It's a Civil War: What We Do Now

[BeAChooser]

Civil disobedience is a strike; a boycott; a sit-in; a smoke-in; a march or rally conducted despite a lack of required permits. Trashing stores and torching cars (throwing bricks, taking pot-shots) was terrorism during the sixties, and it's terrorism now. I doubt if very many people in this country are all that fuzzy on the distinction.

At least on the conservative side. Obama, on the other hand, during his campaign, willingly accepted money from (and even met with) people and groups who still express pride in having destroyed private property and setting bombs that would have killed people (i.e., REAL terrorism).

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Such dishonesty …

Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.

Such dishonesty indeed...

So at the end of the day, using what would appear to be a highly subjective categorization and assuming that all of the Democrat amendments were 'substantive', the Republican Party still got nearly as many amendments through as the Democrats.

Those liberals are sleazy.

 

[Meadmaker]

I was all set to vote for the GOP for Congress in the fall on the grounds that health care reform is passed, and is irreversible, but that future divided government would be the most fiscally responsible thing to do. Gridlock can help lower the deficit.

However, I find thoughts like the one expressed in the OP sufficiently creepy that I don't think I could vote for anyone who was on the same side as the people who spout such idiocy.

 

[joobz]

Such dishonesty …

http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/



http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/23/fact-checking-obamas-news-conf




Looks like the dishonesty from the democrat side only continues ...

It wasn't 36 vs. 160, it was 36 vs. 29. 29 amendments that Republicans themselves define as substantive.

In other words, nearly 50% of all of the amendments made early in the process came from republicans. The same group who claims Dems forced this down their throats.

Hey, BAC, thanks for those links and showing how dishonest you and the GOP is being over this whole issue.

 

[BeAChooser]

See, now that's a straight up lie.You said, 'poll after poll and still passed it'. You can't cite one poll from after passage as evidence of that.

I'm going to ask you nicely to retract your accusation that I lied.

First, my original statement was:

poll after poll showed that a clear majority of American citizens were firmly against passage of the bill

and that is absolutely, 100% true, regardless of whether some were against the bill because it wasn't socialist enough.

Second, in posting the post vote Rasmussen poll, I was merely pointing out that even after the vote most people still want the bill repealed. So it is still rather ironic that someone from your side of the aisle (to whom my original statement was directed) would suggest that a conservative "minority" seeks to "dictate policy to the rest of the country".

 

[Skeptic]

One of my colleagues grew up in Lebanon in the 1970s and 80s. You should see the look on his face when idiots start ranting how America is going to have to "fight a civil war" to revoke this-or-that hated piece of legislation.

 

[BeAChooser]

Bottom line, BAC, is you can't govern by polls.

Ironic given that for years and years leftists were insisting we should.

He, by the way, is still more popular than any GOP leaders and more popular than the HCR, judging by polls, people should say: he's more popular than the GOP, let him do what he's doing.

Then why all his talk about being a one term President?

 

[BeAChooser]

this is my email, to Mr. Dennis Prager:

... snip ...

get a clue, you $$$$ing prick.

-xxx xxxxx[/COLOR]

Well I hope you had the guts to actually sign your name. Because I'd love to see him publish your letter to show the true nature of the enemy.

 

[Dancing David]

No, we're just going to fight the left for it's control.

So, politics as usual? That is not civil war.

 

[Earthborn]

Well, so how would you engage in civil disobedience against the health care bill?

I think the most obvious way to engage in civil disobedience against mandatory health insurance is to refuse to buy health insurance. That is to say sticking the bill for your healthcare to everybody else, instead of contributing yourself.

 

[Thunder]

Well I hope you had the guts to actually sign your name. Because I'd love to see him publish your letter to show the true nature of the enemy.

i signed my name, and provided by email and snail mail address. he is scum and i told him so.

By calling for a "Civil War", Prager has defined himself as an enemy of the democratic process...and a law-abiding society.

