pretty much. Same folks dismissing his run against Clinton
inside the beltway and in nother's house the huarge antipathy against Hillary is dismissed because blacks and women. If that is the the ticket I will buy popcorn sit back and vote for bill the cat. always look out for number one and don't step in number two |
|
|
The GOP primary has provided...
plenty of delicious footage, which is already being mined by the Dread Butch Hillary. I think that the recycled Sanders attacks will be pretty thin gruel compared to this and other public disparagements by GOP honchos of the tiny-handed one. But I'll betcha that at least half the folks in this spot will choke back their vomit and kiss The Donald's ring between now and November. Over at the National Review site we have (mmoffitt will appreciate this) an amusing take on "lesser of two evils": Donald Trump is unfit to be president. He’s a braggart and a liar. And a serial adulterer. He’s behaved shamefully during the primary campaign. He wouldn’t recognize the Constitution if he tripped over it in the street. He doesn’t know even the Cliff Notes version of any policy issue. The idea that the party of Lincoln and Reagan, Coolidge and Eisenhower, Justice Harlan and Senator Taft has nominated Trump is appalling.As a commentator at Edroso's crib observed, the GOP is now ready to move from "America, fuck yeah!" to "America, fuck you!" We're getting into very weird risk-reward territory here. That one component of the duopoly seems all-but certain to nominate this feckless, manifestly unqualified character (temperamentally less fit than Nixon and intellectually less fit than Bush the Younger is among the milder ways to describe him) is a very bad sign for the health of the polity. If, as I devoutly hope, he is put to rout in November—and may his candidacy be as a sixteen-ton weight chained to the ankles of numberless republicans downticket—we may entertain the mild hope that President Clinton will overcome the go-along-to-get-along tendencies that so disgust the Sandernistas, and that the political establishment will take the appropriate lessons from what I hope will have proved a salutary scare. At the least, we will have put off the day of reckoning for a few years. But if things go pear-shaped in six months, the country will be as a drunk traversing a minefield. Not good. I don't know if I'm going to add it to the Diebold Variations page, but I was moved to work up this treatment today:  cordially, |
|
|
I've been rolling this "lesser evil" thing around in my head.
The thing about the brand of "Party Loyalty" you and Scott seem to favor reminds me of the "Loyalty to the Company" I used to hear a lot about in the 1980's, and a little less so in the 1990's. In both cases, it seems to me, that is a two-way street. If a company wanted my loyalty, they had to earn it and reciprocate it. I think it's pretty clear that in corporate life, it is very far from a two-way street. Workers are expected to be loyal to their I expect the same from a political party. If they want my loyalty, they have to earn it. The Democratic Party hasn't done anything in the past 26 years to earn my loyalty. Realizing this (even at this late date) I therefore feel no need to express any party loyalty in November. |
|
|
I don't view it as Loyalty...
My view is that we have a responsibility to vote in such a way as to move the country forward and protect what our forebearers left us. I don't owe the Democrats loyalty, I owe it to myself and my country to vote sensibly. Democrats don't owe me anything personally. Their job is to elect their candidates, not shower gifts upon me personally. Our job as democratic voters (and Democratic voters) is to make sure that the best people get the chance to hold elective office and that the monsters and idiots never get that chance. Purity in politics is deadly. Look at AA male death rates under Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle. Look at the reactions to Ebola. Look at all the thousands of Americans (and people on American soil) who died on 9/11/2001. Look at all the tens or hundreds of thousands that died in W's Mess-o-potamia and its aftermath. You're not picking a spouse or a best-friend, you're picking someone who has access to the largest military in the world, who will decide the course of the SCOTUS for generations, who will decide whether we'll keep going down the road of demonizing people and punching down, or whether we'll leave that sorry past behind us and chart a more sensible course. The choice here is clear. Hillary should get your vote in the fall. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
|
what Scott said and furthermore
You misunderstand me if you think it’s about “party loyalty.” Craven opportunists, timeserving hacks and corporate sellouts seem to be overrepresented in the councils of Democratic Party, and this scarcely calls forth admiration, but my accustomed description of the GOP as a consortium of lunatics, plutocrats, demagogues and criminals (constituencies now miraculously incarnate in a single individual, albeit one with abnormally small hands) seems today inadequate to capture the essential quality of a party that has now begun publicly and unmistakably, in Marin Amis’ marvelous phrase, to fizz with rabies. Against Donald Trump, I will vote for Hillary Clinton or, if he is the nominee, for Bernie Sanders. Against Donald Trump I would vote for Mitt Fucking Romney were he the Democratic nominee, and loyalty wouldn't enter into that calculation. Winston Churchill, that cynical old imperialist and inveterate foe of Bolshevism, was canny enough to recognize what was meant by an alliance of convenience. Asked about the disconnect between the harsh rhetoric he had formerly brought to bear in discussing the Soviet Union and the expressions of support he made following