Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Add this to your reading list - America's Bitter Pill 159
America's Bitter Pill: Money, Politics, Backroom Deals, and the Fight to Fix Our Broken Healthcare System
Conservatives won't like it because it supports the thesis I have been repeating for some time - that the republicans voted against the ACA not because they disliked the contents but because they didn't want Obama to get the credit for a health care reform bill.
Liberals won't like it because it shows how the ACA is just the next offspring of a long lineage of conservative bills that line the pockets of big businesses in the guise of improving health care.
Slashdot "libertarians" won't like it because it isn't a youtube video of Ron Paul
Smitty won't like it because I posted a link to it :)
Conservatives won't like it because it supports the thesis I have been repeating for some time - that the republicans voted against the ACA not because they disliked the contents but because they didn't want Obama to get the credit for a health care reform bill.
Liberals won't like it because it shows how the ACA is just the next offspring of a long lineage of conservative bills that line the pockets of big businesses in the guise of improving health care.
Slashdot "libertarians" won't like it because it isn't a youtube video of Ron Paul
Smitty won't like it because I posted a link to it
Really? (Score:1)
republicans voted against the ACA not because they disliked the contents but because they didn't want Obama to get the credit for a health care reform bill.
Mere pettiness? I'm not going to get too far out on a limb defending the starboard half of the Progressive Party, but might there not have been *some* basis for rejecting the River of Lies, other than pettiness?
Not that it amounts to an Ambassador Stevens fart at this point.
Re: (Score:1)
Republicans didn't need to vote for it, even if it is their work (save the denials please, they are still BS, just like the first time), thus preserving appearances to the herd. They will be/already are collecting a nice windfall though from industry "leaders" and the tax dollars that flow into their pockets. We're not dealing with 'petty funds' here. This is big money.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What isn't working? Money is flowing to all the 'right' people. Insurance rates continue their upward climb. Everybody's happy except you. Actually, not you per se, it's those rags you endlessly recite. The thing was going to pass no matter what. If there weren't enough democrats in Congress, a sufficient number of republicans would answer the call to ensure that it did. Yes, they got 'lucky' in that respect.
But you're right, ACA is a failure. Limbaugh promised to leave the country this year if it was still
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, that the financial industry can wreck economies all over the world, and people are too submissive to it. This is what your Reagan/Thatcher legacy has given us. Austerity is wrecking your economy too, in a bit more subtle fashion perhaps, but the same process is in motion. It's been all downhill for over 45 years. Austerity invariably wrecks all economies. It is an act of war by a government (its owners) against its own people. It is theft. You all are stealing from the pensioners and tax payers also w
Re: (Score:1)
It is submissiveness and obedience and irrational faith in the Official Narrative that is causing most of our modern (which really aren't so modern) problems where technical solutions are trivial and easily accessible.
What? Bitcoin? No, wait: don't tell me. The mystery is sexier.
Re: (Score:1)
OMG! Bitcoin? The Ted Cruz of money? You so funny!
Re: (Score:1)
I haven't seen another juxtaposition recently that comes as close to meaning something, then suddenly detonates. Good work.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing was going to pass no matter what. If there weren't enough democrats in Congress, a sufficient number of republicans would answer the call to ensure that it did. Yes, they got 'lucky' in that respect.
Congratulations fustakrakich, you just agreed with me for a change. You might want to see your doctor about that.
Re: (Score:1)
There a few things we agree on, quite by accident of course :-)
I can also agree on many things with pudge, RG, and Mr. Smith, and everybody else. But when you're wrong you're wrong, and agreement resolves nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Mere pettiness?
For the most part, yes. This is further supported - repeatedly - by the fact that of all the "Obamacare Alternatives" that have been proposed by GOP politicians, not one has been significantly different from the law that it is proposed to be an "alternative" to.
Another way to look at is that is that under democratic presidents, we saw several landmark pieces of legislation become law:
Meanwhile, the collective efforts of
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with your comment may be that you apparently are able to convince yourself that I actually like the HIIBA 2010 law. If you would actually read what I write - which, admittedly, would require you to suspend your fact-free assumptions about me for a bit in order to properly take them in - you might actually learn something here. If you try hard enough, yo
Re: (Score:1)
Fret not: the ersatz reforms will bring collapse, and then, per the Gruber worldview, we'll get to Single Payer.
