There’s just no other way to look at it. President Obama is fleeing Washington D.C., and with good reason! Now, we could easily list the issues of the day and how he’s screwed up on each and every one, but that ignores the bigger, strategic problem he has: After 3 years of campaigning (of which he continues even after being elected), people are finally discovering Barack Obama’s lack of substance.
Whether one describes that as inexperience, amateur, inept, as sizzle without steak, or as something else, the core argument against a President Obama has always been that he was making promises he can’t keep; he was opposing w/out proposing real solutions. That’s been the principle tactic for Democrats and the left since November 2000 when Al Gore lost the election. They have opposed rabidly without proposing real solutions, and this week will go down in history as the week that tactic unraveled.
Democrats, independents, swing voters all should have realized this in 2006 when the DNC made all kinds of promises, but took power and provided only excuses. It should have been realized in 2008 when Obama was elected, and began the “I inherited” excuse (conveniently ignoring that anything he inherited…he inherited from a Democratic Congress that included HIMSELF!). People should have realized it when Democrats got their supermajority and STILL couldn’t get stuff done. Now, the healthcare debate seems to have pushed Americans over the edge.
He wasn’t able to get a bill put together before the August recess (despite having promised to have a bill ready for the past 3years). This led to multiple draft bills that were HUGELY plagued with flaws-flaws that made many Americans ask questions. Rather than address those questions, the DC Democrats imploded. Many tried to sell yet another conspiracy theory that all opposition was really a vast right wing conspiracy put forth by covert Republican operatives. Moderate Democrats (with their jobs in jeopardy) tried to listen to the American people, tried to act in a bi-partisan fashion, tried to listen to Pres. Obama’s thug, Rahm Emanuel, tried to listen to their party bosses, and tried to appease the far left of the party. They were pulled in every political direction possible, and so they failed them all.
The left lost hope
The moderates gave up
The independent-minded swing voters who had been ostracized, called names, mocked, and otherwise insulted….left the support base
Then the far left started to leave the support base
Finally, even the far left started seeing the campaign lies, and began to question The One
…and do you know what happens when a Democrat President loses his base, loses moderates, and loses swing voters? He loses most of the nation.
Scapegoating Republicans isn’t doing the trick anymore either. The American people elected Democrats to a supermajority based on the pipedream/excuse that if Dems had total, unchecked power they could actually get something done. They can’t. The Congressional leaders are too far to the left to even allow bi-partisanship on most issues (most never even get offered or brought to Republicans in the House for consulting), but they also lack the will and the power to try to get things done. Moderate Democrats see that most Americans are tired of bailouts, spending trillions, and of broken campaign promises, and so they don’t dare side with the far left and against their constituents. Meanwhile, the Obama Admin is trying to sell reforms that 1) haven’t been finished compiling and 2) haven’t even been read by the Admin! In that light, the Republicans have finally called the scapegoat bluff. This puts the onus for getting healthcare reform (or anything for that matter) squarely on the Democrats and the President…who can’t do anything. They can oppose things, but they’ve never even been able to propose things let alone get something done.
…and so it is that the American people no longer support President Obama. The American people no longer favor Democrats. The American people no longer believe the lies.
The real danger for Democrats, however, isn’t just in losing power next year. The real danger is that their years of broken promises, lies, and distortions will be questioned. If independent thinking swing voters do that….forgiveness (power) might be long in coming back.
Meanwhile, President Obama and a deeply divided Democratic Party have a lot to do, and no excuses left for not doing things. Republicans lost control of Congress because of a $400bn deficit, but Democrats will have to try and hold on to Congress next year with a deficit that is already 5x as large, and likely to be 15x as large by the time of the midterms.
Healthcare is a dead duck. If they do reform with a single-payer government position that the American people don’t want, then Democrats and the President lose power next year. If they DON’T include that provision, then the left (which is already apathetic and angry) will not defend their Congressman next year leading to the same result. If they change the subject (as in the past) to Bush Admin scapegoating, then they have to explain why the Obama Admin is
doing renditions
facing charges of torturing detainees
hasn’t closed Gitmo
backs the Bush Admin FISA/warrantless wiretapping bit
oh…and why Obama’s CIA Director lied about previous operations
Oh, and did I mention that Obama and Dems will have to explain why tens of thousands of troops are in Iraq when the midterms come around and it’s months past his 16-month withdrawal pledge? Or could we talk about how he half-assed a surge in Afghanistan, how Obama and Dems are waging an illegal, unauthorized war in Pakistan with the result being thousands of civilians dead and millions fleeing the region? Perhaps we might ask (on September 24th) if the President thinks his open-handed diplomacy with Iran is working (he pledged to make that decision at the coming G20 Summit), and if it’s not…will he go back to the Bush doctrine?
