“Why doesn't the Left understand that conservatives won't engage their "policy debate" on government health care because it's not the government's job to provide health care? This issue reminds us that the GOP is not quite intellectually bankrupt because it's doing (approximately) what it should: Limiting spending, fighting the growth of government, and reminding citizens that they are responsible for their own private affairs.
It occurs to me that a Republican debating with a Democrat about the minutia of new government entitlements is like an agnostic debating a zealot about the will of a god: In the end, it's foreign terrain and misses the point entirely!”
doneright on Dec 18, 2009 at 15:57:15
“All conservatives can do is stand behind old worn out clichés when making their points. For example, “It’s not the government’s job to provide health care.” No, the government’s job is to look out for the interest and well-being of the people. This is supposed to be a government by the people and for the people, not by cooperation’s for their interest. The duty of government is to maintain fair play of individuals and corporations who would disregard the interest of the individual for their own interest and profit. That is what the health care debate is all about. It is not about the government providing health care.”
leserv on Dec 18, 2009 at 15:55:28
Limiting spending (see Reagan and W. Bush)
Fighting the growth of government (see Reagan and W)
Reminding citizens that they are responsible for their own private affairs (see Terri Schiavo and gay marriage). Yes, you're on your own except if you do something that violates the gospel according to Dobson and Perkins. Then, Republicans will be right in your home, dictating how to live your life.
The Republicans offer hypocrisy and lies and a world view that is nowhere close to reality. The bottom line is they are doing everything they can to create a nation of sheer misery for the purpose of regaining power. And they wrap themselves in the flag and God as they stand in the way of improving life for 300,000 million. A vote for a Republican is a vote for theocracy and the further bankrupting of the middle class.”
ReverseUniversal on Dec 18, 2009 at 15:42:43
“If you believe, truly believe, that the government has no place running health care, then I am afraid your ideology no longer aligns with the common practice of this country. The government of the US runs or is in charge at least in part of many basic aspects of our society that are less important than health care. Our government does this because those aspects are important, so important, in fact, that privatizing them and making them for profit is not only negligent but also incredibly dangerous.
1) Public Schools
For profit fire stations would only put out fires that they'd get paid to put out. No public school availability would lock out poor from ever being educated, similar is the case of libraries. Etc etc.
And right now, privatized for-profit health care is denying the poor any care whatsoever, effectively killing them, and bankrupting any middle class person who happens to get any deadly but treatable illness.
The entire point of forming a nation is to pool resources and make life better for everyone. If citizens were responsible for the own affairs, why was a country formed at all?”
donkeyforever on Dec 18, 2009 at 15:21:19
“So what about the big medicare prescription drug bill that Mr. Bush passed not long ago? And limit spending? Yeah, it's okay for them to spend billions rebuilding another country we tore apart needlessly, or do bail-outs only if a Republican president asks for it. But God forbid an administration tries to do something for the actual American citizens living in this country right now and then it's a travesty. And fighting the growth of government? These nut jobs ARE in the government and most of them can't even keep their "own affairs" private. GEESH!”
I think you're right in principle, but a runoff election would raise tactical and legal questions that are likely to make Iran's situation much more contentious.
For example, do they have the laws in place to govern a second round? As the non-urban areas are governed as much by traditional figureheads and convention (esp. notable families, local imams, and elders) as by laws and the government, what is required to get buy-in from them for a second round, and who would be responsible for ensuring local compliance?
I also have some doubts concerning the advantage a runoff - or any formal resolution to the election - would afford the opposition. Are they organized enough to assert themselves at the polls? Perhaps it's better to let the situation cool down, knowing that dissent is simmering to come back wiser and stronger at a better moment in the future. As it frequently does, the Iranian regime has tended the seeds of its own demise this month.
Do you have any insight on the questions of Iran's laws and the likelihood that the provinces' notables would make a runoff a viable option?