«

»

The Iran Deal Falls Through

Over the last week, news reports emerged of a pending deal with Iran on nuclear weapons. In return for some limited sanction relief, the Iranians would have frozen their weapons program with a permanent deal to follow. It might have worked; it probably wouldn’t have. But at least the beginnings of a long-term deal were there.

I’m on record as saying a nuclear Iran is almost inevitable, no matter who is in charge. Even if the Mullahs were toppled and the most pro-Western government imaginable were put in place, Iran would still be surrounded by nuclear powers and they would continue to pursue a nuclear capability. All we can do is delay that moment. We have so far pushed that date back for a decade — Iran has been “X months away” from a nuke since the early 2000′s. This deal would have bought six more months and a “permanent” deal with some teeth might have pushed that date back another decade or more. I realize everyone thinks we should use a military strike to solve the Iran nuclear issue but Iran has learned the lessons of their neighbors and dispersed their program as much as possible. Unless you are prepared to invade and occupy a nation of 80 million people indefinitely, a military strike is a waste of time, money and lives.

The Israelis balked but the Israelis would always balk and the Israelis are actually part of the problem here since Iran has cited the expansion of West Bank settlements as one of their issues. What scotched this deal, oddly enough, was France taking a hard line and refusing to sign on. Whether this was a good or bad thing, I leave up to you. Here is the case that the proposed deal was a bad one. The case that the deal was a good one is that Iran will continue to try to enrich uranium past 20% and to get the Arak reactor online, things they would not have done with a deal.

Ordinarily, this would just be normal diplomacy. Deals fall through all the time. The only interesting part would be that we are moving toward less hostile relations with Iran (a direction we should have moved toward on 9/12 when the Iranians had a vigil for the victims of 9/11 while the Palestinians danced in the streets and the Saudis had “who us?” looks on their faces). But the Obama Administration went public with this deal in a big way before it was signed, trying to pressure all the parties into agreeing and hoping to capitalize on Syria beginning to destroy their WMD arsenal. You could almost hear Obama saying that he had headed off not one but two WMD crises (even though he really hadn’t).

Now their over-eagerness has left egg on their faces yet again. France, Israel, Iran and the gulf states are just as annoyed as if we’d actually made a deal, but no deal actually exists. Iran continues to advance their nuclear agenda and we look like fools.

Remind me again how the Obama Administration was going to be so much better that the Bush team?

51 comments

No ping yet

  1. Mississippi Yankee says:

    As we speak, Pakistan is in the final stages of a nuclear deal with the Saudis. In the end it will become a Shiite-vs-Sunni showdown. And a relatively local one at that. Of course when nuclear weapons are involved “local” has a bit larger dimension.

    The Israelis balked but the Israelis would always balk and the Israelis are actually part of the problem here since Iran has cited the expansion of West Bank settlements as one of their issues.

    What an interesting statement (and accusation) considering how Iran,theoretically, shouldn’t have a dog in that particular fight.
    One would think that Iran would be much more concerned with it’s shiite proxy army Hezbollah in Northern Israel and the Golan Heights.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Hal_10000 says:

    What an interesting statement (and accusation) considering how Iran,theoretically, shouldn’t have a dog in that particular fight.

    “cite” may have been too strong a word, but the two issues are linked (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-07/for-help-on-iran-netanyahu-must-look-to-west-bank-.html).

    I was going to mention the Saudis going nuclear. To me that is just as much if not more of a concern than Iran. No one is talking about it though.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  3. Rick Macherat says:

    There was no chance this would ever have worked. A complete waste of coffee, water, tea and tablecloths. Again.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  4. AlexInCT says:

    Color me surprised. When you find the cheese eating surrender monkeys doing what we should have done you know the world is upside down. At this point those of us that pointed out that talking to Iran was a waste of time have won. The icing on the cake for Iran was the guy that wants to destroy America now in the WH. I can’t blame them for thinking that with the exception of Israel, which the US will punish for doing the right thing under this current emperor without clothes on, they are scot free.

    A nuclearized middle east will be a disaster for us all. Of course, people like Obama wanting us to go green, would see a nuclear holocaust out there as a great thing to help their friends and themselves make money….

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  5. Seattle Outcast says:

    Are we taking bets on how soon they start shooting nukes at each other? I’m giving it as no later than 2025.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  6. Mississippi Yankee says:

    I was going to mention the Saudis going nuclear. To me that is just as much if not more of a concern than Iran. No one is talking about it though.

    No one, at least in the circles that you frequent, wants to talk about it because “no one” has figured out how to blame Israel yet.

    Watching the typical American Jew/ anti-zionist run around in retorachial circles with their liberal and progressive allies is about my only form of entertainment these days.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  7. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10

      
  8. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11

      
  9. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Why on earth would anyone start shooting nukes? How would that be of ANY benefit?

    What has been the benefit of ANY terrorist attack?
    Nukes only do one of two things. They are great deterrent weapons (a la the Cold War) or they make permanent and powerful statement as we did in Japan in 1945.

    Or were you being deliberately obtuse?

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

      
  10. Iconoclast says:

    Are you suggesting that ideologues (who will do anything to get their way) can’t be negotiated with?
    Sounds like the GOP Democrats.

    Fixed it for you. And oh, thanks for another sterling example of your unwavering objectivity…

    Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

      
  11. Iconoclast says:

    Why on earth would anyone start shooting nukes? How would that be of ANY benefit?

    Why on earth would anyone blow themselves up with a bomb vest? How would that be of ANY benefit?

    Why on earth would anyone fly airplanes into buildings? How would that be of ANY benefit?

    Etcetera.

    It’s very telling that you would, at any level, associate the GOP with this sort of irrationality. But God forbid that anyone say you’re “extreme”, or that we aren’t

    <Cue “I was just askin’ ’cause I really wanna know, I just want to have a conversation” protestations…>

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2

      
  12. Hal_10000 says:

    I think you’re ignoring CM’s point. Terrorist attacks on a small scale are one thing. Coaxing or paying idiots into strapping explosives to themselves is one thing. Firing nukes is a completely different animal. Pakistan has had nukes for a very long time but has never used them or given them to a terrorist organization. Everyone *assumes* that Iran is going to nuke Israel or give nukes to terrorist, but there is not a lot of evidence for this or reason to believe it. Iran knows that Israel would respond to any nuclear strike with a counter-strike (and Israel’s rockets might actually work). They also know — or at least the Administration should be letting them know — that tracing any terrorist nuke to them would be a matter of hours at most (from radiation signatures). The Iranian government is happy for idiotic young men to blow themselves up, but they have no wish to be blown up themselves.

