Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You're wrong. Most people either approve of the recent HCR bill, or wish it had gone further. The government is not defying the will of the people, it's just defying YOUR will. It was either that, or defy the will of MOST of the people.

Correction: "most people" do NOT approve of the recent HCR bill.

As with anything, it depends on the poll/survey you look at, but none of them show a clear majority of people in support of it. Just sayin.'

Originally Posted by Xer H

Correction: "most people" do NOT approve of the recent HCR bill.

That doesn't conflict with what I said. Most people either support that bill, or want something that goes further. The latter category become supporters once it's clear that this isn't the end, and efforts will continue to improve it.

The point being that those on the right who are afraid of "government takeover of health care" or freaking out about "socialism" are a decided minority.

About violence: I would prefer it didn't happen, of course. Realistically, though, if it doesn't this will be the first time we've gotten through a 4T without significant amounts of it. Well, there's always a first time and we can always hope.

Originally Posted by Odin

John Lewis called a "N***er" Barney Frank called a "F**got" today on the Hill by teabaggers.

Those f***ing bigoted bastards!

Some of us at my sister's last weekend were concerned that a rogue tea partier might actually try to assassinate a rep who was en route to the vote. I'm sure glad that didn't happen.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Once again, you are confusing "I" with "we." You are just you -- one person. You think most people share your mindset. You're wrong. Most people either approve of the recent HCR bill, or wish it had gone further. The government is not defying the will of the people, it's just defying YOUR will. It was either that, or defy the will of MOST of the people.

Sure, the losers are "fucking pissed." But those of them that turn to violence as a result are going to end up fucking dead or in fucking prison.

You're right, most people here approve the bill or wish it had gone even farther. I'm not politically or socially alligned with most people here. I'm not from here or socially centered on here. I'm a vistor here. And what you see of me here is me operating at me weakest point. What you'd meet or run into outside of here is all of me. If you can't win here. You'll never win outside of here. Right now, the Democrats look like a bunch of punks to me. To their credit, the Republicans didn't role over like a bunch of punks or rollever to a bunch of punks.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Some of us at my sister's last weekend were concerned that a rogue tea partier might actually try to assassinate a rep who was en route to the vote. I'm sure glad that didn't happen.

Tell them not to worry, there is an election in November.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That doesn't conflict with what I said. Most people either support that bill, or want something that goes further. The latter category become supporters once it's clear that this isn't the end, and efforts will continue to improve it.

The point being that those on the right who are afraid of "government takeover of health care" or freaking out about "socialism" are a decided minority.

About violence: I would prefer it didn't happen, of course. Realistically, though, if it doesn't this will be the first time we've gotten through a 4T without significant amounts of it. Well, there's always a first time and we can always hope.

This isn't 4T, this is lw liberal thinks or has decided this 4T.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

This isn't 4T, this is lw liberal thinks or has decided this 4T.

You think we be 3T still, then?

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

What you'd meet or run into outside of here is all of me. If you can't win here. You'll never win outside of here.

We won in Congress. That's all that's necessary. I don't care about winning here, I don't expect ever to meet you in person, and since you can't really change much all by yourself I don't have to "beat" you. I already have.

Right now, the Democrats look like a bunch of punks to me. To their credit, the Republicans didn't role over like a bunch of punks or rollever to a bunch of punks.

They still lost.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That doesn't conflict with what I said. Most people either support that bill, or want something that goes further. The latter category become supporters once it's clear that this isn't the end, and efforts will continue to improve it.

Do you seriously believe this??

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

For sure, that's why we got rid of the GOP Congress in 2006 and the GOP executive in 2008.

Is your congress better or has it prooven itself to be worse. To their credit, the GOP backed down with illegal immigration reform. Did your congress back down or ignore and drive forward? If its OK by you to over ride me, it is now OK for me to move to over ride you Kiff. Thank you Kiff.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Do you seriously believe this??

Yes. That's also what the polls say. A clear majority in this country wanted systemic health-care reform. That a majority disapproved of the specific bill before Congress was a poll-generated illusion created by combining those who disapproved because the bill doesn't go far enough (most commonly, because it lacks a public option), with those who don't want HCR at all.

It's not proper to combine those two sets of people. It paints a false picture of health care reform itself being unpopular. It's not. It's a winning issue for the Democrats this fall, not a losing one.

LOL... sure, Brian. Whatever you say. You're right, of course.

That explains why Obama is doing a 'road trip' to 'sell' reform to a 'reluctant' public. Yep.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We won in Congress. That's all that's necessary. I don't care about winning here, I don't expect ever to meet you in person, and since you can't really change much all by yourself I don't have to "beat" you. I already have.

