burdening the people paying the taxes and everybody knows it. You don’t “stimulate the economy” by ignoring small business and everyone knows it. He’s tanking us for a reason and the sooner you realize it the sooner we can do something about it. I hope it was worth it because he’ll be a one term President like Jimmy Carter and he’ll be able to sit back and blame others for it when it was him all along. I voted for Jimmy Carter and quickly found out how bad he was for our country. I hope everyone else figures out that Obama is no different and votes him out of office as well.
11:09 am on October 16th, 2009 10
Sure let us stay with greed, cause it’s a big problem right. First of all, I agree with much of what you have said, and yes I think they should be capping ALL Hollywood salaries, all sports, salaries, and we should tax the rich reasonably. No-one who is a mere contract employee should be making more that 5-10 million a year. If you are self employed (like me) let Capitalism reign BIG TIME. But like you say, there has to be some law and regulation, and there is.
We should TAX the hell out of tobacco companies and booze companies too. You know how they pay for a large percentage of health care in Canada – they tax the stupid. Yep. They tax smokers, junk food eaters, and drunks. Fine, because these people are what cranks health care cost through the roof.
I agree that the insurance companies are not the biggest problem, but when they have the luxury of an exemption from the anti-trust laws (gift from the Congress some 6 decades ago) there is a serious problem. Price fixing has been the result. Don’t you agree that has to be changed. Let’s see how many Repubs vote for that part of the Health Care reform going on.
Letting free market principals reign will only hurt us. It’s simple right. Let the Corps doing ANYTHING they want and they will move all of their jobs overseas into the third world, and our people can starve.
I’m self employed and net over 400,000 a year, and some would call that greedy………I would be HAPPY to pay some more taxes if ALL Americans could have health care.
Communism does not work. Pure socialism does not work. Pure capitalism does not work. What does work is a REASONABLE capitalism that is a combination of capitalism and socialism. The day we had medicare and medicaid we became a socialist country.
Joe Lovell Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
@Amerifawkes,
I keep seeing Canada held up as a shining example of How To Do Things Right. But let’s take a look at it.
Canada has an estimated population of 33,813,000 as of 1300 Easter time today ( http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/clock-horloge/edu06f_0001-eng.htm )
California’s current population is estimated at 38,292,687 as of January 1, 2009 by the California Department of Finance.
US population estimate for July 2008 was about 304 million.
Didjaever stop and think that a system that deals with 34 million just might not work with a population roughly 10 times the size of Canada?
Hells bells (gotta try an’ look up the origins of that phrase some day) – the guesstimates of how many uninsured we have in the US is roughly a third again as much as the total population of Canada.
If you want to look at an equivilant to some of the things being proposed, and I’m not making any politicla judgements here, just using something of ROUGHLY the population of the US and a system somewhat similar to where some of the proposals seem to be heading, look to the medical system in the Soviet Union. Close to 300 million population, and controlled by the government. I know peopel who lived with that system. Universally they say it sucked big brown horse apples. And I want to say again – I am NOT saying here that those pushing the current Dem. versions of health care reform are like the old Soviets, but taking the closest medical system I can think of in terms of population served and government involvement for comparison.
Amerifawkes Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
@Joe Lovell, Yes. I’ve been thinking the same thing regarding the differences in Canadian population and the USA. The Soviet health care system is horrid from what I’ve heard from people who have lived there, and in Canada there are some bad things going down too.
The one thing I love about the American system, if we have worked hard and made some good money, we can go to a hospital for a procedure and get it done quickly.
I have a friend in Canada that had to come south so he could get an operation on a really bad knee, because he was going to have to wait over 7 months for his operation – and it was very painful.
What is good about Canada is everyone has access to operations and care regardless of their financial status. They may have the cheap wood crutches if they are poor, and if you have money you can the nice silver crutches and the more expensive cast. There is a two-tier reality in Canada, and America needs the same sort of thing.
It needs to be that poor people can get the help they need, but richer people can afford some of the extras. I know that doesn’t sound like socialism, but as long as everyone can get heart surgery and a cast put on, it would seem like we have just society.
I think some day we’ll get there.
Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
@Amerifawkes, Ok, I expected more of a fight on this but we can “Agree to agree”
We still have our differences, I actually wouldn’t want Hollywood regulated but like to only argue that when people want government to punish productive and necessary parts of society while letting the more optional parts of society slide. I’m not against some “sin tax” either but the way things sit today, I think we have got enough taxes on everything , it is time to use some government spending restraints. By the way,I’m not saying Republicans don’t reward the rich at times by structuring laws to favor particular friends of theirs, I may not have examples handy, but the point is, if and when that does occur the solution is to de-regulate the advantages away from one group so they will have competition.
