Not all revolutions begin in the streets with tanks and guns. Some advance slowly, almost imperceptibly, until a nation is transformed and the public realizes too late that their freedoms are gone.
Such is the revolution now taking place in America. The ’60s crowd has emerged from the ideological grave and is about to impose on this country a declaration of dependence in the form of government-run health insurance and treatment. It matters not what facts are known about this “coup,” because to those from the ’60s — whether they lived in that decade or were born later and adopted its ideology — only feelings and intentions matter, not truth and results.
Why would anyone trust government — which has a difficult enough time winning wars — to properly administer health care? What track record does government have in living up to its economic forecasts and competence in running anything?
But this is about none of that. This is about liberal Democrats realizing their decades-old dream of complete control of our lives. Every move you make, every breath you take, they’ll be watching you. Except, of course, when it comes to terrorists who want to destroy America faster than the liberals do. A different standard is applied to them.
Nowhere in the debate over health care “reform” have we heard a single word from liberal Democrats about personal responsibility, self-reliance and freedom. In fact, the message has come through quite clearly that government will penalize anyone who demonstrates such beliefs, as it attempts to spread your wealth around.
This is how I see health care reform working: If you are a doctor who has spent a lot of money and time becoming a responsible and caring physician, the government will tell you how much to charge your patients and, in fact, whether you will be allowed to treat them at all. Bureaucrats, having given themselves the power of God, will decide whether a patient is worth the cost of treatment, thereby deciding who lives and who dies. Despite the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, somewhere down the line taxpayers will be forced to underwrite abortions in violation of the consciences and faith of the majority.
This is the triumph of the humanistic, atheistic worldview. We are all to be regarded as products of evolution in which the fit and the powerful will decide our survival and worth.
When Republicans were in the majority, deficits mattered to Democrats. Now we see that expressed concern was a sham, because if deficits meant something when they were relatively small, they ought to mean something more when we are in hock up to the necks of our Chinese-made clothes.
We’ve only just begun with this. The new breast and ovarian cancer screening guidelines may soon become mandatory as health care rationing kicks in. The unwanted, the inconvenient and the “burdensome” could soon be dispatched with a pill, or through neglect.
Great horrors don’t begin in gas chambers, killing fields, or forced famines. They begin when there is a philosophical shift in a nation’s leadership about the value of human life. Novelist Walker Percy examined the underlying philosophy that led to the Holocaust and wrote: “In a word, certain consequences, perhaps unforeseen, follow upon the acceptance of the principle of the destruction of human life for what may appear to be the most admirable social reasons.”
In our day, the consequences of government seizure of one-sixth of our economy and government’s ability to decide how we run our lives (it won’t stop with health care) are foreseen. They are just being ignored in our continued pursuit of personal peace, affluence and political power.
Opinion polls show a majority of Americans reject this health care “reform” bill. They think haste may waste them in the end. It doesn’t matter. Like members of a cult, whatever the leader says, goes. The facts be damned. The crowd from the ’60s will “seize the time,” in the words of Black Panther radical Bobby Seale, thus sealing our doom as a unique and wonderful nation.
Welcome to the U.S.S.A., the United Socialist States of America.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Shocked! Socialism in the USA
East Otis, Mass. - The less some Americans know, the more strident and voluble they become. Take socialism. The wailing about it over healthcare reform proves my proposition.
Shrill critics menacingly brandish "socialism" to terrify the unthinking, forgetting – or willfully ignoring – that while the United States is capitalist, it's also hip deep in various modes of socialism.
Republicans apparently don't know that it was their beloved President Theodore Roosevelt who in 1912 proposed national health insurance for all.
Some American critics of socialized medicine cite nightmarish accounts of bungled medical treatment abroad, boasting that America has the best medical system in the world.
As a foreign correspondent, I lived in Britain, Germany, Israel, and the Soviet Union and did not discover any sapping of a nation's vital essences because the public enjoyed publicly funded national health insurance.
As a US citizen who lived more than two decades abroad, I found socialized national health insurance programs are often more compassionate and charitable .
Some years ago my former wife took my sons on a driving tour of Britain and became involved in an accident. My elder son had a badly broken leg and was taken to a hospital for six weeks until his leg healed. Although I didn't live in Britain at the time, the British National Insurance system paid all his hospital and doctor bills. When I offered to reimburse the hospital, the British charitably declined and only charged me $35 for a crutch my son used to hobble aboard a plane home to America.
Today, preventable medical injuries kill some 200,000 Americans each year.
Earlier this year, a friend entered a suburban Chicago hospital to have a gall bladder removed. The surgeon was scheduled to go on vacation immediately after finishing the operation. In the process of making a large incision, the doctor unknowingly nicked the lower intestine and punctured the aorta. My friend nearly bled to death before the surgeon discovered his error.
Where is the statistical evidence that private healthcare outperforms national health insurance programs? The United States ranks 37th on health outcomes, according to the World Health Organization, and it has one of the highest infant mortality rates among developed countries, suggesting that socialized medicine may afford better patient care in some situations.
