Health care rationing disaster averted by MLK Day?
It was a close-run thing, folks. The nearest-run thing you ever saw.
Sen. Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Health Committee, said negotiators from the White House, Senate and House reached a final deal on healthcare reform days before Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.
Labor leaders had announced an agreement with White House and congressional representatives over an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans on the Thursday before the special election.
[snip]
Harkin said “we had an agreement, with the House, the White House and the Senate. We sent it to [the Congressional Budget Office] to get scored and then Tuesday happened and we didn’t get it back.” He said negotiators had an agreement in hand on Friday, Jan. 15.
(Via The Corner) No chance at that point for calling an emergency session on Saturday the 16th or Sunday the 17th, of course. But Monday the 18th… was Martin Luther King Day. In other words, a federal holiday. So there was no chance of action until Tuesday the 19th; and Tuesday the 19th was too late. Imagine what it would have looked like if they had passed this thing on the very day that Scott Brown won a Senate election in Massachusetts on a platform of stopping this thing; but even if you couldn’t, Democratic legislators apparently could.
PS: Nope, it’s not even ironic. Just… karmic.
Of course, I have to wonder if the Democrats would really have had the cojones to pass it on that Monday, if it hadn’t been a federal holiday, because everyone knew that the special election was coming up, and by Monday it was pretty well known that Scott Brown would probably win.
In a way, it’s a bit strange that Mr Brown’s victory has torpedoed ObamaCare, because interim Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA) continues to hold that Senate seat and vote on legislation!
Massachusetts Senator Kirk Continues to Vote
It’s been 10 days since Massachusetts’ voters elected Senator Scott Brown and yet interim Senator Paul Kirk continues to vote:
“The Senate has voted on three pieces of legislation today that required 60 votes–to raise the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, to reduce the deficit by establishing five-year discretionary spending caps, and Ben Bernanke’s confirmation–all of which interim Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA) has voted on. In addition, there have been other Senate votes since Scott Brown was elected as Massachusetts senator that Kirk cast a vote.
The main question here is: why is former Senator Kirk still voting on these legislative pieces? According to Senate rules and precedent, Kirk’s term expired last Tuesday upon the election of Scott Brown.”
This Boston Herald report suggests it could be at least 5 more days before the Massachusetts’ Secretary of State will certify Brown’s election, and possibly much longer.
In the meantime, I don’t know if Kirk is legally authorized to continue in office but no one seems to be objecting. It’s these kind of “go along to get along” decisions that drive people away from politics and political parties.
My guess is that Senator-elect Brown went along with this not only because he has to make a quick move to Washington, but because the Republicans agreed with the Democrats on the debt-ceiling increase, but didn’t want to vote for it. The measure required 60 votes, and with Senator Kirk voting for it, and the entire Democratic caucus holding (58 Democrats + 2 independents), they just made their sixty.
If the Republicans had really wanted to fight it, they could have raised a stink about not having seated Mr Brown yet! But, though the Republicans were united in voting against it, not a single one of them raised the slightest protest about Senator Kirk holding his seat and providing that decisive sixtieth vote.
Raising the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion basically pushes the next debt ceiling vote off until after the 2010 election. The Republicans are listening to the lessons of 1995 and 1996, when President Clinton beat them like a drum for government shutdowns, because he vetoed budgets the Republicans passed but which didn’t spend enough money for Mr Clinton’s pet projects. Today’s GOP wants to campaign against deficit spending and mounting debt, but when they had the chance to actually do something about it, they didn’t have the political courage to do it.
DRJ, though she didn’t mention the debt ceiling increase, put it like this:
Republicans remind me of GM. Both have a lot of work to do to win back followers and reclaim their brand.
DRJ was too kind. Come November, the Democrats absolutely deserve to lose: their idiotic policies are ruinous. The problem is that so few of the Republicans seem to deserve to win.
Ever since the public foolishly elected Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2008, buyers’ remorse has set in. The voters trashed the GOP for not reining in spending in 2006, and were scared by the economic collapse in 2008, and the Democrats benefited. But once the public saw what they had done, they quickly reversed course: California voters resoundingly defeated “temporary” tax increases to reduce — not eliminate — the Pyrite State’s deficit in May of 2009, the voters in Virginia and New Jersey replaced Democratic governors (including the incumbent in the Garden State) with Republicans running on lower taxes and spending in November of 2009, and just two weeks ago, the people of one of the bluest of blue states elected Mr Brown. The Democrats only victory came in the nominally Republican 23rd Congressional District in New York, but even that was tainted: the Republican nominee, Dierdre Scozzafava, was a liberal RINO, who bailed out when Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman exposed her record; Mrs Scozzafava then supported the Democratic nominee, Bill Owens; Mr Owens won that race, just 48.3% to 46% over a third party candidate; this was hardly a stirring victory for the Democrats, though that’s what they’d like to claim.
