Playing All The Cards

I have said this many times before, but never with the sincerity or the gravity that I say it now – the political divide is beyond repair. There is not one inch of common ground left to compromise, reach agreement, or move forward on, and that fact is in full display with this election cycle. Recently, one progressive divulged his understanding, or lack thereof, of conservatism by characterizing it as an ideology that oppresses minorities and lacks empathy. Sadly, that pretty much sums up the progression of most progressives current political knowledge. It also lines up perfectly with the administrations childish characterizations of the political opposition, which should surprise no one. There is not one effort by this administration, or any current elected Democrat, to debate on substance, nor has there ever been. There are only incessant attacks on the personal character and motives of conservatives. On every domestic and foreign front, the progressive policies that they champion are proving to be abysmal failures, leaving personal mischaracterizations as the only arena in which they have left to do battle in. Donald Lambro over at Townhall has a good article here, and the following is an excerpt:

“Instead of talking about incentives to boost job-creating capital investment and business expansion, Obama and the Democrats talk only about fairness, gender equality, employer health care mandates, and making businesses and wealthier people pay “their fair share.” With his party facing its toughest election challenges in years, “and burdened with persistently high unemployment, Obama is playing the race, gender and class cards.”

There will be no cards left unturned this year by the Democrats, and the tone of the progressive anger will only be dialed up as we get closer to November and their prospects of losing power become more and more real. They are desperate to hold onto power, and absent any real achievement in foreign or domestic policy, they will become more unhinged, more desperate, and more vile in their attacks, as recently witnessed by Harry Reid and his obsession with the Koch Bros., and calling average Americans “domestic terrorists”. In my opinion, it’s important that conservatives allow this progressive anger and disdain for America to be on full display everyday, and possibly even encourage it. However, it’s even more important to offer mature, common sense alternatives to economic expansion and opportunity, healthcare access and reform, and foreign policy. Considering the childish nature of their policies, scripting common sense alternatives is the easy part. Finding someone to articulate those policies and have them resonate with a poorly educated populace is another matter.

Advertisements

54 thoughts on “Playing All The Cards

  1. watsonthethird April 20, 2014 / 11:07 am

    There is not one inch of common ground left to compromise, reach agreement, or move forward on, and that fact is in full display with this election cycle. Recently, one progressive divulged his understanding, or lack thereof, of conservatism by characterizing it as an ideology that oppresses minorities and lacks empathy.

    Haha. So now I’m the spokesperson for progressives. Too funny.

    • Cluster April 20, 2014 / 11:12 am

      You are an excellent example of the entire movement. From the President on down.

      • Retired Spook April 20, 2014 / 11:52 am

        And the fact that he doesn’t seem to realize it is both funny and sad at the same time.

        Happy Easter everyone.

      • Amazona April 20, 2014 / 12:02 pm

        Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck……………..Not THE spokesman, just a voice that illustrates the quality of Progressive support.

        Happy Easter to all, as well.

        I’m getting ready to go to a Rockies game on this gorgeous day. Watson had a fully predictable meltdown on the other thread so, without the apology for setting him up that Spook implied might be appropriate 😉 my work for the day is done, blogwise. Time to enjoy the glories of this God-given day of celebration, and also to support the home team.

      • Cluster April 20, 2014 / 12:43 pm

        Watson continues to engage in identity politics using a yardstick that only he and other progressives know how to measure with. It’s a self superiority complex that is beyond belief.

        Have a great day. Happy Easter

      • watsonthethird April 20, 2014 / 12:24 pm

        A meltdown? You flatter yourself. I write ten words; you erupt with a thousand. Your consistency never fails to amuse me.

        As for Spook, your so-called contributions to this thread — a carry over from the last one — speak for themselves

      • Cluster April 20, 2014 / 12:45 pm

        A meltdown is not measured in word count. It is measured in lack of wit and articulation, as you have demonstrated on both accounts.

    • Retired Spook April 20, 2014 / 11:57 am

      Watson, if you really WERE a spokesperson for the Progressive Movement, that WOULD be funny. Sadly, you’re just, as comrade Lenin was so fond of saying, a useful idiot.

      • Amazona April 20, 2014 / 12:04 pm

        But….but…you are just indifferent to the PLIGHT of useful idiots. You lack the necessary EMPATHY for idiocy necessary to tolerate the watsons for very long.

  2. Amazona April 20, 2014 / 12:15 pm

    I don’t usually quote an entire article, but this seems appropriate to this and some comments in the last thread. From the National Review:

    Bundy and the Rule of Law
    By Andrew C. McCarthy
    April 16, 2014 5:04 PM

    I agree with David and Rich that John Hinderaker’s Bundy post is very strong. As a matter of law, Cliven Bundy is in the wrong. He is nevertheless a sympathetic figure, and the concerns raised by the standoff in Nevada transcend the illegality of his conduct.

