…and you correctly note that these “stages” occur out-of-order and can hit simultaneously.

Applied to Cain, however, it is hoped that there was sufficient prep-time to help y’all get to “acceptance” ASAP; recall that she wrote that the way people handle these emotional responses to any type of insult is predicated on how much ‘hope’ they retain and apply throughout.

Your residual hope for Fred must be joined by the modicum you will have reserved in 2015 for Cain; good luck!

…whether from wonkish1 or from tomatin, for they don’t allow discussion to progress, to wit….

Tomatin, tor example, recalled Perry’s comment about creating a no-fly zone over Syria, can it reasonably be argued that the gravamen of this effort would be to undermine a brutal government supported by Iran? And would not this event yield pressure on Syria to stop slaughtering the citizenry? He creates the rhetorical implications that he then condemns.

*

Compare/contrast this approach with the citation of Kubler-Ross in tngal’s lamentation; which writer is more sincere?

*

And, right on cue, comes wonkish1 asserting that Tomatin had supported perry…and then tomatin claiming that it is commentary from RS that has turned him against perry. Huh? Being swayed against a candidate because of what his supporters have written? Pretty flimsy level of support had to have pre-existed, eh?

Although pj2010 had referenced hotair, tomatin recognized the credibility of the perry-citation ["I ran down the original source. It was one American hating muslim site that said Turkey was going to establish a NFZ with American logistics support. It said establishing the NFZ was imminent over 10 days ago."] but STILL denigrated its profound import.

As acat [again, wisely] concluded: “A no-fly zone over Syria wouldn?t be very useful, far as I can tell, but .. it?s not a terrible idea, and Syria is currently just another third world {manure}hole? but has a legitimate pro-western** revolutionary group.”

…lurking under the surface [as noted by others, supra] is your potential to attack unjustifiably.

It dawns on me that, perhaps, your capacity to obfuscate [so amply demonstrated during our "Individual Mandate" exchange] mirrors that of your fixation, The Newt.

For example, last night, he asserted that support for the Individual Mandate had been bestowed by ?virtually every conservative.? Really? And, even were this an accurate statement, so what? This crack in his demeanor will widen.

Amazingly, he STILL elides over his recent books when discussing ObamaCare,, preferring to cite quotes from the 20th Century. Ultimately,he will be “called” on this effort to disarm his critics.

Defend him on the Individual Mandate as much as you desire, but remember the conclusion drawn elsewhere, after multiple interactions…
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/02/the-danger-newt-gingrich-poses-to-mitt-romney/
…yielded a cease-fire only because others had become convinced of your intellectual bankruptcy [if not worse] when arguing your stance.

Remember my conclusory comment: “The reader is invited to draw his/her own conclusions regarding the profound implications of the endorsement of the Individual Mandate by The Newt, notwithstanding to whatever degree he would rescind ObamaCare [plus the unrevealed circumstances that prompted him to flip-flop], and the implications this carries regarding The Newt?s view of Big Government [as a statist/elitist].”

*

I will recapitulate my stance that is highly critical of The Newt, unambiguously:

The Newt supported the Individual Mandate, manifest in numerous [3] books published during recent years.

He based this on the view [a studied response to numerous analyses via, inter-alia, American Solutions] that individuals have a responsibility to finance their own care, even if this entails posting a bond.

He now opposes ObamaCare, but has not been queried regarding the reason[s] why.

If he disclaims fealty for the Individual Mandate, then he needs to explain the who/what/where/when/why/how of this 180-degree pivot [just as Mitt described his shift to being pro-Life after having pondered cloning].

And, until these data have been acquired/assessed, his persistent invocation of Big Government to problem-solve reflects an elitist/statist posture that SHOULD be anathema to Constitutional Conservatives.

And TEA ["Taxed Enough Already"] Party Movement activists would also be expected to express wonderment about this [and myriad other] inside-the-beltway postures/activities in which The Newt has participated [such as touring with Al Sharpton, all the while touting his brand of "education"]

One would think that the Evangelicals would dovetail with the aforementioned constituencies–notwithstanding other personal behaviors of The Newt–yielding an emboldened search for a POTUS-GOP leader.

*

These are not idle thoughts being recapitulated; rather, they constitute profound concerns with the front-runner as per the MSM/LSM/ELM.

I was to have been on a conference-call with him this past Friday, but it was cancelled; I’d pre-submitted queries almost two weeks ago, now, but apparently to no avail.

From my perspective, if The Newt does little more than puncture Mitt, then the way will be cleared for the great majority of GOP voters to flock to Perry.

This may actually ultimately exceed the usual limits [25% for Mitt and 10% for Paul] if a genuine “rush” can serve to peel-away those who may have been swayed to these two other people, respectively, by establishment-endorsements and youthful-exuberance.

