Bad, bad move, tactically speaking.

And, I wish I knew. I think they pass them all if they move quickly. We need to play for time and try to extract a terrible toll on them in ’10. I do think, though, that they made a potentially mortal mistake by not doing card check first. It is perhaps the most anti-democratic legisation the US has ever seen and if they’d passed it first, no business in the Country would have dared oppose the government and the unions; the rest would have just falln into place. They got greedy and tried healthcare first and we were able to rouse some substantive and well-financed oppostion. Hopefully we can make them pay for the mistake.

As to the big three being do-or-die, I agree with you on the concept, and on about 55 of the 60 Dem Senators. They have to get all three to win, and if they get 2 out of 3, then the whole Democratic Party will be cast into outer darkness for decades, and we will have our *real* Reagan Revolution.

But I believe the requirement that they get all 60 will prove their undoing on BambiCare. Their far lefties are crazy and irrational.

But if they get their big 3 passed (which I don’t think they can get done) then we are looking at a 10-year countdown to armed insurrection. This ain’t Czarist Russia – Americans remember freedom, and they’ll not stand for a takeover.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:

I think this is why the news orgs and other political sites are reporting that cloture to proceed to debate on the health care bill was passed. It looks like Reid pulled a fast one and slipped the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Amendment in Senate)” in as the fourth and final version of the bill for the cloture vote.

Again, I hope I’m misunderstanding, but this still doesn’t look to me like they need 60 votes anymore.

My point is that even in the Civil War, US victory was predicated on the other side’s mistake. You can be sure that the Ds learned from HillaryCare and from Amnesty. They have to stay “all in” and they know it. If they don’t pass the whole agenda and “transform” America into something other than a republican democracy, they are pitched into the outer darkness for a very long time. They know this and they will stick together.

I don’t believe that CommieCare can be stopped. I’d like to be wrong, but politicians are practical creatures and the Ds can figure it out; the big three are for the money, marbles, and chalk. They have to pass CommieCare, Kap and Kill, and Card Check. If they do, US elections will be like union elections thereafter; there’ll be the approved slate and the people marked for elimination. If they don’t, no more big chairs for Democrats for a very long time.

It is not public option or not, per se, it is entire bill with public option or without, and no one knows what the bill will be.

In a nutshell, the Dems are winging it.

You say that Democrats are TRYING to kill people; you say the Democrats’ goals are death and destruction. You provide NO evidence for these claims.

While some words may be “over-the-top” for you – we are saying THEIR PLANS ARE — Effective Equivalence (more) — going to result in. Whether they intend to or not, which you are hung up on, belittles the point that THEY WILL. Study of such Socialized Medicine anywhere in the World, and its failings, demostrates such and their refusal to recognize the consequenes of the actions they are looking to undertake – pretty much makes it premeditated ignorance!

On the other hand, my argument does not depend on proving anyone’s intent. I say the foundations of economics and history (empirical evidence) are more likely to convince people to take a stand against Obamacare than making ABSURD claims about the Democrats’ intent to kill folks.

You intend to try and talk “reason” to solely EMOTIONAL based voters. Those are the ones we are dealing with now. The “logical” folk have already been easily won over to the Anti-Obamaocare side with “logic” and the economic evidence. You may as well be trying to speak Martian to a Lunatic…. wait, that’s backward as you’re the Lunatic in this example lol (sorry, cheap shot, I know, meant in good fun!)

I say the Democrats are pursing terrible legislation (which I also believe is unconstitutional). This argument does not depend on knowing the secret desires and whims of Harry Reid or anyone else. I’m not calling Democrats good or bad; I’m attacking their legislation, not them.

On the other hand, your argument depends entirely on the morals and intents of Democrats, which will not convince reasonable people (reasonable people are people who use reason, just to spell that out).

Absolutely not – our argument is based on THEIR OWN WORDS — THEIR PLANS — HR3200 (details
more details
), HR3962 – more of the same, – Read the Reid plan here — It is about what WILL happen regardless of their “intents” it is all in how some (in DENIAL) can be reached. TACTICS!

Just because I say that your claims are unfounded, it does not follow that I am defending the Democrats. I’m saying your argument is counterproductive, not that Nancy Pelosi is a nice person.

So you’ve made your point — but your poor word-choice and tone by calling my suggested technique “crazy” first rather than unproductive which made your postings less productive. We are NOT insisting you use our strategy/method and we sure aren’t (obviously) going to let you persuade us. Don’t like the strategy, don’t use it. If you would have STOPPED at pointing out your “non-productive” opinion you would have been fine – but you had to march off the-cliff to the point of being blam-sticked!

There are some arguments I’ve learned to just give up on and if folks manage to help get Democrats elected as a consequence of their tactics, we’ll have those examinations to make after the election and we’ll all see who had called the wrong strategy. Sounds like justinian wants to repeat the McCainiac mistakes and play within the bounds already proven to be a failure. Some of us like to think people would learn from mistakes.

One Old Dog

I don’t think WE disagree. I think you and I collectively disagree with the GOP consultants and other party apparatus that believe in the singular frontal assault. If memory serves me correctly, these are the mostly the same people that got us lost in the woods. So on that note, I will use my own compass, not theirs.

If I am mistaken, please let me know, I’d like to have hope again for the bill’s defeat.

kill people and they don’t particularly care which ones die as long as it’s not one of them.

and that is a major sub-point of this — making it PERSONALIZED to the masses and especially WOMEN with this whole Mammography fiasco!!!! It was Blanche and Mary that put the latest vote over the top DESPITE the current discussions of how this will be HARMFUL TO WOMEN and they must be called onto the carpet for it by ALL women!!!! Horowitz’s point and call for DIE-IN sessions across the US is absolutely the right strategy, IMO, at pointing out how the Democrats plans (INTENDED OR NOT) are going to put more women at risk!

ARE YOU WOMEN GOING TO STAND FOR THIS OR HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE?!?!?

Our, now Ghost, friend seems to want to hang the sole discussion on Economics (and again, his point would have merit IF we were dealing with reasonable folks). He ignores the fact that the Liberals are still convinced this is all going to be Deficit POSITIVE (potentially) and that SOAKING THE RICH is going to make that so!!!! You can’t argue on ECONOMIC GROUNDS with Politically Brain-dead folks that buy into the Democrat LIES – you have to reach them some other way!

Whether someones Mother, Sister, Daughter, Niece, Friend, Neighbor, MAY DIE FAR TOO EARLY DUE TO CANCER because of Liberals refusal to recognize the Rationing problems of their TAKEOVER makes it more “personal” and the argument more effective! THEN, when they finally have eyes and ears open and willing to discuss LOGICALLY, we can then explain how the Economics of it FAIL!!!!

1. Knowing ones audience – who we are trying to reach in this case
2. The value of Shock Headlines
3. not limiting ourselves to one approach/tactic
etc….

unfortunately, our friend got hung up on that he thought we aren’t smart enough to couch the terms carefully (aside from Shock headlines) and insist that any/all Democrats want to kill people off intentionally (again, some may – they are on record in regard to Planet over-population, but this isn’t about those folks). My point, though you think I step over the line with some of my words is: EFFECTIVE EQUIVALENCE (as discussed in many HC primers: here, here, here, here, here, and HC issues summary here)