I agree with most of it
Has any ever seen Mr. Smith goes to Washington with Jimmy Stewart?

 

twofeathers? what part do you not agree with?......

 

,you are the perfect liberal, you people just read everything backwards.

 

I think this is a more realistic look at the poltical make up of Americans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

No you're not. All you did was launch an ad homenim fallacy.

Let's see you dispute or prove anything that Wendell Potter is wrong.

Can't do that can you prtndr?

Wendell Potter is far from an idiot. That is quite clear by what he's accomplished. You just can't stand the fact that he's telling the truth, revealing the greed and corruption of the health insurance industry and you can't refute it so all you can do is personally attack him.

That's pretty lame prtndr.

You're not telling the truth here, prtndr. And if you are you should have no trouble at all posting the statement(s) that rejected Rasmussen "out of hand." Rasmussen is known for a conservative slant.

Also on one Rasmussen poll that recall I actually posted the question as an example of how they can skew their results.

You are very dishonest when it comes to these debates prtndr.

Now as far as today's Rasmussen report I didn't find the exact question they asked. Perhaps you could post that for me and we could see if its really objective.

Report: Most would favor doing nothing to enacting the legislation under consideration in congress:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...reform_better_than_passing_congressional_plan[/QUOTE]

But I think this is a very important finding even by Rasmussen:

This actually says that most Americans favor health care reform and the fact they would have some concerns about what is working its way through congress is very understandable. We'll just have to see how it all shakes out once the final bills are drafted.

I am more than willing, in fact I will gladly take these risks.

OK Ace then you tell me what does "promote the general welfare" mean.

You said as a liberal I'm reading it backwards so you tell me what does promote the general welfare mean?

 

This appears to be a minority opinion prtndr. At least according to these sources.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1c23b53a-883b-11de-82e4-00144feabdc0.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32413483/ns/world_news-europe/

 

But I think this is a very important finding even by Rasmussen:



This actually says that most Americans favor health care reform and the fact they would have some concerns about what is working its way through congress is very understandable. We'll just have to see how it all shakes out once the final bills are drafted.



I am more than willing, in fact I will gladly take these risks.



OK Ace then you tell me what does "promote the general welfare" mean.

You said as a liberal I'm reading it backwards so you tell me what does promote the general welfare mean?[/QUOTE]Willing or not it appears we will all have to face these risks. I know I don't gladly face anything proposed by compromised politicians, regardless of party affiliation

 

You got one hellava mess girls.
If the act is passed, this gives you another insurance company "government ins company" How u gonna set it up?, how long it gonna take? How u gonna set the minute detail, rules regulations etc. ? U can't even agree on this forum who is the biggest prick or twat. How do u expect your elected officials to agree on anything ?

SIMPLE SOLUTION:

Buy the insurance company with the largest national presence so u can add in the 43 million people without having to hire, train, buy every available computer in the country, all from scratch... oh shit u know what I mean. [Like pitter patter, let's get at her.]

Adopt the rules & regulations of some nationalized insurance countries [I am partial to Canada] Then u can let your politicians & beauro-rats review the regulations 1 at a time.

Might take them a decade or two.

 

I wholeheartedly agree!

 

Dispatches from the front

Hey, relax, the government's got it covered - the IRS will be the enforcer for individual health insurance requirements:

https://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/irs-new-health-care-enforcer.html

The Harford Courant wishes politicians would quit blowing smoke and start answering simple questions (good luck with that):

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-rennie-health-protests.artaug16,0,7788821.column

New Hampshire newspapers, both liberal and conservative, slam their congressional delegation for refusing to talk to the people during the current debate:

http://www.nowhampshire.com/2009/08...-to-engage-constituents-during-august-recess/

Obama's vaunted netroots organization nowhere to be found:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/15/health/policy/15ground.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

Reporter looks for the "Brooks Brothers Brigade" of astroturf right-wing organization, and finds only a messy bunch of citizens in t-shirts and ballcaps. Read the final paragraph for a great punchline:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/13/AR2009081304158.html

That wonderful Canadian health care system - "Sorry, but we're out of money. That surgery you wanted to make your life better? fuhgedaboutit. Day care for seniors? fuhgedaboutit. Mental Health care? fuhgedaboutit."


http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fr...utbacks+surgeries+services/1892143/story.html

Finally, the president's Portsmouth health care "town hall" statements fact-checked. Print this one out and hand it to your friends:

http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/hennessey-memo-debating-portsmouth.pdf

Oops, late addition - almost missed this one. The wonderful Peggy Noonan weighs in on the adminstration's actions, and she is not impressed:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574348811502576156.html

 

I think what you are overlooking is that we already have Medicare, Medicad and the Veterans Administration so in essence we've already got everything we need already set up.