    Rich’s recollection of Lincoln’s exhortation that reverence for the law become “the political religion of the nation” triggered my recollection of a seemingly inconsistent speech Lincoln delivered as president nearly a quarter-century later. As the Civil War raged, the president very controversially suspended the writ of habeas corpus and imposed martial law in states where Confederate operatives and sympathizers were taking seditious action. Addressing Congress on July 4, 1861, Lincoln defended his suspension of the writ:

    Of course some consideration was given to the questions of power and propriety before this matter was acted upon. The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution in nearly one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen’s liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very limited extent be violated? To state the question more directly, are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?

    Now, it was only advisedly that I described this speech as “seemingly” inconsistent with the one Rich excerpted. For one thing, Lincoln did not believe his suspension of the writ violated the law, and he had a very colorable argument. The Constitution provides for the writ’s suspension in cases of rebellion or invasion; it does not say who may suspend it. The Supreme Court’s eventual conclusion (in the 1866 case of Ex Parte Milligan) that Congress must enact a suspension because the relevant clause is in Article I was sensible, but it was not indisputable. Lincoln was not without reason to believe that he had the necessary authority as long as a rebellion or invasion had occurred. Moreover, Lincoln’s passion for the rule of law was evident even in the act of arguably breaking it: He not only vigorously contended that his suspension was lawful; he also urged Congress to affirm the suspension by passing legislation (which Congress did in 1863).

    But all that said, Lincoln’s speech does justify law-breaking in extraordinary circumstances. I’d construe his argument as follows: Even if what I have done is unlawful, it was necessary because it was done for the higher purpose of preserving the system that protects our liberties—under dire circumstances where violating the law was more faithful to the Constitution than obeying it would have been.

    Many of us think Lincoln was right—I certainly do, and I even suspect the Supreme Court did (note that the suspension was invalidated only after the war was over). This informs our assessment of the situation in Nevada, and explains why Bundy gets our sympathetic consideration even if we cannot absolve his illegal conduct.

    The underlying assumption of our belief in the rule of law is that we are talking about law in the American tradition: provisions that obligate everyone equally and that are enforced dispassionately by a chief executive who takes seriously the constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully. The rule of law is not the whim of a man who himself serially violates the laws he finds inconvenient and who, under a distortion of the “prosecutorial discretion” doctrine, gives a pass to his favored constituencies while punishing his opposition. The rule of law is the orderly foundation of our free society; when it devolves into a vexatious process by which ideologues wielding power undertake to tame those whose activities they disfavor, it is not the rule of law anymore.

    The legitimacy of law and our commitment to uphold it hinge on our sense that the law and its execution are just. As John Hinderaker points out, concerns about the desert tortoise—the predicate for taking lawful action against Nevada ranchers under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)—turn out to be pretextual. The ideologues who run the government only want to enforce the ESA against a disfavored class, the ranchers. If you’re a well-connected Democrat who needs similar land for a solar project, the Obama administration will not only refrain from enforcing the ESA against you; it will transport the tortoises to the ranchers’ location in order to manufacture a better pretext for using the law to harass the ranchers.

    When law becomes a politicized weapon rather than a reflection of society’s shared principles, one can no longer expect it to be revered in a manner befitting “political religion.” And when the officials trusted to execute law faithfully violate laws regularly, they lose their presumption of legitimacy. Much of the public is not going to see the Feds versus Bundy as the Law versus the Outlaw; we are more apt to see it as the Bully versus the Small Fry.

    • bozo April 22, 2014 / 6:22 am

      Great article. I LOVE this part: When she started protesting the doctor’s choice of medication, “He just cut me off totally,” she said. She goes to the doctor, he looks up her nose and says take this medication, she says “I don’t wanna take that” so he leaves. Hysterical! Here’s a suggestion: if you’re going to protest medical advice from a professional, don’t go to the doctor in the first place. Maybe just go to church and pray away the infection. Or tell your coke dealer to stop cutting his product with laundry detergent.

      What an idiot.

      • Cluster April 22, 2014 / 7:32 am

        You’re just like Watson. You guys claim to have a higher level of compassion for people, but Watson doesn’t care if they’re unemployed and apparently you don’t like it when they talk back, or consult with their doctor. A little anecdotal story here for you clown, I am on my third high blood pressure medication in the last year. The first two caused me some problems and fortunately I have a doctor that listens to me. However, in this low end, turnstile, fast food approach to medicine that you and Obama have set up for everyone, a lot of people may not get that opportunity. And then you call them idiots for trying.

        Not a very popular approach to healthcare and I think you will see just what American think of comments like that come November.

      • Retired Spook April 22, 2014 / 7:58 am

        You’re just like Watson.

        Yeah, they’re BOTH dicks!