And yeah, I can buy off that the Dems are mom, and the GOP is dad. One is running up the bills, and the other is refusing to tax appropriately. Our Progressive Parental party is setting us up for a fall worse than Greece.
Re: (Score:1)
we'll get to Single Payer.
YAY! That would be a great thing. It is what people want. We can easily afford it, and with real Cadillac service!
Just out of curiosity, what does "tax appropriately" mean?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Ah I see, you won't say what needs to be taxed. We already know what you want to cut.. which is of course entirely unacceptable. Again you respond with unoriginal punditry. Balanced budget... You and your fairytales... As meaningless as your other gibberish.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I understand that it wasn't far enough out in Lefty la-la land for you.
That is a strange way to try to roll back your "troll" accusation. It is, however, the closest you have come to reality on the matter - but that isn't really saying much.
per the Gruber worldview, we'll get to Single Payer.
Dial back your paranoia a bit here. There is absolutely no chance of us accomplishing single payer any time in the next decade. Even if Bernie Sanders is elected POTUS in 2016 (yeah, I know, a great joke that line is but we can run with it for a moment) we still won't get it. Being as we were, by composition of Washington DC alone, th
Re: (Score:1)
Actual liberty being totes overrated on this here Progressive plantation and all.
Re: (Score:2)
but please: offer some other scenario for where the situation is headed
Why am I alone obligated to diagram reality, while you are allowed to pass off your paranoid fantasy as certainty?
If I were to play along with your game, I really only need to point to recent history to show you that the democrats simply don't have the guts to pass single payer. It won't happen through anything other than an act of congress, and they didn't do it when they controlled congress. The GOP currently controls both the house and the senate, and the likelihood of a significant change in the
Re: (Score:1)
What is there to meltdown? The insurance industry is raking in money faster than they can count it.
Yeah, the death spiral was postponed by the least valid SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott.
Customer approval is irrelevant.
In other words, you win! The individual is *not* the unit of analysis, and nanny state gonna nanny. So why all the whinging about from you?
Re: (Score:2)
What is there to meltdown? The insurance industry is raking in money faster than they can count it.
Yeah, the death spiral
What. Death. Spiral?
Unless you are referring to the heat death of the universe, it is hard to see how the largest corporate handout in the history of government could lead to a death spiral.
postponed by the least valid SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott.
You were just trying to classify a certain group of people recently as being less-than-fully-qualified-as-human. You might want to be careful with this comparison.
and nanny state gonna nanny
What does this have to do with any kind of nanny state? The state forces us to be customers of for-profit business. The state does not, however, for
Re: (Score:1)
The state forces us to be customers of for-profit business. The state does not, however, force us to actually use what we buy from said for-profit businesses. You can go buy health insurance and then continue eating all your meals at McDonald's if you so choose.
Wow. Could I get you to take a walk, come back and review what you just wrote?
For crying out loud, man: this sort of noise was central to the motives for both the American Revolution and Abolition.
Your seeming casual acceptance of the situation has me flabbergasted.
Please help me understand where I'm misinterpreting you, and you're not cheerfully accepting velvet handcuffs here.
Re: (Score:2)
Your seeming casual acceptance of the situation has me flabbergasted.
Your insistence that for some reason - in spite of what I write - that I would like this bill is the true mystery here. I don't like HIIBA 2010. I didn't like it in 2010, I didn't like it any time after then, and I don't like it now. You are the only person who concludes otherwise.
Re: (Score:1)
1. The rubes are too stupid to know how badly they need the State.
2. There is no easy way to get to the Elysian Fields of Single Payer.
3. All falsehoods necessary to get to those Elysian Fields are justified. If Conservatives would just play along, no deceits would be necessary.
4. No one believes a godforsaken utterance of the Left, anyway.
5. I don't personally subscribe to 1-4 above.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no easy way to get to the Elysian Fields of Single Payer.
That is almost close to being true. The actual fact is that the current government is not capable of even proposing single payer. Whether they want it on some other level or not is irrelevant, they are simply too cowardly to even propose it.
All falsehoods necessary to get to those Elysian Fields are justified.