Joe Lovell Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
@Mike 300 Spartans, yep. “Something” needs to be done to tweek the system. But I don’t see a government take over of it as the solution. The left, which for 40 years has screamed that the federal government can’t even buy paper clips without screwing it up now say that the federal gov’t will be able to run the entire health care system smoothly, efficently, and fairly.
Tort reform is a major need. Doctors and hospitals need some sort of protection from shotgun suits. And the huge awards when they have exercised due diligence and something still goes wrong (obviously if someone goes in for a vasectomy and gets a leg amputate, the is something where a huge award IS meritied).
Pre-existing condition exclusions another. Also, insurance companies should not be able to drop someone who gets diagnosed for something major because they forgot to list that they had measles as a kid (or similar minor stuff).
I’m not sure what THE answer is. Of if there really is a THE answer. But whatever it is, I have my doubts that the massive government intrusion Nancy and Harry favor is it.
11:31 am on October 16th, 2009 11
P.S. – I like this blog because I know I’m talking to conservatives who are well past the age of 21
and actually have some history and facts to discuss. Excellent.
SJ Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
@Amerifawkes,
Agreed, and welcome! I’m one of the right wingers here although I won’t admit to being a Republican unless the GTL threatens me with another post about perpetual motion machines
I gave up and voted 3rd party in 2008.
It’s great to get some different (and reasonable) perspectives like You-n-Mike as well as Kate Harris-Fanb in the above posts. That’s why I’m usually lurking – and I forgot to mention GTL’s photoshop talent.
Steve
Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
@Amerifawkes, Well past the age of 21! Heck, Joe Lovell directed the artillery attack on Fort Donelson.
Joe Lovell Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
@Mike 300 Spartans, Wrong side there, Mike. Was with the Norfolk Light Artillery Blues under Anderson at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Then under Heth, Garnets Battalion, at Gettysburg.
The NLAB started out as a kind of gentlemans club/militia unit in 1829 (or 1830, depending on the source you use) and other than being disbanded between April 1865 and, I believe sometime in 1867, has been in coninuous service since. Now part of 1st Battalion, 111th Field Artillery. Long proud tradition.
Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
@Joe Lovell, I got the right side Joe- Fort Donelson was attacked by Confederates, I got the wrong unit but the right side. Notice I said “attack on Ft. Donelson”
Joe Lovell Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
@Mike 300 Spartans, I’m thinking of the Feb. 1862 attack by U.S. Grant on Ft. Donelson, just after he attacked and captured Ft. Henry. Last I checked, he was one of the black republican bluebelly damnyankees.
Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
@Joe Lovell, http://americancivilwar.com/statepic/tn/tn012.html—-Feb 3 1863- Sorry I didn’t know tabout the earlier battle.
Joe Lovell Reply:
October 17th, 2009 at 12:21 am
@Mike 300 Spartans, OH, the attempt to liberate it from the thieving yankees. Battle of Dover/2nd Battle of Donelson.
That was a bit of a disgrace, really. 2500 to 800, which was at about the standard 3:1 in attacking a fortified positon. But then taking casualties at a rate of more than 5:1.
My guess would be that while the Confederates had a lot of artillery, most of it was 6 pounder Napoleons, or 12 pounder howitzers. Both with an effective range of about 500 yards. The Federals had 3 inch Parrotts or Ordnance Rifles, with effective ranges in excess of 2000 yards. Let a gun set up at 1000 yards, and either of those guns can put shell on it in short order to take out crews. Or use solid bolts to take out the guns themselves.
Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
October 17th, 2009 at 12:47 am
@Joe Lovell, I picked that one because although the rebs didn’t take it back, according to the notes I read on that battle the artillery had been very good by the rebs in that particular battle of the war of northern aggression.
Joe Lovell Reply:
October 17th, 2009 at 1:15 am
@Mike 300 Spartans, Yeah, supposedly their artillery was used very effectivly. I don’t know a lot about how that battle developed, or why the casualties were so lopsided. The only thing I can come up with is that the federal artillery really cut them apart. Whether with long range shelling, or short range cannister, I can’t say. Or maybe it was just stupid tactics and marching the infantry into the face of the federal infantry fire. Also, then Col. N. B. Forrest said he would not work under Wheeler again.