Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Last week, Dutch historian and author Rutger Bregman claimed he was cursed out by Fox News host Tucker Carlson in a segment that would likely never air. On Wednesday afternoon, audio of Carlson's on-air meltdown finally emerged.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Go watch the video or read the article - doesn't matter either way it is simply too funny. Tucker ran into a Historian who called him out and wasn't shaken by the toddler tirade he received in return.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Carlson is every bit as thin-skinned as the noxious orange jizzfart. Lol

#1 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2019-02-20 05:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Tucker Carlson appears to be getting fat. And, oh...He has an anger management issue.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2019-02-20 05:08 PM | Reply

That was a fun watch.

#3 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-20 05:38 PM | Reply

lol no matter how many times I see Tuckhead take it on the chin it never gets old... from being spanked by a comedian on his own show... or eating a shoe in effigy... its always funny...

I think... Snippy wishes he was the Tuckhead.

#4 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-02-20 07:03 PM | Reply

Tucker Carlson is tedium personified.

#5 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-20 07:09 PM | Reply

Good interview.

#6 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-02-20 07:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What an excellent summary of fox news: Billionaires paying millionaires to make the working class blame their problems on immigrants.

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-20 08:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

Best interview Tucker's ever done.

#8 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-02-20 08:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Eisenhower also had some kind of strange warning about a military industrial complex taking over, blah, blah, blah?

Tucker remained amicable until he was outed as a Cato rep funded by billionaires.

#9 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-02-20 10:28 PM | Reply

Great job at speaking the truth, Rutger Bregman!

#10 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-02-21 06:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I see Tucker is as immature and egotistical as his bow tie days.

#11 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-02-21 07:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

He looks like a pure douche.

Anyone who looks like that much of a d-bag probably is one.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 08:52 AM | Reply

Tucker gave this guy way more airtime than he deserved. Basically, if you are invited on a show and expect it to actually be aired, you need to engage in a dialogue and not just keep talking and hurling insults - viewers that enjoy that format are free to watch CNN or MSNBC. Basically, this guy is douche that hate Fox News without ever truly watching it - you can tell by how uninformed he is Tucker's positions. Tucker is firmly anti-billionaire elitist, anti-big corporations not paying taxes and mistreating their workers, and - most importantly - pro US worker. It is sad that he is just about the only one on TV that holds that view.

#13 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-02-21 09:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

not just keep talking and hurling insults

Telling Tucker Carlson that he'a a millionaire funded by billionaires who pay him to take a certain political stance is not an "insult." It's a fact. Tucker responded to that fact with actual insults.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-21 09:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

Sheeple, STFU you whiny Ruskie snowflake!

#15 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-02-21 09:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Apparently he is not self aware of just how much of a 1% whore he is.

#16 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-02-21 10:42 AM | Reply

Anyone who looks like that much of a d-bag probably is one.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ

And anyone who agrees with the politics of a d-bag like him is.......?

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 11:10 AM | Reply

And anyone who agrees with the politics of a d-bag like him is.......?

#17 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

There are plenty of ------ on the left who share your political views. Does the fact that they are d-bags make you one?

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 11:20 AM | Reply

LOL, there are full Youtube channels that have dozens of newscaster/anchor on screen meltdowns, it happens literally on a weekly basis.

It's only because Tucker is such an odious doucenozzle that this is getting so much attention from the Left.

#19 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-21 11:28 AM | Reply

There are plenty of ------ on the left who share your political views. Does the fact that they are d-bags make you one?

#18 | Posted by JeffJ

The king of false equivalence never fails to come through.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 11:30 AM | Reply

False equivalence?

I turned the logic of your "question" back on you and you clearly don't like it.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 11:32 AM | Reply

Tucker was hoisted on his own petard: a guest who followed his rhetorical playbook of talking over others and turning every question to his own devices. That's what Tucker's meltdown so fun to watch.

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-21 11:32 AM | Reply

False equivalence?

I turned the logic of your "question" back on you and you clearly don't like it.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ

Because your fake "logic" implies the left is as insane and based in fallacy as the right.

As always. Yawn.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The left is as insane and based in fallacy as the right.
As always.

FTFY

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-21 11:52 AM | Reply

Because your fake "logic" implies the left is as insane and based in fallacy as the right.
As always. Yawn.

#23 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

This is what you posted:

Anyone who looks like that much of a d-bag probably is one.
#12 | Posted by JeffJ
----
And anyone who agrees with the politics of a d-bag like him is.......?

#17 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-02-21 11:10 AM


As far as I can tell, you were trying to play a childish game of guilt-by-association. This was your logic:

1 Carlson is a d-bag
2 Jeff and Carlson share some political views
3 That must mean Jeff is a d-bag

I turned it back at you and you probably pulled several muscles moving the goalposts as far as you did.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 12:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Bregman was spewing left wing retoric and saying people like Carlson are the problem because they make too much money yet he would never say the same about Rachel Maddow who makes 3 million more per year. Carlson called him on his inconsistencies and Bregman followed the left's playbook, don't answer the question and just hurl insults at the person asking him the question. Carlson has some great guests on and as many from the left as the right which can't be said for MSNBC. Bregman does this all the time for attention and you guessed it...the money.

#26 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-02-21 12:59 PM | Reply

I am blown away that anyone could perceive the interview the way it's described in #26. People are increasingly inventing their own reality and it's stunning.

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-21 01:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

People are increasingly inventing their own reality

#27 | Posted by JOE at

FISHPAW lies, yes.

