Thanks for showing your ignorance once again. You are obviously severely challenged in reading comprehension.
No problem. Keep fuckin’ that chicken, Clothy. Keep fuckin’ that chicken.
Huh?
I know that liberals have a hard time with logic, but I’m hoping you’ll be able to stretch and grow with this answer. Best of luck to you.
I understand that the hardcore libs that populate most of this board feel that UHC didn’t go far enough. And that, were the bill to have gone further towards the social dystopia that is the European style nightmare, then they may have picked up some more supporters on the communist left, let’s say.
However, for everyone one of them they picked up, how many independents would they have lost? Don’t you think that the Holy Triumvirate of the liberals, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, engineered a bill designed to get as much support as possible? Don’t you think that they would have lost as many or more for every one they gained?
Now, you can’t think like a liberal here - the question isn’t, “Should we have Universal Healthcare”. It’s one of both pragmatism and the state of the American body politic.
Now, before you go and say something stupid, recommend you read up on the polls as to where the Americans are. The polls have consistently shown that they didn’t want Obama’s sig issue to pass. And they REALLY didn’t want it done unilaterally, with no bipartisan support, and along party lines. That’s not how you pass legislation with such a massive impact as this… not if you want to stay in office.
Obviously they rammed something down the throat of the American taxpayer that wasn’t wanted. They completely misread (or ignored) the early signs (uberBlue Mass and NJ electing GOPers, along w/my state Virginia). This was the first nationwide test of that agenda.
No.
If this election was
as your piece says, then *all *the incumbents would have been whacked.
In reality, the GOP took 65+ Dem seats away from them; the Dems took only 3 from the GOP.
That’s not a reaction against incumbents due to unemployment or financial meltdowns - it’s a repudiation of Obama’s hyperliberal (for America) agenda, as Kraut put it.
lol?
It cracks me up when you guys have to put up the hypebole on anything because you don’t have much substance there so you have to dazzle us with severity I guess.
Nightmare? Really? I’ve actually talked to a decent few europeans in my times from various countries and I’ve never heard one of them complain about their medical system. The results show their outcomes are similar to ours. And they pay much less as a fraction of GDP for them. Which is the nightmare part?
I mean, saying “I don’t think UHC would work here because ____” is one argument, but really, the “european nightmare”? In what way?
Edit: Hyperliberal? Ah, yeah, I guess the world becomes easier to process when hyperbole is added to everything. No need to think about the ambiguous stuff or evaluate anything - anything that doesn’t seem right to you is OMG THE WORST THING EVER SUPER HYPERCOMMUNIST NIGHTMARE.
I mean - really, you can’t even describe his agenda as liberal? It’s not even very liberal, by world standards it’s center-right and by US standards it’s moderate liberal. (His OMG SUPER DUPER HYPERCOMMUNIST health care reform was originally a right wing idea ffs!) But even saying “liberal” might not be hyperbolic enough to reduce the world to utter simplisticity for you, so you jack it up a notch and throw in “hyperliberal”.
I mean, his OMG SUPER DUPER HYPERCOMMUNIST health care reform was a right wing idea from 20 years ago!
Relying on thinking of things in hyperbolic terms indicates to me some serious cognitive failures.
I get so tired of this. The Republicans didn’t just decide all of a sudden and out of the blue that they wanted some sort of government health care plan; rather they felt compelled to come up with something at least a little more palatable than the one being cooked up by our unelected co-president at the time, Hillary Clinton. When her plan crashed and burned the Pubbies dropped theirs.
So what? They must’ve thought it was a good idea if they actively proposed it to become the law of the United States, right? The current hysteria about how it’s a hypercommunist plot to destroy america means that the republicans of the mid-90s were actually plotting to destroy America, right? You can’t play this both ways.
Do you have a shred of intellectual honesty in your entire personality? One tiny shred? You cannot honestly think that the republicans seriously think this OMG WORST PLAN EVER WILL WRECK COUNTRY when it was something they were willing to lend their support to before. It only shows that, like you, they are so blindly partisan that they either can’t think straight or are just evil liars.
Admit it, their position here is untenable as an intellectually honest position. Either they were plotting the destruction of american 20 years ago, or the current plan isn’t the end of the world as they now say.
Did you not say “I do not believe the federal government should have anything to do with healthcare. We need to continue to scale back its involvement until it’s zero.”? I asked why others should act so as to get you your way.
Harmful? Yes. End of the world? No. What it was was something that the Republicans felt would be less harmful than what Clinton was cooking up, the assumption being that if the country was going to be saddled with a government health care system, their plan would be the lesser of two evils.
And I don’t recall any Republican saying that Obamacare would be the end of the world. Hyperbole much?
Sure he can; his head is full of that sparkly greasy etch-a-sketch sand. When he learns a fact that makes him look the fool, he just gives his head a shake and poof! The fact is gone.
