The massive NYT suck-up to the Tea Party
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
The massive NYT suck-up to the Tea Party
Hey, remember back in late 2002 and early 2003, when tens of thousands of people showed up for several rallies to protest the looming war in Iraq -- suggesting that maybe a pre-emptive war under false pretenses wasn't the best use of American dollars and lives -- and when the American news media was falling all over itself to get the Iraq war protesters to tell their stories, and what their movement in opposition to the president of the United States was all about?
Yeah...me neither.
In that context, the New York Times has just given an extraordinary amount of the most valuable cyber-real-estate in all of journalism to allow 17 supporters of the Tea Party to tell their stories unfiltered, in a feature now getting prominent play on the NYT homepage called "Voices of the Tea Party." As explained by the newspaper:
The New York Times asked supporters of the Tea Party movement to submit videos, up to two minutes long, describing their concerns for the United States and hopes for how the Tea Party could help. Browse their submissions here.
This is not to argue that better understanding the Tea Party movement and its roots is not important -- indeed, I've just spent six months working on a book that will be published in late August that aims to do exactly that. And even a glance at the mosaic of videos is informative as to the face of the Tea Party movement -- it's a cliche at this point, but all 17 of the submitted videos are from white Americans, and the vast majority are middle-aged or senior citizens.
In several of the videos, the complaints are fairly representative -- that Washington is not listening to the majority, that the Obama administration is in some unspecified way violating the Constitution and is steering resources from hard-working Americans to the undeserving, and that Barack Obama has said things that made them uncomfortable. Nancy Ripley, a 74-year-old retired counselor from Apollo Beach, Fla., says that "nobody is taking action for the majority of the American people" and that "we do not want to become a Nanny State"; David Juhl, a 61-year-old trucker from western New York, said he became uncomfortable when Obama spoke "about transforming America into something -- I didn't know what he wanted to transform America into."
And the countervailing voices of the 53 percent of Americans who voted for Obama in 2008, that increasingly silent majority? Whereever they are, they are not in this mosaic of videos or anywhere on the homepage of the nation's most-read newspaper Web site.
Again, it's not that the Tea Party isn't newsworthy. But there's a difference between news and 34 minutes of solicited free advertising.
As noted many times over the years, defensiveness in response to constant accusations of liberal bias is what causes "the so-called liberal media" to bend over backwards and do things institutionally that aren't very liberal at all -- like running unedited videos from only one side of the great American political debate. And when we say one side, remember that the Tea Party is hardly half of the American people -- polls show support for its ultra-conservative views to be largely on the order of 25-28 percent of the electorate, at the most. This backwards bending over increased last year, especially in the wake of the ACORN episode -- which is more than a tad ironic since that story was largely a triumph of conservative misinformation -- and also the Tea Party protests which took the mainstream Big Media outlets by surprise.
Who knows, maybe tomorrow we'll see 17 unedited videos from the Coffee Party.
I'm not holding my breath.
Comments (194)
The internet was different back then and the anti-war protesters did have their say in 2003 and 2004.— palmyra21- The internet wasn't that different back then. C'mon.— F. Harry Stowe
One media company creates the Tea Party and a different one promotes it (one supposedly conservative, the other liberal – if you believe what THEY tell you). It almost looks as if they work together to manipulate the American people, like during the buildup to the Iraq War. Naa, you'd have to be crazy to believe that.— Hamlet- The internet was a lot different then. Between the rise of the blog to the interactivity of the stories to Flash Video. All have improved over the last 7 years. You can go to archive.com to see for yourself.— philsoutthecomment
- For the life of me I can't understand why the uneducated, irrational tea partiers are given so much media attention. They think they are the majority because the only time they have ever left their home town was to protest nonsense.— birds
- Da Librul Mediuh refuses to give conservatives a voice.— E.Plebnista
//and when the American news media was falling all over itself to get the Iraq war protesters to tell their stories, and what their movement in opposition to the president of the United States was all about? Yeah...me neither. /// You're kidding me, right Will? Remember the fawing coverage of Cindy Sheehan, the heart-tugging stories of how she lost her son ans was now protesting against the war? do a LexisNexus search on Sheehan and the NY Times, you'll see hundreds of hits. And regarding the fact that most Tea Party folks are white, why is that SUCH a big deal to you? Time and time again, you imply that All White = All Bad. As if the fact that it is mostly white automatically makes their opinions count less. This is a HUGE logical fallacy of relevance, specifically a genetic fallacy of relevance. The fact that Tea Party attendees may be mostly white, in a mostly white country, in mostly white regions no less, has no bearing on the validity of their opinions. That's like saying "why should I listen to 'dirty f'in hippies?' We all know they're flakes."- ---}}} And regarding the fact that most Tea Party folks are white, why is that SUCH a big deal to you? {{{--- Good point, Bucky. Also irrelevant is when featured speakers at Tea Party conventions call for literacy test for voting. Oh, and don't forget that it is irrelevant that featured Tea Party speakers have called for the government to "control homosexuality" by using executions. It's all irrelevant, Will. Heh!— Talking point sleuth
- Yeah General, the media was so on the anti-war side I'm surprised we went to war (folks, GT lives in an alternate universe).— Hamlet
- ///Also irrelevant is when featured speakers at Tea Party conventions call for literacy test for voting. Oh, and don't forget that it is irrelevant that featured Tea Party speakers have called for the government to "control homosexuality" by using executions. It's all irrelevant, Will. Heh!/// Talk about a straw man argument there, TPS. So if you get one knucklehead saying something at a convention, does that mean it poisons the bunch? Under you're logic, Democrats believe most Indians run gas stations (Hillary Clinton) or Dunkin Donuts and 7-11s (Joe Biden). You're committing a logical fallacy as well. Dicto Simpliciter, a converse accident.
- ///Yeah General, the media was so on the anti-war side I'm surprised we went to war/// Way to move those goal posts, Hamlet. You must get tired from the heavy lifting. No one (neither me nor Will) said that the media was big time on the anti-war side. But Will's point about there being little coverage of anti-war protesters and their stories leading up to the invasion of Iraq by the New York Times is completely, provably false. Go to their web site and look it up if you have to, then tell me I'm living in an alternate universe.
