Andy Kreskin Hammond, Boy Geneous

I'll be honest, it really kinda made me sick to watch people at Montana Netroots bending over to placate the fragile ego of Andy Hammond.  He wasn't smart enough to figure out on his own that he hadn't been banned.  But sadly, most of us on the left side of the aisle want so desperately to have rational disagreement that we find ourselves placating the whims of the stupid and disagreeable.  Why?  What is the point of that?

There are rational conservatives out there in the Montana sphere:  Dave Budge (drama queen, but still pretty smart), TMM (a true conservative and rational misanthrope, how neat is that?), Geeguy (thoughtful and willing to engage without the bullshit), and Craig (a truly good human).  No one has any reason to put up with the likes of Andy Hammond.  He's a Republicant talking point with legs.  You won't gain any karma points for taking him seriously.  You'll just get a little dumber for not pointing and laughing.

I really did try to take Andrew's site seriously, just as I did Coobs' so long ago.  But they really only want attack and agreement.  Witness Andrew's latest screed against the obvious good:

First of all, SCHIP was created in 1997 to cover the health insurance of children in families that were not eligible for Medicaid. The income threshold was 200% of the poverty line, $40,300 for a family of four.

Seven states set eligibility to be over 200% of the poverty line and fourteen states loosely defined child to include parents, pregnant women, and childless adults.

Senators Clinton and Dingle like what these states are doing and have proposed bills that would allow states to establish the income threshold to 400% of the poverty line, $82,600 for a family of four and allow children to be defined to age 25.

Got a problem with state's rights much, Andrew?   He calls this a problem, that people be insured . The President has proposed much the same, giving insurance companies guaranteed business and offering a safety net to those who don't qualify for Medicaid.  Children need health care that their potential not be derailed.  This to Andy, is bad.  A fellow conservative disagrees:

Our goal should be to give every child the opportunity to become a productive member of society -- suffering from poor health care in childhood is a good way to ensure that they won't make it. And right now, we can afford it -- something that may not always be the case, by the way.

But please note, Andy doesn't argue that America should offer opportunity.  Andy argues that 'librul' values are bad:

This is clearly the first attempt at socializing our health care.       

       

No.  Not even.  There is nothing 'clear' about Andy's BS.  Andy is terrified that a  society that builds roads and has made the strongest military in the world (through socialist practice) might actually protect it's investment through its citizenry through ... collective will.

But ya' see, Andrew is all choked up about the dollars. 

The cost of Clinton/Dingle would be $85 Billion over five years compared to $25 Billion if the program were left as is. To pay for it, expect our taxes to increase.

My God, we might spend $85 Billion over 5 years to insure a healthy new generation that will pay taxes to cover Andy's fat ass when he gets old.  Let's not do that ... After all, we're only spending more than 2 Billion a week in Iraq (which is $520 Billion over 5 years).  Shit'o'dear!  Taxes might have to increase for people to have health care (but we'll borrow our asses off to pay for the shit in Mess-o-potamia).  Andy's wailing here is inconsistent, self serving and stupid.

I'm tired of the bullshit.  I'm tired of the 25%ers who still think our country is goodly because Bush would be a good guy to have a beer with ... not that he would have a beer ... being a dry drunk and all ... what are you implying!?!  Andy is just one more waste of skin, a guy who  wants spending but hates spending where it might actually matter.   A hypocrite.  I'm done with Hammond.

Comments

[The US Constitution is a child's fiction]

Whew. I guess you really did get your butt kicked over at Hammond’s bog.

[Andy B. Hammond]

Wulfgar,
I quickly admit I'm probably near the bottom of the smartest out there in the blogosphere.

I don't have a fragile ego, I was and am only pointing out the fact that you folks are very quick to attack, mock, and name call when the debate gets heated. Kinda like you are doing here. I actually get a kick out of it.

I want to address a couple of points you made above. These are in no particular order because I'm kinda slo.

