Diss--the one single goal of any politician--is to get re-elected. This is what is happening right now. Dems know if they pass any bill without a republican present--they don't have a snowballs chance of getting re-elected--regardless of their overwhelming majority.

We have so many career politicians in congress & the senate--that have never owned & operated a business--or even held a real job--it's ridiculous. We keep electing these overly educated FOOLS--primarily lawyers whom were born with silver spoons in their mouths--"this is inclusive of Republicans & democrats" that think they are in touch with real live ordinary Americans.

Until the public is NOT impressed with people who can give a "perfectly pronounced" speech--read from a teleprompter & can accept someone with a different slang & who will studder--& not articulate everything to fine detail--BUT who has operated their own business successfully & who has lived real life
we are going to be watching this organized circus for quite some time to come.

Prove to me that the left doesn't kiss the ring of Jesse Jackson and you may have a point. It's what's called 'damage control', it's what you do when someone who a significant portion of your constituency makes trouble for you.

Political suicide. No democrat could be reelected in any but the most progressive of districts for years if they did so, particularly without republican support. Nobody else to blame it on, y'see.

Still suicide. The public option would not have to compete with private insurers and would drive them out of business and you'd wind up with single payer anyway. Same end result, still nobody to blame it on.

As a minarchist libertarian in favor of states rights, I'd be fine with this in principle, provided there were some way to make sure that the federal government didn't penalize states that had no public option, and provided no federal monies could go to support states with public options at any greater level than they do at this point in time. However, I doubt congressional progressives would agree to that.

Ah, authoritarian BS that the Progressive Democrats and the Neoconservative Republicans, my worst enemies, can both agree on. I'm totally screwed.

Well, technically you're correct, unfortunately, I think you miss the point. They're all authoritarian positions. It's all about forcing their will on someone else. Neither party follows a libertarian governing philosophy any more. They're both all about restrictions and punishments and ever-larger bureaucracy, not securing freedoms. The corruption in Washington runs deep.

I agree they're governing like the pre-'06 fascists. That's because they all subscribe to the same governmental philosophy, and they're all equally greedy and corrupt. The only one who even might be honest about the whole effort is the big O himself, and he's an authoritarian too. He just wants to jam through an authoritarian measure and refine it to his exact specifications later.

__________________

He's come to save the day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

Small steps like what? Obama has yet to make any small steps regarding anything.

FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama

No one has done anything concrete as far as the Fairness Doctrine or limiting gun rights and Anita Dunn isn't a permanent member of Obama's administration.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

Its not more of the same.

Republicans aren't the ones pushing all this socialist shit that you and I have to pay for via taxes. Its not the republicans who are telling the world they are sorry for being American, its not the republicans who are trying to destroy capitalism and expand government.

If it was 10-15 years ago I would say, yeah its the same old shit but its not.

This administration and congress has been out of line since day one. I would take the "same old" over this "hope and change" shit any day.

If Hillary Clinton was president I would probably be "indifferent" and I'll say this, I would take Hillary over Obama ANY DAY if I had to choose between the two.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

I mean, seriously, do I have to look everything up for you. Watch the news, look at the videos shown about Obama. His support for a handgun ban in Chicago, his support for it in D.C., his overall communist upbringing, his marxist views, his government influence in the private markets, it all points in the direction of anti-second amendment.

How can we have any real discussions on this forum if we can't even agree about the obvious truth? The extremely obvious truth?

Obama knows there isn't enough support for this, however, he would cream his pants if he could get enough support to ban guns. Do you remember when he went to Mexico and spread all of those lies about how many of those guns were American? Can you at least admit that?

And no, you don't have to be a mind reader, you just have to not be completely ignoring the truth (like you're doing).

Communist upbringing? Marxist views? If these are your "obvious truths", I don't know what to say.
How were they lies? He said, "This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border." Do you have anything that shows otherwise?
I guess I'm just blind, man! I just need to open my eyes, man!

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

You really haven't done any research on Obama then.