Opponents of the White House healthcare plans deliberately distort the extent of government involvement in such programs, when the only thing to be "socialized" was the so-called public option health insurance plan – and that may be dropped. Doctors and hospitals would remain private.
Meanwhile, members of Congress enjoy "cradle to grave" socialist medical and retirement benefits that outstrip those of the old Soviet Central Committee members.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0916/p0...
pace (anonymous) says…
Oh yes a vast conspiracy of trying to stop the health industry from taking the coins right off the eyes of the ones they say had preexisting conditions. How dare the people ask fro health care reform. The health industry has the holy right not to deliver reasonable health care for reasonable cost. My god, the inhumanity, the treason, demanding health care access. It attacks the very foundations of this country the great tradition of serving up the working families to corrupt corporations. What next, every baby should have a bottle, every child a teacher. There be no end till the middle class gets the same tax breaks as the banks. Have the people no shame.
merrill (anonymous) says…
National Health Insurance ends deductibles and co-payments. National Health Insurance would save hundreds of billions annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and HMOs.
National Health Insurance for All
http://www.healthcare-now.org/
Doctors for Single Payer
http://www.pnhp.org/
Unions for HR 676
http://unionsforsinglepayerhr676.org/...
Organizations and Government Bodies Endorsing HR 676
http://www.pnhp.org/action/organizati...
Health Care In the USA
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/health...
Consumer Reports On Health Care
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/heal...
National Health Insurance does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits will be based on customer service and clinic performance based on the clients experience. This is my perception of competition.
BigPrune (anonymous) says…
....and if you don't get government health insurance, it'll be a $250,000 fine and up to 5 years in jail, insuring the IRS stays in business forever - so much for a flat tax, or national sales tax that could've reduced the size of the IRS into practically nothing.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
"Why would anyone trust government — to properly administer health care."
Because corporations have failed spectacularly.
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
More fear-mongering from the right. Will it ever end.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
What's the difference between HR 676 and a peach pit lodged in a mandrill's bowels?
The peach pit has a chance of being passed.
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…
merrill you sound like right winger.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
Blah blah blah blah Republicans good. Blah blah blah Democrats bad. Blah blah blah there's a Commie (oops! excuse me. Socialist) under your bed.
Same-o same-o from Cal.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
Barry are you pro-choice or "pro-life" (now there's a misnomer)?
Because I'm sick to death of the "pro-lifers" whose concern and care about the baby ends the minute it's born.
Left_handed (anonymous) says…
The only thing more annoying than "shrill critics" of socialism is shrill socialist morons such as Merril spouting their incessant stream of BS.
salad (anonymous) says…
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Help! Help! We need some repugnicans to come in and give us more warrentless wiretapping, homeland security big brother, and free pass for corporate malfesance.
For Gods sake!!!! These dementocrats are trying to help people!!! It's madness I tell you madnessssssss!!!!!
commuter (anonymous) says…
Are the democrats trying to help people or enable them?? To me, we need to get people off of welfare but our government punishes people for working. I have to pay more taxes because I make more.
This is the first time I have ever given any money to either party and I gave money to the RNC.
AreUNorml (anonymous) says…
"This is the triumph of the humanistic, atheistic worldview. We are all to be regarded as products of evolution in which the fit and the powerful will decide our survival and worth."
********************
maybe I'm not being a good atheist, but I have no desire for government to ration health care and tell us whether or not people should be treated. This pair of sentences is an ignorant attack on those who choose not to believe in the invisible man. Morality is not derived from religions, morality is a part of evolution.
"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point." – Friedrich Nietzsche
LarryNative (anonymous) says…
Why not treat health care like schools? We all pay for it if you use it or not and if you dont like it, go to a private physician and keep paying for health care insurance. The public health care won't be the best because the really well trained doctors will have a private practice while the less talented docs will work for less pay at a public institution. My tax dollars are pissed away all over the world and lining politicians pockets anyway.
AreUNorml (anonymous) says…
Larry Native, you should be less apathetic to this issue. I don't want health care to be run like the public schools. If you haven't noticed, most of them are broke and some are being closed. This government takeover of health will usher in a new standard of physician. One who didn't try as hard in school, and he doesn't have to, because there will be fewer and fewer doctors trying to attend. Soon there won't be any "more talented" doctors. and if there are, the cost will surely be prohibitive to 95% of the country being able to visit them.
The primary reason that we shouldn't all have to pay for everyone, is that not everyone treats their bodies well. Smokers, alcoholics, overeaters & octamoms, are all doing things that not everyone approves of or indulges in. If you put the public option on the table, what then keeps the government from banning each of those problem lifestyles?
AreUNorml (anonymous) says…
salad says: We need some repugnicans to come in and give us more warrentless wiretapping, homeland security big brother, and free pass for corporate malfesance.
***********************
in case you didn't notice, Obama has continued, and I've heard, expanded the wiretapping, increased the footprint of homeland security (by the way they're hiring), and not only did he give a pass to corporate malfeasance, he committed it himself with the illegal restructuring of Chrysler, dressed up like a sale. Not to mention the biggest expansion of federal government power EVER.
