Comments on: List of preexisting conditions includes being an “expectant father”

By: Nastya

Nastya — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:40:48 +0000

Expectant FATHER? I could understand expectant MOTHER, from a cheap-arse, immoral insurance-shark point of view, but fathers!? What health problems could expectant fathers have, lightheadedness from helping their wives practice lamaze? How ridiculous, and ACNE? Seriously? Zits? Jeez.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:53:10 +0000

Your right, Lloyd, and thanks. There IS a certain futility to showing up here. It almost doesn’t matter what we say. (Or even what we saw…) The few themes with only slight variations of leftist rhetoric and response is repetitively stultifying. And sometimes silly.

And after this past weekend of endless talk, we can include the President in that assessment.

“That’s NOT a tax, George.”

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:42:10 +0000

Is it unreasonable in your mind for someone to believe that taxes truly are theft yet some taxation is necessary? I ask this because it seems that you’d have them forget their first principle of “taxes are theft” in order to remove all the limitations that principle puts on your plans for government.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:33:22 +0000

Kathy, you’re a brave girl. You laid it all out there for them beautifully but they completely missed the point again. Let’s look at what their responses tell us about them.

You said you wanted a fair and limited government. Lojasamo responds “Actually, government, by any measure, grew through the nixon, ford, Reagan, and Bush one, declined slightly under Clinton, then skyrocketed under Bush. And yes, Obama is spending a bunch of money to fix Bush’s blunders. It’s necessary, based upon historical fact.”

What this tells us about lojasamo is that he thinks you want to defend Bush’s record on spending. My guess is that you know more about all the crap Bush shouldn’t have spent money on than most anyone on the left. When folks like lojasamo think of Bush’s spending they think about Iraq. We both know that money Bush spent on new or expanded entitlements dwarfs the money spent in Iraq or Afghanistan but lojasamo will have none of that. The problem for people like this is that because they will blindly follow anyone delivering the perfect message, they believe that you who are equally ideological would do the same. We see this in the rest of his post where he tries to use Bush’s spending and an unspecified historical fact to justify Obama’s spending.

Amuseinc’s response shows a more committed leftist at work. He might as well be saying “serenity now” to himself with that blather about tea bagging and cat’s paws. He wants the Tea Party movement to be trivial because the thought of an actual groundswell of public oposition to all the things he wanted Obama to do would be too jarring to take.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:39:10 +0000

No, estimates put the 9/12 rallies at about 500,000. No where near a million but far from insignificant either.

By: amuseinc

amuseinc — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:43:31 +0000

Ummm being that you just announced another conspiracy about the numbers of attendees you are not the most reliable source. Not a single source, including the organizers, is pushing the “million” number. In fact for a while a fake photo from an entirely different event was being circulated to make it look like a mass movement was taking place. This group, the tea-bagging folks, are a minor movement at best. If they could all actually agree on something they might actually have an effect but as is they are just the cat’s paws of Beck and Fox News.

Interesting that all of a sudden in an unsuccessful effort to sound less radical it becomes a discussion about “fair taxation” instead of “taxes are theft.” Which tune do you whistle to which audience? You’ll need to signal which is which to the rest of the mob.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:25:16 +0000

And I, for one, am waiting breathlessly and with all the hope I can muster to see how that spending and fixing works out for us.

By: lojasmo

lojasmo — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:53:12 +0000

Estimates were that between 30,000 and 70,000 were in attendance in DC.

You are either ignorant, or a liar.

Perhaps you were thinking of Obama’s inauguration. Millions did indeed attend that.

By: lojasmo

lojasmo — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:51:10 +0000

He has. Look at the missile defense changes, and his threat to veto the military appropriations bill if unrequested funds for obsolete programs were contained in it.

Or don’t. I don’t care.

By: lojasmo

lojasmo — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:49:26 +0000

Actually, government, by any measure, grew through the nixon, ford, Reagan, and Bush one, declined slightly under Clinton, then skyrocketed under Bush. And yes, Obama is spending a bunch of money to fix Bush’s blunders. It’s necessary, based upon historical fact.

Nice try, though.

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/whose_big_government_5433