December 16th, 2009 • 2:03 amThe Party Of Tolerance Strikes Again

Another day of LTEs in the St. Cloud Times, another liberal attack Michele Bachmann. That’s as surprising as finding out that President Obama is a narcissist. We’ve all seen the DFL use lies to advance their agenda. This time, though, it’s too far over the line to not slap down. Here’s what Luther Rotto said:

Recently a public health study concluded the lack of affordable health insurance caused about 45,000 deaths annually in the United States. A state-by-state breakdown shows Minnesota with 305 deaths per year. (Minnesota has the lowest percentage of uninsured.) Assuming those deaths are spread evenly across the state’s congressional districts means the 6th District’s share is 43 deaths per year.

Indicating this was no biggie to her, Rep. Michele Bachmann recently voted in lockstep with the rest of the Republicans in Congress against the Affordable Health Care for America Act, which provides affordable health care for those without access to it. Seventh District Rep. Collin Peterson voted the same way. In his district, about 37 people die each year because they can’t get insurance.

Why on earth would our elected representative vote against legislation that would save more than 40 6th District citizens from death every year? Does Bachmann think this is merely a fiscal issue and not a moral one? Or maybe she thinks they are all Democrats.

This is what stupidity looks like. It didn’t dawn on Mr. Rotto that Michele might’ve voted against the bill because it’s bad policy. Instead of just defending Michele while she’s in Washington, I’m gonna turn things around and embarrass the daylights out of this idiot.

Why would you want your representative to vote for a bill that (a) raises taxes, (b) institutes individual and employer mandates, (c) raises health care costs and (d) likely triggers the next wave of layoffs? Even a liberal idiot should figure it out that the Democrats’ bill isn’t about reforming health care, that it’s about controlling We The People.

Why would anyone think that imposing penalties on people who’ve purchased HSAs is voting for something worthwhile? Why would people think that voting for legislation that imposes unconstitutional mandates on people is smart policy.

Poll after poll after poll has shown support for the Democrats’ legislation in the high 30s. The most support I’ve seen for the Democrats’ legislation was 41%. CNN’s most recent polling showed 61% of the people polled opposed the Democrats’ legislation.

Logically speaking, the Democrats appear to be attempting to argue that taking the side of 60% of the people isn’t in the political mainstream. Good luck with that argument. Let me know how that turns out next November.

When it comes to Michele Bachmann, the Left doesn’t appear capable of controlling their anger.

The ‘Party of Tolerance’ appears to have struck again.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Post Comments RSS Feed Post Comments RSSTrackBack URI 6 Responses

  1. Pace yourself. If you are going to put the smackdown on every liberal idiot with free speech rights, you’re going to nova regardless of how easy each one of them is. There are still 30+% of the folks that think this incomprehensibly and irretrievably bad bill is a good idea. That’s a whole army of idiots.

    Comment by J. Ewing • 16Dec2009 @ 8:05 am

  2. Thirty+ percent don’t win many elections, Jerry, which is where their approval rating is heading if this legislation gets signed.

    Comment by Gary Gross • 16Dec2009 @ 8:23 am

  3. Gary, Gary, Gary….don’t you realize that according to Democrats their policy is not bad. It’s perfect but only if you nasty Republicans would just sit down and shut up and be good little 2nd class citizens…….

    LL

    Comment by The Lady Logician • 16Dec2009 @ 8:54 am

  4. Bachmann is Bachmann, and there are many things many could say of her.

    J.Ewing is right about few approving the flat tax proposal being pushed out as healthcare reform.

    Yet the GOP likes flat taxes, or so I thought.

    And it’s a to-be-privatized flat tax, and I thought the GOP liked privatization.

    Everyone pays - premiums are set by a panel without citizen voting - and firms are required to participate or be fined. Individuals are required to participate or be fined. All aspects of taxation - except that it is privatized.

    And it is a flat tax. Millionaire or pauper [with a subsidy], for the same coverage and risk profile, pay the same, no graduated ability-to-pay scaling.

    And with the paupers being at higher risk, if not a flat tax it is a retrogressive one.

    Republicans should love all about it. Progressives should say the reps in the halls of Congress are ripoff artists. Disguising the ripoff in a flood of conflicting paper, ultimately to be a single ripoff of the poor and a sop to the healthcare-industrial complex.

    Enjoy.

    Comment by eric z. • 16Dec2009 @ 10:26 am

  5. The Idiot responds:
    Struck a nerve, apparently. Last time I checked, you folks LOST the election. Why? Enough voters figured out the party of the greedy self was interested only in helping those that have keep it, and, by whatever means (including government intrusion into the private and public economy), get more of it. This creed is not only immoral, but, ultimately, destructive of our way of life.

    This philosophy has given us the most expensive health care system per capita on earth that, and this is the sad part, doesn’t even cover everyone! And, it’s getting more expensive day by day while providing protection to fewer and fewer citizens. The people who make money from others’ suffering will, sooner or later, take your money, too.

    Protecting its citizens would seem to be a government’s prime directive. I can’t think of any more present danger than the constant threat of ill health. Why is providing that protection such an odd concept to grasp?

    So, good luck with looking to Bachmann and her ilk for your future. The only future they are interested in is their own.

    Comment by Luther Rotto • 18Jan2010 @ 11:41 pm

  6. the party of the greedy self

    Like the greedy insurance companies that contributed 10s of thousands of $$$ to Martha Coakley? Like the greedy unions that insist that people who aren’t unionized pay taxes for their Cadillac plans while the unions get a $60,000,000,000 exemption?

    I can’t think of any more present danger than the constant threat of ill health.

    Might I suggest terrorists flying into Detroit on Christmas Day representing a greater threat?

    Good luck with 2010. You’ll need it badly. That plus ACORN on steroids.

    Comment by Gary Gross • 18Jan2010 @ 11:50 pm





Categories