OCinBuffalo

Or, I was being prophetic. 'Been a week gatorclown. The entire left, all the resources of MSNBC, all the resources of the National Journal, certainly everything Media Matters has....have been engaged for 7 full days. And nothing. They have no reply at all. You know how to tell when the left has nothing? They frame what they wanted to state as a definitive...as a question instead. Example: Instead of "Bridgegate: Christie Done in 2016" it is "Is Chris Christie done in 2016?" And here's the CBS clowns to prove it: http://www.realclear...lost_2016_.html That is the white flag going up, and only the ignorant don't see.... Now, the reasonable, considerate and astute leftist says "we aren't going to win this one, any more bad behavior on this, and we will be doing the very thing OCinBuffalo warned us about". But, you aren't reasonable, considerate, or astute, are you? Nope. Thus, you, and the rest of the idiot left, will do the very thing I said you would 10? pages ago. You WILL "Palin" this whole thing, and in doing so, you will be setting Chris Christie up for the biggest boomerang of all time. Just remember: don't come crying to me when this 300 lb boomerang of Jersey goo hits you, it hurts, and your biggest tears come from the fact that you were the ones who threw him in the first place. I don't like Jersey, this is your problem because you shaped the goo into a boomerang and threw it, and I want nothing to do with all that goo.

If this is who we are really up against? Clowns that would publish their target list, and, give us insight into how they see the battlefield? Sorry if I don't sound scared. Hell, this was probably published by the biggest buffoon of all time. Perhaps there is some truth to the statements that the leadership has been thinned out. Example of seeing the battlefield: Bars on M street, huh? Why was this mentioned? Seems awfully specific given the context of the rest. Why be specific here, and not about NYC? Certainly there are as many people in bars in Little Italy as there are in bars on M street. I know, I've been to both. There's more people in bars in Ybor City than in both places, combined. The author apparently has been to M street, but has little knowledge of NYC, and doesn't know F all about Tampa. I wonder if we can run some patterning on that? This sounds like "places in the USA I've been to, plus some general stuff on places I haven't", written by some wannabe, to me. Well, when one considers that the entire ethos of these people is 100% based on "wannabe"....because they can't win on the merits.... You know....like Mohammed being a "wannabe" prophet....

To whom does that seem exactly? Obamacare, the Liberal Cleaver, will NEVER fade in your lifetime. Best to start owning that. It's time to start accepting the fact that the very next time some progressive wants to propose sweeping legislation? It will have to clear the Obamacare hurdle = "yeah, but we don't want another Obamacare, so...." mere invocation of the word, will scare the crap out of every elected official, which means? No more sweeping/big government legislation without 100% bipartisan support. Not in our lifetime. Which now means: the entire progressive agenda is now on indefinite hold. That is reality. The progressive agena has been put on hold by the TEA party, and their ain't schit you can do about it. Like I said: start owning that reality. You will only cause yourself suffering otherwise. Set your expectations properly. Obamacare, the Liberal Cleaver, is a weapon that can destroy most of you, and cause the others to run away, merely at the sight of it.