    Yeah, yeah, Muslims be crazy, 12th Imam, blahblah blah. Crazier that Stalin or Khruschev, who happily murdered millions and lived in delusion paranoid worlds of their own?

    If Iranian — or even Saudi — nukes are a fait accompli .. and I think it’s highly likely that they are … containment with early detection systems, missile defense and the threat of massive retaliation are the only options. Again, unless you are prepared to invade and occupy the country. It’s not an ideal solution, but it is our least worst option.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  13. Iconoclast says:

    I think you’re ignoring CM’s point.

    Uh-huh. Perhaps I should have included a third item on my list:

    Why on earth would anyone use chemical weapons against fellow Muslims? How would that be of ANY benefit?

    In my view, that closes the gap between bomb vests and nukes considerably, whether you care to agree or not. And it is a matter of historical record that Muslims have recently used chemical weapons against other Muslims. Furthermore, your and CM’s “point” seems to be nothing more than, “eh, hasn’t happened yet, so it prolly won’t happen ever…”.

    Prior to 9/11, no one had ever deliberately flown airliners into skyscrapers before, and even to today, it has only happened once. But then again, once is still too many times.

    Recall that SO was talking about “them” firing specific weapons at each other, not us necessarily.

    My point, and I think it’s the same point SO was making, is that the ME is unstable, and adding (more) nukes to the mix is begging for disaster. During the Cold War, we had essentially secularized, non-religion-driven westerers with their fingers on the button, and we were all still scared shitless for the most part. Are you saying the situation is somehow better with religious fanatics getting ahold of a button to push? It never ceases to amaze me how much benefit of the doubt liberals are willing to give our enemies…

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

      
  14. Hal_10000 says:

    My point, and I think it’s the same point SO was making, is that the ME is unstable, and adding (more) nukes to the mix is begging for disaster.

    I don’t disagree with that. However, I don’t think you can compare nukes to chemical weapons. Nuclear weapons are on a much vaster and deadlier scale. The most massive terrorist attacks and the most massive chemical attacks have killed a tiny fraction of the smallest nuclear attack.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  15. CM says:

    I don’t disagree with that either. But having them and using them are two entirely different things. There is no reason to believe that Iran having a nuke would mean “nuclear holocaust” and that it’s just a matter of time until countries starting nuking each other.

    Only some religious fanatics are your enemies. Some of them are your friends. Regardless, nobody here has claimed that “the situation” would be “better” if “religious fanatics” get nukes. Or anything remotely close. It never ceases to amaze me how much bullshit gets made up.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

      
  16. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11

      
  17. AlexInCT says:

    I think you’re ignoring CM’s point. Terrorist attacks on a small scale are one thing. Coaxing or paying idiots into strapping explosives to themselves is one thing. Firing nukes is a completely different animal.

    To the mind that conceived of the first option, I don’t see the second being that far of a stretch, Hal. The explosion is just a bigger one. Someone told that the larger the body count they get when they go boom, the larger the reward in la-la-land will be, wouldn’t hesitate to set off and die in a nuke explosion. Sadly, when the KGB thought these goons how to use terrorist tactics they didn’t foresee the probems it wuld cause us all. That’s because they couldn’t fatom the power of religious fanaticism would play, despite the fact they demanded the same level of fervor of their followers. Collectivsm is just a religion that replaced the all powerful feary in the sky with government, after all.

    I would like to believe that Iran really just wants the bomb because, as many strategists are want to point out, it feels that the threat of being able to use it will suddenly allow it to escalate the support for terrorism to new heights, while keeping anyone that would fight back, at arm’s length. But then I also have to remember that the people in charge aren’t that rational despite our delusional desire to pretend so. It’s the same reason I don’t really worry about Russia, China, India, or Israel having a bomb: they use it as a strategic tool without ever using it. But I do not feel the same about some other actors. While the Norks & Pakistanis want to use it to blackmail people, they also have irrational actors in that chain of command. And in Iran that problem is even worse. Even if they might value their own lives, they don’t value that of anyone else. It’s not a far stretch to think that such people would actually delude themselves that they can start a holocaust under the assumption they can sit it out once the entire ME is nuclear. Especially since they would like to believe they got god or the devil on their side.

    We delude ourselves in thinking these people are just like the rest of us. I would figure after 5 decades of making that mistake we would have learned by now. Sometimes people do mean what they say, and I believe Iran really means it when it says it wants to burn down Israel. But even if you don’t can you imagine any other nuclear nation talking as crazy as this outside of the little idiots in the Kim family in North Korea? Thank the powers that be that those fucks are hardcore atheists and self-centered delusional maniacs with delusions of grandeur. The fucks in Iran aren’t that tied to reality (kind of like our progressives). For that reason alone they should never, ever be allowed to own a nuclear weapon.

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

      
  18. Iconoclast says:

    Regardless, nobody here has claimed that “the situation” would be “better” if “religious fanatics” get nukes. Or anything remotely close.

    When someone makes observations such as:

    Yeah, yeah, Muslims be crazy, 12th Imam, blahblah blah. Crazier that Stalin or Khrushchev, who happily murdered millions and lived in delusion paranoid worlds of their own?

    That does lead to my question:

    During the Cold War, we had essentially secularized, non-religion-driven westerners with their fingers on the button, and we were all still scared shitless for the most part. Are you saying the situation is somehow better with religious fanatics getting ahold of a button to push?

    Whether you care to agree or not. I never said that anyone claimed “that ‘the situation’ would be ‘better’ if ‘religious fanatics’ get nukes. Or anything remotely close.” I asked the question to get clarification. After all, the original observation seemed to suggest that Stalin/Khrushchev were as bad as, if not worse than, Muslims/Imam/whatever.

    Whether you care to agree or not.

    It never ceases to amaze me how much bullshit gets made up.

