Think carefully here, because this is beyond rocket science: If you are apolitical and undecided, the chances of you voting are slim and none.

ACORN and community organizers feed off of people who will follow marching orders when delivered to the polls and are given goodies.

Your entire semi-revealing post is telling us that these are the people who are going to make the difference come election time.

Cynical? You bet you are. You are the one rounding up victims of state welfare and threatening them with a world without entitlements. You are the elitist who insists the state must think for the people who you believe can not take care of thinking for themselves.

You are the one who agrees that the poor are always among us, but you are also the one who sees them as political gold and a way to exert power.

Naturally, you will disappear now and send gillie to link to a Little Green Footballs diatribe about the war over Fruit Loops versus wood chips.

Note: I am not engaged in discourse with Tano. So me calling her names is not a violation of civil discourse.

Just explain to us why, based on Granny Clampett’s manufactured “2 people every 10 minutes” numbers, over 400,000 people have to die while we hurry up and wait for free “health care”.

And that statement was exposed as a complete and total lie.

But again, you didn’t answer, Tano, because you can’t. You’re such a liar, just like your Pelosi, just like your Obama. All children who have used their minority status throughout their entire life to lie with impunity among their fellow liberals.

How do you think the American public is reacting to Pelosi’s obvious lies and hypocrisy? Answer: you state that the American public is stupid.

The degree of amorality among the Obama Party is truly frightening. Michelle Obama orders an Inspector General to be fired, against the law, while trying to claim it is because of their age, also against the law, so that investigations of her cronies who have stolen government funds, completely against the law, will be stopped — so far against the law we can’t even comprehend it.

Why? Because she knows fools like Tano support whatever she does because of her skin color.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/BAI09R08.pdf

I did find one thing I liked: they can’t ask about lawfully possessed firearms and ammo.

Of course it’s disturbing that they have to write this into the bill lest the professional nannies descend on people with guns (for the children, you know). If they have to write this in, they can just as easily make it go away.

As a BTW: I noticed that insurance stocks were up today… I guess they’re not evil special interests after all.

And then there’s more bureaucracy like this: an “Office of Minority Health” which will hand out grants to “develop measures to evaluate the effectiveness of activities aimed at reducing health disparities and sup- porting the local community”.

More gummint employees – and my bet is that this office won’t do so much as bandages a scraped knee. They will exist to siphon off money and recruit people into the legions of “clients”.

But it’s pointless to debate liberal true-believers on this. At the risk of repeating myself: the point of all this is NOT to improve healthcare. The point is to create a Euro-style welfare state where the serfs (actual net taxpayers) exist solely to support an ever-more extravagant ruling class and its client base.

Dan may be an optimist, but I’m not. The people who suckle at the public teat do it for a living. They are pros. We in the tea-party crowd are rank amateurs.

As Ronald Reagan said, a government program is as close to eternal life as we’ll ever see in this world.

Tano – you may be right that people won’t tune in… at least until we wind up with Euro-style structural unemployment and crushing government debt (and we’re pretty close on both counts). By then, it will be too late.

No, actually the Dems accepted 161 amendments offered by Republicans into the Senate bill.
And we all do remember the gang of six – and the long sessions of negotiations that took place. It was Chuck Grassley who best characterized the Republican’s sincerity in that effort by asserting that he would probably vote against the committee bill even if the Democrats gave him everything he was asking for in the negotiations.

“If they’re not ramming it through, why are they still in session during Christmas break?”

Because, obviously, the Republicans have done everything they can to delay the bill – for no reason whatsoever other than because they can. Its a grand example of stamping their feet and holding their breath – accomplishing nothing other than delay for its own sake.

They even resorted to trying to mount a filibuster on a defense apporpriation bill – not because they were against the bill, but because it could possibly delay the health bill. Hell, we even saw Sen Coburn urging everyone to pray to God that something befalls a Dem. senator to keep them from making it to the floor for a vote. How disgusting can these people get?

“What was all that bullshit about “change”? So we shouldn’t expect better from liberals.”