The simple fact is that the people are clearly showing the Republicans the way. Our friends on the left found a derisive nickname for the Tea Party people (“teabaggers” has an obscene slang meaning), but can’t quite get past the fact that the Tea Partiers know what they want: lower taxes and lower spending. If the Republicans actually had testicles (which would make the “teabagger” name more appropriate, I suppose), they could see the plain desires of the public, take the lead, and stomp the Democrats in the 2010 election!
Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like the Republicans do have balls. They seem likely to take the safe way out, voting against increased spending when they don’t have the votes to actually stop it, but doing nothing when they actually can stop it. They will be the Hugh Scott-Everett Dirksen-Gerald Ford go-along-to-get-along Republicans the professional media respected (sort of) in the 1960s and 1970s who won individual seats but never seriously threatened to actually take power. There won’t be a twenty-first century Newt Gingrich, reviled by the media, a guerrilla warrior, a sniper, a caustic back-bencher, but one who actually knew how to fight and would fight and did fight, and led the GOP to a congressional majority in the 1994 elections by actually standing for something.
I don’t think it makes a damn bit of difference whether the Republicans voted on this or not. Everyone knows the money’s gonna get spent and the debt increased regardless of what they vote for, thus making the whole thing a symbolic gesture at best.
The simple fact is that the people are clearly showing the Republicans the way. Our friends on the left found a derisive nickname for the Tea Party people (”teabaggers” has an obscene slang meaning), but can’t quite get past the fact that the Tea Partiers know what they want: lower taxes and lower spending.
A bit of a laugh coming from someone too cowardly to spell out exactly where he’d cut out spending…
I guess you also lack testicles, Dana.
That’s because I don’t choose to play a rigged game, Phoe. I’ve already told you where I’d cut: no individual would receive a government check that wasn’t in payment for goods or services provided, wages earned or retirement earned. All federal aid to states would be cut. All federal aid to K-12 education would be cut. The federal departments of Education, Energy and Commerce would be eliminated. The remainder of the stimulus plan would be eliminated.
because the Republicans agreed with the Democrats on the debt-ceiling increase, but didn’t want to vote for it.
Doubt it. If they were okay with it passing they just had to not filibuster it. That would require 50 votes (assuming Biden votes with the Dems in case of tie).
That’s because I don’t choose to play a rigged game, Phoe.
A “rigged game” in the sense that it actually relates to the real budget rather than cheap soundbites.
I’ve already told you where I’d cut: no individual would receive a government check that wasn’t in payment for goods or services provided, wages earned or retirement earned. All federal aid to states would be cut. All federal aid to K-12 education would be cut. The federal departments of Education, Energy and Commerce would be eliminated. The remainder of the stimulus plan would be eliminated.
And after all the states have gone bankrupt, Medicaid eliminated, the country turned even more ignorant than it is now, and the economy tanked, what then?
Gentlemen, Brown is a LEftist. Just cause there’s a R after his name, means nothing.
‘I’ve already told you where I’d cut: no individual would receive a government check that wasn’t in payment for goods or services provided, wages earned or retirement earned. All federal aid to states would be cut. All federal aid to K-12 education would be cut. The federal departments of Education, Energy and Commerce would be eliminated. The remainder of the stimulus plan would be eliminated”
Freekin’ magnificent! I agree!
Pho, love ya. Such a wimp. Americans, real Americans don’t think like you. We re independent, individuals and indepedant. Sorry, did I say INDEPENDANT twice?
Drunk again, John?
Pho, the problem with federal aid to the states is that the whole thing constitutes a huge lie. Forty-three states have balanced budget requirements, but they all spend more than they take in in taxes, because they get so much from the federal government, which doesn’t have that restriction. State projects should be paid for with state money! If that means the state has to raise taxes, well, so be it: at least we’d gain the efficiency of having the money going straight to state treasuries, and not going through Washington and coming back with strings and reporting requirements attached.
