I decided a long time ago that I don’t support unwarranted preemptive strikes by my government and unnecessary loss of American blood and treasure, much less the torturing war prisoners in an unjust war.

For example, I don’t think we should invade North Korea or Iran either.

Do you, duggerSD?

p.s. Thanks for the freedom wish. And just so you know, my liberty is a given. A perpetual fully intact endowment from a higher power.

Yours too.

We can’t lose it.

We can just lose our awareness of it.

So be careful out there, man, especially with that ego of yours.

And remember, you don’t have to believe everything you think.

No.

Thanks, duggerSD.

There are always those moocher types who are looking for a free handout. Who knows, some of them might even be Republicans.

I sure notice a lot of them showing up at my friends’ art openings, for example. They come and eat the gourmet goodies, slam down a few quick cabernets, pretend like they’re looking at the art, and then hit the road. You know the drill, right?

My uncle stopped at the rally. He said there were some cars there. He stayed most of the day because he had nothing else to do I guess. He guessed that maybe there were no more then 300 people there total for the whole day. He said that some of the people he talked to where just there to see if there was any free food or coffee. Guess those kind of people show up everywhere!

Anyway Bill, if the population of Sioux Falls is somewhere around 154,997 people, and only 300-500 people showed up as supporters…..does this mean that the other 154,497 people that didn’t show up were against the rally? I don’t rightly know….I have trouble with numbers you know!

I’m really disappointed the organizers put out such an unrealistic expectation for the turnout, they simply left themselves open to ridicule, such as that quoted above.

I recorded the event to watch at home after work and from their own “crowd shots” it looked more like a few dozen people showed up, than “thousands”…

If anything, the scheduling of today’s event undermined the message they were trying to promote.

How in the H#@$ did the organizers of this event become the “official voice” of the 9-12/Tea Party movement? I’ve personally attended 3 grassroots events since the April 15th rally and haven’t seen anyone representing these “organizers” at them…

I believe there is an emergence of “conservative populism” that sees little “hope” and fears the “change” that’s coming out of Washington DC, but the organizers of this event have done a poor job capitalizing on it.

IMHO, if a “Tea Party” movement is to succeed, it needs to distance itself from individuals that are associated with money and connections from well established lobbyists.

Any event that’s staged by those already “connected” for other causes, risks carrying the baggage of every cause the lobbyists are associated with, and that prevents a focus on the issues the Tea Parties are trying to address.

The “Silent Majority” never took to the streets, they were too busy working and providing for their families. Today’s “Tea Party” movement is essentially the same group of middle class Americans that reject the rapid and unprecedented “change” that’s coming out of Washington. We work, have families and don’t have pre-printed posters and flexible schedules to run out to every “rally” that purports to represent us; we’re busy! We still have to make a living and don’t have much (if any) “street smarts” when it comes to demonstrating for a cause.

Can the Tea Party movement really move forward? IMHO, only if they disown established “conservative” lobbyists and demonstrate the Tea Party movement is not about the labels of conservative / liberal but only about Americans concerned for their country.

Insurance companies have people who underwrite each policy…and you will get a rider on every ailment you had for the past five years and if it is a major illness…sorry no insurance at all for you. And, if you get sick a couple years into the policy, they still can kick you out and say it was pre-exisiting.

Insurance companies are getting more greedy every day because no one has ever questioned them. They make LOTS of money so they are doing their best to make the government insurance policy look bad.

As far as I’m concerned, I’d have better insurance and so would most with the government program. The insurance companies will still be in business…they’ll have a bit of competition and will have to start running their companies like they are supposed to. With a government program also in place, you’d have coverage and not be at the mercy of some hotshot working for an insurance company getting a bonus for saving money for the company.

The insurance companies are putting out a lot of propraganda because they can lose a lot of money. If they had played fair all these years, they wouldn’t have to defend themselves now.

7:44 said: ‘Frankly, every now and then, I just need to puke your crap into your face.’ So, it is possible for someone who’s full of crap to puke crap. Hmm. Fascinating.

Then what sort of government influence/oversight on the economy do they want? If I’m not mistaken, many Republicans believe it was TOO MUCH regulation that caused the current recession rather than not enough. Even less regulation than Bush? That’s getting pretty close to pure laissez faire isn’t it?