the launch of Operation Barbarossa, he famously said “If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” And Stalin, if I recall my history aright, accepted western aid* without a demand that Churchill and Roosevelt first “earn his loyalty.” Clinton and her DLC-tending Democrats may justify your pessimism once in office by continuing the country on its present discouraging course, but Trump would, I believe, start us down a very different and far darker path. I gather that you think this would be just the splash of cold water that would cause the country, after an interval of brief discomfort, to see the light and embrace democratic socialism. In that respect your thinking puts me in mind a bit of Lenin: a man who, genuinely wishing well for humanity in the collective and the abstract, was quite pitilessly indifferent to humanity in the individual and the concrete. Honestly, if you thought that a Trump victory would result in the rolling back of such social gains as have been made the past twenty-five years, and the implementation of a shitload of repressive policies but that after five years a people’s rising would give us the socialist utopia, would you go for it? OK, how about ten years? Twenty-five? Half a century? HRC is to my way of thinking an uninspiring candidate, but I know more than a few women** who are inspired and excited, so there’s that. Trump, on the other hand, inspires me to stop him by any legal means necessary (I would have felt very nearly the same about Cruz). As I said the other week, I’ll willingly use polluted water to fight that fire if there’s no alpine spring nearby. cordially, *I do not, of course, suggest that Spam and Studebakers balance out the heavy lifting done by the USSR in that conflict, but the Red Army marched to Berlin in American boots. **Ah, yes, “identity politics,” so despised by the right. Seen in an NRO comments thread this morning: “At least electing a minority president got that fetish out of our system. Been there, done that, it didn’t work.” |
|
|
rolling back of such social gains as have been made the past twenty-five years Really? name a few
obama vs shrub The current prez has spent more, killed more americans sans juidiciary, destroyed libya in the name of hubris and is still getting american soldiers shot in battle 12 years later (although not to the high body counts of shrub) spied more, ah hell why bother, he is still the lesser evil. Give greater evil a chance already can't fuck it up any worse than the dems already have. Look at the bright side, if trump wins you get the senate and the house back during the midterms. As for me I am out of it. The greasy rat is gone, and he WAS the greater evil. always look out for number one and don't step in number two |
|
|
Re: rolling back of such social gains as have been made the past twenty-five years Really? name a fe
spent more - What does that mean? W fought a war off-budget. Obama put it on the budget. And how is "spending more" not a social gain? The US federal government doesn't spend enough. killed more americans sans judiciary - What does that mean? Are you referring to al Awlaki and so forth? There was a court process. You may not like the outcome, but the courts were involved. destroyed Libya - Libya was a complicated mess. France and the UK did most of the breaking there. From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US[27][28][29][30][31] expanded to nineteen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector. An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (whilst keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed over objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments.[32][33] On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remains with coalition forces.[34][35][36] The handover occurred on 31 March 2011 at 06:00 UTC (08:00 local time). NATO flew 26,500 sorties since it took charge of the Libya mission on 31 March 2011. and is still getting american soldiers shot in battle 12 years later - Yeah, funny how invading a country isn't as neat and clean and easy to exit as it used to be. :-/ And it's funny how so many who oppose Obama do so from the perspective that he needs to have more Americans over there. As for me I am out of it. The greasy rat is gone, and he WAS the greater evil. - I'd be interested in hearing your reasons why you think Cruz would be worse than Trump. Cheers, Scott. |
|
|
Why Cruz is worse than Trump
"He sold us out!"(TM) ;) He's worse because he's a true believer in Christian Dominionism. Trump has all the usual levers that can be pushed to modify his behaviour; he's not interested in dying, or really in being discomforted, plus rewards are also able to move him (in fact, his problem is he's probably way too biddable; a summit with Putin and an evening with a bunch of Russian teens would probably move mountains). Cruz otoh is a believer. Those mechanisms (up to and perhaps even including continuing to live) are not so motivating. Cruz strikes me as a person who would be willing to accept martyrdom and a hero's memory for turning the US into a theocracy. They are both sociopaths, but sociopaths that are driven by the comforts of the flesh are far easier to manage than ones driven by a neo-Calvinist religious ideology. I disagree with Bill; if I were to be a US citizen I'd be pulling the lever for Clinton and down ticket this November and sleep the sleep of the just. But when it comes to his assessment of which of Cruz and Trump are more dangerous the US as a going concern... he's absolutely right. Trump is scary in a 'mob enforcer who has a job to break your legs' kind of way... the mob enforcer can be bought. Cruz is scary in a 'I'll crucify your children to get your religious compliance, and I'll only believe I've got it after they're crucified' kind of way. |
|
|
Good points, but...