1. I never said the states shouldn't do what they did. I think it goes against the spirit of CHIP to include adults or to pay for the insurance for people who can and should afford it on their own.

B. I have no problem with people being insured. In fact I strongly encourage it. What I don't like is that the government having to provide and pay for it. It's not the government's job. We've done pretty well without government providing insurance so far.

C. Government control of our insurance will drastically reduce the quality of our health care. Government is inefficient and wasteful.

4. The government's job is to defend and protect us. That is what the military is for and I have no problem at with my taxes going towards our defense.

I don't have the means to personally fight a war but I do have the means to personally provide my own health insurance.

e. You accuse me of being a "talking point with legs" and I'm sure I am to a degree. So what? I'm not ashamed of my opinions or where I get information to help me form them.

Are you implying that all your thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc. are unique and not liberal talking points?

[jhwygirl]

That paragraph that begins with "My God" and ends with "stupid" ? - priceless.

{{applause}}

I bow to the Wulfgar!

[Shane C. Mason]

Wulfgar, check you damn gmail account. ;)

[colby natale]

4. The government's job is to defend and protect us. That is what the military is for and I have no problem at with my taxes going towards our defense.

If you believe that Andy, why isn't okay for my definition of 'protect' to include health insurance? In my opinion, cancer and other diseases are much more likely to be a direct threat to me than Islamic fundamentalists.

[Shane C. Mason]

I would add the Colby's point that I suppose Andy should not use interstate highways...

[The US Constitution is a child's fiction]

Wulfgar, check you damn gmail account! We're trying to organize a gang-up on Andy now that you've sucked him in to coming over here. ;)

[Wulfgar]

Andy, I'm well used to the conservo-hypocrisy that advocates freely spending my money on things I don't like, but jealously defends its own pocketbook against spending for things I do like. It's despicable, but common enough to go almost unnoticed. Where I draw the line is when that hypocritical zeal leads to moronic cries that the sky is falling. OH MY GOD! Insuring kids will *raise taxes*!!11!eleventyone! Spending billions a week hasn't raised taxes, but I'm supposed to cower in fear of 17 Billion a year? That's ridiculous, which means worthy of ridicule.

1) The designate "kids" is pretty arbitrary in our society. Most 24 year olds don't have the wherewithal to purchase insurance (unless provided by a job, through their school, or health care through the military.) You're getting squeamish over a word for no good reason.

B) Fact free as always. The government does provide insurance, Andy. Look it up.

C) Here you go with the same retarded talking points that have no foundation that you or any can provide. Do you really have to wonder why I get frustrated putting up with your stupidity? Which leads us to ...

4) Andy Hammond:

The government's job is to defend and protect us. That is what the military is for and I have no problem at with my taxes going towards our defense.

Andy Hammond (forced into being even remotely consistent):

Government control of our military will drastically reduce the quality of our defense. Government is inefficient and wasteful.

Gosh, I couldn't agree with that sentiment more, Andy.

e) I'm not implying anything, Andrew. In case you haven't noticed, I don't have the tendency to be subtle. You see, when I argue, I argue with facts and logic. You tend to counter with Limbaugh-provided soundbites that have no relation to reality. You are a talking point with legs. That's why you attract trolls, and I piss them off. I'm just not finding them or you amusing anymore.

[Steve Jones]

Wulfgar, I'm just a visitor wandering in from Dave Neiwert's link to you - a catchy blog title gets me every time. Allow me to pick on a few of Andy's contentions from my perspective as a paleoconservative a la Barry Goldwater:

Andy, government is not inherently wasteful and inefficient. It CAN be wasteful and inefficient. As can private industry. My daughter had surgery recently, and to get it I dealt with about 8 levels of a health care system, only two of which actually provided health care. The other levels were cube occupants of various rank in my insurance company. Michael Moore may be a bomb-thrower, but frankly he's got some points about the state of our current health care system.

