Yossarian

The Governor is a leftist. He's the guy who vetoed the bill. Most conservatives think taking their monety to pay for tattoos is bad. I'm one of those.

What the heck has happened to our country? The Government now takes money from one sector of society and gives it to people to buy things that many of us consider non-essential to survival. The topper is people using welfare money to post bail to get their butt out of jail. According to Boston Herald, "Patrick slammed his reform-intent rivals for 'political grandstanding' with their efforts to ban Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) buys of tattoos, guns, porn, body piercings, jewelry, fines and bail." EBTs are the vehicle used by Massachusetts to give cash to people truly in need as well as welfare queens. I don't get it. Would one of you leftists explain to me why anyone's hard earned money should pay for someone else's porn, tatoos, guns, jewelry, fines, and bail? http://www.bostonher...home&position=0

Well considering that Bill Maher has been cancelled twice, once on ABC and again on (god what's the other network that axed his worthless arse?) only to resurface on HBO a "network" that has an audience that pays to view programming but has zero say in what said network shows...yes I'd say that Maher survives because of the liberal agenda. Because he clearly can't have a show supported by advertisers because the ratings aren't there. Both Stewart and Maher go after Dems? When? And one time out of a hundred isn't significant enough to warrant "balance." Finally, the whole unemployed liberal attending mid afternoon tapings was more of a joke than anything. Although it does raise the question of why is it that television audiences are predominately left-leaning? Bill Maher labels himself a progressive, not a democrat. He's taken Obama to task a number of times on a number of issues--the drug war, Iraq, Afghanistan, and pivoting away from single-payer healthcare, to name a few. Check out youtube. Where did you get your stat that people who attend tapings are left-leaning? Suppose it's true--I don't doubt it. Could it have something to do with the fact that most tapings happen in California or New York, both of which are pretty liberal states, and both of which are surrounded by other pretty liberal states? This means those with the most frequent, easy access to tapings would probably tend to be liberal. Also they appeal to a younger demographic. Young people tend to be liberal. Compared to Fox News and talk radio, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are bastions of intellectualism. They actually consult sources with academic expertise and feature them regularly on their shows. Compare this with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, perhaps the single most watched show on the cable news market. Every single week he features a ridiculous "Body Language" segment with woo-merchant Tanya Reiman, who might as well break out an astrology chart and begin reading tea leaves, resident genius Bernie Goldberg who unfailingly squawks about the up-to-the-minute bias of the so-called 'liberal media' (which is downright hysterical, considering this is Fox we're talking about), and elevates our national discourse with the insane ravings of Glenn Beck or the incoherent comedic stylings of Dennis Miller. You want to know why people watch Bill Maher or Jon Stewart? As a person who watches them both on occasion, I'll tell you. It's because it's like taking a tylenol that relieves the blistering headache I receive after enduring the likes of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Levin, Savage, and Hannity. Hmmm. You know an awful lot about Fox News.

I like the way he aggressively questions conservatives and then when one of them bites back, he reverts to the "I'm just a comedian" schtick.

Unfortunately, there is a complicating factor, and that is the large number of Korean families that were split up by the Korean War. The South Koreans put a lot of pressure on their Government to try and reunite families while the North Koreans exploit that situation for all it's worth. They (the DPRK) will arrange for families from the south to travel north to reunite with their families for a weekend and then at the last moment cancel the visit based upon a trumped up crisis. I believe that the only reason the PRC supports the DPRK (and it's not much support) is because they don't want the some 20 million North Koreans flooding China should the regime fall. The border between China and North Korea is an open border as far as the Chinese are concerned...all of the guards are on the DPRK side to keep the Koreans out of China. Huge black market across the common border - mostly from Koreans going over to China to work at slave wages and bringing back used clothing and other things not available in North Korea - like food.

