Disqus - Latest Comments for LynnDee

Re: Obama administration officials says Reid including public option in health care plan is "dangerous"

hanshiro — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:18:09 -0000

"Could you drop the sarcasm? I know how it can become a habit, but you don't know me and I don't know you. And to whine that I haven't answered any of your legitimate points? Please. Save it for those you know."

Summarily declaring 'someone you don't know' as wrong out of hand is equally if now moreso offensive. Additionally, claiming a position of certitude while contrarily dismissing other's positions is also offensive. To wit:

"Not that booman is right and everyone else is wrong, but simply that to simply assume that Obama is hedging to protect the corporate stakeholders is simply wrong."

Since you state plainly that you can't know this, you are extending to yourself an authority of certitude that you deny for others. This, also, is offensive; but not so much that you refrain from repeating your error:

"He may be being more risk averse than is necessary or wise, but it's not to protect the insurance companies or pharma."

Again, by your own assertion, you cannot know this. Yet somehow, you use simple and unsubstantiated declarations to contend that others are simply wrong.

Your position is predicated on condescending and unsourced speculation, the very sin you accuse in others with whom you disagree; nor can you reconcile Obama's unethical choices such as perpetuating bush's policies or telecom immunity.

"And to whine that I haven't answered any of your legitimate points? Please. Save it for those you know."

Those that I know would answer the question or admit they are unable rather than resort to clumsy rhetoric to avoid the obvious.

Re: Obama administration officials says Reid including public option in health care plan is "dangerous"

mikespindell — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:25:41 -0000

LynnDee,
Better be careful or Griffon will say you're not a progressive. After all if you think differently than he, you must be bad. Like George W. Bush, Griffon has set himself up as the "decider" here. He tells people what to think or else. As far as him respecting your knowledge and opinions, not so much. I truly think he doesn't bother to read any other views besides his own, except to find attack points. It's know as having a closed mind, a concept which you, I and others here understand, but is totally lost on him.

By the way in my opinion, although we may disagree on some points, you ask very credible questions and raise some good issues. Some here though, seem to only want you to dance to their tune.

Re: Obama administration officials says Reid including public option in health care plan is "dangerous"

LynnDee — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:11:29 -0000

Could you drop the sarcasm? I know how it can become a habit, but you don't know me and I don't know you. And to whine that I haven't answered any of your legitimate points? Please. Save it for those you know.

I'm well aware there was a backroom pharma deal and have many times myself been disappointed by what I thought was a failure to lead on Obama's part. I am now entertaining the possibility -- not that Obama is playing 3-D chess while everyone else is playing checkers -- but that no one can know how this is going to play out. Obama may hedge to the point that come spring, we'll all be saying, "Jesus, why didn't he just freaking lead??!!"

Or, we may get another month down the road and find the bill stalled in the Senate and wish Sen. Reid had saved deploying the whip for the final bill.

I don't know, and YOU don't either.

Further, I am not advocating for any particular point of view on this. What I'm advocating is reading opposing points of view, if only because more information -- and yes, opinion -- is better, IMO, than less.

For example, everyone's wailing now about Lieberman's latest stunt. Well, it helps a little to know, for example, that he's talking about filibustering the final bill, not the bill that will presumably be voted on in the Senate in the hopefully not too distant future. Not that that makes Lieberman any less of a jerk, but it does change the calculus a bit.

So, if you want to be embittered, be my guest. But I'll thank you to save your sarcasm for another target.

Re: Obama administration officials says Reid including public option in health care plan is "dangerous"

hanshiro — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:36:55 -0000

..but simply that to simply assume that Obama is hedging to protect the corporate stakeholders is simply wrong. He may be being more risk averse than is necessary or wise, but it's not to protect the insurance companies or pharma."

It must have been that backroom pharma deal that fooled everyone.

We just emerged from the most horrific 8 years so far in US history. The absolutely least suitable choice was a risk-averse, hedging politician.

You've not in the least answered or reconciled any of my legitimate points and surrendering to an intractable 'system,' when it has been conclusively demonstrated that this 'system' stands in the way not at all when the legislators are motivated by their banking masters, puts the lie to your postulation.