No. As has been clearly defined by this president, REAL Democrats use emotional arguments, pandering, and race/class/gender baiting, not logic. What was logical about "we have to pass it, so we can see what's in it"? Why is it that Obamacare generates so many gaffes, laughs and embarrassment? Lack of basic logic. Show me a single liberal policy, in place or proposed, that has been based purely on logic. Hint: killing Osama is not policy. It is logical to deploy the Keystone piple line, even you agree with that. Why then is it not approved? Where is the logic there? You can find all sorts of emotional arguments, and pandering in the WH handling of this situation: they raise $ on it all the time. They go to the environtologists, and say "give me $ or I will approve it", so there's the logic based in self-interest/preservation, but, delaying the approval in terms of the decision itself? No logic at all. One wonders what, if anything, ever, will be embarrassing for gatorman, years later, when he looks back on his posts here. And, what will he admit to? This is why I can never be a "social conservative", and won't ever be very good at religion. But, it's also why detest anyone who fancies himself a post-modern Jesus. Moral relativity is just as disgusting as "holier than thou", which is just as disgusting as ice picking unborn babies in the back of the head, which is just as disgusting as denying birth control and condoms to people in Africa, which is just as disgusting as persecuting gay people, which is just as disgusting as calling those who oppose gay marriage bigots. 9/10 anybody saying anything about "morality", who isn't referring directly to the 10 commandments, or the Golden Rule, or Karma, or anything thing else the rises to "commandment" level....is full of schit. You post the above...and then, you wonder why this: happens? What you shoud have figured: if you attempt to get away with distorting history on this board, you are going to be insulted. There's no point in having a discussion with somebody who can't even get his facts straight. Since there's no point in discussion, all that's left to do? Insult. Might as well do something fun and useful. Yeah. We've all seen the "great" success of "organizations" like the post office, EPA, IRS, State Department, Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, etc. Then we've all seen the efforts and results of your team in state and local government as well, especially in cities. Yeah, a fine team you have there. Given the results of these organizations, I'm fairly certain that "nothing" is rapidly becoming the more attractive option to a majority of Americans. This isn't the proper thinking for a retiring justice whatsoever. Each court, if it is functioning properly, has to deal with its time, or more specifically, with the issues of its time. Thus, we evaluate courts properly, only when we do so in terms of what they were dealing with, in their real time, not on the basis of whether they carried on some policy from another time. You want to call every supreme court from day 1 to the Civil War useless, because slavery wasn't struck down? No. You do not. Many of those courts did excellent work helping the nation become a nation. They dealt with the issues that were presented to them, in their time. It is the word policy being misused here, that defines your problem so well. Thurgood Marshal didn't have a policy. Policies are for presidents, not justices. Thus, taking the last 2 things together: it would have been highly improper, a major disservice to the country, and an impeachable offense, for a 1841's SCOTUS to up and decide that slavery was illegal, because it was their "policy". But, they did find that the law had been violated, and that free men had been taken against their will into slavery....which is what they, in their time, were supposed to consider. (Hint: do your own reading on 1841 and the SCOTUS)

Bingo. The problem for the Media Matters types? Their tactics of demanding that the MSM cover stories the way they want them covered, doesn't work. Sure, they can still scare liberal journalists/TV people, but, that doesn't matter anymore. O'Reilly, and his clones here, can B word about the internet all they want. However, it is the internet, and nothing else comes close, not even talk radio, that has created the conditions for the liberal stranglehold on the media to be rendered irrelevant. Dan Rather says hello. As I live and breathe. I don't believe this. Really. Since when does the Inquirer actually investigate Philly politicians? Probably right around the same time calling "racist" lost its punch....which is right around the same time calling Obamacare opponents racists lost its punch. But, don't worry: the union boys will be stopping by a few Center City bars, known hangouts for Inquirer folk, and this will all be gone in a week.

Of course "I" report my Federal Income Taxes.(I meaning, I pay this lady to do all that stuff) But, hold the F on for second...what exactly do you think is happening here? The young the old, and many in between, were on the verge of being scammed. Period. They've seen through it, and they won't sign up. And you dare talk about morality? Show me the morality in overcharging legions of 27-year-old healthy males for care they will NEVER use... ...because the fact that they are young, means they aren't old, and charging old people more is.....discrimination? ...because the fact that they are male, means they aren't female(well, mostly, right? Nowadays...?), and charging women more is...discrimination? ...because the fact that they are healthy, means they make wise life choices, don't self-induce diabetes, and charging those who smoke/drink/overdose on heroin/eat poorly more is...discrimination? You know health care. Old people, women, and problem people use more of it. Overcharging young, healthy men, for using less? That's generational/gender/assclown theft. Period. And, again, you want to talk to me about morality or ethics? Blow it out your ass. Blow it right the F out your ass...clown. Who the F does any Obamacare suppoter think they are to lecture anyone on ethics or morality, when the ENTIRE history of this law has been a study in self-interest, BS, unabashed pandering, corruption, influence peddling, and what happens when the unqualified bribe their way into doing my job, so that they can sell "consulting" on the terrible mess they created. Obamacare is THE definitive modern example of bad ideology-->bad policy, being endlessly protected by obfuscation, double dealing, double talk and Joe F'ing Biden. Obamacare supporters cashed in the moral high ground on this issue 4 damn years ago. You will NEVER get it back. That's why this law has NEVER had majority support, and that's why this law will NEVER have majority support. IT IS A F'ING SCAM! And by the way? NONE of this has anything to do with me. You on the other hand, have a TON to answer for when it comes to morality, ethics and your continued support of the polar opposite that is contained in, and has consistently been displayed by, the supporters of this law. Finally, your answer shows what this ALL comes down to, doesn't it? You can't win on the content, you can't win the argument. You know this. ALL you are left with is: emoting and personal attacks. I will leave it to the board to determine who is right, and who is being a dumbass(tell me again about how you "know" how much every MRI costs). I will leave it to posters to decide who is being moral here, and who refuses to admit they are dead wrong on the design, and is therefore, lamely, trying to introduce morality as his last ditch argument...for a law that's been delayed purely for political gain, 13 times. You make me because you aren't worth taking seriously.