#28 | Posted by Zed at 2019-02-21 01:07 PM | Reply

1 Carlson is a d-bag
2 Jeff and Carlson share some political views
3 That must mean Jeff is a d-bag

#25 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No offense Jeff, but many of us have been telling you this for years. People can and should judge you based on your politics.

The logic checks out assuming certain political views make someone a douchebag; which I believe.

#29 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-21 01:07 PM | Reply

I am blown away that anyone could perceive the interview the way it's described in #26. People are increasingly inventing their own reality and it's stunning.

#27 | POSTED BY JOE

Its mass hysteria living out in modern times.

#30 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-21 01:08 PM | Reply

As far as I can tell, you were trying to play a childish game of guilt-by-association. This was your logic:

1 Carlson is a d-bag
2 Jeff and Carlson share some political views
3 That must mean Jeff is a d-bag

#25 | Posted by JeffJ

You should squeeze in:

1.5 this is part of an obvious pattern in which the right is full of morons, racists, con men, and theocrats spouting easily debunked lies

2.5 Jeff sees nothing notable about sharing so many viewpoints with charlatans, morons, racists, and con men.

3 should be - Jeff chooses to ignore the character of the people on his side, implying he is either intellectually bankrupt or stupid.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 01:17 PM | Reply

1.5 this is part of an obvious pattern in which the right is full of morons, racists, con men, and theocrats spouting easily debunked lies#31 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-02-21 01:17 PM | FLAG:

As I mentioned in #26, the liberal playbook.

#32 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-02-21 01:20 PM | Reply

As I mentioned in #26, the liberal playbook.

#32 | Posted by fishpaw

#26 is hilarious. He never said tucker made too much money. He said tucker was a millionaire pushing the agenda of billionaires. Which is a fact.

If you have a winning debate, you dont have to lie about your opponent's position.

Maddow is a millionaire, but she's not paid to push a billionaire's agenda of tax cuts and climate denial.

You and jeff should start a false equivilancy club together somewhere.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 01:25 PM | Reply

The logic checks out assuming certain political views make someone a douchebag; which I believe.

#29 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES A

Here is the problem with that:

It doesn't allow any room for the possibility that someone can be fairly smart, well-read and well-intentioned and still have a principled disagreement with you on certain issues.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 01:26 PM | Reply

The logic checks out assuming certain political views make someone a douchebag; which I believe.
#29 | Posted by IndianaJones

A slight correction, Henry, in my opinion.

Being a douchebag results in having certain political views.

Example: Being selfish and lacking empathy results in holding many conservative views.

#35 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 01:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It doesn't allow any room for the possibility that someone can be fairly smart, well-read and well-intentioned and still have a principled disagreement with you on certain issues.

#34 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yes it does. If they're willing to have a principled disagreement on a certain issue, then their politics have not delved into the fantastical lunacy that qualifies them as "douchebag".

In other words, part of how Carlson's politics make him a douchebag is because they do not allow principled disagreement in the first place. How can anyone have a principled disagreement with the politics of fact rejection; aka "fake news"?

#36 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-21 01:29 PM | Reply

1.5 this is part of an obvious pattern in which the right is full of morons, racists, con men, and theocrats spouting easily debunked lies
1.75 as does the left

2.5 Jeff sees nothing notable about sharing so many viewpoints with charlatans, morons, racists, and con men.
2.75 Speaks sees nothing notable about sharing so many viewpoints with charlatans, morons, racist and con men.

3 Jeff chooses to ignore the character of the people on his side, implying he is either intellectually bankrupt or stupid.
3.5 Speaks chooses to ignore the character of the people on his side, implying he is either intellectually bankrupt or stupid.

Here is the thing: I am not defined by the actions of people I have no control over. Your acting like an immature child. Just. Stop.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 01:30 PM | Reply

#35 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Yeah its kind of a chicken/egg scenario.

#38 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-21 01:31 PM | Reply

If they're willing to have a principled disagreement on a certain issue, then their politics have not delved into the fantastical lunacy that qualifies them as "douchebag".

You basically just said what I've been saying.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 01:32 PM | Reply

Example: Being selfish and lacking empathy results in holding many conservative views.

#35 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Baloney. That is a narrative you need to make yourself feel morally superior to those with whom you disagree.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 01:33 PM | Reply

#39 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Which is fine. The difference is that I don't believe rejecting objective reality is "principled disagreement".

#41 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-21 01:34 PM | Reply

3 Jeff chooses to ignore the character of the people on his side, implying he is either intellectually bankrupt or stupid.
3.5 Speaks chooses to ignore the character of the people on his side, implying he is either intellectually bankrupt or stupid.

#37 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I've seen speaks address the character of people on his side many, many times.

The difference between speaks and you is that when weighing the binary option of Left versus Right, speaks correctly identified which party is objectively more inundated with charlatans, morons, racists, and con men.

#42 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-21 01:36 PM | Reply

It doesn't allow any room for the possibility that someone can be fairly smart, well-read and well-intentioned and still have a principled disagreement with you on certain issues.
#34 | Posted by JeffJ

on certain issues there is right and wrong and conservative positions are invariably wrong because they are based on a selfish philosophy.

#43 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 01:38 PM | Reply

The difference is that I don't believe rejecting objective reality is "principled disagreement".

#41 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

I agree. It's impossible to have a productive discussion unless the facts are all known and agreed upon.

After acknowledgement of the facts disagreement on how to move forward is often the result. This is what I refer to when I mention 'principled disagreement'.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 01:39 PM | Reply

That is a narrative you need to make yourself feel morally superior to those with whom you disagree.

