Alright Republicans, We Give Up

It is amusing to note the sensitivity of the left with respect to public opposition(whether organized or spontaneous) to their pet programs, and to compare it with their own uniquely long history of organized protest and disruptive political action. It was also instructive to observe the Service Employees Labor Union goons beating up a protestor at one of the meetings.

The truth is neither revel, his sources, nor I know exactly to what degree these outbursts are spontaneous or organized. Moreover, even if organized, they may be no less authentic in terms of the opposition of those participating. Just a little benign "community organizing" -- certainly not as vitriolic as the rhetoric of the esteemed Rev. Wright, which our President claims to have slept through with great tranquility for all those years, and certainly not as dangerous as the activities of the Weathermen of the 1970s, whose former leader was a political associate & supporter of the president.

Like most fights caught on tape in sports, you likely missed the opening action.

This is one partisan zealot's response to the fact that Union thugs were video-taped raining racial epithets as wells as blows on a black conservative protestor.

I suppose we should expect the tribal allegiance of partisan zealots to override their ability to recognize irony and contradiction, but their conscience?

If Obama and the Democratic Leadership had had their way, there would be no debate of any kind right now. The whole purpose of the rush to shove this legislative abomination down the throats of the American people by the end of July was, precisely, to avoid the possibility of constituents either questioning their representatives or registering their opposition.

2) "DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM!"

...It's like I'm offering you an apple and you scream back at me, "I don't want any god damned strawberries you sick ****!"....

I wouldn't call the dueling propaganda we're seeing right now in this country "debate of any kind". It's fair to ask why the administration was in such a hurry, though. I'd wager it was to avoid the extended misinformation campaign and frenzy whipping of the uninformed that we are seeing and which will probably kill any meaningful reform.

"DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM!" ---
Absolutely. However, wallowing in misinformation and fear mongering hardly qualifies as dissent. It's like I'm offering you an apple and you scream back at me, "I don't want any god damned strawberries you sick ****!".

Does anyone here believe that the status quo is adequate and that the current system can sustain itself?

i just remembered that back in the day, the republicans were always going off about " the rable rousers being bussed in" during the vietnam war and the campus protests.

back then they thought it entirely possible that was happening. now it's "an outrageous lie spread by the deceitful msnbc"...

oh welll...

Your wager is not unexpected because it casts such a rosy glow on Obama & Co, however even if it were true, it would not be acceptable. No matter how earnest Obama's intentions, and no matter how ultimately benign his proposals may be, he doesn't get to shut off debate on the issue because for one reason or another he might lose.

This is what drives so many of us crazy about progressives: They think they know better than the rest of us what is good for the rest of us and so any ploy to provide us with what they think is good for us is A-OK.

You wouldn't tolerate the same behavior by the Right and yet you come so very close to forgiving it when it flows from the Left.

Whether because they are enamoured of all things European, because they recognize that the more the government runs, the more they run, or because they actually believe it will be good for America, progressive Democrats want socialized medicine.

It is one of the most transparent con jobs in history, this progressive denial of advocating socialism.

If they thought the American people would buy it, they would be falling all over each other to lay claim to the label Socialist.

Only someone who doesn't understand the downside of Socialism would equate social services to Socialism.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Your wager is not unexpected because it casts such a rosy glow on Obama & Co, however even if it were true, it would not be acceptable. No matter how earnest Obama's intentions, and no matter how ultimately benign his proposals may be, he doesn't get to shut off debate on the issue because for one reason or another he might lose.

This is what drives so many of us crazy about progressives: They think they know better than the rest of us what is good for the rest of us and so any ploy to provide us with what they think is good for us is A-OK.

Why do you think this (and pretty much any other political sin) is a progressive trait? Bush and Co. did the same with the war in Iraq. They considered going to the UN a "dangerous distraction" (dangerous only in that it might make the march to war lose steam) and saw a brief window of post-911 paranoia in which they could push it through so they portrayed it as an immediate threat.

Quote:

You wouldn't tolerate the same behavior by the Right and yet you come so very close to forgiving it when it flows from the Left.

You, in turn, are quite forgiving of it on the right yet like to decry it in the left. You portray just about every political sin as the problem with the lefties when your own side is just as guilty of them.

By all means, criticize it if you will, but characterizing it as the left's sin ignores the healthy participation in such tactics that your own side engages in.

what the morons appearing at these town halls are practicing isn't 'dissent' at all.

Government run healthcare is socialized medicine.

You can slice the baloney thinly and call it a social service, but, amid the government owning banks and manufacturers, it is a major step to the grander goal of Socialism.

Quote:

Only someone who doesn't understand the downside of Socialism would equate social services to Socialism.

What the hell does that mean Craven?

The majority of Americans recognize that Socialism is a flawed ideology, not that the concept of social services is flawed so when those who favor smaller government invoke Socialism to argue against social services they are being either ignorant or disingenuous.

A nice assumption Robert, but unless you are prepared to provide us with citations, you are merely projecting.

In your desire to appear judicious and above the fray, you've missed important distinctions between the topic at hand, and the example you've chosen to prove my hypocrisy.

Whether or not Bush & Co considered going to the UN a "dangerous distraction" (interesting use of quotes there) they did go to the UN, or do you deny that fact?

What if Iraq cooperates?

But the UN resolution " and the strong mandate President Bush received at the polls on Tuesday " reopens the question of the Administration's fundamental goal in Iraq. For the hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the objective is to get rid of Saddam's regime, and reviving the UN arms inspection regime had been viewed at best as an inadequate guarantee of disarmament, and at worst a dangerous distraction from the task at hand. But they were convinced to take the matter back to the UN as a means of securing international support and legitimacy for a military campaign.

Can Bush Accept Saddam's Offer?

The White House had to have factored in the possibility of Saddam submitting to inspections when it first took the matter back to the UN " administration hawks such as Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had long warned that reviving the inspection regime could prove a dangerous distraction to the Administration's efforts to get rid of the regime in Baghdad. Yet without going the UN route first, even the loyal Tony Blair might not have been able to sustain his support for a war in the face of overwhelming domestic opposition.

Mr Rumsfeld regards weapons inspections as a distraction, a view she seems to share.

The security council diplomat characterised Mr Rumsfeld's remarks as part of generalised rumblings of dissent from "Washington hawks who never liked the UN route anyway".

And then there is public opinion. Mr Bush still benefits from the rallying effect of 11 September; amazingly, he has convinced roughly half his fellow citizens that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the attacks without a shred of serious evidence to that effect. Mr Blair could never pull off that sort of conjuring trick. That is one reason 55 per cent of Americans support an invasion of Iraq even without a second United Nations resolution, and only 19 per cent of Britons do.

Mr Blair was alive to that risk early on. Together with Colin Powell, he persuaded a reluctant President last summer to go the UN route, when the Iraq hawks like Mr Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, the vice-President, felt that would cause only trouble and delay. At the start of this year, as British public opinion turned even more hostile to war, it was again Mr Blair who desperately (and ultimately successfully) lobbied Mr Bush to go back to the UN for a second resolution which both London and Washington insist is technically unnecessary.

In 2003, US State Department and CIA officials were routinely out-manoeuvred and marginalised by hardline Defence Department planners in the build-up to war. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, was criticised for the distractions of the "UN route" to disarming Saddam.

Only someone who doesn't understand the dangers of terrorists armed with WMDs would equate Bush & Co's sense of urgency around Iraq with Obama & Co's urgency around healthcare reform.