Harry Reid speaks of slavery and the healthcare debate in the same breath.
I’d say it’s the antebellum slavery supporters who can’t defend themselves (on account of being dead) who should feel insulted, Senator.
Or are you feeling insulted on their behalf?
What’s the problem? This is a lot like the cases he cited. Just another bunch of conservatives digging in their heels on the wrong side of history. UHC is inevitable as is gay marriage, but conservatives are going to see how long they can prevent it from happening, Then the next time they’ll say “sure gay marriage was a good idea, but gay adoption affects more than the two parents”. It was Dems before, and Pubs now, but they are still the same bunch of race baiting, knuckle dragging morons.
Not surprisingly, the first link one gets when googling ‘“Tom Coburn” slavery’, has Coburn relating the campaign against slavery in the UK with his campaign against Pork Barrel spending.
If we’re not going to allow hyperbolic historical comparisons in the US senate, US senators are going to have to scrap half their current talking points.
The common denominator there is that both times it was Conservatives.
I can’t be the only one who chuckled at a thread involving Tom Coburn, Harry Reid, and someone being called a Dick.
Who instructed you to be outraged, Hannity or Limbaugh?
I heard that all the pro-rape Republicans are united in this faux-outrage, Merijeek. That’d include Limbaugh, Hannity and others as well.
I like how the piece tries to imply Reid is some kind of hypocrite because it was Republicans who ended slavery and it was a Democrat who threatened to filibuster against civil rights.
LOL Fox News.
This is ridiculous.
Reid was clearly drawing a specific comparison: in each case, one side was proposing a change, and another was resistin it. He doesn’t say, or imply, that opposing health care is morally equivalent to supporting slavery.
Now, I think there are principled distinctions between the two cases, so that it’s correct to resist this version of UHC. But there’s no call for outrage. The correct response is to highlight the differences between the cases.
It’s a weak and foolish argument on Reid’s part, but it’s hardly offensive.
Hee hee hee… then a Democrat. chortle
No, but invoking a comparison to slavery was an emotional appeal. More specifically, it was race baiting. He could have chosen Social Security, Medicaire, Welfare, or any other number of government programs, but instead he used slavery and civil rights. Oh, and woman’s suffrage, just to throw a bone to another base demographic.
Bullshit. He was not comparing slavery to healthcare. He was pointing out that, no matter how inconsequential or outrageous an issue is, opposing it just to oppose it is bad for the country.
Well, it is Reid we’re talking about here, so that’s par for the course.
Did Social Security and Medicare draw the same sort of opposition that emancipation did?
I, being much less erudite, was laughing at “Harry…Dick.”
Damn those greater than 50% of the population demographics. Maybe he should have talked about the backlash to adding restrictor plates on NASCAR cars.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/history/general/cornignappa.html The fight is not new. We have been talking about health care for about a century now.
Snicker. And you all want people in the government to be in charge of your healthcare…