They advocate many of the same policies - huge tax cuts, packing the courts with Teabaggers, gutting the budget, gutting reproduction rights, etc. Trump mumbles a bunch of platitudes when it suits him ("everyone loves me and I love everyone"), but then contradicts them 5 minutes later. He's a coward and a narcissist. Cruz is reviled by his colleagues. While he would love to turn the US into a theocracy (one where he wouldn't have to live by those rules - rules are for little people after all), he would have more opposition than Trump. Trump would simply roll over when presented with bills from the Teabagger legislature. Each of them would be a disaster, just in slightly different ways. Fortunately, we won't have to live in the futures they advocate. :-) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. ("... shot or being poisoned.") |
|
|
The SCOTUS issue is a non-starter after pro-Super Pac Merrick Garland.
|
|
|
SCOTUS decides hundreds of cases a year. Purity kills.
|
|
|
Point: Merrick *IS* the kind of Justice we're supposed to fear.
|
|
|
Re: Point: Merrick *IS* the kind of Justice we're supposed to fear.
AFL-CIO's Trumka: Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit brings impeccable credentials and deep experience to this nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Garland’s career shows a deep commitment to public service and to the rule of law. These qualities are why he was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit 18 years ago by a bipartisan majority and with the strong support of then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch. Judge Garland is a superbly qualified nominee who deserves prompt consideration and confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Working people deserve and expect no less. Oh, but holding out for Judge Roy Moore is the better course. The contradictions won't heighten themselves, amirite? "Purity" forever!!!1 :-/ Cheers, Scott. |
|
|
He had Orrin Hatch's support? Well, that makes him less onerous. NOT.
|
|
|
Keep flailing. That'll get Roy Moore on the SCOTUS faster!!1
|
|
|
Significantly better than Scalia and progress in the right direction
I'd gladly take further left, but he'll do in a pinch. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |
|
|
Goering over Adolph then.
|
|
|
*roll*
Purity kills. I'll take incremental change over backsliding any day. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |
|
|
Re: rolling back of such social gains...?
Well, there's the repeal of DADT and the general loosening—obvious pockets of resistance apart—of legal discrimination against same-sex liaisons, to say nothing of the legalization of same-sex marriage nationally. There's the "Fair Pay Act" back in 2009, the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The administration has scarcely been out front in the drive to scale back our lunatic "war on drugs," but at least it has stood largely aside from impeding reform. It has played defense on the Supreme Court. Diplomatic relations have been established with Cuba (you'll recall that your greasy rat and that other Cuban, the bag of feathers, each swore that these would be severed again within moments after his hand* came off the Bible). Libya destroyed? That would be the Jeffersonian democracy with all the Mediterranean real estate, the Switzerland of North Africa, that oasis of peace and freedom for forty years under the enlightened triumvirate of Colonels Gaddafi, Qadhafi and Khaddafi? Yes, that is too bad, but you forget that the three colonels had to be sacrificed as a necessary precondition for the assassination of Ambassador Stevens by Secretary of State Dread Butch Clinton. Stevens, you see, was blackmailing her about Vince Foster and the Mena Airport—but why go dredging up these old scandals? This is supposed to be a 'appy occasion. That the Kenyan Usurper has not fully extricated us from the foreign quagmires into which the Cheney Shogunate enmired us is, I admit, completely inexplicable, given that there were absolutely no political obstacles at any point to his doing so. Presidents McCain or Romney would have had the Taliban leadership signing the instruments of surrender on the decks of the USS Missouri in short order, I think we can all agree. Give greater evil a chance already can't fuck it up any worse than the dems already have.Obama's seven years in office have not gratified me in every particular (and a couple of his decisions have cost me money in noticeable sums), but I am more satisfied with his performance than I have been with that of any US president who has held the office since I was first old enough to vote. I expect that he'll look even better against any likely successor. I worry about the president who will someday soften my contempt for Bush the Younger, though. cordially, *If Trump does somehow take it, won't they need to acquire a special miniaturized Bible for the swearing-in? Maybe one of the ones inscribed on the head of a pin? |
|
|
Wow. The ACA was a "social gain"?
