« Ashley's Story | Main | Spring Training For Universal Health Care »
October 10, 2007
Let's Debate
"It’s militant leftist bloggers," writes Malkin, "who wouldn’t know a good-faith argument if it bit them in the lip." Let's have a good faith argument. I will debate Michelle Malkin anytime, anywhere, in any forum (save HotAir TV, which she controls), on the particulars of S-CHIP. We can set the debate at a think tank, on BloggingHeads, over IM. Hell, we can set up the podiums in the shrubbery outside my house, since that seems to be the sort of venue she naturally seeks out. And then if Malkin wants an argument, she can have one. We'll talk S-CHIP and nothing but -- nothing of the Frosts, or Congress, or her blog.
My sense has been that Malkin doesn't want an argument. Rather, she wants to feed her readers the steady stream of outrage that keeps her traffic numbers up. But I realized tonight that I could be wrong, and I shouldn't assume Malkin doesn't want a real argument unless I actually ask her.
So c'mon Michelle: Let's debate health care. Prove to the world that you really want "a good-faith argument." We can talk crowd-out, and cross-subsidization, and whether lower-middle class entrepreneurs are able to procure health care on the individual market. If this is a policy argument you care so deeply about as to travel to the Frost family's house to see if they really deserved S-CHIP benefits, surely you'll want to set up a web cam and talk through the issue.
October 10, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Don't hold yer breath on this one. 'Cause one thing we all do know about The Mighty Malkin is that she's a coward.
I find it 'interesting' that no Democratic 'leader' has spoken out on this issue.
Posted by: A.Citizen | Oct 10, 2007 1:10:34 AM
I agree with "A. Citizen" there is zero chance that she will even respond to your challenge much less agree to it.
Michelle Malkin's entire career in based on one simple but effective technique: Piss off as many people as possible.
She pisses off the sabre-toothed sheep on the right, whipping them into mindless stampedes of little black hoofs and braying and pisses off the "dhimmocrats" and "moonbats" on the left to condemn her. That's really as deep as she gets.
Posted by: Cuzco | Oct 10, 2007 1:44:56 AM
Just be sure it's one-on-one, with no moderator. Lincoln and Douglas didn't need one, and neither do you.
Thanks for making this good-faith effort, Ezra. It's great that you're issuing this challenge to Malkin to engage in a real debate and I hope you get one.
Posted by: David W. | Oct 10, 2007 1:52:35 AM
I agree with the comments above, but I say, keep it up. Issue challenges, document them, and eventually someone somewhere (oh please let it happen) will bring to light the fact that MM and others are flat-out cowards.
Call them cowards at every chance, and don't just call them cowards, challenge them.
And challenge the media (in all forms) to address this sicko cowardly, and flat-out deranged behavior.
I hope that Ezra's next appearance on Hardball will place him next to Mr. Krugman on the "shrill" stage. Nothing will change until enough people shame the media elites into recognizing how awful people like MM are.
Call them out Ezra, no time like the present, and nothing diminishes social/political/popular goodwill so much as "waiting for the right moment."
Posted by: abject funk | Oct 10, 2007 1:56:44 AM
The truth is much simpler: Malkin is a bot, programmed to spew lies and insults. You might just as well offer to debate your toaster.
Posted by: Johnny Pez | Oct 10, 2007 2:07:11 AM
Jonny Pez: "You might just as well offer to debate your toaster."
: )
Posted by: Cuzco | Oct 10, 2007 2:12:49 AM
More likely she'll scrape up every piece of your personal information she can and try to unleash the hounds on you. Please be careful.
Posted by: lux | Oct 10, 2007 2:14:41 AM
I get the feeling that Ezra is somewhat stoked. Good. I want to see the poor wingnut who gets in his way on this.
It almost makes me sad that Tweety's producers like having him in a less confrontational roundtable.
But of course Brave Sir Michelle will bravely bravely run away from this one, no doubt accusing Ezra of being a 'bad faith leftist' for wanting to discuss tangential issues such as healthcare, when the real issue is the right to intimidate anyone who speaks up for a position they dislike.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 10, 2007 2:18:59 AM
No one in their right(wing) mind should argue health care with Ezra. She may have all sorts of visceral reasons to decline, but rationally she'd be toast as soon as the first specific was offered.
She should, intellectually (we skim the light fantastic here, I know), be able to argue immigration or (softball coming) internment. Let the wagering begin.
Posted by: Mudge | Oct 10, 2007 3:01:21 AM
Did you know that Ezra Klein, supposedly a big advocate of single-payer health care for the poor, himself relies on a gold-plated private-sector health plan which he gets through his job -- working for a liberal media outlet? The disgusting hypocrisy. These champagne-swilling limousine liberals are willing to advocate Communist-style government health care for everyone else, as long as they know they themselves can still rely on the world-best health care provided by America's private sector. /malkin
Or some such gibberish. I don't even know if any of the above is true, but it's the kind of crap I expect Malkin will begin spewing next.
Posted by: brooksfoe | Oct 10, 2007 3:56:48 AM
Repubs believe in economic Calvinism. If you don't heave health care it's because you were predestined not to have it by God.
Posted by: jr | Oct 10, 2007 4:29:58 AM
I hope the debate happens, partly because I think it would help help defuse some of the heat that's developed around this, but also because Malkin is so, so wrong on this and ought to have to defend her (weak) position. But I think the call and response on this will be interesting, because Malkin is likely to "innocently" ask to do it on Fox News, or someplace similar - and an argument over forum will make a nice distraction from actually having the debate.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 10, 2007 5:04:49 AM
Make sure you control all the logistics, especially podium height and risers, since Malkin is taller than you.
Posted by: flying monkey | Oct 10, 2007 6:22:28 AM
Malkin makes me ashamed to be an American, ashamed to be a woman, ashamed to be human.
Posted by: msquick | Oct 10, 2007 6:32:58 AM
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.frosts10oct10,0,2541063.story?coll=bal_tab01_layout
new story on the attack of the Frost family at the Baltimore Sun
Posted by: blackfrancis | Oct 10, 2007 7:05:27 AM
Wasn't it not 18 months ago that Malkin was posting on about how vile the left was and how she feared for her children's safety because some blogger posted her address.
Do you think she even tries to rationalize her actions anymore?
Posted by: Manzanar | Oct 10, 2007 7:23:50 AM
That Baltimore Sun story is encouraging. I hope this gets picked up in more places so people see what the modern Right is truly about.
The pattern is consistent. Whether the target happens to be Iraq veterans, 9/11 widows, or some 12-year old kid, they engage in relentless personal attacks and then, when the public reacts with horror, whine that the Democrats keep fronting people with "absolute moral authority." It's like they don't understand there's another way to debate political issues other than with vicious personal attacks.
With S-CHIP, the facts are so egregiously on the Democratic side (you even have Chuck Grassley calling the White House a bunch of liars, albeit not in so many words) that maybe I'm not surprised this is all they've got. But all they're going to end up doing is illustrating that middle-class entrepreneurs, a natural Republican constituency, have a good reason to like Democratic policies. Thanks for the extra votes, guys.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 10, 2007 7:47:46 AM
It would be a very short debate, I'm afraid. Ms. Malkin would stalk off in another of her snits after realizing she was lacking even the faintest hologram of an interpretive sketch of a partial leg to stand on.
It would be a cake walk for Ezra, I'm afraid. Too easy, but yeah, fun to watch while it lasted.
Posted by: litbrit | Oct 10, 2007 8:19:11 AM
One of the products that has been ignored by the liberals is High Deductible Health Insurance coupled with HSA accounts. Instead, the focus has been on low deductibles that are very, very expensive. The difference in premiums can be as much as 40% with essentially the same coverage.
http://www.fpanet.org/journal/articles/2005_Issues/jfp0605-art1.cfm
Yet Ezra doesn't wish to discuss this growing option. If the goal is to lower health insurance costs and make it affordable for all, it seems reasonable. However, if the goal is to push us all into a beehive of socialized medicine / insurance, the lack of discusion makes perfect sense. It might actually require consumers to take some responsibility.
Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 10, 2007 9:06:36 AM
"El Viajero", Ezra has discussed HSAs in a multitude of places including:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/hsas_on_the_mar.html
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2005/08/hsas_for_the_po.html
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/01/hsas.html
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/the_impossible_.html
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/imaginary_hsas.html
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/01/three_million_h.html
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/the_consumers_a.html
And those links were just from the first page of "HSA" search results. After that, I got bored.
Posted by: Ravi | Oct 10, 2007 9:25:53 AM
One of the products that has been ignored by the liberals is High Deductible Health Insurance coupled with HSA accounts.
Guess what? I have one of those plans with Blue Cross of Florida. And it still costs me nearly $500 a month to cover my family of three, none of whom have pre-exisitng conditions and are in perfect health.
So before you go spouting off about the 'affordability' of such an option, dig a little deeper. Granted, the $500 a month I pay (with a $3000 annual deductible) is less than the $900 a month I would pay for an identical PPO plan, but it still isn't chump change. And if I had to cover my full deductible for a year, the grand savings of my HDHP plan would be $1000 vs. the PPO, which is about 10%.
Posted by: John S. | Oct 10, 2007 9:30:01 AM
I think you spend the bulk of your time working to keep Stalkin'-Malkin on topic. You'd need a resonant voice, a blank-stare-blink-blink affect, and a fairly rapid rhetorical style, but it would perfectly offset her likely increasing frustration and non-knowledge of the subject. It would result in your controlling the debate and would show Malkin to her "best" advantage.