You don't get it. If I am a 27 year old contract programmer, who makes $80k a year, and am self-employed? What I said above makes perfect sense. I declare hardship, so I don't even have to pay the fine, and then get temporary. What stops me? Nothing. I pay 1/2 of what Obamacare wants, and I can change my plan at any time, meaning I keep shopping down my premium every month. This is literally what kids I know are doing....but yeah...they don't make sense. Btw? These kids have a track record of making sense.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying any of this is wrong/right(largely because I don't think any of it fits into wrong/right.) And, neither can liberals. They stripped all the morality out of this thing, as you said, and also because of the Cornhusker Kickback/Louisiana purchase, and toggling between mandate/tax based purely on convenience. So, all that's left is: self-interest. Only a fool would sign up for Obamacare, given the # of exceptions/waivers/hardship/whatevers. My advice: Just do what I said above, save $, get care, and ignore the people telling you that you are doing something wrong. You aren't doing anything other than refusing to be a mark in this hustle. There's never anything wrong with not being a mark.

Yet again you drop another thoughtless assertion. Our health care costs ARE on par with the rest of the world's. The difference is: we report our health care cost straight up, all of them. They do not. They look at what "they" are paying, ONLY in terms of what the government is paying. They don't account for side payments(because they are illegal, but everybody does it) or private insurance in their "per capital health care spending" charts. You need to understand the very real difference between what is actually happening, and some report you get sitting at your school board meeting. They are not the same thing. What you will get if we do what "everybody else" does: sure, you'll get your nice report that says costs have gone down, and therefore your district has to pay less. And, if that's all you care about, getting that report, then fine, but: it's a lie. It's a lie, because instead of really paying for health care, the government is just setting an abritrary, low reimbursement rate, and then? The providers start taking the "side payments" to deliver care/see your health care enrollees first, which make them whole. The teacher's union will work something out with the local hospital, so teacher's get first crack, but you aren't in that union, so either you grease some palms at the emergency room, or, you wait for 3 days. That's the reality of the rest of the world's fake, "low health care costs" here. You want nice cost reports that show you're doing a good job on the school board? Hell, I can print out all sorts of nice reports for you using this: http://d3js.org/ but the underlying data will all be a lie. Rather than actually cutting costs, all the rest of the world does: move those costs from one payer to another, and report on the difference. Single Payer: one of the biggest lies ever, because in any Single Payer system, you will always find multiple payers. Always. You want to focus on costs, fine, let's do that. But, just stop with this is "rest of the world" crap. Again, your assertion is completely false.

I'm working on it. Give me time please. Dealing with this is like dealing with North Korean level arrogance+incompetence. They all claim to know everything about everything in their facilities, including cost, but, it doesn't take long to punch Mack truck sized holes in that, like I've done in this very thread. See: "I know how much an MRI costs" No way. No chance. Not ever. The trouble is: getting them to stop being so damn insecure and putting up a huge front of nonsense as a result. It takes time for them to realize we can help them. It just takes time. Sales cycles in health care are the longest we've ever seen. However, I don't blame the average joe health care administrator. This is largely the fault of 2 things: incompetent/lazy IT firms, who work in health care, because nobody else would hire them, and, constant government/lawyer attacks on their business. They are afraid of getting burned, again, and for most of them, it's been 20+ years of the same thing. Example: I just opened the data model of a health care software system, that has been sold as a "new product" to a potential client of ours. It's been in place for 2 years: you know what I found? The entire thing was unchanged from the AS400 days, all they did was rewrite the old data model in SQL Server. 360+ tables....2 foreign keys relationships. Complete and total fraud has been perpetrated here, because this client was sold an "SQL database" There's nothing in this model that is relational at all, well, except the 2 foreign keys. You might as well be looking at COBOL or Mumps. And you laugh: Mumps is all over the place in health care, and they wonder why historical data takes so long? It's a hierarchical DB, and mapping all those nodes for a query? In 2014? Like I said: we need time. This is so F'ed up on so many levels, time is the only way to fix it.

