So you know, “the fix” is Obama’s response to the problem that 50 million Americans are going to lose their insurance when Obama claimed they could keep it... he claimed that 29 times, though he now denies he said it. His proposed fix is to let insurers keep selling “substandard” plans for one more year. Essentially, the goal is to put this issue off until after the 2014 elections.
That said, however, there are three problems with this. First, it’s highly unlikely that insurers will actually offer those policies even if allowed, and many states (especially liberal ones) won’t allow it. Secondly, the election is in November 2014. When exactly do you think the cancellation notices will go out with a one year fix? That’s right, end of summer 2014... right before the election. I guess no one in the White House owns a calendar. Third, the plans in question will absorb away healthy people, which will cause Obamacare rates to spike.
The newspapers seem to get this and they are very upset with our Overlord. Observe:
● The New York Times said Obama’s proposed fix was better than the “destructive” Republican plan whatever that was (the Times doesn't seem to know), but Obama’s proposed fix “raises troubling questions.” Ya think? What questions are those? Well, the paper says that raises questions of “incompetence” on the part of the administration and it damages Obama’s credibility. But it then says that those questions “cannot be answered easily.”It’s amazing how talented liberals are at ignoring the people they will hurt just so they can claim they helped someone. That’s usually called being sociopathic... or is it psychopathic?
Ha. Wrong.
(1) Did Obama knowingly lie to 50 million people? Yes.
(2) Why did no one at The Times question these obvious lies even as the Republicans pointed them out? Because you’re partisan hacks.
(3) Is it clear that Obama intended to strip 50 million people of insurance to help 7.3 million people this year? Yep.
Simple. But of course, that would require integrity... something The Times lacks.
The Times then says this, which is rather interesting:
“If a relatively small population of people get extensions, as some experts think likely, the effect on premiums in the overall health insurance market may be minimal. Even so, this disturbing reversal is caused by the incompetence of the administration in ushering in reforms that millions have been waiting for.”Ok, let’s use our brains. (1) If 50 million people is a “relatively small population,” then why are we worrying about the 40 million uninsured? (2) If the effect on premiums is “minimal,” then why object to this fix at all? Spite? (3) If millions are waiting for Obama to usher in these reforms, then why did The Times applaud when Obama granted extensions to unions, big business, and even some small businesses? Why exclude Congress? Selective application of arguments is evidence of advocacy.
● The Washington Post actually thinks people losing their insurance is a good thing (as does Nancy Pelosi), though they didn’t have the integrity to say so. Instead, they question Obama’s integrity for not saying so... the hypocrites said:
“Unfortunately, it was his promise that was wrong, not the design of the law. At best, his proposed fix will have little impact except to let him shift the blame; at worst, it will undermine reform.”So the real problem is that Obama doesn’t have the courage not to lie. Hey, I agree with the Post for once! Wow! I never thought this day would come!
● The Wall Street Journal called this a “nonfix,” designed to avoid needing to work on a genuine fix. The Journal then summed up modern liberalism pretty well:
“They are trying to impose on Americans insurance they don’t want, at prices they don’t want to pay, while limiting their choices of doctors and hospitals. This is the reality of modern liberal government.”Yep. And they spy on everyone, they bomb Arab countries, and they hand out money to Wall Street like it was candy.
● USA Today called this a “punt” and titled their editorial, “Obama prescribes ugly fix for Obamacare.” Like The Post, USAToday notes that the problem with the fix is that it lets the healthy people escape from Obamacare, which means they won’t be subsidizing the people Obamacare was designed to help. It seems lost on them that this means they are choosing to hurt a lot of people to help a few others. They also note that Obama’s fix won’t work because states might not go along with it (especially liberal states... which will bring more bad PR to the Democrats) and because insurers aren’t going to play this game in any event.