    Yeah, look in the mirror, bud.

    The GOP position in the shut-down was consistent with the general position here…

    Irrelevant. The GOP-led House was doing its Constitutional job of deciding what got funded. It was the Harry Reid’s Democrat-led Senate that flatly rejected everything the House offered unless precious Obamacare was funded. Regardless of what the liberal press spoon fed you, the shutdown was caused by both parties, not just the GOP. It certainly wasn’t as if Reid negotiated, or could be negotiated with…but you decided to compare the GOP to “ideologues (who will do anything to get their way)” when the recalcitrant Dems were equally responsible, thereby showing your true liberal colors once again.

    I don’t hold any extreme or ideological positions.

    Yeah, you’re a legend in your own mind.

    Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0

      
  19. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

      
  20. AlexInCT says:

    Some want to get rid of the Zionist state, yes. But that’s not the same as burning it down.

    How many times must they take actions to try and do just this burning down thing for people like you to wise up? How many wars, or dead Jews killed by idiots that were brainwashed to put on bombs and die too, will it take for people to get with the program? Seriously, whenever I hear people say that these fucks are doing and saying something but that’s not what is happening I can’t help but wonder if that level of stupid is considered contageous, or the idiots pretending that the problem is with those of us that are not reality challenged think if they tell us that idiotic lie enough times we might believe it too.

    And why do I have a feeling you wil be all surprised when they burn it down, at least you will act that way, but in reality that won’t be the case at all?

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  21. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

      
  22. Iconoclast says:

    It’s not ideological for the Dems to want to fund Obamacare – it’s their law which was passed…

    without a single Republican vote. You simply cannot get more partisan and ideological than that. You contradict yourself within the confines of a single sentence.

    “Not ideological” my ass. There is virtually nothing about that cursed law that isn’t ideological.

    Like it or lump it, the Constitution says that the House controls the purse strings. Period. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Senate to stamp their feet and demand that specific items be funded.

    …deemed Constitutional, and then led to the President being re-elected.

    Both of which are irrelevant. The SCOTUS is by no means infallible, and that decision proves it. As far as the POTUS getting re-elected, that is simply irrelevant on its face. If anything, it only shows that lying your ass off to the electorate can get you re-elected.

    Equally responsible my arse. Only a hard-core partisan would suggest that.

    On the contrary, only a hard-core partisan would deny it.

    If the situation were reversed…

    Hypotheticals are irrelevant…

    If the situation were reversed (the Dems decided to defund what they didn’t agree with, and hold the world economy to ransom in the process) you’d never accept that claim.

    You don’t know jack shit about what I would accept. It certainly ain’t my fault that Progressivism/Liberalism inherently seeks to undermine the Constitution, whereas Conservatism seeks to restore it. The problem is that your hypothetical is detached from reality. Liberals aren’t the ones holding to the Constitution and Conservatives aren’t the ones undermining it. Notice that I say “Liberals and Conservatives”, not “Democrats and Republicans”.

    It’s ideological to stop something by defunding it because everything else has failed.

    So? It’s also ideological to pass a law the way Obamacare was passed, with no input from Republicans, no open debate, back-room dealings, no Republican votes, etcetera ad nauseam. There is no telling what the SCOTUS was smoking, but their bad decision doesn’t mitigate the utterly partisan and ideological nature of the law and how it was passed.

    Just because “everything else has failed”, it doesn’t mean the Democrats have the moral high ground. American citizens are starting to pay the aweful price of this law in cancelled plans and skyrocketing premiums. Yeah, it’s convenient as hell that this law “works” for one of this venue’s resident liberals, but at the end of the day, that means jack shit, when millions are getting shafted…

    If I’m making shit up I would certainly expect to get called on it. Of course I mean actually called on it though, not just vague accusations.

    Insinuating that I was “making shit up” is itself making shit up. Consider yourself called out. I didn’t realize I would have to explicitly connect the dots (again), although perhaps I should have.

    Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

      
  23. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11

      
  24. CM says:

    FAAAAAAARK. Apologies for FAAAAAAARKING up the quoting on some of that.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  25. CM says:

    It’s also ideological to pass a law the way Obamacare was passed, with no input from Republicans, no open debate, back-room dealings, no Republican votes, etcetera ad nauseam.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  26. Iconoclast says:

    It’s not inherently ideological just because something passes without a vote from the other side.

    By the same token it’s not “inherently ideological” to oppose a bad, unpopular law, and to do whatever one can to get rid of the damned thing.

    Ensuring nobody votes for something that was previously a Republican idea is ideological though. Some Republicans did support it earlier.

    They were in favor of Obamacare? Or of health insurance reform? The two are not the same. Not even close.

    Nonsense. It’s attempting to use a market-based system.

    My Marx, you’re one naive fuck. It’s designed to fail, so that a single-payer system can “come to the rescue”. Obama’s stated goal is a single-payer system. This train-wreck is just a first step. “Market-based” my ass. I guess you still believe the, “If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. Period.” lie as well.

    If they were going to be ideological on this then they’d have pushed through a NHS style system where the Government controls everything.

    Like I said, you’re one naive fuck. That is the goal. It’s just gonna take time….

    But according to your logic that wouldn’t be ideological, simply because the Constitution allows it.

    Please point out where I ever claimed that the GOP were not being ideological. Nope, I’ve only been claiming that the Democrats were being ideological, not that the GOP were not. And you’re trying to deny it.

    In addition, I was pointing out that the GOP-led House was operating within their Constitutional boundaries, whereas the Senate was not, so it’s plain foolishness to put 100% of the blame for the shutdown on the GOP, especially when they were operating according to the Constitution, and to put 0% on the Democrats, especially considering that they were operating without Constitutional authority.

    So, as anyone can see, your “according to your logic” pontification is an epic fail.

    They are both very relevant to how the GOP decided to take an ideological stance on Obamacare…

    The GOP oppose a bad, unpopular law, a law that is now causing widespread pain to the American people. You can call it “ideology” until the universe burns out, but that, in and of itself, don’t mean shit.

    Yes, yes, everything you don’t like or don’t agree with is apparently “irrelevant”.