Then there’s the half a million jobs lost every month since he took office, the trillion dollar stimulus plan that was supposed to keep unemployment in the 7% range, but somehow unemployment is near 20% in some states, and averaging almost 10% in the nation.
This all leaves us all-Democrat, Republican, independent, Obama supporters and opposition-with one question above all:
“How’re those approval ratings/power gonna come back up?”
Unless Obama and Democrats can put a trophy over their fireplace very soon, the American people will continue to lose support for him, and it’s not like it’s Republicans who are no longer supporting Obama and the Dems. It’s Dems and independents who are no longer supporting the DNC.
To quote the Americans who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, who Obama and Dems “supported” but who’s success they opposed…
WELCOME TO THE SUCK
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
@Weemaryanne:
Matthew 7:3. Motes. Splinters. And such.
Are you deliberately ignoring the questions I posed to you in #34?
Are they inconvenient? Uncomfortable?
If not, shame on you for not giving life to the expectations you would expect others to live by.
Cain is dead and you’re living in a post-Christianity period of history.
By your own standards, don’t have any excuse.
This issue has already been laid out and explained to you in meticulous detail. Providing for the general welfare of the NATION is an enumerated power of Congress.
The welfare of the individual citizen does not fall within the powers of the fed gov’t.
Neither does charity, wealth redistribution, and a myriad of other things that Congress has engaged in.
@Mike’s America: I seem to have incorrectly submitted my response of last evening. I’m sorry. I’ll try again.
You said:
(1) It seems to me that “demonizing legitimate policy differences” is a case of you-say-toMAYto-I-say-toMAHto inasmuch as neither side will concede that the other could ever be right. Therefore, I doubt that you and I are going to settle this point, either.
(2) Oh, c’mon now, let the kids play! The Gang of Other Kids called them names for years, now they’re just kicking a little sand in the opposite direction!
Seriously, dude, chill out. Name-calling is just about the least bad thing politicians can do to each other and their constituents.
(3) The Speaker of the House chooses to exercise her procedural prerogative, and this comes as a surprise to you? Ookaay.
(4) With a smaller majority than the Democrats currently enjoy. Smaller majority = can’t always get the votes = gotta compromise = politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the principled.
Them’s the political breaks. I didn’t make the rules.
@Aye Chihuahua: No, I have not ignored your questions in #34. However, I choose not to answer, being of the opinion that neither my interactions with others outside of this site nor my personal financial business are matters for discussion on this site. For what it’s worth, I’m sorry I cannot satisfy you on this point.
How about this for an argument:
Most Americans don’t want a govt single-payer plan
If most Americans don’t want it, then is it really gonna get Dems re-elected? Is it really gonna bring independents back to the DNC for the midterms? I don’t think so.
@Scott: At least one recent poll suggests that they do want such a plan:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1357
As for the midterms: I’ve already made a note to congratulate MataHarley on her powers of prognostication should the House change hands next year. I’ll make a note to include you in my red-faced grovelling snivelling apology, if it becomes necessary to make such.
Of course your imagination will have to supply the red face, the grovelling, and the snivelling.
@weemaryanne –
What would happen to the Canadian healthcare system without the “supplemental” doctors/care in US…that so many Canadians are able to access? (Take another look at the Sunday Funnies on this site — nationally published satire about Canadian Citizen asking BHO if he could keep his doctor….)
In addition to the past and most recent, well-publicized, focus on the collapse of the Canadian Health Care System, how are Americans to believe that the Canadian System is the model of health care? I could sight many links to past Canadian originated articles and recent — but why bother.
We NEED reform/improvement…but NOT reform through government take-over of our entire society/ lives!
As I have written my Senators and Congressman,
1) Why do we have to be lemmings and follow the rest of the world?
How can we evolve as a civilization if all we do is say, “well, everyone else is doing it…”
Sounds like a juvenille statement.
2) Why not build upon what was learned from other countries and existing private systems??
3) We have had several experiments with socialized medicine in Hawaii, Massachusetts, and
other states — they have gone broke…we could tweak them as a primary step and see
how/if improvements can be made AND rethink how to pay for the programs.