#40 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I disagree with that narrative. I believe it is his innate moral superiority that makes him reject conservatism.

#45 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-21 01:39 PM | Reply

I've seen speaks address the character of people on his side many, many times.

As have I. I have done the same when it comes to Republicans. Here's the thing though: Speaks is attempting to tie me to bad characters on the right just because I share some political views with them.

on certain issues there is right and wrong and conservative positions are invariably wrong because they are based on a selfish philosophy.

#43 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

The same can be said of progressive positions. Exhibit A: identity politics.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 01:41 PM | Reply

Baloney. That is a narrative you need to make yourself feel morally superior to those with whom you disagree.
#40 | Posted by JeffJ

A simple example is positions on welfare. It takes empathy and generosity to support welfare. It takes selfishness and lack of empathy to oppose it.

To deny that is simply wrong.

I feel morally superior to most conservatives, because I am. Because my positions on issues are invariably based on a moral view point on life.

Conservative positions, on most issues, are based on self interest-taxes, public spending, even things like minority rights.

I can accept that conservative position on abortion can be from a sincere belief in the sanctity of life, though often it is based on controlling women, but on most other social issues? Control of others who are different.

simple truth

#47 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 01:43 PM | Reply

I believe it is his innate moral superiority that makes him reject conservatism.

#45 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

I reject the notion of pigeon-holing anyone based on the labels of conservatism or progressivism.

It's tribal and binary. I label myself a conservative out of convenience. However, I have plenty of views that fall outside of what people believe a conservative to be. Gay marriage and the need for abortion to be legal, to name a couple.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 01:44 PM | Reply

The same can be said of progressive positions. Exhibit A: identity politics.
#46 | Posted by JeffJ

What you smear as "identity politics" is the liberal position that all minorities have the same rights as everyone else. That is a moral position.

So no, no equivalency there.

#49 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A simple example is positions on welfare. It takes empathy and generosity to support welfare. It takes selfishness and lack of empathy to oppose it.

That is simple-minded. I think a safety net is needed. However, when the hand-up becomes a hand-out it is ultimately very devastating to the recipient in many, many ways.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 01:46 PM | Reply

"I feel morally superior to most conservatives, "

Me too. But the list doesn't end there for me.

#51 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-21 01:47 PM | Reply

Here is the thing: I am not defined by the actions of people I have no control over. Your acting like an immature child. Just. Stop.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ

Does it ever cross your mind to question WHY you share so many political viewpoints with charlatans, billionaires, polluters, theocrats, and reality-denying morons?

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 01:47 PM | Reply

What you smear as "identity politics" is the liberal position that all minorities have the same rights as everyone else.

That is the furthest thing from 'identity politics'.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 01:47 PM | Reply

However, when the hand-up becomes a hand-out it is ultimately very devastating to the recipient in many, many ways.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ

Billionaire talking point #313 - if I help others, I'm really hurting them, so hoarding as much money as I can is really doing everyone a favor.

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I reject the notion of pigeon-holing anyone based on the labels of conservatism or progressivism.
It's tribal and binary. I label myself a conservative out of convenience. However, I have plenty of views that fall outside of what people believe a conservative to be. Gay marriage and the need for abortion to be legal, to name a couple.
#48 | Posted by JeffJ a

If you are viewing my statements as pigeon holing, then you are mistaken as to my intent. My intent is to state that liberal values are more moral than conservative values.

Why? because liberal values are based on generosity and empathy.

Conservative values are based on self interest and, I suppose, in many cases, historical religious teaching. Most conservative values demonstrate a basic lack of empathy for others. That is simple fact. Immigration, gay rights, tax policy, welfare, criminal justice, etc. are all examples of conservative policies where self interest rules.

And that is not moral.

#55 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

That is the furthest thing from 'identity politics'.
#53 | Posted by JeffJ a

so go fight your strawmen elsewhere.

#56 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 01:50 PM | Reply

Billionaire talking point #313 - if I help others, I'm really hurting them, so hoarding as much money as I can is really doing everyone a favor.
#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

BINGO!

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. The perfect conservative value.

#57 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 01:52 PM | Reply

Does it ever cross your mind to question WHY you share so many political viewpoints with charlatans, billionaires, polluters, theocrats, and reality-denying morons?

#52 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I don't care. I am not defined by the actions of others. I come to my beliefs on my own and they are NOT etched in stone. For example: Gay marriage. Up until 2004 I was opposed to the state recognizing the marriage of gay couples. Then I came to the DR. The issue of gay marriage came up a lot and as I expressed my reasons for opposing it and I was hit with better arguments in support of it. After a bit of time I changed my view on the issue.

You do realize that you share political views with some really nasty people, right?

To that I say, so what? They aren't you and you aren't them. You are your own person with your own beliefs.

Now, perhaps you can be persuaded to explain to Troofy what is wrong with identity politics. You are far more eloquent on that issue than I am.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 01:53 PM | Reply

"I have plenty of views that fall outside of what people believe a conservative to be. Gay marriage and the need for abortion to be legal, to name a couple."

But that's not acceptable to truth and Jones.

In the real world, you are capable of making a decent argument and be respectful at the same time.

The folks you're arguing with right now? They can't.

There are binary thinking dbags on both sides here on the DR and everywhere. They will continue to do what they are doing to you right now.

#59 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-21 01:53 PM | Reply

-I feel morally superior to most conservatives, because I am.

The obnoxious Left in all its insufferable self-righteousness. Truly awful people and dangerous True Believers. The kind of fanatics who will throw people into the Gulag or the Killing fields to create their socialist utopia.

