posted September 27, 2010 08:47 AM            

You'd rather the government decides who gets treated than have doctors and insurance companies decide.

You're so wrong there's no way you'll ever find yourself back at right.

When the government decides what risks must be covered in every insurance policy, who must be covered in every insurance policy, what the upper limits of dollar coverage must be, who can do business as an insurer, which insurance companies can sign up to insure certain classes of people and how much can be charged for the government demanded and decided risks to be insured against....

THEN THE GOVERNMENT IS IN CONTROL OF HEALTH INSURANCE IN THE UNITED STATES.

O'BomberCare is going down.

Either through the courts or through the legislative repeal process, O'BomberCare is going down.

The only question is when.

posted September 27, 2010 10:49 AM              

as to the healthcare reform "going down" we shall see. you were sure obama would never get to the white house in the first place as i recall.

the fact is, jwhop, that when insurance and healthcare are profitseeking businesses, people are encouraged (often intimidated) into taking treatments that benefit no one but the pharmaceutical companies and doctors. the rationing is done by the insurance companies at the very time most people need it most, and so many are denied preventive care and HEALTHcare that they end up sicker than they need to be...

posted September 27, 2010 11:50 AM            

quote:

---

You'd rather the government decides who gets treated than have doctors and insurance companies decide.

---

Technically, your choices should be between the government and the insurance companies. We can assume doctors would always want to treat everyone whether directed by the government or insurance companies.

All I can say is that insurance companies haven't proven equitable in this regard, and recourse has been a pain in the ass. Continuing on the way it was would continue to be disastrous. Right?

quote:

---

You're so wrong there's no way you'll ever find yourself back at right.

---

I haven't been the one whining about removing cap limits, and promoting an insurance company's right to deny insurance. These are obviously wrong stances. Any rational person would call you absurd for having any notion that you're succeeding in this debate.

The best thing you could come up with is stating that this solution isn't ideal. That's sufficiently nebulous, and tough to counter. Fighting for the way things were will get you nowhere, because things weren't stellar.

quote:

---

When the government decides what risks must be covered in every insurance policy, who must be covered in every insurance policy, what the upper limits of dollar coverage must be, who can do business as an insurer, which insurance companies can sign up to insure certain classes of people and how much can be charged for the government demanded and decided risks to be insured against....

THEN THE GOVERNMENT IS IN CONTROL OF HEALTH INSURANCE IN THE UNITED STATES.

---

Doubling back on what you've already said, and what's already been disputed won't help your position.

quote:

---

O'BomberCare is going down.

Either through the courts or through the legislative repeal process, O'BomberCare is going down.

---

posted October 06, 2010 12:30 PM              

of course you can't believe everything you read, but it seems joe miller forgot to be "grateful" enough for the blessings bestowed by the wasilla mama.

posted October 07, 2010 10:04 AM            

Palin's apparently too unpopular to be seen with in California.

posted October 19, 2010 02:06 PM            

As I recall, Palin is against the entrenched Republican...and demoscat establishments.

As I recall, it's Sarah Palin who is traveling and has traveled all over America speaking for and endorsing fresh faces, some from the Tea Parties...who have run against establishment republican RINOS and mostly won their primaries.

posted October 19, 2010 03:07 PM              

Sarah Palin, that reputed Republican rebel who's supposed to be at odds with the national party, swung through California this past weekend to rouse Republicans at a Republican National Committee rally in Anaheim.

posted October 19, 2010 06:14 PM            

Of course Sarah Palin is speaking at Republican events.

Perhaps you expected Palin..a fiscal and social conservative...to speak on behalf of Babs Boxer, Patty Murray, Jerry Moonbeam Brown, Dirty Hairy Reid, Nancy Pee-Lousy and/or the rest of the Marxist Socialist Progressive imbeciles?

posted October 19, 2010 07:52 PM            

Pardon me if I don't put much credence in remarks from your "hard core member...of my ranks.

posted October 20, 2010 12:16 AM            

I know he likes Pombo, who used to be our representative.

posted October 23, 2010 04:08 PM            

quote:

---

I'm friends with a pretty hard core member of your ranks, and he doesn't like her at all, and won't vote for her if she runs....acoustic

---

posted October 23, 2010 04:10 PM            

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made a guest appearance at a Tea Party Express rally at the Arizona State Capitol Friday.

Holding her son, Trig, and a sign reading, "Party like it's 1773," Palin spoke on freedom and urged the crowd to vote in her two-minute speech.

"Don't you just love your freedom? Aren't you proud to be an American?" Palin said. Trig clapped along with the audience.

Palin said she invited herself to speak because she was in the area.

"Nov. 2 -- we can see it from our house. Let's take America back," Palin said.

Palin joined the group during the first stop of its tour Monday in Reno, Nevada. The Tea Party Express tour covers 30 cities in 15 days, and ends Nov. 1 in New Hampshire.