Re: Obama administration officials says Reid including public option in health care plan is "dangerous"

LynnDee — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:02:01 -0000

Oh come on. What does anyone offer? If you don't want to read it, don't read it. But it's clear he is basing his opinion on experience and knowledge.

Re: Obama administration officials says Reid including public option in health care plan is "dangerous"

LynnDee — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:00:22 -0000

Well, if you read the booman posts, he's saying that the cost of waiting for what he calls stage 5 -- the vote on the Senate on the final bill -- to whip the vote, then the cost is that it makes it more difficult for Reid to whip the vote now, but ensures that the bill doesn't get stalled. Basically, Obama wants to whip the vote only once, not twice.

Booman's post after Reid announced the opt out public option would be in the bill was congratulatory as long as Reid has the 60 votes -- because if he doesn't, then Obama has made a big mistake that he didn't have to make.

Folks need to read that. Not that booman is right and everyone else is wrong, but simply that to simply assume that Obama is hedging to protect the corporate stakeholders is simply wrong.

He may be being more risk averse than is necessary or wise, but it's not to protect the insurance companies or pharma.

Go to boomantribune.com and read. You don't have to agree, but you'll be more informed.

Re: Obama administration officials says Reid including public option in health care plan is "dangerous"

Politics101 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:57:45 -0000

I don't listen to opinion. What evidence does Booman offer for his position? None. That should tell you something.

Re: Obama administration officials says Reid including public option in health care plan is "dangerous"

hanshiro — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:19:07 -0000

I would guess it relates to Obama's deafening silence over advocacy for a public option, single payer, medicare for all, any of the above.

Obama is a forceful speaker, and utilizing his strengths to advance a policy beneficial and long overdue would be of inestimable value.

Obama, however, does not avail himself of his arsenal to stand up for the public, signal his commitment, or strongly and publicly exhort congress to pass a landmark bill; additionally, Obama surrenders his credibility via backroom pharma deals that further unfairly and dishonestly burden the public.

Obama also does not exercise his prerogative by reassuring and committing to the welfare of the electorate by stating unequivocally that any bill without a public option or universal healthcare provision would result in a veto.

To summarize; an issue that has had some 75% of national support does not motivate Obama to display any hint of strong, committed, visible and unambiguous support; rather choosing to display his allegiance to the pharma and insurance lobbies

Obama is and has been substantially MIA, leaving communications to anonymous administration officials and the requisite WH sieve.

Transparency, Obama style.

Re: Obama administration officials says Reid including public option in health care plan is "dangerous"

LynnDee — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:50:25 -0000

Okay, here's what I don't understand. Booman over at boomantribune has a couple interesting posts about how what the W.H. was doing was trying to ensure that bills got voted on and passed in both houses before trying to whip a combined bill with a public option, so as to keep a bill from stalling.

Do you disagree with this, John? If so, why? I'm genuinely curious and trying to sort this out.

Folks at huffingtonpost, talkingpointsmemo, firedoglake and here seem genuinely upset. But booman and Jon Cohn seem fine with what the W.H. is doing. Why the difference of opinion? Who's right?

Re: White House now blaming it all on Harry Reid; Obama happy to help Reid get the 60 votes he needs after Reid already has the 60 votes he needs

LynnDee — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:19:58 -0000

Folks should read the following at boomantribune -- very helpful:

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/10/26/1...

Re: Hitchens: Christianity is a fraud if it’s not literally true

LynnDee — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:27:24 -0000

Then there are people like me who think religion is false, although not necessarily a delusion and not necessarily bad for you -- even if most of the time it works out to be bad for humanity.

I think it's mostly... wishful thinking and that sometimes good things are done in its name.

Re: White House now blaming it all on Harry Reid; Obama happy to help Reid get the 60 votes he needs after Reid already has the 60 votes he needs

JohnnyG — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:48:45 -0000

It's the proverbial 11th dimensional chess. Must be nice to have people only see positive motivations in anything you do. If only I could walk on kool-aid like the pretty man.