Anyway, this weekend, Obama met with a group of CEOs from Big Insurance. They were working on a plan to save their dirty deal, known as Obamacare. Now ask yourself how the media would have responded if Bush had huddled with a group of CEOs to find a way to save some government handout to those same CEOs.
Oh wait, we already know. For years, the MSM was obsessed with how many oil industry executives the White House met and what they talked about. This was portrayed time and again as Bush dealing with cronies to rape the American people... a veritable outrage! It’s funny how those same MSM types can report an even more egregious situation with Obama, with a known plan to force consumers to buy their over-priced insurance and lavish government subsidies to cover the costs, and not a single “journalist” seems capable of noticing the problem.
33 comments:
It is what liberals do best .... lie. Someone once said (Limbaugh maybe?) "if liberals actually said what they really are doing, they would never win another election. The media is turning on him because a) they are seeing Democrats hurt (both with their own insurance plans and vulnerable Democrats up for re-election next year, and b) they want to give Hildabeast a good start on "distancing" herself from the community organizer cum Shogun. I suspect the Insurance C.E.O.'s are basically re-iterating "not enough young healthy people in the exchange means either the pool collapses or the law gets renamed the "unaffordable care act.)
Jed, I concur. Liberals have learned they need to lie about their goals or the public will vote against them. I think what they didn't expect here was that the public would catch onto the lies.
As for the CEOs, they are pushing hard not to have the fix because they want everyone forced into the new policies. They're actually counting on it.
And yeah, Hillary is definitely distancing herself already. Billy Boy is out there making impossible promises of things he things Obama should be doing. I see that as the opening shot for Hillary.
Obama is done. He will be lucky if history views him as a modern Jimmy Carter.
However, Obama is not running for office again. 2014 will probably be 2010 all over again, but 2016 might be 2012 all over again unless some brilliant candidate comes out of nowhere (or a governorship, same difference) to beat Hillary.
However, if Hillary faces a strong challenge from her left (nods towards Warren) maybe she overcompensates and makes a bunch of statements that play well to the Daily Kos crowd but cripple her in the general election.
What I think is great are the libs that are now being personally subjected to their idealistic solutions. Ex: Kirsten Powers and others who have stated: "I thought it was great that Obama was going to provide healthcare for everyone. I just didn't think I would be the one paying for it."
When the redistributive state starts hitting even the libs, you know it's over. As Thatcher said, pretty soon you start running out of other people's money. But I guess if Obama and the libs can continue to borrow money to keep their scams afloat, then we can continue to delay the pain...at least until this bunch is gone from public life.
It's because, being fellow liberals, the media instinctively understands that a Democrat like Obama cares about poor people and children, and therefore should not be accused of doing mean things like lying when his plans go wrong. (eyeroll)
At this point, we have to believe that Obama was a) so utterly incurious about his signature piece of legislation, he couldn't even be bothered to find out if it was working, or b) knowingly and deliberately lying from the beginning of the health-care debate, and crossing his fingers that no one would find out until it was too late. And it's an open question as to which would be worse.
Anthony, Agreed. And that's one of the problems with the Obama derangement going on on the right: Obama is done. He's not running again. Hurting Obama won't help 2014 or 2016 at all. So obsessing over Obama only distracts us from the real mission, which is winning back the government.
As an aside, I too suspect that will judge him very poorly.
I think what's really interesting with Obamacare is that the things Team Hillary are starting to say as criticisms are things that will eventually lead to the destruction of Obamacare. Bill, for example, says that people should be allowed to keep their old insurance. But Obamacare is premised on forcing all those people off their cheap plans into they system so they support the expensive newcomers. So if Hillary really means Bill's promise, then she will destroy the system. Ha ha.
Patriot, That's the irony of Obama's stimulus -- he's made it impossible to borrow the money he needs to make this program feasible long enough to take root. In effect, he ate all of his cake before the guests arrived.
And I too love it when liberals get b*tch-slapped by the reality they create. "Someone else was supposed to pay the bill for my plans. I just wanted to feel smug. I didn't want to be made poor!" Whoops.
