“Its a common word, something you say every day, say the word and the duck will come down and give you $50.”
I approve of ducks giving away money, that’s why I’m a Marxist…
Just where did that duck gets it’s money?? From the backs of the hard working proletariat, that’s where!
Yup, rolled off the proletariat’s back like water off…
Pursuant to a brief discussion a couple of pages previously, regarding the claim that Stephen Hawking, despite living in England, should be seen as a “poster boy” for private health care, this:
Just to keep the record straight.
I agree that in a debate or lecture environment, shouting one’s arguments over the speaker is a pathetic tactic if we are rational beings trying to make rational choices. Since when are humans ruled by reason and rational debate? These are town hall meetings, not academic forums. Admittedly, the pols are in a Catch-22. Come off as a technocrat and they risk playing the snake oil salesman. Trying to speak simple and direct may appease many, but make those more nuanced suspicious of how a 1000 page bill can be faithfully represented in such a simplistic format.
There are important differences between what the left has done for years and what is happening at these meetings. There is a difference in how the MSM portrays these tactics depending on the political party most closely related to the discussion. For example, outside of Fox News, I don’t recall seeing one outlet that reported the ridiculous behavior on college campuses shouting down the head of the Minute Men, conservative speakers (e.g. Ann Coulter), or former US officials (Richard Perle—albeit not really shouted down to my knowledge but treated with less respect from the audience than Noam Chomsky, his debater). The dominant coverage of Minute Men tended to investigate their moral qualifications to pursue their cause. Are environmental activist groups that occasionally put people’s lives in danger not a major news item? Shouldn’t the substance of their claims be fully vetted, or should we take as fiat that their cause is just because it sounds good to the ear?
There are organized efforts to disrupt these meetings which may generate faux outrage. But there are also legitimately angry people. For no other reason but to expose the arrogance and disconnect in some of the Congressional members I found these last few days quite productive.
We on the Dope may enjoy debating an issue calmly and rationally, but do we not know full well that this isn’t what moves politicians, at least not in the beginning? Compared to almost any other democratic nation, I see the U.S. federal pol as one of the most shielded and least accountable. They almost never have to answer to their constituency except on their own terms. Nice form letters by staffers, 5 minute “one on ones” in the member’s office, or quasi-town halls with prepared questions are hardly the image of robust debate. Complacency has been their greatest friend to the point that we could not, until perhaps recently, even hoist the threat of votes with effect.
A group that has historically low approval ratings should be shown the displeasure in real but non-violent/threatening terms. I think it’s a small price to pay for the power they wield over us. Don’t forget that the vast majority of them seek power rather than assume it from a sense of duty or obligation.
That’s funny… all the illiterate people I’ve come across can afford iPhones and iPods and cell phones and video games. Explain again why can’t they afford books? More BS excuses.
You are wrong on two accounts.
First of all, a state can do anything it wants as long as it’s not unconstitutional as defined by our federal constitution. It is not unconstitutional for a state to create a healthcare program, therefore it can. It is not unconstitutional for a state to create a committee for promoting peanut butter, therefore it can. The federal government is much more restricted. Not only can it not do anything unconstitutional, it is only allowed to exercise the powers specifically enumerated in the federal constitution. Even if all our federal representatives unanimously voted to form a federal committee for the promotion of peanut butter, and the president agreed, it would still be unconstitutional. In other words, it is not allowed to do anything it wants. We have a ***limited ***federal government.
Secondly, a federal program does not give anyone any choice. I like choice. Don’t you? State government programs give me a choice. If I think the programs in one state suck, I am free to move to another state. I like that. (Liberals and socialists are extremely anti-choice. They want to force me to participate in one and only one system. I find that interesting.)
You ain’t from aroun these here parts air ya?
This simply isn’t true. I give myself as a cite.
Who the hell has choice. Your employer determines what policy they will have and you get it. That is what you get . No choice.
Then the health companies have consolidated . That of course limits the employers options. Lose your job and you can buy a Cobra plan or nothing. Hows that for choice. Please sometimes make some sense.
What part of the Constitution says this?
Well, there’s some BS here, alright…
I thought the whole idea behind the “public option” was to give people a choice between their current coverage, private plans, and a public plan.
I thought it was the conservatives who were most vocally opposed to granting people the option of choosing a public plan.
The Tenth Amendment.
So I have the choice and freedom not to get health insurance? I have the choice and freedom to pay a doctor out of my pocket? I have the choice and freedom not to offer health insurance to my employees regardless of anything else? If so, I like your plan. 
Wrong. I have the choice to not use my employer’s plan. I can buy my own insurance, or I can pay out of pocket. The socialists do not want me to have a choice, which is why I label them totalitarian.
Again, varies per employer. Many offer a variety of different plans with different deductible/co-pay levels along with a long list of optional coverage.
Is it the eleventh amendment that says, “The Tenth Amendment shall be interpreted for all manner of law by some schmuck on a messageboard who calls himself Crafter Man and not by the Supreme Court, as the entire freakin’ rest of the Constitution is interpreted”? Because I can’t find it.
It was easy for Jesus because according to the Gospel writer He sent Peter to go and catch a fish and the fish would have the money in it’s mouth for the money to pay His taxes and Peter’s.
For many people {like myself} their reality based budget prohibits them rejecting the plan their employer offers and paying for their own in full. If you have the kind of income that allows you to do that good for you.
You’ll have to be specific about which socialists you’re talking about. I haven’t heard anyone say anything about taking away that choice from you. In fact I hear just the opposite.
Yes - but you really must try harder to distinguish between what the imaginary socialists in your head are saying and actual, well you know, reality.