    It’s irrelevant because it isn’t relevant. Whether I like it or agree with it is likewise irrelevant. A hypothetical is just that, something dreamed up and made up out of whole cloth. Pretending that it somehow reflects reality doesn’t make it so. Anyone can make up a hare-brained hypothetical situation and proclaim “you would do such and such in such a situation and you know it!”, but again, that utterly fails to qualify as evidence or even argument, and simply amounts to mental masturbation. Like I said, you don’t know jack shit about what I would or would not accept, no matter how much you might wish to pretend you do.

    I can make an educated guess, based on what you’ve posted.

    You can pretend the guess is “educated” all you want, but it would still be completely wrong. I have expressed dismay whenever members of the GOP appeared to violate the Constitution, and I have no problem when Democrats adhere to it. But we are talking about a specific situation leading to a government shutdown. in this case, the GOP-led House adhered, and the Democrat-led Senate did not.

    You get to decide that the Constitution means (and who is undermining it or restoring it), above and beyond the SCOTUS?

    I have no idea what “above and beyond” is supposed to mean, but everyone and anyone can read, and form opinions. Remember, that is all the SCOTUS hands down, a ruling made up of opinions. It just so happens that their opinions are backed by the Constitution on matters of federal laws, and mine are not. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to express mine, nor does it mean that those of the SCOTUS are necessarily correct. Google the Dred Scott Decision for a landmark example of a bad SCOTUS ruling.

    BTW do you realise that by adding ‘convenient’ you give the perception that he’s making shit up?

    People can infer whatever they want. That doesn’t mean it was implied, no matter how much you might insist it was.

    Says the guy who couldn’t connect the dots to determine that I was responding to comments immediately prior to mine…

    What a load of crap. There were no “dots” to connect in that case, just your hysterical histrionics on how “fucking obvious” it allegedly was…

    Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

      
  27. Hal_10000 says:

    without a single Republican vote. You simply cannot get more partisan and ideological than that. You contradict yourself within the confines of a single sentence.

    I’m going to have to side with CM here. This “no Republican vote” meme is complete bullshit. Whatever one may think of Obamacare — and I think it’s crap — the fact that is passed without a single Republican vote is meaningless.

    It passed with no Republican vote because that’s what the Republicans decided to do. They wouldn’t negotiate with Obama. They didn’t propose an alternative. They didn’t forward any bill when they had both houses of Congress and the White house. They didn’t endorse Wyden-Bennet or anything like that. For the first two years of Obama’s presidency, they defined themselves by a unified front of opposing almost everything he did. Hell, McConnell said — and many Republicans repeated — that the most important thing after 2008 was not fixing the economy or overhauling the financial system or reforming healthcare, but making Obama a one-term President. They cheered for him to fail. They’ve used the filibuster far more often than Democrats ever did. Those few Republicans who did work with him (and in many cases, made bad laws less damaging) were vilified.

    Do you really think that the Republican Party, fresh off a six year spending binge that included the creation of Medicare Part D, suddenly opposed the Heritage/Romney plan out of principal?

    That’s fine. That’s politics. I’m glad they opposed it and I wish they’d killed that piece of shit. But the Republicans need to fucking own it. They can’t spend two years refusing to vote for any laws than blast those laws because they didn’t vote for them. That’s circular logic. “We opposed this, therefore the law is illegitimate.” What?

    Here’s a question: would have made it a difference if, like Bush, Obama has peeled off a few token members of the other party to support his agenda? Of course not. Then you’d be ranting about how it passed with minimal support and that only from RINOs.

    Obamacare is a bad law. We don’t need to pretend it was somehow imposed on us outside of the Democratic process through Obama mind control rays. Or perhaps I was asleep in civics class the day they taught that laws are only legit if both parties support them.

    Hot! Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12

      
  28. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11

      
  29. Iconoclast says:

    I’m going to have to side with CM here.

    Yeah, of course you are…

    Whatever one may think of Obamacare — and I think it’s crap — the fact that is passed without a single Republican vote is meaningless.

    Actually, what is meaningless is your entire rant, and here’s why…

    I’m not challenging the legality or legitimacy of the law — it went through the Constitutional process fair and square, and there is no debating that. But I refuse to buy into this ridiculous notion that the law was not ideological or partisan. You can rant and rave your standard “the GOP were meanies who wouldn’t negotiate and Obama and the Democrats were poor victims” MSM talking points all you want (geez, talk about narratives…), but the real point being ignored here is that the American people didn’t want Obamacare, and they didn’t want Obama obsessing over healthcare when the economy was in such shambles. No, the American people wanted Obama to fix the economy. But the American people were ignored. Why the fuck do you think the whole Tea Party phenomenon happened in the first place???

    Obama and the Democrats were in an ideal position; they had control of the White House and both Houses of Congress. The time was ripe for passing massive legislation like Obamacare, and even with Democrat control of Congress, it still took back-room deals and arm-twisting to get it through. AS I stated, the American people were being ignored, and while the Democrats had the power, they rammed the legislation through Congress so that Obama could sign it into law. Of course the Republicans opposed it. Why wouldn’t they? Obviously, the Democrats weren’t concerned about the desires of the American people, who wanted government to focus on the economy and didn’t want Obamacare, but the Democrat-controlled government rammed it down our throats anyway. How is that not ideological? How is that not partisan?

    It should be apparent that the Democrats ignored the American people and blithely advanced their own agenda instead. How is that not partisan or ideological? And why should the Republicans have aided the effort in any way?

    We don’t need to pretend it was somehow imposed on us outside of the Democratic process through Obama mind control rays.

    Isn’t this another example of “making shit up”, CM? Hal, learn to read. Like I said, I never suggested that the law was Constitutionally illegitimate. I am only claiming that it’s partisan and ideologically driven. That you and CM will disagree is inconsequential.

    They’ve opted to protect the extreme right rather than the middle.

    Fuck you with your “extreme right” bullshit. The Tea Party phenomenon happened because the American people felt that they were being ignored by the (Democrat-controlled) federal government. The only thing “extreme” here is the degree to which government ignored the people and advanced its own partisan agenda.

    What specifically was done without Constitutional authority?

    Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Senate to dictate to the House what kind of funding bills the House can submit. The House originally provided funding for all of government except Obamacare. If the Democrats are so keen on negotiation as you pretend, they could have accepted the funding and negotiated on Obamacare. Oh, but wait, they needed a bargaining chip. By refusing the funding, government would shut down, and the blame would go to the GOP conveniently, even though the House did its job and the Senate simply balked.

    And again, for the umpteenth time, the American people didn’t/don’t want Obamacare, so the GOP was doing what it could to comply, using whatever meager tools they had at their disposal.

    They took a rigid ideological position.

    I’m not denying that, but you are denying that the Democrats did likewise. That’s the difference.

    Sure sure. I guess it’s possible that you could be inconsistent for the first time.

    Fuck you again, you ignorant twit. In this venue, I have expressed anger when it appeared that George W. Bush was violating the Constitution, and even agreed with the resident liberals at the time that his offense could very well have been impeachable. I likewise congratulated the liberals when Pelosi became the first lady Speaker of the House. Furthermore, I criticized Bush for not vetoing spending bills, and Congress for passing such bills in the first place.

    I did these things before you ever traipsed into this venue, so keep your ignorant judgements to yourself.

    Only because you came up with some crap that didn’t make sense…

    …to you pesonally.

    You really should quit projecting your personal views onto humanity at large, unless your intent is to be utterly arrogant. If you really want to rehash this (since you did bring it up), I explained patiently where I was coming from and you simply dismissed it with a hand-wave. I even provided examples where you did post a one-liner response to the thread as a whole, and another example where you posted a one-liner, but not in response to the immediately preceding post. So we can dispense with this idiotic notion that one-liners are inherently responding to the post immediately preceding, since you have violated that pattern yourself.

    Like I said, if you had bothered to quote that to which you were responding, it actually would have been “blatantly obvious”. You can accuse me of being “lazy” at reading threads, but then you were lazy to not quote. Funny, when you misread things, it’s because you were “distracted”, but when I do it, it’s because I’m “lazy”. Another example of “objectivity” on your part?

    …and generally demean…

    …as if you don’t. Fuck all, but your sanctimoniously self-righteous duplicity does become a grind after a while.

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

      
  30. Hal_10000 says:

    ut the real point being ignored here is that the American people didn’t want Obamacare, and they didn’t want Obama obsessing over healthcare when the economy was in such shambles

    The polls were very marginal; opposition was up by a few points. And some of those who opposed it wanted it to go further. I do realize that, to the Right Wing these days, the only legitimate voices are conservative ones. But you can’t pretend that this had 90% opposition or something.

    Of course, it’s not like the Republicans had a plan to fix the economy either. Have they proposed an overhaul of the tax code? Nope. Have they propose a real regulatory overhaul? Nope. Have they proposed changes to Obamacare that the President would pass that might lessen the impact? Nope. I’ve been saying for years that the Republicans need to put together a “shadow government” to show what they would do. But apart from opposing Obama, they don’t have anything.

    And I call bullshit on this whole “what the American people want” thing because it is trotted out whenever convenient and ignored when not. So when large majorities of the American people support raising taxes, suddenly we need to ignore that. When a majority oppose the shutdown, we have to ignore that too. But if a slim majority oppose Obamacare … well, that’s enough for us!

    Question: would you have supported Obamacare if the American people had? If polls showed 60% support for it, would you have said: “This is the will of the American people!” Of course not.

    We are not a democracy; we are a Republic. I could give a shit about opinion polls. What matters is whether legislation is good and whether it is Constitutional. I don’t think Obamacare is either, which is why I opposed it. But citing opinion polls and saying “no Republican voted for it” is just throwing shit at the wall in the hopes that something will stick.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Obama’s idiocy ≠ Republican brilliance. I will not be suckered again by their rhetoric and empty actions when there is real progress to be made. Both parties suck and everything is awful.

    Hot! Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10

      
  31. Dave D says:

    Great post, Icon!

    I am CONSTANTLY amazed at how Hal can drag the Republicans/right into cirticism even whey they had nothing to do with it.

    Also, why are none of you apologists upset that Obama feels he can change an existing law like Obamacare simply by stating so? That upsets me more than anything.

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

      
  32. Dave D says:

    Hal:
    The polls reflected what OBAMA said about the plan at the timie. The lies he told affected public opinion. Why do you chose to ignore this? Amazing…….ansd from a scientist no less.

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

      
  33. Iconoclast says:

    Question: would you have supported Obamacare if the American people had? If polls showed 60% support for it, would you have said: “This is the will of the American people!” Of course not.

    Wow, you’re as bad as CM when it comes to mentally masturbating with hypotheticals, and posing questions only to conveniently provide your own preconceived answers. My answers are as follows:

    Would you have supported Obamacare if the American people had?

    This question is bogus, and assumes that my criticism of Obamacare is based on its popularity, or lack thereof. I am against many things the public apparently supports. I opposed Obama even though the American people elected him twice. But to answer, no, I would not have, but I would still have recognized that the people did in fact support it. I was opposed to Nancy Pelosi’s becoming Speaker of the House, but I still congratulated the local liberals here on her victory. The take-away point is that the question is meaningless.

    If polls showed 60% support for it, would you have said: “This is the will of the American people!”

    If asked, yes, that’s what I would have said. I may not have voluntarily said it, but I would have still recognized it as a fact of life.

    With any luck, this exercise of putting words in my mouth is done.

    But citing opinion polls and saying “no Republican voted for it” is just throwing shit at the wall in the hopes that something will stick.

    Not when the discussion is about partisanship and/or whether something is ideologically driven, and that’s the point you are so frantically evading. CM and I are not discussing whether the law is legitimate, but whether it’s ideological. When the will of the people is ignored for the sake of advancing an agenda, that is ideological. Now you and CM can do the utterly predictable and knee-jerk “but but but REPUBLICANS!!!” until the universe burns out, but that ain’t refutation. If anything, it’s concession.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Obama’s idiocy ? Republican brilliance.

    But I’m not claiming “Republican brilliance”. I am only claiming that 1) The Democrats were also being ideological with Obamacare, and 2) the Democrats are also to blame for the government shutdown.

    That is IT. Ain’t nothing more, so quit slaying the straw men already.

    And for the love of Marx, notice that I use the word “also”. What that means, for those of you so obviously in Rio Linda, is that I am not claiming innocence on the part of Republicans.

