Divisive rather than persuasive
Like most people, I get too much email. A past subscriber and occasional reader of the conservative newspaper Human Events, I’m not a fan of its new daily email series “The 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy.” Yesterday’s edition, “No. 30,” was titled, “What is a Libtard?” I don’t need this stuff cluttering my inbox.
“Instead of using the term ‘liberal,’ why not try ‘libtard’?” the email asked. “It’s apt (liberal + retard = libtard), it’s highly offensive, and quite deliciously un-PC. What’s not to like?”
Make no mistake, I’m a conservative, but I think there’s plenty to dislike about this series.
The daily emails are based on British journalist James Delingpole’s book 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy. It’s chock full of sarcastic and sophomoric liberal jokes and critiques, many of them mean-spirited and potentially “murderous” from a biblical perspective.
Delingpole’s work reminds me of another Human Events contributor, Ann Coulter. Coulter is downright shocking and careless at times. I recall hearing her at the 2006 Conservative Political Action Conference when she said, “I think our motto should be post-9/11: ‘Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.’” During the question and answer period that followed Coulter’s talk, a thoughtful and politically conservative young Muslim man, who otherwise aligned with Coulter’s thinking, politely asked her to reconsider her rhetoric. She was characteristically unapologetic.
Why do I care about comments like “libtard” and “raghead?” First, these types of expressions are simply a crude form of entertainment, which prove to be divisive rather than persuasive. Second, this kind of rhetoric is a poor witness to our youth. Next week I’ll be taking 40 students to the Conservative Political Action Conference. CPAC will attract at least 6,000 future leaders. A CPAC veteran, I advise Grove City College students to observe the different forms of political communication on display—some good, some bad—and to note that mean-spirited rhetoric is rude, foolish, and counterproductive. It won’t serve them, or society, well as they seek to impact the culture. My third and foremost reason why I care is because I think all of us, no matter our political affiliation, should be mindful that Christ equated language like “libtard” and “raghead” (i.e., “Raca,” “you fool”) with murder in his Sermon on the Mount discourse.
I hope Human Events will consider ending the series at No. 31.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top111 Comments to “Divisive rather than persuasive”
I completely agree with the article.
I believe that conservatives should not LOWER their standards down to the liberals standards of mean spirited, rude, insulting, personal attacks which mount to tearing the flesh off of any person.
American people see the truth.
Report comment to moderator
I agree wholeheartedly that there are good reasons to avoid doing/saying things that are mean-spirited and do nothing to glorify Christ when dealing with all people, not just liberals; however, given it’s acceptance of GOProud and other stances that CPAC is taking, I even more firmly believe that it is nothing that a real conservative, let alone a Christian conservative should be attending or promoting to either adults or our youth.
Report comment to moderator
Wow. Lee wrote a good, sensible argument with which I agree fully, and then the very first comment, claiming to agree, includes exactly the kind of insult he was just urging against.
Report comment to moderator
I have read many of these since the beginning of the year and would be unable to say those things to someone. It’s a bad mindset to join.
Report comment to moderator
I also agree with the article. Civility has gone down in our society and it is a sad thing. People should speak out against it and guard against it in their own discourse. Particularly, if someone names the name of Christ and claims to follow Him, their speech and behavior should reflect it. That does not mean we should not speak the truth, but it can be done in a civil manner.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Lee, but I also agree with Serloren. I do not think that anyone should be supporting CPAC at this time.
Report comment to moderator
Great article.
Conan, I also thought that about #1.
This kind of self-correction, be it personal or group, is what separates the good from the bad, etc.
Conan, I mean this without trying to throw stones. Is there any on the Left calling for such restraint and correction? I really hope so. I also readily admit that if there are, I live in an echo chamber and havn’t heard them. I don’t get out enough, I guess.
One of my attractions to WMB is the tenor of the debate. Sure, most of us degenerate into incivility, (at least I know that I do), but there are often times when the debate is thoughtfull. There are times when ground is ceded to a point made. The logic that at times is posited here from both sides will make me re-think my beliefs. I think that’s a good thing. If you won’t let your beliefs be challenged in an honest way, then you havn’t really based your beliefs on solid ground.
Mean-spiritedness has no place in Christian dialogue. Nor does it in grown up discourse. If you can’t state your position in a civil manor, it’s a sure sign of a poorly thought out position.
Now, to clean up the broken glass in my “glass house”.
Report comment to moderator
I, too, began receiving these e-mails on January 1. By about January 5, I’d had enough and jumped thru all the hoops required to get my name off the list.
I’m blessedly unable to recall any of the several punchlines, but remember being sure any group of middle-school boys could have done funnier. And less nasty.
Report comment to moderator
BrotherDan: Conan, I mean this without trying to throw stones. Is there any on the Left calling for such restraint and correction? I really hope so. I also readily admit that if there are, I live in an echo chamber and havn’t heard them. I don’t get out enough, I guess.
I think there are plenty of people on the left at the Lee Wishing level calling for more civility. The problem, though, is the same as it is here. A national publication with a wide reach fosters incivility, and a few lone voices with a few dozen or hundred readers are arguing against it.
Our political discourse has always been raucous, but it’s not always been as downright hostile as in the past few years. And it’s not a one-sided problem, much as I wish I could say it is.
Report comment to moderator
I think there are plenty of people on the left at the Lee Wishing level calling for more civility.
Do you know where?
Report comment to moderator
Jesus did call people names, and they clearly “had it coming”. Even so, there are some things Jesus did that we are better not to try to emulate; like walking on water, for example, or calling the dead from their graves. So it is too with judging people and calling them names. You better have your eyes and heart firmly fixed on Him when you walk out on that water…
Report comment to moderator
Re #3
I see nothing rude or offensive in the comment in #1. If the shoe fits, wear it. I guessing that Melody N is tired of the constant implication that ONLY people on the Right engage in incivility.
Report comment to moderator
Transformation by Jesus Christ, will provide great change in Ann.
“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.” (Php 2:13)
Report comment to moderator
Years ago I subscribed to Huma
Report comment to moderator
Well, so much for posting intelligently.
I don’t know how that got posted, but it did.