The teabaKKKers are getting ready for the nuts to come out on April 15th. They are even accusing politicians of soliciting folks to show up with racist signs. No need to do that, teabaKKKers have been doing this for almost a year now. And have been crying about "plants" whenver one of their nutty members does something to embarrass even the other teabaKKKers and that bar is set pretty darn low!— Les Ismore
Comment removed.- bp.philly - no, what was pathetic is that puzzy comment coming from an anonymous poster. What do you have against free speech anyway? Why do you hate America?— Les Ismore
- ---}}} So if you get one knucklehead saying something at a convention, does that mean it poisons the bunch? {{{-- Nope, not the whole bunch. Just some of them. And btw, Bucky, these were FEATURED SPEAKERS, who received STANDING OVATIONS.— Talking point sleuth
- And don't forget, Bucky, it is also irrelevant when people make jokes using widely recognized negative racial stereotypes. In fact, it's downright hilarious, as you noted with respect to the joke about Stepinfetchit.— Talking point sleuth
- TPS - did you know our host is a senior fellow at MMfA? I just saw that...that is so cool.— Les Ismore
- This just might make RG's head explode but according to the latest polls, the majority of Americans think they pay the right amount in taxes. http://www.aei.org/docLib/AEIPublicOpinionTaxes2010April.pdf Sheesh, that is just un-American. And dont tell the teabaKKKers until after their big rally, I cant wait to see what is added to teabonics!— Les Ismore
- "the majority of Americans think they pay the right amount in taxes." Gee, lany overlap with the ~50% who pay no federal taxes?— RG
- ///And btw, Bucky, these were FEATURED SPEAKERS, who received STANDING OVATIONS./// So Did Reverend Jerimiah Wright after delivering a sermon declaring "God Da-- America." Who was in that audience... it seems to escape me.
- ///when people make jokes using widely recognized negative racial stereotypes. In fact, it's downright hilarious, as you noted with respect to the joke about Stepinfetchit./// -- And if George Stephanopoulos were black, your thinly veiled charge of racism might actually have some teeth.
- "Who was in that audience... it seems to escape me." Don't you remember? He wasn't there when Wright gave any of his inflammatory sermons. What a coincidence.— RG
- ///Yeah General, the media was so on the anti-war side I'm surprised we went to war/// Let me do that homework for ya, Hammerhead. All from the NYT. 3/23/03 "A Movement, Yes, but No Counterculture" (http://tinyurl.com/y7csulc). This article promoted how diverse racially and socially the protests were. Tells lots of small background stories to support it. 2/23/03 "The Nation: Critical Mass; How Protesters Mobilized So Many and So Nimbly" (http://tinyurl.com/y4h6487) 1/19/03 "Thousands Converge in Capital to Protest Plans for War" (http://tinyurl.com/yyu2trl) Talks about the "diverse coalition for peace" of the marchers, more background stories. I could give you another dozen if you want.
- Might be some overlap but lets remember who these folks are that paid no federal income tax. They are working poor, they are your grandparents also, retired and with no tax liability thanks to ARRA and other tax cuts also. They are also folks who write off a TON of money like the owners of the Dodgers who had income of $108 million and paid no federal taxes. You see, it happens on both ends and everywhere in between.— Les Ismore
- General, I remember Sheehan being treated as a lone voice in the wilderness, a grieving mother who had obviously lost her mind (that’s why she wasn’t treated as unpatriotic – is that the sympathetic treatment the NYT gave Sheehan that you remember?). And there weren’t millions of protestors in NYC just before the war, nooooo! “Trust us, we’re the US news media, not Pravda and we would NEVER lie to you!” Anytime there were protestors after that, the news media had pretend there where an equal number of pro-war protestors on the scene – it was their patriotic duty!— Hamlet
- ---}}} And if George Stephanopoulos were black, your thinly veiled charge of racism might actually have some teeth. {{{--- Good point, Bucky. I'm sure the Jewish people only object if someone calls someone else a cheap money-grubber if the person they're insulting is Jewish.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} So Did Reverend Jerimiah Wright after delivering a sermon declaring "God Da-- America." Who was in that audience... it seems to escape me. {{{--- Well, whadaya know: Bucky trots out a "Mommy, mommy, they did it first" post to defend racist and bigoted featured speakers at a Tea Party ovation that received standing ovations. Never seen that before. Heh!— Talking point sleuth
- Well Bunch, spoken like a true Gimme-crat. I hope that Olbermann and Maddow approved your final copy. You wouldn't want to be ostracized for straying from the party mantra. Amazing that messes like you and the other Gimmes only like free speech that you agree with!— Catch22
- And they are racist, very racist like all racist. Us lefties know that. We are all knowing and not racist because we give them stuff and tha makes us not racist.— rgreen72
General T. fails to recognize that the problem with the media was virtually no coverage of anti-war protests BEFORE the Iraq War, confusing them with protests much later after American soldiers were being killed in increasing numbers (Cindy Sheehan's son among them). I just learned that a recent poll of Tea Party folks revealed that most of them oppose Obama because they think he is taking the wealth of the rich and the middle class (i.e. the Tea Party folks) and giving it to the lower class (i.e. people of color). That's why it is important to note that nearly all the Tea Party protesters are middle-class whites.- Birds comment is telling. Tea partiers are uneducated and irritional? While it's obvious you have no idea about the educational make up of the entire movement, you are perfectly comfortable stating it as a fact. As for irrational, I imagine some are and some aren't. That's probably true of any movement of this size. Those obvious points aside, it seems that you are willing to dismiss their opinions based on unsubstantiated claims about their collective education. That seems kinda like saying someone should be literate to vote. Weird.— pjsz1261
- For a conservative position that often argues the slippery slope, you guys are sure ok with speakers just poisoning a few minds. Also, the undereducated rep that the Tea Party gets are due to sample polling and their signs.— HandNik
if you are ever confused about what to believe, goto factcheck.org to learn the truth. No bs there!!!— selophane43- Say Les, don't know if you've seen this - but Stewart a nice clip here where Stewart makes RG's ideology seem even more laughable than we do here at Attytood. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-13-2010/that-s-tariffic— Talking point sleuth
- Stewart's on a roll: here he takes apart the pathetic Republican "Tea Partiers" who bring out teh crazy.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Will, I can help. The protesters are aware that our irresponsible politicians are spending us into oblivion and aren't representing constituents. Their special interests have ruined the economy. It's the same concept as the Boston Tea Party in 1773---the colonists were protesting an arrogant king who ignored their complaints. Hmm..were those colonists extremists?— Falls Ed
- I have never been to a Tea Party. I am not a Republican. I am white and on the down side of 50. I began to really look hard at how politicians lied and abused the Constitution during the Bush (W) administration. There was no change on 1/20/9 - it was more of the same. For many years I owned a tax accounting firm, and could plainly see the inequities of the way taxes were applied. So, my dissatisfaction with the way people's hard earned wages were being confiscated to fund Haliburton, et al, now makes me an uneducated, pathetic racist?— Mark Glaeser
- An afterthought: Those who are blinded by partisan politics, vainly searching for a "good versus bad" scenario, need to realize that both of the current political parties are responsible for the way things are. Nothing magically changes when the parties shift power. I am old enough to remember LBJ and as time has progressed, I have seen that both the Democrats and the Republicans have greatly contributed to the decline of our Constitutional process. The real power struggle is not between the parties, but rather between the citizens and the politicians, as a whole.— Mark Glaeser
"The fact that Tea Party attendees may be mostly white, in a mostly white country, in mostly white regions no less, has no bearing on the validity of their opinions." . . . . No, it simply suggests that they are mostly white. Were you complaining when the media observed that most blacks voted for Obama? Surely you assumed that had no bearing on the validity of their opinion.- "It's the same concept as the Boston Tea Party in 1773---" . . . Not quite. The Patriots didn't mind so much being taxed as much as being taxed without political representation in Parliament. We each have an elected representative in Congress, exactly as the Patriots desired, and the Framers also gave Congress the power to tax and spend. So, the problem is the institution, not the players. We need a new format for representative democracy that's responsive to people, not arbitrary districts of real estate, or states for that matter.