Re: White House now blaming it all on Harry Reid; Obama happy to help Reid get the 60 votes he needs after Reid already has the 60 votes he needs

nancy50 — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:39:29 -0000

Occam's razor.

Re: White House now blaming it all on Harry Reid; Obama happy to help Reid get the 60 votes he needs after Reid already has the 60 votes he needs

LynnDee — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:33:43 -0000

Huge disappointment the W.H. has been on this. I'm trying to entertain a rather far-fetched explanation that the W.H. is trying to keep the corporate stakeholders off balance by being unclear about what exactly they're doing and making it seem like they might be acting as a drag on Sen. Reid -- but that's the proverbial three-bank shot when there's a simpler explanation.

Re: "I started volunteering for the Obama campaign as soon as there were means to do so in our area."

Gridlock — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:42:31 -0000

DOMA/DADT,
indefinite detention/torture,
FISA,
Afghanistan/Iraq,
real health reform
environmental issues
Wall Street

Looks like the old boss to me. Same shit, different pile.

Re: "I started volunteering for the Obama campaign as soon as there were means to do so in our area."

LynnDee — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:33:27 -0000

What Mike said. I can understand being disappointed with this or that decision of Obama's. I've certainly felt that way too, and I'm biting my nails over health care reform. But "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"??

Holy cow. What's wrong with you people?

Re: Leader of the free world, or cardboard cut out?

LynnDee — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:58:39 -0000

It would be helpful if we could compare this to a similar montage of someone else's posed smile. Without that, how can we know if this is unusual?

Re: Condensed version of GOP response

LynnDee — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:31:06 -0000

For a heart surgeon to be sued only three times for malpractice is hardly significant. He must've had a short career.

That said, his response to Pres. Obama's speech was close to totally empty.

Re: Idaho GOP gubernatorial candidate jokes about hunting Obama (But, it was just a joke)

LynnDee — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:43:09 -0000

I like the part where he says he "would never support [Obama] being assassinated."

Really? That's the best you can do? You can't come right out and condemn such talk or such an idea?

Oh right. The base. The base wouldn't go for that.

You know, it's because of these crazies in the GOP that dishonestly trying to recast Ted Kennedy as a "centrist" -- as Orrin Hatch, John McCain and Judd Gregg have been doing -- now passes as "elder statesmanship."

A pox on the whole freaking lot of them.

Re: This isn't leadership

LynnDee — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:42:47 -0000

Sigh.

Well, my hope is he's trying to keep a lid on things till the August recess -- and the tea-baggin', gun-totin', you-tubin' townhalls -- are over. No reason to assume this is what he's doing. Just hoping.

Meanwhile, we have to keep up the pressure on our Senators and Representatives that the public option is essential.

Re: Taegan: Obama Willing to Stake Presidency on Health Care Reform

LynnDee — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:11:11 -0000

I'm reading this differently. I'm reading it as a commitment to health care reform and a willingness to fight for a good bill rather than any old bill to the point of getting no bill -- and if he ends up going down because of that, the blue dog dems. might want to consider whether they'll end up going down with him.

Re: DNC ad targets House Dems on health care

Butch1 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:04:40 -0000

I think it was Obama. He doesn't seem to care much for MoveOn and asked them once before to cool it. I think he was more lamenting about it this time around. It wouldn't surprise me if Reid had the same opinion. He seems more "Blue Dog" than regular democrat. Since he is a Mormon, I wouldn't think he would lean to the progressive side.

Re: DNC ad targets House Dems on health care

LynnDee — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:33:08 -0000

Is Obama upset about that? I thought it was Harry Reid who was.

Re: The Michael Jackson conundrum

jophus82 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:42:31 -0000

I just said the same thing. Why this is an issue at all beyond the statement: 'Michael Jackson died today', fucking baffles me. He didn't just apply to babysit your kids, you know?

Re: The Michael Jackson conundrum

LynnDee — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:39:52 -0000

I'm not conflicted at all. I want Michael Jackson coverage off the air, and I'm hoping the Palin resignation does just that.