T-Rav, Exactly. And neither of those speaks well for Obama. Also note that even if he lied, he was so stupid that he couldn't see how badly the lie would be exposed. Either way, he's incompetent.
What's equally interesting about groups like The Post who now say he shouldn't have lied is that they didn't bother to expose this either. If they want to criticize him for lying, why don't they admit that they too should have known better and just never bothered to tell the truth. Indeed, where are their editorials from 2009 telling the public, "Look, what Obama said isn't true, but here's why we should pass this thing anyways."
I still find it disappointing that while the MSM oh-so-gently critiques the president, they still do double-backflips to avoid implicating the liberal ideology from which ObamaCare springs. As was already noted, that's the problem with Obama Derangement Syndrome. It focuses the right on the wrong target.
Note how the Times implicates "Republicans" for their non-existent "destructive" plan. ObamaCare may be a handy moniker, but it undermines the idea that this is a Democrat product, not an Obama product. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. The best hope for going against Hillary is to remind people of HillaryCare and equate it with ObamaCare.
"How can she fix healthcare? The only thing she would have done differently is to implement the same plan 17 years earlier! Americans rejected it then and they are regretting it now." But no one running on the Republican ticket will probably have the wherewithal.
tryanmax, I have an article coming up Wednesday that does give some hope, but we'll see.
I do agree that the Republicans need to refocus and realize that Obama is gone. They need to start per-emptively attacking all prominent Democrats (Warren, Hillary, Cuomo, etc.). Start playing whack-a-mole with them so that they are all damaged goods before they ever start. At the same time, they need to broaden the attack and point out that this is what you get when you give the Democrats power.
But again, the real key will be in offering an actual alternative.
On the MSM, that will always be the case because they are pimps for the Democrats. That won't change. They will always spit out Democratic talking points and lie and distort to help Democratic causes. What we need is genuine competition. We need a conservative paper that is willing to fight these guys directly by doing things like publishing their corrections on its front page and, in a case like this, running a HUGE article/ad that asks, "If the Washington Post thinks the problem is the President shouldn't have lied initially, then why didn't The Post point out the truth at the time... like we did? Read us if you want to be informed rather than just knowing what the Post wants you to believe."
Andrew, agreed completely. Maybe I should state for the record that anytime I say the GOP or conservatives need to do this or that, it is stated with the underlying assumption that an actual platform forms the basis.
On whack-a-moling the Dems, that is unfortunately what the right-wing pundits did to the Republican field last round. So on one hand, we know they can do it, but on the other hand we know how misdirected they are. On broadening the attack, that's one thing Reagan was brilliant about. He never attacked individuals except to tie them to ideas, ideas that he then dismantled cleverly and succinctly.
One last thought that Reagan put me in mind of. I think there is something to the idea that blasting your opponent turns off the middle. But that isn't to say that tactful criticism turns them off. Again, that's a difference Reagan understood. The crazies on the far-right want their candidates to spew venom and declare their enemies evil, traitorous villains. Reagan was more apt to chide his opponents as mistaken, misguided, and overly idealistic.
That, right there, is the key to success. To convincingly state that you share the same aspirations as the other guy, you just have a better plan to achieve it. The fact that the Dems now have a well-documented and recent record of lies *should* make things very easy for Republicans if they can get on the right message. If anything, the common perception of Republicans is that they are cripplingly honest. ("Bush lied, people died" suffers the same flaw as "ObamaCare" in being tied to a single man.) IF Republicans can present a plan, all they have to do to make it sound better than the Democrats' is to tie them to Obama and then call their credibility into question.
tryanmax, Same here. No matter what else the Republicans do, they need a genuine agenda as their core message. If they don't offer that, then all the political points they score mean nothing.