Look like somebody forgot about the recent "hardship" delay? extension? whatever. All I have to do is claim hardship now, and sign up for it later, and only if I have to, because I get sick later. Meawhile, temporary insurance has been left completely alone, is cheaper than Obamacare by in many cases 50%, and you can cancel at any time. Therefore, the smart play: do temporary, pay the fine, and only sign up for Obamacare if something catastrophic happens, which would probably be a qualifying event anyway. That's how this was written, and you like it? You don't like it if you want Obamacare to survive. Which, even given the overestimated #s this WH puts out, say: it ain't.

As a liberal, given the default liberal understanding of business and economics in general, and creating and selling health insurance products specifically, you being baffled is hardly a shocker. You know what else isn't shocking? That you are blissfully ignorant of how universal health care actually works in places where it exists(meaning: it's not universal, and largely relies on Soviet-style bribery and "side-payments" to actually get to see the doctor now, and not in 6 months). You guys love to show graphs and charts of per capita spending....that don't even come close to showing the actually $ spent per capita, because they only show government spending, and not the "side payments", which in almost every country, EXCEED the government payments. You never understand, therefore cannot explain, what "universal" actually means. It means: the government is a deadbeat, who legislates their way into not paying full price for any health care service, and calls that "cost cutting". Real health care cost cutters, like myself, laugh at this assertion, because not only do these governments not cut cost, they aren't even aware of what the costs actually are. They just set arbitrary reimbursement rates based on fudged data, that is based on nothing other than some tool's machinations on a whimsical spreadsheet. It's never based on real data, because they can't be bothered to collect the real data. To be fair: almost every provider sucks at this too, and then they lie about it. So none of these groups, not the insurance companies, not the government, not the providers, and certainly not the surveyors, are operating on the truth. I know this: because I have objectively observed it now in over 100 health care facilities. If universal health care works as designed and promised, why does private insurance exist in every single country where it has been deployed? What is "universal" about doling out health care on a 100% class-based system? With the 4 classes, in order of who gets the best health care, being: 1. Government employees, or those associated with them 2. The wealthy, and those associated with them 3. People who work for big corporations/professionals who can afford to pay for private insurance 4. Everybody else(EDIT: otherwise known as the F'ed class, who get the "universal" insurance) You say you want universal health care, but, you are completely uninformed as to its practical applications in the real world. Where did you get idea that universal health care actually accomplished its stated purpose? Where exactly? What experience does that source have in the systems and processes involved in health care delivery? Have they spent any time in a health care facility, objectively observing anything? No. They talk out their ass, about something they have 0 experience with, and their "reasoning" is actually: emoting. Yeah actually, I can't. That would require self-examination, and not believing in one's own BS. But enough about this, here's something really important: Approval of obamacare nosedives among hispanics Oh, but I thought the Rs were "demographically" screwed, and were never going to win another national election, because of Hispanics? Yeah, that was never, ever, ever reality. As a theory, it has already been debunked, theoretically, and now? Here's the empirical evidence that follows the debunking. They can keep telling themselves latinos = they win. But only a fool believes it. Hispanics, just like the Irish back in the day, aren't about to live on the government plantation. In fact, that's largely counter to their entire culture...if...anybody had ever bothered to learn/study anything about their culture. I have. I spent a whole year immersed in it. The closest white culture to HIspanic? Polish. Yeah, hard work, very religious, very disciplined when working, very fun when playing, these are their values. They have practically nothing in common with liberal values. But you go ahead and keep lying to yourselves, and pretending that Hispanics want to be liberals/take liberal handouts, and not be libertarians who keep a close eye on their Catholic religious freedom.

This race will be a fun one. If Illinois goes red? That might have an impact on 2016, and cause the Ds to have to spend $ there, which takes it away from places like NC, VA, etc.