Helping people; That's the guise that the Democrats have used for decades. Look at all the welfare that has been doled out over and over. What has it done? after 70 years, why is there still great poverty in this country? Because the government has given just enough to people to make them believe they are getting something for nothing. But in fact, they have taught people nothing more than how to hold their hand out and wait. This form of helping has the opposite affect. This type of ignorant spending and blind following will be the death of our nation.
salad (anonymous) says…
"To me, we need to get people off of welfare but our government punishes people for working. I have to pay more taxes because I make more."
This is untrue. Not only is welfare a tiny little -plink- in the bucket compared to other tiny plinks... like foreign aide, but the rules were drastically rewritten in 1995 when Clinton signed the welfare reform act. I have actually met people on welfare, and no one on welfare wants to be there. They also all work. Additionally, you should have to pay more taxes because you make more. What's a crime is that your tax rate is probably ~30%, whereas Mr. bigbucks hedgefund manager has a tax rate around 15% assuming he/she even pays ANY taxes, which is possible and potentially all legal due to our tax laws which cause money to cascade upwards, NOT trickle down.
temperance (anonymous) says…
This is just another unAmerican screed by Cal. Why does he hate our country? Why is he tearing down our president during a time of war? I would probably care more if his writing wasn't so *boring* and predictable. If he wants to grab my attention he better start acting crazy like Glenn Beck.
AreUNorml (anonymous) says…
"I have actually met people on welfare, and no one on welfare wants to be there. They also all work."
*******************
I'm sure we've all met people on welfare. but you cannot say that "no one on welfare wants to be there." I think that there are plenty of people, that you probably didn't meet, who love getting something for nothing. And I can only assume that you meant all the people that you've met, also work while receiving welfare.
Clinton may have changed the game, but as government often does, they forgot that people figure out how to squeeze through the giant loopholes left by bureaucracy.
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
Cal's writing is so utterly pedestrian - not even polite fiction. But, of course all the "revolutionaries" need is their guns, their god and their gold and the obvious inability to think for themselves. Thinking IS overrated afterall
Ricky_Vaughn (anonymous) says…
More whining about health care. You conservatives sound like a bunch of 5 year olds.
canyon_wren (anonymous) says…
I hope all you liberal posters who condemn Cal actually read his columns, but I suspect most of you don't. If you DO, --if nothing else, how can you not agree with his concern about the huge debt the current administration is laying upon us all. That is a recipe for absolute disaster and you know that, even if you won't admit it.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
To those of us who fear a government so big that it promises to give us everything we ask for, what are we doing to oppose a government takeover of health care? I would suggest that freedom-loving Americans seize upon the Thanksgiving weekend as an opportunity to discuss the perils of more and bigger government with family and friends.
A good way to start a conversation: "I was reading about how government a government takeover of health care would result in fewer patient choices, poorer health care outcomes, higher taxes, waiting lists, more bureaucratic mandates and a decrease in personal responsibility..."
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Cal Thomas's mantra should be: No Socialized Welfare, Only Socialized War.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
This article is a little more than over-the-top; but politics is a game anyway, so we might as well be entertained for a while....
Why do so many liberals think a government takeover is always the solution whenever there are any problems in the private sector? This would be like if the price of wheat went up and liberals were demanding that we need to replace family farmers with government run farms. It's doesn't make sense.
Problems need to be fixed in the health care industry. No one is disputing that. The question is, do you think a government takeover, is that best way to fix the problem when you consider the fact the government is overly bureaucratic and inefficient? Seriously, if profit were evil and the government were better at running the economy we would all be communists.
Why don't liberals admit when a government program is horrible? If you ever show a liberal how inept the government is, they just want to blame a scapegoat (see FEMA), and still believe government wasn't the problem. (BTW: Wal-mart was more responsive to Katrina than was FEMA) Odd how there are a few scapegoats when government screws up and they believe a small change will fix the problem; but when there is a problem in the private sector they demand a complete takeover of the industry.
I just wish for once liberals applied to same standard to the private sector as they did their oh-so-beloved government. If they did, they would be demanding Medicaid, Medicare, VA hospitals, and just about every other government entity which interacts with the public be turned back over to the private sector. Even Obama claims there is hundreds of billions of waste and fraud (that is how he wants to pay for ObamaCare). The liberal motto is: In government we trust.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
porch,
Oh, if only the real goal were that some uninsured Americans could receive help with insurance costs! We all know, however, that control is the goal.
Very few free market capitalists would oppose helping the 10% of Americans without health insurance get insurance. But that's not what this legislation does. It sucks up the remaining 90% of us into a massive new government entitlement program. Why? Because this legislation is not about helping the uninsured. It is about controlling every single person in America.
Remember: Control is the goal.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
I am still hoping the government fixes the price of wheat by putting those greedy family farms out of business and creating a massive government run farm. After all, the private sector and those family farms haven’t been able to solve the problem of high costs of food; therefore the only solution is government control of all farms.
deathpenaltyliberal (anonymous) says…
"Cal writes...
Every move you make, every breath you take, they’ll be watching you."