Posted by: mk | Oct 10, 2007 10:12:23 AM
And those links were just from the first page of "HSA" search results. After that, I got bored.
Posted by: Ravi
I know I've mentioned this before, and I guess it could sortakindamaybe be seen as a personal attack rather than a substantive reply, but am I the only person who thinks El Viajero is Fred Jones?
Posted by: Cyrus | Oct 10, 2007 10:26:15 AM
I remember seeing Ann Coulter in a debate in which she was one of three people representing the right-wing side (the others were the head of the ACLJ and Rush Limbaugh's brother). She was completely over her head and unable to contribute anything other than insults. Her team would have been far better off if she were entirely absent. I imagine Malkin's debating abilities are similar.
Posted by: KCinDC | Oct 10, 2007 10:27:21 AM
Wasn't it not 18 months ago that Malkin was posting on about how vile the left was and how she feared for her children's safety because some blogger posted her address.
Remember, that was done in retaliation for her having published the home addresses of a group of antiwar UC Santa Cruz students . . .
It's only vile when it's done to her--it's okay for her to do it to other people. After all, she's a Republican . . .
Posted by: rea | Oct 10, 2007 10:32:42 AM
"Graeme had to learn again to walk and talk, his parents say; he remains weak on his left side and speaks with a lisp. Gemma is blind in her left eye; she has difficulty with memory, learning and speech, and sees a behavioral psychologist to help her deal with her frustration."
...
"Malkin wrote that the Democrats' use of Graeme Frost to deliver the radio address was "poster child abuse"; Limbaugh told listeners that Democrats had "filled this kid's head with lies."
Yes, the Democrats are lying to them when they say the program is actually helping them. I mean, who knew a family who is rseceiving medical assistance for their traumatized children could be so naive as to think they actually need that assistance?
Jesus, please help the wingnuts to grow up. Please?
Posted by: Adrock | Oct 10, 2007 10:33:37 AM
Jesus, please help the wingnuts to grow up.
As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those that have eyes and do not see, or in the original version:
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear notJeremiah 5:21
And interestingly, Jesus' solution to this problem was:
Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understandMatthew 13:13
That is exactly why the Frost's story was told - it was a parable. A way to relate the meaning of S-CHIP by tying it to a tale with a name and a face.
And yet still, they choose not to see.
Posted by: John S. | Oct 10, 2007 10:47:18 AM
I know I've mentioned this before, and I guess it could sortakindamaybe be seen as a personal attack rather than a substantive reply, but am I the only person who thinks El Viajero is Fred Jones?
They're pretty much convinced he is over at Lawyers Guns 'n Money, which may be why he's now here and not there. The easy way to prove it, of course, is to use the call of the feral Fred.
Posted by: Doug H. | Oct 10, 2007 11:01:57 AM
I have seen Michelle Malkin speak at UC Berkeley in an event sponsored by the Berkeley College Republicans. Malkin doesn't want debate. If anybody she disagrees with attempts to debate with her, she will paint this attempt to debate as "leftist disruption" or as an attempt to silence her free speech.
Posted by: jonp72 | Oct 10, 2007 11:16:07 AM
The easy way to prove it, of course, is to use the call of the feral Fred.
Yeah, have Neil link to one of Amanda Marcotte's posts and let the good times roll.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 10, 2007 11:23:51 AM
There is a Fred connection in all of this-- Fred's ire towards Amanda resulted in him harassing her employers and making constant threats about her job... just as the Malkinites are doing with this family-- threatening their livelihoods and harassing them. Why? Her blogging just got on his nerves.
My suspicion is that the reaction to the Frosts set up the exact same cascade of firing synapses that Amanda's writing set off in Fred's leading to a desire to somehow "strike" at the family for some imagined sins they supposedly committed.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 10, 2007 11:36:24 AM
I find it 'interesting' that no Democratic 'leader' has spoken out on this issue
Pelosi did in the Baltimore Sun article.
As for me, I'd pay money to watch Ezra debate Malkin on health care. It would be sort of like Bambi Meets Godzilla, I imagine.
Posted by: Jeff Fecke | Oct 10, 2007 11:48:45 AM
But the whole idea of sliming the twelve-year-old accident victim and his family is to avoid talking about the SCHIP program itself. The Bush position on this issue is so grossly unpopular - particularly with exactly the kind of middle class family the Frosts represent - that the right-wing publicists would actually prefer to be seen as crazy mean stalkers hysterically harassing a kid for speaking in public than to allow the public focus on SCHIP itself.
And it's working, too! Look in the papers; all the talk is about the lunatic right-wing smear campaign, and none is about the actual legislation. So while the public might end up with a vague general distaste toward the pro-Bush bloggers and talk-show swine, the legislators who vote to sustain Bush's veto will be covered.
Posted by: W. Kiernan | Oct 10, 2007 11:55:17 AM
...still costs me nearly $500 a month to cover my family of three...
...Granted, the $500 a month I pay (with a $3000 annual deductible) is less than the $900 a month I would pay for an identical PPO plan...
Geezze......it seems that you are saving almost half on your costs for the exact same coverage. You don't think that's substantial? Really?? The associated HSA rolls over from year to year so your "10%" savings figure is bogus.
What you want is FREE!! You want others to pay for your needs. Would you like some free housing with that as well? Food? Aren't those expensive necessities as well? Why not have the government pay for those as well?
What is the difference??
Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 10, 2007 11:58:56 AM
Invite her husband, Jesse, along. And then we'll finally see if Michelle can talk while Jesse is drinking a glass of water.
Posted by: DJ | Oct 10, 2007 12:02:26 PM
It's like they don't understand there's another way to debate political issues other than with vicious personal attacks.
gee, where do you think they picked up that habit?
Lee Atwater, may he rot in hell. Karl Rove, may he rot in hell.
These are the people who taught rightards by example, that the way to defeat your ideological foes is not to debate them or have better ideas, but to smear them any way you can.
Posted by: r€nato | Oct 10, 2007 12:05:30 PM
Ezra, you will NOT be debating Malkin in the shrubbery outside your house. I'm not having that crap right in front of my place.
Posted by: Rob W | Oct 10, 2007 12:06:18 PM
but will Michelle show up in her cheerleader outfit?
Posted by: r€nato | Oct 10, 2007 12:07:42 PM
Malkin, Coulter, O'Reilly, etc. don't want arguments on substance. They want anything but. Ad hominem attack is what they do instead of arguing. So then we end up "arguing" about whether John Kerry really got injured in Vietnam, how often Michael J. Fox goes off his Parkinson's meds, whether the 9-11 widows enjoy publicity, whether Wesley Clark is an anti-Semite, etc. While Ezra may not be able to get Malkin to argue on the substance, I think he will be able to show how she operates.
Posted by: bobob | Oct 10, 2007 12:11:07 PM
One more bit of advice, Ezra. Get a parent who is particularly adept at maintaing their dignity when their kid does a Cat 5 meltdown in the grocery store to coach you. I have a feeling that's likely to be Malkin's skill at/style of debate.
BTW. Where are all these various bloggers finding such wretched photos of this woman? If they're not photo-shopped, and the expressions captured are represntative, she really does have a hideous soul, if she has a soul at all. Some director should sign her up for the next exorcism movie. She's a natural talent.
Posted by: mk | Oct 10, 2007 12:14:36 PM
Malkin is an intellectual lightweight.
She's a powder-puff fascist.
Posted by: Captain USA | Oct 10, 2007 12:19:24 PM
Whoa! There are a lot of ad hominen attacks on Malkin here, and that totally misses the point of this post. Debate is opening a dialogue. I'll catch a lot of flak for this, but I have no doubt that Malkin is intelligent, and probably genuinely hopes to bring about the greater good for all. Her problem, like many others' is her sensational use of invective as a marketing tool.
I hope the debate does happen. I have no doubt that Ezra would do very well in such a debate, and give Malkin much to think about. I also have no doubt that Malking would provide at least a couple of kernels for thought on our side.
But the whole point is to have the debate - polite and civilized. I think Malkin wouldn't be interested not because she's unintelligent or afraid, but because that forum precludes her from utilizing her best, most unfortunate asset of controversy-mongering.
Most of the comments here only feed that unfortunate trait.
Posted by: John | Oct 10, 2007 12:22:32 PM
I have no doubt that Malkin is intelligent, and probably genuinely hopes to bring about the greater good for all.
I'm sure you would say the same about Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly.
Posted by: r€nato | Oct 10, 2007 12:27:57 PM
Here's a bit of HSA trivia that has recently annoyed me: HSA Bank, the entity that issued our debit Visas before we decided (after one year) that the high deductible/HSA plan was a crock, charges $25 to close an HSA account. And IIRC, we determined that the balance would have to remain over $10K to earn enough interest to cancel their monthly fees, not including the extra $1.50 they charged every time we actually used the damned cards. Just a bunch of nickel-and diming bullshit.
Posted by: latts | Oct 10, 2007 12:36:48 PM
Most of the comments here only feed that unfortunate trait.
Concern troll is concerned!
Posted by: ethan | Oct 10, 2007 12:38:52 PM
but... but... socialized medicine would be WORSE!!!11!!ONE!!11
Posted by: r€nato | Oct 10, 2007 12:43:04 PM
"Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty. . . and besides, the pig likes it."
Posted by: Hokuto | Oct 10, 2007 12:55:23 PM
"Malkin is intelligent self interested , and probably genuinely hopes to bring about the greater good for all Malkin."
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Johnny Coelacanth | Oct 10, 2007 12:56:48 PM
John Cole said it best this week talking about the reason for the decline of the GOP.
