He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.

Happy days.

Senator Grassley answer:

Grassley explains: When your audience does not know the meaning of the word "synonym", they are easily confused by using different words to make a point, even though those words mean the same thing. They key to my success if having constituents whose depth of knowledge is as deep as a raindrop in the sand. I need only present an appearance of logic for them to agree, as long as the result is against HCR.

Grassley's lack of reason demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of his party--I have friends that can't bring themselves to admit they're Republicans anymore; when pressed, they'll call themselves conservatives but even that has become too fraudulent a political position. "Reagan had it right...he cut taxes, reduced the size of the government, greatly reduced spending." Good luck trying to relieve a self-proclaimed conservative of this illusion. But here are two irrefutable facts with which you can try:

-Under Reagan, the deficit tripled.
- Reagan's tax reform act of 1986 imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/01/newsflash-ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-you-idiots/

Sorry Todd for going a little off topic here, but there's a reason myth has been and always will be the platform of Republicans.

Grassley has been lying for as long as I can remember, longer than I care to think. He is one of my least respected senators. I flip flop on the worst all the time. The same ones are always in the top ten of my list.

In a collective sense, we have a number of senators who bear direct responsibility for much of the bad stuff that has happened over the years. As a group, they have been wrong on very important things more often than not and because of their senatorial votes have harmed this nation in extremely serious ways. These people are very limited in very many ways and have no business as U.S. Senators. They are sociopaths and criminals for sure.

I think Grassley is a bit desperate -- insurance is a big employer and contributor to Iowa's economy. Not the biggest, but pretty significant.

I was really intrigued by Josh's latest blog entry about a lot of corporations scaling back their health insurance coverage next year. Is that because as soon as there's a public option, they're done with providing health insurance? It will stink if they don't couple it with increased salaries, which of course they won't. Another windfall!

Dagnit, I t'aint gonna read no dammed bill I'd no way vote fer!

#1 Grassley is a hypoctrite in that he dislikes big government, big governmetn programs and government spending, except of course for the almost $900,000 in farm subsidies he, his son and grandson took in. (Heritage Foundation)

The Family of Senator Charles Grassley. Sena­tor Charles Grassley (R-IA) has extensive farm interests, as do some members of his immediate family. Listing his home address as Arlington, Vir­ginia, Grassley received $225,041 in USDA subsi­dies for corn and soybeans and disaster assistance between 1995 and 2005.[8]

In New Hartford, Iowa, Senator Grassley's son Robin has received $653,833 in subsidy payments, mostly for corn and soybeans.[9] Patrick Grassley, the Senator's grandson, who also lives in New Hartford, received $5,964 in subsidies in 2005.[10]

#2 Grassley is a horse's ass, and most of those at his town halls voted for him, so, what does that make them? Why it makes them farm subsidy and ethanol luvin' horse's asses.

Maybe President Eisenhower should have been worried as much about the health care complex as the military industrial one. Tom doesn't appear to be the same type of Republican.