BTW, yes, there are statistics that show otherwise in multiple topics on this forum. He's completely manipulating the debate and it's obvious.


edit: He appointed Van Jones and Anita Dunn. He praises his marxist professors and argues change while presenting radical positions.


Also, how about you prove he's not? I'm tired of "prove it" when it's something you can watch on the nightly news.

I agree with much of what you said except you cant be seriously saying Jesse Jackson has as much influence with the dems as Rush has with the GOP? Be realistic.

Also, I disagree with your claim I quote here. As an example to the contrary, the post office hasn't driven FedEx, UPS, DHL, and dozens of smaller carriers out of business. In fact, most of those companies started while the USPS was the dominant carrier, having been around for a couple hundred years. So its merely a scare-tactic by the party of 'no' to claim that a public option would drive private insurance companies out of business.

Even if they were right, and private insurance went bye-bye, it wouldn't be the first time government stepped in to run things and drove private interests out of business (by mandate, not by competition). One of the first things the GOP led government did after 9/11 was to put THOUSANDS of security screening companies out of business by taking over the entire business of airport security screening. The problem wasn't bad screening either .... the problem was unsecured cockpit doors, policies that allowed small blades to be carried on-board, and general malaise regarding appeasement of terrorists on airplanes. Notice the shoe-bomber got through FEDERALLY RUN security, but the people on the airplane beat the shit out of him. So when are all of those republicans that passed the legislation to take over security screening operations going to apologize and admit they were wrong? A friend of mine saw his business go completely out-of-business literally overnight because of that takeover. He's still doing fine, and in fact is doing better than ever, but he did have to change lines of work.

I'd like to see them then. If Obama was pulling numbers out of his ass (which he's certainly done before so I won't deny the possibility) then I'll have no problem accepting that. He is, after all, a politician and they're prone to doing that often.

What marxist professors? What radical positions? You're just throwing random 'scary' words out and not backing anything up. Your argument is coming down to "Obama is a communist and loves communism and is all about socialist things and wants to do communist socialist marxist things. Can't you see the truth!?!?!!?"

You're the one making the claims. If you believe them as strongly as you appear to, there must be an abundance of evidence that you've used to arrive at these beliefs. In that case, you should be able to back them up with ease.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

Goddamnit Glenn Beck said those things, and he cried when he said them, so they must be true!

Perhaps the tears work as truth magnifiers.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

Actually, I would argue that Jesse actually has more influence than Limbaugh. He organizes protests and voting blocs across the country, most of which receive wide MSM coverage, and actually usually even coverage from Limbaugh himself. This allows him to both directly and indirectly pressure politicians. Limbaugh only has the power to indirectly pressure politicians through his listening audience. Limbaugh has the power to bring greater indirect pressure, but Jackson has more versatility and the ability to bring the hammer down. Politically, he's far more dangerous to cross.

The difference, of course, being that the post office is a government owned corporation, not a government service, and a highly inefficient one at that. The situation as I see it with a public option is this - either:
1) The public option is so inefficient that it allows private insurers to continue to function, and thus requires federal subsidies to continue to function (somewhat like the post office)
2) The public option is able to turn a profit somehow, but not as much as private insurance, and this fact is used to claim that the insurance companies are somehow not tightly regulated enough and is turning objectionable amounts of profit (much as the energy industry), or...
3) The public option forgoes pulling in monies, and simply provides health care, which combined with its likely invulnerability to state statutes regulating insurance, would render it an unfair competitive advantage and likely drive several firms out of business, then slowly slip into horrible inefficiency over the next X years (much as the public school system).

I simply don't see these as desirable outcomes.

But that is part and parcel of my point. The federal government doesn't do that better than private industry. I was in opposition when the federal government took over airport security too. The federal option is generally less efficient and more obtrusive than any competitive private option.

As a side note, I'm not following the Republicans on this, I'm siding with them on it, much like I sided with the Democrats on the Iraq war. I have no loyalty to either party. It's not that I think the GOP is better or more trustworthy than the Dems, it's that I think they're right this time.

__________________

He's come to save the day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94