As I was saying, years ago I subscribed briefly to Human Events, on a trial subscription with some sweet offer. The trial subscription was more than enough for me. Not only was the tone far too nasty and sarcastic, but if I remember correcly, in my three months or so of subscribing, they twice had caricatures of black men on the cover (Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King, perhaps), with wording guaranteed not to win any friendship points from my mailman or my black neighbors. (I worked during the day and didn’t know whether my mailman was black, but all my neighbors were. It was an unfortunate, accidental bad testimony and I didn’t renew the magazine.) I actually had two super-conservative magazines briefly during that time, and didn’t renew either though I did find one far uglier than the other, and I can’t say for sure this one was the worst of the two.
Recently someone told me he didn’t like WORLD magazine, that it’s too “liberal,” and named Human Events as a better alternative. “Isn’t that the one with Ann Coulter’s column?” I verified. When he said it was, I told him I had a very negative view of that sort of conservatism. (I do own a couple of her books, by the way. She can be funny, but she can be very annoying and very rude, and I don’t consider myself a fan of her or of that style.)
Report comment to moderator
A call to civility in American political discourse is urgently needed. The “silly” season of the last two years, talk radio of the last few decades, internet blogs, etc. have all brought politics to the lowest denominator.
Respecting both sides, there’s a need to be aware of the other’s pov and its premises. A recognition the world is not a black/white take all situation is needed to develop a more pragmatic center.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, you are wrong about the first comment, mainly because you refuse to admit how nasty the Left is.
Report comment to moderator
I also note that Conan hasn’t come back with the names.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: Conan, you are wrong about the first comment, mainly because you refuse to admit how nasty the Left is.
It’s nastiness like this that makes it very hard to break through the incivility. As soon as I admit that the left is also guilty, some clown like you is waiting to pounce … not to enter into constructive dialog but to take the acknowledgment as a vulnerable point and pile on. Comments like yours are exactly why people are very reluctant to give any ground.
So in your twisted view, incivility is the left’s “level” and those conservatives who are also uncivil are “sinking” to it. Bite me.
I also note that Conan hasn’t come back with the names.
Why should I bother? You’ll just nitpick me to death and make it a huge waste of time.
Report comment to moderator
HRW – interesting you only consider the last two years to be part of the “silly season.” I guess the daily demonization and death-wishes directed toward President Bush, not to mention the vile hatred on naked display toward him and VP Cheney, Condi Rice, and company, was a-okay….?
Report comment to moderator
The Left tends to hide it’s worse stuff behind comedians and entertainers. When we point this out we are accused of having no sense of humor. They are just being edgy and we are being prudish and silly. When we retaliate and make fun of them we are accused of being nasty and racist. I looked through the book and thought some of it was funny ans some of it was over the top but I saw nothing that even comes close to the mean spiritedness aimed at us and ours on a typical episode of almost any late night TV show. Lighten up.
Report comment to moderator
20. It’s been going on all my life. The difference now is that the Right now has the means to talk back. Back when Bush 41 was called a male body part in a kid’s movie, no one seems to be concerned about civility.
Report comment to moderator
Yes we do now have the means to talk back. Thank heavens. Of course, that explains the absurd attempts at censorship of those very means under euphamisms such as “fairness doctrine” or “net neutrality.” As I’ve always said – and in agreement with the ACLU – that the answer to speech is more speech, not suppression of the speech.
Report comment to moderator
Fairness Doctrine: A broadcast station has to present all sides of an issue and can’t use its power to advocate one side or another.
Net Neutrality: Your Internet provider has to allow you equal access to all legal content and cannot give an advantage to some over others.
The conservative, if Buzzy is any indication, thinks these things are liberal attempts to stifle conservative points of view.
Seriously, how do you have such an inside-out understanding?
Report comment to moderator
KBells: The Left tends to hide it’s worse stuff behind comedians and entertainers. When we point this out we are accused of having no sense of humor. They are just being edgy and we are being prudish and silly.
That’s exactly the response I hear anytime a liberal criticizes Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. I guess that’s when the right is stooping to our level? (Post No. 1)
Report comment to moderator
Reading this thread is like walking through a funhouse. Every single thing the right is saying about the left sounds like they’re describing themselves. Black is white, up is down in your world, I guess.
Report comment to moderator
Why should I bother?
Agreed. I doubt you could do it. No reflection on you, aside from your speaking too soon, IMO, but I doubt there are calls from the left for the left to moderate its tone.
Report comment to moderator
25. None of us are claiming that Kathy Griffin is running the Democrat party.
24. Should that apply to Network TV. For example shouldn’t the GOP get an hour after a rerun of “West Wing” or how about the Southern Baptist Convention get 30 minutes after “Will and Grace”.
26. Like what.
Report comment to moderator
Late night tv had an amusing time with Clinton also. They are equal opportunists. And Stewart has been “edgy” with Obama. Its their job — people turn to them to poke fun of the powers to be.
For me the “silly season” has been the over top reference by political figures — second amendment remedies, armed and dangerous, etc
Although some of the criticism of Bush was sophomoric much of the criticism directed towards Cheney had to do with his corporate connections and secretive nature both valid forms of criticism. Criticism can be valid and not mean-spirited.
Report comment to moderator
In other words, “Yeah, but when we do it, it’s different.”
Report comment to moderator
29. So, how is this calendar any different? I agree that if you are actually having a discussion you should be civil but that is not the point of the calendar. It seems like it is meant to be just humor.
Report comment to moderator
Can either party truly believe that they alone take the high road?
Report comment to moderator
I doubt there are calls from the left for the left to moderate its tone.
Of course you do.
Report comment to moderator
28.
You talked about comedians, which I took to mean people like Jon Stewart or Bill Maher. I named right-wing “comedians,” or at least that’s what I’m told Ann Coulter is when I’m offended by something she says. Now you’re talking about people running the party. Which are you talking about, comedians or people running the party?
The original Fairness Doctrine was created in an era where all TV and radio was broadcast and the airwaves were considered a public trust. The FCC’s role at the time was to ensure one political side or another didn’t take control of what was meant as a public trust. That’s not the case anymore; the FCC for example doesn’t have purview over cable TV channels because they’re not broadcast over the air for everyone. So how a renewed Fairness Doctrine would work, I have no idea. It may not longer be feasible, and I am not especially pushing for it.
I just think it’s ludicrous how some people think talk of it is an Orwellian move to stifle conservatives. That’s real paranoia in action.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, if there are “plenty” of people on the left calling for civility among their own, cite a couple, please.
Eyerolls don’t count.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: As I said, they’re people at the Lee Wishing level. I see them here and there on blogs. I don’t have a handy list of them in my pocket, I would have to go hunt around for a while.