Now you have jumped right back to conspiracy. As is your usual, you have absolutely no facts whatsoever to support your conspiracy. There is nothing in the HIIBA 2010 act that leads to single payer, period. The current administration is not going to lead us to it,
Re: (Score:2)
Now you have jumped right back to conspiracy.
Jonathon Gruber.
Gruber is of no consequence to this, whatsoever. He is entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't mean it is a reflection upon reality. Is Gruber an elected official? No. Has he ever been elected to federal office? No. Does he have any way to impact the outcome of legislation? No. He is no more relevant to it than Rush Limbaugh or a random drifter wearing a literal tinfoil hat.
President Lawnchair has been demonstrably more conservative than St. Ronnie
No. For example, Ronnie punted on UNLOSC.
That is a pretty weak and random example, there. Better examples are in the fiscal domain - President Lawnchair has presid
Re: (Score:2)
Gruber is of no consequence to this, whatsoever.
It's OK: I don't expect anything but an integrity vacuum on the Left.
The lack of integrity comes from those who claim that Gruber's comment can some how from nothing but the weight of its own existence cause a lousy bill to suddenly evaporate and be replaced by actual health care reform, without any involvement of any elected politicians. This is why Gruber is but another of your conspiracies, as it requires a very heavy and intentional discarding of reality. The conspiracy of Gruber is no better supported by reality than the Kenyan Birth Certificate or the various nutty
Re: (Score:2)
Gruber's comments were directed exactly at people like you.
No. Gruber's comments were meaningless.
That would be the only reason you dismiss him so readily.
Try reading my comment before commenting on it. I already stated why Gruber's comments are of no significance. There is no need to restate the obvious just because you can't be bothered to read.
You refuse to acknowledge that Obama lied in the campaign.
Your evidence is flimsy. If single payer was of such poor public interest, why would he propose it on the campaign trail? He could have done just as well by instead proposing to implement this horse-shit bill on the campaign trail. No politician is 100% honest, 100% of
Re: (Score:2)
No. Gruber's comments were meaningless.
But they are still true
Only true in that they came out of his mouth. Not true in any sense relating to anything that will actually happen with the ACA.
Your evidence is flimsy.
It is what he always knew it would be.
If you spin much harder you might fall down. I suggest you take a rest. I would ask you again for evidence to support your nonsense, but as you haven't bothered to provide it yet there is certainly no reason to believe you will ever change your stripes.
I don't like the ACA. I didn't like it as soon as we learned that it wouldn't even have a single payer option. You can p
Re: (Score:2)
There are no facts on this good earth that you will accept if they contradict your faith.
The notion you have of my "faith" is but an illusion in your own mind. You are just as twisted as any of the conservatives here when you go and (try to) apply that strange idea. I have said plainly and multiple times that indeed I did vote for Obama, and that I wanted single payer. I have also said plainly and repeatedly that I am sorely disappointed with the ACA. I have also said plainly and repeatedly that there is no direct route from ACA to single payer.
You can pretend that those are for some r
Re: (Score:2)
that Gruber's comment
Hardly singular, dude.
It doesn't matter if he said something stupid once, twice, or two hundred times. He never has had, and never will have, the power to make the change happen that his stupid comments claim are going to come about. Just because conspiracy nutters believe it to be a smoking gun - when it isn't even a horizontal carrot - doesn't mean it is of any importance.
We're not getting single payer at the federal level any time in the next couple decades. It doesn't matter how many people want it, it simply isn't g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
flatter themselves that they know so much
A more accurate description is that he flatters himself with the notion that he knows something about something that he is epically under-informed on. The notion that HIIBA 2010 could somehow on its own evolve into single payer is completely ludicrous. In fact, the way he proudly presents what he doesn't know - while trying to portray it as something that he is deeply knowledgeable on - is much more your style than mine.
Re: (Score:2)
I have plainly stated a great many times that I want Single Payer. However I am connected to reality and realize that Gruber's words will not get us there, nor with the actions of any elected official currently in office. We will be stuck with HIIBA 2010 and close relatives of it for some time to come now, none of which will ever lead us to Single Payer. Fortunately for your interests, the country would need to collectively take sever
Re: (Score:2)
leaving the republicans squeaky clean with their moron voters
That will last until the GOP has the white house again, at which point they will repeal the ACA and replace it with the ACA, but it will be associated with the name of GOP-white-guy-in-nice-suit who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania at the time. This will, of course, then be the greatest bill EVAH.