- Comment removed.
- Thats true langx. In fact they are all crying that their taxes went up under President Obama when in fact, THEY WENT DOWN. That is one of the many reasons why the teabaKKKers come across as ill-informed and uneducated. They just have a "feeling" that taxes went up because Glenn Beck and Rush Limpaugh told them so.— Les Ismore
- Langx gets today's "Chris Matthews Tingle Down the Leg" award"! Obviously another knucklehead who gets his news from John Stewart.— Catch22
- Comment removed.
- Les Ismore... follow the party line like a good little lamb. Keep saying it in hopes it will stick.— Catch22
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- langx... another emotional drama queen. But don't worry. Insult all you want. We'll still help you get through life, considering you're too feckless to do it yourself.— Catch22
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Catch22 said: "Keep saying it in hopes it will stick." hahaha...facts are just an annoying thing to you and the teabaKKKers...too funny. Hey Catch22, dont forget to spell check your sign today!— Les Ismore
- "Helping Americans after Bush's policies cost us 10 million jobs and destroyed the middle class is Un-American." How did Bush's policies cost us 10 million jobs again? Weren't some of those jobs lost after 1/20/09? What have Obama's policies done to improve the situation?— RG
- Comment removed.
- TPS - how come literacy test for voting is so wrong? How can soemo vote for someone when they cannot read or even understnad what someone stands for? Will Bunch is worse then any tea party person because he is constantly posting poison filled one sided articles - liek tea party people are accused of doing - so basically TPS you and Will are no better then the tea party people.— reddog44
- "Federal taxes are at an all time low." Mainly because of the last admin's tax cuts and credits. However, its interesting you left out that federal spending is at an all time high. Maybe the TPers realize that will lead to higher taxes and/or inflationary pressure in the near future.— RG
The NYT is hoping that if they give the Tea Party an unfiltered forum they'll get what they want, which is some loon complaining about Obama's birth certificate, or wishing for a Fourth Reich of some sort. That's how the NYT, and liberals in general, see the Tea Party. They only know the Tea Party based on what their liberal buddies tell them about it. Naturally, this will backfire because liberals know very little about the world around them and the people around them. they see the beginning of the end of their ideology, and they don't know how to handle it. It's ironic that the easiest way to defeat liberalism is to have it put into practice.— jmc- Langx, thanks for that link. I had read about how the Regressives have absolutely no respect for their supporters but I never saw the entire presentation. Pretty amazing stuff but since facts are not in the internal loop they play in their minds, it wont change anything for them. The repugs treat these people like the flying monkeys... I can just see John Bonnner telling them to "go out and do my bidding." Kind of funny but some of the sadly informed people are probably very nice.— Les Ismore
- "In fact they are all crying that their taxes went up under President Obama when in fact, THEY WENT DOWN." But they are going up shortly. "JCT: Healthcare law to sock middle class with a $3.9 billion tax increase in 2019" http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/91669-healthcare-law-socks-middle-class-with-a-39-billion-tax-increase— RG
- jmc, but that is how the teabaKKKers present themselves. Have you ever seen video of these folks? Spawned a new term teabonics for the crazy, ill-informed (and misspelled) signs. It is really funny. But the sad part is that many of these folks really believe that Obama raised their taxes with no proof other than what Glenn Beck told them. And of course all governement programs are evil but dont touch my SS check or Medicare. What it boils down to is they are for SS and Medicare but only for "people like us".— Les Ismore
- Comment removed.
- "But they are going up shortly."...okay, let me know when they do RG. Right now your argument is pure conjecture, sorry.— Les Ismore
- "Bush loses 10 million jobs" Yep, he just misplaced them. You can't point to a policy or decision but rather rely on emotion. If a president can lose jobs, then why can't Obama find them? Oh right, it takes awhile to clean up after a mess. Typical boiler plate talking point.— RG
- "okay, let me know when they do RG." I povided the link to the legislation. How on earth do you think that they'll pay for the deficit? Why do you think that we're hearing more about a VAT? And finally, if taxes are so patriotic, why do you want to pay less while demanding more services?— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "Please explain" The economy moves in cycles, the dot com bust was brewing under Clinton, and just happened to bust as he was leaving office. The housing bubble/credit crisis was years in the making and will take years to rectify. If cutting taxes causes jobs losses, explain booms in the 50's in the US or after Thatcher cut taxes in the UK. "It helped the country go bankrupt." No increased spending did. Clinton never had an actual surplus, it was projected to materialize under Bush. "How come every time the GOP is in office we have a banking crisis." Gee, I thought the typical Dem line was because of the repeal of Glass Steagal, which Clinton signed.— RG
- Uh oh, this could hurt some talking points. "NEW YORK - Tea party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, tend to be Republican, white, male, and married, and their strong opposition to the Obama administration is more rooted in political ideology than anxiety about their personal economic situation, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll."— RG
- Comment removed.
- Can we blame Bush for the state budget issues as well? "More pain coming: State budget gap is $89 billion" http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/14/news/economy/state_budget_gaps/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin— RG
- "..he became uncomfortable when Obama spoke "about transforming America into something -- I didn't know what he wanted to transform America into." . . . . . . Maybe "change" means your diapers.
