Playing the Less Regulations Card

The right-wing governor of Florida, Rick Scott, said an incredible thing on MSNBC this morning. And, more sadly, he didn’t even realize what he was saying. He was promoting the state’s tourism business and admitted to the listeners that the BP oil spill severely affected the tourism business of the state. ‘The beaches are all cleaned up now and we’re ready for the tourists again,’ he quipped.

Yet, stunningly a few moments later, the dimwit governor played the right-wing regulations card, mindlessly of course as with all right-wingers. When asked how he intended to continue to grow the economy of Florida, the ‘trump’ card was played:  less regulation. Less regulation as in the off-shore drilling for oil that might soil the pristine beaches of the Gulf Coast? Those regulations, governor?

The seemingly inherent idiocy of many on the right-side of the flat earth continually amazes me. I ought to, at some time in my life, simply come to grips with the fact that they are, as a lot, a fairly simple, easily led pack of dingoes, well-trained to react to the commands of a small group of masters. Pavlov.

Many on the right-side can’t help it: they were raised that way. Most who live in the South are evangelical Christians who were, from their early years, taught to listen to and obey the authority figures who spoke from the pulpit as well those who ran their Sunday School classes. These children needed to swallow an ark-ful of tall tales and myths which were labeled ‘truths’ and were ‘from God!’ Year after year, these children’s brains were marinated and molded and filled with fear and punishment until the concept of free-thinking was purged from them. Pitiful and powerful for the masters.

Worse yet, they vote. Of course, their vote really doesn’t matter too much in the grand scheme of things, because The South is not where elections are won or lost.  Rather it is in the free-thinking states where our presidents are elected. At least most are confined to a clustering ‘down there’ although their relatives migrated to the North and now make it more difficult for us free-thinkers to maintain hold of our critical electoral votes.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Playing the Less Regulations Card

  1. Hello Muddy,
    This maybe a bit off topic but with regards to Dick Cheney’s latest heart transplant operation, this has been bothering me and I have to ask, did he use his government tax payer funded health care, or did he use his Halliburton’s private company assisted funded medical plan, or did he use his own “Less Regulations / Business Friendly” eminence personal wealth “Out of Pocket” to pay for his heart transplant?

    When it gets to the bottom line, does he practice what he preaches, or is he just another, “Don’t do as I do, Do as I say” Conservative. I would venture a guess that the latter is the correct choice because when it is all said and done, I believe at the end of the day his mind goes to, “Hey! I got mine; You go get yours” type of guy.

    Instead of a heart transplant today, 200 years ago in France, O’l Dicky Boy would have been introduced to “Madame La Guillotine’s” “La monte-à-regret” where he should be asked what his current viewpoints are now from the perspective of “La Veuve.” I think his answer would be a whole lot different from the Bull Crap his has spewed in the past.

    1. Interesting insight, Engineer. I’m quite sure that you and I helped pay for not only this heart transplant, but for all of the dozen other hospitalizations that Dick utilized.

      Further, might we conjecture that, with his new heart, Dick may now be more gentile in his world view? Does the heart rule the soul or does the soul rule [read ruin] the heart?

      1. What I found interesting was all the hype about why he got a new heart at his age. Are these the same people who are arguing that with The Affordable Health Care Act, medical care (including transplant organs) would be rationed? Or “God” forbid, I hope they’re not ragging on him because he’s a Republican.

        One other scenario if everything was right with the world: If he was serving the life sentence he deserves in prison, would he still have gotten an organ transplant?

        1. It’s a good thing, NWO, that those ‘death panels’ which his right-wingers tout are merely delusions. Otherwise, he’d be on the list for soilent green additive.

  2. Hello Muddy,
    To answer your question, for Dick Cheney to obtain a more gentile attitude in his world view, he would have needed a brain transplant too. I think his self entitled, nihilistic hubris (It’s all about me), complimented with a “jealous envy” hate for others, was too embedded in his mindset. I feel he was a deformed, mentally sick man.

    Yes I think and can say that the lack of his morals and ethics “Dark Soul” took its toll on his heart over the years as he had five heart attacks over 25 years which I give as proof of this fact. You cannot run away or lie to your own sub-conscience….it knows the truth.

    Now for a follow up thought, Dick Cheney’s case reopens another debate about whether rules should be changed to favor youth over age in giving out scarce organs. He was given a new heart at age 71 that thousands of younger people also were in line to receive. As it stands now, time on the waiting list, medical need and where you live determines the odds of scoring a new heart not how many years you’ll live to make use of it.