      • Amazona April 22, 2014 / 11:48 am

        So the freaky clown takes the position that a person should have nothing at all to say about her medical care, that once she walks into a doctor’s office she has waived any right to say she has had a bad reaction to a drug, not found a drug to be effective, or anything else relating to what the doctor recommends?

        I guess if you are a Big Brother kinda guy, this makes sense.

        To people who believe in the rights of the individual, who believe in being involved in our own health care, who believe we ought to be able to participate in health care decisions—not so much.

        And then of course, freakzo goes off on a typical vicious Lefty rant in which he accuses this woman of being a drug user, and expresses his mindless bigotry toward people of faith.

        The irony is in his last statement. Someone who writes what he writes, believes what he seems to want us to think he believes, chooses that picture to tell us how he wants us to picture him, and apparently advocates total submission to authority, then calls SOMEONE ELSE an idiot.

      • Amazona April 22, 2014 / 12:26 pm

        It’s not just that so many Lefties are so dumb, or so nasty, or such a virulent combination of both. We already know that.

        It’s that some of them are so eager to jump onto a blog site and advertise their nastiness and their stupidity. There seems to be a compulsion to flaunt what is apparently considered, by the afflicted, to be cuteness, wit and sagacity. When these assumptions are proved to be false, they feel no embarrassment, no shame.

        It’s an odd pattern, but we see it repeated over and over again.

      • watsonthethird April 22, 2014 / 12:38 pm

        My favorite part is this:

        Physicians don’t like to be rushed either, but for primary care physicians, time is, quite literally, money. Unlike specialists, they don’t do procedures like biopsies or colonoscopies, which generate revenue. Instead, most are still paid per visit, with only minor adjustments for those that go longer.

        It’s just capitalism at work. Medical practices pressure their doctors to shorten up their visits so they can make more money. Conservatives like Cluster should be thrilled.

        And Cluster: One good thing about ObamaCare is that you can no longer be denied health care coverage due to pre-existing conditions like high blood pressure.

      • Cluster April 22, 2014 / 3:02 pm

        Well Watson, you’re wrong again. It seems to be a pattern. I never had a problem with high blood pressure until I reached my 50’s, and just recently my doc advised me to take some medication – low dose that is. And it is a good thing that ACA resolved the pre existing condition which probably accounts for 1% of the population by screwing up the system for about 80% of the population. Kudos for that. If there was only any other way we have addressed that?

        Now knowing that you are the smartest guy in the room, at least in your mind, have you come up with the answers to my questions re: the ACA? Like how many have paid, how many are subsidized, what the age demographics are, what the average rise in deductibles are? Or how about the answer to my question why the leftist policies you support have resulted in 50% black youth unemployment. I know you said you needed time, so thought I would just check in.

      • watsonthethird April 22, 2014 / 12:41 pm

        Yeah, they’re BOTH dicks!

        Stay classy, Spook!

        By the way, you have become increasingly dickish over the last year or two. You seem to hate everyone and everything now. You used to write some thoughtful things here. Now you just lash out like you did above. What happened to you?

      • Cluster April 22, 2014 / 3:06 pm

        That’s hilarious. All you progressives do is lash out at people. You guys hate everyone that doesn’t bow down to your delusional sense of self superiority. It’s F ing comical.

        Did you read the article on how the state of California is getting along? Quite a utopia you’re building out there.

      • Retired Spook April 22, 2014 / 12:49 pm

        Now you just lash out like you did above. What happened to you?

        Five years of the Obama regime.

      • Amazona April 22, 2014 / 2:29 pm

        Maybe the moratorium on candor regarding your opinion of such as watson and the clown has expired. Or been worn out through excessive exposure to their nonsense and vitriol.

      • tiredoflibbs April 22, 2014 / 8:01 pm

        I see watty is on his self-righteous horse again!

        Watty, what spook said is nothing to the crap you spew each and every day on the “left is right” blog. You and your ilk were the reasons that cluster closed his blog. You “open minded” and “tolerant” progressives have turned both blogs into nothing but hate fest of nothing but attack all conservatives. You can’t even discuss issues without attacking someone here.

        Heed your own advice and stay classy… but that would require for you to have class to begin with….. oh well.

      • watsonthethird April 22, 2014 / 10:34 pm

        Right, tired. I clicked on your name, which took me to your “blog.” It’s class is evident.

      • bozo April 23, 2014 / 12:10 am

        It would seem that none of you read the article. In fact, the “journalist” didn’t read the paragraph just before he bemoans primary care. It clearly states that this woman was seeing an ear nose throat SPECIALIST. She was long past primary care.