Agreed on the whack-a-mole. Talk radio systematically destroyed every Republican candidate except Santorum... who came pre-damaged. The question is, however, can they do it to the Democrats? I'm not sure talk radio can. They only speak to the choir, and only the loudest members of the choir at that. So I think the real key will be the Republicans/conservatives to whom the public actually pays attention (like elected GOP leaders or George Will) systematically taking down the democrats.
On Reagan, you are absolutely right. Reagan's brilliance was that he never once came across as nasty. Even when he was attacking, he smiled and did it in a friendly way which kept people from feeling defensive and made it easy for people to change sides. It's a lot easier to take advice when people tell you, "Hey, this is a better idea?" than it is when they say, "Why are you clinging to that stupid idea, you moron?!"
And when he did say something more directly negative, he aimed it very broadly at things like "Government." Again, that's a great way to let people escape the dark side because they can say, "Yeah, I may work for the government, but I'm not 'Government.'" By comparison, today conservatives attack "government workers" or "teachers" or "college students," which makes it impossible for people who are those things to feel like they aren't under attack.
tryanmax, On your last point, I think you are right. Rhetoric is VITAL! Consider this. It is vital that a party start right at the beginning by stating that they want good things for everyone:
"We want a richer, happier, and more fair America where everyone has everything they need and it's cheap to get our wants fulfilled. We want equality, justice, prosperity and peace for everyone. We want anyone who needs a helping hand to get it. We want our system to encourage the best and brightest, but not abandon those who cannot help themselves."
That's a great sales pitch. It's also total pablum. You can promise this all day long without implicating a single policy. Thus, when you make your policies, you do whatever you want so long as you can make it sound like your policy is trying to achieve the above. That's what the Democrats do, and it works great.
Unfortunately, conservatives are negative and their rhetoric sounds like this:
"We want to be left alone. We love rich people. We want the lazy to suffer and we're sick of helping poor people... go fend for yourselves College students are stupid and shouldn't go to college. Women are sluts who need to be controlled sexually. Teachers are commies. You should save for your own damn retirement and pay for your own damn healthcare. Fairness is for chumps, life isn't fair. Equality is a myth. Justice needs to be harsh. We should mess up the environment just to spite environmentalists. Get out foreigners."
That is how conservatives come across when they engage the public, and that's a horrible start. So before they even talk about a single policy, they've already presented themselves as monsters. Rhetoric matters. Our side needs to learn that. There is no nobility in grousing.
On that note, I'd like to propose a possible political solution. The US should establish a district or territory that will not be subject to any of the laws or regulations of the US, nor will it be the recipient of any services or protections, save protection from invading forces in order to maintain the existence of said district. Anyone who wishes to live like the old west or as a mountain man would be encouraged to move there.
We could call this district "Getoffmylawntana."
How about we call it "Detroit"?
Because then you'd never get right-wingers to move there.
That's true. We should leave Detroit as a museum to liberalism and make liberals live there for at least two years as part of their education.
In all seriousness, you would never attract people to a place without benefits or services. The people who say that tend not to classify the benefits they get as benefits and they aren't going to give up all the goodies they think they're entitled to.
Yeah, I know, but just having a place like that would give the rest of us a way to shut up the tough talkers. Lefties threaten to move to Canada; righties threaten secession.
Andrew....How much of the public's perception of "conservatives" or "Republicans" is due to the image of them as portrayed by the media? How often does the media distort those of us on the right into sounding like crazy, hateful bigots, rather than positive, uplifting individuals.
By doing this, (and Newt pretty much nailed it in the SC debate) we on the right are left to try and counter these inane ideas that are ascribed to us. Ex: "Governor, Governor what do you think of XX?" Governor: I don't believe this is the right course for our country." Headline the next day and cable news fodder: Governor X joins anti-(gay, women, old people, kittens, babies, minorities, etc) crusade."
It takes someone like a Reagan, who was more media savvy than any other politician (he was an actor for God's sake) to frame his views the way he wanted them framed, not the way the left media wants to frame them.