Gatorman speaking for the TEA party. When, not only would the TEA party touch everything, if the TEA party was 100% in charge, Democrats would be lucky to have 2 coins of government $ left to rub together. If the TEA party was running things, the Democratic party would literally be put out of business, since government is the Democrat's business. And, to be sure, more than a few Rs would be out of business too under TEA party rule. But, your whole point is completely worthless, because it represents a false choice: There is no "not touching entitlements vs. touching them". Entitlements WILL be touched. The real choice: whether we touch them now, in a reasonable way, or, we put it off until later, when touching them means: 1. allowing them to bankrupt themselves. 2. massive, sweeping and immediate cuts to benefits. This is reality. Deny it all you want, but it's still reality.

You're being a dumbass, here, is why you get called dumbass, here. There's a simple solution: Stop being a dumbass, here. You want to talk about external examples like your experience vs. mine? No you don't. You wouldn't last one day in my job: Largely because you have a bad habit of dropping thoughtless assertions, and can never back them up. You don't even try. Then? You avoid answering tough questions, here, that wouldn't even be being asked of you, if you hadn't made a dumbass assertion, and begged these questions in the first place. That's "endangering the sale/project" here, and you get fired for that. Sorry, but compared to what I do, which is the NFL in every way, especially in terms of "complicated and nuance"? You are playing intramurals with your school board stuff. If your experience had taught you anything, you'd know better than to keep thoughtlessly walking yourself into one self-generated land mine after the next. And here's an example of thoughtless assertion-->land mine: "The GOP has no pragmatic alternative to the ACA" Yes they do, dumbass. Your problem: you are ignorant of them. They have put all sorts of plans together. The problem isn't lack of plans, the problem is: getting everybody behind one plan. Which, if you actually did your own work/thinking, instead of parroting, you'd realize is a good problem to have: this time the "new ACA" or, the "plan to replace ACA" plan is actually going to have to stand on it's own merits, and be defensible, unlike what the Democrats rammed through. We'll start with this single example of your dumbass assertion, which specifically denies the nuance and level of complication surrounding the GOP efforts to replace ACA with something better, before we move on to the rest of your dumbass assertions. Give the above: what exactly proves you aren't a dumbass?

Sure But, what I'm saying is: in the past, you could count on the 1% of independent/swing voters to be sympathetic to some of this, and perhaps even win close elections with it. Now? The stimulus of a Paul Ryan, devoting a ton of time to listen to and spend time with people in the inner city? It means that 1% decider vote might not be there. Scares the bejesus out of the clown I quoted. One of the things I'm saying is: it's the stimulus of Ryan, doing something they can't deal with, aren't used to, that causes them to say stupid things, like what I quoted. It's jarring to them. Another thing I'm saying: what is merely a ripple for some, is a wave for others, in terms of perception of Republicans, and what they themselves convey, by conveying it themselves, and going around the media. Rand Paul has been doing the same thing as Ryan, but you wouldn't know it: because the media refuses to cover it. However, the minority community sees both of them, doing something they didn't expect. When you have Paul Ryan/Rand Paul physically and repeatedly doing what "the community" has been asking them to do for years? The only response is contradiction. Because? The only, standard, rote response is based on Ryan and Paul NOT being in those communities.

I don't know: the Richard Simmons, guy on his hands and knees, shaking his ass like he was offering himself up for the biggest prison gangbang of all time, Obamacare jazz-jam-infomercial whateverthe!@#$? I believe I will never be able to unsee that, and that nothing will ever top it. And so that I'm not alone in my suffering, you will now see this: Haha! Madest thou look! Try and spend the rest of the day not seeing that! If you want some real punishment, here's the video: "These are all copyrighted movements!" "I think that's really great!" They have no idea, no clue, how much damaged they've done to Obamacare with this.

yes, but he's our clown. More specifically, he's my clown. Get your own.