        I don’t understand Cluester’s reference to “compassion.” This woman is getting specialized care and she protests a specialist’s expert diagnosis. Where exactly does “compassion” play into this? My compassion sees “the problem may worsen as millions of consumers who gained health coverage through the Affordable Care Act begin to seek care — some of whom may have seen doctors rarely, if at all, and have a slew of untreated problems.” as a GREAT thing. Previously untreated sickness, some contagious, gets treated. PLEASE NOTE: This author does NOT include Obamacare in the current problem, only that it may make it worse.

        ENT specialists spend years studying, interning, assisting and GPing before becoming ENT docs. Where’s the respect for this guy? If he’s careless, he’s gonna pay through litigation, which you guys hate. If she’s on Medicare, it would be wasteful spending to let her jabber on taxpayer’s dime. How do your heads not explode?

        Always a hoot. BTW, Bluster, I love my state. I wouldn’t trade my state for ten Texases. Joel Kotkin is brought to you by the Cato Institute. Californians don’t really care what a New York conservative has to say about California, especially when he wants capitalism to trump democracy. Sorry, not in my back yard.

      • Cluster April 23, 2014 / 8:19 am

        The doctor is a SPECIALIST?? Well no wonder you called her an idiot. No one should ever question a specialist, especially if that specialist is giving 20 minutes of their precious time to even see her. She’s probably an ungrateful right wing nut job, I think the IRS should look into this. Thanks for clearing that up clown.

        I do admire you standing on your card board soap box and proclaiming that YOUR state is awesome, but I would prefer you address the substance of the article rather than again attacking the author. What do you think about the historic low home ownership, the historic high welfare dependency, the loss of good paying jobs, the crumbling infrastructure, and the expansion of the billionaire class? In fact, you should kiss the ground that the 1% walk on because they are the only ones keeping YOUR state afloat, of course they are the only ones benefiting from all the regulations. But it’s better than capitalism, right?

      • Amazona April 23, 2014 / 11:07 am

        Rilly. I mean, if this guy has the right IDENTITY, he should not be questioned. He ought to be able to spend a few minutes with a new patient, tell her what medicine to use, and she just ought to damned well use it and shut the hell up. So what if she has tried it before and had a bad reaction? So what if she has allergies or another condition that counterindicate this particular medicine? Who the hell does she think she is, thinking she has the right to participate in her own health care?

        And don’t forget, this poor care from this doctor is not his fault. He is a victim of capitalism, forced to provide substandard care because of some big mean “practice” that bullies him into being indifferent to his patients.

        And don’t forget, according to the freakzo this woman really doesn’t deserve much in the way of care, anyway, being a wild-eyed religious fanatic faith healer drug user snorting Tide to get high.

        This is what a Lefty gets from the article. This bizarre spin on a simple comment does explain a lot about how these Lefties end up so deep in the feverswamp of righteous indignation over things that don’t really exist, but still manage to set their hair on fire.

      • watsonthethird April 23, 2014 / 12:39 pm

        Right, tired. I clicked on your name, which took me to your “blog.” It’s class is evident.

        Haha. Tired cleaned up his “blog” overnight. I guess he _does_ respond to shame.

      • tiredoflibbs April 23, 2014 / 12:41 pm

        The blog is a honest assessment of allPolyticsNow under the guidance of progressives, regardless of the fact that cluster footed the bill for that venture.

        You guys trashed his blog. Nothing can compare to the vulgar and relentless attacks on any conservative. You like dishing it out, but whine like a baby when a fraction is returned to you.

        As I accurately said, you have no class to begin with.

        To use kmg’s tactic, the honest assessment is not an attack. It is obvious the truth hurts.

      • tiredoflibbs April 23, 2014 / 12:49 pm

        “Haha. Tired cleaned up his “blog” overnight. I guess he _does_ respond to shame.”

        Hardly…. since cluster has shut it down, due to the fact that you guys trashed his blog and used it for nothing other than attacking all things conservative at his expense (wow talk about mooching), there was no need for the posting any longer.

        If I decide to go to the Left Is Wrong blog and get banned because I kick your asses one time, then another honest assessment will be forthcoming. Until then, I have better things to do than act like a proggy when he can’t get his own way.

      • watsonthethird April 23, 2014 / 1:03 pm

        There are just so many things to discuss here this morning.

        First, the article Cluster cited makes it clear that the more patients doctors see, the more money they make. It’s capitalism, plain and simple. Cluster should be thrilled.

        Second, what Cluster really doesn’t like is that more Americans are getting health care, because he worries about how it will affect _his_ health care. This is modern American conservatism in a nutshell: I’ve got mine, too bad for you. He would prefer that these “undeserving” Americans go without so as not to inconvenience him.

        Bozo, Cluster’s reference to compassion is that I have been beating him over the head for his lack thereof, which is evident by his worries that other people getting health care might negatively affect him. It’s not that we have a “higher level” of compassion — we just have a normal compassion for other human beings, an ability to look at things from the perspective of others. I mean, really, what kind of human being argues that his friends, neighbors and relatives should be denied health care so as to not inconvenience himself? A pretty selfish one, in my opinion.

