Oh, boo hoo sob sob.

[fpb]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/30/rules-for-conservative-radicals/
Apparently "conservative blogs" are getting too many visits from opposing trolls and feel under pressure.
Well, boo hoo poor you.
Point one: you have delete and ban buttons? Use them. Point two, and rather more important: if you go public with a viewpoint that you know others will dislike, don't be surprised when they do. In other words, seek the battle, don't complain of the wounds.

Comments

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

BTW, I'm reading Paul Krugman's _Conscience of a Liberal_, and he says that when Truman tried instituting single-payer national health care, the opposition was partly from the AMA (old news to me, though not to my friends) (American Medical Association, the doctor's guild) but also in large part from Southern politicians -- afraid that such a system would mean having to desegregate their hospitals. It's not the South of the time was entirely opposed to egalitarian measures -- being desperately poor, they weren't, and supported parts of the New Deal, and the 2005 movement to privatize Social Security supposedly ran into Southern opposition -- but it had its limits.

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

Speaking personally, I'm not really keen on single-payer, versus having the state provide coverage while still allowing people the option of private insurance.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Canada's system reportedly interferes with private alternatives; I'm not sure that's true of Australia's Medicare, or what Truman proposed; certainly isn't true of our current Medicare. I think of single-payer as meaning a national insurance with tax funding instead of premiums, but most "socialized medicine" countries allow private alternatives or supplemental insurance.

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

I guess I'd misunderstood the term; thanks.