4) OR Why not start from scratch,
a) include ALL voices and ideas
b) build a small scale system that would incorporate the best demonstrated practices
— that are actually working…including some new, unique ideas. ie, ThedaCare, Mayo
clinic, Whole Foods, Safeway, Patients First, Patients’ Choice etc, etc
c) simultaneously — id those in real financial need for coverage, not just those who choose
to use funds elsewhere or those who qualify for existing programs but choose not
to EVEN sign up. (Massachusetts is still having heavy emergency use — by US citizens)
d) evaluate for continued improvement and $budget.
IF the Dems really wanted to take care of everyone, they could have already covered the truly uninsured with some of the stimulus money. Problem is — ObamaCare is not about health…it is about an extreme political power grab.
As a side note, only my Republican Senator has responded to my communications — he included a summary of the health care proposal he co-authored with other Senators and Congressman — but will not even be considered by Dim congressional leaders or by President iWon…
@Weemaryanne:
I translate your response as follows: “I have helped neither Sophie nor her mother in their difficult situation, yet I felt it perfectly OK to call Missy out for giving what I interpreted as an ‘uncharitable’ response.”
Is that pretty close to accurate?
Perhaps you should reread your response in #32 and issue the mea culpa that is due.
Issuing an apology after wronging someone is, after all, what Christians do. Right?
@Weemaryanne:
I will go out on a limb and say that not all Canadians are as happy with Tommy Douglas. Again, it’s healthcare I wouldn’t want.
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/009/Canadian-medicare.htm
@American Voter:
It is certainly true that many Canadians access health care in the U.S. for a variety of reasons. (Please note that such care is covered by the Canadian Medicare plan.) If you are suggesting that the Canadian system actually depends on American input for its day-to-day survival, that is of course an opinion to which you are entitled. However, I do not think it can be accepted as fact, at least not without plenty of detailed evidence to support it.
You are misinformed. The Canadian health care system has not collapsed. There are funding and delivery problems, and there are always political disagreements to be resolved. That is a far cry from “collapse.”
@Aye Chihuahua: Perhaps you should cease hectoring me on this point, as I have already explained why I do not choose either to answer your personal questions or to acquiesce to your demand for an apology to a third party. I chose strong language to express an opinion, as is my right. I do not believe that I have wronged anyone in doing so.
If you believe that I have, then your next step should be to report my behavior to the site administrator(s) for further consideration. If you are a site administrator, then you should specify that such an apology is required before I may be permitted to comment further on this site.
If you do not choose to make such a report nor to specify such a requirement, then I consider the matter closed.
@Weemaryanne:
The word that Dr. Anne Doing used was “imploding” rather than collapse. A distinction without a difference really.
Budget issues make patients wait longer and longer and longer for surgery. What a great system. People are just dying to be a part of it:
Of course, making people wait is an inherent characteristic of the Canuk system, eh?
@Missy: Of course I hope that no one can or will force a Canadian-style health insurance system on anyone who adamantly refuses.
As for the article you linked to — oh, dear. It’s distressingly wrong and misleading.
First, it’s published by something called Kjos Ministries which, while it may be competent at delivering Christian evangelism, does not appear to have any expertise or credentials to qualify as an authority on health care.
Second: A 90-year-old photograph of a temporary hospital ward during a pandemic can have very little relevance to the questions before us. This seems to be nothing more than a scare tactic.
Other points of disagreement (forgive me, it’s getting late and I simply haven’t the energy required to pick apart the entire thing):
Some hospitals in some parts of the country have experienced such problems in the past decade. Improvements in procedures have been instituted in many places.
Canada is a large and thinly-populated country. We are indeed desperately short on doctors, to the extent that we have been importing many of them for years. Our medical schools are only just beginning to see classes composed mostly of Canadian citizens rather than recent immigrants.
This is a very sad incident, to be sure; and it may indeed have occurred, and similar incidents may be occurring as we speak. However, a personal anecdote like this is just another scare tactic unless it can be supported by evidence.
Incorrect. Private clinics are indeed allowed — the province of Quebec fought and won a court case to get them just a few years ago. So far they’re only permitted to perform certain surgeries (hip replacements, for one) but there are plans in place to expand that.
It’s true that those who can afford it and don’t wish to wait may get their treatment elsewhere, including the United States. Please note that the cost of such treatment is reimbursed by Canadian Medicare.