 

[headscratcher4]

He may will be a one term president...but if he is I've no doubt it will not be so because of health care reform.....

 

[joobz]

I think the most obvious way to engage in civil disobedience against mandatory health insurance is to refuse to buy health insurance. That is to say sticking the bill for your healthcare to everybody else, instead of contributing yourself.

I think this is fully true.

I would be interested to see if it happens.

 

[Thunder]

I think the most obvious way to engage in civil disobedience against mandatory health insurance is to refuse to buy health insurance. That is to say sticking the bill for your healthcare to everybody else, instead of contributing yourself.

yes. don't buy health insurance. don't pay your annual penalty.

but stiff the American people with your health-care costs when you eventually get sick and have to go on Medicaid, or can't pay your hospital bill.

very American.

the solution to this is add an amendment to the Senate law, stating that the yearly penalty will automatically enroll you in Medicaid, if and when you end up needing medical care.

 

[BeAChooser]

I was all set to vote for the GOP for Congress in the fall on the grounds that health care reform is passed, and is irreversible, but that future divided government would be the most fiscally responsible thing to do. Gridlock can help lower the deficit.

However, I find thoughts like the one expressed in the OP sufficiently creepy that I don't think I could vote for anyone who was on the same side as the people who spout such idiocy.

LOL! This coming from someone who votes for a party that brought us Clinton, a President who literally lied to everyone that could possibly be lied to in this country, who subverted the election process of the US using millions of dollars from Red Chinese military sources, who severely damaged US national security by authorizing transfer of restricted technology in exchange for campaign cash, who basically ignored a decade of warning signs regarding terrorism, and whose only real claim to fame (as opposed to infamy) is presiding over a period when the economy exploded thanks to an internet boom and due to taxes/spending being lowered by Republican action. So believe me, Meadmaker, the real conservatives around here haven't had any illusions about how you will vote in coming elections, no matter what you've typed recently regarding your annoyance at the national debt.

 

[BeAChooser]

It wasn't 36 vs. 160, it was 36 vs. 29. 29 amendments that Republicans themselves define as substantive.

LOL! Keep in mind who are defining them as substantive. Republican SENATORS, which aren't the most conservative bunch around.

 

[dudalb]

I was all set to vote for the GOP for Congress in the fall on the grounds that health care reform is passed, and is irreversible, but that future divided government would be the most fiscally responsible thing to do. Gridlock can help lower the deficit.

However, I find thoughts like the one expressed in the OP sufficiently creepy that I don't think I could vote for anyone who was on the same side as the people who spout such idiocy.

Not to mention the way that the GOP leadership has failed to distance themselves from the death threats and acts of vandalism directed anygainst Democratic congressmen. ( I hasten to add that the Left has been guilty of equally disturbing acts in the past).

 

[dudalb]

LOL! This coming from someone who votes for a party that brought us Clinton, a President who literally lied to everyone that could possibly be lied to in this country, who subverted the election process of the US using millions of dollars from Red Chinese military sources, who severely damaged US national security by authorizing transfer of restricted technology in exchange for campaign cash, who basically ignored a decade of warning signs regarding terrorism, and whose only real claim to fame (as opposed to infamy) is presiding over a period when the economy exploded thanks to an internet boom and due to taxes/spending being lowered by Republican action. So believe me, Meadmaker, the real conservatives around here haven't had any illusions about how you will vote in coming elections, no matter what you've typed recently regarding your annoyance at the national debt.

Clinton has been out of office for a decade, and you still going a rant when his named is mentioned. Get a life.

 

[BeAChooser]

I think the most obvious way to engage in civil disobedience against mandatory health insurance is to refuse to buy health insurance. That is to say sticking the bill for your healthcare to everybody else, instead of contributing yourself.

I predict you're going to see a lot of that. And perhaps that's exactly what Obama wanted in the first place. Cloward-Piven Strategy redux.

 

[BeAChooser]

i signed my name, and provided by email and snail mail address. he is scum and i told him so.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.