Ron Rivoli, a performer in the Tea Party Express entertainment troupe, said the group welcomes celebrities and local politicians as special guests. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who rallied with the group Tuesday in Las Vegas, NV, also spoke at Friday's event.

A party spokeswoman said Friday morning a "big special guest" would appear, according to the Associated Press.

posted October 25, 2010 12:03 AM            

"History Bowl Final: World's Stupidest Wingnut 1773, you" twittered lefty blogger Markos Moulitsas (kos). Gwen Ifill, the PBS anchor who parked not only her thumb but also her entire ample self on the scales when she "moderated" the Palin/Biden debate, doing her best to protect the Delaware dingbat from his countless misstatements, joined in: "Ummm.what? Sarah Palin: party like its 1773."

Perhaps these two media bright lights might have been forgiven for forgetting the date of the Boston Tea Party, but Palin did make the remark in front of dozens of signs referencing -- ummm -- Tea Parties.

The Markos/Gwen clueless attack on Sarah was like catnip to Iowahawk, who twittered back a series of Kos History Quizzes. Here are some of my favorites:

•#KosHistoryQuiz Boston Tea Party was a protest against (a) taxes (b) tuition increases (c) insensitivity against the Founding Muslims

•#KosHistoryQuiz "1773" is (a) teabagger racist code (b) Chicago area code (c) L33t H4x0r code

•#KosHistoryQuiz how many lefty bloggers does it take to screw up a Palin-is-Stupid meme? (a) 1 (b) 1773 (c) how many do you got?

•#KosHistoryQuiz 1773 is (a) year (b) street address of Palin Derangement Clinic (c) Kos' new nickname forever and ever.

The media hotshots then turned their attention to their second-favorite election distraction, Christine O'Donnell, and the Constitution, which in their hands is such a living, breathing document that it often just takes separate vacations from them.

In a debate with her opponent, Chris Coons, an Amherst and Yale law grad, for Biden's old Senate seat, O'Donnell bested him, but the rude law students at Widener law school and the media which covered the debate believed -- because they, as ill-informed as Coons about the important First Amendment -- thought she was wrong. She wasn't. Moreover, Coons, graduate of what is ranked as the top law school in the country, misquoted the Amendment's provisions on establishment of religion and was unable to identify the freedoms the Amendment enumerates.

It took days and the criticisms of people like Cornell law professor William Jacobson and Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse before the media provided some clarification.

O'Donnell unquestionably did not agree with the popular liberal conception that the First Amendment by its written terms requires a "separation of church and state," but she was not wrong.

And what an embarrassment to Widener Law School that as soon as O'Donnell questioned whether "separation of church and state" was in the First Amendment, the crowd erupted with gasps of disbelief and mocking laughter.

And if O'Donnell's imperfect -- or perhaps nuanced? -- understanding of the First Amendment were so outrageous, how about the inability of Chris Coons, a Yale Law School graduate, to identify the other freedoms protected by the First Amendment, and his misquoting the text of the First Amendment in his challenge to O'Donnell:

"Government shall make no establishment of religion," Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment actually reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.")

Ann Althouse has more on how Coons simply was wrong in his quotation of the First Amendment which led to O'Donnell's supposed major gaffe about the Establishment Clause, and how the press has taken O'Donnell's comments out of context:

O'Donnell reacts: "That's in the First Amendment?" And, in fact, it's not. The First Amendment doesn't say "government." It says "Congress." And since the discussion is about what local school boards can do, the difference is highly significant.

Also, it isn't "shall make no establishment of religion." It's "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's a lot one could say about the difference between those 2 phrases, and I won't belabor it here. Suffice it to say that it was not stupid for O'Donnell to say "That's in the First Amendment?" - because it's not. Coons was presenting a version of what's in the cases interpreting the text, not the text itself.

A literal reading of O'Donnell's comments reflects that she was correct, but of course, the press and the blogosphere don't want a literal reading, they want a living, breathing reading which comports with their preconceived notions.

Tellingly, the AP account of the debate was so demonstrably biased and false that without notifying the readers, the agency simply entirely rewrote it -- a bit of professionally unethical conduct captured by Patterico's screen grabs.

Both of these incidents illustrate yet again what Noemie Emery so cogently described in her article "They're not elites: they're just wrong."

In it, she notes how Anne Applebaum and others confuse credentialed morons with a meritocracy.

[T]he real reason this "elite" is resented [is] because it is so often wrong.

Saying the Berlin Wall fell when the world "stood as one" is naive and delusional. Thinking a man will be a great leader because of one speech, two books, and the crease in his pants is a sign of poor judgment.

Ignoring mass protests, plunging polls, and three huge shocks at the polls is willful stupidity. Thinking one can pass a bill that impacts everyone against the will of most of country without courting a backlash is nothing short of inane.

