elucidator:
Cite?
I agree with Mr. Svin in large measure, and I understand why it’s daunting. Too often on the left we think that people will be swayed by intelligent argument and logic. We seem to continually be in the mode of being shouted down by fucking morons because of our love for ration and logic.
A large factor, however, is that we also have no elected leaders who have the nutsack to do the right fucking thing and to lead on an issue. Look at what the Democrats, including Obama did on the healthcare issue. Handed a majority and popular support, they thought the best thing to do would be to negotiate. Now, you, me and the dog have all been watching long enough to know that the Republicans are now led by a bunch of cunts who you should never negotiate in good faith with. But not out leaders.
Masses of stupid rightards will not be challenged by others in their party or by facts. Only by strength. Strong leadership is what we need. Be a goddamn champion for a position, not a simpering puss, and the message wouldn’t be taken away by incoherent screamers.
So, why has that not happened in Canada, the UK, France, etc., etc.? You know, all the other industrialized democracies that have had UHC in one form or another for a long time.
But, man! That locomotive breath is really bad.
Okay, one more post and then I’m out. (Hi, Rubystreak! ;))
The Democrats haven’t done a good job of floating it because their response to “What’s in it?” is “I don’t know, but we’ve never worked harder on anything in our lives” (Kathleen Sebelius), followed by “We have to do it fast” (by Arlen Specter).
I don’t have time to find the appropriate clip but I’m sure most if not all of you have seen it already. If not, it’s easy to find.
Of course they don’t know what’s in it. Nobody knows what’s in it because there is no settled bill. And therein lies the problem. The Democrats have spectacularly screwed up in the whole way they’ve played this.
Ah, and now we have another addition to the thread’s increasing demonstration of elitism that the left is so well known for. Yep, your opponents can’t possibly have a valid point. Anyone who disagrees with the liberal line is just plain stupid…or unevolved…or EEVIL.
It might interest you to know that in a recent poll, twice as many people said they were stupid, unevolved or evil as opposed to being liberal, so apparently it’s a common condition.
There’s no shame in being a dummy, just in not realizing when you are being a dummy. Humans are occasionally gifted with brilliance and so we are nudged ever further from the banana trees; but, on the whole, we are little more than very clever monkeys.
When the only opponents are incoherent screamers, no, they don’t.
When the people lead, the leaders will follow.
Oh, by the way, hiya, Hentor!
Hope all’s well with you and yours.
SA, can you name a single constructive criticism Republicans have made in the past six months that doesn’t amount to “tax cuts”?
I never thought I’d say this, but I miss William F. Buckley. A dumbed-down thesis can only encourage a lazy antithesis, reducing the quality of their synthesis.
Starving for Attention, I suspect you actually believe thar you are clever, intelligent or provocative.
I pity you.
Dude, I said that if there were an issue that liberals cared about that they may lose on then there woukd be some liberal muppets to point and laugh at. You responded by saying how you thought “most people” would react, and I pointed out that your response was not on point re: the way liberal muppets would react.
Your response above is just bizarre. I don’t know what you think you’re talking about now.
Apologies for the delay. The answer is: Society works best when the government does the least possible.
I’m sure you’ll dismiss that as sloganeering, but it is a fully sufficient and rational reason to not support UHC, even if you disagree with it.
Good to hear from you again. Hope you’re around for a while.
That leaves you with having to define “least possible.”
To me, a government that stands around watching while its citizens drop like flies is doing too little. A government that isn’t protecting its citizens is a government that is useless.
So, what is the “least possible” a government can do? I mean sure, it’s possible for a government to do nothing but exist, but is that a good definition?
We hold these truths to be self-evident. Witnessing? You betcha, its a secular faith, its what makes America a noble and flawed experiment, its what makes me a flag-waving, red blooded All-American radical. Without it, we’re just like all the rest, a bunch of people playing Risk for keepsies. With it, we are the most noble experiment in human history, and if we fail, well, hell, trying sure was a hoot, wasn’t it?
I believe it was Jean-Paul Mill’s seminal work of political science Being, Nothingness, and the State that established that a government the does nothing has elected not to choose, hence, has elected not to exist.
Might have been one of those paranoid German bachelor philosophers. Sounds kinda German, doesn’t it? Pretty sure it wasn’t Heisenberg. No, definitely not.