<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Going it Alone</title>
	<atom:link href="http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/21/going-it-alone/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/21/going-it-alone/</link>
	<description>A blog about politics.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:21:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: apollyon07</title>
		<link>http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/21/going-it-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-97777</link>
		<dc:creator>apollyon07</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:50:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=16603#comment-97777</guid>
		<description>Man I remember just a few short months ago (alright, weeks) people on here were saying the Republican Party would soon cease to exist. Remember, the system in place is far too rigid for either of the two parties to go extinct. See you in 2010.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Man I remember just a few short months ago (alright, weeks) people on here were saying the Republican Party would soon cease to exist. Remember, the system in place is far too rigid for either of the two parties to go extinct. See you in 2010.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cliff</title>
		<link>http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/21/going-it-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-97773</link>
		<dc:creator>Cliff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:34:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=16603#comment-97773</guid>
		<description>Also this.  rusty accuses KT of being a dishonest liberal hack on pretty much a daily basis.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also this.  rusty accuses KT of being a dishonest liberal hack on pretty much a daily basis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Derek</title>
		<link>http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/21/going-it-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-97767</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:24:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=16603#comment-97767</guid>
		<description>I see the conservative posters here attacking the writers all the time. Why are they not being deleted?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see the conservative posters here attacking the writers all the time. Why are they not being deleted?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cliff</title>
		<link>http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/21/going-it-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-97765</link>
		<dc:creator>Cliff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:12:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=16603#comment-97765</guid>
		<description>So did Paul Lukasiak get scrubbed because he called JNS a liar, or was it because he habitually calls the journalists here liars?
.
If, hypothetically, I were to indicate that I also believe JNS deliberately misleads readers, would that get me kicked off?
.
Or would I have to adopt a perpetual bad attitude?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So did Paul Lukasiak get scrubbed because he called JNS a liar, or was it because he habitually calls the journalists here liars?<br />
.<br />
If, hypothetically, I were to indicate that I also believe JNS deliberately misleads readers, would that get me kicked off?<br />
.<br />
Or would I have to adopt a perpetual bad attitude?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rustyreturns</title>
		<link>http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/21/going-it-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-97732</link>
		<dc:creator>rustyreturns</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:28:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=16603#comment-97732</guid>
		<description>You sure can tell the illiterate Democrats.  Excuse me, the MAJORITY of AMERICANS are OPPOSED to Healthcare Reform by Obama.
.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
.
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;b&gt;&quot;Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats&lt;/b&gt;. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed. &quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
.
Please cite your sources!!!  
.
Or are you just among those Democrats who are still unemployed under the Obama Stimulus Package which has not worked?
.
Maybe this was the poll you were looking at!!
.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/among_the_uninsured_58_favor_president_s_health_care_plan
.
&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters without health insurance favor passage of the health care plan proposed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 504 uninsured voters found that 35% are opposed.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
.
&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;Perhaps the most striking thing about the results is how much they mirror the results of those with insurance. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of uninsured Republicans oppose the plan while 88% of [unemployed] Democrats favor it. Those not affiliated with either party are evenly divided.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
.
Obama will give you healthcare, but you will not have a job to pay the Premiums!!!  You people are such a joke!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You sure can tell the illiterate Democrats.  Excuse me, the MAJORITY of AMERICANS are OPPOSED to Healthcare Reform by Obama.<br />
.<br />
<a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform" rel="nofollow">http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform</a><br />
.</p>
<blockquote><p><b>"Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats</b>. That's the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed. "</p></blockquote>
<p>.<br />
Please cite your sources!!!<br />
.<br />
Or are you just among those Democrats who are still unemployed under the Obama Stimulus Package which has not worked?<br />
.<br />
Maybe this was the poll you were looking at!!<br />
.<br />
<a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/among_the_uninsured_58_favor_president_s_health_care_plan" rel="nofollow">http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/among_the_uninsured_58_favor_president_s_health_care_plan</a><br />
.</p>
<blockquote><p>"Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters without health insurance favor passage of the health care plan proposed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 504 uninsured voters found that 35% are opposed."</p></blockquote>
<p>.</p>
