Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

[/dev/null]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/22/pelosi_obamacare_guarantees_life_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness.html

[DC Tom]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/22/pelosi_obamacare_guarantees_life_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness.html

 

Great. I'm going to start a class action lawsuit on behalf of everyone who's lost a family member or friend since the ACA was passed, stating the government failed to meet their own standard of guaranteeing "life".

[Doc]

I can't wait for Romney to get the nomination and really start in on Barry and his minions.

[Dante]

I can't wait for Romney to get the nomination and really start in on Barry and his minions.

Only thing is that Mitt is almost as bad as these aholes for signing off on his own abortion of a health care bill. That little item is going to be hard to overcome.

[Doc]

Only thing is that Mitt is almost as bad as these aholes for signing off on his own abortion of a health care bill. That little item is going to be hard to overcome.

He can say that Mass proved that Obamacare is a disaster waiting to happen and that Barry and his minions refuse to see it. It's okay to admit he made a mistake, thinking it was a good idea at the time, but the more important message is to not repeat it, on a grander scale.

[3rdnlng]

Only thing is that Mitt is almost as bad as these aholes for signing off on his own abortion of a health care bill. That little item is going to be hard to overcome.

 

 

Mitt was facing a much more liberal healthcare law and did his best to trim it down. In Massachusetts he didn't have much of a choice because the most liberal plan would have been voted in over his veto. He did what he could. He has since supported it and position can and will be used against him. He needs to stand on the difference between states rights and federal rights. The federal government has been empowered by the states. You need to understand Federalism.

[Magox]

Thats what people dont understand. When you are governing a state like Mass. and the people overwhelmingly want a universal sort of health care system, then it is the duty of the elected official to represent the people of his state. People don't get that, they just somehow believe that conseratives can put in place a Jim Demint sort of candidate up in Mass or California and run the state as a bull **** litmus tested conservative up in these states. That's not how it works folks, if you are elected up in the North East and you aren't a congressman in rural bumfuk hickville, you have to have moderate positions.

 

But nooooo, hard right wingers, want everyone to be a "true" conservative, no matter where they are. Got news for you morons, if you had it you're way, 60-70% of the elected officials in our country would be Democrats. Why? Because they wouldn't be able to win elections. Remember Joe Buck? How about Sharon Angle? Nevada could of put that other chick there, but nope, the tea partiers brought on Angle, and now we have Harry Reid sitting there for another 6 years. Yeah, Good Job!

Edited March 24, 2012 by Magox

[Doc]

Mitt was facing a much more liberal healthcare law and did his best to trim it down. In Massachusetts he didn't have much of a choice because the most liberal plan would have been voted in over his veto. He did what he could. He has since supported it and position can and will be used against him. He needs to stand on the difference between states rights and federal rights. The federal government has been empowered by the states. You need to understand Federalism.

If he continues to support Romneycare, that's all he can do, along with saying that the people of Mass wanted, and still want, it. To really attack Obamacare would require him to admit Romneycare was a mistake. Hopefully he only continues to support it because it bears his name and he signed it into law (even though his veto would have been overridden) and not because he thinks it was a good law (which I'd have a problem with, but can overlook because he wants to repeal Obamacare).

[IDBillzFan]

How about Sharon Angle? Nevada could of put that other chick there, but nope, the tea partiers brought on Angle, and now we have Harry Reid sitting there for another 6 years. Yeah, Good Job!

I appreciate the low-hanging point you're trying to make, but if you think for one second that Harry Reid won Nevada because of tea partiers and Sharon Angle, you genuinely and simply have no idea what you're talking about. I've spent virtually the last 20 years doing business there.

 

You can peddle that narrative with the Christine O'Donnells, but King Harry owns Nevada. Harry Reid loses Nevada to no one. So drop that lazy tea party complaint for Nevada because for a guy who's typically right about things, you're dead wrong about why we have six more years of Harry Reid.

[Magox]

I appreciate the low-hanging point you're trying to make, but if you think for one second that Harry Reid won Nevada because of tea partiers and Sharon Angle, you genuinely and simply have no idea what you're talking about. I've spent virtually the last 20 years doing business there.

 

You can peddle that narrative with the Christine O'Donnells, but King Harry owns Nevada. Harry Reid loses Nevada to no one. So drop that lazy tea party complaint for Nevada because for a guy who's typically right about things, you're dead wrong about why we have six more years of Harry Reid.

No I'm not. I base what I say off of facts. Harry Reid was one of the most disliked candidates to have ever won re election. HIs unfavorability ratings were upside down by double digits, you know how often people get elected with double digit unfavorability ratings? ALmost never. Exit polls show that over 10% of Republicans that cast their votes, voted for Reid. Harry Reid was winning key endorsements from key statewide Republicans. Why? Because they thought that Sharon Angle belonged in the looney bin. Harry Reid won over 60% of the independent vote. THe other chick, Lowe I believe was her name, consistently was polling 10-15% better than ANgle in all the head to head matchups, the polls had her winning over 60% of the independent voters. I kept up with the race very closely, and the reason why ANgle didn't win is because she was perceived as a kook, and to be honest, she is a certified kook. So lets not pretend that Sharon Angle wasn't the problem, because she 100% was.