My comments were referring specifically to congress which is currently in siege mode. A likely outcome could be the expiration of the Bush tax cuts matched with spending cuts--compromise. MSNBC and their twins at Fox News will not tone down the rhetoric. They're in business to exploit political passion by (intentionally or otherwise) over-simplifying incredibly nuanced issues. Note not every anchor on their respective networks is complicit in this--or wrong on every subject. Generally speaking my larger point is I think our political discourse would be improved if people would treat these networks in particular with greater skepticism. The Black Panther Party is an irrelevant fringe group, almost as irrelevant as polling data asking Americans the hopelessly generic question, "Are we on the right track?" The question assumes the average American's ability to answer the question while offering no criteria on how to measure it. If by 'wrong track' you mean we still have 8.2% unemployment as of today's most recent jobs report, then yeah, we're on the wrong track. If you mean as a civilization where poverty has declined more in the last fifty years than in the last five hundred, that violence has drastically declined, that we've doubled our life expectancy in about a century, and that we're constantly smashing through frontiers in every field of scientific research, then no, we're not on the wrong track. This disgraceful aspect of the Tea Party was that it elevated (again, largely with the aid of Fox News who got in the business of catering to them) political refuse like Sarah Palin--who is still, to this day, sought after for her political opinions, which has to be a product of some kind of derangement--Michelle Bachmann, Alan West, etc. The Occupy movement was less effective politically but nearly as silly as the activist geniuses dressed in the height of 18th century fashion and holding inane picket signs. But as I said, both movements have largely collapsed. Maybe now that the tri-corner hats and V-for-Vendetta masks are tucked safely under the bed we can get back to the part where we actually discuss issues calmly and intelligently. I will cover your Palin, Bachmann, and West, and raise you an Al Sharpton, Van Jones, Lawrence O'Donnell, Jeremiah Wright, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren. If you want to discuss issues calmly and intelligently, I suggest you read"The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes. It addresses The Great Depression and was published in 2001 just before the meltdown in 2008 and resultant so-called Great Recession. Basically, her book outlines the reasons that the Depression in the 1930s lasted for some 12 years - with particular research into the double-dip depression of 1937, which was much worse than the crash. Ms. Shlaes examines the premise that the Depression lasted as long as it did because of the meddling of the Government under the banner of The New Deal, and everything that the Government did wrong in the 1930s is what Barack Obama and the Keynesians are either doing or are recommend doing. One of the most important factors was deflation - the disappearance of money and the resultant crash of the housing market. People couldn't make their house payments and at one point, over 20 percent of house were repossesed by banks. That's why everyone went into shanty towns or took to the road headed west. Investors and business socked their money away because of the uncertainty of tax policies among other reasons. Barter systems thrived and some cities actually issued their own money to be used within the city itself. Also one of the first things FDR tried to do was raise the taxes of the "rich" and even tried to tax "uninvested" after-tax profits. Sound familiar? He also threatened the court and tried to increase the number of SCOTUS justices when the court overturned many of his New Deal programs. Again, take a look at the book. If nothing else, it will give you a sense of understanding how a recession/depression can occur out of fear for the future.

Sounds to me like there is an underlying and unreported political issue at work. In any case, every day that this despicable regime stands is a human rights travesty all over again. The unfortunate reality is it is always the people, the civilians, and the weak that suffer most--not the tyrants. With China at their backs I have no idea what the long-term strategy is to break this government. One would think considering the amazing prosperity of South Korea in the last half-century the North would be running in that direction. No accounting for sanity in a theocratic state, I suppose. Having spent some time in the Land of the Morning Calm, I am of two minds concerning the DPRK. The general population starves while the military and the kleptocrats get fat. The Government needs to be eradicated but the average Kim needs to be cared for, fed, and given a secure place to live and thrive. The DPRK used to send spies south all of the time, but as soon as they saw the lights of Seoul, they realized that everything they had been told about the South was a pack of lies - so they came over to the ROK side. Just recently, the Chinese agreed to take some more DPRK workers - their money will go directly into their Government's coffers, but at least they will get to eat.

I'd take your suggestion a lot more seriously if your avatar were something else.... A Joseph Heller fan with no sense of irony! No way! Actually, you are correct. Now, I have to rethink your recommendation that I watch the "Born Again..." video.