I hope he's paying royalties to Sting.
deathpenaltyliberal (anonymous) says…
As usual, Cal brings a lot of heat and not much light.
Some government programs CAN benefit the people. Like Social Security, Medicare, our Armed Forces, and FEMA (pre-Bush).
However, Republicans prefer to mismanage them, and then say "See, they don't work". FEMA and our financial regulatory system are two examples.
To be fair, I'm not going to worry about the deficit until Obama racks up as much as Bush did. And remember, Bush started with a surplus.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
"...there's a Commie (oops! excuse me. Socialist) under your bed."
Whew! I know I watch too much Ghost Hunters but boy am I glad it's only a socialist.
50YearResident (anonymous) says…
Government health care will probably be as bad as Bush's Drug plan where it mandatory I sign up or be penalized by 10% higher costs for every year I don't have it. Now with the great drug plan I spend $2500 every year for the $1500 of drugs I need. Go figure! If the health plan is anything like the military supply system it will cost $300 for the plastic urinal I will use in the hospital.
acg (anonymous) says…
TomShewman says if the socialists that are in power aren't voted out over the next three years than the America as we know it will cease to exist. Tom, I hate to break it to ya buddy, but the America as we know it ceased to exist years and years ago. You can point your finger at Obama all you want, but as far as I see it, Watergate, Vietnam, Iran/Contra, Lewinsky, Dubya & Shooter Cheney, Iraq & Afghanistan and Socialist Medicine (and all of those little digs in between--you know, the increases in taxes and loss of civil liberties) have been what is destroying America. No one party did it to us, they all did it to us and we let them. And that's just the crap that's happened in my lifetime. You can't point the blame at Obama. He's like the poor schmuck who's expected to put all the china back together after the bull left the shop. There's no fixing this anymore, people. I keep saying it but no one is listening. It's all too far gone.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
Jonas.
man, when I run for governor, I want you as my press think-tank manager.
Cal Thomas's mantra should be: No Socialized Welfare, Only Socialized War.
That is gold!
verity (anonymous) says…
Cal Thomas---"This is about liberal Democrats realizing their decades-old dream of complete control of our lives."
A lie. It is the far-right Republicans like Mr. Thomas who want complete control of our lives.
"This is the triumph of the humanistic, atheistic worldview. "
I wish. Unfortunately we still have the far-right religious nutcases with us and probably will for a long time.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Deathpenaltyliberal…
“Some government programs CAN benefit the people. Like Social Security, Medicare, our Armed Forces, and FEMA (pre-Bush).”
The military is not a “government program” it is the military, which happens to funded by the federal government.
Of course Medicare, FEMA and Social Security CAN benefit people. It would be hard not to when you spend that many billions of dollars. The question isn’t - are we getting anything for our money, the question should be - are we getting enough for our money; i.e. is the government being efficient with our money?
We all know the ratchet effect means that once a government program is in place, people will become dependent on it, and it will NEVER go away. We also know that these government programs have major problems and have billions spent on bureaucracy and inefficiency (even the military is susceptible to inefficient spending). So when the government has shown time and time again the amazing ability to screw things up, why do we still want them to create another huge bureaucracy to solve problems which the private market could solve with a few regulations (or removing a few)?
Also, since you brought up the great social security program - I would like to thank social security for taking enough money out of my check so I cannot save money for my retirement. Oh wait, social security is way better because I get no return on my investment and have to hope it is still around when I retire. That is way better than allowing me to invest my own money and get even a conservative return of 5%. Oh wait, I forgot, liberals and the government give me “safety” because they know I am too stupid to make decisions for myself. Thanks federal government for protecting me from myself! Liberalism definitely isn't about control. Yeah freedom!
--------------------------
“To be fair, I'm not going to worry about the deficit until Obama racks up as much as Bush did. And remember, Bush started with a surplus.” – deathpenaltyliberal
“Federal deficit triples from year ago”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33348615/...
Start worrying.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Puddleglum, hey I'm here to help.
verity (anonymous) says…
Puddleglum,
I'm volunteering for your campaign for governor. Just let me know what I can do. I've always had quite an admiration for your name. With a name like that, I know you will make a good governor.
Verity
PS It's governor of Kansas, right?
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Porch_person's modus operandi when confronting opposing viewpoints:
(Step 1) Quote something completely random the opponent says. It doesn’t have to be a full sentence or more than five random words.
.
(Step 2) Claim the opponent's quote should be interpreted to mean s/he supports ‘X’ ('X' = anything you want, like paving the streets with post-it notes. Similar to how porchie claims you say something, even when he quoted your saying the exact opposite. It really doesn't matter what 'X' is, as long as it is ridiculous, and keeps the opponent on the defensive to distract from the fact you can't back up your argument). Alternatively, repeat step 1, and using the two random quotes claim they contradict each other.
(Step 3) Mock opponent for believing ‘X.’
(Step 4) When opponent claims s/he didn’t say that, respond by stating that you quoted him/her directly (even though when you paraphrase the statement it isn’t anything close to what s/he actually said).
(Step 5) Insert “(laughter).”