Further, idiotic projects like the bridge to nowhere would never get passed: no one checked that idiotic earmark from Senator Stevens (?) in Congress, but state legislators are much closer to these things, and stuff like that is less likely to get passed. And when state legislators have to be responsible to their constituents, constituents who, in most cases, can actually get to their representatives, they are more likely to take care of the state’s business properly.
You guys would be in heaven in Somalia. Freest of free markets. No government interference. Government debt isn’t a problem. Taxes, schmaxes! Success for the capable, the lazy, gunless people don’t get coddled by some nanny state handouts.
I know you want to create that here, but you’ll face some resistance.
Naggy, your input is slightly more valuable than blu’s, possibly.
In other words, you think you can disassemble government and still live the same life, just with more income. That about right?
Gee, Pho, I wonder how people ever got educated in this country before they created the Dept. of Education in Washington, presumably to tell all us proles out in the hinterland how to learn?
As I read it, all Dana’s asking for is some restraint in government, for the Federal Government to back to its basic purpose, and leave everything else to the states and local gov’t. His citing of the Bridge to Nowhere is a classic example of the kind of pork the Feds can dole out, since no one at the local level is responsible for paying for it.
Or, to give a more local example, there’s been some talk lately of building a high speed rail line between here (Minneapolis) and Chicago. Well sounds lovely, especially since the Feds would pay for most of it. Only a couple problems, tho …
1) it would cost at least a billion dollars.
2) By “High speed”, they mean about 110 mph, meaning the train would make the trip only a couple hours faster than driving.
and finally,
3) Southwest Airlines will fly you there for $39, and the airports at both ends have already been paid for. And they’ll even let you check your bags for free!
Heh, I’ve heard talk of putting a passenger train from Cleveland to Columbus. With the multiple stops, it’ll only be an hour or so slower than driving. But, of course, everyone will like that since they can sit back and relax and read last week’s news in yesterday’s paper as they trundle along. And, again, you can already fly from Cleveland to Columbus.
So, from your perspective the alternatives of either “social democracy” and the totalizing welfare state, or the violent barbarism of Somalia, exhaust the existential and logical possibilities.
“Brilliant”.
Well Pho, my wife June just returned from a (semi) successful business trip to Miami and since today is February 1st and a Monday, I’ll be sitting home doing my payroll and business taxes. Then, perhaps, I’ll get drunk. Delete that “perhaps”.
Gentlemen, I was just informed that Dr. Walter Williams will be here at the Bryn Athyn College on February 11 to give a talk “The Role of Government in a Free Market Economy”. Bryn Athyn is in Huntingdon Valley which is next to Willow Grove. If you go to colefoundation.org you can get the particulars. I have already (or should I say instantly)reserved a row of seats for myself and some friends. The Bishop of Bryn Athyn Cathedral and Senator Greenleaf will be there. We may also be (blessed?) with Arlen Specter. The 11th is a Thursday so it may not be convenient for many of you but, if you could attend it would be my pleasure to sponsor an early dinner and your tickets. Bring your wives or friends (if they can tolerate a discussion of economics) and we can all have an interesting evening. If I’m lucky, I may be able to persuade Dr. Williams go out for a few libations after, and some one on one personal conversation. Let me know if you can come and we will make the proper plans.
So, from your perspective the alternatives of either “social democracy” and the totalizing welfare state, or the violent barbarism of Somalia, exhaust the existential and logical possibilities.
Keep beating up your strawmen, DNW.
If Pho could come I may be able to russle up a Steinlager for him.
The only “Strawman” I saw was whoever referenced Somalia in the first place …
By the way, looks like there’s an experiment going on in America of what happens when teabaggers get their way…
This ought to be interesting.
Pho, if I’m a “teabagger” are you the “teabagee”? If so, thank you.
So they can’t find anyone in city hall to cut? How about at the Dept. Of Recreation? Want me to go on? All leftists are liars, they cut what we want and need, not the bullshit they create. Such assholes.
Thomas Franks said it best the other day.
“It’s like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy.”
Nothing shocks me anymore. People are complete idiots
Certainly JohnC demonstrates this in spades…
I like how Dana slipped in “retirement earned” and none of you boneheads called him out on his socialistic wantings. It’s a complete socialist program and yet here is Dana supporting it.
A half informed voter is a dangerous one.
Mmm – especially since IIRC he has called for social security to be ceased and people to be responsible for their own retirement investing. And if your retirement savings are swindled away by some Wall Street wide boy, you deserve to starve in your old age – it’s the Republican way!
It seems my daughter may earn her way to a government retirement check, and it won’t be a SocSec check. So put that in your smipe and poke it, india delta ten tango snarkfiends.