Some folks seem to think that government takes your money and runs it through a shredder. It doesn't. Government is not a drag on the economy. Government is a vital part of our economy. Ask anyone at KBR.

On municipal, state and federal levels, governments spends our money on things like roads and bombs and pencils for pencil pushers to push and trucks and social security and meter maids and cops and water purification and planes and teachers and forest fire suppression and on and on and on. It is up to us as citizens to elect people who spend our money wisely, and to complain to them - not to each other so much, but to them - when they don't. Or to take a turn and run for office ourselves.

Andy, I am not what is commonly called a "conservative" any more, because I believe in a government of, by and for the people. I believe that we are all in this together, like it or not, and we have to cooperate and see that our governments, at all levels, operate well. Mr. Reagan lost me when he declared, "Government is not a solution to our problems. Government is the problem."

No, but the way government is run can be a problem. But you fix the problem, not burn down the house. The absence of government is anarchy, and I hate anarchy. You should, too. Anarchy is dangerous. Under anarchy you are subject to the will of whatever bully, thug or goon decides to run your neighborhood. You get organized crime, not justice. You get Tom DeLay and government of the highest bidder. You get Enron. I lost a chunk of money to those crooks, but didn't lose my all as some of their pensioners did.

Unfortunately, the GOP has decided that anarchy is our future. Look at Grover Norquist and his wish to "shrink government down to the point that we can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the tub." That's the modern GOP, and that's why I am no longer a Republican. That and the fact that neither Reagan nor this current president has ever submitted balanced a budget to Congress.

Andy, you're welcome to keep this corrupt party afloat if you wish. I tried to keep the crooks and government-haters out, but lost, and finally left. Good luck.

[Andy B. Hammond]

I will not, although I'm tempted, lower myself to your level of hate, anger and bitterness. I'm not even sure how to respond to your diatribe (my big word for the day).

I stand by everything I said, talking point or not. I think your opinions are wrong. You think mine are wrong.

I look forward to the little "gang up" you guys are planning. Reminds me of Junior High.

[Steve Jones]

Hate, anger and bitterness? Andy, that's simply absurd. If I hate, it's anarchy I hate, not you. Am I angry? At times. But not at you. Bitter? Yes. But not with you.

I haven't given up hope. I hope that we Americans can come together and stop ripping each other apart, and keep this country in one piece.

Hey, I know of no "gang-up". I just wandered in here by accident, and don't know Wulfgar or anyone else here. And if your response to my "diatribe" is this irrational, you're really going to hate what I wrote in the comments section on your blog.

[Andy B. Hammond Kreskin]

Steve,
I wasn't writing about you. I was writing my comment about the same time you were writing yours. I was writing in reference to Wulfgar's diatribe. I didn't see your comment until after I posted mine.

Read the other comments above and you'll see what I mean by Wulfgar and his friends ganging up.

"Wulfgar, check you damn gmail account! We're trying to organize a gang-up on Andy now that you've sucked him in to coming over here. ;)"

I thought your comment was polite and civil which seems to be lacking with a lot of the folks around here and Montana Netroots. I actually appreciate what you wrote.

[Steve Jones]

Alright, Andy, thanks for that, and sorry for the misunderstanding. Maybe there's hope yet.

[Colby Natale]

"Wulfgar, check you damn gmail account! We're trying to organize a gang-up on Andy now that you've sucked him in to coming over here. ;)"

Andy, I cannot believe you fell for that. We all know who left that comment, and why he left it. Believe me, he is no one we all a friend; and he would be happy to see that he convinced you he was. While we might not agree with you Andy (and we might come to Rob's defense here, only because we think he is right), we wouldn't sink so low as to organize any kind of anti-Andy posse. Think long and hard about a comment before you profess to know who placed it.

[Wulfgar]

Andy, I cannot believe you fell for that.