Re: (Score:2)
You can tell the importance of Gruber by the studiousness with which the Codpiece Media avoided the story
No, it was covered lightly because it was not significant news. Gruber is entitled to say whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean that what he says is significant. There are plenty of other things said at similar events that receive similar news coverage for similarly being insignificant.
and you aren't even willing to admit that Single Payer is the eventual target.
It is only an "eventual target" in the same way that Mars is an eventual target for NASA. Similarly both targets have very real chances of never coming to fruition in the next few decades.
I have stated many times th
Re: (Score:2)
Gruber is the face of the preening pencil-necks that bethink themselves smarter than everyone else.
The latter half of that statement describes you to a T, specifically your insistence on your conspiracies being incontestable reality.
Unfortunately, too many unthinkable, stupid things have come to pass to fully retire the concern.
Well, I hear Somalia is beautiful this time of year. We haven't passed any laws preventing you from leaving the US to live there permanently if you prefer their style of government.
Re: (Score:2)
If you choose to stay on autopilot and just follow the crowd, it is your choice
And how does your strategy of not voting - or convincing as many people as possible to not vote - help the situation? Does not the largest crowd still get their way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
specifically your insistence on your conspiracies being incontestable reality
Wut? Every prediction I've ever made has been met by an even stupider reality
Your Benghazi conspiracy requires time travel. I wouldn't consider a time-travel-free reality to be "stupider".
Your conspiracies about the health care bill are simply made of hot air. While I don't like the bill, I don't consider the reality with it as being "stupider" than your conspiracies about it.
I'm forgetting at least a couple dozen conspiracies that you have cheered for here, because I don't have time to fish out more than those at the moment.
And if you want to mingle your conspiracies w
Re: (Score:2)
I admit that I did not think
You might want to try it some time. This sound-bite regurgitation doesn't make for much of a discussion, really.
Gruber's point
He had no point. You really should try that thinking part some time.
Re: (Score:2)
It occurred to me that I also neglected to call out directly one of your favorite conspiracies of all - your conspiracy that my feelings towards HIIBA 2010 are some how completely counter to everything I have ever
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not contradicting your asserted lack of love.
That is an unusual foray into reason, there.
I'm pointing out that your motive boils down to the ACA not being enough like the NHS
I have been saying for a long time that I wanted Single Payer. I don't deny that I wanted Single Payer before President Lawnchair was elected, and still do. Where are you going with this?
Give it time. The ACA is a river of lies. It will crapflood our economy and dump us out in the Gulf of Single Payer.
Oh, I see. You're going back to conspiracy land. You might as well be telling us that there is a provision in there that automatically negates the 2016 election and make Obama President for Life with his daughters (and their future offspring) as automatic heirs to the thron
Re: (Score:2)
I think that, if you pay attention to the various clips available on the Internet
Because, of course, youtube editorials and spin jobs are every bit as valid as actual action.
Single Payer is the goal
I wish it was, but it simply is not. Pretending otherwise is just that - pretending. You pretend because it gives you something (else) to be angry about. Others might pretend because it is what they want, and they pretend because they can't bear to be realistic. I do not pretend, because I know it is a waste to bother doing such.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you like I believe Planned Parenthood. Exactly like I believe Planned Parenthood.
Care to bring home that new conspiracy? I've seen the non-troversy in the news - it's even been reported on by the "lamestream media" - so this is a perfect opportunity for you to apply your spin to it, while it's fresh in memory. It, of course, has nothing to do with this current topic, but that doesn't usually stop you.
If we actually want to approach it simply from the angle of "believability", though, it is worth while that you have provided absolutely zero credible evidence that HIIBA 2010 is going
Re: (Score:2)
Any other arguments you want to discuss in the complete and utter absence of facts t
Re: (Score:2)
Start with first principles: what do you hold absolutely true?
That is a strange question, and hard not to see it as another diversion on your part. I'll bite anyway.