I would also like to take this time to note the “where were you” crowd on the left has just seen two articles by two different authors in a short span where we have smacked the Republican Party around. And yet they’ll ignore it and continue to ask “where were you” and throw that hypocrite word around like it’s actually going to stick to something.
Willfully blind and deaf partisans.
It seems my daughter may earn her way to a government retirement check,
In other words, she’s a parasite on the community who deserves to be shot by a patriot?
No, Pooter, that means she has you in her sights and she’s a better shot than most soldiers (all of whom are better shots than you). But thanks for wishing my daughter (and every American who defended your island in the 1940s) dead. It only clarifies your (lack of) value to the human race, as if that needed clarification.
Ah, so she *is* a government parasite bloodsucking off the taxes of honest hard-working Americans then.
Pooter, back when I said I wouldn’t ban you, I was telling the truth. Since then, you have very much become bannable in my mind (just like you have been banned from more than one other site). But since I don’t ban people from sites I don’t run, count yourself lucky, piss-ant.
What does this have to do with the fact that your daughter is nothing but a government parasite bloodsucking off the taxes of honest hard-working Americans, Penis-breath?
I’ll let her deal with you in about 6 hours, S4B. She can easily handle my light work. Oh, btw, you also called 2 of Mr Pico’s daughters and JohnC the exact same thing. Good luck with that.
As homework, Pooter, I suggest you go to work and start reading 940.53 and 940.54 and don’t stop until you’ve read everything there. You do know how to find 940.53 and 940.54, don’t you?
[...] take my word for it. Listen to him. [...]
. Oh, btw, you also called 2 of Mr Pico’s daughters and JohnC the exact same thing.
Dana isn’t as rabid as the rest of you wingnuts, and can’t really be hoisted on his own petard in such an amusing fashion as this.
Gosh, you must be a really terrible parent if the best you can produce is a government parasite bloodsucking off the taxes of honest hard-working Americans. Tell me, is she too incompetant to get a job in the real world, or just too lazy?
Penis-breath, aren’t you ashamed to have produced a tax-sucking parasite?
(The old sterotypes about wingnuts not able to get the whole irony thing are confirmed yet again…)
Pho adds, “By the way, looks like there’s an experiment going on in America of what happens when teabaggers get their way…
This ought to be interesting.”
There are 16 states in the US that have lower state and local tax rates than Colorado. The state I live in doesn’t have a sales tax and a limited income tax and yet is consistently rated one of the top 5 states to live in, in the US. How on earth do we do it?
From the article, “Broadmoor luxury resort chief executive Steve Bartolin wrote an open letter asking why the city spends $89,000 per employee, when his enterprise has a similar number of workers and spends only $24,000 on each.” Ah, a clue.
The Chamberlain in a time of Churchills linked this this article from The Denver Post, in which Colorado Springs is cutting back on services because they don’t have enough tax revenue to fund them. Of course, our good friend Amanda Marcotte has weighed in as well.
Holy crap, Pho. You really need to take a step back. Disrespecting John Hitchcock is one thing. He can take care of himself. But your verbal hate crimes about his daughter is way out of order.
You are now the Kieth Olbermann of this blog and are rapidly loosing viewers. Even the other leftists here don’t want to associate with such seething hate.
JohnC: “But your verbal hate crimes about his daughter is way out of order. “
Not to defend Phoenician, since he can speak for himself, but the badgering on here comes from both sides. Let it be up to the reader to decide and discern, whereas John H. would just as soon ban one side, when he is just as prolific an offender on his side. Moreover, Phoenician was using sarcasm, or irony as he referred to it, admittedly with some strong language, similar to some examples I’ve seen from the other side.
Dana, uncharacteristic of many other blogs I’ve seen, keeps communications open, thus permitting all views, including the rough language that sometimes appears, much to his credit! So I say: Kudos to Dana!
Pho, put down the whisky bottle and go to bed.
Your rants are verging into Blu territory, only she never sinks to this level of vitriol …
No, Pho. Irony is supposed to be clever. There’s not a trace of it in any of your posts.
“the badgering on here comes from both sides.”
Yes it does but we don’t go after other people’s families. That’s just wrong.
“Yes it does but we don’t go after other people’s families. That’s just wrong.”
Like I said, the language was rough, but I still see his making a point by irony, about public employees, which you folks consistently rail against, consistent with your wishes for smaller government. But smaller government, for some reason, does not apply to our DoD expenditures and the DoD bureacracy.