"For starters, people got tired of being associated with these drooling retards. Then, when they realized that these drooling retards had ideological allies running the show in the Bush administration and then began to experience their idiotic policies, they moved from disgusted to outright hostile.
Like me. It had nothing to do with Burke, and everything to do with what the party had become. A bunch of bedwetting, loudmouth, corrupt, hypocritical, and incompetent boobs with a mean streak a mile long and no sense of fair play or proportion.
...
That is why the Republican party is in shambles. The majority of us have decided that the movers and shakers in the GOP and the blogospheric right are certified lunatics who, in a decent and sane society, we would have in controlled environments in rocking chairs under shade trees for most of the day, wheeled in at night for tapioca pudding and some karaoke."
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8799
They have no sense of fair play or proportion because they are "movement conservatives" (aka authoritarians consumed by cupidity). When you have to have an inferior enemy (blacks, the gays, liberals...any old mudsill will do) to rally the base you know you are morally bankrupt. Limbaugh, because he was the first big one, and his spawns have done more damage to America than the terrorists.
Posted by: spixton | Oct 10, 2007 1:03:20 PM
Someone's grasping at someone's coattails.....
Posted by: RW | Oct 10, 2007 1:05:08 PM
Geezze......it seems that you are saving almost half on your costs for the exact same coverage.
Are you fucking retarded, or just bad at math?
$480 x 12 + $3000 HSA funding and fees = $8810
$870 x 12 = $10440
That's $1600 in savings - not $5000 in savings. The only way to analyze the difference and come up with yor figure is to not fund your HSA.
The associated HSA rolls over from year to year so your "10%" savings figure is bogus.
And it earns a whopping 1-3% interest, unless you invest it - in which case you can actually lose money. Also, you assume that you don't draw on your HSA for the entire year, which is impossible since you basically pay all your medical costs out of pocket with it (and then have to re-fund it the following year). So your entire premise is bullshit.
What you want is FREE!! You want others to pay for your needs.
What I want is for my wages to have risen as sharply as my medical costs have, or for the government to step in to lower my medical costs so that it accounts for the same percentage of my expenses as it did a few years ago.
Please, don't bother to respond unless you can make a reasonable point. You just make yourself look more foolish otherwise.
Posted by: John S. | Oct 10, 2007 1:08:44 PM
I have a pretty decent employer-supported health insurance plan. Its part of my compensation so increases in plan costs keep my raises low...the money has to come from somewhere. I end up paying around $3,000.00 per year out of pocket for my meds and office visits....mostly the meds. I have type 1 diabetes and I'm over 40...but otherwise in good health and shape. Why should my money go to provide shareholder profit and admin costs for every supplier and middleman in our healthcare system...just to stay alive? For myself its continuous healthcare or death. I'm sorry I'm sick...I'm sorry I'm not ready to die just yet. I'm sorry I only make $50K per year and I have to buy food, pay the mortgage, make car payments. If we took the massive profit out of healthcare I could shoulder a larger percentage of the costs myself.
Posted by: DaveB | Oct 10, 2007 1:12:52 PM
I see someone's [*cough* Ar Dubya *cough*] back to prove how clueless and stupid he is. And he does it with only five words! *Very* impressive.
Posted by: Captain Goto | Oct 10, 2007 1:13:24 PM
Malkin is waaaaaay too much of a coward to accept.
Posted by: Leon M | Oct 10, 2007 1:18:33 PM
MK, Those shots of Malkin are NOT photoshopped. I happened to catch her on CSPAN once speaking to a group of young college republicans. Her facial expressions are the most bizarre I've ever seen! But even more bizarre, when asked by a young woman in the audience about whom, besides Malkin and Coulter, could she cite as role models to convince other young women to see the light, Malkin could only come up with Clare Luce Booth and Phyllis Schafly!!! LOL!
Posted by: littlelamb | Oct 10, 2007 1:21:00 PM
I have no doubt that Malkin is intelligent, and probably genuinely hopes to bring about the greater good for all.
Oh, I'm sure she's moderately intelligent, but her writing isn't, not in her blog posts, her columns or her books. The right wing in this country, always desperate for anything to make them look less bigoted, loves to have people like Malkin make their case for them. She's a good-looking, female member of an ethnic minority. She doesn't have to be particularly smart to get the jobs and exposure she gets.
And that's why any actual debate on the merits of any issue would result in failure for her. Whether she has the mental capacity to have taken a different path wherein she took time to really understand the issues in order to discuss them intelligently doesn't matter, because the path she has taken, like so many conservative "commentators," is the one where the goal is to win at all costs and to use whatever means necessary in the attempt.
Since pundits associate their persons with their work, this thread doesn't really have that many ad hominem attacks. I can say that Michelle Malkin is a hateful, bigoted moron without it being ad hominem, because what I'm obviously attacking is her writing which is associated with her name. Of course I can't say objectively what thoughts she has in the privacy of her own brain, but that standard is not only impossible to meet, it's completely irrelevant.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 10, 2007 1:28:08 PM
Don't hold yer breath on this one. 'Cause one thing we all do know about The Mighty Malkin is that she's a coward.
I find it 'interesting' that no Democratic 'leader' has spoken out on this issue.
Posted by: A.Citizen | Oct 10, 2007 1:10:34 AM
That's because they are cowards too.
Posted by: Johnny2Bad | Oct 10, 2007 1:29:43 PM
El Viajero: What you want is FREE!! You want others to pay for your needs. Would you like some free housing with that as well? Food? Aren't those expensive necessities as well? Why not have the government pay for those as well?
You do understand that citizens pay taxes, right? Right? And, not for FREEE!!!1!, but in return for these tax payments, they would like to get certain services - I mean besides wantonly slaughtering foreigners by the truck-load. Services like health care, which every civilized country in the world supplies its citizens.
I'll say that again, because obviously you are very, very stupid and awesomely ignorant. Every civilized, industrially-developed country on the entire globe supplies public health care for its citizens, just like it supplies public roads and public jails and public schools. Go look it up on Wikipedia or something if you don't believe me.
Posted by: W. Kiernan | Oct 10, 2007 1:31:19 PM
Viajero, do you think people won't follow your link? First you use a trade journal for financial planners (not exactly neutral actors) and then cherry pick "40%". Lets try that link again, but including the sentences bracketing your cherry:
Square one for deciding whether an HSA is right for a client is to determine the difference between the premium of a client's current health insurance and of the cost for the high-deductible plan necessary for an HSA. In theory, the high-deductible plan should cost your client less, perhaps as much as 20 to 40 percent. Then, ideally, he or she simply takes the money saved and funds the HSA. But many planners report finding that high-deductible plans don't provide as much relief from premium as all the publicity surrounding HSAs has led clients to believe. In fact, planners say the differential generally hovers around 10 percent, often not enough to interest clients in an HSA. In fact, in some cases, planners actually have found the premium for a high-deductible plan to be higher than that of a lower-deductible plan not eligible for an HSA.
Sure if you take out the qualifiers and ignore the typical example than "40" is not an outright lie. A distortion intended to deceive, but not a lie. Which is to say that you are cheating.
So you really need to put a sock in it. That was thoroughly dishonest, and in the context of an accusation that Ezra somehow was ducking thoroughly repugnant.
Posted by: Bruce Webb | Oct 10, 2007 1:31:27 PM
John, where do you see all those ad homenin attacks? There are a lot substantive arguments in these comments.
If you check out Malkin's site, you'll see that only this morning she reproduces a series of posts from liberal blogs, including Ezra's, critical of her work on the Frost story, and then claims that those critical posts add up to attempts to silence her. This is what she always does; confused criticism from the other side as somehow the equivalent of attempted censorship.
This from a woman who insists on calling anyone who might be characterized as a liberal with whom she disagrees "unhinged." Compare it with Ezra's offer to debate her.
Ezra, have you emailed her your offer? You should.
The point about this story about the Frosts is that the wingers who, according to Malkin, were just doing the "journalism" that the MSM failed to do, got almost every fact wrong. And still they insist that there is some essential truth about how they have used the Frosts as an argument against S-Chip in particular, and generally, any notion that universal health care ought to be a societal concern in this country.
You are right that Michelle thrives on "hate" speech directed against her, but her own aggressive, unwavering assumption that all liberals, Democrats and progressives are un-American, nutty, creeps is not dependent on anything that we do, just as the documented lies told by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth didn't alter, and doesn't to this day, her ability to call John Kerry a liar, a phony, and a faux-hero,, who had shot himself to get a Purple Heart and didn't deserve the Bronz and Silver Stars he was awarded by the US Navy.
Posted by: Leah | Oct 10, 2007 1:36:24 PM
Malkin engaging in a real discussion like the health care crisis? Yeah right. She'd rather "fluff" her fans (very scary when fluffed-YIKES!)then engage in discourse requiring intelligence. Hillary has my vote because she at least wants to bring universal health coverage to America. Whether she'll be able to, if elected, remains to be seen, but because this is her platform I wil be voting for her-period. I belong to the group of people for whom health coverage has become a nightmare. I am up to here with the dismissive attitude of the Republican party regarding the role government should play in providing health care. Aside from the moral implications, which I do not expect the Republican party to concern themselves with, there is the very real problem of competing in a global economy when we are the only nation whereby big corporations are responsible for providing their workers health care-hello GM. I wonder if Toyota and Honda would be where they are today if they were responsible for providing health care to their workers? As for Malkin...she is a silly little tw@t who rates no higher then a gnat. I don't see why anyone would bother with her.
