BREITBART: Boycotting the boycotters

John Mackey - the founder, CEO and marketing genius behind Whole Foods - finds himself in an organic, unsustainable mess with his carefully cultivated affluent, liberal customer base after penning an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal titled, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare."

For starters, Mr. Mackey opens with a line from known-liberal-allergen Margaret Thatcher that features the dreaded "S" word: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Then he goes on to provide eight sensible free-market solutions gleaned from his company's well-regarded employee health care program.

[continued]

So far so good. Possibility of an article actually analysing the nature of the current hysteria...

Not for long.

The Democratic leadership - and its friends in the mainstream media - seem determined to brand opposition to the president's legislative agenda as illegitimate, even racist in origin.
[...]
The strategy is clear: Intimidate people from speaking up or from attending public protests by telegraphing that anyone can be made a demon for standing up and exercising basic, constitutional rights.

To call these people hypocrites would be a grave insult to those who fail to live up to their own standards. Liberalism has never been about establishing a universal standard. Liberalism is simply intellectual cover for those wanting to gain political power and increase the size of the state.
[...]
For free-speech principles to be reinforced and free-market ideas to win the day, more people are going to have to stand up and be heard.

Mrs. Pelosi and the Whole Foods boycotters are on the wrong side of history.

The way to stand up to them is to go to "tea parties," raise a ruckus at health care debates


You people are fucking insane. This planet is doomed.

Tags: boycott, breitbart, mccarthyism, only in america, protest, tea party, town hall, wtf, you people are insane

Views: 0

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, the way to show them they are wrong is to bitch that they are raising your taxes while they are cutting them and not allow anyone to have an intelligent discourse at a town hall meeting! That'll show them who is rational.

I'm about done playing nice. When can we light the stupid on fire already? What is the line when we say "Fuck it, free speech for the rational, to the rest fuck off!"?
Just to add: we might as well find a place to draw that line, since we are being accused of doing so already.

Why don't these people get it? If you are against the public option, that is okay, and I personally welcome discussion on it. Why do these people stand against it? If it is a rational reason, I'm glad to hear it. If it is bullshit though, be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you are selling bullshit on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, why shouldn't people think you are doing the same in the aisles of your stores and boycott them? Makes sense to me.

And since when is boycotting considered intolerant? Am I intolerant for not donating money to religious organizations? Are the religious intolerant for not donating money to Secular Coalition of America? What nonsense!

Here is the WSJ article this douchebag is talking about.
Shit I'm talking to myself...by the way, that WSJ article is shit. I'll run through the points:

1) Give everyone super-high deductible health insurance. He thinks if everyone has a 2,500 dollar deductible, people will use that first 2,500 more wisely. Yep, I know I plan how and when I get sick! By the way, I actually have a plan like this, and it only costs me 16 bucks a month, so when he talks about paying it for his workers, he isn't doing shit. If it wasn't the fact that my company actually pays half my deductible for me and that I have separate eye and dental coverage, I couldn't afford to use my insurance.

2) Cut the taxes on people that buy their own insurance. I'm sure that will help the deficits he was so worried about at the beginning of the article.

3) Let all insurance companies sell across state borders. Huh, that's exactly what House Bill 3200 will do...you know the evil one they are railing against. Maybe they should break out their reading glasses.

4) Remove regulations requiring the insurance companies to cover certain things. He's that most of us have a choice in what health care we buy. Only 18 million buy their own. That leaves the rest of us with whatever our employer chooses. Without those mandates by government, our plan might leave us without important coverage. To be fair though, I don't know what is mandated, and if it is silly, maybe it should go.

5) Tort reform. Want to see how effective tort reform is? Look at the health care costs in Texas which has enacted tort reform. Their costs are going up faster than the national average. Oh, and malpractice cases make up less than 2 percent of health care spending.

6) Let people know what costs what. Well, I'm all for that, but it won't do shit. If you are sick, you'll get the treatment you need regardless of cost.

7) Reform Medicare to save money. Again, isn't it funny that this argument is exactly what the right wingers that are railing against health care reform are saying Obama is going to do? Yes, down with the Democrats plan, they want to take your Medicare away! Now, just let me raise the costs of it and make it help you less...

8) Create a system to make it optional to donate money to help people without insurance. Um, can I get a "are you fucking kidding me?" We can't create a system to do it efficiently, because that is evil, but we can throw random amounts of dollars at the system and hope for the best? Are you fucking kidding me, really?

He then goes to say we don't have a right to health care because we don't have a right to food and shelter. Um, guess what asshole, most progressives would argue you do have just such a right! That's what Welfare is, asshat!

No real new ideas, just bullshit that would enrich the insurance companies at our expense or things that are already in the current bills.
Stephen, his eight points are NOT unreasonable. You can disagree with them but they are not useless and they are not driven by some desire to enrich insurance companies.

Each point can be debated but don't dismiss it out of hand. Disagree, sure. He disagrees with you...on some of his eight points I disagree with him....on others I agree.

But this is the kind of dialog that's needed. He has ideas. You have ideas. I'd wager without even thinking too hard that the ideal 'solution' is somewhere in between. Yes?
Which points do you find agreeable?

On some, there can be middle ground. For instance, opening health insurance up to a national market and changing Medicare (killing part D) to save costs without cutting benefits are things both sides could be for. I mentioned that on the national health care thing, but I did leave it off of Medicare accidentally because I was more focused on the point that people are saying Democrats will cut Medicare...and really, can you actually imagine Democrats cutting such an entitlement plan? However you feel about that stance, I'm sure we can agree that the thought is ridiculous. The national access to private insurance is actually part of HR3200, the only bill really out there right now.
Actually, at the moment I have a pretty good buzz on and don't want to misstate a position due to sloppiness. I'll jump on this tomorrow AM when I'm sober.

Cheers.
Have a nice night then!
This is the mechanism for debate these days. I don't blame Mackey just like I didn't blame the liberal critics that started attacking the Bush Administration policies before the pieces of the towers stopped hitting the ground.

It is the nature of debate in this country that it is first conducted in the media. If it is not that way in the rest of the world, it will be soon. Proponents or opponents of a policy are not going to ignore the immediate communication offered by the various media available. And it doesn't matter which side of any given debate you fall on...it goes both ways.
Except there are real arguments to be made by both sides, and when only one side makes arguments why should we even listen to the other?

In this case, the right wing hasn't offered anything substantial on health care. This article by the guy from Whole Foods is one of the closest things I've seen to a real counter-policy, but it is also crap, and ignores a lot of the reality about what Democrats (were) pushing.
don't just hide behind the 'right wing hasn't offered anything'. The opposing party NEVER offers anything, they just attack in the press. It is the job of the ruling party to deflect that criticism and find something that can be enacted. This is not unique to the US but is a hallmark of multiparty governments...the minority party ONLY says no.
So you agree that the right wing isn't offering anything, you just think they don't have to. Okay, I'll buy that. But if they aren't offering anything, why should we listen to them?

Personally, I think they should at least champion rational positions. As long as they are playing the birther/deather games, they are useless and shaming every fiscal conservative out there.
You people are fucking insane.

Yes, they are.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service