We are usually left "explaining" and denying and "evading" rather than getting our points across.
The leftists NEVER have to explain their position. It is always on the side of the angels and all that is good in the universe. The only time I have ever seen even a little pushback from the left media to a left politico was when David Gregory prodded the borderline insane Nancy Pelosi this past Sunday on her past statements. Even when confronted with the video she still insisted that's not what she meant.
Anyway, my point is even with the BEST AGENDA EVER, the right will find it hard to sell it what with the outright deception, suppression and mis-characterizations that the left media will employ. Witness the mantra of this whole "Republicans should quit trying to destroy Obama and come up with a better plan." They have come up with numerous plans, but lacking the 24/7 megaphone of the MSM, we haven't heard of any of them have we?
Patriot, Where does the public get these crazy ideas? How about from the mouths of conservatives. In fact, they BRAG about holding these positions. It's a badge of honor to claim these things. And I find it really bizarre that people like Rush (and the others) will spew this stuff and then whine that the media attributes it to them. What an outrage to use my own words to try to show people what I believe!! Why, this is a media conspiracy to smear me with the things I proudly proclaim!
As for the MSM, the MSM is a scapegoat for conservative failure. We've debunked that several times. You might as well blame fluoride in the water.
Your Reagan point, by the way, disproves all the rest of your comment. Reagan was able to connect with the American people despite the MSM controlling 100% of the media and hating him with a passion. How did he do it? Magic? No. He had a worthwhile agenda and he wasn't an asshole. He wasn't out there whining about like our fringe.
They have come up with numerous plans
Really? Name them.
Andrew...To wit:
Let’s start with 5 comprehensive health reform proposals that have actually been introduced in Congress—some well before President Obama even was nominated for president, and all months before the House (11/7/09) or Senate (12/24/09) voted on what eventually became Obamacare.
Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783) introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) July 12, 2007.
Every American Insured Health Act introduced by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Bob Corker (R-TN) with co-sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mel Martinez (formerly R-FL) and Elizabeth Dole (formerly R-NC) on July 26, 2007.
Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Healthy Americans Act on January 18, 2007 and re-introduced the same bill on February 5, 2009.
Patients’ Choice Act of 2009 introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) on May 20, 2009.
H.R. 2300, Empowering Patients First Act introduced July 30, 2009 by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA).
Comprehensive conservative Obamacare replacement plans:
Individual Pay or Play proposed in 2005 by John Goodman; this is a minimalist version of a broader reform envisaged by Goodman built on converting the tax exclusion into universal tax credits.
Health Status Insurance originally proposed by John Cochrane in 1995.
Universal Health Savings Accounts proposed by John Goodman and Peter Ferrara in 2012. This combines fixed tax credits with individual pay or play and health status insurance concepts along with Roth-style Health Savings Accounts.
Income-Related Tax Credits proposed by Mark Pauly and John Hoff in Responsible Tax Credits (2002) and endorsed by the American Medical Association. More recently, 8 scholars from Harvard, University of Chicago, and USC–Jay Bhattacharya, Amitabh Chandra, Michael Chernew, Dana Goldman, Anupam Jena, Darius Lakdawalla,Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson—released Best of Both Worlds: Uniting Universal Coverage and Personal Choice in Health Care (2013) which also is built around a model of individual health insurance subsidized with income-related tax credits.
Flexible Benefits Tax Credit For Health Insurance by Lynn Etheredge in 2001.
Near-Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2001 by Sara Singer, Alan Garber and Alain Enthoven (covers only non-elderly).
Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2013 by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Avik Roy (covers Medicare and Medicaid in addition to privately insured).
In his 2007 State of the Union message President Bush proposed a sweeping health reform plan that would have replaced the current tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage with standard tax deductions for all individuals and families. The Bush plan called for a tax deduction that would have applied to payroll taxes as well as income taxes. President Bush’s health plan was declared “dead on arrival” by Democrats in 2007.