Posted by: Deans | Oct 10, 2007 1:44:55 PM
In fact, planners say the differential generally hovers around 10 percent, often not enough to interest clients in an HSA.
Wow!
I guess when I said the savings was around 10% (based on my own personal experience) I wasn't making up bogus figures, as El Viajero would like to claim.
Thanks for the catch, Bruce Webb.
Posted by: John S. | Oct 10, 2007 1:54:07 PM
A buck says she's chicken. Bawk, bok-bok-bok. CHICKEN!
Posted by: CalD | Oct 10, 2007 1:57:55 PM
And the attacks on Ezra begin.
"But this lackluster resume didn't stop him from writing for publications such as the Gadflyer, Washington Monthly, LA Weekly, American Prospect, Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, and Slate. Klein has also appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Hardball with Chris Matthews, and numerous NPR programs.
What a great equalizer the internet is! Where else can even an ordinary guy barely old enough to drink can be elevated to the status of a "Washington insider"?"
Posted by: Trevor | Oct 10, 2007 2:14:03 PM
JohnS. your post are very informative and helped me understand this debate! I look forward to hearing more from you! The right is shooting themselves in the foot with their stance on SCHIP,maybe I should say some on the right since their seems to be a split among them. Their stooping to discredit children recovering from such a horrible accident is beyond reason. I think this is one more grain of sand falling away from their sand castle of lies concerning "passionate conservatism". They coax their real intentions of destroying social security,public education,job security,clean air and envrironmentalism, etc., with slogans and phrases about the right of individuals, and freedom to chose only becuase if their intentions were made public the public would reject them! That is why they distort,misrepresent,attack the truth and scream abuse when confronted by facts. Look back at the 2004 presidential debates betwwen Kerry and Bush! Bush was destroyed in every debate and shown for the shallow uncurious anti-intellectual person he is and relishes in this depiction(I'am the Decider and I have a C average while Condi the PHD works for me!). Yet everywhere Kerry's knowledge of the facts and issues was used against him. He is too polished, rehearshed, phony,snobbish etc. I hope a real debate concerning SCHIP does take place but its still up to us to chose what kind of society we want to live in! The right by attacking ex-soldiers as phony and suicide bombers,then families and children benefiting from a health care program as slackers and wanting govt. handouts,while handing out no-bid contracts to their friends and continuing a war that has cost us nearly a trillion dollars is showing us what they are offering. The choice is ours!
Posted by: papagato618 | Oct 10, 2007 2:16:20 PM
It's discouraging to me that many commenters want to take down Malkin's credibility when she already has none, and doesn't really aspire to it. She's a successful entertainer! Hate speech is a business decision to her.
The University of St. Thomas in St. Paul just cancelled an appearance by Desmond Tutu because he has opinions that are too controversial for its president to tolerate. On the other hand, the president had no objection to Ann Coulter's appearance because, he contended, nastiness and invective are just her speaking style. If you were young rightie at St. Thomas, what lesson would you learn from this?
Posted by: Radio Head | Oct 10, 2007 2:27:28 PM
Nice one. Though I doubt Malkin will take you up on the offer. It was just rhetoric for her vapid, rabid fans. Malkin couldn't debate her way out of a paper bag. Heck, I doubt she'd be able to find the opening.
Posted by: Martin | Oct 10, 2007 2:32:53 PM
Ever price out what insurance for 2 children with such horrific pre existing conditions would be? If they can even find someone to cover them?
Posted by: Bethie | Oct 10, 2007 2:35:04 PM
Who gives a shit what Michelle Malkin thinks or says? If she didn't have tits and ass, she'd be lucky to draw a crowd at a car wreck. You don't debate people like Malkin, Coulter, O'Reilly, et al; you ignore them and wait for them to go away.
Posted by: pat mcgroin | Oct 10, 2007 2:37:05 PM
The (generous) company I work for switched us to a high-deductible HSA this past August.
It costs them the same amount that our PPO did last year. (That went up almost 50% for no discernable reason.)
Saving money is great, but my employer had to do it in order to keep providing its employees with this benefit.
That's no more an incentive than a hungry grizzly is an incentive to run like Hell.
The word incentive implies choice. This is survival.
Posted by: bwindrip | Oct 10, 2007 2:39:54 PM
Good luck with that. Malkin is to debate what Bush is to a real fight.
Posted by: actor212 | Oct 10, 2007 2:46:15 PM
OMIGOD, socialized medicine, the horror! What would we do then! Why, everybody might actually get health care coverage!
I really, really don't understand how anybody could possibly object to this. What, do these simpletons really think that they pay some "special extra-secret" discount price for their health coverage, and if we had universal coverage it would cost them more?
Can they really be that stupid?
Posted by: dasher | Oct 10, 2007 2:48:10 PM
Can they really be that stupid?
Yes.
This has been another edition of...
Posted by: r€nato | Oct 10, 2007 2:54:13 PM
Repubs believe in economic Calvinism.
More like economic Calvinball. "We're running a surplus? We need to cut taxes for the rich! We're running a deficit? Well, these changing times mean we need to cut taxes for the rich! We're at war? Oh, in that case, we need to cut taxes for the rich!"
Posted by: Otto Man | Oct 10, 2007 3:17:03 PM
I have no doubt that Malkin is intelligent
Really? Have you read her pro-internment book?
Posted by: TR | Oct 10, 2007 3:22:49 PM
Has Malkin responded to this yet by accusing Ezra of stalking her?
If not, well, commence countdown sequence...
Posted by: Thers | Oct 10, 2007 3:28:01 PM
I live in the same neighborhood as the Frosts. I challenged her to come back and have a beer with me: a former MCHIP recipient.
Posted by: TheHolyFat,man | Oct 10, 2007 3:49:44 PM
Ezra, if you debate her, PLEASE ask her to explain THIS:
I certainly am not convinced that a government-run system is the answer, but I do agree with Krugman that there are serious problems with our health insurance system, particularly in the market for individually-purchased (non-group) coverage.After my husband quit his job earlier this year (to become a full-time stay-at-home dad), we had a choice. We could either buy health insurance from his former employer through a program called COBRA at a cost of more than $1,000 per month(!) or we could go it alone in Maryland’s individual market. Given our financial circumstances, that “choice” wasn’t much of a choice at all. We had to go on our own.
We discovered that the most generous plans in Maryland’s individual market cost $700 per month yet provide no more than $1,500 per year of prescription drug coverage–a drop in the bucket if someone in our family were to be diagnosed with a serious illness.
With health insurance choices like that, no wonder so many people opt to go uninsured.
That's Michelle Malkin herself on August 27, 2004. I guess she didn't have her Fox News gig then, but, being an author and lecturer and what not, I presume her income was better than the Frost's.
Posted by: Ken | Oct 10, 2007 3:54:38 PM
And it earns a whopping 1-3% interest, unless you invest it - in which case you can actually lose money. Also, you assume that you don't draw on your HSA for the entire year, which is impossible since you basically pay all your medical costs out of pocket with it (and then have to re-fund it the following year).
Well, John, first of all, you're just stupid if you think that you are not saving big bux on your insurance with this program. Your claim of 10% savings only work for the first year and after that, it depends on how much you spend, doesn't it?
So, how much of your $3,000 did you actually spend so far this year? I have spend about $400 so far. Also, you get to include glasses, contacts and other items that are not necessarily covered by other insurance and they are tax deductible on your plan.
I know you're not stupid, John. That is why you have HDHI policy. It is a really good deal and that is why you chose it.
That is also why I chose it as well.
Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 10, 2007 4:10:43 PM
What we need to do is point out that Bush, the Congress, and the United States Military ALL enjoy "socialized medicine" on our tab.
Did Cheney pay for his pacemaker? Nope. You and I did.
Did Bush pay for all of his tests? Nope. You and I did.
They consider them perks. I consider it EXACTLY what they've been whining about. They have the money. They have the means. Why don't they pony up the cold hard cash for the medical tests and procedures themselves?
Or are some people more equal than others?
Posted by: feloneouscat | Oct 10, 2007 4:23:13 PM
You'll need to bait her to get her to show up. I've heard ping pong balls left out in the yard attract the wiley Malkin
Posted by: Witch King | Oct 10, 2007 4:28:13 PM
Trevor, thanks for posting that link. Look at this tidbit:
The point here is not that these people shouldn't be allowed to write. The point is that it's important for readers to be aware of who/what the authors are of their favorite blogs really are. It's easy to be fooled; many of these columnists have great skills at writing, but are long on style, great "one-liners", but short on substance. The same misleading information is passed around so many times, that people actually start to believe it. That's not a good thing.
This is EXACTLY the reason that the right wingers are attacking the Frosts. Who you are is more important than what you say or feel to these people. If your credentials don't fit their preconceived notions, then what you say makes no difference. And really, all their preconceived notions boil down to is whether you are a conservative or not. In an article that complains about Ezra complaining about attacking someone for who they are...this person attacks Ezra for who he is.
Posted by: Adrock | Oct 10, 2007 4:29:07 PM
Radiohead @ 2:27: "The University of St. Thomas in St. Paul just cancelled an appearance by Desmond Tutu because he has opinions that are too controversial for its president to tolerate. On the other hand, the president had no objection to Ann Coulter's appearance because, he contended, nastiness and invective are just her speaking style. If you were young rightie at St. Thomas, what lesson would you learn from this?"
I think that lesson is already part of the early indoctrination for students at St. Thomas, MN home of 'The best business degree money can buy'. This is also the school which held the gigantic and unprecidented coronation event for the ever-deepening-disaster of a new District Attorney, Rachel Paulose.