    Both parties suck and everything is awful.

    Exactly!

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

      
  34. Iconoclast says:

    Also, why are none of you apologists upset that Obama feels he can change an existing law like Obamacare simply by stating so?

    That is an excellent point, Dave, and further illustrates Obama’s disregard for the Constitution. His Constitutionally mandated job is to enforce the laws as they exist, not change them willy-nilly for political gain.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

      
  35. Hal_10000 says:

    Also, why are none of you apologists upset that Obama feels he can change an existing law like Obamacare simply by stating so? That upsets me more than anything.

    Yes. See my post on Physician, Heal Nothing. Congressional Democrats would be having kittens about this if they had any principles.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

      
  36. AlexInCT says:

    The polls reflected what OBAMA said about the plan at the timie. The lies he told affected public opinion.

    Basically Team Blue promised people free shit, paid for by other people, especially those evil rich people the left knows stole every penny they have from more deserving others, and that nobody in the middle would be affected in any bad way, while they all got to feel uber superior for helping out the poor souls that don’t have insurance today (while ignoring the fact that a large chunk of those without were never going to get it anyway by choice or because they were ineligible). I can promise a bunch of 6 year olds all the ice cream they can eat, then, in secret meetings admit that it is a shit sandwich which I really intend to feed them, and end up with high support. Once I only give them the shit sandwich, that high support will evaporate, and do so very quickly. And that’s literally what we had the democrats do here: a case of bait and switch. You can keep your doctor, coverage, plan, and payments if you liked it, morphed to bend over, and no, there will be no Vaseline to make the ass rape less painful.

    Now that so many of the idiot supporters of this terrible government healthcare takeover bill have to gobble down the giant shit sandwich, feeling the pain in their real pockets, they are all indignant and mad. Suddenly they care very little about doing the right thing for those without healthcare. This proves to me that, as is always the case, leftists are all for doing good as long as others bear the sacrifice and costs. When they have to pay for it, then they balk. It’s why leftists want government to do the stuff most of us would feel falls in the purveyance of charity work too.

    And this current pain is being caused just by the individual mandate (not to be confused with 2 guys going on a date): wait until the employer mandate kicks in and a third of us lose our employer provided plans immediately, while other scramble to drop their coverage to remain competitive, resulting in that system completely evaporating in the process in the span of a few short years. And we get to do it while seeing double digit premium increases for every year we are lucky enough to have an employer providing healthcare past the point where this shit bill kills it all.

    Public opinion on things like this government healthcare takeover, to me, is irrelevant when most of the public is stupid enough to buy blatant lies from despicable politicians. And that’s the thing: nobody is pointing out how despicable these collectivist fucks are for having lied. Instead we have some cock gobblers telling us they had to. For our own good!

    The one joy I find in all this is how many progtards are going to take it up the ass and do so far harder than those of us that saw the writing on the wall. I hope the damage it causes buries their movement for generations to come.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

      
  37. Iconoclast says:

    That it’s designed to fail is certainly a narrative, but it’s a hell of a risky ploy.

    Take a look around, CM, and notice all of the canceled plans, skyrocketing premiums, crashing web site, furious citizens and insurance companies, and the rest of this utter train wreck and tell me with a straight face that the whole bloody enterprise was not a “risky ploy”. Now sure, it wasn’t meant to fail this quickly, this spectacularly, this epically, but again, the ultimate goal was/is a single-payer system with this being a “transition” period. And in order to usher in the new single-payer system, it stands to reason that the current system would need to be perceived as being in need of replacement, for whatever reason.

    But well done on all the swearing, it sounds so cool.

    Not nearly as cool as when you do it, I’m sure. Do I need to cite examples, you sanctimonious hypocrite?

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

      
  38. Section8 says:

    Maybe you missed that part where GOP approval numbers hit a record low. Had they not engaged in Ted Cruz’s fund-raising stunt, they’d be in excellent position right now to make some serious changes to Obamacare.

    Got it so even though this thing is a massive f’up (actual reality) it’s all Cruz’s fault now that it can’t be fixed. And there’s no way that it now can be pointed out that the guy that shut down the government and supposedly brought the world to its knees and made the rivers turn red with blood (all imagined hysteria no less) might have been right all along. I know you won’t hop on board with that angle though. Not without Ezra’s permission. And I know you don’t care about polls yet choose to reference them now. Polls are only as good as the day they are taken. Perhaps some could realize the world didn’t come to an end with the government shutdown and wouldn’t have. They could realize that maybe there’s actually an opportunity to point out those that knew this was going to be a mess were right, and work on that angle, but no, we’ll just say nothing can be done now because of Cruz. A ridiculous assessment, but hey, it’s a great way to play it if you want to sound like you’re for less government but can always leave enough wiggle room to hop the fence.

    No matter, if it wasn’t Cruz, it would be the Bush years as the excuse and Medicare part D or some other nonsense, meanwhile I’ve seen you criticize conservatives who wouldn’t back Paul Ryan because he voted for Medicare part D. So which is it?

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

      
  39. Poosh says:

    ” Even if the Mullahs were toppled and the most pro-Western government imaginable were put in place, Iran would still be surrounded by nuclear powers and they would continue to pursue a nuclear capability.”

    I don’t think we’d have a problem with that though. I like Iranians a lot more than Frenchmen…

    Not sure how you got from Iran to Obamacare…

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

      
  40. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

      
  41. Iconoclast says:

    But they HAVE lurched to the right, and put up some candidates with unelectably extreme views.

    “Extreme” according to who? You? The MSM?

    And even if they did “put up some candidates with ‘unelectably extreme’ views”, that doesn’t necessarily mean that “[t]hey’ve opted to protect the extreme right rather than the middle.” That’s just your personal spin. Or the MSM’s.
    Fuck me all you like…
    No thanks, not interested, not into guys.

    It’s disingenuous to suggest that the Dems should have agreed not to fund their own Act, in order to have the rest of the funding for Government approved.

    It disingenuous to suggest that the GOP should have agreed to fund a law they were unanimously against and had no part of passing into law. Nothing in the Constitution obligates them to fund anything.

    I still don’t understand your argument on that – what did they do that was ideological?