In other words, you choose to draw a line when it comes to a public employee who happens to be in the military, most of whom never see combat. We have a military of something like 1.3 million, about 0.2 million who are in combat zones, 10% of whom are actually in combat. So the true picture of military service consists mostly of those not in combat, like many other non-military public servants. So in addition to irony, there is some truth to his point.
Now please, my intent is not to diminish those who chose to serve in the military, because their service often removes them from their families and home towns, requires great sacrifice, and sometimes places them in dangerous areas.
Not my call, but keep in mind that it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the barrel. A little discipline applied now would help to keep comments more civil and more topic oriented. Spare the rod and spoil the blog.
Yeah, that little factoid was buried pretty deep in that article. Which only goes to prove our point about out of control gov’t spending.
Let’s see. They could cut those salaries to a comfy $60k/yr, which is still a nice living wage, and easily restore all cut services. But how much you wanna bet the public employees unions have made that impossible? They protect their own, especially in regards to seniority, and it’s a fair bet that any cops and firemen cut were the newly hired.
And California is a prime example of what happens when Dems get their way. Out of control spending, a $20 billion deficit, businesses and people fleeing for lower tax neighboring states, and still the Dem controlled legislature, along with a RINO governor (Arnold) keep taxing and spending. CA used to be a paradise, now it’s approaching 3rd world status …
I think he only wants to ban trolls, which a lot of sites do, including the very liberal Pandagon. It’s really not much different from putting a spam filter on your e-mail account.
I don’t have exact figures on this, but I do know the military rotates people in and out of the combat zone. So, just because only 200,000 are in at any given time, doesn’t mean that a lot more aren’t exposed to combat at least some time in their time of service.
“I think he only wants to ban trolls, which a lot of sites do, including the very liberal Pandagon. It’s really not much different from putting a spam filter on your e-mail account.”
I’d hardly call Phoenician a troll. I’m not even sure what a troll is, except someone who makes the other side angry. Some might consider you a troll, Eric, or I too, or ropelight.
I like Dana’s policy, and oppose John H’s suggestion re Phoenician.
That’s a bit like saying both sides were at fault in WW 2. Point is, Pho is invariably the initiator and aggressor in these spats, and our side can hardly be blamed for firing back.
Case in point: Pho was calling John an idiot, liar, and so forth long before John started calling him Pooter. And “Pooter” at least is somewhat clever, and only mildly offensive, whereas “Penis-breath” is both obscene and stupid. Any reasonably intelligent 6 year old could do better.
“Troll”defined, from Wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
That’s because he’s on your side, so you agree with him. I guarantee if he were on the other side, and consistently behaved like this, your assessment would be considerably less kind.
You’re playing the “Moral equivalency” game here, and you know it. Unlike Pho, the rest of us rarely if ever initiate these personal attacks, so, no, that makes us non-trolls. It has been pointed out that Pho has been banned from other sites, so obviously some out there think he IS a troll.
I’m very much about context and writer’s intent. I’m sure I’ve misread both before, which can lead to gross misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Quite frankly, I’m not entirely certain how to read the context and intent here. A greater clarification would help, but I’ll give some input without that clarification.
Mr Pico has a very strong “don’t ban people” policy, which is admirable even when I disagree with the extent of that policy. I respect that. My own policy is more restrictive than his. But I also have my own personal policy of never pushing the “ban” button on someone else’s site, even if given that authority. It’s not my place and I won’t do it.
As far as my suggestion? I did not suggest Mr Pico ban Pooter. I made no such suggestion at all. I did say I would ban him on my site but that is in no way a suggestion Mr Pico should. But I do recall you specifically suggesting he restrict people.
Regarding your earlier claim that I would ban one side of a debate (which would reduce the site to an echo chamber), you are very much off-base. I am on record here saying that the other side is welcome. I even named people I vehemently disagree with who I said provide good debate. On my own little blog, in the “about”, I clearly welcome contrary viewpoints. But I also draw some clear lines.
And you will see multiple occasions where multiple people are vehemently opposing me on my own little blog. To claim I want to silence the opposition has no basis in reality, here, there, or anywhere else. I would much rather convert the opposition by opening their eyes to the truth where possible, and debate is one way to do it. (Even in my own attack-dog style.)
I would also note that you have said more than once you weren’t speaking in defense of Pooter (and again, that’s a derisive combination of his acronym, PIATOR, and “scooter”, much like “cankle” is a derisive combo-term), but you have yet to come out and say Pooter crossed the line in any way, at any time.