“With a little perspective, the unfettering we desire isn’t extreme unless you consider the Kennedy/Reagans’s economic perspective extreme. FYI: Nixon wasn’t a capitalist either.”

Again, I don’t mean ‘extrme’ as in ‘extremist’ but yes Reagan’s economic policy was extreme, Kennedy may have had similar tax rate, but the economic philosophy was different. You would agree that Reagan was the most capitalistic, anti-New Deal president we’ve had since FDR wouldn’t you? Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, all embraced the idea of the New Deal in large part (even though they sought to change aspects of it). Goldwater, and later Reagan would almost completely reject it. Well if you’re the “most” anything, then you’re extreme. If Republicans want to return to the economic policy of Reagan, which it seems they do as they didn’t like either Bush or Clinton, then they want to return to the most laissez faire economy the U.S. has had since FDR, not? What President was more extreme laissez faire?

“Braden, you don’t like being called “names” yet you ascribe characteristics to Republicans which disparages their motives and honesty.”

I don’t doubt their motives at all. It bothers me when I hear “Obama is trying to destroy capitalism.” He’s obviously not trying to do that. I don’t doubt Republicans have the best intentions in everything they do. I just disagree with their economic philosophy.

“In fact, it is Obama who is proposing the most extreme economic policies”

The most extreme since the Great Depression, I agree. I never said they weren’t. Desperate times call for desperate measures. We have the Republicans proposing extreme laissez faire solutions on one end of the spectrum and the Dems propose extreme government involvement on the other (although I will say Reagan’s policy was the most extreme towards the laissez faire side and Roosevelt’s towards the socialistic side of any modern president).

I know you didn’t mean “extremist” but you prove my point that what the GOP advocates isn’t pure capitalism You prism of history is only as compared to Bush. Well, few free market Republicans consider either Bush very capitalistic. With a little perspective, the unfettering we desire isn’t extreme unless you consider the Kennedy/Reagans’s economic perspective extreme. FYI: Nixon wasn’t a capitalist either.

“Bush wanted an auto bailout and passed TARP I. Since then the Republican Party has sought to distance itself from these and reduce government influence in the economy. That’s what I mean that they are moving towards ‘extreme’ or pure laissez faire capitalism, moreso than under the Bush administration at least.”

Braden, you don’t like being called “names” yet you ascribe characteristics to Republicans which disparages their motives and honesty. Frankly, every now and then, I just need to puke your crap into your face. And I’m not doing it because I hate you. I don’t hate anyone, especially for their ideas.

More importantly, every now and then one has to call BS. To continually let you repeat a lie is to ultimately allow a lie to become the truth. I’ll repeat: Most of what the GOP is advocating won’t even return the involvement of government in our lives, level of spending, and taxation to the level at the end of the Clinton Administration. In fact, it is Obama who is proposing the most extreme economic policies: nationalization of the major banks, nationalization of most of the US auto industry, wholesale regulation of our health care industry (10% of our GDP), and implementing punitive taxes against the energy industry.

Bill: Actually, I didn’t find your question relevant. The AIG fiasco of mading bad investments is not a reason for the Obama health care plan or an indictment of health insurance companies.

Pat: Yes, we had standardized tests but we never so much as got to take a calculator into the test. Maybe for the ACT. And maybe for the GMAT. I really don’t recall. Forgetting is the trade-off for wisdom and knowledge.

Does it mean Dr Allen is a liar and sent out a bogus press release? Does it mean KSFY is in the bag? Or are they just liars?

KSFY really showed their liberal bias.

Just wanted to know because I plan on going to the Sioux Empire Fair and just wanted to know if it was going to be a mess after the entertainment was over. Heard some new exits were put in so was just wondering how the police handled the movement of the 10,000 people today. Were there any problems?

KSFY reports the press release.

DWC reports KSFY thinks 10,000 people will show up.

Is there an echo in here?

http://www.teapartysd.com/pdf-docs/Health_Care_Rally_press_release.pdf

That will show that socialist obama that he can’t get away with anything in South Dakota!

“In 2006, the top 1% paid 39.1% and the top 10% paid 72.8% of federal income tax revenue.”

…and that is as it should be, since the top 1% holds 3/8’s of the wealth in this country and the top 10% owns 3/4’s. Thank you for pointing that out.