        Cluster most certainly does now have a preexisting condition. Remember when the health care debates were ongoing and Cluster was crowing about how he was healthy and this preexisting conditions stuff wasn’t relevant to him? Now it is. But thanks to the Affordable Care Act, he can no longer be denied coverage or charged exorbitant rates because of his high blood pressure. That is a great thing for Cluster, whether he knows it or not. As for Cluster’s assertion, “1% of the population by screwing up the system for about 80% of the population,” please cite sources for these statistics. Otherwise, we’ll have to conclude that you are once again making things up.

        As for the state of California, I put it up against the state of Arizona any day.

      • Cluster April 23, 2014 / 1:39 pm

        ….what Cluster really doesn’t like is that more Americans are getting health care, because he worries about how it will affect _his_ health care.

        Is that what I don’t like?? Thank God for all-knowing liberals like you Watson. Any chance you can tell me what it is I don’t like about taxes? And successful capitalism, particularly in the service sector, depends a lot on quality, not just quantity, but there’s no surprise that you don’t understand that part of the equation. I am sure you lack quality in a lot of areas –

        Now you want stats, is that it? After failing to provide answers for the questions I have for you about the ACA, you want me to back up my assertions. Well, here you go:

        According to the latest Census Bureau data, 309 million Americans have health insurance. Of these 4 percent are covered by directly purchased insurance alone. The remaining 96 percent are covered by government or company insurance or some combination. Government health insurance does not allow discrimination based on preexisting conditions. Company insurance typically does not either, insofar as the risk pool is already incorporated in the premiums, and there are portability requirements in moving from company to company.Thus 12 million people purchased private direct purchased health insurance on the eve of Obama Care. Insurance industry studies show that one in eight applicants for private health insurance have preexisting conditions that affect their eligibility or premiums. This gives a total of 1.5 million Americans who were denied health insurance or paid higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions.The Obama administration has lied with statistics! Instead of 150 million, there are 1.5 million Americans, who “cannot get insurance or must pay higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions.”

        So actually, I over estimated. Now let’s go back the questions I have for you – or have you forgotten those? Honestly Watson, you have proven yourself to be a complete idiot, but this post takes that to a new level. And I have no doubt you prefer CA to AZ, most progressives would. Just be thankful for that class of billionaires you have out there – you don’t want to piss them off.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/10/08/lying-with-statistics-obamas-pre-existing-conditions-crisis/

      • Amazona April 23, 2014 / 1:21 pm

        So much material just spills out of every wild-eyed Lefty rant, sometimes it’s hard to know where to start.

        “Where’s the respect for this guy?”

        Respect? For refusing to listen to the concerns of a patient? Oh, that’s right—once he gets the credentials, he’s home free. He’s got those letters after his name, and that’s all that counts.

        (Q: What do you call the guy who graduated last in his class in medical school?
        A: Doctor )

        ” If he’s careless, he’s gonna pay through litigation…”
        Translation: Even if you know the guy is wrong, and what he is prescribing will make you sick, you are supposed to go along with it out of “respect” for the letters after his name, and then when you are damaged, or dead, you or your family can engage in years of expensive litigation. For which the defense would be, if she knew this was something she should not do, and did it anyway because she thought she had to, to show her “respect” for the doctor, then she was responsible for what happened to her.

        “…. which you guys hate. ”

        Huh?

        “If she’s on Medicare, it would be wasteful spending to let her jabber on taxpayer’s dime.”

        “JABBER”? Could you be any more contemptuous or dismissive? Expressing concern about her health and care is “JABBER”? Interesting to see how YOU allocate “respect”.

        But thanks for making such a good point, albeit it by accident. Time spent with a doctor should NEVER be “on taxpayer’s dime”. This is a personal relationship between a patient and a health care provider.

      • Amazona April 23, 2014 / 1:32 pm

        “Cluster really doesn’t like is that more Americans are getting health care, because he worries about how it will affect _his_ health care. This is modern American conservatism in a nutshell: I’ve got mine, too bad for you. He would prefer that these “undeserving” Americans go without so as not to inconvenience him.”

        Just when you think a Lib can’t possibly sound any dumber or more vile, the wattle steps up and screeches “You think THAT was stupid? Well, take a look at THIS !!!”

        Conservatism is the belief that the Constitution of the United States is not only the best way to govern this nation, it is the only legal way. This bizarre dependence on Identity Politics as a substitute for actual political thought is typical of the Libs we encounter, but it just not just being obtuse—-they show us, every time they hit a keyboard, that this is what attracts them to the positions they take. They have no interest in anything that is not vicious and mean. The above quote is a perfect example: Rather than do the work of understanding the fatal flaws of the ACA, which would require not only intellect but intellectual honesty, they stick to what they know, love, and practice, which is simply making insane comments such as this.