Since he referred to his own Internet posting activities as such, why not?
Re.: This topic and its themes. I’ve come across a few additional and related developments recently.
First of all, murmuring Marxist, enemy of sexual dimorphism, and bearded lady Paul Krugman, explains to all you naive types why the wampires of the weft just can’t leave you alone; why when it comes to their social redistributionist justice schemes, it’s got to be an “all society proposition”.
Thank you Paul, for explaining so succinctly why your kind are, essentially and undeniably, totalitarians in almost every area of human social life apart from non-reproductive sexual activity and NEA funded art.
Then comes this interesting commentary linked within a news article describing the Premier of Newfoundland’s courageous decision to die in Canada rather than flee and seek heart surgery in the U.S. (Oh wait, he didn’t. No matter) :
“The reality, however, is that the war is over. Obamacare was lost the moment that the Democrats managed to lose even Massachusetts.
Democrats are still in a state of shock. They shouldn’t be. They spent 2009 crafting bad legislation.
The White House’s determination to swiftly pass health reform, and to pass it along partisan lines, meant that all meaningful policies were abandoned in the process. Health reform was supposed to be about reducing premiums for working Americans; every CBO estimate has suggested that premiums would in fact rise with the proposed legislation. President Obama has spoken time and again about the need to “bend the curve of rising health costs.” The White House half-heartedly embraced ideas that would rein in rising health costs, and then quietly negotiated away these provisions in the different drafts before Congress. Even a federal agency estimated that costs would increase under Obamacare. The promises of greater competition? By the time the Senate finally got around to passing its bill, the national health insurance exchange (modeled after the health benefits enjoyed by members of Congress) was whittled down to 50 unworkable state exchanges. …
In the coming days, we can expect Democrats to do little. They will blame others for their loss in Massachusetts; they will scheme about the possibility of passing some legislation this year; they will fantasize about a shift in public opinion.
Ultimately, the White House will need to make a decision. Either they abandon all efforts or they reach across the aisle….”
And finally, another Marxist success story reminiscent of the recent Senor Chavez posting, demonstrating that even when it’s an all society proposition, it still doesn’t work.
Thanks be to Gaia Most Ineffectual that there’s always some handy capitalist, or Boer, or Chicago School of Economics graduate to both blame and to haul your collectivist chestnuts out of the socialist fire you start.
Or, when that plan goes astray:
…well … you can always call in the Saudis or Chinese
After 24 years in the ready-mixed concrete industry, Dana has about the thickest skin around. But when you start insulting other people’s children, you are starting to step over the line.
Perry wrote:
The problem with your argument is that you have assumed in it that every government job is of equal importance. With that basic assumption alone, everything that follows fails.
Note that even over at the linked Pandagon article, they bemoan that Colorado Springs is laying off policemen and firemen. Clearly, by that, they have admitted that policemen and firemen are more important government workers than many others.
You Republicans are wacky: http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437
I should explain. That’s an independent poll of self-identified Republicans.
I agree with Dana. Perry, you should be ashamed of yourself for defending Pho. He is not just mean spirited and nasty, he is evil in suggesting that John’s daugher be shot. This kind of evil just makes your own side look bad, and you should condemn it in the strongest terms. That you do not suggests you put partisanship over decency, and that all you care about is winning political battles, no matter how nasty it gets.
Holy crap, Pho. You really need to take a step back. Disrespecting John Hitchcock is one thing. He can take care of himself. But your verbal hate crimes about his daughter is way out of order.
You simply don’t get it, do you?
ALL I AM DOING IS MIRRORING RHETORIC FROM THE WINGNUT RIGHT. Simple as that.
The fact that you don’t even see it and assume it’s a personal attack shows just how divorced you people are from any sense of perspective.
And California is a prime example of what happens when Dems get their way.
Nope. California is a prime example of what happens when direct democracy gets its way.
And the rest of the country tends to follow California. If that state is ungovernable now…
The problem with your argument is that you have assumed in it that every government job is of equal importance
You’d be hard pressed to pass the current bloated numbers of the US military off as “necessary” for defense. They may be useful assuming that you first acknowledge that the US engages in imperialistic activities…
Oh, and if you take issue with that, be sure to tell us where the WMDs for which you invaded Iraq are…
Eric, there is a point to be made here. Here is the dialog:
John H. said: “It seems my daughter may earn her way to a government retirement check,
Phoenician replied: “In other words, she’s a parasite on the community who deserves to be shot by a patriot?”