You haven't beat me. I haven't antied in yet. You don't fucking win until you show me your fucking cards. This isn't blind mans bluff. The punk in Washington thinks it is, because that's the type of game he's used to playing. I don't have to show you shit just pay me. White punk or black punk doesn't matter to me dude. I've moved beyond race along time ago. A punk is a punk and all punks are the same as I'm concerned. Black or white doesn't matter to me.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They still lost.

They lost, we didn't. The individual doesn't count is BULLSHIT! You're going to learn in November how much the individual matters and factors in.

Originally Posted by Xer H

LOL... sure, Brian. Whatever you say. You're right, of course.

That explains why Obama is doing a 'road trip' to 'sell' reform to a 'reluctant' public. Yep.

As I recall, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED didn't work out so good for Bush.

Originally Posted by Xer H

LOL... sure, Brian. Whatever you say. You're right, of course.

That explains why Obama is doing a 'road trip' to 'sell' reform to a 'reluctant' public. Yep.

He's in campaign mode. I don't care what the stupid media are saying, the president is presenting this success as a campaign issue, using it to push people to vote for Dem congresscritters this fall.

For most people, passage of this bill will mean that their premiums drop and/or their coverage increases, or they plain get coverage when before they couldn't. It's opposed primarily out of ignorance at this point, and that's true of opposition from either the left or the right. By this fall, it's going to be hugely popular. The only part of it that people will object to is the individual mandate, and that doesn't kick in until 2014.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

You haven't beat me. I haven't antied in yet. You don't fucking win until you show me your fucking cards.

Dude, I don't have to beat you at all! That's what I'm saying here. Your opinion doesn't matter, all by itself. All that matters is how many other people agree with you. Fact is, more people agree with me than with you. We win -- us versus you (plural). Me versus you (singular)? That contest exists only in your imagination.

They lost, we didn't. The individual doesn't count is BULLSHIT! You're going to learn in November how much the individual matters and factors in.

I already know. It counts for 1/X of the total, X being the number of people who vote.

Originally Posted by James50

BR, Rani, and now Chas88 sound like they are almost wishing for violence to break out. As if we should settle things once and for all in one big orgy of violence.

I pray to God this does not happen. Once you begin justifying political violence, it is hard to pull back. It would be a bloodbath. Governments would fall, armies would mutiny, the economy would collapse. 4T or not, I urge you to cool the triumphalism a little bit.

James50

I would not be opposed to hanging some rich parasites.

Originally Posted by The US DoI

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Originally Posted by Xer H

LOL... sure, Brian. Whatever you say. You're right, of course.

That explains why Obama is doing a 'road trip' to 'sell' reform to a 'reluctant' public. Yep.

Because he's selling a right-wing Corporatist bill instead of real reform.

Originally Posted by Odin

I would not be opposed to hanging some rich parasites.

Bravely spoken.

You have no idea the forces you would unleash if you go down a violent path.

I hope all the people who think HCR is worth killing someone over will meet somewhere out in the desert and get rid of each other. Leave me and mine out of it.

James50

Originally Posted by Odin

Because he's selling a right-wing Corporatist bill instead of real reform.

See, this is what I mean, XerH. Odin is a poster child for opponents of the bill from the left. It makes no sense to lump those in with those who oppose it from the right.

Odin would probably support a single-payer system. So would I. I disagree with his assessment above, but only because I think it's hyperbolic to call this bill, which is not as left-wing as it could and should have been, "right-wing" on that basis. But in any case, Odin, who opposes this bill, does not oppose comprehensive health-care reform. The polls are misinterpreted to give the false impression that he (and those like him) do.

Here's your update on southern racial tensions & the growing spiral of violence in Jacksonville:

For two years, the number of police-involved shootings has been steadily on the rise. About twice a week someone gets shot by the cops and there have been quite a number of fatalities. At least one story made national headlines when an 80 year old black man was shot dead in his front yard because he came out waving a gun with the intention of stopping a drug deal. Turns out the dealers were undercover cops and they proceeded to unload on the old man.

Two nights ago, 2 local police officers were shot in Durkeeville - one of the historic "segregation" suburbs. This is the first time since the last awakening that a local police officer was shot and there was a pretty immediate and total police lockdown of the west and north sides of downtown (Corrine Brown's racially gerrymandered district).

The bomb squads have also been pretty active lately, as well. Its 99% paranoia, but there has been at least one explosion recently aimed as revenge against particular commercial interests. Again, bombings weren't particularly common since the end of the last awakening and most people think those were related to commercial sabotage.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That doesn't conflict with what I said. Most people either support that bill, or want something that goes further. The latter category become supporters once it's clear that this isn't the end, and efforts will continue to improve it.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Do you seriously believe this??