    Make Obamacare the law of the land. Radically expand government. Reduce choice in the marketplace.

    …attempting to use a market mechanism…

    But you say that as if the existing system wasn’t market-based, which is insultingly absurd. And massively expanded government regulation is the antithesis of a market-based approach, no matter what the left-wing talking points dictate.

    Pot/kettle.
    I’ve certainly never called you a fuck, of any flavour.

    You appear to use terms/idioms without knowing what they mean. Whether you’ve ever called me a fuck of any flavor is irrelevant. “Pot/kettle” is meant to suggest that I am guilty of the same crime I accuse you of committing, namely, making sweeping, universal claims. Unless you can show a pattern of such on my part, your “pot/kettle” is a complete non sequitur.

    You may not of called me a “fuck”, but you have called me a liar on numerous occasions. I’m sure that’s much better, and I’m sure you are/were completely justified…

    They are, unless it’s obvious that they aren’t.

    In that particular case, it was “obvious” to me that it wasn’t. No matter how much you are unwilling to accept that.

    It wasn’t lazy because it was obvious what I was responding to.

    It obviously wasn’t obvious to me, and my counter-example is all that’s required to disprove a universal claim.

    No, you were lazy because…[blah blah blah]

    Yes, like I said, it’s different when you do it. Not quoting is still lazy, no matter how you try and spin it to justify yourself. Like I said, I generally quote even if it is the preceding post, even if it’s a one-liner. Not always, to be sure, but generally yes.

    …but as it attempts to use a market system…

    You keep saying this as if it means something. We already had a “market system”, and Obamacare simply piled on massive regulation. Every time you say, “it attempts to use a market system”, you imply that we didn’t have one before, which is idiotic.

    Whether you care to ackowledge it or not, a free market works. Obamacare obviously doesn’t. So kindly quit insulting our intelligence with the “it attempts to use a market system” blather. That talking point might have you fooled, but it’s just that, a talking point.

    That’s not an established fact, it’s a narrative.

    A “narrative” from Obama’s own lips. Did you not bother to click on the link I provided?

    Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

      
  42. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12

      
  43. Iconoclast says:

    Nice straw man – the point about it being a market based system was in response to your claim that it’s ideological.

    You act is if the two are mutually exclusive, but they aren’t. When the Federal government dictates exactly what the vendors can sell, it becomes nothing more than a pretense to a “market-based system”. Like I said, we already had a market-based system, but the products in that market were essentially outlawed, so that the Federal government could dictate what the plans must carry.

    As I’ve already said, if it was an NHS type system, then pushing for it could be said to be ideological.

    And you keep pretending that the only possible way it could be ideological is if it were immediately a single payer system. The pretense toward “market system” doesn’t mitigate the underlying ideology of government expansion and intrusion, of not allowing individuals to make their own choices about health care, but inserting government into that decision.

    We KNOW the GOP had no hand in passing it because as we keep pointing out, that was their strategy.
    So that argument you keep trying to use is weak.

    The one doesn’t follow from the other. The GOP, like the Democrats, use whatever strategies are available. The Democrats didn’t need the GOP to pass Obamacare, so they no incentive to take any GOP input seriously. And they didn’t. At the 2010 Obamacare Summit, the GOP were told to basically sit in the back of the bus and keep quiet.

    The Tea Party came into existence in part because of Obamacare. Scott Brown’s victory in taking “Ted Kennedy’s seat” in the Senate happened because of Obamacare. The 2010 Obamacare Summit was a dog and pony show with a pretense toward GOP input. The whole history of Obamacare and how it became law is rife with left-wing ideology.

    I watched your YouTube video yeah. What does it prove, other than a single-payer system was his personal preference when he said it?

    Who says it has to “prove” anything? It does illustrate that Obama envisioned a single payer system with a transition phase of some sort to get there, and that dismissing that as a “narrative” is extremely disingenuous.

    It’s highly edited though of course, another Michael Moore type effort.

    Like I have said before, MM fabricates time lines out of whole cloth. If you can show that the YouTube video does the same, your MM analogy would be valid. Until then, it’s nothing more than a dodge, a way to avoid the issue.

    Pretty sure millions upon millions without health insurance might well have disagreed with your claim that the free market did the job.

    Irrelevant, given that there are still “millions upon millions without health insurance” after the Obamacare train wreck. As there were millions of policy cancellations, the overall number of uninsured may have increased. I don’t believe there has ever existed a market of any kind with 100% participation. The “millions upon millions without health insurance” is meaningless, unless you can show that they all wanted heath care insurance but were denied. And even at that, that doesn’t prove that the market “doesn’t work”. A market is based on the free exchange of value, and either party is free to not do the exchange, for whatever reason.

    No, “millions upon millions without health insurance” means nothing in a vacuum.

    Not only did it not provide insurance for a lot of people, but it was very expensive (certainly compared to other Westernised countries).

    Again, this proves nothing. In an open market, there is no obligation to buy or sell. And it can be argued that the reason it was “very expensive” was all of the already existing government regulation. So sure, piling on more government regulation is the obvious answer… </sarcasm>

    By the way I’m replying to the post directly above, but on a tablet where quoted takes far too long to bother.

    Just more excuses for being lazy. This post is also a reply to the post directly above, but I still quoted extensively.

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

      
  44. AlexInCT says:

    elevant, given that there are still “millions upon millions without health insurance” after the Obamacare train wreck

    My favorite is the idiot progtard Obamacare cheerleading lady they trotted out as an example of their website-fu success recently. After all the propaganda to make people think one single such person successfullly signing up through a crappy system, while tens of thousands of others fail miserably, amount to a great success, we come to find out that the lady not only really didn’t complete the sign up process, but that she can’t aford the coverage costs (which proves she didn’t complete the process)!

    This thing will hurt more people than it will ever help. Not just in the short run, but as a function of its existence. This was never about bettering healthcare, but about controlling it. Making sure the serfs knew who owned them and could deny them coverage if they didn’t toe the line. Fuck these scumbag progressives and their tyrannical takeover.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

      
  45. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

      
  46. Iconoclast says:

    As flawed as it might be, Obamacare was an attempt to find a middle ground between complete free-market (no regulation at all), and complete control.