        And, to double down on the insanity, they not only say things like this, they believe them.

        (And BTW, there is no indication whatsoever that “…more Americans are getting health care.” The number of Americans who have some sort of contract with some agency to pay for health care is now, finally, back to approximately where it was before the Libs started screwing with the system. Maybe. GIGO is the best description of what we are told about how many people now have health insurance. To a Lib, such a contract IS “health care”.)

      • watsonthethird April 23, 2014 / 2:11 pm

        Cluster, the article you cited fails to support your contention that “it is a good thing that ACA resolved the pre existing condition which probably accounts for 1% of the population.” Even that article acknowledges that there are millions of Americans that have preexisting conditions. Now you are one of them. You should be happy you can no longer be denied insurance. See, four years ago you couldn’t see how health care reform could possibly affect you because you were perfectly health. Now you’re not. Now you can only see that it negatively affects you because you already had health insurance and others did not. You can’t imagine that you might have to change insurance due to unforeseen circumstances, just as you could not imagine that in a few short years you yourself would have a serious preexisting condition.

        But maybe you can clear this up once and for all: Are conservatives claiming that ObamaCare is failing because it is increasing the number of people with access to health care? Or are they complaining that it is failing to increase the number of people with access to health care? You guys argue it both ways, even in this thread.

        As for your questions for, it seems that pretty much every comment you and your pal Amazona make mentions me in some way. I am sorry if I am unable to keep up. Is the question about how many people have paid their ACA insurance? I told you before that the best source for information was acasignups.net, which you or your pals dismissed as liberal spin. Here is an article about it.

      • Cluster April 23, 2014 / 2:48 pm

        It was 1.5 million people. Less than 1%. But whose counting, right? And I had insurance before I was diagnosed with high blood pressure, so that really doesn’t make it pre existing, but again, don’t let facts get in the way of your ignorance.

        And I didn’t ask how many people signed up – I asked how many people have paid. There’s a difference. But we all know you have trouble keeping up. You are the one here riding the short bus, that’s for sure.

      • watsonthethird April 23, 2014 / 2:12 pm

        Conservatism is the belief that the Constitution of the United States is not only the best way to govern this nation, it is the only legal way.

        It will come as a shock to Amazon that people she derides as “leftists” also believe that the constitution of the UI is the only legal way to govern the nation.

        Anyway, I’m off to the movies. Feel free to keep referring to me in your every comment. I know you can’t help yourselves.

      • Cluster April 23, 2014 / 2:49 pm

        What’s the constitution of the UI?

      • Amazona April 23, 2014 / 2:24 pm

        “Are conservatives claiming that ObamaCare is failing because it is increasing the number of people with access to health care? Or are they complaining that it is failing to increase the number of people with access to health care? “

        I suppose it makes sense to invent stupid reasons for something and then ask the other side to pick which stupid invented reason is the right one. Answer: Neither of your stupid assertions is related to any reality.

        ObamaCare is not “… increasing the number of people with access to health care..:” Until you can prove that the people who are signed up under government plans did not have health care prior to the implementation of this plan, you really need to stop spouting this nonsense. And, before you start carrying on about the stats you love to quote, keep in mind this simple fact, which you and your kind simply do not seem to understand: INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS HEALTH CARE.

        Prior to the ACA, everyone had access to health care. Not everyone had a contract with a company which said that the company would pay for this health care. Sometimes the person had to pay, sometimes the government had to pay, but the issue was always about who would pay, not access to health care itself. Until you figure this out, or admit it (because you may understand it but just like the taste of the lie) you don’t have anything to say on this subject.

        So your second inane invented theory is also a non-starter. Conservatives do not say ObamaCare is failing because it is “… failing to increase the number of people with access to health care..:

        It’s always fun to watch you play both parts of Dumb and Dumber, but really, you need to get a grip on reality and stop arguing with the voices in your head.

        I don’t know about the Peoples’ Republic of California, but in Colorado, if you were denied insurance for any reason you qualified for a state-subsidized insurance plan. And this was a long time before ObamaCare raised its ugly head.

        ObamaCare is failing because its very structure says it cannot succeed. This has been covered in detail, over and over. Like all forms of redistribution of wealth, at some time the decreasing amount of OPM is going to be a problem. And it was a stupid idea from the get-go. There was a small, discrete (and yes, I mean DISCRETE—–not the same as “discreet”) problem that could have, and should have, been addressed as such. And it would have, if the goal was to help make sure all Americans could get health insurance.

        But the goal was to increase the size, scope and power of the federal government, and to take over an additional one-sixth of America’s economy, while increasing the Dependent Class. When the goal is accurately assessed, we have to agree, it has not been a failure.