Romney’s visions for health reform was very different than the bill he was actually able to get through a Massachusetts legislature dominated (85%!) by Democrats. Indeed he vetoed 8 different parts of the health reform plan passed by the legislature—including the misguided employer mandate that is now creating so many headaches under Obamacare—but each of these was overridden.
So let's see......wonder where we get this idea that Repubs have no plans for healthcare improvement:
President Obama. Just last month, President Obama asserted that if Republicans “had some better ideas” on health care, he was “happy to hear them. But I haven’t heard any so far.”
Democratic National Committee. In a press release less than two weeks ago, the DNC claims: “When it comes to the issues that matter to middle class Americans – from health care to immigration reform and energy policy – the GOP is simply out of ideas.”
So, does the above qualify?
Hardly.
All that can be summed up in two parts:
1. Let insurers compete across state lines.
2. Give tax breaks to people to buy insurance.
Neither part of that addresses the concerns people have (cost, access, quality). Neither part is sellable to the public.
Well...I guess we stick with Obamacare. That surely addresses cost, access and quality.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of good (or whatever the saying is). My point was, the impression is that the Repubs have offered no plans of their own. That's been disproven. You might not LIKE the plans offered and belittle them by their approach, but it doesn't change the fact that they HAVE offered up plans, contra what the dems and press are saying.
Do they need to come up with a massive O'care like plan? No. They can't even get the simple little things like tax breaks and competition!
I agree they need some radical new ideas...similar to your proposals. They don't have them yet, but they DO have ideas that can't even get attention and are shot down immediately.
Patriot, The problem is this. Offering the same two ideas that don't even pretend to address any of the public's concerns is not "offering a plan."
Let me give you an example. You have a car that won't start. Obama says, "Let's replace the car." The Republicans respond with "Let's clean out the ash trays."
Have the Republicans "offered a plan"? Sure, technically they have, but the plan is a joke and few will give them any credit for "having a plan." To the contrary, most will dismiss them as fools for offering such a stupid non-working idea in the first place. They will see it as simply obstruction: offering a non-fix.
Now you get dozens of Republidrones mindlessly repeating these two points over and over every time someone says "what is your plan?" The public didn't buy it the first time and won't buy it now, and all this does is solidify the image of the party as having no solution.
Until the GOP can come up with something to address the actual concerns the public has (whether it works or not), they are basically losing by default because they have not offered a legitimate plan.
Andrew...Don't get me wrong. I agree with your premise. My point was they HAVE come up with plans, contra to the Dems assertions. Whether they are GOOD plans is something else.
The Dems will trash ANY plan the Repibs come up with, even one with all the good points we wish it would have in it. Maybe the time is right for the media to start listening to some of those plans and get a "discussion" going with America on what exactly they would like in a healthcare "plan."
Hell, this O'care fiasco basically told the Repibs to just STFU and bend over and like what we'll do to half the country. NO...ZERO....Repub votes. Maybe a true compromise on what a good plan would look like is the answer to this b.s. that was foisted on us against our will.
That would be a good "plan" the Repubs could counter with howboutit?
...don't know why my keyboard keeps typing Repibs.....!
Patriot, Keyboards will do that. I swear I can't type "our" without typing "out" first and having to correct it.
I agree with you that it's very frustrating that the media is not an honest broker and they will smear any Republican plan. But the thing is that we play right into that. The plans we come up with are often very wide of the mark, don't address the public's concerns, and are sold so poorly! And making this last point even worse, we often appear to be offering these plans only grudgingly and along with comments about how much we despise the people the plan is supposed to help.
What our side needs to learn is the art of the sale. We seem to do it backwards, and that's my point above. We revel in the ugly details and the nasty commentary. We need to abandon that and learn to offer instead the happy, idealistic goals. That's how sales pitches work -- you sell what you want to achieve, not the steps you plan to take... not the substance, and certainly not the pain.