- RG - Yes, we can blame bush...As the federal budget goes, so goes the states (with a few exceptions of course).— Les Ismore
- "Tea party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, tend to be Republican, white, male, and married, and their strong opposition to the Obama administration is more rooted in political ideology than anxiety about their personal economic situation," Well, that explains everything RG. Its all about socialism, facism and turning America into an Islamic republic, right?— Les Ismore
- "Maybe "change" means your diapers." Or maybe a European state with slow growth, chronic unemployment, aging demogrpahics, and a large debt load.— RG
- "Yes, we can blame bush..." Thanks for the indepth political analysis. Bush clealry twisted their arms to ramp up spending during the good times.— RG
- "nobody is taking action for the majority of the American people" and that "we do not want to become a Nanny State" . . . . . . "mommy ignores my needs" and that "I don't want mommy to take care of me"? Sounds like your typical kid going through puberty.
- Langx... sorry for the profiling but reading your post, I'm assuming you're a 12 year old girl. Shouldn't you be in school now?— Catch22
- A question for RG...How did the US (not Japan) escape the massive debt load after WWII? Did we tax our way out of it?— Les Ismore
- Comment removed.
- "How did the US (not Japan) escape the massive debt load after WWII? Did we tax our way out of it?" My guess is partially. Bu that debt load was the result of military spending that wasn't structural. 80% of the budget went to military spendign back then, so when the war ended, spending went down. Unlike other countries, our infrastrucutre was spared allowing for us to take cetner stage in the global economy. Now, military is only 25% of the budget, and strucutral deficits from entitlements and debt payments are driving the deficit and debt. Much harder to cut both.— RG
- Will, what are you so upset about? The left gets at least 4 + hours a day of free advertising if you count ABC, NBC, CBS nightly news plus the Chris Matthews and Slobermans of the world.— pj katauskas
- Actually with our growth after the war, we GREW out of it. Federal debt rose from $219 billion in 1950 to $237 billion in 1960. But the economy grew, so the ratio of debt to GDP fell, and everything worked out fiscally. Sadly for many Regressives, it appears we are heading into another period of growth (thank you President Obama for your steadfast refusal to follow the Japanese model) and we can expect a combination of growth and RESPONSIBLE fiscal and monetary policy to bring back our economy from the ditch the last administration left us in.— Les Ismore
- ---}}} Were you complaining when the media observed that most blacks voted for Obama? {{{--- The irony of that question to Bucky, MSL, is that in his previous incarnation (as bryanc), Bucky's first posts were about how such a high percentage of black people voting for Obama proves that they are racist. Of course, he had to ignore the fact that the vast majority of black voters had only voted for white presidential candidate in their lives previously. Heh!— Talking point sleuth
- "Federal debt rose from $219 billion in 1950 to $237 billion in 1960." This is a relatively miniscule rise in debt, we've doubled our debt in the last decade plus. Growth can help, but we simply can't grow out of this problem. David Walker, former comptroller, amongst others demonstrates this.— RG
- Comment removed.
- apa, as much as I enjoyed your history of presidents in the last 50 years, I dont see a point you are trying to make. Here is the link http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/the-burden-of-debt/— Les Ismore
- Interesting. The NYT gives some unfiltered coverage to the Tea Partiers and it's a "suck up." What was it when CBS, NBC and ABC each did their "day at the White House" with BO and family not long after the inauguration? Hard-hitting journalism?— pj katauskas
- Les, I hope you aren't comparing the gloabl economy of today to that of post WW2.— RG
- I am referring to the % debt to gnp post WWII and today. I think that % is one of your favorite boogeymen.— Les Ismore
- So what is your point Bunch? If the Tea Party people are the clowns and idiots that you make out them to be, wouldn't it be better for them to be given complete freedom to bury themselves? Are you criticizing the NYT? In this case the NYT is doing exactly what they should do. Report. You continue to be a loser.— abnrgr
- GDP, my mistake— Les Ismore
- "I think that % is one of your favorite boogeymen." You're ignored the drivers of current deficits. Entitlements can't be scaled back easily. When WW2 ended, military spending dropped and has continued to do so. And the global economic landscape has changed considerably. We aren't the only show in town.— RG
- Comment removed.
- "And the global economic landscape has changed considerably. We aren't the only show in town." Thanks for finally acknowledging that point.— Les Ismore
- "Thanks for finally acknowledging that point." When have I stated otherwise? I'm pointing out that just because we "grew" out of military debt from the 40's, it doesn't mean we can do it again. Times, and the nature of the current deficits, have changed— RG
- apa, You are right, America does not need a nanny state. What we do need is a state where people are not excluded from the right to good health because they have a pre-existing condition (for women, this could be the fact that her husband beat her up at one time, yes, insurers consider this a pre=existing condition). We also need a state that allows bankruptcy of good hardworking Americans because they got sick or their child got sick. A very large % of personal bankruptcies are caused by catastrophic illness. We also need a state where financial companies can literally fleece individuals and governments through the use of obscure derivatives and other non-producing financial instruments. And finally, we need a state where we dont send our best and brightest young men and women to fight in a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, WMDs or any of the other "reasons" to misspend trillions of dollars and more importantly, the lives of some of the finest young men and women you could ever hope to meet. If all of this is a nanny state, then SIGN ME UP!— Les Ismore
- apa, You are right, America does not need a nanny state. What we do need is a state where people are not excluded from the right to good health because they have a pre-existing condition (for women, this could be the fact that her husband beat her up at one time, yes, insurers consider this a pre=existing condition). We also need a state that allows bankruptcy of good hardworking Americans because they got sick or their child got sick. A very large % of personal bankruptcies are caused by catastrophic illness. We also need a state where financial companies can literally fleece individuals and governments through the use of obscure derivatives and other non-producing financial instruments. And finally, we need a state where we dont send our best and brightest young men and women to fight in a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, WMDs or any of the other "reasons" to misspend trillions of dollars and more importantly, the lives of some of the finest young men and women you could ever hope to meet. If all of this is a nanny state, then SIGN ME UP!— Les Ismore
- "are not excluded from the right to good health" Good helath is no a right. If it were that simple, then we could make cancer illegal. good health is the result of genetics, individual chocies, and luck. "We also need a state where financial companies can literally fleece individuals and governments through the use of obscure derivatives" Individuals shouldn't be trading in derivatives they don;t understand. Caveat Emptor.— RG
- Ah. So now RG says times have changed. I'm glad that he came to that brilliant insight. Because not that long ago he was arguing that federal financing of eduction for children is a bad idea - the reason being that we did OK as a country before public education. Even though the economy has changed completely since then. And even though to reach his conclusions about education prior to public education, he had to completely ignore the circumstances of black people.— Talking point sleuth