And the dumbasses like Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman will defend Obama, and many Ds will follow his blog, and continue to be "more unified than the Republicans" and the interal discussion that needs to happen to prevent, or now, win the Civil War, will once again be prevented from happening. Greg Sargent, and he doesn't need Waldman, because he does this on his own all the time, is doing the worst thing he can possibly be doing(once again, if you want something right, assign a far-left buffoon like Sargent to do the opposite). Now he's telling the Ds to focus on the Rs, and what they can/can't do, rather then focusing on themselves, and the very real, very big political problems that Obama is creating for them on a weekly basis. He's destroying entire sections of their identity, and credibility, never mind whole planks of their presumed 2016 platform. Example: Immigration. Is Hillary going to run on some comprehensive, 2500 page law, that looks/smells/feels like Obamacare? NO! She's not that stupid(if she is, and I'm wrong, it doesn't matter, because she loses on this anyway). If she even comes close to that, Rs call Obamacare! = "Yeah Hillary, and how many delays, and how much are you going to ignore enforcing the law, based on polls, will you be doing?"...and vioia, it's a loser election issue. I'd be shocked if she just walks into that trap. However, 2500 page comprehensive immigration reform IS the current Democratic policy. There is no immigration policy alternative for Ds. So now what? Seems to me like a discussion is in order, one that begins with: what are we going to do now that Obama has made all sweeping legislation approaches radioactive to us? Which also means: some idiots are going to say "we don't care, comprehensive immigration is the only way!" Which will lead the rational to say "we will get killed by this". And again: Civil War. See? Obama has destroyed an entire approach for Ds, yet? Nobody is talking about what they do about it. No. Instead? It's cover Obama's ass and stay "unified" by that. A year from now, when covering Obama's ass stops being a priority? It's too late: these things will already be defined. It's really simple, if you see things straight.

Yeah, but that's the back and forth stuff, which sells commercials on FOX, and internet clicks for Powerline. What I'm talking about, requires no advertising, and no talking head to explain. I'm talking about the collective, conscious, conclusion that has been arrived at by far too many for this scam to survive, while at the same time, is hilariously out of the reach of some. We see the problem in these words, they are completely fooled by/oblivious to them. So much so, that they would come out and contradict themselves in 2 of their own sentences, and not realize they are doing it. To me, that's how you know things have changed: would any, purely motivated by the need to help others, person, be caught dead saying something so stupid? No. They'd be thinking "I want to help others, and this isn't working, so, we need something new". Instead? The "I want to obtain both personal and collective $, votes, power, yet, feel good about myself for actively participating in a big con" person is who thinks this, and therefore: comes right out and says it...because the scam is what must be protected at all costs.

You guys don't see it yet, huh? Curious. Here's another example: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/19/maddow_without_crimeas_votes_ukraine_is_no_longer_a_pro-russian_nation.html What is really happening with Maddow here? Answer: this whole thing is actually...a "good thing". Because? Now Ukraine is going to be our pals, and Russia has actually screwed up. Which means? Obama's bungling, and in fact, his entire foreign policy of "engagement", known in this case as the "reset button", hasn't actually failed. It's produced good results, albeit unintentionally. What Maddow is really saying: "We shouldn't come down too hard on Obama. This whole thing doesn't matter, because it's producing some good results too." Another example of Maddow thinking she's smarter than she actually is. Were you fooled by this? It's fun to watch people who think they are smarter than me, toil away at their work. What "Pat" doesn't seem to get? She's only contributing to the Democrat Civil War with stuff like this. Consider: is this going to be the take from Democrats in Erie County? Niagara County? Where you live? No way. All but a very few are going to say: "we need to get tougher on foreign policy". Meanwhile? The Campus liberals, who are responsible for the "reset button" in the first place? They are all cheering Maddow, because she is trying to let them, and Obama, the leader of their group, off the hook. It's the same pattern = covering for Obama, and thus NOT having a real dialogue within the Democratic party that says: "do we really want to be known as the party of weakness, again?" Or, "I thought we were done being known as the party of Jimmy Carter, since Clinton, and especially since Obama got Osama, but, now this?". The dialogue needs to happen, and it needs to start now. If they don't try to get on the same page, this whole thing is going to cause a serious rift later. The longer it is allowed to fester, the better chance of blowing up in 2016. What is happening instead? Covering Obama is keeping the Ds from having this discussion. Meanwhile, the Rs are having all sorts of discussions, and yeah having it out with each other. But, in the end, we all know it's better to work out your problems, rather than pretend they don't exist. The result of this will be a healthy process creating R strength and real unity. The media, and some of you: seize on the news that Rand Paul said something bad about Ted Cruz. You are missing the point(which is fairly normal for some of you). He said it, now, which means he won't say it again/somebody is going to win that argument, and then? It's over. It's behind us. It's not coming up again in a year. Better to get these things out of the way NOW, rather than in the Primary season. In contrast: the phony unity created by covering for Obama is only another "Missouri Compromise" and will do nothing to prevent this Civil War either.

