OK . . . so you just proved that I was wrong about you always being right. On the other hand, I was spot on that you: "merely respond with sarcastic jabs." That's . . . not . . . really . . . something to be jealous of.

Just giving away more fish...

Whats the percentage of those who signed up that are SUBSIDIZED?

It is really sad but true.This country has got their backs to the wall but the handouts keep flowing.I have a hard time blaming those who abuse the system,who would turn their back on a handout?This is really just Obama paying back his peeps,on our dime unfortunately.

Jim,there could be some dockage in Edgartown available this summer!

YES!!!! ...seven million plus have signed up at least according to the HHS chair person...is it TRUE???.....amaszing she knew the exact figure on the last day, but knew nutin prior to...how many signed up to avoid the penalty????

Here is the big question....R rubber dolls covered under the ACA ..... could have been a big draw for some men....LOL...:)

This explains it

That's how I see things.

(I didn't vote for him either)

And an anecdote fills the white wash bucket to the brim. You couldn't have summarized the problems with the GOP more succinctly had Maddow written the talking point herself.

-spence

I have become accustomed to trying to figure out what you are talking about. Though it can be mind wrenching and sometimes worth the effort, there are times when I don't succeed. This is one of those times.

I don't know which anecdote to which you refer. Nor do I remember summarizing the problems with the GOP, at least not in this thread. As for those problems, my opinion is that the so-called "establishment" or "centrist" Repubs are mini-Dems. They may differ in variously articulated policies, but ultimately cave in not only to progressive notions, but to the progressive defining principal that government is the answer. Why you consider them obstructionist is puzzling. I recall you once saying that the two parties keep each other in check from straying too far from "center." That establishment Republicans publically say what you consider ultra-conservative things, doesn't ultimately translate into action. That is what's called appealing to the base--pragmatism. You do approve of pragmatism, don't you?

Why Repub theorists believe that average folks would choose mini over maxi is also puzzling. Well, I suppose they believe that when progressive policies eventually lead into the inevitable and predictable crises, they can pretend to provide saving conservative alternatives. Of course, eventually, if that succeeds in getting them elected, they revert, after brief "conservative" fixes, to big government status. And so we "progress."

On the other hand, the truly conservative Repubs and libertarians don't appear to be pretending. They actually mean what they say, and are therefor a threat to the established ruling class of maxi- Dems and mini-Dem Repubs as well as their crony capitalist boot lickers. In my opinion, Tea Party types, true "conservatives" of a constitutionalist stripe are, rather than a problem to be marginalized and eradicated, the, or a, solution to the ever expanding social and fiscal crisis which the "main stream" progressive political and social ruling class is constantly driving us.

In my opinion, progressivism is a dead end top-down authoritarian political system which ultimately leads to static social and economic paralysis. It actually reduces and ultimately limits choices instead of expanding them as it professes to do. Centralization, by definition, is limitation. Doing so for the sake of order and efficiency leads to ant colony or bee hive systemization. And that is even further exacerbated by the inevitable rise of mediocre bureaucrats who will be those who regulate what is permissible and what is not.

Although our founded constitutional system is not necessarily the only way to achieve a fluid, evolutionary social and political regime, it is the one we have, what is left of it.

The choice of which system of government we wish to have boils down to the question of what is the purpose of government. The Founders created a system for the purpose of maximizing individual freedom by limiting governmental authority, yet providing it with some necessary essentials. The purpose, as far as I can tell, of the progressive system is to achieve collective freedoms which are limited by the wisdom of all-powerful bureacrats.

Both systems "work" in respect to their goals. What do we want to "work" for us? The ACA, a great progressive achievement, will eventually "work." So will a free market system of health care. They "work" in different ways to achieve different goals. The Mafia system of local government also "works." All the isms "work" to achieve their specified goals. Thievery, corruption, force, all work, but are they "right"?

That the ACA, or progressivism in general, works begs the question if they are right. And what are they right in respect to. Ultimately, the question is still a viable one--is the objective a collectivist or an individualistic society. Choosing one or the other is the answer to if progressivism is right, or if constitutionalism is right.

After giving his glowing report on Obamacare yesterday, he said there should be No more
debate about Repealing it. :rotf3: :rotf3: :rotf3: :bs: Dream on my man, Dream on. :)

not really sure what is considered "positive"...maybe that's more "normalized reality" talk...as of 5/4

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...plan-1130.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...oval-1044.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...untry-902.html

5/5 USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...o-gop/8520429/

"Views of the Affordable Care Act haven't brightened, even after problems with the website were fixed and 8 million people signed up for insurance before the March 31 deadline. In the poll, 41% approve of the law, a record 55% disapprove of it."

By more than 2-1, 65%-30%, Americans say they want the president elected in 2016 to pursue different policies and programs than the Obama administration, rather than similar ones.


I know, I know...the sources are all the usual "haters" and ne'er-do-wells throwing conspiracy theories about....

But Scott, what about the NARRATIVE? Won't someone please think about the NARRATIVE?

I have a sister-in-law who is an Obama worshipper, makes Spence look like Ann Coulter. Scary, I know. Anyway, she was telling me this weekend all the reasons why the Democrats are going to win big this November. I just smiled and walked away, hoping that all the Democrats up for election think the same thing, and therefore do nothing to prevent what's actually going to happen.

I'm not so sure. Did Soviet communism produce the worker's paradise that Obama, Spence, and Occupy Wall Street fantasize over?

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

Both systems "work" in respect to their goals. .


I'm assuming they had a different definition of paradise than yours. Theirs' required the removal of God, who would be replaced by a dictatorship of the proletariat. It also required the removal of profit which they considered wealth in excess of that which was created by labor. It also required a leveling, or equality, of wealth among the masses, and the elimination of unequal masses of wealth accumulated by a few (but with the unmentioned unequal wealth granted to the higher ups in the party). So . . . I guess that went according to plan . . . sort of . . . notice I did put "work" in quotes.

Gosh . . . replace dictatorship of the proletariat with "government" and it does seem that what "worked" for the soviet communists is not substantially different from what you refer to as the fantasy that progressives will make work for us and the rest of the world . . . of course, in a more advanced and smarter and more responsible way.

speaking of which...Paul Krugman was having a fit recently in an article that he wrote attacking the GOP for lying about Obamacare through polls that they conducted and misconstrued for political reason in, as Spence would say, their "War on the ACA".....a pretty smart writer pointed out that this is a little hypocritical of Krugman as the polls were only done as a result of the Administration(most open, honest and transparent in history) refusing to support their claims about enrollments with facts and statistics and of course, the ACA itself which was hatched, reared, passed and continues it's troubled adolescence based on lies and distortions....


I'll give Spence credit for one thing he's said that is correct, which is that this is "war"....debate and discussion rely on the notion that both parties are working toward "truth" as a meaningful resolution to whatever is being debated or discussed....at whatever point one side determines that truth can and/or will be a casualty in their pursuit of their goal, it then becomes a "battle" as one side cannot reasonably toss aside rules written or understood and expect or demand that the other side maintain those rules......this would make them unreasonable...as we see...:uhuh: