The conservative protests are essentially a "wildcat strike" against the bill. It is pure grass roots.

Oh, bullshit, and you know full well it is. These people--and I use the term loosely--are being manipulated by FreedomWorks and a variety of lobbying groups for these events; at least those who are actually citizens and not wholly owned employees of pharma, healthcare, insurers, etc.

The insurance lobby, AMA, and other big industry factions support whatever comes out of Washington. If they are spending money, it is to support the bill.

About this, I'd say these groups (and, remember, they represent their own interests and have absolutely no interest in party affiliation) seek to "support" (which is to say, curtail the effectiveness of) any and all legislation of this type.

So I suppose I can agree with your second point if that's what you meant to articulate.

you're all scrambling to defend the beating of a peaceful black man by a bunch of union thugs.

Heh, heh, yeah, I'm sure your concern for such is genuine. So genuine, in fact, that I'm sure you've gone to great lengths to support black men, hispanic women, and etc, through worthwhile social policies that seek to undergird ... wait, I'd better stop since all that sounds so BrownShirty Fascisitic and Communistic and Socialistic and Al Qaeda-like and ... stuff.

Christ, you guys (and gals, with a Palin wink) are so pathetic.

Next time you go to church, don't light a candle for me. I wouldn't have my soul sullied by the likes of you.

Omooex, thank you so much for your post. It educates everyone far beyond any assertion I can make.

No truer words have ever been written.

And to think I tried to take the reasonable-and-non-sarcastic approach for once.

Pearls before swine, as the saying goes (and that's from the Bible, baby, the Bible!)

to respond to here.

First, Unlovely

it is funny to dismiss the concerns of people who are being intimidated by union thugs ...

I'm not dismissing those concerns. Frankly, I don't know enough yet about what transpired to draw any conclusions; but the same would be true for you, I'd hope.

I've never believed that unions have always acted rationally, have never behaved thuggishly. But I also know that it's in the interest of corporations to hammer the very idea of unionization and that's as dishonest--if not more so--than anything you've argued.

--lee silk

You confuse “good faith,” (which sounds more than a bit cult-like) with agreeing with the majority.

Since when has "good faith," the analog for which might be the word "honest," been construed by anyone as "cult-like." That is a bizarre reading.

Your solipsism and presumptuousness are astounding.

I don't think you know what these words mean. So, I'm ending my comment here but will award you my prize of "Man, Did I Show That Guy a Thing or Two!"

Liberals, I'd call you hypocrites, but you are really just thugs and thug supporters.

Oh, you're just looking for a fight.

Hey, wait--that sounds pretty thuggish.

You're all doing a great service to civil debate.

All anyone asked is that you not misrepresent either what Glenn Greenwald wrote or how commenters responded.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

Let me tell you, I've been handed my knickers a number of times here when I've misquoted, misunderstood or otherwise mischaracterized either what GG has written or how others have responded.

But I made those mistakes in good faith (I read too quickly, not carefully enough, etc.).

That's really the issue--do you come here in good faith?

Well, I'm probably just just blowing smoke in the wind (which is my second job; how else to pay for health care?).

Buddy, I'm here to support you and the extensive research you bring with each post.

Not that you need me to say it but just know that you've deservedly trapped these rats in devices of their own making.

I enjoy the rhetorical game but appreciate more the reasoned and well-researched responses you provide.

Kudos.

(And for you RW weirdos, go have that coronary and get it over with already; don't you know we have a health care problem?)

Didn't like that Aqua Velva remark, eh?

@Pedinska, Since U need to write 3,000+ letters, most of which seem to insult others

First of all, that would be me. Pedinska is really polite as well as possessing a good sense of humor.

I only got as far as your nasty title.

Yet you pen a lengthy response to a post you admittedly haven't read.

Brilliant.

MIT awaits you.

Then, all of a sudden, people are getting beaten up. THIS is the union way. The Jimmy Hoffa way. Sadly, it is also the Democrat way.

Yeah, I'll bet your little heart's just so broken that you think you've found an issue with which to beat up unionization.

You come across with the subtle and elevated scent of a GOP thug wearing Aqua Velva and a cheap suit.

Don't agree with this

It must be emphasised that he is not a "spokesman" and least of all a voice of the Republican Party.

You'll recall how Steele and ever so many GOP elected reps and sens couldn't retract fast enough various statements they made that questioned Limbaugh's commentary. It was really disgraceful, cowardly--all that stuff

At best RL is a voice to himself with a sordid audience largely incapable of thinking for themselves.

Agree with this and the rest of your comment.