Agree with you. She is not well-educated on many political issues but not dumb at all. She knows where the trap is and dodged all the hard questions. There are tones of dumber people on both sides. She actually seems like a person easy to reason with. Get her a new liberal husband then we will see, Back to topic though, I see mostly arguments about ideology, liberty and morality related issue. What about some real problems, like how do we keep the medical cost down? Which of the following moves you think would would have the most impact on reducing the cost, and not against it 1. Increase supply of doctors to reduce costs 2. Lower drug cost 3. Cap on mal-practice law suit 4. Taxation that promotes healthier lifestyle (like tobacco tax)
It was part of the conversation about the inevitable federal government takeover of the healthcare system.
Wait a few more posts. While he may have no facts, he might come up with another plagiarized "stuffwhitepeoplelike" anecdote.
this lady is a classic example of the influence the media of the right have on some people. they here a few sound clips of rush/sean, and they truly think that obama is a socialist, compared to what went on the last eight years. they have no idea of historical tax rates, no ideal of historical government programs or policies or even current. that being said she didn't look like an idiot on the interview.
To me she clumsily dodged the hard questions because she had no answer -- and I generally consider people who speak out on stuff they are completely ignorant about as stupid by definition. It's better than if she had tried to BS her way through the interview, but in light of her wild ranting towards the Senator, she still came off looking pretty foolish. Particularly telling was towards the end when she started rambling about the "fathers" and then mumbled something about how they would the fortunate to help provide for the less fortunate (uhhhh.....and that's not socialism?).
Does everything with you have to be an attack on "Liberal?" First of all, there are no health or lifestyle mandates in the bills being proposed. Second, insurance companies CAN AND DO fine you by increasing your rates if you are obese, smoke cigarettes, or engage in other unhealthy lifestyles. Don't you remember, Bush pushed through programs to tap phone and internet traffic already. The NSA already listens to your phone calls and has access to the same internet traffic as your ISP. Care to debate anything that IS being discussed or do you prefer your strawmen?
The interview alone in its own context was fine. Few average common people are actually edified with regard to the machinations of government. The absurdity of the whole episode is when juxtaposed against her sheer outrage in the townhall. Anyone taking a strong vocal position for or against an issue which he/she isn't thoroughly informed is by very definition an imbecile.
Again, you are crying wolf over strawmen that are not being proposed. Please stick to facts and, to quote Sarah Palin, "stop making stuff up."
Yes I do, nowhere in the bill does it say anything about what you are implying. All you are doing to causing fear and perpetuating lies. Why do you feel the need to lie or make up imaginary scenarios to make your point?
No, but the fact is that these things are not being proposed. As such, you are arguing against strawmen.
There's no logic to the mode of argumentation you're proposing. Do you understand that? Glenn Beck could grow a Hitler mustache, dye his hair black, and wear glittery blue mascara. I'm just saying it's possible.
lol. at a more abstract, theoretical level, i have found this current policy debate fascinating for only one reason - it really presents the case against democracy. its simply far too inefficient and conducive to the hijacking of demagoguery and the ignorant masses. not that any type of benevolent authoritarianism is practical, but the inherent weaknesses in our form of governance are really being put on display.
She was a fool for going into the interview so woefully unprepared. She was either incredibly naive, or deceived about the nature of the appearance. I thought the interviewer came across as smug, condescending and self-important. Combat journalism. Fun. It wouldn't get as many youtube hits, but if the interviewer really wanted to press his point, he should have done so to someone more skilled in debate, and with more core knowledge. This was like plucking a random vocal anti-war protestor, and then grilling them on foreign policy matters in absolute terms.
Is anyone asking the question why a "journalist" thinks it contributes anything to the universe to cross-examine a clearly unversed, unstudied, and unimportant random person? Pathetic. We are all dumber for that "interview" and probably for Chris Matthews existence in general.