Note the question mark, Eric!
Phoenician said: “Penis-breath, aren’t you ashamed to have produced a tax-sucking parasite?”
I said: “Moreover, Phoenician was using sarcasm, or irony as he referred to it, admittedly with some strong language, similar to some examples I’ve seen from the other side.”
I said later: “Like I said, the language was rough, but I still see his making a point by irony, about public employees, which you folks consistently rail against, consistent with your wishes for smaller government.”
Eric then proclaimed: “Perry, you should be ashamed of yourself for defending Pho.”
First of all, Eric, you mischaracterized Phoencian’s statement, which was actually a question, then you accused me only of defending him, not acknowledging the criticism I gave. Sorry, Eric, I didn’t use your words!
Eric, you are a fine one to complain. Some of the worst languague on this thread originates from your keyboard. So that’s one thing.
Secondly, I did criticize Phoenician’s language several times. However, I also picked up on the sarcasm intended, and endorsed the sentiment Phoenician expressed.
To me it is a very sad day when we feel the need to hire a person like SGT Hitchcock, then send her over into a combat zone, when there are other alternatives to war that have not been explored, and when there are other more productive, more humane activities to which we can commit these same resources.
On that topic, and many others, Phoenician and I are on the same page. He has his way of expressing his views, I have mine, you have yours.
Let’s move on and give due consideration to the language we use on here!
Look, it has admitted that it is a Troll.
It has clearly stated that its intention is to surf the Internet searching for Republican leaning websites to visit, and people to annoy. The Troll seeks you out in order to lash out and annoy, and derive therefrom whatever psychological pleasure it can, from such activities.
So, what’s with all the supposed mystery as to what it is up to on this particular site, and how to evaluate its behavior?
Not even the motive force behind its malice is a mystery; as the neurotic puling on its own blog [linked to here] made perfectly clear many months ago.
You are simply dealing with a physically decaying and morally defective neurotic loser, who uses the Internet in order to discharge its bile before people whom it resents for one reason or another.
Pretty much end of that story when it comes to assessing the Troll’s moral responsibility and character.
I guess one might ask why American web sites are in particular of so much interest to it. But then, that question really has no bearing on the matter of whether the Troll’s behavior is bad or not.
Thank goodness you have name calling. Otherwise you’d have to face the content.
The figures on the growth in federal employment are readily available.
The only obscurity lies in the casual definition of what constitutes someone being on the Federal payroll.
Typically one is referring to the executive, which encompasses the Defense Department; and legislative; and judicial branch employees; but not the active military.
At one million four-hundred fifty thousand, we have about half of the uniformed military personel we had in 1962, while the number of executive branch civilians has increased, by 200k; and the number employed by the legislative branch has more than doubled to 64k from 30k.
One might note that the population has increased. But then so has productivity. One would imagine that the Social Security Administration is no longer using punch card tabulators?
Nangleator cracked one: “Thank goodness you have name calling. Otherwise you’d have to face the content.”
Sorry, but that is too, too funny!
And true!!!
Naggy was talking about the statists who use obscene name-calling to derisively dismiss TEA Party activists in that quote, Perry, I’m sure.
We faced the content and it’s too ugly to contemplate. It’s one lacking in humanity or mutual respect. It has no common sense, nor wit nor wisdom. It demonstrates no experience. It rattles off Marxist and leftist platitudes, which always fail. It shows a tolerance of despotism and loathing of individualism. Basically, it’s a philosophy, which elevates failure to a virtue and demeans success as a disease of the bourgeoisie. Sorry, not my kind of content regardless of who proposes it.
Unfortunately, neither you nor Nangleator can face the content. Which was, despite your announced doubts, that your NZ friend is a self-admitted troll, whose stated intention has been to disrupt and annoy.
So deal with the matter of his trollishness Perry. Your pal is a self-admitted troll. Why do you continue to deny he possesses attributes and a nature of which he himself publicly boasts?
So the name calling continues, instead of substance and content, Nagleators point so well made and so true!
Are you folks capable of getting over it and getting on with substance? John, you admitted yourself it comes from both sides. We can waste more time by arguing about which side is worst.
Then John, you and DNW come up with the “It” stuff. Grow up for God’s sake!
I’m glad to see the President engaging in substantial policy issues with both Repubs and Dems, in his Q & A sessions of the last few days. This give and take is on substance, which should be our focus on here, in my view.