- "the reason being that we did OK as a country before public education." Yes we did. Check literacy rates. As for access to education for minorities, who was stoppign them again? Government.— RG
- RG - in the case of derivitives and other "exotic" financial instruments, it is a case where the game is rigged against the investors whether they are individuals, county governments, or any other entity that might invest.— Les Ismore
- "it is a case where the game is rigged against the investors whether they are individuals, county governments, or any other entity that might invest." Then they shouldnt invest in them. The simple fact that there is a market for them shows that there is a demand for the product. Stop whining about outcomes because gov pension funds made stupid bets.— RG
- RG - You are partially right, good health is often a result of good choices but often when illness strikes, it is in the healthiest of people. Remember Jim Fixx? Dead in his 40's...talk about a guy who did EVERYTHING right. But I also must disagree with you and your literal translation of the right to good health. Great strawman about outlawing cancer...funny. But the reality of it is that ACCESS to healthcare is a right, not in the Constitution like so many other things the Federal government does for Americans, but access to healthcare is a HUMAN RIGHT. I know that seems to elude many on the right that we have a duty to show compassion and empathy for our fellow human beings. Oddly, many in the Christian Right seem to defy their religous traditions by refusing to acknowledge the right to access to healthcare for 45 million Americans. Can you tell me why that is?— Les Ismore
- but RG, you assume the players are all playing fair. Something the revelations of Goldman Sachs and other companies have shown they do reveal all of the risks involved with these instruments. If it was truly fair, yes, caveat emptor, but it isnt and you know it.— Les Ismore
- From the NY Times about the Tea Party movement: "Ninety-two percent believe Mr. Obama is moving the country toward socialism, an opinion shared by more than half of the general public." While many of those reading the Times think it is a good thing, why are people still trying to deny that he is moving us toward socialism when more than half the country has already figured it out?— Mirror
- "but access to healthcare is a HUMAN RIGHT." No, it isn't. It can only be achieved by taking from others or forcing others to work for a cost they normally wouldn't accept. Once again, imagine an island, with two shipwrecked people. If one got sick, is it hsi right to force the other to treat him?— RG
- And here is more from the Times - even the headline confirms that the tea party is full of stupid, ignorant, ... wait, wha...? "Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated"— Mirror
- "Ninety-two percent believe Mr. Obama is moving the country toward socialism, an opinion shared by more than half of the general public." - Got link? I think you forget that 12 months of the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limpaugh, John Bonnnner and others constantly bleating "socialism, fascism," to a friendly MSM had no effect, right? Just like the fact that the majority of Americans were against HCR. Sadly, when someone besides Glenn Beck told them what was actually in the bill (and no, there were no death panels), the numbers swung to 60+% in FAVOR of HCR. Thats why the Democrats are going to use the Regressive ignorance about this bill and what is in it against the Regressives in November. Bring. It. On.— Les Ismore
- "you assume the players are all playing fair." I assume nothing, except that consenting parties enter a voluntary contract. If one side has more knowledge than the other, it is not necessarily a crime. If they want to cry fraud, prove it in court. Otherwise, we don't need the government arbitrating waht is fair, otherwise we are in a nanny state, where people have to be sheltered from their poor decisions.— RG
- RG - lets use the example of abortion. It is the fetus's right for life, correct? That is the core of the pro-lifers argument. So why does that right to life end after birth?— Les Ismore
- "It is the fetus's right for life, correct? That is the core of the pro-lifers argument. So why does that right to life end after birth?" The argument is that the fetus is dependant on the womna for life in the womb. The woman takes a specific action to stop the fetus' life. In regards to health care, no one is taking a specific action to end another's life. They are simply choosing not to subsidize their procedure or treatment.— RG
- Maybe the TPers aren't as stupid as some would like to make them out to be. They realize the issue is mainly on the spending side. "Despite the "Taxed Enough Already" signs and the many vague and often contradictory allusions to their gratuitous tax burden, the poll suggests that half of Tea Party supporters thinks that their taxes are fair. Their insistence on reform falls mostly on the spending side: they're against the stimulus, against the bailouts, against more packages aimed at job creation. Ninety-two percent call for a smaller government with fewer services."— RG
- Good read on why taxes will have to go up: http://www.newsweek.com/id/236383 Of course, we can always inflate our way out of the debt, but SS and Medicare are pegged to inflation, Treasury investors might require higher yields, and inflation has alot of nasty consequences. Happy tax day!— RG
- "In regards to health care, no one is taking a specific action to end another's life. They are simply choosing not to subsidize their procedure or treatment." So in your world, a child is hit by a car and lays dying in the street, you can simply choose not to help; give comfort, perhaps some first aid, call 911. Correct? We can leave the dying in the streets simply by choosing to because you would have to do something humane and compassionate.— Les Ismore
- "We can leave the dying in the streets simply by choosing to because you would have to do something humane and compassionate." Its each individuals choice, you cannot legislate compassion.— RG
- Our tax system at work. Prison inmates filing phony tax returns and receiving refunds. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/15/inmate.tax.scam/index.html?hpt=C1— RG
- "Its each individuals choice, you cannot legislate compassion." Wow, tht is very telling, especially from someone who says they have a young child. But you are right, you cant legistlate compassion...but you can legislate compassionate acts, think Good Samaritan laws, the ones that require you to do something, anything other than leave that kid dying in the street.— Les Ismore
- "Wow, tht is very telling, especially from someone who says they have a young child." Scold me, tell me I'm a bad person, whatever floats your boat. Its your right. Legally punishing someone for not conforming to your idea of compassion, via imprisonment or fines, is when it goes too far.— RG
- "but access to healthcare is a HUMAN RIGHT." Sorry, LesBrainsIsMore, you are quite incorrect. Does this look familiar?? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;" Note how our forefathers were smart enough to identify your rights, and tell you THEY DON'T COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT!!! Your government exists TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, not to provide them!! Our Creator did not endow us with access to erectile dysfunction drugs, breast cancer screenings, etc. Those are commercial services provided by capitalistic companies. Back to the point of this post, what I'm hearing from liberals is that they are terrified of the Tea Party. They think that the tea party is capturing hearts and minds with their ideas, and will be a major force against the D's in November and in 2012. That's why we are seeing so much noise about them.— IggleFan68