Truth to me is dependent on what can be demonstrated factually. For example we can demonstrate gravity and it's effect on earth. My notion of truth is seemingly both simpler and more exclusive than yours, as you have told us of things that you believe to be true in spite of no demonstrated evidence to support them.
Re: (Score:2)
There are spiritual matters I hold "true" in ways that defy mathematical proof.
Your political conspiracies seem to fit that description well, too.
I view these two categories as "orthogonal", so to speak.
It would be nice if you did that more often. You insist that certain claims which you make based only on faith are 100% true, and you do that a lot.
more faith going on than you're comfortable admitting
Your faith is transparent, there are many places where your faith overrules your ability to reason. I would be interested in knowing where you think my faith is my driving force.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you please provide at least one specific instance where I made an absolute truth claim which you think was unfounded?
You repeatedly make the claim that Gruber's word is indication that HIIBA 2010 is going to lead us directly to single payer. I provided several reasons why that claim is entirely faith-based, and completely disconnected from reality.
Re: (Score:2)
So I wouldn't go defining this as a "faith-based" claim.
Well, I cannot force you to be reasonable or realistic. You can deny the history of the past 7 years if you want, and substitute instead your fears in place of it. But when President Lawnchair leaves office in 2017 and the ACA is still forcing us to purchase health insurance from for-profit companies, you will be the one with egg on your face. Considering how many of your fellow conservatives are certain that some sort of last-minute earth-shattering moment will come in the last instant before the next
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got more faith in this quixotic, unstable economic situation than I do
I'm generally curious as to how you reach that conclusion. In fact I see the conservatives as the ones who are tilting at windmills, here. You and others are constantly trying to find new and clever ways to justify system turnover without recognizing the people's voting privilege or their right to petition the government (or term structure - or the legal system itself and its promise of the right to a fair trial - for that matter).
the war for which these idiots beg
Would that be a civil war, finally reducing our nation of 50 states to mo
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be a civil war, finally reducing our nation of 50 states to more than one independent nation? It does seem that one side is arming itself for a war, though it certainly isn't the "liberal" side. It's really a shame here that the US isn't the "communist" state that you claim it to be, as there is precedent for ex-communist states to dissolve into multiple countries without bloodshed.
Wait, so are you:
a) Crediting Reagan's policy here,
b) Ignoring all the current repression under Vladimir,
c) Considering a meaninglessly narrow slice of time under Gorbachev, or
d) All of the above?
Actually, I don't care much what you think the answer is.
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be a civil war, finally reducing our nation of 50 states to more than one independent nation? It does seem that one side is arming itself for a war, though it certainly isn't the "liberal" side. It's really a shame here that the US isn't the "communist" state that you claim it to be, as there is precedent for ex-communist states to dissolve into multiple countries without bloodshed.
a) Crediting Reagan's policy here,
Reagan deserves no more credit for the fall of the USSR than does David Hasselhoff [theguardian.com]
b) Ignoring all the current repression under Vladimir,
You really aren't much of a student of history, are you?
c) Considering a meaninglessly narrow slice of time under Gorbachev, or
Gorbachev was head of the USSR almost as long as St. Ronnie was in charge here. However neither of them are particularly important to the case I had in mind.
d) All of the above?
You didn't even set your trap on the right pathway.
I was particularly thinking of the Velvet Revolution [wikipedia.org], which took place in November 1989. You just named three people who had quite nearly nothing to do with it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oof! Talk about blaming the victims! Trolly troll troll! :-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, wait: What? Is English you not speak?
Re: (Score:1)
Wait:
haven't you instructed us
that we are all
both oppressors and
the (purported) victims?
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, sorry, it's all Greek to me
Re: (Score:1)
Truly a Greek [wiktionary.org]
Re: (Score:1)
The financial industry can foot the bill a thousand times over. They are the ones who stole the money to begin with.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Always with the appeal to authority. It's nothing about class. It's recovering stolen goods and making everybody pay their fair share. Your little 'harrumph' not withstanding... You really are the quaint little 19th century thinker, certainly a relic, not worth much, but an antique just the same.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually the class warfare is yours with the austerity you want, so again, you are with the projection.