      • M. Noonan April 23, 2014 / 2:46 pm

        Even supposing Obama’s obvious lie that 8 million have signed up is true, last number on policy cancellations I saw was 6.3 million – which means, at most, a net gain of 1.7 million; and my bet is that the actual number of policies paid for is vastly less than 8 million…probably in the 4 to 5 million range…

      • Amazona April 23, 2014 / 2:28 pm

        The wattle says (and yes, he really did say this…) “It will come as a shock to Amazon that people she derides as “leftists” also believe that the constitution of the UI is the only legal way to govern the nation.”

        Let’s fix that so it makes sense: “Leftists also believe that the constitution of the UI (sic) is the only legal way to govern the nation as long as the Constitution can be defined, redefined, stretched, expanded, distorted and selectively applied depending on the whim of the moment and the Left’s determination of PLIGHT and PERSECUTION and its application of whatever is currently defined as EMPATHY.”

        The way the Constitution is written? Not so much…………

      • Amazona April 23, 2014 / 3:47 pm

        wattie, if you find the term “Leftist” derisive, maybe you ought to learn what it means.

        I was in a discussion once with a Lefty, or at least as close to a discussion as one can get, and he finally asked why I constantly used the word “Left”. Uh, duh—because if you are talking POLITICS, instead of just emoting about imaginary defects of an Other, the term defines a specific political orientation.

        If you are truly ignorant of the POLITICAL meaning of the word “Leftist”, maybe you ought to STFU here, go do a little studying on political definitions, and then figure out where you stand on whether you think the federal government should be severely restricted as to size, scope and power with most authority left to the States, or the People (the Constitutional/Right Wing model) or expandable to accommodate various duties even when they are not included in what has been delegated to it within the Constitution (Leftist or Left Wing).

      • Cluster April 23, 2014 / 4:00 pm

        Strange how he is a contributor to a blog called “Left is Right”, yet finds the designation derisive.

      • Amazona April 23, 2014 / 4:17 pm

        “Even supposing Obama’s obvious lie that 8 million have signed up is true…” and even if ALL of them have gone beyond the “I want a policy” stage to the “Here is a policy” and the “I’ll take it” and the “here is my money” stages, none of this takes into account how many had insurance they liked before being forced to change, how many preferred their old policies to the new ones, how many now have to pay more for their policies, how many have lost certain coverages, how many now have much higher deductibles, how many have to find new doctors, how many doctors and hospitals have opted out of participation, how much this whole social engineering scheme is costing citizens, how much it is costing the country, or how badly run the whole thing is.

        You also seem quite sanguine about the fact that a business run by a school crony of Michelle’s, a company with a terrible track record in designing complicated web sites, was given the contract to build the Obamacare website, without oversight, without incremental reporting on its progress, and at an astronomical cost—-and how they get to keep the money even after an epic fail.

      • watsonthethird April 23, 2014 / 6:26 pm

        I said:

        It will come as a shock to Amazon that people she derides as “leftists” also believe that the constitution of the UI is the only legal way to govern the nation.

        Cluster said:

        Strange how he is a contributor to a blog called “Left is Right”, yet finds the designation derisive.

        Amazona said:

        wattie, if you find the term “Leftist” derisive, maybe you ought to learn what it means.

        See the slight of hand? I said Amazona derides people as “leftists” (leaving aside the obvious typo in my original statement). I didn’t say I found it derisive.

        Are you guys actually capable of reading?

      • Cluster April 23, 2014 / 7:20 pm

        Wow, you’ve really uncovered something. Now, have you had time to come up with some of the answers to my questions? And I bet you might be excited about the new inexperienced Democratic Senator who is being encouraged to run for the Presidency. Attended Harvard, about two years experience in the Senate – sound familiar? On top of that she’s a woman AND a famous Native American!!!

        How cool is that?

      • Amazona April 23, 2014 / 8:23 pm

        “See the slight of hand? I said Amazona derides people as “leftists” (leaving aside the obvious typo in my original statement). I didn’t say I found it derisive.

        Are you guys actually capable of reading?”

        Of course. That is why I responded as I did. If you did not feel the term to be a pejorative, you would not have made the assumption that my use of it was “derisive”.

        If, for example, I were to whine that you calling me an “Amazon” is derisive, I would be saying I find the term insulting or demeaning in some way. I would be projecting my own feelings about the word onto what you said. As I do not find the term offensive, I didn’t get insulted when you tried to spin my nom de blog the way you did. (BTW, una amazona is, in South and Central America, a term used for an equestrienne. That is, a woman who rides horses. It was bestowed upon me by an admiring Argentinian after I won a championship in a very demanding class at a big horse show.)

