There’s so much wrong with that statement I don’t even know where to begin.

Loved the rest of it!

My real audience, as one might say, is the 2% of onlookers whose opinions we’re all trying to sway.

Yes, the only thing that does matter is the 2% in the middle. Each side is out there this summer making its case.

Your side:
It’s Socialism, Stalinism, Nazism, Communism, Euthanazia, rifle toting mobs plus allies like Sarah Palin, Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, John Ensign, Rick Santorum, Lyndon LaRouche and Michael Steele.

Our side:
We just point out: insurance companies have a long track record of denying care, canceling or reneging on coverage, your premiums for all this are already close to $20,000 a year for some people, you’re often one late payment from disaster, medical bills is the leading cause of bankruptcy, Medicare is already government program.

We say try this experiment. Call a friend and tell them you really believe Blue Cross Blue Shield has their interests at heart.

When the 2% decides they will no longer accept Medicare, Cash for Clunkers, Social Security, Pell Grants, the Mortgage Deduction, Food Stamps, and Unemployment Insurance then you will win the argument.

Until then your influence on the electorate will be close to nil.

And concerning the OP, this isn’t about bringing Whole Foods to its Knees. It’s realizing we don’t need them and by extension we don’t need to help a GOP stalwart with our money.

My rollout of my Quakewood iPhone app is in keeping with the finest traditions of capitalism: Find a need and fill it.

Over the next few weeks I will work to identify every supplier of goods to Whole Foods and make my app a tool to allow liberal consumers who share my views to go directly to the very same suppliers WF uses.

WF may barely notice our departure as a percentage of their profits and since no one realistically thinks Whole Foods will go out of business it’s hardly a disappointment.

We do gain allies for progressive politics in 50 states, put our support behind local farmers, and in the end spend less than we were before by taking this action.

I’ve yet to hear how that is in any way a bad thing.

Also: You should not care what I think. I’m just some stranger writing on the Internet about your flaws. My real audience, as one might say, is the 2% of onlookers whose opinions we’re all trying to sway.

Does it not hit you that this whole writing/rhetoric/logic thing isn’t really what you’re carved out for?

And I should care what you think because why?

So far the rebuttal here has consisted of:

- My name is funny
- San Francisco has WiFi for bums
- Good cop/bad cop routines to make me say socialist
- A demand that I take back saying we won the election
- Whining that I better stop posting here or, or , or… something

Richard Bottoms: You’re one of the worst debaters I’ve ever witnessed online. Your stuff here has been just really weak sauce, man.

I genuinely feel kind of bad telling you this, because you appear to have a big personal investment in this idea that you’re really “engaged” with the “issues.” Clearly this self-perception is important to you. But honestly — you’re just not very good at this stuff. Many of your political allies have been posting in this thread; can you not immediately discern how much better their posts are? Is it not apparent to you? Does it not hit you that this whole writing/rhetoric/logic thing isn’t really what you’re carved out for?

You don’t seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals on either side of the issue, the premises from which the assorted arguments spring (including your own). It’s all just a bunch of surface stuff with you. Which makes your contributions a cliche, and boring, and ultimately irrelevant to the debate.

This post by me adds nothing to the debate, either. But then, it doesn’t purport to. It simply is what it is: an assessment of your rhetoric skills and your contributions to this thread. Sounds like you enjoy working with software. Maybe that’s where you should devote your energy, rather than clogging up political forums where skilled arguers are trying to have productive conversation.

And then it just hit me five minutes ago: Version 2.0 of my iPhone app Quakewood will have have a listing of as many of the current products on the Whole Foods shelves as possible and contact information so we can buy directly from the maker as much as possible.

Oh yes, there will be money.

Medical Savings accounts allow you to pay for your medical care with PRE-TAX dollars, thus up to doubling their value.

a.) Of little use if you’re poor (which I’m not, but a lot of people are)

b.) Of little use if you have anything more severe than everyday bumps, scrapes, colds. My pending operation is at least $200,000, an MSA would do what, knock $5k off of that?

c.) Of no use if you get kicked off because of policy recision

d.) Of no use if your deemed uninsurable (normal people hit with premiums of $2,000 a month+ means exactly that)

Medical Savings accounts allow you to pay for your medical care with PRE-TAX dollars, thus up to doubling their value. Government taking your money and distributing it back to you does the opposite, with so many bureaucratic middle men eating it up.

Tort reform should be at the top of the list. That Congress refuses to consider it is only one reason why this whole thing is so bad.

Mackey is my new hero.

As are the American People who have FORCED the Soros/Progressive Congress to HAVE the debate. They tried to ram this through without it – NEVER FORGET THAT, despite their claims that the people who are showing up at Town Hall meetings are trying to stop the debate.

Here’s how it breaks down: Mackey has the right to express his opinion on health care. You have the right to boycott his company because you don’t like that opinion. And I have the right to say you’re a moron for doing so. Etc. etc. Explanation of why the boycott is silly ad nauseum.

That seems all right and proper a claim until you look at the larger picture:

A group of wingnuts on the right are disrupting townhall meetings over nonsense like “death camps” and “socialism”, and you cheer them on, saying you’ll support that nonsense because it is their right to dissent by making up stupid shit and starting fist-fights over it: Indiana congressman says town hall protests are “political terrorism.” Maybe I should start pitching my “Support Dissent” gear to the right, then leftists can give me dirty looks…

Leftists get crazy over a CEO and nonsensically boycotts their otherwise left-friendly company, and you call them idiots and claim the only reason they are protesting is to force everyone to lock-step with them: These people don’t want a dicussion. They don’t want to hear ideas. They want you to shut up and do what they say, or they’re going to punish you.

To any neutral observer, this makes your statements purely and obviously politically motivated, severely biased to an untrustworthy level, despite your later attempt to “explain” your meaning. Hence why you ended up being called out for talking out of both sides of your mouth: because there was a clear “get out of jail free” card being casually handed to the right, while you spent thousands of words bashing and villianizing the left for doing the very same stupid shit.

So you can say “I said that because their boycott is stupid”…but what it comes down ot is that you can’t dodge around the fact that you gave one stupid protest a cheer and a pass, but painted another stupid protest as an attempt to push people around.