#60 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-02-21 01:53 PM | Reply

I reject the notion of pigeon-holing anyone based on the labels of conservatism or progressivism.
It's tribal and binary. I label myself a conservative out of convenience. However, I have plenty of views that fall outside of what people believe a conservative to be. Gay marriage and the need for abortion to be legal, to name a couple.

#48 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That's why I ignore self-labels and make the determination myself based on the other person's positions.

You could label yourself a liberal, Jeff. You could call yourself a Classical Cynic, or even an Inflatable Kayak. I don't care what you call it -- if its a position I disagree with, I'm going to judge you accordingly. I'm not against the titles, I'm against the policies.

#61 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-21 01:55 PM | Reply

Now, perhaps you can be persuaded to explain to Troofy what is wrong with identity politics. You are far more eloquent on that issue than I am.
#58 | Posted by JeffJ

IOW you don't understand the basic issues associated with what you call "identity politics" so you attempt to smear a whole revolutionary movement with supposed slurs.
I've said it before Jefe, you are nothing more than a regressive. You are behind the curve on the social change. History will continue to show you to be wrongheaded.

#62 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 01:57 PM | Reply

"That's why I ignore self-labels and make the determination myself based on the other person's positions......even if I have to make those positions up and assign them to you."

FT

#63 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-21 01:58 PM | Reply

#59 | POSTED BY EBERLY

That's some RoC level ---------. Speak for yourself. Just because Truthhurts and I aren't apathetic to immorallity like you must be does not mean I play identity politics.

Jeff and I argue and fight a lot, sure, but we've come to agreements on many things.

His engagement in this thread alone demonstrates a openness and level of "principled disagreement" your comment proves you must be incapable of ever exhibiting.

#64 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-21 02:01 PM | Reply

There are plenty of ------ on the left who share your political views. Does the fact that they are d-bags make you one?
#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 11:20 AM

No, that's not what makes him a d-bag.

#65 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-21 02:02 PM | Reply

"I have plenty of views that fall outside of what people believe a conservative to be. Gay marriage and the need for abortion to be legal, to name a couple."
But that's not acceptable to truth and Jones.
In the real world, you are capable of making a decent argument and be respectful at the same time.
The folks you're arguing with right now? They can't.
There are binary thinking dbags on both sides here on the DR and everywhere. They will continue to do what they are doing to you right now.
#59 | Posted by eberly

and you are missing the point, Eberly. The point is that most conservative positions are immoral. Jefe makes my point, you agree with him and you don't even see it. He accepts the MORAL liberal positions on gay marriage, and to an extent abortion.

The point being made, at least by me, is that the basis for liberal values and positions is far more moral than conservative positions.

Conservative positions are, be definition, based on self interest (i.e. greed) see: tax policy, immigration or a lack of empathy to others see: criminal justice, minority rights. That is irrefutable or perhaps you can explain how separating children from their parents is moral. Or sending someone to prison for decades for non-violent crimes is moral. Or denying gay couples from sharing the bonds of marriage is moral.

#66 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:02 PM | Reply

He snuck #63 in before my reply, but it clearly proves my point. With some textbook hypocrisy.

#67 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-21 02:02 PM | Reply

I don't care. I am not defined by the actions of others. I come to my beliefs on my own and they are NOT etched in stone. For example: Gay marriage. Up until 2004 I was opposed to the state recognizing the marriage of gay couples. Then I came to the DR. The issue of gay marriage came up a lot and as I expressed my reasons for opposing it and I was hit with better arguments in support of it. After a bit of time I changed my view on the issue.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ

I'm not impressed by you taking the intelligent position on ONE issue.

You take moronic stances on climate protection and spend all day every day pretending the democrats are as bad as the republicans and trump deserves the benefit of the doubt.

If you are surrounded by morons, repeating the same arguments as the morons, [fill in the blank].

#68 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 02:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I've said it before Jefe, you are nothing more than a regressive"

Jeff, you need to understand that you can't find common ground with people like that. That dbag is outright admitting that you will be in 100% agreement with him on every single issue every single day otherwise you are a POS deplorable morally beneath him.

#69 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-21 02:03 PM | Reply

#26 is hilarious. He never said tucker made too much money. He said tucker was a millionaire pushing the agenda of billionaires. Which is a fact.#33 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-02-21 01:25 PM | REPLY | FLA

Tucker was agreeing with him when Bregman said the rich should pay a higher tax rate. Tucker has been consistent on that. It went off the rails when Bregman basically said Carlson could not say or believe that because of who he worked for. If Bregman was on with Maddow and she agreed that the rich should pay higher rates he wouldn't call her on it. Bregman also launched into insults instead of responding to the question of why he didn't call out the big climate change spokespeople for flying across the country in private jets all the time. Carlson didn't need to use the f bomb and I'm surprised he did but Bregman is not the model interview like many here are making out.

#70 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-02-21 02:04 PM | Reply

"Jeff and I argue and fight a lot, sure, but we've come to agreements on many things."

LOL

#71 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-21 02:05 PM | Reply

-I feel morally superior to most conservatives, because I am.
The obnoxious Left in all its insufferable self-righteousness. Truly awful people and dangerous True Believers. The kind of fanatics who will throw people into the Gulag or the Killing fields to create their socialist utopia.
#60 | Posted by nullifidian

Nulli, i for one, am tired of playing nice to immoral people like you or Trump or all of the cancer in between. You and what you support are causing so much misery in this world it is beyond comprehension and i am sick of being nice to you. Change your views on life and seek a better path.

