Sarah Palin writes in Wall Street Journal

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski
Protip: Solutions to any Problem by any Person or Organization always cause New Problems. The crux of the matter is: Are the New Problems less severe than the Original Problems that were addressed.

If New Problems are your criteria to not do something, then you should never do anything again.

Or you let The Constitution rule your actions.

Government is not the solution to our problems, they are the cause.

Fail as always.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski
Protip: Solutions to any Problem by any Person or Organization always cause New Problems. The crux of the matter is: Are the New Problems less severe than the Original Problems that were addressed.

If New Problems are your criteria to not do something, then you should never do anything again.

Or you let The Constitution rule your actions.

Government is not the solution to our problems, they are the cause.

keep the slogans coming, someday that might make them true

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
It is amusing to watch the left get riled up into a fervent frenzy about someone who they claim is supposedly "stupid" and "irrelevant".

:laugh:

+1 lol

 

[Underclocked]

Is there any real point to these arguments? Let me clue you guys in - NONE of you are going to change your opinion of either the issues or yourselves based upon these "discussions".

Please pretend you are all members of the American party and work toward a solution to the health care problem. If you come up with something viable, believable, and cost effective without compromising individual rights - please submit it to congress.

And there it would be ripped to shreds.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski
Protip: Solutions to any Problem by any Person or Organization always cause New Problems. The crux of the matter is: Are the New Problems less severe than the Original Problems that were addressed.

If New Problems are your criteria to not do something, then you should never do anything again.

Or you let The Constitution rule your actions.

Government is not the solution to our problems, they are the cause.

Try thinking every once in a while. It works.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I understand that you prefer a straight up approval rating to an index based on strong approval/disapproval (Rassmussan)...but an -8% index is 'statistically significant' no matter how you'd like to spin it.

Regardless...it appears that you fail to see my point...you equate Palin's 43% approval rating to 'just how low the bar for Republicans has sunk'...yet struggle with saying the same thing in reference to Pelosi....passing her off as an unpopular Democrat. One is an ex-Presidential candidate no longer holding a government office and the other is Speaker of the House...one of the most powerful positions in our country. Yet...it's Palin's 43% approval rating that shows us 'just how low the bar for Republicans has sunk'. If approval rating is your measuring stick for political parties...then you should have no problem saying the same thing about Democrats. But I can see that would be difficult for you to do....even-handedness does not appear to be your strong point.

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, eh? You've just put an argument in my mouth and then wondered why it's inconsistent.

You are attempting to make my original statement mean something it did not, and use that to cram this thread into the same theme that you always use. Do not mistake my confusion as to why you even brought up Nancy Pelosi to begin with for being unwilling to accept her unpopularity. I was dismissing an irrelevant statement, not struggling with talking about her.

My statement addressed the fact that spidey was running in here with something Sarah Palin wrote, talking about how much America agreed with her and how great she was. I merely noted that America apparently didn't think she was so great after all. That's it. I'm not sure why, but at this point you introduced the Democrats, who weren't even the topic of discussion. I have never made any claims whatsoever as to the quality of Nancy Pelosi's popularity, and your numbers about Obama were dishonest.

On that subject, while 8% strong approve/disapprove is most certainly statistically significant, it's still apples and oranges. In fact, this is a similar deceit to that Washington Times editorial, where they attempted to conflate strong/weak approval ratings with up or down approval ratings. My 'spin' is that to make an honest comparison between two political figures we should use a consistent metric for them both. Your 'spin' is that strong dislike being greater than strong like, even within the context of overall positive approval is akin to someone having 43% approval. It's not.

Look...you made the statement ("Yeah, they respect her so much that she has a 43% favorable rating. This is how low the bar for Republicans has sunk, if only 6 out of 10 people dislike you, you're looking good!")...all I'm trying to do is to understand how you can extrapolate from a 43% approval rating (for an ex-goverment official and ex-VP candidate) into equating it to a new low for the Republican party. I brought up Pelosi to illustrate the irrationality of your logic in terms that you might be able to understand....but you act as if I'm going off topic...totally oblivious to the point I'm making.

My numbers on Obama are honest (Rasmussen)...you just happen to not like them and have rationalized them away. Well...more power to you. Look...I'm not trying to bash Obama here (so don't get your panties in a bunch)...I just used the poll to make the same point as I did with Pelosi.

POINT ---> Approval/disapproval of a particular politician does NOT infer anything substantial about a political party ESPECIALLY when that person doesn't even hold a government office. Capeesh? <--- POINT

So...you don't like the Republican Party and want to disparage it at every opportunity? Fine...but surely you can fine better reasons than Sarah Palin's approval rating to do so...no?

 

[fskimospy]

Strongly approve/disapprove ratings measure the depth of support for a candidate, not the amount. It's like saying that two different quantities of water have to be the same because they are both six inches deep. You did this even when you had Obama's actual approval numbers available, it's just that they didn't tell the story you wanted. You can call my response 'rationalizing' if you want, but I would call it 'being accurate'.

(I've already explained how using a person with a 43% approval rating as a symbol of someone who 'stands up for what americans believe' is a symbol of someone who is truly desperate.)

If you want to make the point that unelected members of a party are a poor proxy for the views on that party in general, that's a very reasonable point to make. One I would disagree with in Sarah Palin's case as she was a high profile GOP standard bearer less than a year ago and a governor all of two months ago, but it's certainly a reasonable one. We probably should have stuck to that.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

For some reason I was expecting something of this caliber
Paying the doctor

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jonks


(shhh, he doesn't know the difference, isn't it cute?)

Government run healthcare is essentially government being the single payer which is the stated goal of Obama and democrats in power. Americans do not want this by a very large margin.

How you can have continued to read and post in so many healthcare threads and not have the most basic understanding of the plans in controversy is testament to your trollhood.

Simple question: do you get that the "single payer" plan is not the same as the plan including a "public option"?

If you just looked at the names of the plans you'd be able to see that you can't have a "public option" if the government is the "single payer", because then there would be no option, i.e. as in England.

Public Option can only exist where there are also Private Options and therefore cannot co-exist with a Single Payer Gov't run Healthcare system. The poll you linked shows only 32% favor a "Medicare for all" single payer system as they have in England. As this is not being proposed by Obama or anyone in congress it's rather irrelevant. Support for a Public Option hovers in the 70s.

C'mon.

Everybody knows the argument that the public option will eventually drive out the private insurers leaving us with a single payer system.

While not everyone agrees that will happen, it's a bit silly to forcefully/legitimately argue it won't since (at the very least) we don't know all the details of any public option that might make it to a vote.

So, need to quible over the semantics since for many the two are one-in-the-same.

Did you read the post above where spidey attempted to show that americans do not favor the public option by citing to a poll that showed americans don't favor single-payer, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that americans polled do in fact favor a public option?

What you call semantics are in fact two entirely different questions which yield two incredibly diverse results.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
~~~~

(I've already explained how using a person with a 43% approval rating as a symbol of someone who 'stands up for what americans believe' is a symbol of someone who is truly desperate.)

.....

Not to belabor the point but I'd say two-thirds of that 43% thinks Palin is still the governor of Alaska.