Moron... I mean, more on Ed Schultz's comments. Ironic that he calls the Tea Party folks "uneducated", and then goes on to suggest that a Sen. Brown would be bad for central Mass. I guess a Sen. Brown would be okay for the rest of Mass., then? Or maybe this windbag doesn't realize that U.S. Senators serve entire states?
A Democratic representative from New York (his name is escaping me) jokingly suggested that they would take "a long time" to count the votes in Massachusetts so they could hurry up and ram the healthcare bill through. Wonderful....
This election has become a referendum on the healthcare bill. Obama still has a 60% approval rating in Massachusetts. The fact that a Republican could actually hold a Senate seat in Massachusetts pretty much says all there is to say about how bad most of America wants this bill to die a quick death.
In fact, it's statists who obviously believe that they have "the answers". Otherwise they wouldn't seek to impose their vision on others by force.
You make no sense here, doublem. Just because you've been acknowledging some insecurity in your ideology lately doesn't mean anyone else is.
That has nothing to do with it. I'm looking at the big picture. I value human rights over property rights and social change that is why I'm on the left but on economics no one has been able to figure it out long term. I really doubt if anyone is 100% sure how an economy works without a bunch of guess work. People have been having these debates for centuries and haven't been able to figure it out and that is fine with me, You will never have a philosophy where the rich and powerful don't use their influence to control others at some point, everything breaks down at some point, the United States is at this point now, I don't think it can be repaired. This country had sound ideas better than any other in human history. I don't pretend to know to think that any system doesn't have huge flaws.You seem to believe that if we do so and so we will have a positive outcome, I don't.
Honestly doublem, I don't know what you're talking about... and I don't think you do either.
I agree with you that no one can oversee an economy. That's exactly what the quote from Hayek was about. I recommend The Road to Serfdom to you, in all sincerity.
Its simple nothing works. I side on the George Carlin philosophy. When you find some absolute truths let me know.
doublem wrote:
That has nothing to do with it. I'm looking at the big picture. I value human rights over property rights and social change that is why I'm on the left but on economics no one has been able to figure it out long term. I really doubt if anyone is 100% sure how an economy works without a bunch of guess work. People have been having these debates for centuries and haven't been able to figure it out and that is fine with me, You will never have a philosophy where the rich and powerful don't use their influence to control others at some point, everything breaks down at some point, the United States is at this point now, I don't think it can be repaired. This country had sound ideas better than any other in human history. I don't pretend to know to think that any system doesn't have huge flaws.You seem to believe that if we do so and so we will have a positive outcome, I don't.
Honestly doublem, I don't know what you're talking about... and I don't think you do either.
I agree with you that no one can oversee an economy. That's exactly what the quote from Hayek was about. I recommend The Road to Serfdom to you, in all sincerity.
Its simple nothing works. I side on the George Carlin philosophy. When you find some absolute truths let me know.
Guinness wrote:
Honestly doublem, I don't know what you're talking about... and I don't think you do either.
I agree with you that no one can oversee an economy. That's exactly what the quote from Hayek was about. I recommend The Road to Serfdom to you, in all sincerity.
Its simple nothing works. I side on the George Carlin philosophy. When you find some absolute truths let me know.
Guinness wrote:
Honestly doublem, I don't know what you're talking about... and I don't think you do either.
I agree with you that no one can oversee an economy. That's exactly what the quote from Hayek was about. I recommend The Road to Serfdom to you, in all sincerity.
Its simple nothing works. I side on the George Carlin philosophy. When you find some absolute truths let me know.
Nihilism, FTW.
Not Nihilism, Absurdism, in the Camus and Kierkegaard fashion. Absurdism and existentialism FTW.
Absurdism, like methodical doubt, has wiped the slate clean. It leaves us in a blind alley. But, like methodical doubt, it can, by returning upon itself, open up a new field of investigation, and in the process of reasoning then pursues the same course. I proclaim that I believe in nothing and that everything is absurd, but I cannot doubt the validity of my proclamation and I must at least believe in my protest.
Kraftster wrote:The Myth of Sisyphus is one of my favorites.
I just started reading "The Plague" by him.
Cool. I'd be curious to hear how it is.
I don't have much experience reading existential "novels." Sisyphus isn't really what I'd call a novel. I guess I read Sartre's Naseau, which I really liked, and Dostoevsky some of Brothers and Crime and Punishment. Most of the existential stuff I've read is more straight philosophy.