    What comes to my mind is if we had aggressively proceeded with Stem Cell Research when Dick Cheney was Vice President, he could possibly have had a new heart grown from his own cells and not have the rejection problem he will now be dealing with from here on out, and plus not depriving a heart for another, younger, person who needed one. While the other candidates are dieing waiting for a suitable heart, this could have been a non-issue because they too could have their own heart grown for them.

    What short sightedness from small, superstitious minds that are still plaguing us all today.

  3. Trying to help, M_R, with your calls on Obama care. The following article: “….The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, for example, predicts that 80 percent of the 272 million Americans subject to the individual mandate requirement will have some form of health insurance in 2014, when the law goes into effect. So no government thugs will be hassling them about failing to comply. Another 48 million or so are automatically covered by Medicare, so nothing would change for them, either. Out of roughly 322 million Americans in 2014, that would leave about 54 million out of compliance with the individual mandate.

    Many of those people would wriggle out from the requirement, however. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 40 percent of the uninsured would qualify for an exemption from the individual mandate, for a variety of reasons. Their income could be too low, for one thing, or the cost of insurance could exceed 8 percent of their income, or they could qualify on religious or hardship grounds. That would reduce the pool of mandate violators to about 32 million Americans.

    Many of those people would qualify for subsidies set up under the law, which are meant to encourage people to buy insurance and help them pay for it. Some of them, no doubt, would do what the law says, and buy health insurance. So the number of Americans truly subject to penalties for violating the mandate would be less than 10 percent of the population–perhaps far less. Kaiser notes that in Massachusetts, which enacted a statewide law similar to Obamacare in 2006, about 70 percent of the people without insurance qualify for an exemption, and only 1 percent of the population pays a fine for going without coverage. And there’s been little uproar about lost freedoms or a wrecked economy.

    Changes are always more intimidating when they’re poorly understood, however, and that is certainly one reason that Obamacare is so controversial and highly divisive. Polls show that Americans are about evenly split on their view of the law, with many Republicans strongly opposed to it and many Democrats strongly in favor. At the same time, only about one third of Americans say they feel they understand the law–and their self-assessments may be overly generous.

    Complexity, therefore, may be the real reason Obamacare spooks people. For starters, the law could end up remaking the whole healthcare system—which accounts for about one sixth of the U.S. economy—in ways nobody can predict. The U.S. healthcare system was a mess before Obamacare, with soaring costs and millions of families that couldn’t afford care. But that doesn’t mean that shaking things up will automatically improve it. Changing things merely for the sake of change often makes things worse, and people are right to be skeptical.”

    1. Thank you, UtF. I think that SCOTUS will decide in favor of the law, despite the wringing of the hands of the right-wingers.

      Did you know that when Clinton wanted employers to offer insurance for their employees, the GOP insisted on an individual mandate for the workers.

      Now, 20 years later, the same GOP is crying over the individual mandate.

      Odd stuff, politics.

      1. Yes, I did know that, lol…I believe even the GOP think tanks were
        all in favor of mandates back then. Heritage supported it, as did
        Newt……

        1. Just because it is Obama’s idea, THEY have to be against it. It really is a reversal of roles, if you think about it: the GOP was for the mandate because it took to burden off of the businessman; now they are for the businessman [employer] to force him/her to provide insurance for their employees. Crazy stuff, but then…

  4. Hello ALL!!!!!
    I had to pass this on because it is just TOOOOOOOO RICH!!
    I heard an interesting bit of information on NPR.

    The “Individual Mandate,” Health Care that is on trial in the Supreme Court today, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a fine, was the brainchild of conservative economists and embraced by some of the nation’s most prominent Republicans for nearly two decades. This was the counter proposal against the Hillary Clinton’s proposal in the early 1990’s where employers would have to provide health care for their workers.

    Yet today, many of those champions back then, including presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, are among the mandate’s most vocal critics.

    http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Nation/World/2012-03-27-bcscotusmandate_ST_U.htm

    So to reiterate and restate for clarity, what we are now hearing being called “Obama Care Socialized Medicine”, was really the CONSERVATIVE REPUBICAN’S Health Care Plan in the early 1990’s.

    When we hear the Pavloved programmed, non-critical thinking people, mindlessly repeating the rhetoric being propagated by Conservative Talk Radio, and Fox Programming, would be surprised and disbelieving that the “Obama Health Care” they are so against today….started out as the CONSERVATIVE REPUBICAN’S Health Care Plan in the early 1990’s.

Comments are closed.