And after I spent that time, I would come back and post a link and NJLawyer, you and others would criticize the example, or demand more or insist it’s an anomaly or use the acknowledgment as an opportunity to get in another kick.
I am not going to waste my time. If you want to believe it’s because there aren’t any, go right ahead.
Report comment to moderator
The 365 book is harmless jest about the way liberals think. That is a far cry from the viscous character assassination and personal ridicule one often hears from the left. Even the president engages in mockery and ridicule of the right in nearly every speech.
The thing I don’t like about these things is that it lowers the level of discourse and assumes there are only two sides. I think many of us could agree, if we all strove toward objective reality. As Christians we should be about truth.
Instead, we talk past each other because there is this liberal mindset which refuses to acknowledge actual objective reality and rather pushes their own alternative reality. You could offer thousands of examples of liberal bias in the press and a liberal would never admit it.
This is a bit like a parent playing the role of a parent by disapproving of something for the child’s welfare, even though the parent realizes its no big deal. Progressives play the role of reformer and perform their duties to push their message and recast everything in a light which is favorable to their agenda.
For example, in another thread someone said that only Republicans are violent and carry guns. Whereas in the real world, much of the violence of the last century and the riots now are coming from the left and have the left’s sympathy.
The left calls for civility, like the President did, but 5 minutes later he’s back to mocking and ridiculing. How can this be? It is because of the left’s double standards. The left believes that only the right can be wrong and so their own principles never apply to them.
This makes it very frustrating to argue with liberals, which I think is what the 365 book is making fun of.
Report comment to moderator
And conservatives don’t seem to understand where it’s coming from. According to liberals’ postmodern worldview, there is no objective reality. There’s only the will to power, and power is gained by creating a dominant “reality” (or narrative) and imposing it on society through strongarm tactics until enough people fall in line with it that they can use it to recreate the world in their image. And they don’t see any lack of integrity in what they’re doing, because they’ve convinced themselves that it’s the only thing that can be done, but that they do it for “good,” while conservatives, who invoke God and tradition and such, do it for evil.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t seen Human Events, but if it’s in the style of Ann Coulter, I can’t stand it either. On the other hand, I think Doug Wilson uses mockery effectively and in a Biblically defensible way. (I mean, if you want to see some good mockery, look at the way Elijah spoke to the prophets of Baal.) And I think that one of the main reasons it comes across differently coming from Pastor Wilson is that it isn’t framed as liberals against conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
I see them here and there on blogs.
Wanna bet? I don’t really mind that they’re not calling for civility. It neither strengthens nor weakens any arguments they make. But you’re wrong. They aren’t calling for it among themselves. Admit it and move on.
Report comment to moderator
#38 Very insightful Ree. You are exactly right. It is about controlling the narrative to push their own alternative reality, since objective reality doesn’t exist in their minds.
Report comment to moderator
So, I guess Conan’s got nothing.
Has anyone heard anyone on a news program say they admit they are uncivil and should mend their ways? On either side? I haven’t.
Report comment to moderator
Keith Olbermann mentioned something to that effect, I believe.
Report comment to moderator
When the left says we should be more civil, they mean what the President said to Republicans, which was to shut up and get in the back of the bus. This was just before he called them enemies.
According to the left all incivility is coming from the right. Furthermore, all disagreement is called uncivil or mean. Discussion about ideas should be passionate and rigorous, but the left usually losing in the realm of objective logic resorts to personal invective.
Report comment to moderator
kBells: 24. Should that apply to Network TV. For example shouldn’t the GOP get an hour after a rerun of “West Wing” or how about the Southern Baptist Convention get 30 minutes after “Will and Grace”.
Only if the left gets one after Hee-Haw.
Xion: “objective logic”. You mean like an imaginary being using shepherds from 3000 years ago to tell us whom we can have sex with? Or demanding that we arrange our entire foreign policy and national security structure around an argument over to whom that being “gave” a small piece of land?
Report comment to moderator
Sorry. All after Will and Grace was mine.
Report comment to moderator
#45 Arcadia, Does it matter that your argument isn’t true and is unrelated to the foreign policy of a secular nation?
As Ree points out, you aren’t discussing actual reality but are merely trying to control the narrative which in this case is held exclusively by a population of one.
Report comment to moderator
The early direction of this post was really hopeful–people on the left and the right both agreeing that we have failed in treating others with the courtesy that we are called to. In that spirit:) as a conservative I’m posting information about a couple of liberals calling for civility. One is President Obama during the memorial for the shooting victims in Arizona. I know that he has not always spoken with politeness toward those on the right but during the memorial he called for a change in direction in our nation “At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds,” the president said.(http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESSWOMAN_SHOT_OBAMA?SITE=NCAGW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)
Another liberal calling for civility would be Lanny Davis, a man who has been involved in politics via a variety of venues including being a spokesperson for President Clinton. He joined with a Republican, Mark DeMoss, in calling for increased respect in Washington through The Civility Project (which unfortunately has folded due to lack of interest). According to the Civility Project website “DeMoss wrote to commend Davis for his civility during numerous television appearances on Mrs. Clinton’s behalf, and his respectful treatment of those with whom he disagreed. That letter is now displayed in Davis’ office.” (http://www.demossnews.com/civilityproject/press_kit/lanny_davis_bio)
Report comment to moderator
Those things are good, EJ. Pilgrim, but they don’t really provide what was requested of Conan. Lee Wishing’s OP is from a conservative, addressing conservatives, specifically. Are there similar calls in the leftisphere? President Obama, along with Davis and DeMoss, issue blanket requests from people of all views. There’s no special humility in that. Who on the left is calling for his or her own to be more temperate in their speech? I’m not seeing it. I have no problem being mistaken, and I wish Conan would correct me.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with that, Macrutabaga. There is not always agreement within a group as to what is or is not a reasonable tone for dialogue. Reasonable calls for civility are much more believable when they com from within the specific group rather than outside it. Self-censuring is a normal part of group behavior to some extent, because people are more apt to be persuaded to dial it down by those they trust.
That is not the case when criticisms come from outside the group. And the latest pile-on during the Tuscon tragedy was a prime example of political opportunism on the left masquerading as a call for civility.
Report comment to moderator
The other thing EJ Pilgrim may be overlooking is that the left and the right use words differently. When Obama called for civility and then the very next day went back to mocking his opponents, obviously he doesn’t think that what he called for applies to him.
What he meant and what all liberals actually mean is for the right to be more civil. And since any disagreement is considered uncivil and even unamerican, they are really telling the right to stop talking, as the President himself has said.