<blockquote><p>"Perhaps the most striking thing about the results is how much they mirror the results of those with insurance. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of uninsured Republicans oppose the plan while 88% of [unemployed] Democrats favor it. Those not affiliated with either party are evenly divided."</p></blockquote>
<p>.<br />
Obama will give you healthcare, but you will not have a job to pay the Premiums!!!  You people are such a joke!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elvis Elvisberg</title>
		<link>http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/21/going-it-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-97722</link>
		<dc:creator>Elvis Elvisberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:13:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=16603#comment-97722</guid>
		<description>Oh, and for what it&#039;s worth, I don&#039;t think that Paul Lukasiak&#039;s comment, intemperate though it might have been, was abusive or anything that warranted deletion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, and for what it's worth, I don't think that Paul Lukasiak's comment, intemperate though it might have been, was abusive or anything that warranted deletion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elvis Elvisberg</title>
		<link>http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/21/going-it-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-97720</link>
		<dc:creator>Elvis Elvisberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=16603#comment-97720</guid>
		<description>Hmm, my comment had too many links, and seems to have disappeared... To sum up-- nice article, Jay, but why is Baucus&#039;s plan presented in your article as centrist given the massive popularity of a public option?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm, my comment had too many links, and seems to have disappeared... To sum up-- nice article, Jay, but why is Baucus's plan presented in your article as centrist given the massive popularity of a public option?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Derek</title>
		<link>http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/21/going-it-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-97710</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:57:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=16603#comment-97710</guid>
		<description>&quot;Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is a logical fallacy which asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct. The middle ground is often invoked when there are sharply contrasting views that are deeply entrenched. While an outcome that accommodates both parties to some extent is more desirable than an outcome that pleases nobody, it is not necessarily correct.

The problem with the false compromise fallacy is that it implies that the positions being considered represent extremes of a continuum of opinions, and that such extremes are always wrong, and the middle ground always correct. This is not always the case. Sometimes only X or Y is acceptable, with no middle ground possible. Additionally, the middle ground fallacy allows any position to be invalidated, even those that have been reached by previous applications of the same method; all one must do is present yet another, radically opposed position, and the middle-ground compromise will be forced closer to that position. In politics, this is part of the basis behind Overton Window Theory.&quot;

Wikipedia</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is a logical fallacy which asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct. The middle ground is often invoked when there are sharply contrasting views that are deeply entrenched. While an outcome that accommodates both parties to some extent is more desirable than an outcome that pleases nobody, it is not necessarily correct.</p>
<p>The problem with the false compromise fallacy is that it implies that the positions being considered represent extremes of a continuum of opinions, and that such extremes are always wrong, and the middle ground always correct. This is not always the case. Sometimes only X or Y is acceptable, with no middle ground possible. Additionally, the middle ground fallacy allows any position to be invalidated, even those that have been reached by previous applications of the same method; all one must do is present yet another, radically opposed position, and the middle-ground compromise will be forced closer to that position. In politics, this is part of the basis behind Overton Window Theory."</p>
<p>Wikipedia</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bryanfromhouston</title>
		<link>http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/21/going-it-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-97693</link>
		<dc:creator>bryanfromhouston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:24:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=16603#comment-97693</guid>
		<description>There is nothing with going it alone!
.
As Bush said, &quot;you&#039;re either with us or against us!&quot;
.
Public Option or High-water!!
.
Oh, and Jay, &quot;You Lie!&quot;
.
Bush did it all the time.  It is okay to go it alone as long as you doing what a healthy majority of the country wants done.  Then the pols get relected, the country gets what it needs and journalists can continue stenography.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is nothing with going it alone!<br />
.<br />
As Bush said, "you're either with us or against us!"<br />
.<br />
Public Option or High-water!!<br />
.<br />
Oh, and Jay, "You Lie!"<br />
.<br />
Bush did it all the time.  It is okay to go it alone as long as you doing what a healthy majority of the country wants done.  Then the pols get relected, the country gets what it needs and journalists can continue stenography.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: grape_crush</title>
		<link>http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/21/going-it-alone/comment-page-1/#comment-97692</link>
		<dc:creator>grape_crush</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:23:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=16603#comment-97692</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Ayers, though, has a conveniently short memory:&lt;/blockquote&gt;Yup...plus, there was such a thing as a &#039;liberal Republican&#039; in US history...another reason why the idea that &quot;passing it with Democratic-only votes&quot; as a &lt;i&gt;bad&lt;i&gt; thing is a fallacy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Ayers, though, has a conveniently short memory:</p></blockquote>
<p>Yup...plus, there was such a thing as a 'liberal Republican' in US history...another reason why the idea that "passing it with Democratic-only votes" as a <i>bad</i><i> thing is a fallacy.</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
