...and, can you believe he sings and plays guitar to boot.. ha
Posted by Duffman at October 30, 2009 07:35 AM@1~ If pudge needs his car washed or shoes shined, he'll let you know.
Posted by Rick D. at October 30, 2009 07:55 AMIf he isn't God, he was certainly sent by God to save the world. Sting said so.
Posted by Gary at October 30, 2009 07:58 AMI am not alone for feeling less comfortable than if I heard the following ; (quoted from Pudge)
"I like conflict and discord. Not incivility, but argument and debate, expressions of disagreement, which often become heated and passionate. A lack of conflict and discord means that everyone agrees, or -- much worse -- are somehow prevented from disagreeing, either by force of government, or a lack of personal desire or will. It's bad no matter the cause. We necessarily will disagree, and we must speak out about our disagreement, which will result in conflict and discord. Without that, we lose liberty -- and quickly -- no matter who is in power, left, or right."
Posted by KDS at October 30, 2009 08:21 AMOf course their definition of diversity leaves a bit to be desired when it omits anything or anybody that disagrees with them.
Posted by deadwood at October 30, 2009 09:31 AMHa, ha, ha!! What a joke. With the addition of Edmunds.com recently, these boobs are building an enemies list that would make Nixon blush.
Wasn't it Obama's buddy Rahm that said "never let a good crisis go to waste"? That sure doesn't sound like "hope over fear" to me.
What they really practice is just old fashioned gangland Chicago politics now writ on the national stage. Sweet.
Posted by G Jiggy at October 30, 2009 10:16 AMThe press is having a harder and harder time covering for this fraud.
Posted by Gary at October 30, 2009 10:25 AMOh, wait.
Posted by demo kid at October 30, 2009 10:31 AMBut more importantly, Bush didn't take many actions to try to actually "encourage" people, by manipulating their circumstances (such as forcing them to by health care), to HAVE the same opinions.
PS. Only 4 firms are making the swine flu now.
Posted by Medic/Vet at October 30, 2009 11:12 AMhttp://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59T3YP20091030
Federal officials have slashed their estimates of how many does will be ready by the end of October from 40 million to 26 million. And of course, we will be giving some to foreign countries for free before we have what we need here. Who the hell does our government work for?
A preview of nationalized health care.
And it's ironic to blame the Democrats for pursuing unity when -- regardless of what you think of the merits -- they have been far less unified than the Republicans in recent years.
It is true, of course, that anyone holding a popular opinion will want the minority to agree with him/her. I would never suggest that anyone should take that seriously.
Some people do deliberately seek antagonize people, use inflammatory language, and launch personal attacks, none of which is constructive. Fortunately, none of that is tolerated at SoundPolitics.
Posted by Bruce at October 30, 2009 03:19 PMWhat else can the government make you buy as a condition of citizenship?
Yes, I mentioned that reason, except I stated it more clearly: "taking your money to give to other people." They would not want the deliberately uninsured to be required to join if they, as a group, would cost them money. They want to force them into the system because they know those people will put in more than they take out.
Mandates are just about taking your money, pure and simple.
... and to prevent society from the moral necessity to treat the uninsured, largely in expensive emergency rooms.
Lie. Absolute, total, fabrication. If this were true we would allow people to opt out, signing a form saying they will be liable for all costs. This is, obviously, completely irrelevant to why they want a mandate.
And it's ironic to blame the Democrats for pursuing unity when ... they have been far less unified than the Republicans in recent years.
I never did that. Please learn to read. I never said anything about "unity" of the type you speak. I specifically mentioned -- exclusively -- Obama's mention of "unity of purpose." That is not about us all being happy with each other, that is about us all striving for the same goals, which, in his mind, are government ensuring that all Americans have health care, saving us from global warming, and increasing the amount of government control over society in myriad ways.
We have no "unity of purpose" -- what Madison called "uniformity of interests" -- whether we are "unified" or not.
It is true, of course, that anyone holding a popular opinion will want the minority to agree with him/her.
False. I certainly don't, whether I am in the minority or majority. I want people to form their own opinions based on their own examination of the issues.
I note, however, Bruce, that you did not rebut anything I said that supports my thesis: that Obama and the Democrats want to undermine dissent and disagreement by forcing us into the same situations, giving us the same interests, that we might share the same opinions. The closest you came was saying "nuh uh! that is not what we have mandates!" But disagreement isn't rebuttal.
No.
http://www.thealaskastandard.com/content/were-governed-callous-children
Spoiled brats at the helm. I'm not condoning the last administration here.
Posted by KDS at October 30, 2009 06:04 PMSecond, it's even worse if what you say is true; every inaugural address before Obama's spoke to the American people, not just the people who voted for the President. I hope you're wrong ...
As it is now, almost as many people who get income tax credit vote as those who pay taxes - which hardly gives incentive for voting for the fiscally responsible candidate.
Posted by KDS at October 31, 2009 02:36 PM"disagreement for disagreement's sake (the GOP's present M.O.) impedes progress."
The Democratics did it all day long when they were in the minority. That politics. Now they are doing it on a large scale with Health Care and Cap and Tax, when a majority of the people and the opposition disagree with them. When shitty legislation results, impeding progress is the correct thing to do.
Posted by KDS at October 31, 2009 05:02 PMWhich no one here does.
(the GOP's present M.O.)
False.
impedes progress
Good! Because what you think is "progress" is, to us, not. (And that we believe so, of course, shows that your claim that we disagree for disagreement's sake is false.)
if the republicans were the party of 'we can make it better and here's how'
The Republicans say that ALL THE TIME. But the Democrats lie and say they don't. They think that if you don't want to START with the Democrats' legislation and work from there -- that if you think the Democratic plan is fundamentally flawed and should be thrown out -- then you "don't have a plan" or "don't want to make things better."
Like most of what the Democrats say, it's a lie.
We believe -- strongly -- that the Democratic health care plan is REGRESS. It sends us -- very far -- backward down the path of societal evolution.
the dems didn't impede progress every step of the way.
No, but they tried. And if -- as the Republicans do here -- they really believed that the majority's form of "progress" was bad, then good! They should try to impede it. Absolutely.
Which is why the Republicans released a plan.
What would you have them do? Please enlighten us. And please don't say "try to improve the Democratic plan" because it's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying the Democrats should have tried to improve the Republican plan to partially privatize Social Security investing: they were AGAINST IT, and therefore worked to kill it.
That is how these things called "principles" work.
when the republicans start acting like adults
Which to you would be ... what? Agreeing with the Democrats?
You're being transparently stupid.
-
What??? You have the White House, the House, and 60 votes in the Senate and you're *still* blaming Republicans?
What... you can't govern without Republicans? By the way, when is Obama going to decide on when to decide about maybe sorta doing something about the war? Wednesday?