Radiohead, you may want to check the story again later. It's breaking that St. Thomas may have re-issued the invitation to Tutu.
Posted by: gbear | Oct 10, 2007 4:35:34 PM
Radiohead, you may want to check the story again later. It's breaking that St. Thomas may have re-issued the invitation to Tutu.
Posted by: gbear
Call me cynical, but if they learn anything other than "see? Liberals actually ARE in charge of higher education!", I'd be very surprised.
Posted by: Cyrus | Oct 10, 2007 4:53:44 PM
Small-business entrepreneurs cannot get insurance on the open market, and certainly not at an affordable price.
One weird response to the Frosts that the righters are pushing is that Mr. Frost was stupid, negligent, etc, to own his own business and not get a job with a company that offers subsidized health insurance. I mean, okay, let's jump right over this assumption that jobs with good benefits are just waiting to be grabbed (they're not; I keep trying), and that any parent of special needs kids would get the job (no, they're not supposed to refuse you employment because your kids are going to cost them a bundle in premiums, but of course they do just that, as again I've had the displeasure to learn). But what is this "small business is stupid" meme? One huge problem with big-employer-supplied health insurance is that it decreases our competitiveness by making it difficult for us to leave jobs and to start our own companies. No one in Canada ever has to worry, "Oh, if I quit my job and start my own company, my kid will be without health care."
And yet the rightists think it's GOOD to force people to stay with corporate jobs, or to take them, rather than start something new of their own. You'd think then they'd love unions-- after all, employer-subsidized health insurance exists mostly because the unions a century ago started that trend going.
But I guess consistency is not their thing. It does make me think that we need to explain how this form of health care decreases our freedom, that we have to make life decisions about starting a company or getting married or getting a divorce or looking for a better job on the basis of how it will affect our health care.
I get the idea that any rightwinger who has ever lost his job or had her company go under-- or had a legit claim denied by the all-powerful insurer-- is staying very, very silent. The ones who are talking about what a great system we have really must still have "good" insurance and haven't had to decide whether their commitment to their "antisocialist" principle is greater than their commitment to their child.
Posted by: petra | Oct 10, 2007 5:04:47 PM
The rightwing learned a long time ago they can't win on the facts anymore - all they have left is penny ante character assassination.
I'd love to see you debate SCHIP with someone on the other side - but I gotta believe they can find someone better qualified than Malkin.
Posted by: TheOtherBear | Oct 10, 2007 5:22:13 PM
The only way you can get preexisting condition covered is through employee health benefits. That is usually automatic with large corporations. Smaller companies tend to have a one year waiting period. The larger the company the better plan they can afford to buy...If you are getting it on your own then they often won't ever cover a pre existing condition. COBRA benefits (accessible for 18 months after you leave a job) for a family have premiums along the lines of $700-$900 per month. At least that's what it was for my family. No pre existing conditions allowed. If you own your own business and your child is born with a condition then you are up a creek. If someone else has a different experience please tell me about it. This is what I have learned.
Posted by: Deans | Oct 10, 2007 5:22:23 PM
I hope a debate is possible, but I seriously think I would need a huge dose of self control in such a circumstance. Ezra, best of luck on this-some things you could touch on:
Children are America's future, the innovators and entrepenours, after all they will bear the burden of Iraq well into middle age if not more.
Children's illnesses are a cost to productivity in the workplace, untreated illnesses are far more expensive than treated ones to employers.
Small businesses (and most large) are hard-pressed to attract high quality workers or keep valuable employees when illness strikes a family member.
Bankruptcy and loss of a home should not be a national health-care solution, and I would challenge Republicans to think twice of running on that platform.
Emergency room visits are strangling hospitals, while preventative care and follow up is much cheaper, and result in better diagnosis. Children are better off with a regular physician than to suddenly show up at an emergency room that does not necessarily have a pediatrician on staff.
Children are often the first to contract communicable diseases or conditions. In the face of obvious threats like H5N1, bird-flu virus, potential bio-hazard terror attacks and E-coli, not mention recent import of products that are dangerous for children, how is it that we can leave our most vulnerable without care and treatment?
What would be better for our economy, offering a low tier insurance plan at affordable co-pays, or increasing losses of capital and equity to the middle and working classes?
What would be better for companies looking to possibly relocate either in America or China?
Fraud, waste, and abuse can and should be addressed both in the medicaid system and the S-chip program to ensure against double billing and other scams.
As to the claim of the right that socialized medical experiments in this country have not worked, and do not work, I offer the DOD system as it has been used on military bases throughout the world. Our Department of Defense has driven medical technologies surpassing the world in forms of treatment, R&D and exceptional care. If you look at how the military has attracted top physicians with military pay, (relatively lower than the private sector) you have the basis of a global leader in the world of medicine. PAID FOR BY US TAXPAYERS!
Posted by: lilorphant | Oct 10, 2007 5:30:49 PM
I admire you for agreeing to do this thing. But ... Malkin isn't going to discuss anything with anybody. That's not what she does. She yells, she scowls, she interrupts, she outshouts, she launches personal attacks, she brings up other unrelated topics to change path, and on and on and on. Why on earth would you agree to go into a forum with her?!
Posted by: Linda | Oct 10, 2007 5:32:50 PM
This is a post I made regarding this issue in Crooks & Liars
I fear for Ezra in this, because I have always heard you can’t win a debate with an idiot.
“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King, Jr.
If you look up conscientious stupidity in the dictionary, it says, “See Michelle Malkin.”
Posted by: Red State Blues | Oct 10, 2007 5:45:32 PM
Pwned!
I've never thought of Malkin as particularly wonky, so this doesn't seem like a fair fight. Of course, the idea isn't to engage identically gifted ideological opponents in a war of rhetoric.
The point is calling out Malkin for her ignorance over this issue that she has spent the last week braying about, and crying over the lack of real debate.
I want this debate to happen so badly I can almost taste it. It would be great fun!
Posted by: DrexelDem | Oct 10, 2007 6:04:24 PM
Hey Ken,
Great job finding that tidbit of Malkin's own experience with health insurance. No wonder she is unhinged over this. She knows the reality of it and it left her enraged.
I am self-employed in Massachusetts. I pay 1600 a month for a family of four. It's a good plan, including unlimited pharma, which my family needs, but we still pay thousands each year out of pocket with our deductibles and co-pays.
I mention my own experience only because it illustrates what a very challenging marketplace it is out there. Apparently even Malkin knows this, but still lashes out anyway.
Shame on her.
Posted by: Bill Trippe | Oct 10, 2007 6:14:13 PM
So much hate. How sad.
Posted by: abw | Oct 10, 2007 6:55:48 PM
Ezra,
I hope the two of you do debate. I strongly recommend bloggingheads.tv as the venue. I would definitely watch that discussion. There is room for a rational analysis of this topic. So, please don't back down when she agrees. I know that the men and women behind the curtain will be trying to pull your strings to prevent a debate. It's not in their interest. The entire SCHIP gambit -- from the very beginning, way before the Frosts -- has been 100% about politics and 0% about policy, governance, or decency. But you are an independent courageous journalist, so they can't manipulate you. When Michelle agrees, step right up.
I apologize in advance for this spoiler: at the end of your discussion the "outcome" will be that the best policy [which will be enacted quietly when the fury dies down] will be a program that is similar to the existing program, with somewhat more funding, but without the extension to cover young adults, age 22 to 25, who are not children.
Posted by: Marc Rich | Oct 10, 2007 7:03:58 PM
So much hate. How sad.
Aw, a concern troll! Yes, stalking a family with two injured children is nice and noble, but getting mad about the stalkers is just plain hate.
You know what's sad? Morons like you.
Posted by: TR | Oct 10, 2007 7:16:37 PM
It is indeed pretty hateful to expand health-care so that people get well and stuff.
Posted by: Righteous Bubba | Oct 10, 2007 7:22:18 PM
Ooopppssss!!! Thought I was on a reasonably intelligent site...sooooo sorry only hate exists here without brains!! Tinfoil hatted leftist loons only!!
Posted by: Sue | Oct 10, 2007 7:39:13 PM
A debate? Wonderful! I've not witnessed many politico's who know a debate from a 3-15 second sound bite or an ad hominum shouting match.
There are erudite conservatives who have now silenced themselves in disgust of w's sub-prime mortgaging of our country's liberties and economy in his presidential terror debacle. Yet most have succumbed to the rovian/RNC political tactics of blitzkrieg fear mongering and unfounded character attacks on opponents.
.
Posted by: wordvarc | Oct 10, 2007 7:45:12 PM
Free healthcare for everyone! Plus, puppies!
Posted by: abw | Oct 10, 2007 8:47:17 PM
Malkin is not equipped for anything that counts as "debate." She is a cheerleader for right-wing outrage, period. Like Coulter, though, she might gladly allow Fox News to prop her up in some sort of stage-managed hit piece on Klein.
Posted by: John | Oct 10, 2007 9:29:45 PM
well i actually emailed her asking for a response to ezra's challenge.
i call the whole thing the rope-a-dope-ya in blogtopia!
Posted by: skippy | Oct 10, 2007 9:53:30 PM
What we need to do is point out that Bush, the Congress, and the United States Military ALL enjoy "socialized medicine" on our tab.
Great! When you do public service and your employer is the US Federal government, you can have it also.
Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 10, 2007 10:02:26 PM
And the attacks on Ezra begin.
Good grief, they attack Ezra on the basis of his high school gpa. At long last, have they no decency?
Posted by: rea | Oct 10, 2007 10:45:07 PM
I am Spartacus!