This is the kind of substance we need to be focusing on.
Perry, why are you a willfully blind and deaf partisan and willing enabler of the lowest form of trollishness from a self-admitted troll? (Notice the question mark?)
John:
I don’t agree with your premise, and I don’t agree with your conclusion.
Nevertheless, I already answered your question right here, today.
Please go back and read it!
Right, Pho. Suggesting someone’s daughter be shot is just a rhetorical device.
Seriously, I’d like to believe you were drunk when you posted that bile. It certainly was well beyond your usual attempts at nastiness.
Go back and read Dana’s statement. He’s pretty tolerant of what goes on here as an obvious advocate of free speech. But even he thinks Pho crossed the line.
Seriously, Perry, you ought to condemn the Pho. With his vicious personal attacks, all he does is make your side look bad.
In response to John’s having written:
Perry responded:
Perry,
I don’t care what Dana does with his site. It’s his. If I wanted a site, I’d put one up and run it to suit myself.
And, let’s put aside the questions of whether you think being an Internet troll is a good thing, or whether Phoenician’s surfing the Web in order to practice his flaming activities secretly pleases you somehow.
But for the sake of facing facts and resolving this troll description issue once and for all, pretend for a moment that you can respond directly. And then try do do so. For, this is not now so much about his activities, but about your excuse-making.
What part, exactly, of: “Phoenician in a time of Romans is a self-admitted troll“, do you disagree with?
Phoenician in a time of Romans has, afterall, claimed the title for himself; publicly using the words trolling and trollish to describe his Internet practices, and his motivations.
Why then, do you take it upon yourself to try and cleanse from him a brand he has voluntarily and in full awareness of the meaning of the term, blazed on his own forehead?
Certainly, pointing out that he is an Internet troll, is to do no more than to acknowledge and repeat what he has said explicitly, and further implied, about himself and his Internet activities?
Eric claimed Dana said: “He [Phoenician]” crossed the line.”
Dana actually said:“… you are starting to step over the line.”
So Eric, you’re spinning again! But so what? This is close to, no it is being absolutely ridiculous. You people won’t give up, yet your behavior at times sinks to the low point, such as most recently referring to a person as “it”. And Eric, you attempt to make your point by rewording a question into a statement. That doesn’t impress me either. Now this discussion has pretty well worn out. Let us move on, after you get the last word, of course!
Might I suggest that a discussion of who is and isn’t a troll, who stepped over or just toed up to the line, or who started or escalated name calling is actually kind of boring?
Whatever, Perry. You can split hairs over the actual wording, but it was clear the disapproval expressed. Dana just happens to be more polite and temperate in his words than some of us. Indeed, it’s almost unheard of for him to rebuke anyone in this forum, so when he does, I take notice.
Anyway, I’m not going to belabor the point, only to conclude that you seem rather partisan in your criticisms, and cut far more slack to Pho because he’s on your side than you do with the rest of us.
Suggesting someone’s daughter be shot is just a rhetorical device.
Gee – so when other people talk seriously about resisting taxation with force, the people they are talking abotu shooting are not someone’s son or daughter?
i, Wingnuts – especially including Penis-breath – regularly use florid, over the top rhetoric when talking abotu taxation and government workers.
ii, Penis-breath’s daughter turns out to be drawing a government paycheck.
iii, I am mirroring wingnut rhetoric by referring to Penis-breath’s daughter in the same terms that he, among others, refer to other government workers. If he doesn’t like it, tough – it’s merely his own rhetoric turned back on him.
iv, that’s why I don’t have to do it to Dana – Dana doesn’t use that type of rhetorical stupidity (he’s far more subtle in his wingnut stupidity).
In short – if you don’t like it, tough. Start thinking about your own language first.
If you think that reading these exchanges has been a dreary task, imagine what it was like repeatedly trying to get Perry to face the issue. LOL
If you can find a quote here from anyone suggesting government workers be SHOT, be my guest.
Until then, your “Rhetoric” was way over the line, and you should Man Up, admit you were wrong, and apologize. But then, we all know you’re not much of a man …
If you can find a quote here from anyone suggesting government workers be SHOT, be my guest.
Oh, Eric – when I do post a link someone talking about using force to resist the government, what exactly will you do?
Oh right – denial…
Just give it up, Pho. You’re only making a bigger ass of yourself.
In short, your views of what American conservatives stand for is about as off kilter as Blu’s 9/11 Twoofer stuff.
K12 education is always the best`,;