(Step 6) If opponent continues to claim s/he didn’t say ‘X,’ use a specious analogy.
(Step 7) If opponent continue to respond, claim s/he is “in Garfinkel mode” trying to get away from the fact he said ‘X,’ and/or contradicted himself. But never explain how the quote you randomly pulled is anything close to ‘X.’ And never respond to his/her questions.
(Step 8) Insert “(laughter).”
(Step 9) If this does not work, engage in personal attacks by making up facts about opponent, again using random quotes, as described in Step 1.
(Step 10) Repeat until you have lost all credibility on the issue.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Since I do not respond to internet trolls…
If anyone else needs an explanation of how the military is not a “government program,” and that receiving money from the federal government does not mean it is a “government program,” I would be happy to respond.
However since anyone with a 1st grade education likely knows that difference between the military and a “government program,” I will likely have no need to explain this, or how the Earth goes around the Sun.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
What Americans fear today is that we may not be able to fix our problems anymore.
We know that the Republican Party became impotent but we don't know how it happened. It happened very quickly. Their great hope is a rattle brained talking head journalist from Alaska who somehow became a governor but resigned when the real world started to close in on her.
The Democratic Party is starting to disappoint us too. Too many selfish people in politics these days who don't belong in government anyway. They are running out of time.
My guess is that at the next election, almost everybody who is office now will be gone. That will be our revenge. It doesn't matter what party they belong to. We just don't want to see a familiar face anymore.
I hope Cal Thomas is well paid for his career as a nationally syndicated "A_ _" kisser. I doubt if anyone will ever remember what he wrote when he is gone.
lildos (anonymous) says…
Revolution on dictionary.com
1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2. Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, esp. one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Compare social evolution.
3. a sudden, complete or marked change in something: the present revolution in church architecture.
I always thought that revolutions by definition were abrupt changes in government or in the social structure. So to be honest I stopped reading Cal Thomas after the first sentence, because if you start your column with such a incorrect statement, chances are the rest is going to be as crappy and his understanding of what a revolution really means.
Next time at least check the dictionary before writing a column. While you are at, how about reading a little about Socialism too, because I am almost positive you are also wrong on your definition of what that is as well.
Newell_Post (anonymous) says…
If Cal would just be quiet, then that would indeed be a revolution.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
All those radicals from the 60's whose ideas Cal poached (revolution, people) are laughing their heads off at the fact he used them in a column.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
mom of three,
And the beauty of it all is that many of those who clammored in the 60's for a grassroots revolution are seeing their dreams played out at town hall meetings and Taxed Enough Already events across the country.
They're seeing the hopes and dreams of a free people unshackled from the oppressing thumb of Big Government turn their attention toward liberty and the defeat of those who are hell-bent on trying to control every last aspect of our lives.
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
Just a quick question??? Can anyone tell me what Obama has actually accomplished in office? Not what hes thinking about and not what is on the table, but what has he actually accomplished since hes been in office?
Im not trying to bash him, and I think that people who are wishing for his failure are unamerican, as a failure for our POUS is a failure for the US, but everyones is fighting about this that and the other, and Im trying to figure out if we are fighting for a good reason, or are we fighting just to fight?? Someone enlighten me!
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
porch,
It seems our ideas of a free and functioning society are very different. On the one hand, we would both agree that the printing of money and the creation of a flag are good and necessary for the functioning of a society.
However, we depart when it comes to the appropriate size, role and reach of government. Unfortunately, your concept of government health care is as bad or worse as our nation's decision in 2003 to invade Iraq. I wish we could go back in time and stop the invasion - and I hope we can have the foresight to kill this train wreck of a health care bill.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
STTR - I think your 60's was a different 60's.
MyName (anonymous) says…
More empty talking points and scare mongering from Cal. Where's the beef here? If you want to actually get votes and govern, you're gonna need more than Glenn Beck's crocodile tears and Cal Thomas trying to refight the culture wars from 50 years ago.
If I wanted an empty suit, I'd be campaigning for Jim Ryun for president.
deathpenaltyliberal (anonymous) says…
"Satirical (Anonymous) says…
If anyone else needs an explanation of how the military is not a “government program,” and that receiving money from the federal government does not mean it is a “government program,” I would be happy to respond."
Since we are talking about government spending and taxes, then ALL spending is part of the discussion.
Or is military spending off the table? I would think that the single largest budget item would be part of the discussion.
Arrogant conservative Republicans feel that dissent is off limits for Americans.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
verity (Anonymous) says…
Puddleglum,
I'm volunteering for your campaign for governor. Just let me know what I can do. I've always had quite an admiration for your name. With a name like that, I know you will make a good governor.
Verity
PS It's governor of Kansas, right?
thanks Verity. I need you to get some financial support for me asap. call big D compton. we can surely hook him up somehow.
jonas, I need a party to run under-or over, should I say.
pretty sure Grampa's Old Party won't have me, and I prolly burned too many bridges with the Democrats, so that kinda narrows it down. any ideas?
deathpenaltyliberal (anonymous) says…
"Also, since you brought up the great social security program - I would like to thank social security for taking enough money out of my check so I cannot save money for my retirement."