Meanwhile, Huntsman continues to self-marginalize [boycotting The Huckster and The Donald] and Santorum/Bachmann remain virtually pulseless [much as they retain innate appeal]. If the yeoman-labors of the latter become overshadowed by mega-forces, they probably would become $-starved quickly…yielding a suddenly-shrunken field…perhaps the 2-way [Mitt/Perry] race that had been predicted in September.

The only saving-grace for The Newt is the rapidly-approaching Holidays. The problem he faces, however, is that debates are scheduled both prior thereto AND in the midst thereof. Cannot the “colorful” nature of The Donald serve, alone, as a vehicle for Newsmax to assist the last-minute Iowa voters…as they are assisted in their decision–if nothing else–to eschew Romney/Gingrich?

*

…is that you constantly claimed I had “lied.”

We’re all here to discuss truths, so when this venal approach to disputation was consistently tossed into the mix, people justifiably recoiled…yielding the tentative conclusion that you were interfering with [rather than facilitating] our blogging.

Therefore, try not to invoke extreme-lingo and, perhaps, you will be taken more seriously.

…and, even if I did, that doesn’t trump what wa posted contemporaneously as you were defending the indefensible by name-calling {me}.

No one was more careful than I was, when I restated my view, quoted your view and reformulated accordingly; this was akin to the Greek thesis/antithesis/new-thesis-as-synthesis approach.

So, perhaps you would prefer to stick to the facts, particularly as I restated/distilled them herein, as you attempt to convince us of the strengths of The Newt.

STOP with the “liar” stuff, ok?

You create cacophony that interferes with reception of your message.

[This assumes, of course, that you have a clear communication to convey.]

[it's been lost in the morass]

Here…
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/02/the-danger-newt-gingrich-poses-to-mitt-romney/
…is where the key-conclusions were drawn:

This is based on the fact that The Newt endorsed the Individual Mandate in his two RECENT books [explicitly]: Real Change [2008, page 227: "Everyone should be required to have coverage"] and Winning the Future [2005, page 116: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance."].

Wonkish1 is invited to critique my conclusions, which I?ll update in a few hours upon return from testifying on two disability cases.

1. When has The Newt stated recognition that he favored the Individual Mandate in these two relatively recent books? When did he state the issue that changed his mind? When did he change his mind? [And when did he abandon the "bond-age" idea?]

?He said last night [this was his past position], among other times. He said that libertarians wouldn?t go for it and that it isn?t strictly legal. I don?t know when the exact date was that he decided against it.?

I conclude he is obfuscating, because he wants the listener to believe that he?s currently rejecting a remote, tangential concept. That he hasn?t defined what/when/who/what/where/why/how he altered his stance is telling; recall, for example, how Mitt explains when he became Pro-Life [again] while dealing with cloning.

2. Because all realms of government-fiat affects cost/access/delivery, and because all of this is to be forcibly-financed via Individual Mandate [and/or BHO's "penalty" and/or The Newt's "bond], then [pray tell] why you support any imposition of any $ upon all Americans to accomplish this private-marketplace pursuit?

?Again your adding in other things to the discussion. It is the state regulations, government programs, etc. that are controlling healthcare. The individual mandate has nothing to do with it. We could wipe away all those things and have a 100% free market healthcare system and if we imposed an individual mandate nobody would be saying that it was government control of the healthcare system. The two issues have nothing to do with each other.?

I conclude you support imposition of an Individual Mandate, regardless of how the monies-collected are expended [and regardless of whichever governmental apparatus this occurs].

3. Please provide a differentiation-concept that provides a red-line between his desire to intrude in healthcare vs. what he might contemplate doing elsewhere.

?You want an example for yourself? Do you support Heroin being illegal? That is an action of government. Am I to assume that because you support that government approach you will want to get the government involved in everything??

I conclude you are unable to answer this question, which carries tremendous philosophical implications.

4. Please ensure that, throughout, you ID whenever you [perchance] might DISAGREE with The Newt.

?Can you please rephrase what you are actually asking me into a question please.?

I conclude, until stated otherwise, that you concur with The Newt with regard to his [shifting] Individual Mandate policy.

Notwithstanding your disease-state [addiction to claiming I "lie"], you are now invited to clarify YOUR viewpoint…and then it can be compared/contrasted with that of The Newt.

I dutifully copied your discussion of the Singapore Sling elsewhere, but it didn’t quite elucidate a posture that you would state…and then own.

So, which is it? Do you support the view of The Newt that would force people to post a bond as a manifestation of their “individual responsibility” to finance their own healthcare?

[did they have any additional commentary?]

Huntsman has established a pattern of ducking [Des Moines Thanksgiving Family, the Huckster, and The Donald]; self-marginalization appears to appeal to the PMSNBC-crowd.