I think that the average joe didn't want to vote their boss into office, and that Romney did exactly nothing to prevent being characterized as "the boss". Oh, you were asking about qualfications? Oh sure, Romney is far and away more qualified to be POTUS than Obama. It's not even close. One wonders if the same idiots who refused to show up for Romney, and the same idiots why were swayed by "The Life of Julia", will be 4 years older, and wiser, in 2016. But who knows? 4 million R voters refusing to show up for Romney = one reason Obama won. Period. Romney team assuming they would show up, because in their arrogance "what choice do they really have" = the other reason Obama won. Period. One meeting with the TEA party was too much to ask apparently, when real TEA party energy, and ground support, would have made the difference? Like I said: arrogance. Is Romney the most qualified to govern? Sure. Was Romney the most qualified to campaign? No way in hell.

First, we begin with the following: http://www.msnbc.com...t-isnt-cultural Now, read that, and my guess is most of the left-leaning people would say "sounds right to me". There's the standard "not my fault that 'the man' took away the jobs", and the standard "segregation of neighborhoods", followed by the standard attack on police. All points are arguable, and can be backed up by some data. But, if you read the whole thing, I doubt you picked up on something hilarious, largely because you've been coniditioned not to pick up on it: This, right here, is why people like me mock you. This crystalizes it, and the best part: it's in your own words! Re-read the last 2 sentences. Don't get it? Read it again. Do you see it? What would any rational person call the War on Poverty policies of the last 50 years, if not "progressive"? So, the problem has been "indirectly" caused by progressive policies, and the solution? What? More progressive policies? This is the problem: if the War on Poverty(otherwise known as Lyndon B Johnson's intentional effort to buy black votes = "I'll have those !@#$s voting Democratic for the next 200 years!") was actually successful, what would you be saying, that's any different, in any way, than what you are saying right now? Answer: nothing. You will say the same thing, no matter the outcome, no matter the facts, no matter the data collected. THIS is why you are losing the white vote at a historical rate. This is why the TEA party even exists. This is becasue: after all this time, we KNOW that you couldn't care less about the poor, or black people, or anybody other than: your interests. You want $, you want votes, you want attention for being "morally superior"(as I've demonstrated on the board with useful trolls, see: Gay Marriage). Your whole game is to get these things, because they are your primary objective. If the poor/black are actually helped, by accident? Nice side benefit, but, "how can we use this to get more $/votes", follows right after. As Hancock would say: "You're...all...idiots". Idiots, because you don't think the country is wise to your game. In many cases however, I don't even thing YOU are wise to your own game. Did you actually see the quote above straight? Or, not unitl I pointed it out to you? The useful idiots keep buying the product. However, look at Obamacare: that's the latest is crap Democratic product, and the people that matter? They aren't buying. So, this is your problem: you better start saying something different, because if you don't, any credibility you have left will be gone. I'm not saying "kill the poor". I am saying: it's as far past time to try something new, as it is to realize that "helping the poor" has gone from a movement, to a business model, to a scam, and most people know it.

Because there's a time to have a reasonable conversation.... And that doesn't start with "the right is out of touch with reality"...when the empirical evidence suggests just the opposite. And, there's a time to call somebody out who makes uselss charges and refuses to back them up with fact....as I've now seen you do 3 times recently. 3 strikes and you're a dumbass, dumbass.

November is coming. Remember: all glory is fleeting. We live in a "what have you done lately", political world. The 24 hour news cycle is slowly turning that into "what did you do today". I don't think the reality of just how badly keeping this president, instead of protecting their party, will cost them, has dawned on most Democrats. Then again, it may have been inevitable. Every single progressive idea has been under withering fire from facts and exposed contradictions for a solid year now. IMHO, we have a perfect storm brewing: Global Warming The Movie is failing, Obamacare is failing, and the "we are more moral so talking with people = good" foreign policy approach, which isn't even an approach, is failing. All 3 at the same time? November IS coming. Don't forget the other side of the story: massive F ups are NOT fleeting. They never let you live them down, until they are made right. Obamacare is still here. Obamacare will be around through 2016 and Obamacare is the Liberal Cleaver in many ways. Obamacare will hurt Democrats for as long as it stays around. Judgement on it has been passed. They've been lying to themselves by saying, for 3 years, "the people will love it...in the future". 3 years later is "the future". The country hates Obamacare 60-40, and that hasn't changed from day 1. So, lying and more lying is great....until you get caught.