Posted by: Cyrus | Oct 11, 2007 12:11:15 AM
As the NY Times article said, these are substantive issues. If its supposed to be a program for the working poor, they should have to actually work and their income should be from work and they should be kinda "poor," too, and struggling and trying to get ahead. This particular family seems financially made on a reported income of $45,000 and that does not add up. I have a hunch that if you debated Malkin, she'd come in with information that would blow it out of the water because the story is so fishy. The Frosts are not living on $45,000/year.
Posted by: Randy | Oct 11, 2007 12:42:14 AM
Has Ezra retracted and/or apologized yet for continuing to lie about Malkin's run-in with the UC Santa Cruz thugs? When he does, then maybe he can actually talk about "good faith".
Posted by: James Norden | Oct 11, 2007 12:43:53 AM
She put up quite a rebuttal on her comment-restricted blog. If that doesn't scream "honest debate", what does?
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Oct 11, 2007 12:53:40 AM
Debating Malkin is too easy. Her argument, such as it is, is so absurd it defeats itself. I won't even bother pointing out her whiny, immature response to your challenge. Truly, it is time for the blogosphere to starve Malkin of oxygen.
Posted by: Pocket Rocket | Oct 11, 2007 12:57:06 AM
Ezra, you sound like a 12 year old seeking attention at school.
Posted by: Joe Bean | Oct 11, 2007 1:10:04 AM
Ahh..moonbattery at its battiest.
Well I suppose all you moveon.org types need someone else to take your ire out on after the dhimmis gladly took your bong money and are slowly hanging you out to rot.
Posted by: Kevin A Thomas | Oct 11, 2007 1:52:55 AM
This site of full of people spewing hatred. It's disgusting. When a NY Times reporter contacts the Frost family it's called reporting, when Malkin does the same thing it's called harassment. Let's see if Klein has the courage to debate Malkin as he says. Malkin provided a link to Klein's site so we can read about his point of view firsthand. She is fair and unafraid. Klein provides no such link to Malkin so readers can see her point of view. Real fair play there Klein. Is Klein afraid to let you haters read the truth from Malkin herself. Of course, for you haters ignorance is easier the confronting the truth.
Posted by: Brett K | Oct 11, 2007 2:08:36 AM
James Norden - go here to see what Malkin's one-sided 'run-in' with the UC Santa Cruz 'thugs' was really all about:
http://parrotline.blogspot.com/2006/04/malkin-and-themole.html
Posted by: D. Aristophanes | Oct 11, 2007 2:11:56 AM
Wow, this is the first time I've been to this site and I can't believe all the libtard postings... You are all really a pathetic lot... Michelle Malkin is smarter than all of you put together. This Ezra clown is about as smart as a pile of your left over bong droppings.
You're all a bunch of regulatory fascists and you don't deserve the internet bandwidth this site takes up.
Anyone can post on her blog. All conservative blogs allow anyone to post. It's the libtards on dailykos that blocks those who disgree.
Idiot libtards.
Posted by: T-Hawkk in Texas | Oct 11, 2007 2:15:11 AM
How do you liberals manage to talk so much and say absolutely nothing? All the criticism of Malkin and personal attacks yet no debate or rebuttal to her complaints about the SCHIP EXPANSION and the Frost’s bad choices.
Bush’s veto of SCHIP EXPANSION would not effect the Frost’s coverage at all. So why are Democrats putting him on the air implying that future kids with his same experience won’t receive the benefits he did? The fact that two adults decided to have 4 kids and don’t work a full time job between them is a whole other issue.
Any of Ezra want’s to debate someone so bad on Insurance I’ll gladly make him the fool. I haven’t seen one author or commenter yet that has the slightest clue what they are talking about;
Bill Trippe - Why is it Liberals in MA, NY, CA, and other Democratic havens are always the ones crying about the cost of Healthcare? You pay $1600 a month because you are governed by idiots and have been for decades. Have you never wondered why you can go a couple hundred miles west and it cost half as much? Numerous insurers won’t even right polices in NY and MA because the laws are so ridiculous. CA use to cost 2 to 3 times as much as NV and AZ, now it’s only 50% more. It’s because of the Democrats and their nanny state laws. You seem to really like your “unlimited Pharma” have you ever bothered to check socialized drug plans? They choose which drugs you are allowed to buy, on your death bed and want to try some new experimental drug with a 5% chance of saving your life, not in Europe or Canada you wont.
Deans – Search for the word HIPAA then post. The only way someone in this country can not have a pre-existing condition covered is if they wait till there sick to try and get insurance. If you idiots on the left can’t understand why waiting till your sick to buy insurance doesn’t work then there is no need to even try and educate you. Every single state in the US has HIPAA plans that can not deny you no matter how bad you are. Waiting period has nothing to do with the size of the employer, the employer chooses their waiting period. COBRA is 18, 29, or 36 months. COBRA premiums are set by federal law at 102% of the employers cost. So if your COBRA premium is 700-900 then your employer was paying 680-880 for it. COBRA allows pre-ex it’s the exact same policy you where on when you quit. If you have insurance before you child is born then you are not up a creek, they can’t cancel you and most states cap the increase in rates. If you wait till you have a disable kid then your up the creek and deserve to be.
Petra – Your one of the dumbest – millions of small business entrepreneurs have insurance and it is affordable. The states that are expensive are ran by Democrats and usually have some liberal version of small group “reform” i.e. CA, NY, MA. Again why the states with cost issues are always ran by Democrats and you can’t make the connection is beyond me. Cal Choice killed the insurance market in CA and drove rates up, who’s fault is it but those that passed the laws and those that voted for them? How exactly would a potential employer know the health status of your kids? Please tell me when you filled out the job application at the fast food restaurant and they asked why you want to work at McDonalds you didn’t answer “my kids are really sick and need benefits” unless you told them there is no way they would know. America has a higher rate of individuals starting their own business then any other nation in the world. If Socialized medicine makes it so much easier why are we the unquestioned entrepreneural leaders? How does paying 50% of your income in taxes increase freedom? How does a single payor system increase freedom? You haven’t got an idea or a clue in a really long time.
Dasher – Wow socialized retirement what a brilliant idea, what could possibly go wrong where do I sign up…what do you mean I paid Social Security taxes for 50 years but there is no money left to pay my benefits and my kids are 14 trillion in debt? So you think I can send $1 to Washington and they will turn around and pay $1 to my doctor, are you really that stupid? Roughly speaking insurance targets an 80% loss ratio, that means 20% of your insurance premiums go to pay expenses other then your actual claims. Taxes, overhead, postage, etc. That’s why anyone with a $250 deductible health plan with a drug card is an idiot. That’s why not a single liberal posting on this site can even define the word insurance. Your annual check, your allergy Rx, your basic care is not an unknown risk, it’s going to happen, why would you pay 20% more to have the insurance company cut the check instead of paying the Dr. yourself? Yes stupid I do get a “special extra-secret” discount it’s called shopping around and paying cash and it adds up huge. Tell your pharmacist you don’t have Rx coverage and have to pay cash and see how the price drops, ask your Dr. for generic and see how it drops. Tell your dentist you going to go down the street and pay cash to someone else and see how the price drops. The question Dasher is how stupid can you really be?
DaveB – How do you think the government would pay for your care? Have you ever seen the government do anything cheaper then private profit chasing industry? Imagine the billion dollar healthcare industry with earmarks and congressional control. I’m sorry your not very bright but don’t destroy an entire national health system that works because your naive. That massive profit is why we have the drugs that keep you alive, that massive profit is why we have the best doctors in the world and the most advanced facilities.
John S – Your bad at math and a retard. You totally forgot to factor in the out of pocket cost of your normal health plan. I sell insurance and thus am 100% certain your health plan does not cover everything at 100%. 480 x 12 + 3000 is 8760. Your retard math assumes the $3000 funded is entirely spent, otherwise you would need to account for the savings of unspent funds. If your spending $3000 in your HSA your spending minimum 1000+ under your normal plan, your looking at savings of 2-3K minimum. Add that up over 50 years with slight interest and your talking serious money. Why would you draw on your HSA for piddly expenses, pay cash and compound the money tax free in your HSA, boy you are a simpleton. The major reason your healthcare inflates faster then your wages is because you use more of it. If you increased your productivity at the same rate you increased your utilization of Healthcare you would break even, Again I’m sure you liberals are going to have a hard time grasping this but for 16 years I have been processing insurance claims and I can assure you people are using it more then they did 10 years ago. This is an advanced economic concept here so pay close attention, if you use more of something you will spend more for it. Want insurance cost of 10 years ago, utilize care like you did 10years ago.
Amazing how clueless an entire group of people can get. I have a homework assignment for you all. Most people will agree HMOs suck, they deny claims, are profit hungry, and should be done away with. They single handedly destroyed PPOs and the choice they offered and ran millions of employers out of self-funded plans that treated employees much better. How did these monsters, HMOs, that everyone hates become so prevalent. Start looking around 1973.
Spoiler for those that can’t do homework, Federal Government required most employers offer an HMO if they wanted to or not. They where not given a choice if it was in the best interest of their employees or not they had to do it. I love it when liberals cry for government to save them from the evil profit hungry HMOs, your morons the government created them! And when no on wanted to offer them they made it law that you had to. And this is who your turn to for salvation?
Posted by: Nate O | Oct 11, 2007 3:09:13 AM
So, "T-Hawkk" (ooh, such a butch name, I'm impressed), got anything substantial to say besides "Nyah nyah libtards"? Didn't think so.
Way to prove Ezra's point.
