Re: Great news about the stimulus bill

1

Obama is a political genius, and the Republicans are acting like hysterical five year olds, and in theory this should turn out well. In practice, I'm so burned out by the American people, the American media, and the Democrats, that I won't believe anything until I'm holding my registration card in my hand. I am incapable of supplying optimism in any circumstance whatsoever. I'm like an anaerobic reducing furnace.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
2

About damn time. I've been waiting for my taxpayer-financed colonoscopy for, like, 3 weeks here. This 'scope isn't shoving itself up my ass, people.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
3

Porkulus, devourer of worlds!


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
4

No, JRoth, you misunderstand. The way socialized medicine works, you shove the scope up the taxpayers' ass.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
5

In Minnesota they pay for one colonoscopy, but you can't just go in every week.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
6

I hate to (again) be unbearably earnest - this should probably be posted on Standpipe's other blog - but that linked article is a pack of lies

Pigasus Lives!


Posted by: Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
7

4: Either way is good for me.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
8

In Minnesota they pay for one colonoscopy, but you can't just go in every week.

See, I'm old-fashioned. I strongly believe in developing a lasting relationship with my colonoscoper, one based on mutual respect, understanding, and weekly reamings.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
9

In one of that guy's other articles he refers to what they used to call the "Homosexual Lobby" as "Big Homo". See, like "Big Oil", etc.


Posted by: DonBoy | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
10

That's really what's involved in a colonoscope. Excuse me. I have to go apologize to my doctor.


Posted by: MH | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
11

I just love the fact that the Republicans are attacking the stimulus bill for creating a government agency that, technically speaking, has existed for five years.


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
12

Do you read this newsletter regularly, ben?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
13

Hidden in the bill is a component that would create a government-run comparative effectiveness research program.

OMFG sinister!


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
14

This is going to be great. I'm going to quit my job, go on welfare, and wage war against Christianity full time!


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
15

12: I'm alain.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
16

mcmc: I was thinking of waging war just against Christmas. I think it will be more satisfying to work on a smaller, more manageable problem.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
17

Senator Collins: "I'm particularly pleased that we have produced an agreement that has a top line of $789 billion," she said. "That is less than either the House- or the Senate-passed bills. It is a fiscally responsible number"

What a moron.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
18

9: yeah, the article's not great, but you have to admit this is a pretty fucking sweet headline.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:12 PM
horizontal rule
19

rob, this is no time to think small. Liberals have to step up to the challenge of eliminating Easter, Epiphany, and Pentecost. It's all there in the bill.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
20

Get your hips replaced now, before it's too late!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:24 PM
horizontal rule
21

19: Can't we eliminate Maundy Thursday first? It's just confusing, because it sounds like Monday-Thursday, which doesn't make any sense, and I bet not one person in ten could tell you what the significance of it is, even if they were avowed, practiciing Christians.


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
22

In one of that guy's other articles he refers to what they used to call the "Homosexual Lobby" as "Big Homo".

Oh dear lord. That's so awful it shouldn't be funny but it is.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:36 PM
horizontal rule
23

Obama is one of the worst Presidents in American history.


Posted by: Barbar | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
24

I am Sparticus.


Posted by: MH | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
25

21: Oh sure--I forgot Maundy Thursday. Ash Wednesday and Shrove Tuesday too. And Good Friday and, um, Stormy Monday.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:44 PM
horizontal rule
26

Just keep your motherfucking hands off of Freaky Friday, you heathens.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
27

And Manic Monday.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
28

They call it Maundy Thursday, but Friday's just as good.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
29

26: Sounds like someone's got a case of the Wednesdays.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
30

Hey, there was supposed to be a link in 23.


Posted by: Barbar | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:49 PM
horizontal rule
31

But there wasn't.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
32

Big Homo sounds like a James Bond villain's sidekick. Like Odd Job, only fabulous.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
33

When I was about 12 Sexagesima Sunday roused my prurient interest.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
34

Hey, there was supposed to be a link in 23.

What, this?
http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/02/misc_commentary_on_the_stimulu.php

Pretty funny. Far be it from me it to defend Mitch McConnell, but if Hawkins is expecting frequent filibusters with a 41-seat Republican caucus he's going to be awfully disappointed.


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
35

"Is Bipartisanship Badly Hurt?" WaPo headline (via TPM).

We better watch it or Bipartisanship's mother is going to come out of the lake and boy is she going to be pissed.



Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
36

In one of that guy's other articles he refers to what they used to call the "Homosexual Lobby" as "Big Homo".