Actually, if you noticed, and I guess you didn’t, my point was that the Dems were NOT doing things as outrageous as the Republicans did.

“why not put it on the internet for 5 days and really let the people see it?”

Here it is. LINK

You still got three days till its voted on. Will that do?

The term refers to those people who are undecided, even at this late date, on what to think about health-care. The reference to them is a followup to a conversation I was having yesterday, in which we discussed a poll that had 20% undecided. I think that they must consist of lots of fine upstanding Americans who happen not to be terribly engaged in politics, and who most likely have secure insurance that wont be much affected by the reforms.

“The “politically apathetic” can be bought for a pack of cigarettes and will vote early and often if stimulated with drugs.”

Wow. I barely know what to say about that. Do you ever get out of your house – go talk to real human beings? Believe it or not, the vast overwhelming majority of people in this country are not political junkies like all of us who spend time talking about these issues. Many many people have very full lives, with work and family and local communities of choice, and only pay attention to politics when extraordinary issues arise. Like losing their health insurance – but if that is not a problem, then they may well not tune into these debates.

You got a really ugly view of your fellow citizens – where does that come from?

’nuff said?”

No Dan, not nearly enough said in order to make your point. I am not engaged in discourse with Kim Strassel. So me calling her names is not a violation of civil discourse. Furthermore, calling her a “partisan” is hardly much of an insult. All that means is that she takes sides in the grand political dramas of our time. And you can hardly deny that. Calling her hardright – that is an insult? Aren’t people like you PROUD of being hard right? Why on earth do you consider that an insult. Seems to me that it is merely an accurate description of where she stands on the political spectrum
“Shrill” might be the only thing in there that in any sense is a bit hard-edged, but jeez louise – if you think that is so objectionable, then why do you use terms like “shills”, or “sanctimonious”, or “narrow-mindedness”. How is “shrill” any worse than those adjectives. Or do you just have special standards for yourself?

what makes you think (……) that the apolitical undecideds are suddenly going to start to listen more to the anti-bill propagandists?

“apolitical undecideds” …… Would this be idiots, winos and general debris who are ACORNed to the polls?

If you haven’t reached them [apolitical undecideds] yet, what makes you think you will in the future?

Translation: Do you think moral and honest people are really going to be able to out ACORN ACORN?

The politically apathetic will, if asked about health care, remember that Obama got something passed, and no, the world did not come to an end.

The “politically apathetic” can be bought for a pack of cigarettes and will vote early and often if stimulated with drugs. They also include the senile who vote in flocks when dedicated political operatives work the nursing homes. They are also found among the dead and the stars of cartoons.

Tano is such a naif. He really believes that the messiah class are here to milk, bilk and corral the apolitical undecideds.

Tano is always going to be at the functionary level of the socialist food chain, because he is so openly gullible. He may never rise to the level of lead lemming, but he can always be counted on to attend the tryouts.

“This is not renaming the post office. Make no mistake — this bill will reshape our nation and our lives.”

That is the reaction from Senate Minority Leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, on the vote to pass the Senates version of Obamacare. The GOP leadership is licking their chops, as this as seen as a real opportunity to win more votes from the independents who voted for Obama and Democrats in 2008. At this point, it’s not news that this group of voters has been slowly dropping off the Obama bandwagon since June, and this votefor even more expanded government, in the eyes of the GOP, is going to accelerate that process. Though I do believe the GOP is cerrtain to win back more than a few seats in the House and Senate lost in the 2006 and 2008 elections, I’m not sure that Obamacare is going to be that much of a dealbreaker for the following reasons:

A) Obamacare is not a surprise move from Obama – it’s one of the isues he actually campaigned on in 2008. And, compaired to what Obama actually wanted, a public option, he didn’t get that much. The bill is more of a slight restructuring of bit of the healthcare system, and not a major overhaul.