Well then you, ShakeZula and I can take heart because the Insurance Companies are more than frothing at the mouth they are beginning to show signs of desperation. Now it could still go either way I have to admit. Especially the senate version of the health care reform would actually benefit the health care insurance industry.

So that's why those of us who do favor REAL reform need to be very vocal with our representatives as well as important members of congress and tell them not to back off.

 

First let me point out the same form of irrational conservative thought that you commit all the time prtndr.

The conservative hallmark is the federal government can't do anything right, and when pressed they will say these things are better off left to the states. Now let's look at the example your author begins with:

See that, he begins with a national or federal initiative, but what does he use as the ultimate example of government inefficiency? Motor vehicle departments which are fun by the states. See, its a direct contradiction.


But more to the point. I can just imagine the howls that would be going up in the conservative quarters if the proposals in congress included a new government agency to monitor health care insurance compliance. MORE GOVERNMENT, MORE BUREAUCRACIES, MORE TAXES. But let them propose a way to do it without expanding government and conservatives howl anyway. Another direct ideological contradiction that reveals what they really are protesting is any kind of change.

Also if we looking for government efficiency I don't think we can find a better example than the IRS.

It's amusing to me that your ideological and political dogma renders you completely blind to what is actually happening. You really haven't been paying attention have you prtndr. Here's the proof. What is president Barack Obama saying about these town hall meetings as he makes a sweep through the conservative pron west? You don't know do you prtndr?

Here ya go:

And as far as the democrats mishandling the debate. No argument there. But since you haven't noticed I'll point out to you that President Obama is making up for that now winning converts and confidence at every meeting he has. The mark of true leadership.

I whole heartedly agree with this editorial. Elected representatives should face their constitutents and they should especially make an effort to meet with those who oppose them and listen and respond to their concerns.

That's what makes President Obama a great leader and politcian because that is exactly what he is doing as we speak.

(I'll get to the rest of these after breakfast).

 

Usually I don't bother with your inanities, but this is just so damn funny.

What a weak argument that is. That's the best you can do, note that he doesn't use a federal organization as his example? Listen, fool. I work for the federal government, and I'll tell you we're more inefficient than a commercial outfit at the same task. Is that enough evidence for you?

I got a solution to the MORE GOVERNMENT, MORE BUREAUCRACIES, MORE TAXES. How 'bout the government stay the fuck out of health care to begin with?

This is just the funniest thing you've ever said. The IRS as the exemplar of government efficiency. That's just fucking hilarious. What a Stumbass. What a maroon.

The One is getting his ass kicked in the media for holding scripted "town halls" with his supporters instead of facing the tough questions his opponents are asking, and continuing to mouth platitudes and make jokes about pulling the plug on grandma instead of answering the public fury and valid concerns. He's a laughingstock.

See above. Better yet, read the Peggy Noonan column I cited. The One has been shown to be an arrogant leftist, playing to the fringe element of his party. Your hero has feet of clay. You have mouth of ass.

 

This is just so damn funny, I have to highlight it again. I haven't stopped giggling since I read it.

 

Allow me to point out your fallacy here prtndr. You say Obama's net roots organization is nowhere to be found. But the story keeps saying "Iowa."

But let me be generous and grant that its hard to get people to turn out for something like this. But that is not necessairly a bad sign. And here's why. Its a well known political fact of life that the majority of people who turn out for something like this are those who are opposed. That's why politicians try to never run bond elections by themselves. The reason is that those against the bond are the ones motivated enough to turn out while those who have no objection to it don't feel that same level of motivation. Its just one of those facts of human nature.

But you can't truthfully say; Obama's "netroots organization nowhere to be found:" I'm part of that organization and you and many others have no trouble finding me.

First, let me point out something to you. In the OP of this thread one of the things Wendell Potter reveals and predicts is how the health insurance does and will funnel huge amounts of money into conservative grass routes organizations through third parties so it can't be traced back to them to fight their battles for them. One of the things that makes him so credible and damaging is one of things he predicted in advance was that the insurance companies would try to create a firestorm of protest within those already politically predisposed to be against any changes.

Second, you really should read more than just the last paragraph before you post something like this which really hurts your argument about the validity of the protesters. If you had you would have seen this:

I would have thought by now that you would have realized this strawdog argument about the Canadian Health care system is a complete dead end. Or at the very least you'd know that if you had been listening to President Barack Obama.