Someone posted something the other day that really struck a cord. Fox News and Bush are truly the cause of so much suffering in the world today.

Bush and Fox News gave us the Iraq invasion, which destablized Syria, which resulted in mass migration from the middle east, which resulted in things like Brexit, which will cause alot of suffering.

#72 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The one thing I'll give jeff is he seems to be the last semi intelligent conservative on this site willing to engage in a debate. Too bad that debate is almost always based on false equivalency.

But it's still better than the snipers of the world who just pop into a thread, spout some maga slogan, then run away. Or the boaz types who just need to rant about the gays who turn him on so much.

Trump has really stripped away all the semi smart republicans. All that are left are sad sacks in denial about their party, and cruel moronic sociopaths.

#73 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 02:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The point being made, at least by me, is that the basis for liberal values and positions is far more moral than conservative positions."

That's a great story, if true. I don't have a problem with your position where liberal views are better compared to conservative views. I actually agree with it

But that's not the point you're actually making here. You're attacking Jeff for not being in 100% agreement with you.

IOW, you're not making a larger point about liberal versus conservative, you're making a point that truth hurts is superior to Jeff.

#74 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-21 02:08 PM | Reply

Bregman also launched into insults instead of responding to the question of why he didn't call out the big climate change spokespeople for flying across the country in private jets all the time.

#70 | Posted by fishpaw

Nor should be respond to stupid polluter defending talking points like that.

The argument that you can't advocate for a cleaner future unless you live like a caveman is simply one more way pollution puppets try to protect their masters' profits.

#75 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 02:08 PM | Reply

A simple example is positions on welfare. It takes empathy and generosity to support welfare. It takes selfishness and lack of empathy to oppose it.
To deny that is simply wrong. - #47 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 01:43 PM

Where you wrong is to falsely imply that conservatives are anti-welfare. Conservatives are certainly for helping those who Can't help themselves. They are opposed to helping those who Won't help themselves. They are also against enforcing people's bad choices. They would also prefer to offer a hand-up rather than a hand-out. Just because your frame of reference is skewed by your own bias and inability to view things from more than your own perspective doesn't make them selfish.

To deny that is simply wrong.

#76 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-21 02:09 PM | Reply

Bush and Fox News gave us the Iraq invasion, which destablized Syria,

The Iraq invasion destabilized Syria? How do you figure?

#77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 02:11 PM | Reply

Jeff, you need to understand that you can't find common ground with people like that. That dbag is outright admitting that you will be in 100% agreement with him on every single issue every single day otherwise you are a POS deplorable morally beneath him.
#69 | Posted by eberly

See you are wrong and I will correct you. All Jefe has to do is to take a moral position on an issue. When he doesn't I will judge him accordingly.

As an example: Abortion.

I have strong views on abortion, but I can understand that opposition to abortion can be based on a sincere belief in the sanctity of life. I get that and though I dont agree, can respect that. Taking that position, doesn't make one a POS.

Alternatively, deregulation of environmental protections, say the clean water protections. If you support that, there is no moral justification for it. Support is based on selfish interests. You want what you want to do and damn those downstream of you. No matter the impact on those downstream by your actions. There is no morality in that position. So yes anyone supporting that, whether it be in the interest of government overreach or libertarianism or whatever, is a POS. And there argument/position is not based on morality.

See the difference?

#78 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The one thing I'll give jeff is he seems to be the last semi intelligent conservative on this site willing to engage in a debate."

And it appears you would prefer to just run Jeff off so that you can finally Have the one sided----------- you've been praying for all these years.

#79 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-21 02:12 PM | Reply

Where you wrong is to falsely imply that conservatives are anti-welfare. Conservatives are certainly for helping those who Can't help themselves.

#76 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

The problem is that conservatives say they're in favor of helping the poor, but then they support policies and politicians that are objectively bad for the poor.

To deny that is simply wrong.

#80 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-21 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#79 | POSTED BY EBERLY

If you're just going to be a salty-ass snowflake, why don't you hit the nooner and let this thread get back on topic?

#81 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-21 02:13 PM | Reply

78

Yes, I know what you think you're arguing, boy.

#82 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-21 02:13 PM | Reply

You take moronic stances on climate protection

I don't want to hijack that thread but I'm not going to let that slide. My stances on climate protection are rational, not emotional.

and spend all day every day pretending the democrats are as bad as the republicans and trump deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Straw man.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 02:14 PM | Reply

81

Okay. You've had enough anyway.

Back to work.

#84 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-21 02:15 PM | Reply

"so that you can finally Have the one sided----------- you've been praying for all these years"

HAHA

You just perfectly described every single rightoecentre thread, ever

#85 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-02-21 02:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

-All Jefe has to do is to take a moral position on an issue. When he doesn't I will judge him accordingly.

No, all Jeff asked to do is show up on this place and not immediately come to 100% agreement with you and then you judge him " accordingly "

#86 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-21 02:17 PM | Reply

Where you wrong is to falsely imply that conservatives are anti-welfare. Conservatives are certainly for helping those who Can't help themselves. They are opposed to helping those who Won't help themselves. They are also against enforcing people's bad choices. They would also prefer to offer a hand-up rather than a hand-out. Just because your frame of reference is skewed by your own bias and inability to view things from more than your own perspective doesn't make them selfish.
To deny that is simply wrong.
#76 | Posted by Avigdore

a bunch of nonsense you spout there. Evil IS as Evil DOES. You know what that means? Judge someone by their actions.

who wants to cut Medicaid? Conservatives
Which state governments did there level best to not participate in ACA? Conservatives
Who dismantled the ACA? Conservatives
who wants to cut welfare? Conservatives

----, all you have to do is look at that medical clinic thing in Tennessee the other day to see the face of conservative values.