Posted by: J Neo Marvin | Oct 11, 2007 3:10:03 AM
Malkin is not a coward. It is the perogative of you lefties to disagree with Malkin's analysis, but she is no coward and she is not venal and she is no puppet.
On the issue of health care, however, the you lefties have a point. We need an overhaul of our health care system. We need a national health care plan--although not a national takeover. Private health care can and should continue to exist.
Anyway, I think a debate is in order. Let's see what the Mighty Malkin says.
Posted by: liberalsdontlikefacts | Oct 11, 2007 3:21:39 AM
Anyway, I think a debate is in order. Let's see what the Mighty Malkin says.
Mmmhmm, guess you didn't get the news, did you? The Mighty Malkin already backed out of the debate.
Posted by: Fortunato | Oct 11, 2007 3:25:27 AM
Fortunato --
Your ignorance is showing. One can only back out of something if they've already agreed to get into it in the first place. Malkin never accepted a debate with Klein. Why should Malkin raise Klein's profile by allowing him on an equal stage with her, a nationally syndicated columnist and author, when Klein has maligned her and lied about her in the past? Malkin doesn't need Klein. Klein is trying to ride Malkin's coat tails. Malkin won't stoop to his level.
Posted by: Brett K | Oct 11, 2007 3:51:15 AM
Tell it to "liberalsdontlikefacts", Brett. He (or she) was looking forward to the big debate. All I did was break the sad news.
Posted by: Fortunato | Oct 11, 2007 4:05:16 AM
Fortunato, thanks, I guess there won't be a debate. I hadn't seen Malkin's reponse. Too bad.
Brett, you are right in that Malkin bats in the major leagues, and Klein, with due respect, bats in the minor leagues. But that aside, Malkin should still consider an online debate. This is a very meaningful issue, and the left are not looney on this issue. I kind of agree with the left (gasp) on this issue. Health care is spiralling out of control.
So let's have a debate. Put it on UTube. I bet it would be informative and entertaining.
Posted by: liberalsdontlikefacts | Oct 11, 2007 4:54:59 AM
You libs are missing what all the right wing outrage is about. The point is the Frosts allowed themselves and their child to be used as a mouthpiece for a Democrat policy goal. They injected themselves into this debate and now should not be suprised to see their financial status under scrutiny. Do you think their child actually wrote that speech himself? You liberals should stop hiding behind woman and children and present your case on it's own merits!
Posted by: Steve Roberts | Oct 11, 2007 6:51:19 AM
You liberals should stop hiding behind woman and children and present your case on it's own merits!
I believe that was to be the purpose of debating Michelle "Anchor Baby" Maglalang. However, she chickened out.
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Oct 11, 2007 7:02:49 AM
Hmm? Pretty heavy label there dude...militant liberal? Redundant comes to mind.
Liberals are famous for exploitation in the name of progress. The first Clinton, Bill, was famous for it as was his cadre of bandits and advisers. To think that they'd admit to their debauchery is...well, just more evidence of their cowardice and lack of intellectual honesty.
Posted by: Schratboy | Oct 11, 2007 7:05:52 AM
The point is the Frosts allowed themselves and their child to be used as a mouthpiece for a Democrat policy goal. They injected themselves into this debate and now should not be suprised to see their financial status under scrutiny.
That is true. No one forced them to be used. Unlike the Bush ad where a little girl is only representing herself as a little girl, the Frosts told us that they had attributes that are not easily discerable.....namely being poor. I don't think it should be a surprise that someone would like to verify those attributes.
Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 11, 2007 7:06:00 AM
Ms. Malknin reply to Erza:
"On behalf of all liberal bloggers of purported good faith, the Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein has chivalrously stepped up to the plate to challenge me to a debate about S-CHIP.
I’m. Trrrrembling.
With. Laughter.....
. . .A good-faith debate would require that Respectable Liberal Blogger Ezra Klein actually be a person of good faith. He is treated as such in some elite conservative circles, where his work is linked frequently and intellectual repartee among the Beltway boys’ club is warm and chummy. He is free to continue traveling in those cozy circles where highbrow right-wingers are not so mean and scary.
and:
“Debate” Ezra Klein? What a perverse distraction and a laughable waste of time that would be. And that’s what they really want, isn’t it? To distract and waste time so they can foist their agenda on the country unimpeded.
Posted by: David | Oct 11, 2007 7:33:53 AM
Liberalism is Kryptonite to common sense.
Posted by: Schratboy | Oct 11, 2007 7:35:15 AM
It would seem that Schip in it's current form worked for these people, why expand?
I haven't been able to find out why these children who were severely hurt in an auto accident, weren't covered by someones auto insurance. If someone caused this accident while driving without insurance the family could and should sue them for everything they have. I don't normally like the idea of over litigation, but this would be a case I would support.
Posted by: Toivo | Oct 11, 2007 7:45:13 AM
Malkin would wipe the floor with you. What you libtards don't get is that the Republican created SCHIP program is a great idea, for those who NEED it. But you liberals don't want it used for what it was created for- you want to twist and pervert it to cover more and more people who don't NEED it. Soon, we have universal healthcare, socialized medicine... did any of you read about the troubles Canada's system is having, how they must send moms with premature infants to the U.S. because their wonderful healthcare system doesn't have the resources to provide the care?? Nope, you shut your eyes, plug your ears and scream, "BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!" Quit using children to push your own agenda. The majority of middle class people don't NEED insurance. Give up your 30k vehicles and you can afford insurance. Prioritize. Don't take off the backs of people who have less than you just because you're too greedy and love your luxuries too much to sacrifice and buy your own insurance.
Posted by: James | Oct 11, 2007 7:56:37 AM
“Debate” Ezra Klein? What a perverse distraction and a laughable waste of time that would be. And that’s what they really want, isn’t it? To distract and waste time so they can foist their agenda on the country unimpeded.
Posted by: David |
I dunno David...It may not be a complete waste of time. It would give Michelle a chance to expose this sad character and his inane site for what he and it is.
Quite frankly I suspect that this is nothing more than a sniveling liberal beating upon his narrow chest.
I would bet that the pandering nerd thinks that a nationally syndicated columnist won't stoop to his level (that would be a half-assed keyboarding pencil neck geek).
That's why he is talking tough and desperately seeking ratings...a noxious liberal smoke screen, if you will.
Posted by: rand | Oct 11, 2007 8:32:35 AM
Malkin isn't going to debate anyone - she's a propagandist and nothing more. She only functions in the RW echo chamber of Faux Noise and her comment restricted web sites. Judging from some of the comments posted upthread her ditto-head comment section has taken a field trip here.
As an update to this story, Malcontent is now claiming that "Hillary threatens S-CHIP critics" when Clinton said "Bush and the Republicans should lay off Graeme Frost and all the other children who are getting health care because we have decided to do the right thing in America". THAT'S a threat?
Flipping bedwetters...
Posted by: moonbat rising | Oct 11, 2007 8:49:56 AM
I'd say she responded to the challenge. In a very appropriate way. And, therefore, you've been revealed to be an ill-informed ass.
The truth is painful, isn't it?
Posted by: Dave G | Oct 11, 2007 8:54:51 AM
Malkin would wipe the floor with you.
Not likely. Look at how Malkin's internment book was completely demolished when she attempted a debate.
Posted by: Righteous Bubba | Oct 11, 2007 9:07:51 AM
Watch Malkin claim to be for honest debate while running away.
Posted by: Righteous Bubba | Oct 11, 2007 9:24:15 AM
Nate O:
I tip my hat to you, sir. You've got quite the helpful and informative nugget of information there. Where I had been entertaining the notion that these Liberal talking-point-parrots might have actually been on to something with introducing some form of single-payer govt. backed insurance, you've clearly illustrated the fallacies of that position.
If you haven't already done so, I'd recommend passing it along to Ms. Malkin (in anticipation of any "debate" she might have with Mr. Klein, or any other of these folks here).
Scarshapedstar ---
You said:
"--- I believe that was to be the purpose of debating Michelle "Anchor Baby" Maglalang. However, she chickened out. ---"
I see that you don't save your good ol' fashioned liberal racism and ad-hominem attacks for your posts over at conservative sites.
I had always been under the impression that Liberals were all into that politically correct labeling of everything and hyphenation, i.e. identifying her as a Philippine-American.
But "Anchor Baby"? Do tread carefully, I don't think defending libel suits come cheaply these days.
Posted by: seekeronos | Oct 11, 2007 9:31:39 AM
Nate O shows the sophistication of the Malkin sycophantship with the following howlers:
"Bush’s veto of SCHIP EXPANSION would not effect (sic) the Frost’s coverage at all."
"Any of Ezra want’s (sic)to debate someone so bad on Insurance I’ll gladly make him the fool."
"Numerous insurers won’t even right (sic) polices in NY and MA because the laws are so ridiculous."
"The only way someone in this country can not have a pre-existing condition covered is if they wait till there (sic) sick to try and get insurance."
If you idiots on the left can’t understand why waiting till your (sic) sick to buy insurance doesn’t work then there is no need to even try and educate you.
"COBRA allows pre-ex it’s the exact same policy you where (sic) on when you quit."
"If you have insurance before you (sic) child is born then you are not up a creek."
"If you wait till you have a disable (sic) kid then your (sic) up the creek and deserve to be."
"Petra – Your (sic) one of the dumbest."
"The states that are expensive are ran (sic) by Democrats."
"who’s (sic) fault is it but those that passed the laws and those that voted for them?"
"How does a single payor (sic) system increase freedom?
"Tell your dentist you (sic) going to go down the street."