@Aye Chihuahua: The incoming head of the Canadian Medical Association is certainly entitled to her opinion but she may be premature in claiming that “everybody agrees” with her.
Budgetary shortfalls are indeed a problem, especially in today’s economy. I think it is unnecessarily cynical, however, to claim that the system is killing people.
I know no Canadians who wish to trade our system for that of the United States. I know I could not afford to buy health insurance for myself, not even at the lower overall tax rate which is currently operative in the U.S.
And now, I really must turn in for the evening. Thank you, and all the Flopping Aces commenters, for a most interesting and informative discussion.
@weemaryanne
Are you sure you are not an American liberal writing from Chicago or NYC?
It is your own news media and Canadian officials relaying collapse. Lately, the stories from the UK and Italy have relayed similar, alarming sentiments. (Links have been offered to you by other readers in this thread)
I guess it’s either your way or the highway? From your posts, I take it you think Americans should not speak up/object to Socializing our entire way of life?
If we do speak up against ObamaCare — it must mean we do not care about people that cannot truly afford health care?
No other opinion counts and the only way USA can go is to follow the lead of Canada, UK, Italy, et al? Through HR 3200/whatever Obama Care entails?
Instead, maybe you could educate by telling us about the Canadian HealthCare System — what you would keep, what you would definitely throw out — and where improvements could be made. That would be very educational.
I would also suggest you talk to someone that lives in a former Soviet satellite country…specifically about health care.
Oh my… did my work day mean I arrived too late for the all knowing Maryanne? pshaw…
I’ve few things to address. First, Ms wee’s assertion that the US Constitution allows Congressional power for health insurance by citing the “general welfare” taxation powers of Congress. Canadians… sigh. Must be a language barrier.
Word to the wise, Maryanne. Keep your day job. A US Constitutional scholar you are not. You will learn more about the meaning of general welfare as was the intent of the founders/framers by doing some reading, and stop assuming what you don’t know. (as both Curt and Aye have been coaxing you to do). Which, of course, negates your comment…“You see, being Canadian may mean a number of things but it does not mean complete ignorance.”
I might also question your “complete ignorance” since you are obviously having some reading comprehension problems. For example not once, but twice you made a comment about revisiting some prediction you think I made about our US midterm elections. (emphasis on *our*, if you please…)
First in comment #30
And again in comment #58
Let’s help you out here, since you obviously see words, then attach whatever you want to their meaning and pronounce that as fact…. i.e. “general welfare”. In this case, what I said in my comment #36 was… verbatim…
hummmm… “out of my crystal ball range”….. “who knows”…. yeah, that sounds like some serious “prognostication” to me. My suggestion is that you spend less time trying to fit in big words, and concentrate on putting the little ones together in a comprehensive sentence.
Then again, perhaps you are attributing Charlie Cook’s “predictions” days ago to me. Or more likely, you don’t know who Charlie Cook is, nor the Cook Political Report. Again, I’ll let you exercise your own research abilities. It’s neither here nor there since I plainly said what happens in 2010 was “beyond my crystal ball” and “who knows”. But we’ll look forward to you checking in again in 2010, and I’ll pass on your congratulations to Charlie.
Here’s one of my Ms. wee wee’d out favorites…
I’m not sure what “claims” you think I made in my only two posts here that need “substantiation” for you. Nor what definitive links you believe you supplied.
Rather, I simply ran thru a historic litany of events of partisan battles. Any of which you may simply move your finger to the clicker and select a plethora of posts and links for those events in which you demonstrate curiousity. Since I did not rest on any particular one when highlighting how often the parties went head to head, I find no need to do your research for you. We’re all pretty well read here. I didn’t realize we needed to educate you to recent current events like the DW World’s port deal, our SS and immigration battles, etal.
BTW, I see you deftly dodged reconciling your belief in the futility of “compromise” with conservative America, but likely support “compromise” and negotiations with terrorists and despotic regimes. Dang… dichotomy can be so inconvenient, eh?
While you’re not reconciling, I’m also guessing you won’t see the fly in your mental ointment for the below:
Seems odd to have to point out that the US citizens do not get to directly vote up or down on legislation. Therefore all legislation is either passed, or killed, by Congressional members. And lest you think the US public always gets their way, you need look no further back than to TARP last fall, and the ARRA a few months ago. Congress does what it wants unless they find it politically expedient to cave.