- JigglesFan - You prove my point exactly. Thanks. Note the word LIFE is the first one our founders mentioned. And it is a God given right and I hope our government will protect my neighbors right to life by making sure they have access to fair, affordable healthcare. Great point!— Les Ismore
- JigglesFan - "what I'm hearing from liberals is that they are terrified of the Tea Party....the tea party is capturing hearts and minds with their ideas, and will be a major force against the D's in November and in 2012. That's why we are seeing so much noise about them." Actually, I think most Democrats welcome the TeabaKKKers on the scene. They are truly what the Regressive party has been thinking all of these years but have managed to keep hidden. A bunch of ill-informed whiners. They had a brief moment in time, a couple of days, when it looked like a serious movement last year, but the more people see of them the more people are turned off by the hatred, paranoia and yes racism. Thats why their popularity is about 28%, almost as low as the Regressive Party. So, yes, bring the teabaKKKers out in November, we are hoping and praying that you do. The reason that they get so much press is the same reason you see some of the nuttier Senators on TV; they bring in ratings with their teabonic slogans and spellings and quite frankly, they are just a hoot to watch.— Les Ismore
- "General T. fails to recognize that the problem with the media was virtually no coverage of anti-war protests BEFORE the Iraq War, confusing them with protests much later after American soldiers were being killed in increasing numbers (Cindy Sheehan's son among them). " Thanks Archimedes, that is the real explanation. I got my timeline wrong too. I went to the NYC protest and could not believe the coverage (and if you righties think we were a bunch of grubby hippies, the NYPD was on our side).— Hamlet
- Les, you are missing the point, yet again, unsurprisingly. Our forefathers wanted the freedom to be able to take care of themselves without interference from a government. "Fair access to healthcare" is not a part of "Life" that our forefathers were speaking about. Our forefathers were referring to the government's penchant for TAKING lives without cause. There are PLENTY of things that are not a basic human right, but instead you have to earn: drive a car, have a job, own a home... Liberals have forgotten that they need to be able to TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. Which means that they need to be able to AFFORD to buy food, a car, a house, and pay for healthcare. To me, our gov't's interest in the healthcare system needs to be: ensuring that people have equal access to it (no one is discriminated against for color, sex, sexual orientation), that our healthcare system is providing SAFE healthcare. If a company invents a wonder drug that cures AIDS and cancer, they have every right to charge $1 billion a pill if they want. No one is forced to purchase it for that price. That's where our great capitalistic system will come in, and someone else will develop it for less $$$. How many generic drugs are on the market now?— IggleFan68
- "ensuring that people have equal access to it (no one is discriminated against for color, sex, sexual orientation)" I'd just like to add that, imo, this means that the government isn't denying you access for these reasons. Private industry should have freedom of association.— RG
- "To me, our gov't's interest in the healthcare system needs to be: ensuring that people have equal access to it (no one is discriminated against for color, sex, sexual orientation)"...can we also add pre-existing medical condition? No discrimination based on that?— Les Ismore
- ---}}} To me, our gov't's interest in the healthcare system needs to be: ensuring that people have equal access to it (no one is discriminated against for color, sex, sexual orientation) {{{--- Iggy, there significantly greater discrepancies in access to healthcare in this country as compared to any other developed country. And quality of healthcare also varies dramatically in line with the demographics of race, income, and geography. We essentially have rationing in this country - rationing on the basis (in many cases) of the class children are born into.— Talking point sleuth
- "Fair access to healthcare" is not a part of "Life" that our forefathers were speaking about." Partially correct, there was no health insurance and only a handful of hospitals in the 1700's. But the part where you are wrong is you think "life" only means that the government cant kill you or as you said "Our forefathers were referring to the government's penchant for TAKING lives without cause.". So let me see if I understand. We need to ignore this part of the Constitution, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The part where it says these rights are endowed by their Creator" and use your interpretation which implies the writers of the Constitution were worried about government killing its citizens and not about God given life. Do I have that right Jiggles?— Les Ismore
- "and not about God given life." When you get sick, no one is infringing on your rights, it is simply unfortunate. The right to health care implies that it is ok to take from one group to give to another. However, the group having their money taken is msot definitely seeing an infringement on their liberty and pursuit of happiness.— RG
- Comment removed.
- RG - Wow, so much in a short post, but let me try to unpack this as clearly as possible. "The right to health care implies that it is ok to take from one group to give to another." Solely by your definition. For example, if I am against the war in Iraq, does the government have the right to take from my group in the form of taxes to support the war that I am dead set against? You are certainly arguing that point. So, in your libertarian world, the government can do nothing for the common good of all of its citizens, whether it is defending us from terrorism or reducing healthcare costs for all of us if you and your group is against it? "However, the group having their money taken is msot definitely seeing an infringement on their liberty and pursuit of happiness." Again, any service by government that I disagree with is infringing upon my liberty and pursuit of happiness. Essentially you are not libertarian but more of an anarchist. No government is good enough for you.— Les Ismore
- "You are certainly arguing that point." I most certainly am. You are arguing the status quo, in which the government can take what it wants when it needs it. "So, in your libertarian world, the government can do nothing for the common good of all of its citizens" Collectivism at its finest. No, I severely doubt the government knows what is in the "common good" for a diverse population of over 300 million individuals.— RG
- "No, I severely doubt the government knows what is in the "common good" for a diverse population of over 300 million individuals." - Including defense, right?— Les Ismore
- apa - you are right..but then again, I am about the only one on this blog that doesnt claim to be a Constitutional scholar. I stand corrected on the document but not my ultimate point.— Les Ismore
- ---}}} No, I severely doubt the government knows what is in the "common good" for a diverse population of over 300 million individuals. {{{--- Heh! Even when the government is elected. No more evidence than that is needed to completely expose RG for the elitist he is. Of course, you have to remember, I am just "envious" of my "betters," such as fat cats that own mining companies that create unsafe working environments.— Talking point sleuth
- "Make Our Day! Democrats Giddy Over GOP Opposition To Financial Reform" Now THAT'S a headline!— Les Ismore
- BTW, RG, while you're doing you research on mining safety in countries where the governments don't regulate mining safety as extensively as in this county, you might also want to investigate the safety records of companies whose miners belong to unions to the safety records of companies whose employees don't belong to unions. Oh, and don't forget, you should also research the records of mining accidents in this country before government regulation and compare it to the records of mining accidents in this country after government regulation. Because, you know, you wouldn't want your opinions on the benefits/drawbacks of government regulation to be influenced by a libertarian stupor. Would you? And you certainly wouldn't want your opinions to be influenced by an elitist attitude towards, and complete difference towards, the plight of people who work difficult and dangerous jobs. Heh!— Talking point sleuth