But I'll go ahead and point the fallacy of this thinking one more time just for you. NOTHING IN THE PROPOSALS BEFORE CONGRESS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM LIKE CANADA'S.

I cannot believe I allowed you to waste my time pretending this was a "fact check" of what the president said when it is actually 20 strawdog arguments straight out of the health Insurance lobby and play book.

I will grant that usually on one of your extended rants you do come up with something that is worth knowing and contemplating just like this one. Too bad you didn't read it yourself before posting it. Of course even if you had, which might be the case, since you insist on remaining totally blind to what is really happening you would not know that apparently President Obama is either aware of these past missed opportunities or perhaps even reading things just like this.

These are the very things he's addressed and corrected during his last two town hall meetings in Montana and then yesterday in what I personally know is a conservative strong hold Grand Junction, Colorado.

President Obama has been brilliant in taking his arguments to the oppisition hammpered only by the lack of same who are apparently too cowed or too ideologically blinded (just like you) to even show up.

Let me put it this way. You and those who are only reacting to your own ideological and dogmatic reactionary blindness do not stand a prayer against President Barack Obama. Hide (which you're doing anyway) and watch.

 

I've just got to post this one again. Stumbass, you really need to put this in your signature block - it perfectly protrays one of your most salient characteristics.

 

Stumbler said that! :excited: 2 much... perfect

 

And you would have been much better off if you hadn't this time and I'll prove that to you before I'm done here.

Actually its a very strong argument to point out the oppositions direct contradictions. You can't have a stronger argument than that because contradictions prove the fallacy of the argument.

But, now, this is a very weak argument and here's why. First you completely ignore the points of the argument which is that the other contradiction is that what is being proposed here does not expand government beyond existing agencies and so it remains a contradiction which reveals that the only objection is to any change in the status quo when not even conservatives will argue that our health care system is not unsustainable and must be changed at least in some way.

So all you can do is name call and commit the fallacy of offering your personal anecdotal evidence.

Allow me to point your fallacy here with a single question I've asked you many times and you consistently refuse to answer: Is there anything wrong with our current health care system?

I doubt hardly anyone but you would contend the IRS is not good at what they do especially considering the vast responsibility they are charged with.

But you have lost your chance to debate that point and once again (as usual) discredited yourself and defeated your own argument because all you could do is resort to insults and name calling.

Once again you are speaking from ignorance and wishful thinking because you haven't been following what the president is actually doing. The White House proved their case that the first meeting in New Hampshire was not deliberately stacked. They tried harder to make sure President Obama encountered more opposition in his next too meetings in Montana and Grand Junction Colorado.

If anything they have been frustrated because they have not been able to get the opposition to come forward. But President Obama did get at least a couple of opponents to come forward in Montana and did better in Grand Junction yesterday. That's what the latest news is all about and is once again where President Obama is being able to use his real skills and leadership ability.

He's turning it around prtndr and there's not a damn thing you can do about that except insult, name call and pout.

I read the Peggy Noonan article and already pointed out that she makes some very valid points and those are being heeded and addressed as the debate moves forward.

I always knew President Obama is very human. I was already aware that he and the democrats would make mistakes and they have. In fact Obama has said in advance he would make mistakes and he's actually pretty good at admitting his mistakes when he makes them.

But that is not the really important thing here. Mistakes are inevitable. But they are being made on both sides so the only thing that really matters is if at the end of the debate health care reform gets passed and there is every indication that it will.

BY THE WAY HERE'S SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF PRTNDR.:excited:

While AARP made a point of saying they do not endorse any particular health care reform proposal YET, AARP is runnig commericals in support of health care reform on numerous channels as we speak.

 

I might just start a new thread, call it "The World According to Stumbler", or "Stumbass' Planet". Maybe "Stumbass' Little Red Book of Quotations". This should be the first post. I just can't stop giggling at this.

 

HEY PRTNDR ..........

................ here's a little something I've been saving for you and a few others. And as soon as I say it you'll know its true.

The reason neither you, nor people like Ace, have a chance in this debate is because your not engaged nor involved in the debate. You are simply spouting off your personal reactionary ideology and cherished notions which are easily defeated.

The proof of that is that you are not willing to look at or consider the other side of the issue. In other words I read the things you put up but you nor Ace is willing to consider anything the opposition is saying. And you're not willing to answer questions. And you have to resort to insults and name calling because you can't actually respond to the points raised.

Told ya. All I had to do was say it.

 

Ok you're on prtndr. Put your efforts where your mouth is. Do it.