 

You shouldn't get so easily offended, and yes, you were offended, when there are criticisms lobbed at conservatives, rightwingers and tea partiers. It's good to reflect and to actually look at things for what they really are. Gives a moment to pause and see things with more clarity. There are positive elements to the Tea party, and to be honest, without the tea party, there wouldn't of been this huge monumental wave that we saw in 2010. Net net, they were a positive. But since it was a new grassroots political movement, there were some missed opportunitie, Nevada being a HUGE one.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Magox

[Nanker]

Mitt was facing a much more liberal healthcare law and did his best to trim it down. In Massachusetts he didn't have much of a choice because the most liberal plan would have been voted in over his veto. He did what he could. He has since supported it and position can and will be used against him. He needs to stand on the difference between states rights and federal rights. The federal government has been empowered by the states. You need to understand Federalism.

 

+1

This is also why Rick Sanctimonious and Knute are wrong in attacking Romney's candidacy on the basis of RomneyCare being the model for BOCare. States have rights that the federal government does not. End of story. That's the essence of the problem that we have with our fat, central, out-of-control government - it over reaches into everything. It's time Americans push back and say, "enough!" Get the !@#$ out of our lives.

[IDBillzFan]

No I'm not. I base what I say off of facts. Harry Reid was one of the most disliked candidates to have ever won re election. HIs unfavorability ratings were upside down by double digits, you know how often people get elected with double digit unfavorability ratings? ALmost never. Exit polls show that over 10% of Republicans that cast their votes, voted for Reid. Harry Reid was winning key endorsements from key statewide Republicans. Why? Because they thought that Sharon Angle belonged in the looney bin. Harry Reid won over 60% of the independent vote. THe other chick, Lowe I believe was her name, consistently was polling 10-15% better than ANgle in all the head to head matchups, the polls had her winning over 60% of the independent voters. I kept up with the race very closely, and the reason why ANgle didn't win is because she was perceived as a kook, and to be honest, she is a certified kook. So lets not pretend that Sharon Angle wasn't the problem, because she 100% was.

 

You shouldn't get so easily offended, and yes, you were offended, when there are criticisms lobbed at conservatives, rightwingers and tea partiers. It's good to reflect and to actually look at things for what they really are. Gives a moment to pause and see things with more clarity. There are positive elements to the Tea party, and to be honest, without the tea party, there wouldn't of been this huge monumental wave that we saw in 2010. Net net, they were a positive. But since it was a new grassroots political movement, there were some missed opportunitie, Nevada being a HUGE one.

If you noted my comment about O'Donnell, you'd realize I was agreeing with you in general, but not in Nevada.

 

Double digit unfavorability ratings mean nothing in Nevada. You can cite all the polls, all the feedback, all the Republicans you want and it just doesn't matter. Hang out there for a few years and it will be obvious even to you, too, beyond whatever you want to over-analyze. Reid owns Nevada like Pelosi and Boxer own NoCal. Come election day, they have the machine deeply rooted in place. Period. No one was winning Nevada but Reid. No one. That, good sir, is looking at things precisely for what they really are, have been, and will continue to be until Reid retires or drops dead.

Edited March 24, 2012 by LABillzFan

[Magox]

If you noted my comment about O'Donnell, you'd realize I was agreeing with you in general, but not in Nevada.

 

Double digit unfavorability ratings mean nothing in Nevada. You can cite all the polls, all the feedback, all the Republicans you want and it just doesn't matter. Hang out there for a few years and it will be obvious even to you, too, beyond whatever you want to over-analyze. Reid owns Nevada like Pelosi and Boxer own NoCal. Come election day, they have the machine deeply rooted in place. Period. No one was winning Nevada but Reid. No one. That, good sir, is looking at things precisely for what they really are, have been, and will continue to be until Reid retires or drops dead.

Sorry, just because you say it so, doesn't make it so. In order to make a credible case, rule 101, provide data to support your thesis.

 

Yes, Reid has a phenomenal ground game and yes he has a great political machine, but that can take you only so far. Maybe 4-7%, all other variables being equal. Sue Lowden was crushing Reid in the polls by an average of 12-15%. Sue Lowden would of attracted all the same voters that Angle did, she would of won significantly more republicans who decided to vote for Reid, and she would of carried a whole hell of alot more independents than ANgle. What about all the Latinos that ANgle alienated? Remember her gaffes against the Latinos? You can not tell me with any sort of credibility that, that wouldn't of been the case.

 

Now are you saying, that Sue Lowden wouldn't of won over more Repubs, Latinos and Independents than ANgle? Is that what you are telling me?

Edited March 24, 2012 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

Sorry, just because you say it so, doesn't make it so. In order to make a credible case, rule 101, provide data to support your thesis.