- "Even when the government is elected." Fine, I'll envoke Godwin's law. Hitler was also elected. To say that he knew what was in the country's best interest simply because he was elected would be idiotic. Or we could simply go with Bush. Elected twice, so he must have known what was in the country's best interest, right?— RG
- TPS, I'll respond to your post, because, honestly, I read Les's, and can't comprehend his point - is it just me? I think he was disagreeing with me. Anyway... I think I agree that in the US, access to healthcare is disparate due to income level/job, and THAT translates to disparity in race/age/sex. As far as I know, there isn't a doctor out there who is turning away a checkbook or cash.— IggleFan68
- "whose miners belong to unions to the safety records of companies whose employees don't belong to unions." This would be relevant if I ever mentioned unions. "the plight of people who work difficult and dangerous jobs." Like how you turn an individual's choice of profession into their "plight". Nice touch.— RG
- I am for the party of tea partiers. half of the usual republican vote will go to repubs, the other half to tea partiers and the Dems will win all elections. Go tea partiers, live out your wildest dreams even if you truely have no idea why you r doing it other than some "grassroots" people told you to. Dont bother to follow that grassroots $$$ back to the republican national committee. Keep on keeping on!!— Atlas
- ---}}} I think I agree that in the US, access to healthcare is disparate due to income level/job, and THAT translates to disparity in race/age/sex. {{{--- In-depth studies have found that to be the case, Iggy. No doubt, individual behaviors are part of the mix, and it is too easy to assume that the disparities are attributable to overt racism where they may very well not be (as opposed to institutional racism) - but that is the troubling aspect of our healthcare system to me. Yes - if you have money, we have the best system; but if you are of lower income, your access is significantly limited. Effectively, we have rationing based on income. It is a problem, and the reason why the status quo is not acceptable in my viewpoint. I know many people who are extremely hard-working, who work extremely difficult jobs (healthcare workers, for example, who are practically angels of mercy) - for very little pay, who are not provided with health insurance and can't afford to pay for high-quality medical care.— Talking point sleuth
- "the plight of people who work difficult and dangerous jobs." Like how you turn an individual's choice of profession into their "plight". RG sadly for most in these depressed areas of the country, mines are the only place where you can make a good wage. I will make your next point, "well no one is keeping them there". No one is but for many poverty is keeping them there. In your idyllic America there is only poverty by choice.— Les Ismore
- ---}}} Like how you turn an individual's choice of profession into their "plight". {{{--- Heh! No, RG. I turned the dangerous working conditions of miners into their "plight." But yet again, RG, a very nice duck. You're a world class ducker, RG. Or then again, you could respond to the issue at hand: whether or not better safety records are the result of federal regulation, and also unions - which your beloved free-marketeers have worked diligently to undermine.— Talking point sleuth
- "RG sadly for most in these depressed areas of the country, mines are the only place where you can make a good wage." So they still make a make a choice to pick higher wages and increased risk over lower wages and lower risk. They acknowledge and accept the tradeoff.— RG
- Jiggles, yes it is you and try to keep up with the group here. Some of us are using iPhones and the like and it is difficult to scroll back to where you dozed off.— Les Ismore
- "I turned the dangerous working conditions of miners into their "plight."" Did somebody tell them that mining was a safe occupation?— RG
- ---}}} To say that he knew what was in the country's best interest simply because he was elected would be idiotic. {{{--- Wow! Yet more elitism on RG's part. If he was elected in a fair election, it was an expression of what the citizens felt was in their best interests. I love how you morph that into whether or not he know what was or wasn't in Germany's best interests. The alternative, RG, to the citizens manifesting what they believe to be in their best interests is elitists manifesting what THEY believe to be in the country's best interests. That's what you never understand, in your Shangri-La fantasies about a perfect world where everyone gets educated with no funding, where everyone gets healthcare with no funding, where companies don't sell toxic products or create unsafe working conditions because they understand it isn't consistent with a good long-term business plan. At some point, RG, you have to stop fantasizing about some Shanrgi-La which has never existed in the history of the planet, and accept that nothing is perfect, and for example, just because problems exist with public schools doesn't mean that we'd all be better off if hundreds of millions of our kids had never had access to education. Libertarian stupor, RG, libertarian stupor. Heh!— Talking point sleuth
- "If he was elected in a fair election, it was an expression of what the citizens felt was in their best interests." So the Iraq war was an expression of what the citizens felt was in their best interests. Gotcha.— RG
- ---}}} Did somebody tell them that mining was a safe occupation? {{{--- Heh! So, any exploitation is valid, if it turns a profit for the exploiter, as long as no one forced people into being exploited. Sweatshops? No problem. Employing children at minimal wages for dangerous work? No problem. Black lung? No problem. Your indifference to others' life circumstances really is amazing, RG. Although I have to give you credit - there are few people who have as little shame as you. But hey, you're entitled to your indifference to others' suffering; the problem is, however, that you laughably believe that society is better as a whole of government plays no role in fighting against exploitation. Fortunately, you are in a distinct minority in that respect.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} So the Iraq war was an expression of what the citizens felt was in their best interests. {{{--- First, once again RG, you're confusing issues. Bush being elected was an expression of what the citizens felt was in their best interests (well, the second time he was elected, anyway). As to any specific policy enacted by someone who was elected, it may or may not be a direct expression of what the citizens feel in their best interests. As it so happens, at the time, a strong majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. Yes, most citizens felt it was in their best interests. Just because I didn't agree doesn't mean that I'm going to whine like a schoolgirl and, in a libertarian stupor of hoping upon hope for some delusional paradise, believe that just because there are some problems with our system it means that the whole concept needs to be junked.— Talking point sleuth
- "Your indifference to others' life circumstances really is amazing," Yep, I believe in treating adults as such. If they willingly choose to work in a mine, it's not my business to tell them otherwise. I'm not their nanny.— RG