So he's saying Obama is failing to represent Little Homos? For shame.

max
['Where does Big Johnson fit into this?']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 4:52 PM
horizontal rule
37

I'm with the Right Wing News guy on this: I wish they would filibuster. That way the Democrats would be free to make an truly progressive bill and the GOP would have to face their unemployed constituency.

I know, a pipe dream. "Democrats" and "progressive" in the same sentence? Hilarious.


Posted by: NC Planning Student | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 5:03 PM
horizontal rule
38

PRIVATE HEALTH CARE WILL BE ASSIMILATED


Posted by: PORKULOUS OF BORG | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 5:20 PM
horizontal rule
39

Oh my God, so much fear and hysteria over the possibility of a stealth effort in support of "socialized" medicine? Yes, how awful it would be, and how truly subversive of your fundamental rights and freedoms, if you didn't have to take out a second mortgage and take your kids out of college, because of an unfortunate medical diagnosis?

Sorry. I love America probably more than Emerson does, but I just don't get this anti-universal-health-care nonsense. I can't help thinking it just hasn't been properly explained or something, but perhaps that's a little bit naive?


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
40

Reading about SCHIP, I got the sense that the pro and con arguments were the same: it's a step towards government-sponsored health care for all.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 9:44 PM
horizontal rule
41

I can't help thinking it just hasn't been properly explained or something, but perhaps that's a little bit naive?

I think it's simpler than that. The group of people who really, don't want to see the current system replaced (because it's making them money hand over fist) has a lot more money than the group of people who really want the system to change. Too many `average' people remain apathetic still (somewhat surprisingly).


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 9:46 PM
horizontal rule
42

39: I think I understand it pretty well. I'm still opposed to nearly every universal health care plan I've heard. And I'm opposed to borrowing $800 billion to clean-up the mess caused by everybody borrowing too much (though admittedly I haven't been listening to anybody from Bush or Obama's camp on that one).


Posted by: MH | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 9:48 PM
horizontal rule
43

Too many `average' people remain apathetic still (somewhat surprisingly).

I don't think it's all that surprising. A huge number of Americans have never traveled outside the country, and thus have absolutely no personal experience of a healthcare system other than the one in the US. Given that, they're pretty susceptible to believing whatever people who seem to know about these things tell them.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 9:50 PM
horizontal rule
44

43 is true. I only added the `somewhat surprisingly' because it's seems there is more information around in say, the last 10 years.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 9:51 PM
horizontal rule
45

If you fly outside the country, you risk having somebody recline their seat on the flight (unless you just drive to Canada) or getting a fly living inside your skin in Botswana.


Posted by: MH | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 9:52 PM
horizontal rule
46

39 -- 'Why should I spend my money on those people?'

I'm not saying it's the only answer, or always the answer. And yet, that shoe does seem to fit an awful lot of the time.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 9:52 PM
horizontal rule
47

43 -- Yeah, but at least those Americans didn't become lame backpackers who are delusional about their connections to exotic cultures.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 9:52 PM
horizontal rule
48

'Why should I spend my money on those people?'

'cause it's cheaper for you?


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 9:53 PM
horizontal rule
49

I went abroad seeking an authentic universal health care experience, but I'm afraid the locals were just putting me on.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 9:57 PM
horizontal rule
50

And I'm opposed to borrowing $800 billion to clean-up the mess caused by everybody borrowing too much (though admittedly I haven't been listening to anybody from Bush or Obama's camp on that one).

So I guess you'd really be troubled by the fact that it's closer to $10 trillion. We may get a lot of that back, but it's still been placed at risk.


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 9:57 PM
horizontal rule
51

MH, if you bring the same level of sophistication to health care that you do to the world economy, I'd say "understand it pretty well" is a stretch.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:00 PM
horizontal rule
52

50: Yea, but I've been trying to appreciate each new day by getting specifically pissed at all the crap that happens that day before I get pissed about all the other crap.


Posted by: MH | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:00 PM
horizontal rule
53

The health care news is flooded with stories about horrible things in countries with UHC. It takes nine months to get a replacement knee!!!!11! (How one gets a replacement knee if one is in the individual market here one does not say.)

All I know is that my Canadian relatives think they must be misunderstanding me, because how could someone as healthy and as educated as me have to worry about costs or going to the hospital or getting pregnant. shiv's relatives have had cancers and heart surgeries and none of them have lost their homes.

(Hey, but I've been told the emergency rooms are free. You know, in case I get pregnant.)


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
54

'cause it's cheaper for you?

I've often encountered pushback on this point, even when presenting WHO stats, etc.