Of all the many things we have agreed on, and those non-trivially numbered things we have disagreed upon, that is the most stunningly inane thing I've ever heard you put forward. That's perhaps too harsh. If by "social gain" you mean accelerating our pace toward neo-fascist oligarchy, then yes, the passage of the ACA was a "social gain." But, your recent tacit support of Hillary Clinton notwithstanding, I don't believe you really think that a complete corporate takeover of the federal government is a good idea. Still, to suggest that the passage of a law dictating that all Americans must pay the shareholder of some private company a profit for the "original sin" of being born is hardly what I'd call a "social gain." |
|
|
This is just stupid
How many millions of Americans have access to doctors that didn't before? That's a social gain, esp. for the people that have it now that didn't ten years ago. You know, the burger flippers part of the population, and ESPECIALLY their children. The mechanism may suck, but politics is often the art of the possible. Even if it takes another forty years to move the needle forward, that's many millions of people who are going to experience a very large social gain over those decades. |
|
|
what is even more stupid is that medicare for all could have been passed with adding a 5%
increase in the medicare tax we already pay. Even if you earned 100k the 5k tax will be a savings of 15k you would not have to pay in premiums and co-pays. Corporations would still get their nut processing claims. No nother and the light of his life claim this is unworkable, we need to pay the 20k so the private corporation can make better bank. always look out for number one and don't step in number two |
|
|
It would only work if you could get the law passed
Is the current system better than what we had before, where millions more people had no insurance? I say yes, this is better. Would Medicare for all be even better than that? Absolutely, but plenty of lawmakers made it clear they wouldn't vote for that. Might it have passed if it came up for a vote? Maybe, and maybe someone should give that a shot. Here's the key point IMO: Of all the Republicans talking about repealing Obamacare, I haven't heard a single one of them propose replacing it with Medicare for all. So if your argument is that Obamacare is bad because it's not as good as Medicare for all, that doesn't seem to be on the menu. -- Drew |
|
|
Conyers gave it a shot in 2009. It died in committee (as it always does).
|
|
|
Liar
That would have worked, not like Obamacare, so if anyone had proposed it clearly Republicans would have voted for it. -- Drew |
|
|
Ack! You have cut me to the bone!!11
|
|
|
33 million still have no insurance. HTH.
|
|
Re: 33 million still have no insurance. HTH.
 HTH. Cheers, Scott. |
|
|
Um, Bernie Sanders?
Oh, but right, we aren't supposed to elect him. We're supposed to fall in line behind Hillary. |
|
|
Presidents don't pass laws
-- Drew |
|
|
Right.
NASA, New Deal, Great Society, none of those were Presidential ideas. Er, ..., wait... |
|
|
Re: what is even more stupid is that medicare for all could have been passed with adding a 5%
1) Medicare doesn't cover everything. People would still need supplemental insurance. 2) There weren't the votes for it. Conyers's bill died in committee. Counter-factuals are fun, but reality is what matters. Cheers, Scott. |
|
|
Re: Wow. The ACA was a "social gain"?
https://www.facebook.com/ObamacareSavedMyLife/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/03/03/brents-letter-president-you-saved-my-life http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-another-benefit-of-obamacare-20150804-column.html https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/02/09/esi-stability-and-cost/  Oh, but MM hates the insurance and medical care industries, so only burning them down will satisfy him... ;-p Cheers, Scott. |
|
|
Um, no.