Report comment to moderator
Those things are good, EJ. Pilgrim, but they don’t really provide what was requested of Conan.
[...]
The other thing EJ Pilgrim may be overlooking is that the left and the right use words differently. When Obama called for civility and then the very next day went back to mocking his opponents, obviously he doesn’t think that what he called for applies to him.
This is why I didn’t bother. Nothing will be good enough for you. It’s just a troll game to see how much time you can get me to spend while you find some excuse to reject every example.
Report comment to moderator
Palin was dissed in a production of the Mikado — as in a person who wouldn’t be missed. Nice after Gabby Giffords, right? And there was a sports figure who made a complimentary, though extremely crass, remark about her — but you’ll have to google that one. I won’t repeat it. He apologized, but I will say it supported what I’ve always said about her — that she isn’t liked because she’s pretty and that scares people.
Report comment to moderator
Xion #37 – You could offer thousands of examples of liberal bias in the press and a liberal would never admit it.
Oh, how true that is. I have a relative who simply will not admit that a liberal bias exists in the MSM, despite reams of studies and books documenting it, including one from UCLA:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
I have a theory on why they won’t admit it: because they don’t “feel” it. In other words, when the MSM says something biased, they agree with the bias, so they don’t notice it the way a conservative would.
Report comment to moderator
I think that’s actually true in both directions: when someone says something with which conservatives agree, it seems like just speaking the truth, whereas a liberal would feel it. Which may be why they absolutely hate Fox News so much.
Report comment to moderator
The difference being that the liberal MSM has thousands of outlets (if we include big-city newspapers), whereas the number of conservative media outlets of any substantial size can be counted on one hand.
Report comment to moderator
Oh that idiotic Groseclose “study” again.
He rated what media are liberal or conservative by how often they quoted liberal or conservative politicians and think tanks, with no regard to the context or purpose. It’s absurd and shows he has no idea how journalism works — he’s equating a reference with approval.
So a news story could quote four liberal politicians and then quote one conservative scholar to convincingly show they’re dead wrong, and the Groseclose methodology would rank it “liberal” by a 4:1 ratio, based strictly on the numbers of sources.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, so are you one of those liberals who denies the leftward bias in the major media?
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: Yeah, I do actually. The major media does a pretty good job in reporting of neutrality. And one or two highly flawed studies don’t persuade me otherwise.
If you look just at news reports (not opinion columns, editorials or blogs), I seriously doubt you could show a pattern of liberal bias. Groseclose tried and failed because he doesn’t understand journalism (that is, a reporter quoting or citing a source does not equal endorsement of that source’s point of view, which his methodology has no way to account for). There are not any other studies I’m aware of that even try. It’s just taken as an article of faith among conservatives.
Anecdotally you can probably show examples of liberal bias, and I can show examples of conservative bias. But for a pattern, I don’t think a pattern can be shown either way.
Report comment to moderator
Well, it’s not like the overwhelming liberal bias in the MSM is a new phenomenon, or that it hasn’t been thoroughly documented over the past four or five decades. Only liberals don’t “feel” the bias (see my post at #54), and hence, only liberals don’t believe the bias exists.
Report comment to moderator
Then it should be easy for you to show me study after study that proves it and can’t be easily picked apart as the Groseclose study can.
More likely, conservatives have such a highly developed sense of persecution and victimization that they define “liberally biased” as anything that doesn’t explicitly take a conservative position.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, 52,
You’re doing nothing if not dodging the issue. That much is transparent to us all. The request of you has always been to cite a couple folks on the left calling specifically for folks *on the left* to keep the discussion civil, calling out those who’ve gone too far. Not a complicated request. That’s not what Obama did in Tucson; it’s not what Davis and DeMoss are doing. You said there are plenty such folks doing the very thing you’ve been asked to demonstrate–and whom you’ve confirmed exist–but you’ve given us zilch. Don’t get all huffy over it.
Report comment to moderator
#55 Buzzy “I think that’s actually true in both directions: when someone says something with which conservatives agree, it seems like just speaking the truth, whereas a liberal would feel it. Which may be why they absolutely hate Fox News so much.”
That is true perhaps regarding feelings, but what about truth? The difference is that for liberals truth is a narrative they are trying to create, not objective reality. Conservatives like O’Reilly point out both right wing and left wing bias all the time. But no liberal would ever admit left wing bias, because it is off message.
Report comment to moderator
I would like to see the stats on how many liberals vs. conservatives press the “Report comment to moderator” link.
My guess is it would be 90% to 10% for liberals, since they regard disagreement as verbal assault. They are so frequently offended by sound logic that they quickly resort to ad hominem attacks. But that is perfectly fine, since in their alternative reality they can’t do anything wrong.
Report comment to moderator
This thread has devolved into pettiness — the same tit for tat who’s better/worse that mars the political discourse.
The MSM is owned by major corporations and is run the top American elite (that is the top 5% income earners) the only bias they have is the corporate bottom line and making sure effective criticism of the present American economic system is shut out. In the same way, I think Republicans and Democrats are hard to tell apart except maybe in mannerisms and style so to is the American media. You want left wing media don’t read the NYT read the Guardian or the Toronto Star. I think some here see a “liberal” media is due to social differences not economic, that and they have been told by 30 years that the media is liberal.
Xion, for the record I have been commenting here far longer than most — a bit of an embarrassment and have only complained once. Simply put, don’t call me a Nazi or that I like Nazis. Say what you want about my ideas and call me just about anything but those comments were over the line. However, on the banning of commentators over the past few years, I believe the ratio is something like 5 non-Christian leftist to 1 Christian right winger.
Report comment to moderator
Oh — Xion, I’m not attributing these remarks to you it wasn’t you.
Report comment to moderator
#65 HRW I am embarrassed to say I pressed the Report comment to moderator button at least once too, even though it wasn’t even about me if I remember correctly. I thought it was my duty to turn in my brother, kind of like Boy Scouts picking up trash.
I felt horrible since and have sworn off it. The reason is that I think ideas should stand on their own. I’ve tried to let my ideas do the talking, kind of like what the NE Patriots always say to the press, “We do our talking on the field.” (Unlike those Jets I might add)
If I am ridiculed, which is quite often, I take it as a sign that my words are hitting home and that my opponent has nothing else to answer. Checkmate! If I were really wise, I’d walk away at that point, but no one has ever accused me of having wisdom. If they did, I’d have to report them for lying.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: If I am ridiculed, which is quite often, I take it as a sign that my words are hitting home and that my opponent has nothing else to answer.