The pro-privatized-health-care crowd has an entire segment of the population paralyzed with fear of long waits for brain surgery and the like.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
55

MH: anti universal health care, anti-Keynsian, pro-airline seat reclining. I see a pattern.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
56

Cala-pwned.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
57

55: you do not.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:04 PM
horizontal rule
58

57 -- You would say that, recliner. But I think you have as much concern for uninsured children as you do for my knees.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:06 PM
horizontal rule
59

54: Yeah, but it's mostly all bullshit.

The health care news is flooded with stories about horrible things in countries with UHC.

right, but this is intentional, an it's propaganda. It has very little to do with anything else.

Some issues are pretty simple. The US manages to spend more on health care than anybody else, but by any sort of reasonable measurements of `quality' (difficult, that) it's lucky to break the top 10. There is no sign of this improving.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:06 PM
horizontal rule
60

58: clearly there is a moral equivalence there. It's like the song says, I believe your knees are our future.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:07 PM
horizontal rule
61

39: When the FBI questions you, I'll verify that for you. Maybe we could arrange a citizenship swap.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:07 PM
horizontal rule
62

I'm still opposed to nearly every universal health care plan I've heard.

Really? But on what grounds, if you don't mind my asking?

Me, I have personally experienced and made use of the health care systems of Canada, the UK, and the US, and no question, on all significant (if personal, so: anecdatal!) measures, the US system comes in third, and lags significantly behind the other two that I offer up for comparison. The paperwork, for example. How many times have I had to phone and write to my HMO, in order to pester/persuade them into approving something that was supposed to be covered, at least according to their glossy ('Your healthitude is our businessitude, and it's all just a matter of a healthy attitude!') brochures? Well, admittedly, only twice so far, but I can assure you, I have never ever had to do that in Soviet Canuckistan.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:09 PM
horizontal rule
63

I have a naturalized Canadian cousin who milks the Canadian healthcare and other systems to the max, but parrots American propaganda about Canadian taxes.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:10 PM
horizontal rule
64

59: Yes, I wasn't intending to imply that the stories were accurate, just to present a reason why someone who has never traveled and who has good insurance would think that UHC means waiting lists for aspirins.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:10 PM
horizontal rule
65

'cause it's cheaper for you?

It's not about the money.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:11 PM
horizontal rule
66

Have you SEEN John Maynard Keynes' knees? There is no way he would let someone recline into that shit.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:11 PM
horizontal rule
67

MC is correct: there's just too much paperwork and bureaucracy under Socialism. At least we in America are spared that.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:11 PM
horizontal rule
68

55: I'm not actually anti-Keynsian. Its just that when anybody says "Do this right away or we're all going to die", I will oppose them just on the principle that bluffs should be called in politics. I've been reading lots of Keynsians lately and many are quite convincing. But nobody has a good justification for why it has to be hurried and opaque.

Also, I'm not anti-universal health care, except in the sense that I oppose any single-payer system. Yes, it would be more efficient in the short run, but when big systems fuck-up (as they will), they fuck-up big and it's harder to find an alternative. Small-town banks weren't very efficient either, until the big banks started to cost trillions to keep solvent. Somebody wants to propose a plan whereby you are required to buy insurance and subsidized if you are poor, call me.


Posted by: MH | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:13 PM
horizontal rule
69

It's not about the money.

Aha: A principled stand for second rate health care!


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:15 PM
horizontal rule
70

Somebody wants to propose a plan whereby you are required to buy insurance and subsidized if you are poor, call me.

You mean like the plan that everybody is proposing? Way to go out on a limb there, big thinker.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:15 PM
horizontal rule
71

We should not mock MH's religious beliefs. He learned them on his daddy's knee and they have carried him safely through the storms of life.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:18 PM
horizontal rule
72

63: I know that type all too well, John, and to say that I despise such ideological-hypocritical free-riderhood would be to vastly under-estimate the level of contempt that I feel for them. But my American (has never experienced a day of Canadian-style universal health care in his life) husband takes an even harder line with them, so.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:19 PM
horizontal rule
73

Somebody wants to propose a plan whereby you are required to buy insurance and subsidized if you are poor, call me.

Mitt Romney on line one...


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:20 PM
horizontal rule
74

70: Everybody's talking about the U.K., which was certainly single payer last I heard. I have no idea what Canada's system is (for health care or anything else).


Posted by: MH | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:23 PM
horizontal rule
75

73: Romney didn't even last long enough for me to vote for him in the primary.