But...but...but, that won't allow the Federal Government to control one-sixth of the U.S. economy, and everyone wants that. You know, take it over and make it work like the Department of Education, DHS, or ATF...

No, no, no. What I was saying is that a point of great frustration for many on the left is that inept Democratic leadership compromised far too much before the legislation was even introduced. While much of the left was clamoring for a single payer universal system like what most real countries have, what was put forward was a giant give-away to the health insurance industry. Single payer was never given any consideration in the futile hope that endorsing what is essentially a Republican solution would get some bi-partisan support. They capitulated before there was ever a fight, and then gave away even more when wheeling and dealing with Senate Republicans like Grassley and Snowe who ultimately voted against it anyway. This is where the Democratic leadership are at their most naive and inept. They think that if they embrace Republican ideas, the Republicans will go along with them, but we've seen time and again that regardless of the issue, Republicans will blindly oppose anything put forward by Democrats (a glaring exception to the norm being when we want to bomb or invade a country). If Democrats adopt a Republican position, Republicans will merely shift their position to something even more ridiculous, and redraw the battle lines. In this environment, Republicans were never going to support anything put forward by this administration, and the Democrats' greatest failure was in compromising before the battle was even joined. Rather than caving as they did, they should have recognized the futility of trying to reach across the aisle. They should have stuck to principles and fought for what the left actually wanted. It might even have been a losing effort thanks to Republican sleeper agents like Nelson, Lieberman and the like, but it would have energized the left for a fight rather than leaving so many frustrated, apathetic and/or disillusioned by a hard fight for what they didn't really want in the first place. What I did not say, though you seem to have interpreted as such, is that only one side was to blame for the bill. This is a failure of the Democratic leadership as much as anyone. Believe me, I think Democrats suck almost as much as the Republicans, and are as guilty as anyone for the problems we have. I generally blame our thoroughly broken and corrupt system for the fundamental problems we have, though. Republican v. Democrat drama is just a distraction. Unfortunately, I don't see anything changing any time soon, so we get to continue operating under the Donkey v. Elephant charade until the country finally crashes and burns. Maybe at least part of whatever reforms after that will be better. Yos - I think this post probably answers your patronizing question too, but in the event that it needs to be stated more plainly for you, yes. I'm saying the Democrats foolishly gave away a great deal in the face of anticipated Republican opposition when they shouldn't have. They did so in hopes of getting a little bi-partisan support that would never come, and to accommodate DINOs like Nelson. Nothing patronizing about my question. I just thought you did not know that the Dems could have passed anything they wanted to - including a piece of crap like the ACA - without Republican votes. And they did. Besides, how would they know what they had given up since none of them knew what exactly was in the bill they voted on? And expecting the Republicans to vote on something the Speaker of the House was ignorant of seems a little bit stupid to me.

I think this is the thing that is most frustrating to those on the left. This is a compromise deal that resulted in health insurance reform, not health care reform. It incorporated every right-wing idea on how to attack (not solve) the problem, handed the health insurance industry a gaggle of gold egg laying geese, and in exchange the left got very little of what they really wanted (single payer universal health care wasn't ever even a consideration). In spite of the left abandoning so much to get so little, we have an apoplectic right wing raging over an imaginary bald-eagle-raping, socialist, freedom-stealing, end-of-America taxapolooza, and fighting what little progress the ACA represents tooth and nail. The only real lesson from this is that there is no compromise to be had with the right wingers - the left can give, give and give some more but when the bill finally passes, the right will still call the left nazi-commie-America-haters and then make repealing the deal the centerpiece of their election campaigns against the left. That's not to say that the opposite doesn't happen to a degree when the tables are turned, but the current right-wing establishment has taken this to a whole new level. I was not aware that the Democrats needed a single Republican vote to pass the ACA in the House or Senate. Are you saying the Democrats compromised to get votes they didn't need nor get?

