See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On October 26th, 2009 at 2:57 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

   Bring it on! You poinyoin!

2. #2
   On October 26th, 2009 at 2:58 pm, southdakotaboy said:

   First!

   Anyway if they do this they will get their heads handed to them in the midterms.

3. #3
   On October 26th, 2009 at 2:59 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

   He is expected to say he will go forward with a public option that will allow states to opt out of the program.

   What part of Sovereign States do you not understand, Harry? They don’t need no stinkin opt out!

4. #4
   On October 26th, 2009 at 3:03 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

   On October 26th, 2009 at 2:58 pm, southdakotaboy said:
   First!

   Sorry, but that would be me.

   Reese Bobby #13: ” If you ain’t first, you’re last!”

5. #5
   On October 26th, 2009 at 3:05 pm, Flyoverman said:

   Additional confirmation that Harry is not the sharpest tool in the tool shed.

   SWEET!

6. #6
   On October 26th, 2009 at 3:09 pm, Hangfire said:

   They just won’t say Uncle, will they?

7. #7
   On October 26th, 2009 at 3:19 pm, d1carter said:

   If they ram this down our throats, we are going to stick it up their a$$ come 2010,2012.

8. #8
   On October 26th, 2009 at 3:22 pm, cicerokid said:

   Will Nancy be there? Cue The Police:

   “Don’t stand so, don’t stand so, don’t stand so close to me…”

9. #9
   On October 26th, 2009 at 3:25 pm, d1carter said:

   I am watching Dingy Harry now and he does not look well. This may be his swansong.

10. #10
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:26 pm, cubbiegal said:

    An “opt out” would be wasted on my state.
    Illinois is infested with greedy bastages.

11. #11
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:29 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    Time to sit back and relax while we watch Obama’s baby go up in a ball of flames.

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

12. #12
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:29 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Euphemism alert!! Pelocchio is calling it the “competitive”option”.

    Oh yeah, that changes everything.

13. #13
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:30 pm, spaceycakes said:

    that pic of Harry makes him look like he smelled an onion fart.

14. #14
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:31 pm, rplatt said:

    Keep close tabs on who supports this pile of goat dung, Reid, then contribute all you can to whoever runs against them. These leftist Democrats must be thrown out before they completely destroy the nation.

15. #15
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:34 pm, wren said:

    The Robert Reich Video – The Truth about Public Option, explains that the public option will lower prices because it “will have the scale and authority to negotiate lower prices from health care providers…It needs to be big and national to do that.”

    If being big and national is the key to lowering health care costs, then private insurance companies should be allowed to sell health insurance across state lines!!!

    Why should the Federal government be given an advantage that they specifically prohibit private insurance companies from using?

    Defeat the public option! Let private companies sell health insurance across state lines!

16. #16
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:37 pm, jangar said:

    Reid whines about lack of “moderate” Republicans. “I can count them on two fingers.”

    “One finger from each hand…that is”
    (anyway you look at it…you’re screwed!)

17. #17
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:38 pm, southdakotaboy said:

    We need to send a clear message to the Blue Dogs that if they sign on to this that there will be personal repercussions to them if it goes wrong.

    We need to make it plain to them that if more people start to die from cancer or other diseases because they can’t get the treatment they need that they will need to count them selves lucky if we put them in jail.

    Conservatives need to start going Gault. Stop spending money that you absolutely don’t need to.

18. #18
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:39 pm, Darwin Akbar said:

    Bill Nelson is a skunk. Had the RNC been doing its job in 2006 he would not have been reelected. Yet, in a state full of seniors, he is about to sell everyone down the river.

19. #19
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:46 pm, jangar said:

    So let me get this straight…taxpayer funded healthcare is now referred to as a ‘consumer option’…one where freeloaders consume tax dollars.

    Makes perfect sense to me. Way to go, Pelocchio!