Posted by: MH | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:24 PM
horizontal rule
76

MC, in the name of my family,I hereby absolve your Fenian clan and your husband's of any blood guilt, should you choose to take my cousin out,


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:24 PM
horizontal rule
77

Yes, everybody's talking about how bad the UK system is and how no other country has anything like it, and how nobody would even propose replicating it here.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:25 PM
horizontal rule
78

Everybody's talking about the U.K.

Everybody where?


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:25 PM
horizontal rule
79

Speaking of Fenians, the founder of my town invaded Canada with the Fenians.


Posted by: MH | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:26 PM
horizontal rule
80

btw MC, you've got the risk mixed up here a bit I think. To the extent that it's real, it's a risk of single provider, not single payer.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:26 PM
horizontal rule
81

erm, 80 was to MH, not MC, if not obvious.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:27 PM
horizontal rule
82

You have to admit, though, that single payer proponents have an ominous-sounding slogan.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:31 PM
horizontal rule
83

82 surely that's single payer + single provider ?


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:34 PM
horizontal rule
84

80: No, I don't see how they are going to be that different in the long run. When you've only got one purchaser, in the long run the providers will only have choice to the extent that they are successful as lobbyists.


Posted by: MH | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:36 PM
horizontal rule
85

65 is right. The key word in 46 is "those."


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:37 PM
horizontal rule
86

84: and yet as it turns out, they operate quite differently in practice.

Perhaps you're right given long enough an certain unknowable contraints --- on the other hand, the short-to-medium term trend for US healthcare is pretty dire ... you're talking about much longer time periods which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in that context.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:40 PM
horizontal rule
87

In my experience, 99% of people in America hate the current health care system but scoff at the naive idea that it could be possible to have a better health care system. First of all, it's not exactly intuitive that it would be possible to cover MORE people without spending huge amounts of money, thus it seems natural that the tax burden would be bigger than what we currently pay for premiums. Second of all, universal coverage might work in some countries, but we're a really big country, so it won't work.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:43 PM
horizontal rule
88

87: The first part of that is a problem of counter intuitive results, but it's only as relevant as it is due to embedded interests spending tons of money to muddy the water. The second one is just stupid.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:48 PM
horizontal rule
89

On the bright side, the Cato Institute/Phil Gramm-style "You know how people are, if they don't have to pay for intensive medical care, they'll selfishly demand lots of intensive medical care" argument does not seem to be convincing people.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:49 PM
horizontal rule
90

83: Yeah, that's what I meant to write.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:50 PM
horizontal rule
91

For some reason, the "we're a really big country, so the government can't do anything right" argument is pretty seductive. For example, yesterday Obama explained that Japan did the wrong thing as far as dealing with zombie banks, whereas Sweden did the right thing, but we're a really big country so we can't do what Sweden did.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:50 PM
horizontal rule
92

the founder of my town invaded Canada with the Fenians.

Can you name some names? I have a (purely impersonal and abstract, of course) interest in the Fenian raiders. Any O'Neils (oh, not that I'd know anything about that family, of course) on the roster?

Tommy Douglas on medicare, God love his heart. (Canada's best politicians came from Scotland, of course).



Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:55 PM
horizontal rule
93

But we can't do what Japan did either - they're too small.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:55 PM
horizontal rule
94

Yeah, when you send a dollar or a dose of penicillin 2500 miles from NYC to LA, as much as 10% of it disappears en route. Those tiny little European socialist countries don't know how lucky they are.We just couldn't do that here.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:55 PM
horizontal rule
95

So the choices are China, India, Brazil, Russia - who else?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:56 PM
horizontal rule
96

Indonesia.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 10:58 PM
horizontal rule
97

On top of that, MC, if you could send me a Fenian assassin, my sociopath ex-bil needs some attention.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 11:00 PM
horizontal rule
98

97: I might have a first cousin who might answer to your purposes. He used to be a prison guard out in B.C., until his mother called him home to look after his aged father.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 02-11-09 11:10 PM
horizontal rule
99

80: No, I don't see how they are going to be that different in the long run. When you've only got one purchaser, in the long run the providers will only have choice to the extent that they are successful as lobbyists.

Hahaha.

So, NHS Trusts don't exist, and nor do PBFF'ed DHBs, then?

(that is to say, what!, why dont't you try using evidence?)


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 02-12-09 5:25 AM
horizontal rule
100

What does he charge?


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-12-09 5:26 AM
horizontal rule
101

92: I'm talking about the people who founded my town, not my family. But, yes, I am speaking of one John O'Neill.