Yes, I do dislike an industry that collects money from people that they spend in order to get healthcare and then profits by withholding that care. That is, I am opposed to people making money from our healthcare delivery system who do not contribute in any way, shape or form to the delivery of health care. If it weren't for Wall Street's influence in our government, this wouldn't be happening. 33 million people don't have health insurance, mostly because they cannot afford it. With guaranteed margins of 20% for private health insurers, who can blame them? We pay more and have worse outcomes than anyone and that's what I'm opposed to. Getting 1 in 10 regular access to our broken system is hardly cause for celebration. But I don't "hate" our medical care industry - if by that you mean the clinicians and support staff. I've no issue with them at all. It's these blood sucking fascists like Wellpoint, UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, etc. need to go away. The ACA was nothing more than YAN gift to the shareholder class. Several million previously uninsured Americans now have coverage because of Obamacare, but it could be argued that the people who have benefited most from the law—at least financially—are the top executives and shareholders of the country’s health insurance companies. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/01/26/16658/health-insurers-watch-profits-soar-they-dump-small-business-customers Care to defend this chart?  |
|
|
Re: Um, no.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/10/06/15867/obamacare-helps-millions-falls-short-many-ways (also by Wendell Potter): Although there is no shortage of critics of the Affordable Care Act — on the far left as well as the right — it’s hard to dispute that the law has benefited millions of Americans. And not just those who have become newly insured over the past year. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
odd way of putting it
Of all the many things we have agreed on, and those non-trivially numbered things we have disagreed upon, that is the most stunningly inane thing I've ever heard you put forward.So what's the most stunningly inane thing I've put forward on an issue we have agreed upon? It must trouble you each time you fire up the trusty old flivver, incidentally, that the neo-fascist oligarchy that passes for your state government dictates that you must pay the shareholder of some private company a profit for the secondary sin of driving. Listen mate. I’m beginning to have my doubts about you. I’m telling you straight, mate. I don’t think you're Luchino Visconti/a real Marxist at all. I think you’re a secret libertarian. cordially, |
|
|
I predicted on this very board that Obama would raise that false equivalence...
several months before he said it, I predicted that he would claim being forced to purchase "health insurance" from a private entity is just like being forced to purchase "car insurance" from a private entity. That is absurd on its face. I am *NOT* required to purchase automobile insurance. I can avoid it by opting for public transportation, or living close enough to work so that I can bicycle or walk (which I did for a number of years). Avoiding the purchase health insurance, under his law, is something I can *NOT* do if I wish to continue breathing. Edit: Thanks for pointing out the error, Rand. |
|
speaking of inanity
Being forced to purchase health insurance, under his law, is something I can *NOT* do if I wish to continue breathing.Read that carefully. I think you probably meant to craft that sentence differently. But let's assume that what you aimed to convey was: "Refusing to purchase health insurance, under his law, is something I can *NOT* do if I wish to continue breathing." Is that a fair re-statement of your intended meaning? Because I must have missed the statutory language in the ACA that calls for capital punishment of the non-compliant. There is a penalty at tax-time, which you and, I daresay, many other good burghers in the Hoosier State may bitterly resent, but there is no blood-debt to be paid. So either you have been grotesquely misinformed as to the provisions of the Act or you are exaggerating so preposterously for effect that imputations of inanity to others must hereafter fall rather implausibly from your lips. cordially, |
|
|
Show me the equivalent Federal Penalty for not buying a car.
And, thank you for pointing out my mangling of my point. ;0) |
|
|
Roberts addressed this in 2012
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility Congress has the power to tax. End of story. Cheers, Scott. |
|
|
but they swore it was not a tax on the american people? So the tax is on top of
current medicare tax but still no benefit offered? Whats up with that? payola to lobbyists always look out for number one and don't step in number two |
|
|
Man, you're agreeing with some interesting folks these days. Roberts? Really?
|
|
|
Recognizing reality is a helpful way to get through life. ;-)
Of course Roberts is a monster, but the law is the law. Or do you think that Congress doesn't have the power to tax now? :-/ Cheers, Scott. |
|
|
Heh. I think a "tax" you pay ONLY when you don't do something is a fine. ;0)
Edit: temporary brain freeze today. |
|
|
Nobody's "forced to purchase health insurance".
