[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Yep....I'm proud of my understand of federal policy. It comes with 20+ years of experience (all but two of which have been with non-partisan public policy organizations), a lot of reading and talking with experts..as well as "critical thinking" as opposed to just "thinking to criticize" in which you engage.

Without the 20 plus years of experience, most of us can only think critically and utilize unbiased sources to engage in critical thinking. Yet you continue to sling mud and offer backhanded cheapshots and demeaning posts toward anyone who differs from your opinion.

I was honestly shocked, for example, that Merc (and prerhaps you as well)

lumping people together again - BS

your many negative/critical links in which you dont even have the balls to express an opinion at all...but just sit on the fence.

More demeaning cheap shots.
I'd prefer to discuss and get a better understanding of an intensely complex issue before drawing an opinion. I believe I was doing that before the degradation of this, and other threads. You prefer to continue the insults and make your conclusions based upon that which you interpret things to be when they are not certain. Good for you. FYI - I think most intelligent non-partisan people are, as you put it "on the fence" on the healthcare issue. We want effective reform, but how that translates is another matter. You and the leftist extremists see what you want to see, just like those on the right.

I have tried to answer questions here to the best of my understanding whenever asked, pointing to specific language in the legislation, rather than dodge and weave like you and Merc.

Do you get a warm fuzzy feeling posting all the negative cheapshots?
I don't have the answers - I honestly don't think anyone does - That in and of itself is troubling to me.

And I am not the one who has flooded the discussions with partisan columns/opinions...then runs away from them when challenged.

I am not here to defend their opinions. Just to bring an alternative perspective to the discussion. Just because I post something doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it. Many times it is an angle or point that I hadn't thought of. I used to enjoy getting other peoples input and discussing things here. Since you have reactivated yourself that has ceased.

Finally, I was a little disappointed that you would privately seek out and accept my understanding of policy and then mock it publicly, but I have gotten over that.

I asked you for some Gov't links for my sons friend knowing that you work in the Gov't . I never asked for your understanding of policy. please don't get over it, take it and shove it somewhere.
I was quite thankful and appreciative to you as well. Something which you have conveniently forgotten to mention. Since you have gotten it out can we be done with it? At this point you might as well post them in their entirety. I would like anyone else considering PM-ing you to know that you cannot be trusted with the contents of a PM. They will either be used to discredit or demean them or will not be kept private. A valuable lesson learned. Thanks for reminding me.

BTW, your non-partisan, objective stimuluswatch.org includes the jobs created on that Jennie-O grant award:
Jobs Summary: represented as full time equivalent weeks of work (Total jobs reported: 286).
Does that mean stimuluswatch.org is now biased?

How could you possibly draw that conclusion? My issue with that was primarily using stimulus money that was presented as creating and developing infrastructure was instead used for deli meat. We have already discussed the jobs saved/created issue. Were those 286 created, saved, full-time, part-time. The way the reporting is done now there is no answer. Either way, I still disagree with the way the money was spent. THAT was and remains my point.