When this backlash occurs, it is dense beyond words to claim that this stems from a fear of "the other" (meaning non-whites and immigrants) while these rebels strive to elect blacks to the House in South Carolina and Florida, Hispanics to the Senate in Florida, Hispanics to the governors' mansions in New Mexico and Nevada, and to elect the daughter of Indian immigrants to the state house in South Carolina, home of secession and massive resistance, where the far right gave twice as many votes to black conservative Tim Scott as to one of Strom Thurmond's sons.

There are words to describe this, but "bright" is not one of them. This meritocracy has created an "elite" without merit. In everyone's eyes but its own.

Every hour provides more evidence validating her point of view.

For example, in the same paper, the Washington Examiner, Byron York notes that in Chicago, the stimulus weatherization money resulted in shoddy work and widespread fraud.

The legislation which provided this money for Chicago was written on the Hill by "bright" men and women from the best schools, and certainly the stimulus funds were distributed from Washington to Chicago according to procedures and under regulations written by the same sort of folks, and the program was supported and promoted by our Columbia University- and Harvard law school-educated president. But I'm certain that if you put this question to your electrician, plumber, handyman, and neighbor -- What would happen if you gave a lot of money to big-city community organizers to hire ex-felons and other unemployables to weatherize homes? -- they'd have told you it would result in lousy work and a massive ripoff.

The week ended with Juan Williams being fired from National Public Radio for a statement on Fox News where he expressed some apprehension about Muslim travelers on airplanes, though no one who knew him believed he was advocating or would advocate discriminatory treatment. He was in a sense stating what Jesse Jackson, Jr. had said early on about his own fear of black men when he was walking alone at night, and his comments were far more temperate than NPR's Nina Totenberg's when she expressed on television her wish that Jesse Helms or his descendants would die of AIDs. Nor was it more offensive than Bill Moyers' references on NPR's sister channel, PBS, comparing conservatives to the Taliban.

The NPR explanations for this disparate treatment were not credible, leading to several variations: NPR's top brass hates Fox and wants to dissuade its people from appearing on there; NPR really is angry at Juan for his views on race, where he is a far more rational and fair-minded analyst than most of the NPR stable of "spokespersons"; CAIR put NPR up to this; Soros, who had just given NPR a ton of money to hire one hundred "reporters" for its stations in all fifty states, forced this move.

posted October 25, 2010 09:56 AM              

in any case odonnell has admitted she does not KNOW the constitution in fact expressed relief that it was not a requirement for a senator to "memorize" the constitution. indicating not only a LACK OF KNOWLEDGE but an unwillingness to gain that knowledge because NO ONE TOLD HER SHE HAD to have it.

AND she had no idea the audience was laughing at HER, but thought they were backing her up.

posted October 25, 2010 10:21 AM            

Of course, you've spouted the very same nonsense here on this forum katatonic.

That makes you wrong too.

You cannot find the terminology "separation of church and state" anywhere in the US Constitution.

The 1st Amendment merely says..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Congress is to make NO LAW establishing a state religion for the United States. That's it.

The bearded Marxist Chris Coons is an attorney. How in the hell could he even take the oath of office for a Senator with his limited and wrongheaded perception of the US Constitution??

Answer, he couldn't.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

The truth is that Christine O'Donnell knows more about the Constitution than the entire gaggle of her loony leftist detractors.

posted October 31, 2010 04:01 PM            

Republican Sarah Palin predicted a "political earthquake" on Tuesday in which the GOP will win big in elections across the country.

"The message has been sent [to Democrats] that they blew it," Mrs. Palin said on "Fox News Sunday." "You blew it, President Obama. We gave you two years" to improve the economy.

Mrs. Palin, a former Alaska governor whose backing has helped several "tea party" candidates reach the November elections, said those candidate will not have to compromise their independent ideals if elected and dismissed the idea that extending Bush-era tax cuts will increase the deficit by $4 trillion.

"The money wasn't even there to start with," she said.

Mrs. Palin also leveled some strong accusations against those who do not support tea party candidates, saying she "has on tape" reporters from a CBS News affiliate in Alaska looking for a child molester in crowd gathered for GOP senatorial candidate Joe Miller and others looking for a "Rand Paul moment" so they could "tweet" it.

posted November 01, 2010 11:00 AM              

she sure does like to glorify her accomplishments, even though they haven't happened yet and she is just a tool.

posted November 01, 2010 11:38 AM            

demoscats had a huge majority in the House...and legislation can be passed with only a one vote majority.

demoscats had a 60 vote majority in the Senate making any obstruction...or filibuster impossible.

The American people are now lashing out at O'Bomber and demoscats for passing the Marxist Socialist Progressive agenda over their objections.

Most Americans wish Republicans had been able to "obstruct" the Marxist Socialist Progressive agenda of O'Bomber and his comrades in the Congress.

Now, most Americans just want the O'Bomber/Pee-Lousy/Reid legislation repealed.