20. #20
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:48 pm, bjc said:

    *Look for the “competitive option” in 435 house races next year and “opt” as many out of a job as possible; Medicare is insolvent, the economic collapse is near, and these rat bastards still continue to take us over a cliff; After you, Harry!

21. #21
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:52 pm, By Choice said:

    The State of AZ has already opted-out. The issue will be on the ballot in 2010 to NOT participate in the whole mess.

    Harry and crew just doesn’t get it—this is not a Federal issue it is a STATE issue-just ask Texas!! They are doing just fine thank you and this will totally screw up their Health Care system.

    I am waiting with bated breath for the CBO numbers—bet it is not even close to $900,million!!!

22. #22
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:55 pm, Savage24 said:

    I guess Reid doesn’t care if some democrats will vote against it, he’s got the RINOs who will. He should be able to get Newt to twist some arms too.

23. #23
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:56 pm, ThackerAgency said:

    They DON’T GET IT! If the public ‘option’ will be allowed to fail, then fine. But it WON’T BE allowed to fail. If they have cost over-runs, no American citizen will be able to ‘opt out’ of paying the claims through taxes.

    The problem is the CLAIMS. The problem is creating a system that is unsustainable and unaffordable (like Medicare and Medicaid) and giving future generations the bill (like Medicare and Medicaid).

    George Washington never envisioned a government that would force all Americans to pay for all other Americans’ medical bills.

    It’s not the ‘opting in’ that’s the problem. . . it’s NOT BEING ABLE TO OPT OUT OF PAYING FOR CLAIMS! (like Medicaid and Medicare).

24. #24
    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:58 pm, ThackerAgency said:

    If they do come up with a ‘guarantee issue’ plan, I (as a medical insurance agent for 15 years) will recommend EVERY CLIENT of mine to pay the penalty and not to buy ‘insurance’ until they need it.

25. #25
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:03 pm, dan708 said:

    Ready – Aim – Shoot Self in Foot!

    Good job Harry. If you get your public option, you will also be joining Tom Daschle.

26. #26
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, jangar said:

    Good job Harry. If you get your public option, you will also be joining Tom Daschle.

    Sounds good to me…hope he takes a couple dozen friends with him.

27. #27
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:13 pm, Southpaw said:

    Re Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Nancy Pelosi:
    Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors MORONS.

    That’s what they must think we are.

28. #28
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:15 pm, katablog said:

    So let me get this straight…taxpayer funded healthcare is now referred to as a ‘consumer option’…one where freeloaders consume tax dollars.

    Well yes, you do have that part right, BUT, since we’ve removed the word “public”, you are suppose to notice that the “public” is paying for it.

    See how that works?

29. #29
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:16 pm, katablog said:

    Ready – Aim – Shoot Self in Foot!

    Aim higher.

30. #30
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:19 pm, jangar said:

    Aim 6 feet higher.

31. #31
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:26 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    There has to be a public option. If no public option there is no reason for government involvement.

    I wish they’d quit calling it insurance reform though. Its not reforming private insurance. Its killing private insurance.

32. #32
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:35 pm, madshark said:

    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:19 pm, jangar said:
    Aim 6 feet higher.

    …and bury 6 feet lower.

33. #33
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:37 pm, Freddy said:

    The best part of this press release by Reid was his insistance that the Republicans refused to work with him. After sitting in a room of only Democrats, slamming everyone not yielding to his will, there was Reid, claiming that he was stuck with having to do this all by himself.

    I suspect he already knows this is DOA.

34. #34
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:39 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:35 pm, madshark said:
    …and bury 6 feet lower.

    I recommend that abandoned coal pit in Butte Montana, it’s already poisoned!

35. #35
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:45 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:37 pm, Freddy said:
    The best part of this press release by Reid was his insistance that the Republicans refused to work with him. After sitting in a room of only Democrats, slamming everyone not yielding to his will, there was Reid, claiming that he was stuck with having to do this all by himself.