Brian is correct. In the link provided, scroll to the bottom of page 2.

Support plus "not liberal enough" beats out "too liberal" 52-43 -- and that 5% "no opinion" probably includes a lot of people like me who think the bill does little of real consequence.

In addition, many of the supporters would probably also support a more liberal bill. I certainly see a lot more liberals griping about the level of compromise than there are claiming this is some sort of great transformative legislation. Public option support has generally run at least 50% in polls, and usually higher. My guess is that a more progressive legislation would hardly have budged that 52% total, with the "not liberal enough" respondents simply converted into supporters.

None of this in any way proves whether or not reform is needed or whether the Democrats are even in the right ballpark in terms of what kind of reform to implement. However, the political conventional wisdom that this legislation is a loser for the Democratic Party and that it would be even worse if the legislation were more progressive is simply wrong. This analysis wrongly assumes that opposition to the legislation stems entirely from likely GOP voters.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Support plus "not liberal enough" beats out "too liberal" 52-43 -- and that 5% "no opinion" probably includes a lot of people like me who think the bill does little of real consequence.

Look, let's at least use RECENT data; the same poll, conducted March 19-21, 2010, shows that 43% opposed it, while 39% favored and 13% said it wasn't liberal enough. 39+13=52%, but with a margin of error of ±3, it can be considered a wash.

But you will believe what you want to believe, so carry on.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Look, let's at least use RECENT data; the same poll, conducted March 19-21, 2010, shows that 43% opposed it, while 39% favored and 13% said it wasn't liberal enough. 39+13=52%, but with a margin of error of ±3, it can be considered a wash.

But you will believe what you want to believe, so carry on.

First off, you're linking to the same poll I did -- that was released a mere 5 hours ago.

Second of all, even if you use full margin of error those who support as much or more reform would still have a 49-46 advantage. In other words, even if the poll was as far off as can be expected, the opinion advantage is on the pro-reform side. I know you would like to think that 49% makes it "less than a majority" but you're neglecting the notable 5% "no opinion" response. It is completely unclear whether the "no opinion" types are pro-reform, anti-reform, uninformed, or simply think the legislation will have no real effect. What we do know is that people who oppose it because it goes too far constitute at most 46% of the public, which is less than the 49% who clearly disagree.

(The above does not constitute an "opinion" unless you're going to call the ability to properly read the results of a poll an "opinion.")

Originally Posted by Xer H

Look, let's at least use RECENT data; the same poll, conducted March 19-21, 2010, shows that 43% opposed it, while 39% favored and 13% said it wasn't liberal enough. 39+13=52%, but with a margin of error of ±3, it can be considered a wash.

It could, if 48% of respondents said they oppose the bill, instead of the 43% that actually did say that. 52-43 is well outside the MOE. (BTW -- that March poll IS the one Kurt quoted.)

One other thing should be kept in mind as well: that 43% will come down over the coming months. (The 13% may, too.) A lot of misinformation has been spread around about this health-care reform effort: "death panels," "takeover" of 1/6 of the economy, etc. As the reforms begin to go into effect and the sky doesn't fall, most of the current opponents who aren't hard-core right-wing ideologues will change their minds. When they find that nobody is going to cut off care for Granny, and that no Commissars are going to be telling them what doctors they can see, a lot of the silliness will be revealed for what it is. Most of the benefits from this reform kick into play either immediately or in six months, both of which are before the election. The biggest negative, the individual mandate, doesn't take effect until 2014 (also true of a few of the positives, such as the exchanges and the ban on adult PECs).

If the Democrats (especially Obama) show that they're committed to improving this reform effort in the near future and also push ahead with other legislation on financial reform, jobs, and energy, the 13% who think it's not liberal enough may well be mollified. A good chunk of the 43% who think it's too liberal will be mollified by the actual effects and better understanding of what it does. By November, there won't be many people who are dissatisfied except the hard-core movement conservatives, who don't really matter in Democratic electoral calculus anyway.

Health care reform is a political winner for Democrats. Republicans thinking the passage will help them are smoking something. Its defeat would have helped them. That they failed to defeat it will cost them. They can now kiss goodbye any chance they might have had to retake either house of Congress, and are going to have to struggle to gain any net seats at all.

In most polls, there are 3-5% of respondents who have "no opinion." It's not worth counting them, regardless.

And my point remains... 49-46 does by no means equate to "most Americans are in favor." It means roughly half are, and about that many are also opposed to it. I don't really care, either way.


EDIT: Oh, and Kurt, sorry... the attachment that opened on my computer earlier used January data. The right file opens now.