    And every time you make this pontification, you utterly ignore the fact that we already had that situation, and since Obamacare is the piling on of more government regulation, to the point of essentially being a Federal government takeover with a pretense toward being a “market”, it is ideological.

    When I say ‘ideological’ I’m referring to one end of the spectrum or the other.

    Okay, so you’re working from a private, personal definition of “ideology” then, where “ideology” == “what CM disagrees with” == “extreme”. But even at that, since expanded government is a part of left-wing ideology, since government is perceived to be the source of solutions by that ideology, Obamacare still falls under that purview, and is therefore still ideological. The fact that you personally buy into that ideology doesn’t mitigate the fact that it is indeed ideology. Hell, by fighting tooth and nail to avoid admitting it’s ideological, you are displaying ideological behavior, and utterly belying your claim that you don’t hold ideological positions.

    So although you are correct in saying that the law was passed without ANY Republicans in support, it’s close to meaningless because…

    …because that’s how you want to spin it, further demonstrating ideological behavior on your part. Sure, a united Republican front in opposition to an unpopular bill is ideological. But what you refuse to admit is that a united Democrat front pushing through an unpopular bill is, by the same token, ideological. And refusing to admit this is likewise ideological.

    I didn’t dismiss it, I said the plan to deliberately fuck this part up is unlikely and explained why.

    I said it was designed to fail, but your spinning that into “deliberately fuck this part up” is a straw man. I stated that it wasn’t meant to fail this soon, at such an epic level as this. It was meant to demonstrate that your “market system” approach was unworkable in the long run, and so a single-payer system would be needed. It was designed to highlight the perceived shortcomings of a “market system” approach, but the next phase wasn’t supposed to be necessary for years, with the main point being that there could be no going back to what we had prior to Obamacare. And that is just another layer of ideology on this law, the “demonstration” that a “market system” couldn’t work long term. Warning upon warning about how this law wouldn’t work fell upon utterly deaf ears. That itself strongly suggests that not working was the plan all along. Again, it just wasn’t supposed to fail this badly.

    Your argument is that almost all the people who didn’t have health insurance just didn’t want it? Really?

    No, my argument is that you cannot claim that a market “doesn’t work” simply by pointing to “millions upon millions” who didn’t participate. You need to quantify those “millions upon millions”. You need to explain how their lack of participation translates into the market “not working”. Like I said, in a free and open market, there is no obligation to buy or sell, but you apparently ignored that. And you are free to pretend that the definition of “working” is “everybody participates”, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the world has to adopt that definition. Like I said before, it’s entirely plausible that existing government regulations are part of the reason health care insurance is unaffordable to some, but the ultimate problem with your Obamacare apologetics is that Obamacare utterly failed to address that problem in many, perhaps most cases. For many people, premiums and deductibles are increasing, radically.

    Right and if people can’t afford to take part, and it cripples them financially when they get sick, is that the market working?

    Ultimately, yes, that’s how markets work — two parties agree to exchange value, or they don’t, for whatever reason. Now sure, you can argue that everybody has a “right” to heath care, and so health care insurance should be affordable to everybody, but that is an ideological argument. Whether a person has a “right” to health care is itself an ideological question. Liberals say “yes” to that question, and proceed to enact laws accordingly. The fact that Obamacare is ideological is unavoidable, and it takes ideology-based willful blindness to even try.

    Those on the Right would argue that, if left alone with minimal government interference, the market would adjust itself, there would be more competition and that would lower prices. Whether health care insurance were “affordable for everybody” would be a moot question, because that would depend on what “affordable” means to the individual. No matter how “cheap” you make it, no matter how you force the price to what you personally think it should be, there will still be people who would rather opt out, for whatever reason, no matter how unwilling you are to personally believe that could be possible.

    It’s less expensive in many Western countries which have much more regulation, so the sarcasm doesn’t work.

    If the underlying premise is true, that it’s government regulation that’s driving the price up, then the sarcasm most definetly does work, because other “Western countries” would be irrelevant to the specific case of the USA, where government regulation is what causes prices to rise. And of course, this begs the question of just how those other “Western countries” are keeping the prices low even with the added regulation. I mean, sure, you can always keep prices artifically low by having the government regulate prices directly, dictating what the prices are, but in the long run, someone somewhere is paying the actual price.

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

      
  47. Iconoclast says:

    Pretty sure millions upon millions without health insurance might well have disagreed with your claim that the free market did the job.

    Remembering Stanley Ann Dunham Obama

    The notion that the nation faced a “crisis” of “46 million uninsured” was also dishonest. Pre-Obamacare health care in America was hardly nirvana, but the truth about the uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, was that 71 percent were without insurance for a year or less. Only about 16 percent were uninsured for two or more years. More than 9 million of those counted among the uninsured were not citizens. Another 6 million who said they were without insurance actually were signed up with Medicaid, and 4 million more were eligible for Medicaid but had failed to enroll.

    The true number of uninsured individuals was closer to 15 million (5 million of whom were young, single adults). There were many possible solutions for them that didn’t require tearing down the entire system. In any case, the CBO estimates that even if Obamacare were fully implemented and worked smoothly, the number of uninsured Americans in 2023 would be, drumroll please, 30 million.

    Obamacare was never about the uninsured or justice for those badly treated by insurance companies. It was always about power — gaining it and keeping it for the Democratic Party and the central government. It was based on lies about the preceding system and sold on lies about its consequences.

    Of course, it goes without saying that you will reject all of this. Because you’re not ideological. Only we right-wingers are.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

      
  48. CM says:

    Why would I when it doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said?
    As for your post above that, I see nothing new. I guess I could repeat myself again but it seems pointless.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  49. Iconoclast says:

    I see nothing new.

    We’ll, of course you do…

    I guess I could repeat myself again but it seems pointless.

    Your continued denial that Obamacare is ideological, that the Democrats are ideological, and that the Democrats share blame for the government shutdown is indeed pointless.

    And, for the record, I used an iPad for this post, but still quoted.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  50. CM says:

    As Balt would say, your amazing.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  51. balthazar says:

    CM, wtf are you talking about, i havent even posted in this thread.

    How about you just keep bending over and taking it in the ass like a good little progtard and leave me out of threads in which have I no interest in participating

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      

Comments have been disabled.