What you think the American people should think is one thing. What they do think, the characteristic that you have held out as sacrosanct, is entirely different. All the data shows that Americans want even more UHC than they got. Deal with it, ideolouge. It’s reality.
And do please tell us the “logic” that gets to the majority of America beying “hardcore lib” without exploding. 
See? You’re forced to imagine a different world than the one we live in to support this thing you risibly call “logic”.
Is it really so hard to understand “If this passes, we’re not going to get it right for a long time”? Really? :rolleyes:
Yes, they really didn’t want your guys saying NO to everything automatically. They wanted your guys to show some basic sense of responsibility too. It’s really a shame that they, and you, don’t even understand such a basic concept.
And yet Harry Reid and Barack Obama are still in office. Huh. Amazing, ain’t it?
Only in your Fox-induced dreams, fool.
Now go look up the definition of “logic”, if you don’t want to continue to be a laughingstock here.
Why? With these damn election results, we need something to smile about.
My local results are good. Governor, senator, representative, local districts- all democratic party victories. And I can feel good about it because I went out and canvassed voters. Outside of my zone of control, yeah, I am not thrilled about looking at Boehner for the next 2 years.
Seriously people, voter registration and get out the vote campaigns are big keys to electing democrats. Go out and explain the issues to people. Republican ideas are pretty easy to see through, but a lot of people don’t have internet access and aren’t going over it on a regular basis. Press the flesh!
Meh. I still vividly recall a young lady in tears at Mondale’s losing the 1984 election. Who even remembers that time now?
No matter if they’re on the left or the right, many people’s belief in democracy is contingent on their side winning.
I still have a Mondale/Ferraro placard from a rally I went to that year. Talk about a bad loss. This year is nothing compared to that.
That was the year I learned not to take politics personally, or you’ll have a very unhappy life.
QUOTE=SenorBeef;13108494]So what? They must’ve thought it was a good idea if they actively proposed it to become the law of the United States, right?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because politicians never put a mild version of a bill out there in an attempt to take an issue away from the other side :rolleyes:
(for more insight, see Medicare Part D)
PS yes it was obviously hyperbole, and obviously you weren’t tracking that. I understand that context and nuance can be impossible to decipher on a board, so I forgive you 
We were in the pit so I was just sticking the jab to the vast majority of readers, who are way way WAY to the left of even the mainstream Democratic party in this country.
So if the tactic in order to try to steer away from a plan by your opponents is instead to formulate and advocate your own plan, where was the Republican health plan this time?
You are hypocrites. You are so partisan that if the democrats proposed that puppies are cute you would fight tooth and nail to deny it even if you just said yesterday that puppies are cute. Your goal is not to advanced the political discourse or improve the country, it is to lie and exaggerate and fabricate in order to oppose whatever the other side is proposing.
If the plan will destroy america and ruin health care and all the other shit that’s being flung about, then you were wholly irresponsible to propose it yourselves 20 years ago. If it’s actually a step in the right direction, then you are fucking dickless puppets serving your corporate masters to oppose it so fiercely that you lie to the point of declaring that the government is going to start killing people on purpose.
[quote=“ElvisL1ves, post:292, topic:559326”]
What you think the American people should think is one thing. What they do think, the characteristic that you have held out as sacrosanct, is entirely different. All the data shows that Americans want even more UHC than they got. Deal with it, ideolouge. It’s reality.
QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Um… please to be showing us ‘all the data’… I just showed you the realclearpolitics average, which is pretty damn near unimpeachable. If you don’t want to be a laughingstock, that is :rolleyes:
Reid is mortally wounded, and Obama is nearly so. You know it and I know it. Reid only managed to squeak by thanks to the SEIU thugs who parachuted into town to barely save his worthless ass. And Obama’s agenda is dead. Gone. He’ll limp these next two years, with a much smaller target than he’d like (the Senate won’t be available), and will probably get housed by whoever he faces in '12. The GOP win theme is now obvious - they’ll pass bill after bill in the house, the Senate will reject or stall them, and even if they get passed Obama will veto them. And unemployment will surely still be in the 9’s and houses still underwater and misery still will abound.
…Assuming it’s him and not Hillary of course (not a gimme in my opinion).
By the way, if you don’t take this election as a wholesale rejection of the liberal agenda, what can you possibly chalk it up to? This was a historic asswhupin, a beatdown the American electorate chose to administer at their first (well, second, if you count Brown in Mass and Christie in NJ) opportunity. It couldn’t be more clear if it were delivered by a telegram.
The republicans wrecked the country so badly it couldn’t be fixed in 2 years. The voters’ memories are short and don’t remember it was the republicans who fucked it up in the first place, and so they’re blaming the democrats for not cleaning up the huge fucking mess fast enough and thereby putting the people back into power that caused it. That’s what I chalk this up to.
If the economy rebounded faster and was doing fine now, then the democrats would still hold both houses, despite their EVIL LIBERAL AGENDA.