I see. So it never occurs to you that you might actually be wrong?
Report comment to moderator
Well, here’s a fine example of liberal bias and outrageousness:
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/chris-matthews-tea-party/2011/02/01/id/384675?s=al&promo_code=B93E-1
Report comment to moderator
Lee Wishing should focus more on a theology of humour than using the Sermon on the Mount to prooftext what he says. Liberal or Conservative, humour should be used be christians to make their point… The following is a responce to Wishing, calling him to teach an approrpiate use of humour in public engagement: http://realgrasshopper.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/world-mag-writer-lee-wishing-and-the-use-of-humour-in-public-engagement/
Report comment to moderator
Whenever I challenge people who are convinced of a broad liberal media bias to show me news reports that demonstrate it, the best they can usually do is along the lines of #69: A commentator, an editorial, a paid TV blowhard.
You found a liberal commentator expressing an extreme opinion. Yay for you. But you’ve not moved one inch toward showing a bias in news reporting.
Report comment to moderator
All you have to do is watch one and admit the tone and inflection of the reporter. All you have to do is know what they DON’T talk about.
Report comment to moderator
Amazing that you dismiss Mathews as a blowhard, but apply a different standard to the blowhards at Fox. Oh, that’s right, Leftys always apply a double standard.
Report comment to moderator
Amazing that you dismiss Mathews as a blowhard, but apply a different standard to the blowhards at Fox. Oh, that’s right, Leftys always apply a double standard.
Report comment to moderator
Amazing that you dismiss Mathews as a blowhard, but apply a different standard to the blowhards at Fox. Oh, that’s right, Leftys always apply a double standard.
When have I done that? Why don’t you stop your self-righteous puffery for a minute and actually use your head? I have never tried to make a case for “conservative media bias” by citing Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity.
Unlike you, I know the difference between a reporter and a commentator. It’s not an argument I would make, because I know better.
I apply no “double standard.” You are just engaging in yet another idiotic broadside attack against “leftys” with (as usual) no evidence to support your ridiculous claim and not a shred of decency to keep you from making it. You just can’t help yourself, can you?
Report comment to moderator
#68 Conan “Xion: If I am ridiculed, which is quite often, I take it as a sign that my words are hitting home and that my opponent has nothing else to answer. I see. So it never occurs to you that you might actually be wrong?”
When you prove me wrong, I admit that I am wrong. If you resort to ridicule, then you’ve proven nothing. You’re just demonstrating that you have nothing better to offer. Temper tantrums signal concession.
Your M.O., like that of the leftist media is to always try to portray your opponent in a debate as stupid. You would never call it bias since that would be off message. Because in your mind conservatives are stupid, calling them that is just telling the truth.
Report comment to moderator
When have I called anyone stupid?
Seriously. That’s a strong accusation. I try to debate with facts and reasonable arguments. I do sometimes get frustrated by stubborn ignorance, but by and large I don’t think I do what you accuse me of.
So show me your evidence, please.
Report comment to moderator
Great article, Lee. I can’t think of a single person who has been persuaded to change their point of view because they were mocked by someone with the opposite view. I can, however, think of several liberals who won’t even consider the conservative view because they are offended by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
As Christians we need a higher standard. The arguements of the-left-does-it-too or the-left-started-it don’t matter! It’s wrong for Christians to get a laugh at someone else’s expense. Even worse than those people staying liberal is that they may be turned away from Jesus because of the talk they hear from His followers.
Report comment to moderator
“Lee Wishing should focus more on a theology of humour than using the Sermon on the Mount to prooftext what he says. Liberal or Conservative, humour should be used be christians to make their point… The following is a responce to Wishing, calling him to teach an approrpiate use of humour in public engagement: http://realgrasshopper.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/world-mag-writer-lee-wishing-and-the-use-of-humour-in-public-engagement/”
Did I miss the part in the article where Lee said not to use humor? All I read is his asking for real civility. Humor can be civil.
Report comment to moderator
#76 Conan “When have I called anyone stupid? … So show me your evidence, please.”
I was referring to the left in general which employs a near universal condescending attitude. You used to call me various names, which escape me at the moment. In the last 24 hours you called me willfully ignorant. Does that mean stupid?
On this particular thread you called someone twisted. You told one person, “Bite me”. You told another “Why don’t you stop your self-righteous puffery for a minute and actually use your head?” And so on …
Anyway, I am sure you see this as all perfectly normal and not a problem. It gets to the root of the psychology of the leftwing mind where truth is subjective and therefore the double standard seems perfectly normal.
I’m not trying to be condescending or critical. I am honestly fascinated that you are incapable of seeing your own bias. I would love to research this. I think others touched on it earlier. It has something to do with relativism where truth is your own narrative, not actual objective reality.
I think this gets to the heart of why a book like 365 gets written. It makes fun of this phenomenon where you think up is down and in is out. What is even more fascinating is that you accuse non-liberals of the very same thing. It’s like we’re looking in a mirror where left is right and so on.
The good news is that if either side is willing to seek objective truth, they shall find it.
Report comment to moderator
BethanyB I recommend you read my blog post and comment there if my opinion still does not make sense. But very quickly, by mentioning ‘365 Ways’ Wishing does not seem to want to allow for humour that could offend. By equating humour with name calling he inadvertently (I hope) also says that we cannot use satire, which as you will read from my blog a mode of criticism that Jesus himself uses. Furthermore, Wishing “proof texts” his criticism, which is a dangerous thing to do because it can lead to Pharisaism. I simply want to highlight the importance of using humour in a Godly way.
Report comment to moderator
I received this mail also, and found the tone quite disturbing
When Rahm Emanual referred to Progessive Democrats as “retarded,” Sarah Palin wrote:
“Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the “N-word” or other
such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental
disabilities — and the people who love them — is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking.”
How is such language ever appropriate? Does Human Events condone this?
Report comment to moderator
Xion: In the last 24 hours you called me willfully ignorant. Does that mean stupid?
No, that means you make a deliberate choice to believe something that isn’t so and spurn knowledge that would obligate you to change your opinion. It’s not stupidity, but it is stubbornness and refusal to consider you might be mistaken.
On this particular thread you called someone twisted. You told one person, “Bite me”. You told another “Why don’t you stop your self-righteous puffery for a minute and actually use your head?” And so on …
Anyway, I am sure you see this as all perfectly normal and not a problem. It gets to the root of the psychology of the leftwing mind where truth is subjective and therefore the double standard seems perfectly normal.