“I couldn’t find 1963 but I’ll guarantee you that the rich paid a lower percentage of the federal budget in 1963 than they do now.”

And you and I are old enough to know why: because the division of wealth wasn’t as extreme in ‘63 as it is now. And we both know why THAT is as well: because prior to Kennedy lowering the marginal tax rate to 70% it was 90% …under Eisenhower …a Republican.

p.s. You should see what I got on my SAT’s back in 1967, man.

Drool.

(Old jazz drummer joke.)

Braden, I didn’t think this was about you. I thought it was about Governments failure to acoomplish anything productive and their need to control your health…oh for your own good.

OK, nevermind I solved this one. You see it’s because I’m so arrogant that I think everything is about me even though it’s really not. Got it.

I didn’t mean extreme as in ‘extremist.’ Maybe ‘pure’ or ‘absolute’ would be better words. ‘Extreme’ was a poor choice on my part.

“Maybe because you are so young and naive, you consider more capitalism that Bush I and Bush II believed in is extreme.”

Bush wanted an auto bailout and passed TARP I. Since then the Republican Party has sought to distance itself from these and reduce government influence in the economy. That’s what I mean that they are moving towards ‘extreme’ or pure laissez faire capitalism, moreso than under the Bush administration at least.

“Your LSAT doesn’t mean crap to me and nobody else.”

Guy Smylie seemed to want to turn a economic debate into a whizzing contest, so I purposefully replied with an immature “oh ya well what’d you get on your LSAT” to an immature “oh ya well you’re stupid” comment. I’m glad he didn’t respond either, because although my ACT score was pretty good, my LSAT could have been better. Wait, I thought I was arrogant? I mean it was the best anyone has ever done.

“Frankly, you are nothing but a robotic charicature of the idiot liberal.”

I am allowed to have opinions just as you are. I am pro-gun, pro-military, and more hawkish than most ‘idiot liberals’ and I would not pretend to know all your beliefs just to stereotype you with some label. If you do not like my opinion, that’s fine with me. But I will express my opinion when I see fit, as it is my own thoughts, and is not subject to your approval or disapproval, just as your thoughts are not subject to my approval. Having my own beliefs makes me a human being, and not any more or less smart than any other commentor. It is very easy to resort to namecalling rather than having an actually debate about facts and evidence. I have not called you any names and will not do so. I would appreciate it if you would return the favor.

PP- You probably don’t remember this, but I met you last year out at the Swiftel during your campaign. I told you I was one of the ‘dirty liberals’ on your site and you laughed and told me your blog was welcome to all. Last sememster, I emailed you some questions for a report I was doing on the District 7 Senate race and you were very helpful, the most helpful of all the candidates. We joked about it some more and you again told me the blog was for people of all viewpoints.

The level of hate directed against me has been a bit weird. I have posted my opinions (often snarky) and have been hit with ad-hominem attacks. I respond, and more name calling ensues-”ignorant,” “naive,” “arrogant,” “punk,” “stupid,”. Are you not free to be liberal on this site? Are you not free to make fun of Republicans? How did a debate on healthcare turn into a debate about little old me?

Yes the top bracket was 70% but it only affected one half of one percent of all taxpayers. I assume that you too endorse the share of federal taxes paid by the rich during the Kennedy years.

In 1979, the top 1% paid 18.3% of federal income tax revenue and the top 10% paid 48% of federal income tax revenue.

In 2006, the top 1% paid 39.1% and the top 10% paid 72.8% of federal income tax revenue.

I couldn’t find 1963 but I’ll guarantee you that the rich paid a lower percentage of the federal budget in 1963 than they do now.

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300120578

(the marginal rate under Kennedy was 70%)

Whoops….gulp… maybe you are. Never mind.

Ok, question for you, Mr. Smylie. Have you read
“Treacherous Alliance” by Trita Parsi?

Do you plan to (I hope.)

How about Terrorists and their inability to show themselves until 5-4-3-2-1 second? No!?

How about Iraq being a home for terrorist cells and one dictator who already threatened us? No!?

I guess maybe the argument should have been more like Gov’t Healthcare – “Whatever we do will be good for you” – then you could have rested easy! You know you gotta trust the President when you hear all that good press and the polls!

You are aware they had WMD’s, but failed to prove it was removed? Oh, and last fall they removed tons of yellow cake and shipped it to Canada.
If you don’t stick with the facts what good are they?