If you don't want to buy it, then pay the fine. If you can't afford it (under the rules), then you don't have to buy it. Quit making stuff up. Cheers, Scott. |
|
|
Ah. I see. A federal fine is no injury at all.
That is not the worst part of that Give-A-Way to big insurance companies that is the ACA. The worst part is that it is now federal law that a very small subset of the US population is entitled to profit from others healthcare whilst doing absolutely nothing to deliver that healthcare. It is the law. If you get sick and need medical care, the law of the land says, "Shove some money into the pocket of a person who is going to do nothing for you." That's the worst part. Private Health insurance companies have by federal law become the exclusive means of receiving healthcare in this banana republic. Even if you can pay for your healthcare yourself, if you don't add directly to Wall Street pockets, the federal government will slap you with a fine for not *directly* supporting the federal government's Wall Street masters. |
|
|
It used to be a federal law...
written into every contract with the government, that if the item purchased had a "jewelled movement" (like old-timey mechanical watches) then those "jewels" had to be purchased from a very specific particular company in South Dakota (IIRC). The Republic survived. There are compelling benefits to having the population covered by health insurance, as you know. The penalty is an encouragement for those able to to get coverage. Your railing against the health care and insurance industry isn't going to change the reality of the fact that those are the systems we have and there weren't (and still aren't) the votes to make the system more single-payer-like and even more universal) no matter how much you (and I) might wish that to be the case. Voting against Hillary isn't going to change that situation for the better. Cheers, Scott. |
|
|
I'm not voting against her, I'm voting for someone committed to universal healthcare.
|
|
|
That's fine in the primary. Vote the party in the general...
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with that.
Do you think real change is easy? ;-p Cheers, Scott. |
|
|
No. But it's not as unpossible as you've suggested either. ;-)
|
|
|
I think we've been through this before.
History tells us, on multiple occasions, that the PPACA was the most that could get through the Congress of the time. Bernie gave it a good shot, but he showed that there aren't enough votes for him to start his Revolution™. At some point, one has to recognize that votes matter, and if you don't have the votes to get what you want, then you work to get as much as you can that gets you toward the end you desire. Compromise, half-a-loaf, etc., is a good result. Sure, it's not "impossible", but reality keeps getting in the way. Cheers, Scott. |
|
|
I suspect this thread will wind down
...with no one having persuaded the other side. Cheers back to Scott, who has been patient, and to mmoffitt as well, whose tenacity in the defense of his obsessions has something admirable about it even when his arguments become preposterous, and whose tone, while occasionally strident, has never exceeded the boundaries of civil discourse. Mind you, we're a pub brawl here compared to the gentlemen's club over at Crooked Timber, but I like the tone overall. I do wish that ol' CRC would drop by more frequently to lob a grenade. I fear that fatherhood has dulled his edge. cordially, |
|
|
We do well here.
I miss many of our old compatriots. :-( I've learned a lot from you folks and greatly appreciate that. Balloon-Juice is fun, but there's a lot of noise and lots of people just post snark. Snark is great, but ... The trolling would be too much there without cleek's pie filter. Let's keep it up! :-) Cheers, Scott. |
|
|
Hats off to you both.
I know I've strayed from being civil on occasion, and for that I do apologize. I appreciate greatly being able to cross swords with the two of you because, despite my legion of posts indicating otherwise, I actually *do* value your opinions and very much look forward to reading your retorts. |
|
|
obviously I haven't read *all* your posts
...but I don't recall your ever going (cough!) off the reservation, and as I've observed before, you win points for keeping it together even when you, a lone man, are parrying a dozen swordthrusts at once from a group of us on this or that point(!) of politics or culture. cordially, |
|
|
Thank you. Awfully kind of you.
|
|
|
Well said.
|
|
|
nope, you can do what million s of poor americans and illegals do. Drive without it.
Many years ago I drove for 2 years without insurance. Made me an extremely careful driver. always look out for number one and don't step in number two |
|
|
you photoshopped a picture of him on the crapper?
always look out for number one and don't step in number two |
Fun Trump page.