No, that’s me getting frustrated with various people who I don’t think are dumb but who hold counterfactual positions that are baffling to me. When I am that frustrated, I should go do something else for a while.
The left does not think truth is subjective, by the way. That’s yet another myth.
Report comment to moderator
#83 Conan “No, that means you make a deliberate choice to believe something that isn’t so and spurn knowledge that would obligate you to change your opinion. It’s not stupidity, but it is stubbornness and refusal to consider you might be mistaken.”
You didn’t prove me wrong in that case. Yet you still resort to ridicule and condescension saying I don’t understand science even though I’ve spent most of my life in science and engineering.
You’re projecting. I am always willing to change my opinion. I’ve admitted being wrong plenty of times. You never have. It is because you are pushing a message, trying to control the narrative. I’m happy to learn the truth and don’t care whether I am right or not.
“The left does not think truth is subjective, by the way. That’s yet another myth.”
Of course you don’t. You never would. But if you esteemed objective reality then you would win some and lose some as you converged on the truth. But here you play the role of resident leftist and you never ever deviate from message. Your compatriots never do either. You’re on a mission.
Do you think that your message or the reality in your own mind is real? Sure, but given that it is true only your projection of reality doesn’t make it objectively true in the actual world.
For example, to say there is no bias whatsoever in the media is a narrative. It is your message. It is what you are here to push. But you aren’t willing to consider the facts, unless they happen to further your message. No matter how many examples or studies are cited you will always say they mean nothing.
By the way, I don’t mean to criticize and I must say that you take this all quite well. To me this is not about you, but more about mass psychology, especially in the media, where a message is pushed that is mostly untrue. I find it not only fascinating, but also important as a citizen. They fact that you so easily buy into the myths makes you an interesting example to probe further.
I watch in amazement as the news spins modern mythology as events unfold while people are watching. It is like observing Greek myths being created out of thin air. For me it is a lesson in history like visiting a museum, but one which is live.
Report comment to moderator
Provasek: Of course such language is appropriate within the right context. See Chris Rocks brilliant use of the N-word. Context is what is important in the use of language. What is certainly inappropriate is censoriousness, disguised as love for another.
Report comment to moderator
You didn’t prove me wrong in that case. Yet you still resort to ridicule and condescension saying I don’t understand science even though I’ve spent most of my life in science and engineering.
Remind me what that was about? Probably climate, but I don’t remember for sure.
Of course you don’t. You never would. But if you esteemed objective reality then you would win some and lose some as you converged on the truth. But here you play the role of resident leftist and you never ever deviate from message. Your compatriots never do either. You’re on a mission.
This is false. I defend the positions I hold, and either join in attacking or sometimes remain uninvolved on positions I don’t hold. I am not a lockstep leftist, nor am I as far to the left as some others here.
For example, to say there is no bias whatsoever in the media is a narrative. It is your message. It is what you are here to push. But you aren’t willing to consider the facts, unless they happen to further your message. No matter how many examples or studies are cited you will always say they mean nothing.
I haven’t said there is no bias whatsoever in the media. I have said there is no systemic pattern of liberal bias in news reporting. And so far the only counterarguments I’ve gotten involve the Groseclose study, which is severely flawed for reasons I think I’ve explained well, and reference to Chris Matthews, who is not a journalist and not engaged in reporting the news.
So I do not reject evidence just because I don’t like what it says, I have and can give specific and, I think, good reasons for rejecting those two things. If there’s more, I’m happy to consider it, but I hope you see that I actually evaluate things before deciding whether or not they’re meaningful; I do not just believe what supports my views and reject what doesn’t. (I have recently been involved in discussions with conservatives here, including you and the IRS agents story, who seem to me to be doing exactly that.)
To me this is not about you, but more about mass psychology, especially in the media, where a message is pushed that is mostly untrue. I find it not only fascinating, but also important as a citizen. They fact that you so easily buy into the myths makes you an interesting example to probe further.
OK, case in point: Some highly-partisan voices say the health care reform will require the IRS to hire 16,000 armed agents to enforce the tax laws in it. A non-partisan organization shows how that claim is false, in that it was based on a set of assumptions that the financial impact of the law would be at the maximum possible, and even then the original conclusion was that the IRS might, at maximum, have to hire 16,000 new employees — including auditors, clerks, administrative assistants and other office staff — not “agents.”
I have facts, documentation and careful analysis on my side in saying the “16,000 IRS agents” claim is false … but I’m the one you think is believing myths.
Explain that one to me.
Report comment to moderator
#86 Conan Actually you bring up a good point as I refine my understanding of liberals. When objective reality happens to align with the liberal narrative, then there really is no better source of good information. I always love this scenario because truth flows like a river.
I actually prefer when a Republican is in office because even though left wing hate ratchets up to the red zone, those who control the media at least present some truth. When a Democrat is in office, the left just becomes lemmings mindlessly regurgitating the dull leftist message. Truth hides in the basement.
Report comment to moderator
#86 Some highly-partisan voices say the health care reform will require the IRS to hire 16,000 armed agents to enforce the tax laws in it. A non-partisan organization shows how that claim is false…
That wouldn’t be The Handy Dandy Leftist Guide to Reality you’re referencing again, would it? I don’t think they’re objective—and they’re tone is not objective. I even showed you they were not referencing the right letter. But I don’t expect you to change your mind. Carry on….
Report comment to moderator
Debra: FactCheck is non-partisan. The last time you said this I pointed to examples where they debunk liberal myths. The site is run by the Annenberg Foundation, which isn’t partisan.
You’re just name-calling now. And ignoring a contrary argument with an ad hominem attack. “They’re liberal” doesn’t argue against the facts one bit, and would not even if it were true.
I don’t think they were referencing the wrong letter, but I’ll look again.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: I looked more closely at your “wrong letter” claim. You are wrong. I will show you how, and I will be interested to see if you admit it.
The original FactCheck article I linked to describes how the CBO said that the additional administrative cost for IRS is likely to be somewhere between $5 billion and $10 billion. It was this number that led Ron Paul and others to claim that the IRS would be hiring 16,000 new agents, based on the $10 billion number (the highest end of the range.)
Note that is is a number specifically pertaining to the IRS. It is a subset of the total cost of the law.