And that plan, similar to the Affordable Care Act, first originated with the Nixon Administration in 1974, which lacked the individual mandate, but had an employer mandate. LINK But now that a Democrat has passed a law similar to the ones they've had in the works for decades? End of the world. Big Government. Individual Rights. Passing a law and having one "in the works for decades" are two different things. Still, I have decided that it really doesn't matter what happens between now and November - everyone has decided. Do you want more of the same Obama policies or something else. The Obama administration passed the ACA, but has done very little else, and if the 2010 elections are a measure, "something else" might just take the WH, and the Senate, and add to the Republican majority in the House. But then, rejection of the ACA as unconstitutional was supposed to be a slam-dunk, and we know how that turned out. I just want football season to get here.

I suspect that the reference was to all of the "rules" that have not been written for implementation of the ACA some two years after the bill became law.

Does this mean that you buy all of your literature based upon the illustration gracing the cover? Heh...that could be true as far as Bozo-endorsed products go. That's another reason to not buy Obamacare.

Every bill is written by staffers, and every bill regarding executive departments grants latitude in implementing laws. That is the nature of an executive function...I don't understand what the shocking discovery is. It is one thing to vote on a bill that you have never read, but is it too much to ask for a member of Congree to at least know what is in the bill? Nancy Pelosi appeared to not have read it and actually stated that she (and the some members of Congress) didn't know what was in it. I'm not shocked...just disgusted.

I'd take your suggestion a lot more seriously if your avatar were something else....

After Clinton's reform efforts failed, it hurt him so badly politically that health care was not even a topic throughout the rest of his tenure. Then Republicans didn't do a damn thing about it for 8 years besides passing Medicare part D, which was basically a big handout that wasn't funded with new tax revenue or cuts. They have done absolutely nothing constructive for the past 3 1/2 years on the matter. So excuse me if it seems a little disingenuous to say well, there's some good things, but it's a monstrosity. Have you ever read a bill, or part of a bill? It takes a full "page" to express a rule for legal and clear definition reasons, and a full "page" is not a full page of tiny text. It's not fair at all to judge legislation on length. The 2400 "page" health care bill can be summarized in a few pages that almost anyone can understand. The actual text of the bill is more like a programming language; yes it's there to read, and you can act like it's voodoo magic, but the compiled output is much different and easier to understand. If Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, voted to enact the ACA without reading the bill, why should John Q. Public go to the trouble? She actually said, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." and rammed it through the House without reading it. I realize that i am setting the bar very, very low by using Nancy Pelosi as an example, but hey, she was third in line to the Presidency so she has to be brilliant, right?

Yes. And they are also reacting to the letter behind the name of the guy promulgating the bill (D). There would be a decidedly different tune being sung here had a Republican president implemented this kind of healthcare act. Actually, I really do not like the idea of the Government (you know, the guys who were directing the Fast and Furious Fiasco (F3), the spending of $800,000,000,000 on shovel-ready jobs that were not shovel ready at all, and giving Solyndra $500,000,000 when there was evidence that the company was getting ready to go tango-uniform) managing the take-over of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. That is not "manufactured concern" and it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat oir a Republican doing it. The cost of $1,600,000,000,000 over the course of ten years is simply icing on the cake of my concern.

**Y*A*W*N** Got awfully quiet in here for some reason...

Hmmmm... Dallas NAACP wants to kill the Texas Lottery http://www.cnn.com/2...tery/index.html

Apu: Hello Mr. Simpson, I saw you looking at the beef jerky - would you like to buy some. Homer: I'm not buying that crap, Apu. $5.00 is too much for that stuff. Apu: Very well. That will be 35 cents tax.

You're right, but let's not kid ourselves - if this had gone the other way, that griping would be flipped. Same gripe, different party. You are correct, of course, but that still doesn't change the fact that the Federal government taking over a large part of our economy. And we know how that usually turns out.

What selective quotes? I try to break the points that I have questions about to manageable length to address them individually. It seems to be easier to follow a discussion that way. If you disagree feel free to respond with large blocks of text. I request about a dozen warrants in a normal week. Hmmmm...are you a public employee?

As usual, it's hard to tell exactly how you disagree with anyone. Bragging about your job (whatever it is) and how important it is somehow always gets into the thread. I agree with HSKR. Saving lives is important...even if it's a border guard.