Today should be very interesting in MA. The interim senators term expires as soon as the polls close so the Democrats can't get to 60 if there is a delay in counting votes. This would also mean health care is dead if Brown wins, there are too many things in the Senate bill such as federaly funded abortion, taxing union health insurance and no public option, that I don't see the House accepting the Senate bill in it's current state to just approve it so then it can pass with only 51 votes.
But it's good to see Obama has learned absolutley nothing from history, Bill Clinton tried passing universal halthcare, the people didn't want it and voted the democrats out of the House. Bill Clinton then moved to the center and turned out to not be a bad president. Obama plans to fight harder for things the country does not want. So I guss he wants to give Republicans a super majority by 2012? Brillaint plan Barry.
DelPen wrote:Today should be very interesting in MA. The interim senators term expires as soon as the polls close so the Democrats can't get to 60 if there is a delay in counting votes. This would also mean health care is dead if Brown wins, there are too many things in the Senate bill such as federaly funded abortion, taxing union health insurance and no public option, that I don't see the House accepting the Senate bill in it's current state to just approve it so then it can pass with only 51 votes.
But it's good to see Obama has learned absolutley nothing from history, Bill Clinton tried passing universal halthcare, the people didn't want it and voted the democrats out of the House. Bill Clinton then moved to the center and turned out to not be a bad president. Obama plans to fight harder for things the country does not want. So I guss he wants to give Republicans a super majority by 2012? Brillaint plan Barry.
Really ironic if Brown wins what may have been the safest dem seat in the country. The dems had changed their state laws so that the governor (Romney) couldn't appoint a senate replacement for Kerry had he won the presedential election. The dems would have that seat if not for their unethical political game-playing.
They also added a provision last year that they could have a temp appointment ,again at Kennedy's urging,until the special election in order to maintain a super majority figuring to get Obamacare completed. The auctioning of senate votes and paying off their backers,such as the unions, slowed things down too much to get this garbage bill passed into law. The vapid transparency and non-partisan promises made in the 2008 election could haunt Obama in the next election given the Chicago-style politics followed by this WH so far.
I am going to be following the voting very closely in Massachusetts.......I think I am more giddy/nervous for this election than I was for 2008....well, largely because I knew it was going to be ugly. This is a HUGE referendum on the role of government. A Washington Post poll that came out a couple days ago shows that 58% of Americans want a smaller government with less services. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59933
What is even more striking is the contrast in Massachusetts. Only 36% of voters in that state support the president's healthcare bill, yet he still enjoys approval ratings in the high 50s. What does that tell you? Voters in Massachusetts still like the president (for the most part), but they are absolutely disgusted with the way this bill is being forced through. Like DelPen alluded to, I believe this president is too ideologically driven to recognize the disaster he is causing his own party (much like Reid and Pelosi). This is a huge, huge, huge day.
And FWIW, as far as majorities go, I would rather have a 55-45 Republican majority than a 60-40 Republican majority.
"Let's remove all doubt, we will have healthcare one way or another," Pelosi said during an event in San Francisco on Monday. "Certainly the dynamic would change depending on what happens in Massachusetts. Just the question about how we would proceed. But it doesn't mean we won't have a health care bill."
I have never seen Congress act so arrogantly and flippantly to force any kind of bill upon the American people, when the polls show so clearly that the vast, vast majority of the population is begging them not to pass it. I hope 2010 is a bloodbath at the polls.
Judging by my brief perusal of some of the major American news sites this morning, they are defintely taking advantage of the Haiti earthquake to make the Massachusetts election seem as insignificant as possible. FOX News has a huge story on Haiti, but they also have an equally large headline about the Brown/Coakley race. The rest of the news sites have the Senate race relegated to also-ran status....so predictable media
The FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecasting Model, which correctly predicted the outcome of all 35 Senate races in 2008, now regards Republican Scott Brown as a 74 percent favorite to win the Senate seat in Massachusetts on the basis of new polling from ARG, Research 2000 and InsiderAdvantage which show worsening numbers for Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley. We have traditionally categorized races in which one side has between a 60 and 80 percent chance of winning as "leaning" toward that candidate, and so that is how we categorize this race now: Lean GOP. Nevertheless, there is a higher-than-usual chance of large, correlated errors in the polling, such as were observed in NY-23 and the New Hampshire Democratic primary; the model hedges against this risk partially, but not completely.
