the new health care?

If the opposition is going to be delivered by racist xenophobic anti-Semites there's nothing to worry about. Ugly people are rarely attractive to all the people. Let the games begin or should I say resume.Wow, you and Nancy Pelosi completely missed the point. How are the people protesting with the Nazi symbol crossed out, anti-Semites? The comparison being made is the tactics of the Obama Admin and the left being compared to the National Socialist movement under Hitler. While there are similarities, I don't think it's an effective tactic to make that comparison in the Health Care debate.

The partisan divide in this country is sickening. What's worse is that many so-called intelligent people in this thread play right into it; supporting their side unconditionally in everything, blaming the other side for inflammatory tactics, harping on personal things that have nothing to do with the issues: like Clinton's blowjob from Monica and Sanford's affair.

Set that absurd bullshit aside, for the love of God. Evaluate everything objectively, no matter which side champions it. Only then are you being open enough to make decisions/cast your vote for the betterment of society. When you go along with this partisan drivel, all you do is succumb to your ego and pride. Let it go, sometimes the folks you voted for are right, sometimes they're not, who cares.

You don't have to agree with everything your party says; to do so only confirms that you're not using your brain.

S10, as a pioneer in calling idiots "idiots" I'm not sure what is meant by objective. When elected officials and "average" citizens talk about "death panel" provisions in the health care bill you got to start pointing fingers and proclaim "you're in idiot, you're an idiot, you too are an idiot, and you, and you, etc." Honestly, you can only be objective if the other side is coming from an objective position. Granted, the other side doesn't consider statists to be objective in matters dear to them.

Sanford's affair had everything to do with the issues, specially the issue of family values. If Sanford is going to run under the umbrella of being a righteous candidate who will uphold the "values" of this country and then f*cks around on his wife you got to call him out on that, especially with his hateration of gays. A similar case can be made against Clinton and his lying.

p.s. Obama is a jerk for wheeling and dealing behind the scenes with drug makers...80 billion in concessions my ass.

This is what I keep saying. And it floats right up to the politics. The two-party system is just too restrictive in handling the complexities of a nation like ours. It fosters bad ideas and is largely responsible for the mess we're in now.

It's really a difficult line. I believe in the two party system far more than the fragmented European style systems. But, without doing a historical essay and research, I think that since the nationalization of politics through a powerful media, the 2 party structure has been able to squash any grass root movements that might have risen to challenge them. I think back to the support that Perot received, and feel that in the 1800's that same movement would have had the opportunity to rise up and replace one of the two mainstreams. this is kind of how we kept new ideas percolating with out having our government sorta fall apart when one coalition or another decided to leave.

I hope historians will be able to look back at this period and really evaluate the good and bad effects of the media. I know we are too enmeshed in the now to get an objective view of it.

Truly saden-esque response. I don't remember any "bogus chain E-mails" posted here, maybe I missed something. The Patriot Act was designed to provide surveillance on terrorist suspects, the left went nuts claiming all sorts of "innocent civilians" were prosecuted under the Patriot Act. But yet I don't recall any evidence of any prosecution not terror related.

Nothing in Cornyn's letter is false.

hint: jsarno is a fan of posting chain emails

S10, as a pioneer in calling idiots "idiots" I'm not sure what is meant by objective. When elected officials and "average" citizens talk about "death panel" provisions in the health care bill you got to start pointing fingers and proclaim "you're in idiot, you're an idiot, you too are an idiot, and you, and you, etc." Honestly, you can only be objective if the other side is coming from an objective position. Granted, the other side doesn't consider statists to be objective in matters dear to them.

Or... instead of playing into the adversarial game which leads only to more fingerpointing and no real dialogue, you could try to rise above it and actually seek real solutions and find common ground with the non-idiots.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we don't need you to tell us what is idiotic but would prefer it if you tried to find intelligent solutions that would much be much more effective in highlighting the idiocy of idiots.

Wow, you and Nancy Pelosi completely missed the point. How are the people protesting with the Nazi symbol crossed out, anti-Semites? The comparison being made is the tactics of the Obama Admin and the left being compared to the National Socialist movement under Hitler. While there are similarities, I don't think it's an effective tactic to make that comparison in the Health Care debate.


Similarities eh? Pray tell, what kind?

I was merely highlighting that two can play the game of demonization. If you must know though, brother Emanuel and Axelrod won't appreciate being associated with Hitler and the Nazi party neither will the Jewish members of congress and the 70% of the Jews that voted for the Administration.

hint: jsarno is a fan of posting chain emailsForgot about jsarno, LOL.

Or... instead of playing into the adversarial game which leads only to more fingerpointing and no real dialogue, you could try to rise above it and actually seek real solutions and find common ground with the non-idiots.

You are 100% right. I need to improve in this regard.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we don't need you to tell us what is idiotic but would prefer it if you tried to find intelligent solutions that would much be much more effective in highlighting the idiocy of idiots.

I think I do a good job in this regard most of the time but sometimes you just have to let an idiot know he is an idiot.

Truly saden-esque response. I don't remember any "bogus chain E-mails" posted here, maybe I missed something. The Patriot Act was designed to provide surveillance on terrorist suspects, the left went nuts claiming all sorts of "innocent civilians" were prosecuted under the Patriot Act. But yet I don't recall any evidence of any prosecution not terror related.

Nothing in Cornyn's letter is false.

The text Cornyn is referencing is in this blog post (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/) on the whitehouse.gov website. Here is the menacing text:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

God help us all!

Similarities eh? Pray tell, what kind?

I was merely highlighting that two can play the game of demonization. If you must know though, brother Emanuel and Axelrod won't appreciate being associated with Hitler and the Nazi party neither will the Jewish members of congress and the 70% of the Jews that voted for the Administration.You are very capable of reading the 25-point plan of the National Socialist Program and identifying the similarities.

And let me restate; "While there are similarities, I don't think it's an effective tactic to make that comparison in the Health Care debate."

It's counter-productive to the right to use this comparison. The real negative issues of Obama Care are what need to be discussed (gov't control, cost, reduction of quality of care, reduction of Medicare svcs, etc.).