    “And I stormed out and slammed the door! Of course, it was that fourteenth century Bavarian cathedral door, so I had to get two of the servants to help me, but what it lacked in spontaneity it made up for in resonance.”
    - Dr. Niles Crane

36. #36
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:51 pm, Reg.conservative said:

    Why is Rahm Emanuel in with the with the senators?

37. #37
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:51 pm, RedDog said:

    In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as “the consumer option.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi’s side and used the term “competitive option.”

    aaaahhhhh “the blow-my-brains-out option”, “the what-the-h*ll? option”, “the Kibbles’n Bits option”.

    The Dems are strangling on their own spume.

38. #38
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:55 pm, Confutus said:

    So, we’re going to cobble this 1000 page monstrosity together in closed Democratic Caucus and give you three days to read it all. We’re also putting on the fast track so you won’t get a chance to ask questions or raise objections.
    Wait! Why aren’t any of you helping us out here?

39. #39
    On October 26th, 2009 at 4:57 pm, jangar said:

    Why is Rahm Emanuel in with the with the senators?

    Shhhh…you weren’t supposed to see the Obama advisor in the picture. Remember, Obama said that he wasn’t for a public option. So take his word for it.

    /sarc

40. #40
    On October 26th, 2009 at 5:02 pm, RedDog said:

    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:34 pm, wren said:

    Why should the Federal government be given an advantage that they specifically prohibit private insurance companies from using?

    Reich is not very bright. They did the same thing with the Postal Service with heavy government subsidies and Congressional barriers to competition and it still loses tens of billions every year.

    The Feds can’t even manage the H1N1 flu vaccine and they’re still trying to make reasonable people buy into this national healthcare nonsense.

41. #41
    On October 26th, 2009 at 5:03 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    The “call-it-anything-but-what-it-is” option.

42. #42
    On October 26th, 2009 at 5:04 pm, RedDog said:

    On October 26th, 2009 at 3:39 pm, Darwin Akbar said:
    Bill Nelson is a skunk.

    Yes, but a skunk smart enough to get a free ride on the space shuttle.

43. #43
    On October 26th, 2009 at 5:09 pm, drfredc said:

    In other words, whether or not they’ve got the votes to pass Obamacare with or without the public option, it is time to tweak their nutroot socialist base for some more campaign contributions for the upcoming election season.

    Bottomline, can’t get much out of their nutroots after Obamacare votes fail.

44. #44
    On October 26th, 2009 at 5:17 pm, graysonret said:

    This whole idea of “health insurance” is completely unconstitutional. What next, when this is implemented? A food insurance bill? We’ve come to the point when the government has decided that the Constitution, that they swore to uphold and defend, is dead. We will wake up, one day, and find ourselves in a totalitarian government, and wondered what happened.

45. #45
    On October 26th, 2009 at 5:24 pm, T-Bone said:

    But its for the children….

    What? The National Debt?

46. #46
    On October 26th, 2009 at 6:56 pm, sbw999 said:

    Reid says the public option will ensure competition and a level playing field. For the love of God, remove the state restriction and let 1306 insurance companies compete in the free market across state lines, and keep government the hell out of it!!!!

    What is it with these socialist nitwits that they dont even understand the working of the free market??? Man, they sicken me.

47. #47
    On October 26th, 2009 at 6:57 pm, California Red said:

    Reid describes Snowe as “frightened.”

    I am scared too.

48. #48
    On October 26th, 2009 at 7:31 pm, right_on said:

    Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors.

    Okay…don’t give it to us straight. Use vague language (as usual) to confuse unenlighted voters. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

    If you can’t tell the truth about the bill, I am sure it’s rigged to be good for thee, but not for me! Status quo?

    Please explain, or glorious Princess Nan, who taught you that the government is a “competitor” for businesses? Government doesn’t, or at least hasn’t in the past, earned a dime. How has that dynamic changed?