#87 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:17 PM | Reply

The point being made, at least by me, is that the basis for liberal values and positions is far more moral than conservative positions.
Conservative positions are, be definition, based on self interest (i.e. greed) see: tax policy, immigration or a lack of empathy to others see: criminal justice, minority rights. That is irrefutable or perhaps you can explain how separating children from their parents is moral. Or sending someone to prison for decades for non-violent crimes is moral. Or denying gay couples from sharing the bonds of marriage is moral.
#66 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2019-02-21 02:02 PM | FLAG:

And if someone disagrees with you they are immoral, end of subject, case closed.

Separating children from their parents? It is a problem that stems from a flawed immagration policy which conservatives are trying to repair. It happened under Obama so by your definition Democrats are immoral. Sending someone to prison? Who signed the 3 strikes law? Bill Clinton, so by your definition Democrats are immoral. Gay marriage is a definition debate, I have no problem with gay marriage and I voted for it as well as many other conservatives.

#88 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-02-21 02:18 PM | Reply

Alternatively, deregulation of environmental protections, say the clean water protections.

With something like that, the devil is in the details. Some regulations are simply onerous and need to be undone. Some serve as crony capitalist barriers to entry into the market. Some regulations are vitally needed. Deregulation isn't necessarily a bad thing, although it can be. I'll cite a horrible regulation under the auspice of protecting the environment: Ethanol mandates.

#89 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-21 02:18 PM | Reply

No, all Jeff asked to do is show up on this place and not immediately come to 100% agreement with you and then you judge him " accordingly "
#86 | Posted by eberly

So IOW you create a strawman for me and attack it. Congrats, that makes you a liar. I stated in #78 the difference, but you decide to lie.

#90 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:19 PM | Reply

And if someone disagrees with you they are immoral, end of subject, case closed.
Separating children from their parents? It is a problem that stems from a flawed immagration policy which conservatives are trying to repair. It happened under Obama so by your definition Democrats are immoral. Sending someone to prison? Who signed the 3 strikes law? Bill Clinton, so by your definition Democrats are immoral. Gay marriage is a definition debate, I have no problem with gay marriage and I voted for it as well as many other conservatives.
#88 | Posted by fishpaw

Ok, stupid, I will explain something to you. Liberal DOES NOT equal Democratic Party, Conservative DOES NOT equal Republican Party.

Ok now that we got that out of the way.

Can we agree that taking children away from their parents is immoral?

Can we then discuss who wants to NOT take children away from their parents?
Liberals would argue NOT taking children away from their parents. Conservatives would argue that it is an effective deterrence from illegal immigration.
Who has the moral position?

Get it yet?

#91 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:22 PM | Reply

-#87 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:17 PM
Again, yours is an inability to view things through any other spectrum than your own limited one.
Medicaid is facing bankruptcy over the long term. In your opinion, the moral choice is just to let that happen. The conservative moral choice is to take steps now to avoid that for the long term benefit of all.
ACA is a give-away to private companies that US citizens are mandated to pay. Your moral choice is to pay those companies at the point of a gun. The moral choice of conservatives is to allow the US citizens to make their own decisions about what health insurance they need.
Cut welfare: Why have you adjusted your argument from opposing welfare to decreasing welfare? Do you believe that we should triple the levels of welfare? Quintuple it? At what point does it reach moral and at what point isn't it yet moral?

#92 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-21 02:30 PM | Reply

Alternatively, deregulation of environmental protections, say the clean water protections.
With something like that, the devil is in the details. Some regulations are simply onerous and need to be undone. Some serve as crony capitalist barriers to entry into the market. Some regulations are vitally needed. Deregulation isn't necessarily a bad thing, although it can be. I'll cite a horrible regulation under the auspice of protecting the environment: Ethanol mandates.
#89 | Posted by JeffJ a

Now, you see here Eberly, Jefe is taking a stance that I wont immediately condemn as immoral.

Let's view this from a moral perspective. A moral perspective as I have been arguing.

Some regulations are horrible, fine, we can agree on that. However, are they horrible because they impact the individual at the expense of society (i.e. clean water rules)? In that case they are horrible because they conflict with the conservative value of self interest. Immoral from a liberal perspective.

Are they immoral because they are ineffective, counterproductive or lack any cost-benefit analysis? Fine. But, say the ethanol mandate, as I understand it was created to benefit corn farmers-conservative self interest and also an attempt to benefit society-liberal generosity. u corn based ethanol causes alot of problems so the regulation is horrible. So see there is agreement there. Perhaps Jefe and i come from different postions on a topic like that, but the end is the same.

#93 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:30 PM | Reply

And it appears you would prefer to just run Jeff off so that you can finally Have the one sided----------- you've been praying for all these years.

#79 | Posted by eberly

No I'd prefer he admit that repubs are the worse party instead of his pathetic false equivalencies he offers on every thread. I don't want him to go away. I actually wish there were MORE intelligent conservatives around here, but they seem to be really hard to find.

#94 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 02:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Can we agree that taking children away from their parents is immoral?
Can we then discuss who wants to NOT take children away from their parents?
Liberals would argue NOT taking children away from their parents. Conservatives would argue that it is an effective deterrence from illegal immigration.
Who has the moral position?
Get it yet?
#91 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:22 PM

We cannot agree on that. If a parent is going to prison, it is not moral to send their 14 year old with them.
If a parent is abusive, or risking the life of their offspring, it is not moral to leave the child with the parent.
Again, your inability to see things from multiple perspectives is your failing here.
Get it yet?

