Comments Posted By allen
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 74 Comments
I have been to that part of New York a number of times (relatives by marriage.) If I were to characterize the voting patterns of that part of the state I would say they were Moynihan Democrats.
I don't think this race has any big national implications. I would suspect that there is probably a whisker of difference between Owens and Hoffman, except Hoffman was relatively unknown to the voters.
Comment Posted By Allen On 4.11.2009 @ 13:25
Well, I do have one litmus test for GOP candidates. When things go south on you, you don't endorse the Democrat.
I agree with you on one thing. It makes absolutely no difference what your principles are if you don't have any way to get them enacted.
Comment Posted By Allen On 2.11.2009 @ 13:24
I agree with you that this is an "all in," or fold moment. One could make a rational case full of pros and cons for either choice, but I don't think some middle ground would be worthwhile.
No matter what choice he makes he owns it from here on out. given that I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as he takes his time.
Comment Posted By Allen On 29.10.2009 @ 09:38
THE GREAT COMMUNICATOR OR THE GREAT PREVARICATOR?
Why would anyone ever consider this bill leading to a single payer as a slippery slope argument? The democrats have been pushing for it for decades, and all of a sudden they're not? Balderdash. The problem is they can't sell single payer so they're trying to disguise it. This is what has many folks worried. They are not sure exactly what is trying to be sold, so they are skeptical.
Similarly some of the other concerns. A reasonable person can infer that some of these things are entirely possible unless they are proscribed outright. Suppoprters, and opponents, of this bill are answering and asking the wrong question. The real question to me is this: given the current language of this bill are these consequences possible?
Comment Posted By Allen On 10.09.2009 @ 16:47
WHAT ABOUT THAT MEMO SHOWING KENNEDY WORKING AGAINST AMERICAN INTERESTS?
I always thought this was a KGB dis-information set up. He probably did make some sort of overture to them but I would suspect it was rather benign. First, I don't believe the Soviet Union would have ever trusted a Kennedy. Second, they felt sure that Kennedy was an extremely viable Presidential candidate. To them, Chappaquiddick meant nothing.
So why would they do this? For the pure embarrassment factor if Kennedy ever became President. They could hamstring him politically anytime they wanted. I think this was nothing more that the KGB setting up a little insurance just in case.
Comment Posted By Allen On 31.08.2009 @ 15:47
I would tell you to fuck off Rick. But, I have some catlle to move. That's the beauty of America.
Hell, next time you're out this way, I've got a steak, a glass of whiskey, and a bit of spleen for you.
Best
Jesus what brought that on? All sorts of weirdos on the internet.
ed.
Comment Posted By Allen On 24.08.2009 @ 00:04
THE LOGICAL FALLACY OF SOME SLIPPERY SLOPE REFORM ARGUMENTS
The problems of selling this plan to the American people is entirely due to the Obama administration. They've been trying to sell it on the idea of cost savings.
Take two different systems, Canada and the US. They both suffer from the same problem to different degrees. Canada's costs are increasing by 6% a year, and the US by 9%. It is recognized that it is primarily due to aging populations. Since most of the costs occur in the last few years of life, where else are meaningful cuts going to come from?
Sure, some money might be saved by the mechanisms Obama identified, but for significant savings there is only one place to cut. People realize this even though they might not have articulated well.
Comment Posted By Allen On 11.08.2009 @ 11:01
PALIN'S OUTRAGEOUS DEMAGOGUERY: WHY NOT? EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT.
Rick, the democrat party is the party of death. Abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, eugenics. That's not demagoguery, that's fact.
Comment Posted By allen On 8.08.2009 @ 18:28
People can argue all day about Palin's abilities or lack thereof. One clear ability is that she could bring in money and crowds, the mother's milk of politics.
That's proof to me that the "brain trust" needs to rethink their own abilities. Since when do smart electioneers turn down the most valuable tokens in the game?
Comment Posted By Allen On 1.07.2009 @ 14:50
IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT ATTITUDE
I'm sure you have noticed that the democrats don't need the republicans to move any legislation, but they sure want them onboard. Similarly, there is always plenty of advice from others about what republicans need to be concerned about. That advice invariably is: be like us.
Screw that, go with the attitude. What's wrong with being thought of as the party of no? If they say yes, they'll pay for it. I noticed when Snowe, and Collins said yes to a recent bit of legislation they got hammered for "undermining" part of the legislation.
Comment Posted By Allen On 17.06.2009 @ 13:22