- Hello! --snip-- Thirty percent of Tea Party supporters believe Mr. Obama was born in another country, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Another 29 percent say they don’t know. --snip-- OK. So, some 59% of Tea Partiers thing that Obama may not legitimately be our president. Hmmmm. Oh, and this: --snip-- Besides Birtherism, the poll highlights several other points at which the tea party crowd seems seriously reality-challenged. They can’t define what they mean by “socialism,” even though almost all of them are convinced we’re heading towards it. They’re angrily opposed to the health care reform bill, but they say entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost. They’re an anti-tax movement but most of them think their taxes are fair. Two thirds of them think global warming is a hoax perpetrated by mad scientists out to trick the world. And the two most popular political-media figures with the tea-heads: Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. --snip-- OK. But Glenn Beck is just an irrelevancy, eh RG? Heh!— Talking point sleuth
- "well, the second time he was elected, anyway" Now we're reverting back to the "Bush stole the election" meme? Yikes. And his reelection also would state that Americans thought the Patriot Act and torturing terroists were also in their best interest.— RG
- Just went through the NYT teabaKKKer (tm) survey. Incredibly, they are more out of touch with mainstrem Americans than I thought. The number one response to "Who is the political figure you admire most"?..... none other than Glenn Beck! I love these guys... lets hope they are still around in November.— Les Ismore
- TPS, you missed RG in all of his libertarian glory earlier in this thread where he stated it is an American's right to refuse care to a child dying in the streets and just keep walking away. Thankfully, we dont live in RG's America.— Les Ismore
- ---}}} If they willingly choose to work in a mine, it's not my business to tell them otherwise. {{{--- Maybe you could point out where I suggested that you should be telling them what to do? I never did that. That's only one of your elitists fantasies, apparently. The point is, RG, that there is a moral imperative as well as a practical benefit to the country as a whole when elected officials are empowered to ensure reasonable limitations on exploitation. That you think that we'd all be better off if the sweatshops of the turn of the century weren't regulated out of existence is truly amazing. --snip-- The workers were as young as 12 years old and worked 14-hour-shifts in 60 to 72 hour workweeks. At a time in history when the average salary was $791 a year these workers made $338 a year. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Thankfully, we dont live in RG's America. {{{--- Boy, you sure got that right, les.— Talking point sleuth
- "Thankfully, we dont live in RG's America." Sorry, I'm just not that into denying people their liberty. Its funn y you quoted the Declaration of Independance and its mention of the right to liberty, but see no inconsistency in suprressing a person's liberty by forcing them into an action.— RG
- ---}}} Bush stole the election" meme? Yikes. {{{--- Heh! We were talking about whether or not a particular situation is truly a manifestation of what the public felt was in their best interests, RG. The fact that Bush lost the popular vote makes that a somewhat questionable determination. No whining about the results, RG. Just a simple observation.— Talking point sleuth
- "The point is, RG, that there is a moral imperative as well as a practical benefit to the country as a whole when elected officials are empowered to ensure reasonable limitations on exploitation." Can you fill a sentence with any more fuzzy, ill defined, buzz words? Whose moral imperative? Reasonable limitations. Who defines reasonable?— RG
- "The fact that Bush lost the popular vote makes that a somewhat questionable determination." Popular vote does not determine who wins the presidential election.— RG
- ---}}} And his reelection also would state that Americans thought the Patriot Act and torturing terroists were also in their best interest. {{{--- Actually, RG, IIRC, the majority of Americans supported those policies at the time they were enacted. So, once again, yes, those policies were a reflection of what Americans felt was in their best interests. Of course, you, in your elitist position (as one of our "betters"), and your libertarian stupor, know better.— Talking point sleuth
- "Boy, you sure got that right, les." Just let me know if all those deaths in the street ever come close to equalling the death and destruction wrought by peopel doing governments bidding. The Civil War, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, Stalin, Hitler, Chairman Mao, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and on and on and on.— RG
- ---}}} Popular vote does not determine who wins the presidential election. {{{--- Heh! I didn't realize that you are a constitutional scholar, RG. Where did I said it did, RG? I said that the fact that he lost the popular vote makes it questionable as to whether his election was truly a manifestation of what Americans felt was in their best interests. You know, RG, you might have a better shot at making an un-laughable post if you respond to what I actually say instead of your libertarian-stupor induced fantasies.— Talking point sleuth
- "So, once again, yes, those policies were a reflection of what Americans felt was in their best interests." Further proof of how democracy allows the majority to gang up and violate the rights of the minority.— RG
- ---}}} Whose moral imperative? Reasonable limitations. Who defines reasonable? {{{--- That's why people vote in a democracy, RG. To manifest what they feel is in their best interests; including what they feel to be moral imperatives and what reasonable limitations are. That's why we have laws against workplace exploitation. It's also why we have laws that determine that people can't be turned away from medical care due to inability to pay. Too bad that people like you wish to live in a country which makes such moral determinations, but whine like schoolgirls if they have to give up some discretionary income to pay for it.— Talking point sleuth
- "Where did I said it did, RG?" You didn't. But you did say presidential elections are expressions of what Americans feel is their best interest. Which is iffy logic since the popular vote does not determine the winner.— RG
- Comment removed.
- "Too bad that people like you wish to live in a country which makes such moral determinations" I don't want the government determining my morals. They do a pretty awful job of it. Lets kill us some Indians! Slavery sounds like a good idea! Inter some Japanese Americans! Torture is legal!— RG
- apa hits on the point. Every election winner now has a "mandate" to push their agenda, regardless of the fact that quite often a large portion of the minority opposes it. Its simply the tyranny of the majority. And TPS supports it. Whatever the majority decides gos, so in Kenya, or whatever country it is, since the majority approve of killing gays, its okey dokey. No, you didn't say this, but it is the otcome of your logic.— RG
- "shov[ing] their own ideological agendas down our throats" Close apa but no cigar. When you clear away the obfuscation, lies, innuendo of the people like glenn beck, Limpaugh, Sarah Palin and the entire Republican party. When you let people see that there are no death panels, no 16,000 IRS agents and all of the other lies that the regressives fed to their teabaKKKer (tm) followers, Americans are going to be pretty happy with HCR. In fact when someone explains the facts, americans approve of HCR in the neighborhood of 68%. I have to hand it to the regressives though, they can push a message out there, no matter how despicable it is. And the other funny thing is that when you look at the Regressive leadership in America, it is all entertainers...Beck, Limpaugh, Palin, O'Reilly...— Les Ismore
- "In fact when someone explains the facts," Yeah, all 2,000 pages of them. People will be thrilled with this.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
"why offer insurance to someone who has a 95% of a heart attack because he or she eats 45 hamburgers a week, smokes 30 packs of cigarettes, and drinks like a fish?" ...apa why don't you want me to have insurance??— bird11- Comment removed.
- apa, I agree - just a bad joke.— bird11