Quote Originally Posted by Mikeg View Post
Just keep on applying the divisive "wingnuts" labels [[and homophobic "teabaggers" slurs) on those who disagree with the timing, process and provisions of this legislation. Dismiss them as being too stupid to understand what's in their best interests at your peril. When your country is in a hole of 10% unemployment and $3.6 trillion budget deficits, many people believe it to be quite risky to commit to tax increases along with a huge new entitlement program, particularly one whose net costs have been purposely underestimated. The "health care is a right" position becomes a moral failure if you make the promise and then cannot deliver on it down the road.

Social Security, Medicare and the Civil Rights Act legislation all enjoyed bi-partisan support [source] - unlike this "Big F*#king Deal" legislation, which passed despite bi-partisan opposition.
First of all the wingnut label is a little unfair and over time I will refer to them as Rush followers or Beck followers and there not stupid, its low information voters... big difference.

Teabaggers in my mind are nothing but the KKK without the hoods and robes and I don't say that in a homophobic sense. That group in my opinion deserves all the scorn they get.

You are right concerning bi-partisan support of legislation. What you don't consider however is that the GOP made a decision that they were not going to support anything the Dems and Obama put out there [[ the waterloo strategy). That calculated political decison made bi-partisan support a non-starter. The political environment when those other major bills where passed was certainly different and allowed for some bi-partisan support. And the GOP continues that kind of strategy at the "peril" of there party being relevant.