#95 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-21 02:35 PM | Reply

I'll cite a horrible regulation under the auspice of protecting the environment: Ethanol mandates.
#89 | Posted by JeffJ a

The ethanol mandate isn't evidence that environmental efforts are bad, it's evidence that our election funding system is legalized bribery, and only one party is talking about addressing that. Care to guess which one or do you want to play false equivalency again?

#96 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 02:37 PM | Reply

-#87 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:17 PM
Again, yours is an inability to view things through any other spectrum than your own limited one.
Medicaid is facing bankruptcy over the long term. In your opinion, the moral choice is just to let that happen. The conservative moral choice is to take steps now to avoid that for the long term benefit of all.
ACA is a give-away to private companies that US citizens are mandated to pay. Your moral choice is to pay those companies at the point of a gun. The moral choice of conservatives is to allow the US citizens to make their own decisions about what health insurance they need.
Cut welfare: Why have you adjusted your argument from opposing welfare to decreasing welfare? Do you believe that we should triple the levels of welfare? Quintuple it? At what point does it reach moral and at what point isn't it yet moral?
#92 | Posted by Avigdore

nope, my spectrum is morality.

Assuming you are correct that medicaid is facing bankruptcy, not that i agree, but the solution is not to cut medicaid, but to properly fund it. See that is a liberal/conservative difference. Conservative-self interest, not paying for full medicaid. Liberal-generosity and empathy-recognizing the benefits of medicaid and taking the pain (ie taxes) to pay for it

Hey I agree the ACA was not perfect. BUT and here is where you fail to understand, is that it is all that could be passed by Obama. I, as a liberal, want medicare for all. Universal, single payer healthcare for all. That is a liberal perspective. You argue the conservative postion-self interest. My arguement is more moral as I assure that health care is available and affordable to all. Your argument is that people's self interest rules. That some should have access to affordable health care and other should not. You can couch that in individual choice all you want but access to health care should not be a condition of wealth.

As for welfare, i believe, based on my moral position, is that anyone who needs it should get it. The conservative viewpoint is that welfare is taking from haves and giving to have nots. That is self interest at work and not moral.

#97 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We cannot agree on that. If a parent is going to prison, it is not moral to send their 14 year old with them.
If a parent is abusive, or risking the life of their offspring, it is not moral to leave the child with the parent.
Again, your inability to see things from multiple perspectives is your failing here.
Get it yet?
#95 | Posted by Avigdore a

Gee, I thought that it was understood that we were discussing the actions of the conservatives, through Trump, of the recent immigration travesty.

Hey I agree, that if a parent is going to prison for a violent crime that yes, the child should be taken from the parent. And yes if the parent is abusive, in that circumstance too. Though I think that being a parent should be a big part of consideration in non-violent crimes.

But in immigration cases, where a family arrives on our border, even illegally, removing the child from their parents is immoral.

Can you agree with that?

#98 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You argue the conservative postion-self interest. My arguement is more moral as I assure that health care is available and affordable to all. Your argument is that people's self interest rules. That some should have access to affordable health care and other should not. You can couch that in individual choice all you want but access to health care should not be a condition of wealth. - #97 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:38 PM
The first sentence of yours is untrue. I am just as interested in you having the right to make your best choice as I am to be able to make my best choice.
Your second sentence is untrue because the ACA did not assure that health care is available and affordable to all - I call your attention to that medical clinic thing in Tennessee. If your moral choice is that healthcare be available and affordable to all, then you MUST accept that the ACA is immoral...by the evidence you provided.

As for welfare, i believe, based on my moral position, is that anyone who needs it should get it. The conservative viewpoint is that welfare is taking from haves and giving to have nots. That is self interest at work and not moral. - #97 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:38 PM
You and conservatives believe that anyone who -needs- is should get it. You differ on determining who needs it. You are pretending that the other side is immoral because you disagree over who needs it.

I believe that freedom of choice and self determination along with You think that your view of my position is correct because you seem unable to comprehend of any other. I don't want this to sound mean when I suggest that you read a bit more and expand your persective?

#99 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-21 02:48 PM | Reply

But in immigration cases, where a family arrives on our border, even illegally, removing the child from their parents is immoral.
Can you agree with that? #98 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-02-21 02:41 PM

I believe the moral choice is to keep the children as safe as possible, as do the conservatives. I'm not sure that locking them into a facility with a bunch of adults is the safest option. The best choice would be enough funding for secure facilities for holding asylum seekers. Those don't exist yet, and aren't likely to with the decrease in bed-space authorized by the most recent spending bill. A perspective that you are missing again is why you are assuming that an adult with a child arriving at our border are part of a family, and would it be a moral duty to verify that?

#100 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-21 02:54 PM | Reply

"I'm not sure that locking them into a facility with a bunch of adults is the safest option."

So you don't distinguish between adults that are their parents and adults that are strangers.

You don't take families into consideration.

Parents, predators, prison guards, whatever. They're all just "a bunch of adults." All equally potentially unsafe for kids.

It's amazing to ponder you once had parents who showed you love.

But maybe you didn't have that blessing. That would explain a lot.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-21 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"A perspective that you are missing again is why you are assuming that an adult with a child arriving at our border are part of a family"

Is that what happened to you?

Is this all just projection on your part?