If you're blaming social security for your inability to plan for retirement, you are a loser.
jimmyjms (anonymous) says…
"Just a quick question??? Can anyone tell me what Obama has actually accomplished in office?"
Ah, the divakat, ignorant to the core.
Are you enjoying the depression?
What "depression," you say?
Exactly.
Stock market is up more than 10% since November. Housing market is staunched, retail has leveled off and shows signs of at least some uptick.
At this point in his presidency, W had been on vacation for 35% of his time in office.
"What has Obama done!" "Someone enlighten me!"
Some of you are beyond hope.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Socialism is alive and well in Lawrence such as tax abatements,tax increment financing etc etc etc
Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill).” Johnston reveals how government subsidies and new regulations have quietly funneled money from the poor and the middle class to the rich and politically connected.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/18...
"Opponents of the White House healthcare plans deliberately distort the extent of government involvement in such programs, when the only thing to be “socialized” was the so-called public option health insurance plan – and that may be dropped. Doctors and hospitals would remain private."
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
Well since I dont respond to trolls who have nothing better to do with their time than call people names and put them down, I would have to asses that the question can not be answered, at least not by anyone with any standards.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
deathpenaltyliberal,
For many, the 12.4% Social Security penalty is the difference between being able to save for retirement and not.
Let me opt out of Social Security now, and they can keep everything I've payed in to this point.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
what hasn't Obama done?
oh wait, I'm still waiting for him to reopen the lawrence dragstrip, then, I'd be okay.
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
exactly puddlegum, Im just asking what exactly has he accomplished that he promised when he was campaigning? Im not trying to diss him or anything, but to give generic views about "well the stock market is up 10 pts" Yeah? And do you think Obama went and rang the bell and did the work to get it up?? NO!
I want meat and potatoes..what has he done? Has he closed Gitmo? Has he created the 4 mill jobs he promised? Has he ended the war in Iraq? No, and in fact, read up! Hes coming on TV tuesday night to a screen near you to tell you why we "cant" pull out of Iraq now. Ok, I know things happen, and when you inherit problems then sometimes it takes awhile to work them out, not everything can be solved in a day, but there is no reason to name call and put people down because they have different views. If jimmy is a democrat, then the rest of the dems should kick him off their team, because its people like him who make the entire party look bad! Isnt the dems mantra that they are all about tolerance, and change, and peoples opinions count! Not with him, if you voice your opinion then katie bar the doors!
merrill (anonymous) says…
"Meanwhile, members of Congress enjoy “cradle to grave” socialist medical and retirement benefits that outstrip those of the old Soviet Central Committee members."
RKLOG (Mark Andrew) says…
I'll be happy to finally get affordable health care coverage.
monkeyhawk (anonymous) says…
“Meanwhile, members of Congress enjoy “cradle to grave” socialist medical and retirement benefits that outstrip those of the old Soviet Central Committee members.”
merrill, I think you missed your calling. Just think, if you had gone to law school you could be up there on the real hill, sucking in a great salary, secure with that caddy plan & best of all, you could have a hand at true control of the populous (which apparently is your fondest aspiration). Instead, here you sit with a bad case of envy. It's not very becoming, and it's getting old.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) says…
Yeah, well another grass-roots group is quietly forming in our area as well, and is already sending folks over to the state house in Topeka each week. Kansas Christians standing up for themselves!
Kansans for Christian Liberty
Katara (anonymous) says…
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
Ok, I know things happen, and when you inherit problems then sometimes it takes awhile to work them out, not everything can be solved in a day...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This statement seems to be very inconsistent with your demand of a list of President Obama's accomplishments, particularly since you seem to be expecting him to fulfill all of his campaign promises in less than a year.
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
Im just asking what exactly has he accomplished that he promised when he was campaigning? Im not trying to diss him or anything, but to give generic views about “well the stock market is up 10 pts” Yeah? And do you think Obama went and rang the bell and did the work to get it up?? NO!
I want meat and potatoes..what has he done? Has he closed Gitmo? Has he created the 4 mill jobs he promised? Has he ended the war in Iraq? No, and in fact, read up! Hes coming on TV tuesday night to a screen near you to tell you why we “cant” pull out of Iraq now.
jason2007 (anonymous) says…
grammaddy (Anonymous) says…
"More fear-mongering from the right. Will it ever end."
I say, "More libs sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the obvious....your side is full of hypocrisy. I believe that if Obama handed you a steaming bag of horse dung but told you it was a Filet Mignon, you'd dig in with your bottle of A1 sauce in hand. Simply amazing to watch and would be entertaining if the stakes were not so dire for the future of our nation."
jason2007 (anonymous) says…
Beobachter: I'll bite. How are Evangelical Christians worse than Muslim extremists? I do believe that the extreme view of Muhammad's teachings are interpreted to say "kill infidels wherever you find them". Where do you see Evangelicals killing infidels? What churches are preaching this brand of hatred that many mosques around this world continue to spew?
There are pockets like Phelp's nutjob church and that crazy that gunned down Tiller but those are not the norm. To say that all Evangelicals are bad, or placing them in the "worse" category due to a few nutjobs when wide swaths of Islam preach murder is myopic.
merrill (anonymous) says…
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blo...
If you’ve been watching the Senate Finance Committee’s markup sessions, maybe you’ve noticed a woman sitting behind Committee Chairman Max Baucus. Her name is Liz Fowler.
Fowler used to work for WellPoint, the largest health insurer in the country. She was its vice president of public policy. Baucus’ office failed to mention this in the press release announcing her appointment as senior counsel in February 2008, even though it went on at length about her expertise in “health care policy.”
Now she’s working for the very committee with the most power to give her old company and the entire industry exactly what they want – higher profits – and no competition from alternative non-profit coverage that could lower costs and premiums.
A veteran of the revolving door, Fowler had a previous stint working for Senator Baucus – before her time at WellPoint. But wait, there’s more. The person who was Baucus top health advisor before he brought back Liz Fowler? Her name is Michelle Easton. And why did she leave the staff of the committee? To go to work – surprise – at a firm representing the same company for which Liz Fowler worked – WellPoint. As a lobbyist.
You can’t tell the players without a scorecard in the old Washington shell game. Lobbyist out, lobbyist in. It’s why they always win. They’ve been plowing this ground for years, but with the broad legislative agenda of the Obama White House – health care, energy, financial reform, the Employee Free Choice Act and more – the soil has never been so fertile.
The health care industry alone has six lobbyists for every member of Congress and more than 500 of them are former Congressional staff members, according to the Public Accountability Initiative’s LittleSis database.
Just to be certain Congress sticks with the program, the industry has been showering megabucks all over Capitol Hill. From the beginning, they wanted to make sure that whatever bill comes out of the Finance Committee puts for-profit insurance companies first -- by forcing the uninsured to buy medical policies from them. Money not only talks, it writes the prescriptions.
In just the last few months, the health care industry has spent $380 million on lobbying, advertising and campaign contributions. And -- don’t bother holding onto your socks -- a million and a half of it went to Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, the man who said he saw “a lot to like” in the two public option amendments proposed by Senators Rockefeller and Schumer, but voted no anyway.
The people in favor of a public alternative can’t scrape up the millions of dollars Baucus has received from the health sector during his political career. In fact, over the last two decades, the current members of the entire finance committee have collected nearly $50 million from the health sector, a long-term investment that’s now paying off like a busted slot machine.
klinger (anonymous) says…
I am with Cal and good ole Reggie (that's Ronald Regan for you liberals). Let the market take care of health care, the market has done well with health care for the last - what 30 some odd years- and it is doing just fine. I'd trust a sales man and a CEO any day over the government rationing my healthcare. The government can't run a single thing right, look at the fbi, irs, cia, Airtraffic control, FDA - the list goes on and on with people I don't trust and I think are incompetent. Furthermore, who here really believes that healthcare is a god given right? If you think God wants all of us to be healthy, then why are there diseases? I am sorry, but you get what you work for and if you don't have it, well you didn't work hard enough for it. Universal health care is a sign of national weakness, and this is definitely not a time to look weak in front of our enemies. Baracko Hussein Obama may not be trying to blow up any buildings, but he sure is trying to blow up our economy and our national security.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
"Since I do not respond to internet trolls…"
Is this a new development, Satirical?
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"After the Revolution the “beatings” will continue until the scourges of Socialism, “Liberalism” and Communism are wiped from the face of The Planet; replaced with reason and rationality."
That Certainly sounds rational, and highly likely.
TopJayhawk (anonymous) says…
Salad and all the others like him/her.
Wake up the Dems are only trying to help themselves. They won't touch unions or trial lawyers even though that would save a lot of money instantly. You see they are in bed with them and get their money from them. They will take care of them at our expense. So they are no differant than those evil Republicans you all like to whine about.
At least Republicans are not dyed-in-the-wool socialists who are trying to change America in sneaky lying dishonest ways.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…
Top Jayhawk, I was with you until the word "socialist" came into your post. You need to lose the labels. It completely diminishes what you have to say.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"At least Republicans are not dyed-in-the-wool socialists who are trying to change America in sneaky lying dishonest ways."
Umm. . . right. Keep telling yourself that.
kugrad (anonymous) says…
Save this column. Rarely, if ever, will you find more complete bullcrap crammed into such few lines. If Cal wasn't serious, it would be laughable.
mickeyrat (anonymous) says…
Seriously complete bullcrap. Cal just misses the Eisenhower administration, and sees every social or political change that has occured since 1952 as the work of the devil. It's sad. Such angst is the stuff of Greek Tragedy, but unlike Cal's "writing," Greek Tragedy is readable.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"– CBS News Poll. Nov. 13-16, 2009. N=1,167 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults)."
Hey, poochie, babe, is that the same CBS that has Obama's approval at +17 when even that isn't enough to bring the RCP average above 50%?
