Florida Rep. Alan Grayson is an embarrassment to his constituents. How dumb are Orlando voters to have fallen for this demagogue's used-car-salesman-meets-Michael-Moore schtick? Grayson's must-see "die quickly" speech on the floor of the House of Representatives is among the more amateurish and idiotic statements heard there. That's saying something. He proffered an apology--to the uninsured who have died, not to the Republicans whom he accused of planning their deaths. Given that oversized cardboard panels added visual confirmation that his claim that the Republican plan called for uninsured patients to "die quickly" was no gaffe, it is probably good and right that he didn't apologize for what he clearly meant to say. The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece explaining "Who Is Alan Grayson, Anyway?" Who is he? A guy who will be thrown out of office in thirteen months, only to find more lucrative work at Air America or MSNBC.

There was absolutely nothing in your post that addressed the substance of Grayson's claim; you blithered ad hominem, which is fine, but at least try to refute the argument, which is this: that a society that can secure fundamental human rights has a duty to provide them to her citizens. Failing to do so, as Republicans and Blue Curs are deliberately doing which will directly result in numerous deaths (yet at the same time hypocritically funding Wall Street welfare) is a detestable moral failure that will be called out by history in the same way Grayson highlighted.

Basically what your post is saying is that Representative Grayson's position is invalid based on one criterion: Dan Flynn's fiat. Pretty dumb argument, because it relies on circular reasoning and a parroting of slogans. It's interesting that you completely fail to refute his knowledge claims point by point. I'm assuming it's because you cannot. You didn't even mention what he said. I'm guessing you're fearful of committing his claims to your post because they would condemn your position.

1) Do you deny the knowledge claim that several thousand Americans die each year due to inadequate health care?

2) At what point do you acknowledge human rights? Is there a fundamental human right to free speech? How about food, police protection, physical security, education? How should societies facilitate free speech, if you believe in that right? If the "free" market fails to provide these conditions, at what point should the public sector intervene to provide them?

3) At what point does personal wealth maximization end? Do you believe that an individual should be able to procure an excess amount of resources beyond their capacity to use them? For example, should wealth be allowed to accumulate within narrow sectors of the society while others suffer, and if so why is this justifiable if we posses the methods to deliver these basic resources to each member of society while still allowing for wealth maximization above and beyond these essential procurements?

4) Do you believe that "equality of opportunity" exists, and if so, how is it secured? If it is secured through society and its institutions, then what obligation does an individual have to his society?

5) What aspect of Grayson's claim do you refute, and if so do you refute the validity of the sources he cites?

Grayson's was not an argument, but a taunt. You don't refute taunts; you refute arguments. I didn't address the substance of what he said because there was no substance to what he said.

"3) At what point does personal wealth maximization end?"

should have written "At what point, if at all, does personal wealth maximization become unjustifiable?"

PMA
I only caught the insulting parts of Grayson's tantrum, but just out of curiosity which moveon or dem manual did you copy your first post?

"wealth maximization"
"Do you deny the knowledge claim "

Who in the world actually talks like that? Come on, fess up, where did you copy it from? Better yet, if you didn't copy it, where in the world did you get the idea that regular people speak that way?
But I'll take the bait.
1. People die from inadequate health care all the time, especially men because they tend not to go to the doctor when they should. People who don't take advantage of the medical system that's in place, they die to. Those are just two examples that have nothing to do with money or insurance. Do you believe Obamacare is going to make sure everyone get's adequate healthcare? You're going to guarentee that everyone will see a competent doctor,in a timely manner? Are you going to force people to go?

2. The free market has nothing to do with free speech, police protection, education, physical security or whether it's going to rain tomorrow.

3. "Wealth maximization", or as normal people say, "making money", if you're smart enough to earn it you should get to keep it. No limits. Just because I have more doesn't mean I'm taking or keeping it from you. Money or wealth is not a limited resource. It's not a pie with only so many slices.

4. "Equality of opportunity",where isn't there equality of opportunity?

5. Grayson's saying we want people to die quickly make's anything else he's says irrelevent.

"Wealth maximization". I love it. Like it’s something bad. And of course it only applies to those evil rightists.

It just could be that it’s the kind of thing that creates jobs, supports over-taxation and contributes to charities on a large scale (as long as you’re not John Kerry or any other Democrat).

I suppose in the minds of some, the wealthy sit around their big houses huddled in vaults hoarding their money and thinking ill of the unwashed masses.

What would expect from one who doesn’t recognize when an argument is not an argument.

Ok, since you deficit vampires and conservative ostriches still have your heads in the sand, I'll baby step you through this later, but I'd just like to address this laughable comment from Opus.

3. "Wealth maximization", or as normal people say, "making money", if you're smart enough to earn it you should get to keep it. No limits. Just because I have more doesn't mean I'm taking or keeping it from you. Money or wealth is not a limited resource. It's not a pie with only so many slices.

Are you parroting what Rush Limbaugh said on Jay Leno? Do you have any idea about the concept of scarcity? It's a very basic economic concept; at any given point in time there is a finite supply of resources.

Here is Grayson's unedited quote with reference to the Republican health care plan:

"And it's my duty and pride tonight to be able to announce exactly what the Republicans plan to do for health care in America.

It's this. Very simply -- it's a very simple plan. Here it is. The Republicans' health care plan for America: "Don't get sick." That's right -- don't get sick. If you have insurance, don't get sick; if you don't have insurance, don't get sick; if you're sick, don't get sick -- just don't get sick!

That's what the Republicans have in mind for you, America. That's the Republicans' health care plan. But I think that the Republicans understand that that plan isn't always going to work -- it's not a foolproof plan. So the Republicans have a backup plan, in case you do get sick. If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do. If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: "Die quickly." That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."

The only error made is that he assumes Republicans want those dying from lack of care to do so in as painless a manner possible; I imagine many actually salivate at the prospect of a prolonged, agonizing, and lonely death (after all, these unfortunates were probably lazy, stupid, or undeserving of care and deserve their fate), but he was magnanimous enough to claim that Republicans care about the suffering of others.

What we have in America now is a conservative culture that wants Obama, and by extension America, to fail which was demonstrated by conservative glee over a Midwestern city losing their Olympic bid (I believe there's video documentation of a conservative gathering cheering at Chicago's loss), who makes excuses for Wall Street welfare by praising it and licking the boots of their corporate masters like the good little peasants that they are, who hate gays and immigrants, and who love big government abuses of power and who relentlessly defend it, and who despise wealth production by promoting a bloated and parasitic finance and investment sector over manufacturing sectors.

I know it's tough for you ostriches to remember this or even know it, but the golden era of American prosperity when median income rose commensurate with productivity gains was from 1945-1979, when the average top income tax rate was 70%. Have fun maintaining your free market fantasies, losers, and losing yet again in 2010 (there's no way demographically that you can win).

Your partisanship is laughable and has little basis in the real world with regard to government spending and budgets.

Since his inauguration, Obama has said that he "inherited" the federal budget deficit from Bush and those nasty profligate Republicans. But immediately upon taking office, Obama signed two new bills, the $787 billion stimulus and the $410 billion omnibus, that together were about equal the $1.2 trillion deficit he "inherited”.

Now that the fiscal year has ended we see that the government has run up a $1.58 trillion deficit for FY 2009, the all-time record and the first deficit over a trillion. This deficit is almost 3 and a half times the $459 billion deficit of 2008, and 10 times the $160 billion deficit of 2007, which began when Republicans were still in control of Congress.

So, yes, the Republicans were deficit spenders. But let’s give the distinction of prolific deficit spenders to the Democrats.