    And I am a little confused (not really). If an insurance company lowers it’s rates, and a citizen is insured through another company, but YOUR rules state that if you drop your current insurer you are not allowed to buy from anyone but the government, how is:

    a) a citizen going to benefit from lower rates at another company, if they can’t buy it, and

    b) any private insurance company going to be compelled to get new customers by lowering their rates?

    Oh, I see…unfair competition for policy holders is still competition.

    2010 – Up or Out…any official voting for this monstrosity MUST be voted out, starting next year!

49. #49
    On October 26th, 2009 at 8:02 pm, Wade said:

    You Lie

50. #50
    On October 26th, 2009 at 8:42 pm, irving said:

    Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public

    Same old same old. “No one wants what we’re offering but if we just make it sound nicer they’ll change their minds.”

    Always fiddling with the packaging, looking for a way to make it seem like their ideas aren’t really stupid and destructive. Always acting as if the only problem is PR, not substance.

51. #51
    On October 26th, 2009 at 10:00 pm, jangar said:

    His waaaaaaaaaarrrr is looooooooost.

52. #52
    On October 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am, dan708 said:

    One good thing to come from this fiasco (Pres. Obama’s term, that is) is that a new generation of voters who don’t remember Jimmeh Cottah are finding out what the Demoncrats are REALLY about. It may take a few years for them to recover from this self-inflicted damage.

53. #53
    On October 27th, 2009 at 9:07 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    My option will be to help send Dingy Harry back to Searchlight, Nevada and fence him in.

54. #54
    On October 27th, 2009 at 9:25 am, conservativesRus said:

    The socialists WILL get their plan in – just not in the front door. They will make an innocuous bill, but put a trigger mechanism in. Of course, in the interest of bipartisanship, McCain will go along because there is nothing in the bill (now) that is damaging (never mind there is nothing good in the bill). Others will go along too for same reason.
    The moon will come up (after 2012) and low and behold, we will have the government running health care.
    Never mind that the government has never run anything well. (I challenge anybody to name a single thing which the government does well. As far as I can tell, the least efficient private enterprise operates better than government at any level).

55. #55
    On October 27th, 2009 at 9:38 am, AmericanPatriot said:

    On October 26th, 2009 at 2:58 pm, southdakotaboy said:
    First!

    Anyway if they do this they will get their heads handed to them in the midterms.</blockquote>

    We can’t let them get anything through.
    Mid-terms are too late.
    They’ll have a structure in place and all we could possibly do is monkey around inside it.
    Government programs are never repealed

56. #56
    On October 27th, 2009 at 9:42 am, b-cat said:

    A government-sponsored “public option” for health care lives, though it may be more attractive to skeptics if it goes by a different moniker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday.

    In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as “the consumer option.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi’s side and used the term “competitive option.”

    How about the “happy joy option”, or the “fuzzy bunny option”? No one would oppose bills with such names.

    “The nasty Republicans are against fuzzy bunnies”!

57. #57
    On October 27th, 2009 at 9:45 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    b-cat
    “The nasty Republicans are against fuzzy bunnies”!

    Fuzzy bunnies are particularly good with mashed potatoes and gravy, perhaps some mint sauce. I’ll have to check with Chappy.

58. #58
    On October 27th, 2009 at 9:48 am, b-cat said:

    Dang, AN.

    I just got up and already hungry for lunch. I wonder if I still have any fuzzy bunny in the fridge?

59. #59
    On October 27th, 2009 at 10:05 am, b-cat said:

    Reid whines about lack of “moderate” Republicans. “I can count them on two fingers.”

    NO, NO!! Don’t tell me, I’m keen to guess. Now let me see, hmmm… uh… could it be…uhhh…McCain… and uh… Graham?

60. #60
    On October 27th, 2009 at 10:06 am, chapoutier said:

    Fuzzy bunnies are particularly good with mashed potatoes and gravy, perhaps some mint sauce. I’ll have to check with Chappy.

    Your post inspired me to go pull one of my favorite cookbooks from college and check out the fuzzy bunny recipe we made from that my junior year.