Thus, for example, we should be claiming to have a plan that (1) reduces costs, (2) makes healthcare affordable for everyone, (3) protects the doctor patient relationship, (4) puts you in charge of your care, and (5) makes sure that everyone gets coverage. That will sell.
What the plan is exactly isn't all that relevant to the public, just so long as they believe you have he right goals in mind and a plan to get there. But instead, we offer a couple ideas that don't mean anything to the public and we spend our time talking about how we shouldn't be giving healthcare to people who we don't think deserve it. That's horrible PR.
That's the problem. If we were selling Coke, we would be talking about all the fake garbage that gets put into each bottle, the possible health scares and how we wish our customers weren't all fat and stupid. We should instead be promising to make you a hit with the ladies.
Andrew, on your car example, it's worse than that. While Republican office holders are trying to empty the ashtrays on a car that won't start, you have a pundit class that insists there's no problem with the car and is angry at the office holders for even acknowledging one. Besides, cars are only for those that can afford them and you're stupid to have one anyway. Then you've got a wonk class fretting that could go wrong if you accidentally spill the ashes. Finally, you've got a crazy-stupid wing screaming that we should be talking about banning bike lanes, prosecuting jay walkers, and deregulating large trucks.
That isn't to ignore that the Dems don't have it's wing that grouses that the car should be electric, be compelled to spend equal time driving on paved and gravel roads, and probably painted pink, but the rest of the Party pretty well hides and ignores them. Meanwhile, the Right's pundit class isn't content to merely expose them, but they must profess their personal hatred for them, to boot.
/rant
Oh wow! Bad grammar city up there. I think you can sort it out, though. Hopefully. Of course, everyone knows on the internet that a single typo invalidates any argument, so I guess that's that.
Yep, sorry, those are the rules. Now that we've found a typo, we can ignore your argument. :D
Seriously, regarding your rant, well diagnosed and I feel your pain. Our politics has become impossibly poisonous. Both sides are fueled by hateful idiots. Neither side has a clue what they are talking about and don't really care if they are right or wrong... they just want to destroy the other side.
The Democrats are better at controlling their lunatics (ours run the asylum while claiming they are victims of a fantasy establishment) but fortunately the American public is naturally conservative and opposes the Democrats... otherwise things would be really ugly right now.
What's ironic is that the solution is right there to whoever wants to grab it (on either side actually), but no one wants to touch it because they're all so busy pandering to the freaks.
As an aside, I moved up Wednesday's article to tonight because it provides a little hope at least.
LOL! Thanks for the relief valve.
I agree completely that the solutions are obvious and right out there for either side to grab right now. I went to the movies yesterday and saw a preview for the next Captain America movie. The character was spouting off a bunch of ideals that the vast majority of Americans agree with but that neither Party is offering right now. For the most part, I'd say that little was compatible with Democrat Party ideals, but sadly nothing he talked about is really embraced by Republicans currently, either. All I was thinking, sitting in my seat is, Hollywood is practically begging for traditional conservatism but the present-day conservatives refuse to offer it, and it almost seems out of spite.
tryanmax, I think the answer is there for either side to grab, but the irony is that neither will.
The Democrats are moving further and further away from the beliefs of the American people and thus don't want to offer the things that would win them huge majorities because it conflicts with their radical ideology. Basically, they are the party of Karl Marx's angry cousin and they don't want to go back to being the party of FDR. So they won't grab it because it would mean reversing course.
The right, on the other hand, could easily grab this as it is exactly what they think they believe in. But they are so insane and so full of rage that they hate everything and understand nothing, and they want no part of anything other than more rage. Basically, they see red and are blind to all other things.
Unfortunately, moderates are no better. They are essentially idealess and they think the world works by just splitting babies.
So the key lies there in the middle of the floor with no one willing or able to pick it up. It's like some sort of Monty Python skit.
Additional schadenfreude. [LINK]
Post a Comment