SS reform was “kiboshed” by “old people” and baby boomers only in the same way health care will be “kiboshed” by the majority of opposition that is comprised of all party flavors. The public will speak out louder than normal. That’s as much as we can do until election time. The Dems up for election know they walk a fine line playing along with a nuclear option.
The parallels between Bush/SS and Obama/health are there, even noted by reading your own cited Brookings ditty. POTUS embarks on a tour to encourage his proposal (Bush, SS reform… Obama, O’healthcare). The more the POTUS talks, the more no one likes what they heard. The poll numbers start reflecting the voices of the people, despite the media and pols’ attempts at damage control.
In the end, to save their collective elective hides, it’s legislation that goes down in flames. Just as the GOP had enough of their own opposed to muddy the SS reform (altho they never had the power of a nuclear option as the Dems do now…), the liberal/progressive O’faithful in Congress don’t have enough of their Blue Dogs today, panting to follow them down to health care fiscal ruin. Especially with many facing a mid term campaign.
As for what appears to be your glowing endorsement of Candian care, then I’m pleased you’re pleased with your country’s health services. Suspect you’re young and haven’t taxed it much yet. You speak, however, only for yourself. Which brings us to your comment about the CMA’s assessment of the Canadian system financially:
I wouldn’t classify analysis of the financial health of your system as an “opinion”, but a statement of fact. But if that’s what you consider it, I suspect time will certainly reveal the truth to you.
Nor is it any kind of stretch that when you must slash the budget for care, not only due to financial reasons, but also many reasons you yourself admit to (i.e. shortage of doctors, limited services of private clinics, etc), for many that is a death sentence. Perhaps I may evoke the scenario that if you have one defibrillator, and five patients in simultaneous cardiac arrest, there’s going to be those that die simply because there’s not enough defibrillators (or analogous: money, doctors, clinics, etal) to go around.
When you run out of cash to treat everyone, you triage who gets treated. In ERs, the criteria is who is not only saveable, but in need of care most urgently. For money shortages, it will be triaging those who can contribute the most productively back to society (financially)… the young with many years left? Or the old?
After reading most of your comments here, I’m gonna guess that doesn’t bother you one iota.
@MataHarley: We are discussing health care. I have done my best to focus on that discussion. What did I say that prompted you to conclude that I am a supporter of ” ‘compromise’ and negotiations with terrorists and despotic regimes” ?
And though our acquaintance is brief, I think I don’t like you much, either. However, your opinion of me, though it may be dead-on accurate in some respects, is as much a problem for me as my opinion of you is for you — none whatsoever.
Good morning and have a pleasant and productive work day.
@American Voter:
Quite sure. I’m a Canadian liberal writing from Toronto. It’s very nice to meet you.
I’ve never visited either New York or Chicago. I’m informed by persons who have personal knowledge of these cities that Toronto bears some resemblance to both, having a very large Italian community like that of New York while experiencing Great-Lakes-effect-snowfall much like Chicago. (I suspect that the latter was not intended as a compliment. 😉
I am inclined to be impressed with President Obama and I hope he is successful in at least some of his legislative plans.
If this is your understanding of my position then clearly I have failed to make that position plain. I’m very sorry. I’ll try to do better in this and future posts, as I have the greatest respect for freedom of speech and uncensored expression of opinion and I feel very strongly that these must be preserved, both in North America and elsewhere.
Yes they have, and I should have offered my thanks for that yesterday. Mea culpa.
I’ve saved those links but have had no time as yet for more than a brief glance at some of them, and responses to one or two. Again, I apologize, this time to all who responded to my request for such links and to whom I have not yet replied. My only excuse for the delay is lack of time, and I wish I had more time to devote to this discussion as it’s fascinating. Though you will have to take my word for it (and though you and others may disagree), yet I will say that I am making a good faith effort to learn from others and to offer evidence to support the claims that I choose to make.
Alas, my efforts fall short and for all I know, perhaps those efforts could not have produced any better outcome. Regardless, please be assured that no one could be more dismayed and disappointed with the quality of my work here than I. As I said before, I hope to improve in this and other respects, and plan to bend my efforts to that goal.
I hope I have made no insinuations about anyone’s motivations, as that is something I cannot know. If I have, then that is hardly a fair or reasonable debating tactic and I hope that you and others will call me out on it, as I deserve.
I readily concede that I have been critical of certain expressed attitudes. I submit that such criticism is fair practice on a web site. If that is not the case on this particular web site, I hope someone will tell me so, so that I may excuse myself and seek other sites which may prove more congenial to honest criticism and civil disagreement.