You might be able to score well on the LSAT but that doesn’t mean you aren’t ignorant, naive, and arrogant.

If you really believe that the Republican party is promoting “extreme laissez faire” capitalism. You are ignorant. The number of Republicans that want to have less government than Reagan is miniscule. You are ignorant of history, economics, and public policy.

Maybe because you are so young and naive, you consider more capitalism that Bush I and Bush II believed in is extreme. However, you must think Kennedy is extreme because I’d be quite content to roll back the involvement of the government in our lives to a JFK level and I endorse his idea that tax cuts are the way to stimulate the economy.

I know I could be more kind but to an arrogant punk who is so stupid he doesn’t even know what he doesn’t know, I don’t have the patience. Your LSAT doesn’t mean crap to me and nobody else. You certainly don’t show your intelligence on this site if it is as you infer. Frankly, you are nothing but a robotic charicature of the idiot liberal. Based on the depth of your posts, I wouldn’t put you in the top 10% of the liberal posters on this site for either intelligence or knowledge. YOu are the one who seldom has any facts and your logical reasoning is high school level at best.

(Troy – I know you were a few years ahead of me – did anyone even use standardized test scores back when you were in high school? And did they let you take your abacus into the test? -PP)

They’re in love with a concept, not the details of a REAL plan. Just like the congress critters that voted for a grand plan that had not been printed or read before their vote…

How can one accept the legitimacy of a government that votes into law complex and sweeping legislation that NO ONE has actually been able to read, nor (obviously) to understand. Is this really acceptable? Is it Constitutional?

Even if one favors the concept of “universal health”, the means of achieving the ends should mean something.

If by ‘extreme socialism’ you mean communism, the Democrats are nowhere close. Communism is government ownership of all means of production, all business. Democrats give money to private companies rather than taking them over. Marxism advocates the violent overthrow of capitalism by the working class. Compare the Democratic Party to socialist parties in other democracies and you’ll see a clear difference. Social democratic parties are the closest, and communist parties aren’t even in the same ballpark.

Republicans, at least since the election, have taken an extreme laissez faire approach. They are advocated for the government to have almost none or no role in the economy are they not? Is that not laissez faire capitalism?

“Braden, I thought Jim Hunstad was slow but he is a rocket scientist next to you.”

I’m sorry what did you get on your LSAT? What about your ACT? People tend to resort to ad hominem “Oh ya well you’re stupid” attacks when they can’t argue with reason and evidence.

“The question isn’t Socialism or Capitalism; it’s do you want to have a say in your health or do you want to let our government set the rules?”

False dichotomy. No one says those are the only two options and a public insurance plan isn’t even close to that.

“Can’t stop talking eh, Braden?”

This is my 5th post on this blog post. I count 9 for you.

(ACT? LSAT? Bwaaa haha haha ha! Let thee be dubbed “Braden of the LSAT!” -PP)

The question isn’t Socialism or Capitalism; it’s do you want to have a say in your health or do you want to let our government set the rules?

“drink Real Apple Cider Vinegar”? You have got to be kidding!

I think I’ll try Bill Fleming’s Kool aid and see if that helps! LOL

Obama Plan? What Obama Plan?:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/obama-has-health-care-plan.html

Excerpt:
”
CNN asked a stupid question and got a stupid result:

From everything you have heard or read so far, do you favor or oppose Barack Obama’s plan to reform health care?

51% Favor, 45% Oppose
OK, so in fact there’s nothing stupid about the question at all. The public’s response, likewise, is perfectly reasonable given the information they were provided.

But a better question might be: what exactly is Barack Obama’s health care plan? Does he have one?

And if so, what’s included in it? Is it the plan Obama advanced on the campaign trail, which had a public option but lacked an individual mandate? Is it the one making its way through the Senate Finance Committee, which has an individual mandate but lacks a public option? Is it the House’s version, which has both?”

What I do know is that in our current system, people not only want to cover costs but to make money as well. Each layer of the system has these two interests at their core. Every time we add a layer that has these two interests we add cost to the system. This occurs when I buy my trees from a nursery vs contracting with someone to buy my trees and then plant them for me. The second of the two is more expensive because I not only have to cover the cost of the trees but also costs of the person I hire who wants to make a profit.