 

Yes, Reid has a phenomenal ground game and yes he has a great political machine, but that can take you only so far. Maybe 4-7%, all other variables being equal. Sue Lowden was crushing Reid in the polls by an average of 12-15%. Sue Lowden would of attracted all the same voters that Angle did, she would of won significantly more republicans who decided to vote for Reid, and she would of carried a whole hell of alot more independents than ANgle. What about all the Latinos that ANgle alienated? Remember her gaffes against the Latinos? You can not tell me with any sort of credibility that, that wouldn't of been the case.

 

Now are you saying, that Sue Lowden wouldn't of won over more Repubs, Latinos and Independents than ANgle? Is that what you are telling me?

No, I'm not telling you Lowden would not have won over more votes than Angle. I'm telling you it simply wouldn't matter, and if you have any real world experience of working and being in Nevada -- any at all beyond a bunch of numbers, specs, stats and your non-stop belief that you're always right simply because you're neither conservative or liberal -- you would know that the chances of Lowden beating Reid would have only been slightly better than Angle and nowhere near enough to win. Not even close. Because no one wins Nevada but Harry Reid.

 

He will be there until he retires or dies. Just like Pelosi. Just like Boxer.

[Magox]

No, I'm not telling you Lowden would not have won over more votes than Angle. I'm telling you it simply wouldn't matter, and if you have any real world experience of working and being in Nevada -- any at all beyond a bunch of numbers, specs, stats and your non-stop belief that you're always right simply because you're neither conservative or liberal -- you would know that the chances of Lowden beating Reid would have only been slightly better than Angle and nowhere near enough to win. Not even close. Because no one wins Nevada but Harry Reid.

 

He will be there until he retires or dies. Just like Pelosi. Just like Boxer.

I'm sorry, not buying it. There is a major flaw in your argument equating to how difficult it would be to defeat Harry Reid along with Pelosi and Boxer. California is an extremely blue state, Nevada is a very purple state. So the odds of Boxer getting defeated by a conservative is remote, and the odds of Pelosi losing to a conservative in the Sanfran district is impossible, I mean literally virtually impossible. However, the odds of Harry Reid losing in the purple state, with the astronomically high unfavorability ratings he had would of been extremely highly likely had Sue Lowden been the nominee. The main reason why he won is because he went up against a kook in Angle.

 

Come on now, let's be real here, she's a kook, and you and I both know that. And if you don't recognize that, then that right there was your problem in not seeing it how it was.

 

And in regards to not being a conservative, I consider myself to be fiscal hawk. So just because I don't toe the party line in some cases, doesn't mean that I'm not a fiscal conservative. Maybe you should try it sometime.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

I'm sorry, not buying it. There is a major flaw in your argument equating to how difficult it would be to defeat Harry Reid along with Pelosi and Boxer. California is an extremely blue state, Nevada is a very purple state. So the odds of Boxer getting defeated by a conservative is remote, and the odds of Pelosi losing to a conservative in the Sanfran district is impossible, I mean literally virtually impossible. However, the odds of Harry Reid losing in the purple state, with the astronomically high unfavorability ratings he had would of been extremely highly likely had Sue Lowden been the nominee. The main reason why he won is because he went up against a kook in Angle.

 

Come on now, let's be real here, she's a kook, and you and I both know that. And if you don't recognize that, then that right there was your problem in not seeing it how it was.

 

And in regards to not being a conservative, I consider myself to be fiscal hawk. So just because I don't toe the party line in some cases, doesn't mean that I'm not a fiscal conservative. Maybe you should try it sometime.

Okay, look.I know Angle was a nut and I did not like her running against Reid. You know I spent a lot of time at tea party events. You narrowly believe that all tea party people loved Angle, and since I was a tea party person, I must love Angle, too. It's a beyond-stupid syllogism and you're usually smarter than that, if not a little more open-minded.

 

We're both trying to make an argument that neither one can prove. I'm basing mine on over 18 years of working in and spending ridiculous amounts of time in Nevada, and you on the fact that you are convinced you're never wrong. It doesn't mean that much to me, and once Romney has the nomination, it won't matter much to you, either, so let's say you're right, you're the smartest, and everyone should understand that the world would once again be a beautiful place to live if only Magox was in charge.

[Magox]

Okay, look.I know Angle was a nut and I did not like her running against Reid. You know I spent a lot of time at tea party events. You narrowly believe that all tea party people loved Angle, and since I was a tea party person, I must love Angle, too. It's a beyond-stupid syllogism and you're usually smarter than that, if not a little more open-minded.

 

We're both trying to make an argument that neither one can prove. I'm basing mine on over 18 years of working in and spending ridiculous amounts of time in Nevada, and you on the fact that you are convinced you're never wrong. It doesn't mean that much to me, and once Romney has the nomination, it won't matter much to you, either, so let's say you're right, you're the smartest, and everyone should understand that the world would once again be a beautiful place to live if only Magox was in charge.