Posted on 03/05/2009 5:23:07 AM PST by CASchack
It's been a win-win the past few days for Democratic and Republican loyalists, but what about the rest of us?
You know. Americans who either don't think that (a) spending nonexistent trillions is quite the way to proceed in an economic crisis, or that (b) Rush Limbaugh is the messiah.
Oh wait, that's right, Barack Obama is the messiah. I get confused sometimes, what with so much deification going on. Limbaugh's 85-minute speech at last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference, frequently interrupted by grateful applause from a slightly star-struck audience, was, dare we say it, Obama- esque.
But where there's deification, there's bound to be demonization. Thus, Rush told conferees that Obama, in essence, is Stalin. And Obama, via chief commando Rahm Emanuel, anointed Limbaugh as leader of the GOP, calling him the "voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party."
Talk about damning with praise.
El Rushbo can't have minded much, despite his protestations that he was being manipulated and maligned by the White House to distract Americans from the "plunging economy." What could be better for a talking head than to be chosen by a president as his worthy adversary?
At least finally both sides certainly should agree on one thing: The Fairness Doctrine is a terrible idea! Who wants fair and politically balanced commentary on the airwaves when being "unfair" is keeping both armies in their Humvees?
The body politic, meanwhile, resembles a tempest-tossed ocean liner on which passengers scurry across the deck as the ship pitches. On one side is the president, promising to build a new $3.6 trillion ark. On the other is El Rushbo, clutching the conservative tablature: Thou shalt not raise taxes.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Your words, right?
You just posted this to me and it is fact according to you, am I correct?
If that is so, then you are mistaken, again.
STICKY POINTS. The employer mandate, while low, is another potentially controversial issue.The bill would require companies with 11 or more employees that don't provide health insurance to pay up to $295 a year per worker...
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060404_152510.htm
Businesses
All employers who have more than 10 employees must contribute to employee health-care costs.
— Employers who don't provide insurance will pay an annual fee of $295 per full-time employee.
— Encourages private insurers to offer more low-cost options.
— Creates a “health insurance connector” to help individuals and businesses find affordable private coverage. — Vikki Valentine
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323506
Obviously I don't need your help, but I appreciate the offer all the same.
As for you I know from you posts on this thread that you attended grad school recently and are now an economist. I must assume your research efforts in pursuit of you degree were more substantial then they are here on FR.
I see no need to compound my efforts further in addressing your points, like the basketball coach, I do not feel compfrtable running up the score just for the hell of it...
Of course if you want to keep playing, who am I to say no, and I may even throw in a few hoop shots if my heart so desires...
Ain’t nothin’ but a thang my friend...
YOU ARE LYING. What kind of candidate do you have if you must mislead fellow Republicans like this?
You Romney people should consider that question very carefully. Because it is a BOLDFACED LIE, a pure unadulterated FALSEHOOD, to characterize anything Rush Limbaugh has ever said about Romney as a political endorsement.
You Romney people really need to consider this very seriously. What kind of candidate to you have when you are reduced to that kind of thing?
Ok, be fair, a moderate. I mean if you average his conservative words and liberal actions, that is what you really come up with.
As far as lying, again, be fair. They only “Miss represent”...
That, however, is not the question when it comes to two on the list I've personally investigated. Limbaugh's "endorsement" is entirely illusion. It was a comment on a show, pinched wholly out of context. Reading the entire column, Levin's is done under such duress that if that's the only kind of endorsement you can brag about ... it's saying something.
It appears to me that the bulk of the list is weighted by heavy endorsement of Romney's supreme court judge appointment competency. That is indeed a very serious and scary question, enough to queaze weak stomachs into caving to "government solution" Romney for that alone. All other considerations overridden. I knew many voters like that, who used that as the absolute last and only justification for Romney.
Plus I personally know and love very much some heavy Romney Republicans. I know them very well, I love them. It is why I also know the depth of their presumption as Daddies, who, down deep in their hearts, just know that they know better than average folks. They are the ones who talk about being "grown-ups" on the scene. They presume quite a lot about how much they are able to "serve" the country through government.
I just read through the long excerpts from the US News and World Report "My Conversation with Mitt Romney." Having read his words, and then your endorsement list -- well, all I can say is either Clarence Thomas was taken out of context ala Limbaugh and Levin, or he needs to look a little closer outside the realm of judicial appointments.
Imagine yourself sitting in the Governor's chair, and are asked to sign gun control legislation. You've got the pen in your hand. What do you do? Sign?
You, reader. Is that what you would do?
Try as I might, I can't conceive a single piece of state gun legislation that would merit a signature.
Anybody who could is somebody I'd hate to see picking judges.
It's because I do understand basic economics that I comprehend that it is indeed, in fundamentals, socialized medicine.
You want basic economics? You're self employed or have a small business. If you don't come up with proof of following onerous mandates not just for your own health insurance but your employees as well, it costs you big bucks in fines. It's an unfunded mandate ... you're funding it out of your pocket.
What's worse is then you relinquish the way you handle your own health to Big Daddy Insurance HMO Medicla Establishment. You are blackmailed emotonally as well as financially -- somebody hates a job but sticks with it because life without health insurance isn't an option. It drives up the price of everything and fosters dependence. It's an invasion of a very basic privacy, and you are relieved of hard, cold, CASH if you don't obey the unfunded mandate that you're funding.
You want basic economics? Go live with that kind of crap hammering away at your ability and right to honestly, productively, quietly, happily, legally, ethically, live-and-let-live, treat-thy-neighbor, profitably, comfortably, freely -- pursue happiness on your own terms.
It is the antithesis of conservative principle so of course it involves basic economics. You ought to try it sometime.
There ya go!!
I remember her!
She was one of the Runners-up in the 1997 Miss USA contest!
OK, my error. I could have sworn you have been a frequent flyer on the LDS threads. I just spent a half hour trying to convince myself I wasn't crazy. (insert slam here)
Anyway, the only thing I can tell you is that I must have associated the sound of your name with that of ejonesie, who does frequent them.
Diogenesis
ejonesie22
I'm truly sorry. We certainly disagree on the candor and abilities of Mitt to lead in a conservative fashion, but you don't cross threads to bash the LDS, and for that, I thank you for your honest approach to the political discussion.
Sevenbak
Well, I know you were mad, but I don’t deserve that.
Ah, yes, here he is, speak of the devil. ;-)
Wyrich was a definite endorsement, before his evangelical associations forced him to remove it. I don’t discount his support at all, only his backbone in the end.
Are we on the same web site?
Hm, I didn't think Jesus Christ was running for office. Perhaps you have inside info?
Yes, already addressed.
Intersting...
I give it a 6.3...
See you are still trying to do the "safe harbor" thing for Mitt...
Yes, yes you are...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.