B) The Congressional Budget Office had blasted the House version of the bill as expensive and a deficit increasing package, criticism which was used to great effect by the GOP, The current analysis of the Senate version states that it is cost neutral, and suggests that it may actually reduce Federal spending on health care in the future:

Congressional budget analysts reported Saturday that the revised package would not worsen the nation’s fiscal situation, as GOP critics have warned. The analysts said the updated Senate bill would spend $871 billion over the next decade to extend coverage to the uninsured by dramatically expanding Medicaid and by offering federal subsidies to those who lack affordable coverage through employers.

Over the long term, the analysts predicted, the package could reduce budget deficits even more sharply, slicing as much as $1.3 trillion from projected deficits between 2019 and 2029. That would represent a significant improvement in long-run savings compared with the bill approved by the House and a measure previously crafted by Reid.

Now, I’ve said it once, and I’ve said it a thousand times – ten and twenty year projections are just about useless. Way too much stuff can happen in the interim that make these projections useless (remember the Clinton budget surpluses that were going to last as far as the eye could see), and I personally don’t believe that Obamacare will actually save any money. Rather, it will just shift payment of bills from one source to the other. It will probably also increase the cost of health insurance for the general public. Which leads to…

C) Cost, and time. Here is the main reason I don’t think the GOP will be able to make much hay with the impending changes that are Obamacare. Most of the changes don’t occur until after 2013, long after the upcoming 2010 and even 2012 elections. The general public will not feel the effects one way or another on their daily lives in that period. Realities, such as two wars and the economy, will still have the most sway in the public consciousness.

Again, I’m pretty certain that the GOP are going to pick up a number of seats in the next election. But I’m not sure that Obamacare is going to matter much.

———————————————————-

I ultimately agree with Tano and Chris…. especially Chris when he wrote: “It’s all about creating entitlements. And, Democrats very well know that Republicans will never even seek to repeal a government program because they have no backbone.” When did I become so darned cynical?

Don’t flatter Reid so much… He hasn’t the wear with all to pull off a scam of this proportion… The strings were pulled by Rahm Emmanuel and the rest of the Chicago junk yard dogs at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

A totally hardright anti health-care reform advocate? Big deal she calls it a suicide pact. Its not like she is some kind of independent analyst She is a shrill partisan spinning out a fantasy.

Predictable. Does that make Strassel an enemy of the state or what? Not much different than this:

Political intimidation. The experts who have pointed out such complications have been ignored or dismissed as “ideologues” by the White House. Those parts of the health-care industry that couldn’t be bribed outright, like Big Pharma, were coerced into acceding to this agenda. The White House was able to, er, persuade the likes of the AMA and the hospital lobbies because the federal government will control 55% of total U.S. health spending under ObamaCare, according to the Administration’s own Medicare actuaries.

Others got hush money, namely Nebraska’s Ben Nelson. Even liberal Governors have been howling for months about ObamaCare’s unfunded spending mandates: Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state-federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that “will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees,” as he put it in a letter to his state’s junior Senator.

So in addition to abortion restrictions, Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity. His capitulation ought to cost him his political career, but more to the point, what about the other states that don’t have a Senator who’s the 60th vote for ObamaCare?

It’s just criminal highway robbery.

First off, of course, you can hardly claim it is rammed through when it has been debated endlessly for over six months.

You mean “debated endlessly” between liberals while Republicans were kept out of meetings with Granny Clampett? Is that how a Representative Republic works?

If they’re not ramming it through, why are they still in session during Christmas break? Why not pass it next year? The alleged “benefits” won’t start for another four years, so we know the liberals don’t actually give a f*ck about the alleged 2 people who die “every ten minutes”.

And then we get the typical liberal excuse:

And if you remember back when the GOP controlled Congresss, and truly abused their power in outrageous ways,

What was all that bullshit about “change”? So we shouldn’t expect better from liberals. You said it right here. Noted.

If it’s such wonderful legislation that will give the Dumbass in Chief a bounce, why not put it on the internet for 5 days and really let the people see it? Why didn’t the liberals have all of these discussion meetings on C-SPAN like the man child promised multiple times? That should have REALLY caused his numbers to rebound before now, no?

I eagerly await your answers.