I can believe it. Anybody who thinks that well argued and disdainful disagreement = "hate" is willing to be a sucker for any gamesman that comes along. Anybody who hides behind the sham of 'differing opinions' when they are so obviously self-contradictory and blatantly wrong will believe anything if it helps support their 'opinion', especially after it's been shown to be worthless. The funny part is, they don't even recognize what their actual opinion is. It's pretty obvious, to be honest: their opinion is that they're being victimized by disagreement. No, Andy isn't a victim. He's just willfully ignorant and wrong, and will try anything he can to make that my fault. So much for personal responsibility.

[Montana Headlines]

Since I said what I thought about CHIP in the post you linked to and quoted from, I only have one comment, and I suppose it is appropriate given my moniker:

Wulfgar, don't you feel a little silly poking at Andy's brightness (or purported lack thereof,) by calling him a boy "geneous?"

I'm jes' askin.

[Wulfgar]

Would it have been clearer if I'd have written Geeneeuus?

[Rocky Smith]

Disagreement and/or submission of facts is expected, but:

'Andy Hammond. He wasn't smart enough'

'Do you really have to wonder why I get frustrated putting up with your stupidity?'

Andy is just one more waste of skin, a guy who wants spending but hates spending where it might actually matter. A hypocrite. I'm done with Hammond.

You should be so proud of your superiority Wulfgar. Your disrespect and abuse of others is sickening. I don't expect agreement, but at least a smidgen of respect might be nice. Maybe you can't convince Andy of your view, but this crap only paints a dark picture of you. I'm sure you'll discount me, but I won't call you names for doing it.

[Wulfgar]

Rocky, you actually do have a point, as my beloved has been pointing out to me. Not about respect, or even public personal image. To be honest, I couldn't care less about either one at this stage of the game. The point you do have is this: I'm being contradictory to my own desire.

I am frustrated beyond belief with the willful ignorance consistently displayed by certain others anymore. But instead of washing my hands of it, I tend to wallow in it. That's not good for me. The disrespect I often show is usually well deserved. The abuse is sickening, but more to me than any other.

I'm trying to get a post together about that very thing. We'll see if I ever post it.

[Rocky Smith]

Wulfgar-

I'm not trying to put you down nor change your mind. I even understand your frustration of people who overlook stated facts to back a partisan point of view. I know you have been angry with me and others, but we need to attempt rational discussion with civility. I do respect you AND your point of view. I think you sometimes are just as guilty of running with the blinders on as some of us on the right are. We both have some passion for our viewpoint and it gets us fired up at times. I won't claim to be innocent of ever getting too ticked off myself, but I try to be civil. We are all too gravitated toward one pole or the other in politics today. We need to attempt to come together closer to the middle.
For me-
1.Is Bush a great President? Hell no. I only voted for him because I thought the alternative would be worse.
2. Do I support the war? I was questionable on the reasons for entering Iraq, but now that we're there, I think it would be irresponsible to leave precipitously. I'd like to see us out as soon as is possible without just handing the country to extremists. I still think we need to hunt down terrorists and exterminate them. I am not impressed with Bush's record in the pursuit of Bin Laden.
3. Is our planet getting warmer? No doubt about it. Man does contribute to the problem, but I'm not sure we are the majority of that problem. We should do anything REASONABLE to help alleviate the problem. For one, there are way too many people in this world. I'm not sure how we solve that. Nature might do it for us.

Those are just a few points and where I am on them. I just hope we can all discuss issues with civility and attempt to come together instead of driving each other apart. My grandfather always told me to "be the better man" in an arguement and not resort to belittling my opponent. Not even if they deserve it. They might be undeserving of respect, but you'll respect yourself more for staying above that level.

By the way- the upcoming election is another where I don't care much for ANY of the candidates. What do you think?

[Montana Headlines]

"Geeneeuus"

Yup -- that would have been clear, even to a non-geeneeuus like me.