    “Lapin crépu sauté à la moutarde et au romarin”

    The cookbook suggested a dry white to serve with it. I would go with a Pinot Noir, preferably one from Oregon or Burgundy.

61. #61
    On October 27th, 2009 at 10:09 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On October 27th, 2009 at 9:45 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:
    b-cat
    “The nasty Republicans are against fuzzy bunnies”!
    Fuzzy bunnies are particularly good with mashed potatoes and gravy, perhaps some mint sauce. I’ll have to check with Chappy.

    Those who partake of the Surf & Turf, who lean towards the Surf side of things, may I suggest the “Sea Kittens”? They’re particularly rich and tender this time of year.

62. #62
    On October 27th, 2009 at 10:15 am, jangar said:

    Sea Kittens and Fuzzy Bunnies deserves a rich and robust lager.

63. #63
    On October 27th, 2009 at 11:36 am, cheapseat said:

    you mean spirited republicans, and you too chappie. don’t you know our eating meat is what is causing this global warming which has produced the coldest october on record in most of the states. even died in the wool kool-aid drinkers should question the entire premise of MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING, but our smartest humans in the colleges doing research judge intended results rather than actual results on their experiments. after all, why judge what actually happens when judging intended results is so much more p.c.

64. #64
    On October 27th, 2009 at 11:53 am, chapoutier said:

    even died in the wool kool-aid drinkers should question the entire premise of MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING, but our smartest humans in the colleges doing research judge intended results rather than actual results on their experiments.

    From today:

    The Associated Press sought independent statistical analyses of global temperatures to determine if there is a true cooling of Earth’s climate.

    The AP contacted University of South Carolina statistics professor John Grego, a longtime reliable statistics source. In addition, the American Statistical Association sent an e-mail request from the AP seeking statisticians willing to examine certain sets of numbers and look for trends without being told what those numbers represented.

    Three professors of statistics agreed: David Peterson, retired from Duke University; Mack Shelley, director of public policy and administration at Iowa State University; and Edward Melnick from New York University.

    Each was given two spreadsheets, neither of which had any indication they were temperature data.

    One spreadsheet was year-by-year global temperature changes from 1880 to 2009, adjusted through most of this year from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s ground measurements. The other was year-to-year temperature changes from 1979-2009 gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville from atmospheric measurements by satellite.

    None of the experts detected a downward, or cooling, trend in the numbers. All saw a distinct upward trend.

    This type of blind test is a valid way of seeking statistical help by trying to keep the statisticians’ personal beliefs out of any analysis, said Alan Karr, director of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences. But there is a downside from keeping statisticians in the dark because it ties their hands a bit and may make it difficult to determine trends from variation, he said.

    After their analysis, all the statisticians were told that the numbers represented temperature changes. All stuck by their assessments.

65. #65
    On October 27th, 2009 at 12:02 pm, b-cat said:

    Sorry, chap. I don’t for one minute think the AP is neutral on the issue.

66. #66
    On October 27th, 2009 at 12:07 pm, chapoutier said:

    Sorry, chap. I don’t for one minute think the AP is neutral on the issue.

    Those loony statisticians with their blind data are in the tank too?

67. #67
    On October 27th, 2009 at 12:17 pm, b-cat said:

    It has been known for sometime that the devices for reading temperatures have been placed in rather interesting places, like rooftops, parking lots, and next to AC units. Much of the data is tainted.

68. #68
    On October 27th, 2009 at 6:44 pm, Blackstone said:

    From chapoutier’s link:

    None of the experts detected a downward, or cooling, trend in the numbers. All saw a distinct upward trend.

    So in other words, the temperature apparently rose between 1880 and 2009, and between 1979 and 2009. That doesn’t mean temperatures haven’t flatlined or come down slightly since 1998. In fact, they have. And it’s not something that the much-vaunted computer models were able to predict.