Posted by: MH | Link to this comment | 02-12-09 6:57 AM
horizontal rule
102

92: Just to be clear, I support continued peaceful relations with Canada, the UK and a clear majority of the other countries in the world.


Posted by: MH | Link to this comment | 02-12-09 7:07 AM
horizontal rule
103

[This seems like the right thread, and more or less ontopic too!]

Via Clark Stooksbury at AmCon (and in turn via Lew Rockwell no less), Rush Limbaugh!:

We're gonna come after the left's favorite corporations. We're going to come after your favorite political constituents. We're going to come after your favorite media outlets. You want to try the Fairness Doctrine? Fine. We'll impose it on network television. We'll impose it on newspapers. You want to try censorship? Fine! We will censor you when we get the control of the government back. We will reapportion districts using the Census to help conservatives. We're going to turn the power of government against the Democrats and the left and weaken and you break you into little pieces. Because, my friends, the day has passed when we can become passive and be passive about what they are doing. We will use the political and the legal system as they have and are, and we will use it to promote our party and to diminish theirs. We will use the power of government and legal system to promote our movement and our agenda, just as they are.
If they are going to bastardize the American system, if they are going to make this government large and powerful and intrusive, someday they're going to lose it. But they're going to lose it after having amassed all this power. We will control it, and we're going to turn it right back against them. We will build a massive army of patriots to counter ACORN. We will defund ACORN. We'll defund the labor unions, and we will fund our own people to go out and zap ACORN. And we will do everything we can to enhance anti-union employment. We will make sure that when companies lose money, that the people that get canned are union people1. We're going to use the power of government just like the left is using the power of government. We're going to use the justice department.2
We're going to go after big unions with the justice department. We're going to find all of the criminal activity. We are going to find all the lack of ethics. We are going to find every bit of corruption we can, and we're gonna sic the attorney general and the justice department and the US attorneys on you people just as you have been doing to the people of the right and the Republican Party for 50 years. 3 And then we're going to find George Soros and other concentrations of left-wing power and wealth. And we're going to focus our attention on him, so that the American people will finally learn just who the hell paid for the bastardization of the United States, just who the hell paid for the destruction of the American way of life. 4
. . . We're going to become activists. We'll take back our government. It's going to be a bigger, more powerful, stronger government -- and we're going to turn it against the left in ways they could have never imagined. 5

1 I thought that was what you were doing?
2 Ahem. I thought that was what y'all were doing?
3 2009 - 50 = 1959?
4 The traditions have been destroyed! Black people on plantations! In ghettos! That's the way it should be!
5 Man, oxycodone must have interesting permanant side effects.

So, I'm guessing I should taking all that as the final embrace of teh fuhrerprincip and a de facto declaration of war.

max
['How civil!']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 02-12-09 7:18 AM
horizontal rule
104

"No More Mr. Nice Guy" Says Limbaugh.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-12-09 7:25 AM
horizontal rule
105

"No More Mr. Nice Guy" Says Limbaugh.

How unfortunate. He's been so pleasant up 'til now. I imagine he will start reclining his seat, wearing a hat indoors, and conspicuously consuming bacon. The horror.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 02-12-09 8:01 AM
horizontal rule
106

So, I'm not apathetic about this at all, but I have no idea how to take meaningful action. In normal times, it's my top priority when voting for a candidate. In Massachusetts, I was able to volunteer with a coalition that was organizing a ballot initiative which we didn't need to do, because we were able to get legislation passed.

I don't know how to be effective at the national level. One of my Senators is so gung ho about health care that I feel silly bugging him about it unless I want to give him personal details about how a proposal will affect me. The junior Senator would probably do what teh Senior oen told him to, and my rep pretty much always votes the way I'd want him to. So, what else can I do?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 02-12-09 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
107

You want to try the Fairness Doctrine?

God, what is this obsession with the Fairness Doctrine? Has anybody anywhere in government advocated for its reinstatement?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-12-09 10:05 AM
horizontal rule
108

106: Have you considered taking-up a new issue? Reclining airline seats is apparently an issue rising in public prominence.


Posted by: MH | Link to this comment | 02-12-09 10:08 AM
horizontal rule
109

Has anybody anywhere in government advocated for its reinstatement?

How 'bout Chuck Schumer?
http://www.infowars.com/schumer-on-fox-fairness-doctrine-'fair-and-balanced'/


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 02-12-09 10:16 AM
horizontal rule
110

MH, Seriously, shut up.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 02-12-09 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
111

I advocated and Tim shouted me down. (Where is Tim anyway?)


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-12-09 3:42 PM
horizontal rule