Obama's take on the huge numbers of people opposed to Obamacare

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

As will your refusal to address any legitimate concerns over Obama's competence or, in this case, honesty.

I'm sure that Spence considers Obama to be very competent. He pretty much has approved of all his foreign policy, considering it all to be "played well." He wants to give the ACA "a chance." He believes that the Repubs have made it difficult to govern, that it's their fault we're in a mess not Obama's. And that the economy is picking up, and the ACA thing is smoothing out of its little hitches and starting to roll. ETC. And about the honesty thing . . . you have to remember that Spence considers himself to be a pragmatist. The ultimate pragmatist, Machiavelli, would have approved of lying. Lying in order to achieve goals, govern well, is amoral. It is "smart."

Rather than explain why forcing employers to provide free contraception isn't unconstitutional, he tries to make everyone hate us by lying about our position.

Again, you call it "lying," Spence would see it as "smart." Pragmatism trumps morality.

Why can't you be an honest adult for 3 seconds and tell us what you think about a President who would stoop to that.

A pragmatist would stoop to whatever it takes to get the job done.

My only obsession with her sex life, is that I want to be left out of it. She is the one dragging me into it, by insisting that she has the right to reach into my wallet.

Spence probably doesn't care about her getting into your wallet. Fluke is a promising progressive who will probably be running for political office in the near future. She will be a standard bearer for the "women's" issue part of the progressive platform, and be a big electoral draw on "smart" women's issues.

Besides, Spence is a "centrist." He is in the center of whatever is. So he is always right. You, on the other hand, are on the fringe of center. You're an extremist. Extremists are always wrong. NOT.

Spence doesn't have to answer any questions. He is usually the one asking questions, not too often making definitive statements. So long as the progressive movement forges ahead, maintaining or gaining ground, politics are on his side, and he can disregard your questions (or anybody else's), and merely respond with sarcastic jabs.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Spence probably doesn't care about her getting into your wallet. Fluke is a promising progressive who will probably be running for political office in the near future. She will be a standard bearer for the "women's" issue part of the progressive platform, and be a big electoral draw on "smart" women's issues.

Besides, Spence is a "centrist." He is in the center of whatever is. So he is always right. You, on the other hand, are on the fringe of center. You're an extremist. Extremists are always wrong. NOT.

Spence doesn't have to answer any questions. He is usually the one asking questions, not too often making definitive statements. So long as the progressive movement forges ahead, maintaining or gaining ground, politics are on his side, and he can disregard your questions (or anybody else's), and merely respond with sarcastic jabs.

"Fluke is a promising progressive who will probably be running for political office in the near future"

You need to keep up with the news. She's running for State Senate in California. Hip hip, hooray! Her resume reads "been in school my whole life, then went on TV and shoved my sex life in everyone's face, and demanded that they pay for it, because racisthatecrimeintolerantwaronwomenkeepyourrosarie soffmyovaries, that's why."

"Spence is a "centrist." "

Then so was Mao.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

She (Fluke) will be a standard bearer for the "women's" issue part of the progressive platform, and be a big electoral draw on "smart" women's issues.

.

The day that hideous witch becomes the standard bearer for women, is the day I give serious thought to switching teams, if'n you know what I mean. She is absolutely repugnant, in every conceivable way a human being can be. Just knowing that she disagrees with me, is all I need to know that I am on the right side of any issue.

Blech.

I loved her speech at the DNC, aka abortion-pallooza. What a lovely platform that have on that side.

[spence]

Sounds like someone's jealous.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Sounds like someone's jealous.

-spence

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.

[Mr. Sandman]

Just giving away more fish...

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

Just giving away more fish...

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!

[Fly Rod]

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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

On the other hand, I was spot on that you: "merely respond with sarcastic jabs." That's . . . not . . . really . . . something to be jealous of.

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

[tysdad115]

This explains it

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[justplugit]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

.

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

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

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

. . . 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...