- (mmoffitt)
- (61)
- May 5, 2016, 09:44:38 AM EDT
pretty much. Same folks dismissing his run against Clinton
- (boxley)
- (60)
- May 5, 2016, 10:38:41 AM EDT
The GOP primary has provided...
- (rcareaga)
- (59)
- May 6, 2016, 01:36:10 AM EDT
I've been rolling this "lesser evil" thing around in my head.
- (mmoffitt)
- (57)
- May 5, 2016, 03:59:52 PM EDT
I don't view it as Loyalty...
- (Another Scott)
- (56)
- May 5, 2016, 05:08:04 PM EDT
what Scott said and furthermore
- (rcareaga)
- (55)
- May 6, 2016, 01:38:17 AM EDT
rolling back of such social gains as have been made the past twenty-five years Really? name a few
- (boxley)
- (54)
- May 5, 2016, 05:26:27 PM EDT
Re: rolling back of such social gains as have been made the past twenty-five years Really? name a fe
- (Another Scott)
- (11)
- May 5, 2016, 05:41:03 PM EDT
Why Cruz is worse than Trump
- (jake123)
- (10)
- May 6, 2016, 08:23:27 AM EDT
Good points, but...
- (Another Scott)
- (9)
- May 6, 2016, 08:40:08 AM EDT
The SCOTUS issue is a non-starter after pro-Super Pac Merrick Garland.
-NT
- (mmoffitt)
- (8)
- May 6, 2016, 09:15:40 AM EDT
SCOTUS decides hundreds of cases a year. Purity kills.
-NT
- (Another Scott)
- (4)
- May 6, 2016, 09:38:50 AM EDT
Point: Merrick *IS* the kind of Justice we're supposed to fear.
-NT
- (mmoffitt)
- (3)
- May 6, 2016, 09:50:29 AM EDT
Re: Point: Merrick *IS* the kind of Justice we're supposed to fear.
- (Another Scott)
- (2)
- May 6, 2016, 10:41:19 AM EDT
He had Orrin Hatch's support? Well, that makes him less onerous. NOT.
-NT
- (mmoffitt)
- (1)
- May 6, 2016, 12:14:55 PM EDT
Keep flailing. That'll get Roy Moore on the SCOTUS faster!!1
-NT
- (Another Scott)
- May 6, 2016, 12:17:04 PM EDT
Significantly better than Scalia and progress in the right direction
- (malraux)
- (2)
- May 6, 2016, 01:30:32 PM EDT
Goering over Adolph then.
-NT
- (mmoffitt)
- (1)
- May 6, 2016, 01:38:08 PM EDT
*roll*
- (malraux)
- May 6, 2016, 01:39:46 PM EDT
Re: rolling back of such social gains...?
- (rcareaga)
- (41)
- May 5, 2016, 06:30:34 PM EDT
Wow. The ACA was a "social gain"?
- (mmoffitt)
- (40)
- May 6, 2016, 08:19:36 AM EDT
This is just stupid
- (jake123)
- (11)
- May 6, 2016, 08:26:39 AM EDT
what is even more stupid is that medicare for all could have been passed with adding a 5%
- (boxley)
- (10)
- May 6, 2016, 09:53:49 AM EDT
It would only work if you could get the law passed
- (drook)
- (8)
- May 6, 2016, 10:23:51 AM EDT
Conyers gave it a shot in 2009. It died in committee (as it always does).
-NT
- (Another Scott)
- (2)
- May 6, 2016, 10:48:02 AM EDT
Liar
- (drook)
- (1)
- May 6, 2016, 11:39:19 AM EDT
Ack! You have cut me to the bone!!11
-NT
- (Another Scott)
- May 6, 2016, 11:49:54 AM EDT
33 million still have no insurance. HTH.
-NT
- (mmoffitt)
- (1)
- May 6, 2016, 12:12:18 PM EDT
Re: 33 million still have no insurance. HTH.
- (Another Scott)
- May 6, 2016, 12:23:56 PM EDT
Um, Bernie Sanders?