It's difficult to imagine reasons that aren't rooted in a desire to harm children by separating them from their parents.

I think what you really want is to harm these children and their families as a deterrent to others who might follow.

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-21 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Where you wrong is to falsely imply that conservatives are anti-welfare. Conservatives are certainly for helping those who Can't help themselves.
#76 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE"

"Helping those who can't help themselves" is right-wing code for outlawing abortion.

Which is not at all the same thing as welfare, which Avigdore knows, and is exactly why Avigdore the dissembler makes the false claim.

It's an entire political framework based on duplicity. On saying things that sound respectable to normal people, but have a different, darker meaning for people who can speak the alt-right code.

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-21 04:08 PM | Reply

Wow. That guy really is a unhinged sissy.

#104 | Posted by e1g1 at 2019-02-21 07:33 PM | Reply

You can tell Tucker got beat up a lot in school.

#105 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-02-21 08:58 PM | Reply

Hey I agree the ACA was not perfect. BUT and here is where you fail to understand, is that it is all that could be passed by Obama. I, as a liberal, want medicare for all. Universal, single payer healthcare for all.
#97 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

How do you figure? It was passed without a single GOP vote - this is 100% on the Dems and this is what they chose to provide - crappy insurance which leave 20M+ uncovered and places burdens on the users making it virtually useless. In exchange, everyone got premium bumps and choices in care cut. You do realize there is a difference between providing INSURANCE and HEALTH CARE, right?

#106 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-02-21 09:18 PM | Reply

How do you figure? It was passed without a single GOP vote - this is 100% on the Dems and this is what they chose to provide - crappy insurance which leave 20M+ uncovered and places burdens on the users making it virtually useless. In exchange, everyone got premium bumps and choices in care cut. You do realize there is a difference between providing INSURANCE and HEALTH CARE, right?

#106 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Remind us what the GOP plan for health care reform was again?

#107 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-21 09:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"crappy insurance which leave 20M+ uncovered"

How many were uncovered before ACA?

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-21 09:29 PM | Reply

Remind us what the GOP plan for health care reform was again?
#107 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

How many were uncovered before ACA?
#108 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

- the plan was simple. Use emergency services at your local hospital. It is an unsustainable plan but it actually allowed access to MEDICAL CARE. So, basically, it was the Obama plan where 20M+ still do this paired with his crappy Obamacare plans. As these plans collapse, we will go back to the same number using the emergency rooms as before.

For me, I am for single payer, just at a lower quality of service (death panels, etc). If you want better coverage, buy private insurance on top. I would pair this with blowing up the AMA to lower licensing requirements (we are better off using AI to diagnose that a person) and truly fighting to reduce prescription drug prices by removing all laws against importing medicine from abroad.

That is the only plan that will allow coverage without bankrupting the country. I believe it is superior to the Dem plan of making everyone so poor that they can't afford food and thereby stopping future obesity related illnesses. You should not take your medical plans from Venezuela.

#109 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-02-21 09:53 PM | Reply

Remind us what the GOP plan for health care reform was again?
#107 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

The Republican plan back then is what the ACA has turned into.

The Republican plan was to allow each state to figure out how they were going to make sure that their residents had access to health care. It would be through possibly Universal healthcare or a co-op or forcing every insurance company to take pre-existing. Before the ACA, I think it was something like 38 states that were well on their way to solving the problem of too many people who didn't have access to health care for the three major causes which were those who could not afford health insurance, those who could afford it, but would not and those with pre-existing. Most states solved the pre-existing problem with co-ops.

Today, if you'd bother to look and I have. It's part of my job and a larger part of my wife's job. The states that had co-ops for pre-existing have gone back to that.

The ACA made it very easy to get onto Medicaid and even have extended it, but that's being tightened up too. Some states that jumped onto the bandwagon of extending their Medicaid have gotten rid of that and are now doing audits on their Medicaid recipients.

The only thing that the ACA accomplished was to raise premiums of at least 400% in 10 years.

Now that more people are actually paying their premiums, mostly through their jobs, you would think that costs would come down. THERE IS NO WAY that's going to happen. The people who got the ACA in place are never going to turn those massive profits loose.

#110 | Posted by JordyPete at 2019-02-22 10:14 AM | Reply

"the plan was simple. Use emergency services at your local hospital. It is an unsustainable plan but it actually allowed access to MEDICAL CARE. That is the only plan that will allow coverage without bankrupting the country. I believe it is superior to the Dem plan of making everyone so poor that they can't afford food and thereby stopping future obesity related illnesses. You should not take your medical plans from Venezuela."
#109 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-02-21 09:53 PM

You DO realize, don't you, that this kind of laughable drivel is why you are thought of as the DR Village idiot?

#111 | Posted by e1g1 at 2019-02-22 11:03 AM | Reply

"The Republican plan was to allow each state to figure out how they were going to make sure that their residents did not have access to health care."

FTFY

#112 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-22 11:09 AM | Reply

"The Republican plan was to allow each state to figure out how they were going to make sure that their residents did not have access to health care."
FTFY

#112 | POSTED BY DANNI

That's exactly right. That's the false narrative, Danni. Thank you! That's exactly why the Democrats are failing. The ACA failed and the only thing it accomplished was to make medical corporations much much richer.

Thank you for so succinctly telling us what the false narrative is.

#113 | Posted by JordyPete at 2019-02-22 11:37 AM | Reply

The ACA failed and the only thing it accomplished was to make medical corporations much much richer.
#113 | POSTED BY JORDYPETEM

Thanks, congressional Republicans.

#114 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-22 02:03 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort