She says how horrible the bill is, yet she is still voting for it. It doesn’t matter how much it will raise costs, raise taxes, stifle innovation in new drugs, and lower the quality of health care. Those are side effects to “answering the call of history”. She says right there her motivation: it’s sure not to make sure health care is affordable to everyone. She wants to go down in history.

It’s like the TARP bill last year, when Frank said “we are beyond the point of questioning whether we should do this or not”

whenever anyone was “the time for debate is over the time for action is now” then it’s time to fight against whatever they are saying, no matter what. No one says that unless they are trying to ram something through that in the end we’ll all regret.

Another friend, when i was talking about vouchers (for schools and health care and everything where we give people money or help, instead of regulating) “Americans are too stupid to make decisions for themselves”

yes, this is the modern left and right, both parties.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!

What on earth does this sentence mean? “..why is the whole Obama health care push is in total stealth mode and being manipulated in the most clandestine manner that conniving minds can conjure up?”

I mean,,,,,whatever.

Look, its not really all that complicated. Elephant made an absurdly false statement about Snowe’s perspective: “the idea that government action — ANY government action is the appropriate response to any ill.”

ANY action would be appropriate – that is the charge. Even though she made it quite clear that she would not be supporting the bill if it had a robust public option (and that is the main reason the bill did not have that). Furthermore, we can presume she would not have supported the bill if it had a single payer system, or a fully socialized healthcare system. There are an enormous number of possible government actions that would have caused her to not support the bill. Thats pretty obvious.
Even the Pelosis of the world want certain types of government involvement, not just any kind.

Why are you attacking me for making these perfectly obvious points, instead of attacking Elephant for spouting nonsense?

A

So, all politics IS local after-all….

Is that covered under the ADA or is it in the DSM IV?

Well, that is obviously silly.

Why not make at least a minimal effort to take people seriously?

Snowe quite obviously does NOT believe that ANY government action is appropriate, nor does anyone else.

Help me out here

Snowe quite obviously does NOT believe that ANY government action is appropriate, nor does anyone else.

“Snow does not believe that (just any old?) government action is appropriate.”

Is that what Tano is attempting to say?

If so, why is the whole Obama health care push is in total stealth mode and being manipulated in the most clandestine manner that conniving minds can conjure up? Would Tano then explain how his “nor does anyone else” crescendo could possibly include Waxman, Pelosi, Reed, Axlerod, Emmanuel, Obama and most Democrats in Congress?

On the other hand, if Tano is saying that “Snowe does not believe that any government action is appropriate” in the sense that Snowe therefore opposes any government action, why would Tano add that everyone else also sees government action as inappropriate.

I am having great difficulty seeing what is “obviously silly.”

I am finding it taxing to “make a least a minimal effort to take (Tano) seriously.”

Tano: please diagram this sentence: Snowe quite obviously does NOT believe that ANY government action is appropriate, nor does anyone else.

Somebody is seriously afflicted with cross-modifier identification.

A person who thinks that government action could have bad results simply could not say that the most important thing is to keep the process moving forward.

Please dont embarrass yourself by pretending to be logical. You’re a liberal. You’re not.

Well, that is obviously silly. Why not make at least a minimal effort to take people seriously? Snowe quite obviously does NOT believe that ANY government action is appropriate, nor does anyone else.
What is this fascination with speaking in absurd exaggeration?

And that extremely destructive attitude alone is a fantastic reason to send that woman packing.

I’m trying to think of a government program that managed to provide a service at an “affordable” price with a low rate of spending increases… trying… trying.

It is inaccurate to leave the impression, as you do, that she has fundamental philosophical objections to the public option to the extent that she would never vote for any version of one.

NEVER underestimate the unbounding greed for power, money and backpatting by a politician