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/12/video-watch-the-entire-huckabee-gop-presidential-forum/

Rick startss @ 24:20…and it includes the second-half of the above-video.

…do you support mandating that everyone either buy insurance or place a bond?

…because, incrementally, you’re becoming trapped within your own rhetoric.

“Forcing insurance ownership doesn?t mean government control of healthcare….If they don?t exercise any control over the expenditures of that product than they DON?T CONTROL THAT PRODUCT!” Of course it does, and of course it occurs, as per economists before/after the Austrian School.

If the government can “tax” an individual [in any way, shape, form], that individual has lost an essential freedom. And when you note the undue influence of regs upon the insurers [which you have repeatedly acknowledged], you have documented the indirect control exerted over individual behavior via the middle-men.

“And me defending a lone individual mandate against the notion that it is a government takeover of healthcare, but simultaneously saying that its unconstitutional, wrong, removes peoples freedom, etc. doesn?t mean that I support the individual mandate.”

Then why defend the Individual Mandate at all?

…note that the first half of the oral argument will be devoted specifically to the Individual Mandate and whether it’s existence can be severed from the rest of ObamaCare.

OBVIOUSLY, this is the linchpin of the law, and most scholars have concluded that the edifice collapses in its absence.

If you don’t have $, you don’t have anything to administer.

Therefore, it is disingenuous for you to over-parse what is an obvious reality to everyone else…notwithstanding your novel posture regarding hospital-ER responsibilities to society.

…once the situation has been “classified,” it must now be analyzed.

The linkage of $ with acquiring/dispensing $ for goods/services is intuitive.

Therefore, your rationales for “defending the correct placement of hatred towards” ObamaCare” correlate with my attacks on your [and The Newt's] policies.

“1) I?m a stickler on details and I believe we should be able to [pin-]point exactly why policies are bad things for the country.”

RIGHT! Both the Individual Mandate and any correlate thereof [such as the mandated posting of a bond] are reprehensible.

and

“2) You accused Newt of supporting all of ObamaCare because he has supported a lone Individual mandate. They aren?t the same thing and so I was clear to distinguish the individual mandate from the rest of the provisions in that bill.”

Once The Newt supports the Individual Mandate [regardless of anything else therein], he supports the essence [funding] of ObamaCare, and that is reprehensible.

{“check, and mate”}

*

…but “flattery will get you nowhere!” {again i’ve taken the liberty to amend grammar}

lookey-here…

“Its important to distinguish the difference between the individual mandate being used to deal with charity care and being used to *hold up* bad policy like in ObamaCare and RomneyCare.”

This is “cute” because it is precisely what Mitt has tried to argue when differentiating his plan from that of BHO…despite the fact that we are dealing with multiple fingers connected to the identical hand [philosophically and operationally].

Once you have government interfering in any fashion–no matter how seemingly “justified”–you create mischief and market-disruption.

In short, any version of an Individual Mandate can be used neither to “deal with” nor to “hold up” any overall plan. THIS is what’s wrong with big-government policies as espoused by Mitt/Newt.

IT MATTERS NOT whether the [presumably reprehensible, in your mind] “goal was to be able to force socialized health risk onto the public (something many people don?t want to buy) by using the individual mandate” or whether the goal of a “stand alone individual mandate” was [presumably desirable, in your mind] to deal with people that don?t have insurance (and aren?t covered by a government program like Medicaid) and show up to the hospital, incur costs, and then stiff the hospital with the bill.”

We have systems for both instances; if the uninsured hits the ER, he’she either is retroactively enrolled in Medicaid or must pay the bill, period. Any other creation of a sliding-scale program is derivative of these poles.

Operationally, people will not be able to “go naked” for very long, for the first time he/she gets ill will yield registration that will cover future illnesses [to whatever degree].

No mandates need be imposed, overtly or covertly.

*

because, either they pay “retail” rates or they apply for potentially-created sliding-scale one-shot-deal programs [as a bridge into purchase of future health insurance].

…and such concerns should not dictate overall policy.

[Otherwise, you have the tail wagging thd dog.}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disproportionate_share_hospital

“But I think we agree that they are horrible degrees of socialism. And I think you agree that without a government forcing people to use buy that overpriced crap many wouldn?t and economic forces would blow up the bill.”

NOPE!

“What alternative for those that are ineligible for Medicaid and don?t have insurance. I?m sorry maybe I missed it!”

personal responsibility and, perhaps, a sliding-scale supplement for those just beyond Medicaid [under strict circumstances] for a limited time-frame.

“I don?t know what your getting at with the ?tickey?, ?washy?, etc” ”

The provision of non-emergency medical care must be subject to free-market forces, period.

…is asked to pay. Privately, if necessary.

This applies just like in any other component of the economy.

…as your sister undoubtedly knows.

…just like any other $-transaction