I'm admittedly not a long-time reader; I'm probably the (seemingly) rare reader of political blogs who seems to turn against whoever's in power, and sorta hates both ends of the spectrum.
But after reading a number of your posts recently, I was surprised to read references to "nationalizing" health care and "Government taking over" in this post; I'd come to associate those phrases with the same people you're attacking, since I haven't actually heard of any provisions of either of the still-relevant bills that would seem to imply a takeover. Is this based on the idea that, if a "public option" passes now, it will eventually *lead* to a takeover at a later date? Because from the actual details of the bill(s) that I've heard, I thought the big issues were that it was a giant redistribution, and that it forces millions of healthy people to buy (private) insurance they don't believe they need. Recent stories have suggested that the public option (which probably won't even make the final bill) wouldn't actually accomplish anything, because nobody would actually use it, and it wouldn't have any power to actually cut costs.
Still, this talk of a "takeover" is so common there has to be something it's based on. Most of the conservatives that use these phrases seem to take it as a given, and most liberals never even seem to engage on this point. Is there a link you can provide, that explains what you mean by "takeover"? Or is this just a case of multiple meanings of the same word, and you just mean that the feds would be starting (a la NCLB) to mandate and regulate things that are currently handled at a lower level of government?Comment Posted By Chuck On 22.11.2009 @ 20:45
I liked Romney's credentials before I heard him speak. Snore. Maybe he could be the next McNamara. What does he stand for anyway?Comment Posted By chuck On 9.07.2009 @ 23:35
Good point. Obama made a good political move. Most people are blind to this.Comment Posted By chuck On 23.12.2008 @ 21:08
I agree Lieberman sees the writting on the wall. I think he's betting on McCain as an out. I think it's almost a given that he will be in the cabinet which he will view as a good end to his career.Comment Posted By Chuck On 21.08.2008 @ 07:02
This is an interesting comparison, this year with 1936, had not thought of it. As far as the IOC, I love the Olympics for the athletes, but gave up on fair in 1972. As a side note, I was thinking today about doping after seeing the news about the US relay team. Any guess as to whether we will have any Chinese caught doping this year?Comment Posted By Chuck On 2.08.2008 @ 21:32
I find it frustrating that McCain cannot get it going. I can't help but believe Obama is vulnerable right now and could be dethroned. As far as a negative campaign, I think it will be required. I'm not talking mean or tasteless but the only thing Obama really has going for him is his shiny image. No experience, no clear plan. McCain needs to tarnish that image a bit.Comment Posted By Chuck On 31.07.2008 @ 23:30
"You have greatly disrespected Obama- he has a great deal in common with Snowball. They’re both pussies."
In all seriousness though, your cat looks like it has too much integrity to be President.Comment Posted By Chuck On 30.07.2008 @ 22:47
I think creepy is a very precise word. For those of us that have not fallen under his spell, there is something very off about this man. I have actually used the word scary.Comment Posted By Chuck On 27.07.2008 @ 18:45
We can get more troops for the GWOT and Iraq. Its a matter of getting the will to do it. Right now the will seems to be lacking on the part of the electorate.
Yes, and for good reason. Most of the electorate realizes that Iraq posed no threat whatsoever to the US, and that W's eliminate-the-WMD-turned-great-social-engineering-experiment is hardly worth dying for.
But I'm glad for the rich in this country, because they've made the ultimate sacrifice. They sacrificed having to pay a large chunk of their taxes to support the war. If you're looking for anyone who lacks the will, look to the rich, who are not prepared to sacrifice money, let alone blood,for this stupid failed adventure.Comment Posted By chuck On 30.09.2006 @ 14:07
How about we keep the electoral college, but only count the electoral votes of those states that are net contributors to the federal Treasury? This will provide the power to the states that are paying for the government. It will also give the states an incentive to reduce the federal dole.Comment Posted By Chuck On 29.08.2006 @ 13:50
Pages (2) :  2