I have referenced the Canadian Medicare system because I have some acquaintance with some of its workings. I have made references to health care in other nations as a matter of comparison and contrast, when that seemed pertinent to the discussion. I have never claimed that contrary opinions should be dismissed out of hand, and frankly I’m astonished to be accused of this.
Having said that, it does seem strange to me that the United States should be the only industrialized nation that does not provide healthcare insurance to all. It also seems strange that generally positive recommendations from Canada, France, Japan and elsewhere should be received so coldly in your country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778_pf.html
I will tell you what I can, and I hope that it may be helpful. Please see below.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. In any case, I must regretfully decline, as I am presently unacquainted either with any such person or with the health care system that was used by the late and unlamented Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Back to your question at 6) above:
First, a few disclaimers are in order. I am not a health care or health policy expert, rather an ordinary a Canadian citizen and a user of Canadian Medicare and – as you note – a liberal by political inclination. My own state of health is generally not too bad for a middle-aged woman with a chronic illness whose diet and exercise habits are, shall we say, something less than ideal. It should also be noted that Canadian Medicare began when I was a child in the 1960s so I have no memory of a different system.
What to throw out? — Inefficient record keeping and scheduling. As in any large and complex system, there’s a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy that produces little or nothing of value.
Improvements? — An integrated electronic record keeping system would be a big improvement, with serious privacy controls and a watchdog office or agency equipped with tools to ensure implementation of such controls. I’ve been in hospitals/doctors’ offices where everything seemed to be written in a single large ledger-style book, and others where someone had only to tap a keyboard to retrieve my medical history. I’ve taken my turn in the queue for diagnostic tests, and ended up receiving some tests at very odd hours. That can’t be necessary, IMHO.
What to keep? — The basic principles of the system are 1) public administration, 2) comprehensiveness, 3) universality, 4) portability, and 5) accessibility. I can find little fault with these, so I would keep them all. Health Canada provides a fuller explanation here:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/cha-lcs/overview-apercu-eng.php
I will end this very long post here, with thanks for your interesting questions and observations.
@Weemaryanne:
As a rule, I don’t post references of this nature as a source, but, I had an idea of how you would respond and you fell for it.
And…… your “expertise and credentials” are? And why do you think you are qualified as an authority regarding our healthcare or our Constitution?
Oh my, we have two ladies from the north, one offering her heartfelt commentary on the perils of Canadian healthcare and includes a bit of drama, the other, a judgemental snob that appears to be flailing in this debate.
@Curt: Thank you. I was recently reminded that I hadn’t yet responded to this kind offer, so I must also apologize for my tardiness. I plan to read up on the matter as soon as time permits.
@Missy: Ah, the old lay-a-trap-for-my-opponent trick. Clearly you have closely read your Gospels. The Pharisees would be proud of you, though perhaps their opponent, Whatsisname of Nazareth, might disagree.
If this constitutes an act of judgmental snobbery, then make the most of it.
@Weemaryanne:
Unable to address the logical points of Missy’s argument, WeeWee takes the personal attack path.
Is there a particular reason why you continue to refer back to the Bible when you’ve made it clear that you neither believe in it nor live by it?
I would think that a 47 year old self-proclaimed sarcastic female Canuck atheist who occasionally commits doggerel could do better than that.
Also, there are a series of unanswered queries still pending for you in the earlier portion of this thread. Would you like for me to copy/paste them down here for easier reference?
@Aye Chihuahua: I like the Bible. Many people do.
Aw, you looked up my profile. I’d be flattered if I were still young enough for that. I think I will refrain from reciprocating, as I prefer a little mystery with my internetz.
I have to decline your kind offer, at least for this evening as I only have time for these two brief posts. I’m sorry. I’ve read all posts addressed to me (honest!) and I hope to respond in full, but as you know I have some reading to catch up on first.
NY Times columnist Paul Krugman in 2007 stating the public option will lead to to a single payer system:
@Weemaryanne:
That’s not the answer to the question that I posed to you. Here it is again:
Kindly answer the question because I’d really like to know.
Well, it is said that some people enhance their surroundings through their presence; others through their absence.
Thank you so much for the generous gift of a pleasant evening without you.
That darned US Constitution.
It’s so inconvenient:
@Aye Chihuahua:
Second nut from Canada, different ideology, same attitude and temperament.
@Weemaryanne:
tsk, tsk, tsk, temper, temper.