"I’m sorry your (sic) not very bright but don’t destroy an entire national health system that works because your (sic) naive."
"John S – Your (sic) bad at math and a retard."
"If your (sic) spending $3000 in your HSA your (sic) spending minimum 1000+ under your normal plan, your (sic) looking at savings of 2-3K minimum."
"Add that up over 50 years with slight interest and your (sic) talking serious money."
So many words, so much stupidity. And so much anger. No wonder he takes solace in Malkin, the ultimate angry moron.
And these are just the grammatical errors. His post is full of one non sequitur after another, and is rife with errors. Massachusetts is run by liberals? Nice stereotype for a Malkin barking dog, except Mass just ousted a Republican governor after 16 years. That's 16 years of Republican control over every regulatory function in Massachusetts, notably health insurance.
But note especially his utter conviction that he is smarter than everyone else. Everyone else is "stupid" and knows nothing. What a small man, this pathetic little claims processor, this Malkin sycophant.
And you can respond, Nate O, with another hundreds-word long illiterate post, but I am done with you.
Posted by: Max Klein | Oct 11, 2007 9:35:00 AM
All you losers need to put your clothes on and go to work.
Posted by: tony | Oct 11, 2007 9:41:35 AM
Just read Malkin's response.
She exposes Klein as verbally abusive.
I would not blame anyone for avoiding conversation with him.
Malkin takes the opportunity to spank Klein for his foul mouth.
Doubtless Klein will soon post that Malkin patted him on the back.
The he will declare victory.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 11, 2007 10:04:08 AM
Just read Malkin's response.
That post in which she chickens out?
Posted by: Righteous Bubba | Oct 11, 2007 10:11:48 AM
I read Malkin's response, and I dug into this story enough to realize that Klein should offer up a public apology. Its obvious to anyone who takes the time to read through it with an open mind.
Also, why shouldn't Michelle drive by the home and properly investigate her story before publishing? Are all bloggers expected to hole up in their computer rooms wearing their pj's?
Posted by: mike | Oct 11, 2007 10:17:02 AM
Tell me this is satire about your backgrouund:
Ezra Klein
Age: 23
High school GPA: 2.2
Graduate of: UCLA 2005, BA Political Science
Work Experience: Writing opinions
Other work experience: nil
Not another know-nothing kid posing as a intellectual going to solve all the world's problem. Why am I not surprised after reading some of your "solutions"?
A 2.2 in High School? A degree in Political Science? That should prepare you to run a Mickey Ds, but not much else.
Are these the qualification for an intellectual these days? Geez, with my degrees in Finance, Economics and Management and a minor in History, I guess I would be considered Da Vinci.
Check back with me in 10 to 15 years when you actually have any understanding of the real world. Good Lord.
Posted by: LogicalSC | Oct 11, 2007 10:20:51 AM
Tell me this is satire about your backgrouund:
Imagine, Michelle running scared from Ezra. Yet it's true.
Posted by: Righteous Bubba | Oct 11, 2007 10:25:38 AM
Exactly, Bubba. She writes 2000 words to hide her fear. This is how all bullies behave. They rant and rave, try to push people around, but as soon as someone stands up to them, they run away. How pathetic, though not as pathetic as her sycophants who are showing up here. At least she makes a few dollars for her angry dog routine. What's their excuse?
Posted by: Max Klein | Oct 11, 2007 10:29:47 AM
When LogicalSC wrote, "Geez, with my degrees in Finance, Economics and Management and a minor in History, I guess I would be considered Da Vinci."
What he meant to say was, "Well, my life hasn't worked out, but at least I can read Malkin and stay angry about it."
Posted by: Max Klein | Oct 11, 2007 10:32:30 AM
Max Klein - You never responded to a single one of NatO's comments. All you did was correct the spelling of someone typing away on a blog. How can you be so ignorant?
He didn't have any more anger than you libs do in your vile posts. He didn't have any more "conviction" than you libs do... You got schooled by someone a hundred times smarter than you and all you could do was point out his spelling errors? What blog has perfect spelling, I'd like you to tell me.
Why don't you just admit that you have a child mentality of the world and expect a socialist government to provide all your needs from birth until you die? Admit that all you want to do is smoke pot all day, go to coffee shops all day, and listen to records all day. Just admit it!
Posted by: T-Hawkk in Texas | Oct 11, 2007 10:47:29 AM
Max Klein, you have spell check and grammer check I guess that makes you a genious? I notice you don't challenge a single point you just check my spelling...sorta like you where my secratary. Yes I used harsh tones and called people names but that is becuase it fits the crowd. Like all the other brainless twits you completly avoid debate, throw a few insults, claim my argument is inacurate without actually backing it up. Take one point, any point and challenge it. Unless MA has completly revamped government the Governer doesn't write law. Major healthcare reform, mandates and taxation are congressional acts not executive. Nothing happenes in MA without a room full of liberals agreeing to it.
I'm not smarter then everyone else, just the liberals on this blog who know nothing about the actual mechanics of insurance yet still wnat to tear down our entire current system and replace it with another liberal ponzi scheme. How do you not notice the Democratic addiction to ponzi schemes like Social Security, Medicare, and Hsu. As long as you pay for you own Insurance you have control over it. Want to buy a high deductible policy to save money so you can blow it on cars, women, and fun go right ahead. Want to buy an expensive comprehensive plan so you never have to worry then please do. As soon as you hand over my right to decide for myself what sortof insurance I want I no longer have a say in any of that. Government has already regulated insurance to the point I can't by the policies I would idealy like but that isn't good enough for you liberals, you want to completly take away any say I have in planning for my own health.
Just because you liberals are incapable of bein adults and taking care of your self doesn't give you the right to dictate to me. This entire debate is not about delivering better healthcare, that is never discussed, it's about Democratic politicians making a money grab to increase their power and control over our lives and uneducated liberals looking for someone to take care of them becuase they can't take care of themselves.
This nation was founded as a republic for a reason, and it is the reason we thrived, becuase people had choice and freedom to move and settle with like minded people. If you don't like the way one state ran it's education system or it's healthcare laws you could move to a state you did like. Democrats are racing to destroy this, policies and laws that have no business even being discussed are being forced on all of America becuase liberal states are being crushed by their ignorance.
SCHIP starts with an S for State, why is this even funded by the federal governemnt? I don't care what you idiots in CA, NY, MA, CT, WA and other cess pools do, if you want to have a signle payor system like Hawaii by all means go ahead but don't try to force me to pay for it. There is a reason I don't live in a state ran by Democrats and it is becuase they are complete failures. Your idealogical falacies can't support themselves that is why you goto the federal level to impose them on the Red States that don't have these problems. You don't see people in the midwest complain about insurance cost like you do on the coast and thats becuase it isn't a problem like you guys have it. It is your own fault, you brought iton yourself, clean up your own mess.
It's very simple, conservatives could care less what you people do, we will usually even chuckle and wish you the best of luck. If you try to impose on my freedom or take my money for something I don't agree with though F'u your getting a fight.
You want a simple solution to this mess,
1. repeal all federal funding of SCHIP
2. Reduce federal taxes and income by a like amount
3. states increase their taxes and fees by what ever amount they want
4. States design their own SCHIP, as the name applies, with what ever benefits and eligibility they so desire
5. If you don't like what your state does for SCHIP move or vote in someone new
That's how the United States was designed to act, not a bunch of holier then thou Democrats elbow deep with my arms in my pocket telling me to relax they know whats best and will take care of me
Ezra your suck a genious step up and debate that
Posted by: Nate O | Oct 11, 2007 10:48:12 AM
Ezra your suck a genious step up and debate that
That is as awesome a challenge as has ever been issued anywhere anywhen.
Posted by: Righteous Bubba | Oct 11, 2007 10:58:20 AM
Actually T-Hawk, his 100 Megawatt stupidity speaks for itself. Look at his follow-up, just as illiterate.
But I did answer one point, about Massachusetts, which he conveniently ignores. He is fact allergic, besides being illiterate.
As to your bizarre conclusion about all of us wanting to smoke pot all day, I have to conclude you are either 13 years old, mentally ill, mentally retarded, or some combination of all three. Where do you come up with such an absurd stereotype? Is this what happens to someone with a double digit IQ when they listen to Rush Limbaugh and read Michelle Malkin?
Now, like Nate O, I am done with you. The two of you should be banned for abject stupidity. Your heroine chickened out. Go salve her wounds.
Posted by: Max Klein | Oct 11, 2007 10:59:21 AM
Ezra your suck a genious step up and debate that
----------------------------------------------------------
??????????????
Posted by: Professor Farnsworth | Oct 11, 2007 11:04:58 AM
Um Max, 6 lines from the top, maybe I need to point out MA is the state abbrivation for Massachusetts. I'll repost my reply to the alergient below as you apparently missed it.
Will you be retracting your error or skipping over it?
Unless MA has completly revamped government the Governer doesn't write law. Major healthcare reform, mandates and taxation are congressional acts not executive. Nothing happenes in MA without a room full of liberals agreeing to it.
Max Klein, I wonder am I stupid becuase my grammer is poor and spelling is off? Does the point matter not, just how it is delivered? Yes I spell like a fourth grader and am aware of the problem, I also have a tested IQ of 133 so I know I'm not stupid, or lacking inteligence to be percise. Like my english teachers, who failed me more then once, I am always amazed how quickly people ignore my ideas and arguments and attack my prose. You obviously understand what I am saying so from a technical standpoint my use of letters grouped to convey a point is working yet your dissatisfied becuase some fall out of the Kings order you subs