Re: (Score:1)
Stunning. I denounce myself, and will resume my seat at my oar, sir.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if you wanted those things for everybody, I would believe you. But you don't. You want to maintain a privileged class of citizens of one specific phenotype who comport according to your bible. So yes, you want austerity, even if you refuse to admit it. Leo-liberals are like that. They are very prejudicial against the 'untouchables'.
Re: (Score:1)
Errrr.... Neo-liberals... Try not to use the typo as one of your typical evasion ploys
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yours is the 'managed' liberty. You want to power to grant it, or deny it in the case of freedom of contract. You want to preserve privilege. As the presently dominant power it's only natural. You deeply fear being merely equal. That is abundantly clear. Anyway your entire spiel is straight out your right wing rags, I read them also, so the only thing I take serious about them is when you followers actually believe that tripe, and then vote away our liberty in the name of your deity and truly sociopathic p
Re: (Score:1)
They're all based on fact. Reagan/Thatcher and all you idolators are neo-liberals. Your denials cannot change that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, so you truly have devolved into *I know you are, but what I am I?*. Your powers of denial are almost impressive. Eh, I guess we can close this one out.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) Yeah, me too. Comedy is truth...
Re: (Score:1)
Mr. Smith outshines us all... He is the sun, I am the moon..
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
There's something about this fixation you have with horses, can't quite put a finger on it.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're speaking about republican voters you would be making sense. The people in DC know better. Your choice to believe this little charade shows just how effective it is, I guess, or you're just an easy target. The latter being much more likely, because the facade is very transparent, no x-ray specs required. Eh, whatever, you have your reasons, or more correctly, your rationale. To argue against faith is utterly futile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Once again, the 'opposition' is false, an act. They know exactly what they are doing. The overall strategy is to get you to believe the act, and it is working beautifully. I hope your usefulness proves rewarding to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, it's your faith that clouds your vision and judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not at all, it is an appeal to authority. You seek to be on the winning side, to feel like you have influence. You needn't be ashamed of it, just don't think you're hiding anything. It is there for all to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, your lack of anything to back up that assumption won't stop you from making it, though. Hence it is not likely worth the effort to try any further to show why it doesn't work or reflect reality.
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly, your lack of anything to back up that assumption...
It is not an 'assumption'. Despite your denials, it is fact. And they have been backed up plenty of times. Any more is just a redundant waste of time when dealing with the faithful like you and Mr. Smith. I'm just gonna keep it simple. Your democrat politicians lie just like republican ones. That is all. When you want to, you will see, not before then. For now, you're just being tribal.
Re: (Score:2)
You, on the other hand, are simultaneously standing outside, across the street from the polling location, using a megaphone to try to convince people to be like you and not vote at all. It is hard to argue with the results of your strategy.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) Ahhh, so, it's true. You really are a liar. Eh, go for it, see what I care... it's just more of your silly redundant shtick, every bit as bad as Mr. Smith's, worse, for lack of style. I still don't believe you're for real... but please, do continue...
BTW you have more than two bowls to choose from. You just won't admit that you like shit. It appeals to you and you appeal to it. And yes, you should be looking in the mirror, there you see the person who chooses shit. Admit it! You like it! You roll in it.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW you have more than two bowls to choose from.
It would be nice if we did. Unfortunately, the vast overwhelming majority of the time there are only two choices in the ballot box. Taking your route and choosing not to vote does not help the situation in any way, shape, or form as the system will continue on exactly as before if no votes are cast. Perhaps if there was a minimum turnout requirement for winners to be declared, then your strategy would be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that this notion of reading a person's comment, rather than just their name, is not a familiar one to you - but you may want to try it sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
I used what you have written to conclude that you are primarily interested in convincing people not to vote at all.
No, you're just making shit up.
That is a strange way to describe my reading what you write, and posting a logical interpretation of it. However, it does complement well your strange idea of "reading comprehension".
I don't care
You don't care, yet you are very quick to respond. I believe the latter is more telling than the claim of the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Another way to look at is that is that under democratic presidents, we saw several landmark pieces of legislation become law:
The civil rights act
The 40 hour work week
Social Security
Welfare
Medicare and Medicaid
Meanwhile, the collective efforts of the republicans administrations have brought us... trillions of dollars in debt.
More babbling bullshit. How convenient of