And I see you still haven't learned to read polls. Not surprising from someone that doesn't know the difference between public option and single payer (whose post are you going to try to steal to argue about that today, pooch?). Cal said Americans don't want *THIS* healthcare plan, the one Obama/Reid/Pelosi are trying to shove down our throats. Nothing in that CBS poll disputes that.
"With my previous post demonstrating that Americans *do* want the public option, could the reason why Obama's numbers are falling be due to the absence of the public option in the current bill?"
Oh my frikkin' god - poochie finally noticed Obama's numbers are falling!!!!!!!
And, um, poochie? The senate package does include the public option, nimrod.
"I quoted that entire paragraph. Didn't leave anything out. Didn't take out of context at all and I quoted it with full awareness that anyone reading my content can review what you wrote in case I had. I do that with all my content."
You mean like when you re-posted one of Pilgrim's posts without his tagline and tried to claim it was your own, poach_person?
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/nov...
"And the hilarious part is that George W. Bush burned $680,000,000,000 for this “three-lie”, “out the secret agent”, “Obama is more threatened by old age than he is of us” invasion of “we weren't involved with 9/11” Iraq!!"
By the way, poochie, still waiting for that yes-or-no answer on that question you ran away from after getting laughed off that other thread.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
under-the-porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"Are you *still* trying to bring that up. Clearly you (and Rasumssen Reports) conflated the public option with single payer, produced false and distorted polling numbers. I pointed out this conflation out and provided polling results (which haven't changed on this issue) that indicate that Americans overwhelmingly want the public option."
Geez, poochie, lay off the beer before you post. Who's 'Rasumssen'? And you "pointed out this conflation out"? And you have the stones to make fun of Limbaugh and Beck? Sober up, child.
Hey troll, I replied to a post made by *Pilgrim* citing Barney Frank talking about single-payer with a remark from *Rasmussen* saying people were against single-payer. You posted numbers from that reknowned 'impartial' source - CBS (laughter) - about public option, and insisted - more than once - that you had disputed my claim. It wasn't until I pointed out you were talking about the wrong issue that you tried to change the question. Then you re-posted *Pilgrim's* comment without his tagline and tried to claim I was replying to you!
"because you weren't doing well trying to portray Bill Clinton as a liar on Iraq"
So is your answer "NO", then, troll? You're saying Clinton did not mislead the public about WMD to justify Desert Fox when his real target was Hussein?
>>> "“Cal said Americans don't want *THIS* healthcare plan, the one Obama/Reid/Pelosi are trying to shove down our throats. Nothing in that CBS poll disputes that.” –- notajayhawk"
"Except the part where Americans declare that they want the public option."
The 2000+ piece of legislation pending has a little more to it than a public option, poochie. Cal said America doesn't want the 2000+ page bill to pass. Which is true. The fact that people don't want the bill - as a package - is not disputed by whether or not they want one piece of it.
"The question wasn't claiming the post as my own."
Uh, right. When you change the question (after getting laughed off the boards for so badly embarassing yourself with your pathetic answers) so often, poochie, it's hard to keep up. So let's just see what you said, hmmm?
23 November 2009
at 9:54 p.m.
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"You were responding to *my* comment to Pilgrim2"
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/nov...
"So if I include Pilgim2's name, does that aspect of the post demonstrate that I don't know the difference between single payer and the public option or will that just be a signal for you to introduce yet another irrelevant argument you've lost?"
It demonstrates you didn't even know who I was replying to or what comment I was responding too, jacka**. Which is why you came back with public option when *WE* were talking about single-payer.
[continued]
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
[continued]
"When I copied and pasted the post I had cited, I didn't copy all of it."
You re-posted the entire comment, every word of it, *except* Pilgrim's tagline. You even preceded that with the words "Here's what was said:" Strange how the *ONLY* part you didn't copy was the author's name.
"You see the cool part about this exercise is I'll be able to provide a time and date stamped link which shows you how long you've been asking a question I answered long ago."
From the troll's link:
>>> "Ok, the question is “Didn't Bill Clinton lie just like George W. Bush did about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?
>>> "Well, no."
Except, as usual, pinhead, that wasn't the question. As usual, you changed the question to fit your moronic answers.
The question was, pooch:
22 November 2009
at 2:15 p.m.
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
"So this is a really simple question, poochie - see if you can answer a simple yes or no question without spouting off another MoveOn 'history' recitation: Did Clinton mislead the people of this country about attacking Iraq with the supposed purpose of reducing the WMD threat when his true purpose was to destabilize or eliminate the Iraqi government? Yes or no, poochie."
You're right about the time stamp thing, pinhead. Luckily, my original question is still there to see. Somehow I can't find the words "just like George W. Bush" from your alleged quote anywhere in my question. You wouldn't have just stuck them in there on your own and tried to pass it off as a quote of what I asked, would you, you lying troll?
kansasmutt (anonymous) says…
Nothing is going to get done on health care so why bother talking about it. You think they will pass anything ? Nothing is going to pass, they dont even have enough of the dems to pass it. Its too much BS for anyone to pass. I am a dem and i think it stinks. Just take 3% out of my check for a simple plan to let everyone have basic insurance and be done with it. 2 pages of a bill not 2000 , what a joke.