- (mmoffitt)
- (2)
- May 6, 2016, 12:13:34 PM EDT
Presidents don't pass laws
-NT
- (drook)
- (1)
- May 6, 2016, 02:46:12 PM EDT
Right.
- (mmoffitt)
- May 6, 2016, 03:27:16 PM EDT
Re: what is even more stupid is that medicare for all could have been passed with adding a 5%
- (Another Scott)
- May 6, 2016, 10:44:20 AM EDT
Re: Wow. The ACA was a "social gain"?
- (Another Scott)
- (2)
- May 6, 2016, 08:32:58 AM EDT
Um, no.
- (mmoffitt)
- (1)
- May 6, 2016, 09:09:02 AM EDT
Re: Um, no.
- (Another Scott)
- May 6, 2016, 11:49:27 AM EDT
odd way of putting it
- (rcareaga)
- (24)
- May 6, 2016, 09:31:40 AM EDT
I predicted on this very board that Obama would raise that false equivalence...
- (mmoffitt)
- (22)
- May 6, 2016, 11:57:04 AM EDT
speaking of inanity
- (rcareaga)
- (6)
- May 6, 2016, 10:02:25 AM EDT
Show me the equivalent Federal Penalty for not buying a car.
- (mmoffitt)
- (5)
- May 6, 2016, 11:58:24 AM EDT
Roberts addressed this in 2012
- (Another Scott)
- (4)
- May 6, 2016, 12:16:27 PM EDT
but they swore it was not a tax on the american people? So the tax is on top of
- (boxley)
- May 6, 2016, 12:19:03 PM EDT
Man, you're agreeing with some interesting folks these days. Roberts? Really?
-NT
- (mmoffitt)
- (2)
- May 6, 2016, 12:25:48 PM EDT
Recognizing reality is a helpful way to get through life. ;-)
- (Another Scott)
- (1)
- May 6, 2016, 12:33:04 PM EDT
Heh. I think a "tax" you pay ONLY when you don't do something is a fine. ;0)
- (mmoffitt)
- May 6, 2016, 12:39:04 PM EDT
Nobody's "forced to purchase health insurance".
- (Another Scott)
- (14)
- May 6, 2016, 10:47:08 AM EDT
Ah. I see. A federal fine is no injury at all.
- (mmoffitt)
- (13)
- May 6, 2016, 12:09:31 PM EDT
It used to be a federal law...
- (Another Scott)
- (12)
- May 6, 2016, 12:21:51 PM EDT
I'm not voting against her, I'm voting for someone committed to universal healthcare.
-NT
- (mmoffitt)
- (11)
- May 6, 2016, 12:27:37 PM EDT
That's fine in the primary. Vote the party in the general...
-NT
- (Another Scott)
- (10)
- May 6, 2016, 12:31:06 PM EDT
Here's your sign. :0)
- (mmoffitt)
- (9)
- May 6, 2016, 12:36:19 PM EDT
I don't have a problem with that.
- (Another Scott)
- (8)
- May 6, 2016, 12:44:42 PM EDT
No. But it's not as unpossible as you've suggested either. ;-)
-NT
- (mmoffitt)
- (7)
- May 6, 2016, 01:37:32 PM EDT
I think we've been through this before.
- (Another Scott)
- (6)
- May 6, 2016, 01:46:43 PM EDT
I suspect this thread will wind down
- (rcareaga)
- (5)
- May 7, 2016, 02:30:34 PM EDT
We do well here.
- (Another Scott)
- (4)
- May 7, 2016, 02:58:33 PM EDT
Hats off to you both.
- (mmoffitt)
- (3)
- May 7, 2016, 06:30:56 PM EDT
obviously I haven't read *all* your posts
- (rcareaga)
- (2)
- May 7, 2016, 06:42:03 PM EDT
Thank you. Awfully kind of you.
-NT
- (mmoffitt)
- May 7, 2016, 06:43:47 PM EDT
Well said.
-NT
- (Another Scott)
- May 7, 2016, 09:03:15 PM EDT
nope, you can do what million s of poor americans and illegals do. Drive without it.
- (boxley)
- May 6, 2016, 09:57:45 AM EDT
you photoshopped a picture of him on the crapper?
-NT
- (boxley)
- May 5, 2016, 04:10:39 PM EDT