This number came from a letter that the CBO director sent to members of Congress on March 11, 2010. Letter: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11307/Reid_Letter_HR3590.pdf
Now, you pointed me to an ABC News blog from May of 2010 reporting that the CBO had estimated that the law would cost more to implement than originally estimated.
That report was based on a letter that the CBO director sent to members of Congress on May 11, 2010. Blogger Jake Tapper linked to the letter, which is here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11490/LewisLtr_HR3590.pdf
Now, I’m not sure Tapper is reading the letter correctly, but that’s unimportant here, because it also reports what the CBO estimates will be additional cost to the IRS for its new duties — and it is the same $5 billion to $10 billion range as CBO estimated in March.
Whatever else may have changed between March and May, that number did not. The CBO director refers first in general way to the expenses of IRS and HHS in carrying out their requirements, then goes on to specify the estimated specifics. The exact quote from the May letter is:
(Check it out for yourself; it’s on page 2 of the May letter and you can follow the link from your own article.)
So:
1. No, FactCheck did not reference the wrong letter. Their article appeared in March and they cited the most current information at the time.
2. No, the May letter did not indicate any change to the relevant number for the topic. Whatever else might have changed, that didn’t.
So, the “16,000 agents” myth remains debunked.
Report comment to moderator
Got quiet in here …
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
In that letter the CBO lists IRS costs in two places: under ‘potential discretionary costs’ and in another place under “implementation costs”. You have only quoted numbers for the known estimated implementation costs But they say the ‘discretionary’ costs for IRS are part of what they estimate will exceed $115B, though they are not finished estimating. And under the discretionary costs they list :
They reference a table which does not account for nearly all their estimate, and does not detail the IRS portion of the estimate at all. If they have articulated their estimate for the discretionary cost for the IRS implementation for Obamacare, I have not seen it.
Obamacare will not succeed unless they are able to collect the taxes and fees and penalties to pay for it. They will need a significant increase in collectors.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11490/LewisLtr_HR3590.pdf
Report comment to moderator
Debra,
Try to follow along.
The claim: To enforce the tax rules of healthcare reform (disparagingly renamed “Obamacare”), the IRS will have to hire 16,000 agents. (”Agents” are the people who go out to enforce the tax laws, usually armed … this is the image the opponents are trying to create.)
The FactCheck.org analysis: Republicans used the estimated discretionary costs of $5 billion to $10 billion as a basis for their conclusion that IRS might have to hire up to 16,000 new employees. But the original analysis (1) used the high end of the estimated range and (2) referred to employees overall, which includes auditors, clerks and other jobs that are not “agents.”
Further, IRS agents are the people who enforce the laws against criminal tax fraud. They go after people who are laundering money, or hiding their assets in offshore accounts, or earning money from illegal activities or otherwise deliberately defrauding the system. People who simply fail to pay all the taxes they owe are usually just dealt with with a letter demanding the rest and possibly some interest. They do not send armed agents to your house to haul you away.
Your counterclaim: A later letter from CBO revised the numbers upward.
My analysis: The later letter did not change the $5 billion to $10 billion estimate that the Republicans used in drawing their original conclusion. So what you think is a smoking gun proving FactCheck wrong does not do anything of the sort, because the number that is involved in the claim did not change.
No one has argued that the law won’t cost money to implement. The second letter doesn’t change anything about the specific charge raising the ominous specter of an army of armed enforcement agents roaming the land.
Report comment to moderator
To clarify something from the post above:
The FactCheck.org analysis: Republicans used the estimated discretionary costs of $5 billion to $10 billion as a basis for their conclusion that IRS might have to hire up to 16,000 new employees. But the original analysis (1) used the high end of the estimated range and (2) referred to employees overall, which includes auditors, clerks and other jobs that are not “agents.”
That was the Republican analysis … that with an assumption of the high extreme of the cost range, the IRS would add 16,000 employees of various types. It was politicians who took that scenario — which was a worst-case but still fact-based — and morphed it into 16,000 agents collecting taxes.
For example:
See, even Alex Jones Prison Planet blog notes the distinction between what the actual finding is and what Ron Paul says. (Although the blog post author may not really understand the difference since he never makes anything of it.)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-irs-will-steal-more-money-to-fund-health-care.html
Report comment to moderator
Conan, it looks like you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. It appears that the sum total of your argument is quibbling about the exact number of people the IRS will need to hire and whether they will be called agents or not. Well, until they are hired, no one knows exactly what the number will be.
The camel you are digesting in the mean time is the dramatic increase in the power of the IRS to enforce Obamacare. The IRS is the only agency in America where you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. If you don’t pay them they surround your house with automatic weapons, as I’ve proven many times before. And so Obama has placed people with guns in charge of health care which in the end is not really about better more affordable health care, but redistribution of wealth. This will decrease the quality and increase the cost.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Conan, it looks like you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. It appears that the sum total of your argument is quibbling about the exact number of people the IRS will need to hire and whether they will be called agents or not. Well, until they are hired, no one knows exactly what the number will be.
No, that’s precisely the point. Rand Paul and some other ideologues have taken an already-sketchy finding and stretched into a claim that 16,000 armed IRS agents will be roaming the land to steal our money.
What the finding actually was was that the IRS will have to hire more people. Nobody disputes this. And it might be a lot of people. But they will not, for the most part, be agents and their primary job will not be law enforcement.
Don’t try to pretend that it doesn’t matter what term you use, or that in your own comments repeating the claim you were not trying to give that impression. An IRS agent is a very specific position, and the claim is not supportable.
Your concluding paragraph is just rank paranoia that I’m not going to bother trying to dispel.
Report comment to moderator
No one knows how many agents, secretaries and clerks will have to be hired, NO ONE—not the CBO, not FactCheck. The Republicans have given their considered estimate. Some find it incredible, but many of us consider that the atmosphere being created for small businesses is hostile, and don’t find it incredible at all. But we won’t know how accurate the estimat was until the CBO puts line items by all those large numbers and the IRS starts hiring. Until then, by all means continue to froth at the mouth over the disagreement….
Report comment to moderator
It did occur to me that now that they are eliminating one of the more anti-small-business paperwork requirements (1099s for purchases over $600)they may possibly be able to reduce the estimate. There would have been a lot of violations over that one. But maybe not. They’re still going to have to pay for all this somehow. If Obamacare is deemed constitutional, I look for many more audits of small businesses, along with the attendant staff increases of all kinds. How much, remains to be seen.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: But nobody who analyzes the numbers has said that 16,000 agents will be needed. Even the Republicans’ considered estimate did not say that. They accurately referred to employees, and they accurately noted that that estimate was based on the IRS administrative costs being at the high end of the possible range.
