Sarah Palin was invited on the Today Show for reasons passing understanding. This was her describing a Republican or Palin alternative to Obamacare:
“The plan is to allow those things that had been proposed over many years to reform a health-care system in America that certainly does need more help so that there’s more competition, there’s less tort reform threat, there’s less trajectory of the cost increases, and those plans have been proposed over and over again. And what thwarts those plans? It’s the far left. It’s President Obama and his supporters who will not allow the Republicans to usher in free market, patient-centered, doctor-patient relationship links to reform health care.”
God, my IQ just dropped trying to understand Palin Speak. Mrs. Palin, those things that had been proposed over many years (and that is such a Palin-esque opening to a sentence that she uses when she has absolutely no idea what the answer is) that allow more free market competition and less cost increases are Obamacare. The Far Left’s healthcare reform idea is single payer or at the very least, a public Medicare option for all. That was Clintoncare in the 1990’s. After that failed, we, those on the Far Left, largely deferred to and adopted the REPUBLICAN idea of healthcare reform, because we just wanted to get something, anything, passed that offers affordable and near universal healthcare to all.
So, what she just described is Obamacare. And it also sounds like she just came out against tort reform there, since she labels tort reform as a threat. I agree, it is a threat, Mrs. Palin.
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that the uninsured view Obamacare more favorably since online marketplaces opened – 44 percent compared with 37 percent in September. A higher proportion of the uninsured also said they are interested in buying insurance on the exchanges, with 42 percent in October, saying they were likely to enroll compared with 37 percent in September.
NATIONAL–PRESIDENT–2016–NBC News–Former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (D) 44, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) 34
NATIONAL–PRESIDENT–REPUBLICAN PRIMARY–NBC News–32% of Republican and Republican-leaning respondents said they’d vote for Christie in a GOP presidential primary; another 31% said they’d prefer another Republican to run.
NATIONAL–PRESIDENT–DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY–NBC News–66% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning respondents said they’d voted for Hillary Clinton in a presidential primary.
African Americans, young voters, and Latinos all say they’d vote for Clinton, while white, older, and wealthy voters support Christie. Geography helps Christie in the Northeast, where 57% of Republicans would support him in a primary, but hurts in the Midwest, South, and West, where pluralities would support another candidate over him. Clinton, however, holds onto the a lead in every region—52% of Northeastern voters, 43% of Western voters, 43% of Southern voters, and 41% of Midwestern voters support her.
When a teabagger or a conservative or a Republican says the U.S. is broke, or bankrupt, or has tons of debt, punch them directly in the face for lying. And then explain this to them:
Cullen Roche: “For starters…total fossil fuel resources owned by the Federal government are valued at over $150 trillion alone… I haven’t even looked into the huge amount of federally owned land and buildings that would surely amount into the hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. There’s also the gold resources. And there’s the trillions of dollars in its own liabilities that it owns via the Fed and Social Security funds.”
“And none of this even touches on the operational realities behind the United States monetary system and the fact that we’re not going bankrupt unless we choose to go bankrupt. So don’t fret. The United States is not in the hole. Not even remotely close.”
Here is a simple math problem. We have 16 trillion in debt. Subtract 16 from 150. You get 134. A positive number. Talk about a huge and positive debt to assets/credit ratio. The U.S. is not bankrupt. The U.S. is not in debt. It is one of the biggest lies foisted upon the public. And it is why there will be no cutting of any social program.
And then there is this:
The Delaware State Fire Marshal’s office says an Iron Hill man is in serious but stable condition after his face was severely burned while lighting a cigarette on a gas stove. [..] Fire officials say the injury happened when the man was lighting a cigarette on a gas stove while using oxygen.
Darwin Award Nominee.
Finally, Sen. Tom Harkin for the win:
Question: The religious exception in the [Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)] – the breadth of that exception has been criticized by some groups including the ACLU. Do you believe that the exception as it exists is good policy?
HARKIN: Well, I mean I have a philosophical problem with it. But I recognize that this exemption basically tracks the exemptions that we have in other civil rights legislation…So in that regard, we’re not expanding it any – we’re basically keeping it within the bounds of saying that you have to be a religiously-based entity or have some close connection there-to. Basically, I always say it this way: if your basic reason for being is for commercial activity, to make a profit, then you are covered under ENDA. If your basic reason and [what you] do mostly is religious in nature, then you’re not covered. I think that’s an exception that, given the context of times, we are as a society- I think it’s probably a reasonable exception.
Question: When you say you “have a philosophical problem with it,” what do you mean?
HARKIN: Well I guess what I’ve said before is that people say they want a religious exemption so they can discriminate against people because they are lesbian gay bisexual or transgender. I have often asked the question: What kind of a religion is it that teaches that you can be a bigot? That’s my philosophical problem with it. To me, it seems to me that the basis of most religions are to love your neighbor as yourself. To break down bigotry. A religion that says that it’s alright to discriminate against people because of their race, or national origin, that’s the case, then I have a real question about the underlying basis of that religion. That’s just my philosophical problem.
In my world, if a religion calls for bigotry, that religion no longer enjoys the protection of the First Amendment and deserves as much government sanction and interference as possible.