But health care is not like going to a nursery. We have people sitting in some office, be it Medicare or Blue Cross, second guessing what my doctor has to say. There are similar reasons they do so–validated methods to treat a condition, cost savings, etc–but there are also some different ones. The Blues want to cover costs and make money. The government hopefully will cover costs.

The question I have is this–In what way does an insurance company’s desire for greater profit help me get better health care? How does that help me?

I got a good illustration for you. Why doesn’t Michael J. Fox waste his time advocating in Canada, his home country? Does HE know something others don’t?

I don’t suppose anyone wants government to get completely out of health!? I kinda liked to take Tylenol when I had a fever.

I haven’t even commented and I get slagged as brain dead. Geez.

Oh, I’m guessing you’ll find just a handful of people who voted for Obama at the rally and the vast majority being McCain voters. Big whoop.

Todd Epp
Middle Border Sun
http://www.middlebordersun.com

Braden, I thought Jim Hunstad was slow but he is a rocket scientist next to you.

I’m still trying to find someone to help me with my gout!

I started to change my mind about her when she voted against TARP and John Thune voted for it. Then she voted for the Stimulous.

I don’t have doubts anymore. I think she will vote for universal health care.

Glad to see John Thune has seen the light on to much government!

If the Republican party thought that health care was perfect, they wouldn’t have a plan to address it. The difference is that the GOP knows we have the best in the world and do not think it is an improvement to copy those who have inferior health care.

This is the Republican Health Care Plan announced in May of this year. If you watched something other than MSNBC or the Comedy Channel or read something besides the Huffington Post, you’d know about this. There is also a Senate version that will be announced in a matter of days. http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/PCAsummary2p.pdf

FYI: The Democrats are still working on their plan. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24424.html

The most recent poll on the Obama Health Care public option is 51% for and 45% opposed. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/01/health.care.poll/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular

HMO’s and health insurance companies are different. HMO’s are not a significant component of the GOP plan except to to the extent they are an allowed option for the consumer to choose. If 13% of the population wants an HMO, they are free to use it.

Finally, your comment about the “modern Republican Party” means that you accept the charge as credible that “Because the modern Democrat Party has embraced extreme socialism, similar to that of Karl Marx. Any government program is automatically good. Any private compangy, no matter how efficient and productive, is automatically bad.”

If this is really your understanding of the “modern Republican Party”, you are ignorant and need to become better informed.

13% of Americans have a favorable opinion of HMOs which is almost matched by the 14% of Americans that have a favorable opinion of the Congressional GOP. The Congressional GOP and health insurance companies- friends in low places.

Insurance companies cover the costs YOU can’t. That’s what’s so great about them! If you can’t comprehend something, letting someone else do it for you isn’t the way to go!
Insurance companies should probably do a better job. Bailing them won’t help them learn. And those who spout Democrats and Obama had nothing to do with it risk losing credibility.

Nothing is too big to fail, except a politicians ego.

Yes I’m sure it would be very fun to protest something every other developed democracy has.

“What’s so great about insurance companies? Why are you all defending them?”

Because the modern Republican Party has embraced extreme laissez faire capitalism, similar to that of the 18th and 19th centuries. Any government program is automatically bad. Any private compangy, no matter how monopolized or overpriced, is automatically good.

AIG is an exception to the rule. Despite the financial drop in values in virtually ever financial sector, insurance companies are strong financially.

Secondly, health insurance is not a business line of AIG. Comparing apples to oranges.

Third, can one do an ad hominem attack on a non-person? If so, Bill you did it.

What’s so great about insurance companies?

Why are you all defending them?

Three little letters for you: AIG.

Contact KSFY, it’s their misprint…

I want inform you bout grammar.

The bad thing about Obama/Democrat policies is that, like in the Cap and Trade, the bill wasn’t even written before they voted on it, much less read.

Yeah, that’s not very constitutional of them!

I support what they’re doing but will not be able to attend because I can’t afford to take the time off from work.

I am having surgery on Monday to get a new wrist joint. I am so happy that someone sitting in DC doesn’t get to decide if I qualify. Oh you don’t vote right, I mean you can get along with one wrist.

I hope everyone thinks twice before we allow government to “fix” our medical care.

Thanks to all who put this event on and Thanks to all who attend. God Bless You!