It was the politicians seeking to raise public opposition who turned might hire 16,000 employees into will hire 16,000 agents.
Not all IRS employees are agents. Most are not. But the anti-tax people don’t inspire fear if they say the IRS could hire as many as 16,000 secretaries, clerks and office managers. So they say “agents,” which is deceptive but accomplishes their purpose. You are apparently ok with deception if it serves your ends.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps they’re speaking loosely the way politicians do; the point is there are going to be more audits—there will have to be many more audits. That’s the point of more agents, and that’s what you don’t want to talk about.
When you talk about deception you’re definitely projecting. That’s okay–after you fully participated in hypocritical pile-on against conservatives in the wake of the Tuscan tragedy, I doubt anyone expects better of you. I know I don’t.
Be well anyway.
Report comment to moderator
If an army of 16,000 soldiers were coming to attack, Conan would say it is a lie and tell everyone to stop being so paranoid since some of them are only cooks and secretaries and support troops.
Report comment to moderator
#96 Conan “Your concluding paragraph is just rank paranoia that I’m not going to bother trying to dispel.”
Translation: The concluding paragraph is true and therefore it is a waste of time to try and disprove it.
The point is that the IRS is the only Federal Agency where you are guilty until proven innocent. Armed agents can storm your home and confiscate your possessions prior to any trial. It is up to you to prove your innocence and to try and get your possessions back. Why are you so eager to put healthcare in the hands of law enforcement?
Report comment to moderator
A close relative of mine worked for an IRS criminal investigation office for about 20 years. They were always running full tilt on cases against money launderers, drug smugglers and similar criminals. They would not have ever sent two agents with guns to collect a four-cent debt.
And as usual, there’s more to these stories than you let on. That top example, the three businessmen claiming the raids were unnecessary? The article to which you link goes on to say:
I’m sure there are some cases of abuses and mistakes by IRS agents. But there are similar stories for any law enforcement department. They’re human and make mistakes. But the repeated false story “16,000 IRS agents” roaming the land is just fearmongering.
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad the Republicans were vocal about their assessment of increased staffing to the IRS. When a congress is STUPID enough and anti-business enough to pass legislation that requires onerous reporting to the IRS, people who realize the negative ramifications of that profoundly STUPID action are not fearmongering when they point it out. And thank goodness they did, because that particularly oppressive portion of the bill is being repealed.
Report comment to moderator
Debra: When you figure out the difference between what I’m talking about and what you’re talking about, let me know.
Report comment to moderator
LOL. I got your number, Conan.
My point is that behind the political rhetoric and semantic gymnastics, there is a reality that is decidedly troubling to small businesses as regards Obamacare and the IRS. The Republicans are articulating this reality fairly well. You and other Democrats are trying to dismiss it because it’s not to your political advantage to address it openly. That’s not much different than the blatant political opportunism you employed during the Tuscan tragedy—pretending to want dialogue, but only engaging in hit and run.
Report comment to moderator
The health reform will require some taxation and yes, some businesses are likely to be audited. Not that businesses don’t get audited now, but yes, that may well increase under the law and there will be new requirements to meet.
I’ve never argued otherwise.
But there will not be an army of armed “agents” coming to steal money, as Rand Paul would have it. You may not care about the semantic difference, but I think it matters.
It’s another element in the tapestry of misinformation Republicans are trying to weave in an effort to steal health insurance coverage back from 30 million Americans. This is not something you should be proud of. If you can’t defeat the law by arguing against what it actually contains, resorting to falsehoods is not an honorable way to win.
Report comment to moderator
Assuming that we’re all doing the best we can, why should I have to be audited, and perhaps put out of business so that you can have health insurance? It’s hard enough to stay in business and make a living to take care of my own family with all of the hoops you have to jump through now. There are other ways to reform the system we have—more constitutional and much fairer ways. If you leftist Democrats hadn’t been so adamant that everything be done your way, there could have been meaningful reforms. You blew it. I still believe that leftists don’t want moderate reforms, because you guys will never get to a single-pay, socialized system if people are generally satisfied with private healthcare. And comments like’ Republicans are trying to…steal health coverage from 30 million Americans’ is just more of the lying, hateful rhetoric you so hypocritically profess to hate.
Report comment to moderator
Why should people be satisfied with private health care, when it is out of reach of many to begin with, and often very expensive even for people who have insurance? It’s not uncommon for a hospital stay of just a few days to come tens of thousands of dollars, and it’s also not uncommon for private insurance to cover that at only 80 percent or only after a deductible is met.
Tell me Debra, if you develop severe pneumonia, or have a heart attack, or are injured in a car accident and need to stay in the hospital for a week, how easily will you be able to pay the %15,000 that’s on you after your insurance covers all it will cover?
And if someone without health insurance has that experience, how will they pay the $60,000 or $70,000 it could cost?
Buying insurance across state lines is not a solution. But in this country, as proud as we are of our high standard of living and health care system, it’s still VERY possible for a single accident or illness to drive people to bankruptcy, even upright working people who have insurance.
All I hear from the conservatives is how evil this law is, and how it should be repealed. OK. Give me a better idea. Seriously, if Republicans have a better idea that will truly result in coverage for the currently uncovered, I am all for it. I will stand in your corner and support it and persuade everyone I can to get on board.
What’s your better idea?
Report comment to moderator
#109 Conan, No one is saying the health care system isn’t broken. But you don’t fix a broken arm by breaking a guy’s legs. You don’t fix health care for a handful of people by ruining it for the vast majority.
“Seriously, if Republicans have a better idea that will truly result in coverage for the currently uncovered, I am all for it. I will stand in your corner and support it and persuade everyone I can to get on board. What’s your better idea?”
I don’t know what Republicans propose, but I know what the answer is. It was an idea I used when I ran my own business and it is what the crunchy lefty Whole Foods also advocates. The answer is very affordable major medical insurance with medical savings accounts. The people without insurance can start their own medical savings plan without having to go through their employer.
But as soon as Whole Foods published their plan which their employees had enjoyed for years, the left went apoplectic and boycotted Whole Foods because they broke ranks with Obama’s leftist narrative.
Here is more of their plan in terms of legal changes:
Report comment to moderator
Xion: I saw this post first on another thread and responded there. To avoid having two threads covering the same conversation, I direct you there.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!