        Anyway, as you were the one who reacted to being referred to as a Lefty as a “derisive” term, you seemed to be projecting defensiveness at the very least. Not only can I read, I understand context. You whined that when I call you a Lefty I do so “derisively. You repeated that claim. It seems to me that if you really understood Leftism and had a serious, objective, commitment to it as a political system, you would find my use of the term flattering. Admiring, even.

        I notice that although many legitimate topics and questions have been introduced here, you have dodged every one of them, falling back into what is more and more obviously your comfort zone. That is, hyper-emotionalism verging on (when not actually crossing over into) hysteria, dependence on personal attacks and whining, and determined avoidance of actual discussion of anything of consequence. Even when I challenged you on believing in the Constitution, your reply was a dodge, claiming to believe the constitution (lower-case C) is the only LEGAL form of government for some UI entity, so far unidentified.

        You may preen in your imagined skills at ducking every single question or comment while retreating to petty sniping, but you fool no one. As Spook has pointed out, I really should feel guilty for leading you on like this, toying with you to goad you into more and more ridiculous snarls. Do I? Nah. If I sought you out to pull your wings off, I might, but you lurch in here waving your pretensions and lies and various bigotries in our faces, and I figure you are asking for it.

      • bozo April 24, 2014 / 5:24 pm

        I think I gotta give this one to Ammo, who has successfully argued that Medicare grandmas should be able to talk as long as they want to the specialist of their choice without spending one taxpayer dime.

        How do you argue with that? Besides, with the Republican expansion of concealed carry laws nationwide, the doctor BETTER listen…

      • Amazona April 24, 2014 / 5:57 pm

        Since you are arguing with the voices in your head, I guess you get to decide just how you are going to do it.

        Not sure I’d stick with just claiming someone said something she didn’t, though—you Lefties have got that old tactic plumb wore out.

        You might get some traction with slamming Grammas, though, with the bigot crowd—-they are always looking for another target group to hate.

      • bozo April 25, 2014 / 4:14 am

        Ammo, you JUST WROTE “Time spent with a doctor should NEVER be ‘on taxpayer’s dime'” after JUST DEFENDING this 66 year old Medicare recipient’s time spent with her doctor.

      • Amazona April 25, 2014 / 6:18 am

        You’re pretty desperate for something to snarl about, aren’t you?
        Why are you so focused on this person’s age? That really seems to bother you.

        As usual, you are so obsessed with finding something to howl about, you completely miss every point made.

        ““If she’s on Medicare, it would be wasteful spending to let her jabber on taxpayer’s dime.”

        “JABBER”? Could you be any more contemptuous or dismissive? Expressing concern about her health and care is “JABBER”? Interesting to see how YOU allocate “respect”.

        But you just go right on howling that if someone is in the Dependent Class she has no right to be able to participate in her own health care but has given up her rights and dignity to the State, and that any effort of someone to have a conversation with a doctor about that health care is nothing but “jabber”—although you do seem to be imbuing this particular snarl with an element of bigotry, that of disdain for people of a certain age.

        You’re a howler. It’s what you do. No one expects anything more of you, and once all expectations are lowered enough you never fail to come through. But it is kind of interesting to see one of your kind come right out and admit that in your opinion once people have become part of the government system they should have no expectation of being treated with courtesy or dignity because they are now, as you put it, “on the taxpayer’s dime”. It’s an important lesson for people to learn, as they are tempted by the “free” stuff offered to buy their votes.

        Not sure if you feel that people have traded their dignity for government handouts, or if they just lose the right to be treated with respect after they cross some age threshold you have invented. Either way, it’s a pretty creepy insight into a pretty creepy mindset.

        Just curious—-if this aged relic you seem to think has outlived her right to be thought of as a valuable human being was paying a doctor out of money she had in her bank account at that moment instead of with money she had been paying into the Medicare system for 45 years, would you think the doctor owed her a few minutes of his time to learn her medical history and concerns about some medications, or does her age alone disqualify her for considerate treatment?

      • bozo April 25, 2014 / 7:54 pm

        Just curious – you don’t realize you are arguing FOR my liberal position on Medicare and senior health care? By doing so, you don’t think you’ve misinterpreted everything I’ve written? I’m all for “taxpayer dimes” paying for health care. I’m all for grandmas getting effective medical care on “taxpayer dimes.” I personally can’t think of a better use for “taxpayer dimes” than effective healthcare for all, even you.

        These are not the droids you are looking for. Wow…that was easy.

  3. Retired Spook April 21, 2014 / 9:25 am

    Identity politics, in and of itself, is bad enough, but the Left has begun taking failure to toe their ideological line to a whole new level.

    As others here have said, I don’t know how you deal with this mindset in a rational manner. The number of Eagle Scouts who occupy high places in government and business indicates how effective the Boy Scouts are at developing young men into exemplary adults. None of that matters to the Left, though. Acceptance of an aberrant lifestyle trumps everything else.

Comments are closed.