Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Nader Nags Obama on Single Payer Healthcare
Consumer activist Ralph Nader has a simple message for liberals feeling less warm and fuzzy about President Obama: "I told you so."
"Millions of Americans are feeling betrayed. They thought Obama as President meant change we can believe in. They thought Obama as President meant withdrawal from Iraq. They thought Obama as President meant standing up to Wall Street fat cats. They thought Obama as President meant a living wage," Nader, who ran a presidential campaign last year far less successful than his 2000 bid, said in an email to supporters today,
"But for those of you who stood with us during the 2008 Presidential campaign, you knew the score. You do not feel betrayed. You are immune to Obama Betrayal Syndrome," Nader continues. "Because you knew, as we pointed out repeatedly during the campaign, that Obama was the corporate Democrat. Beholden to large campaign contributors from Wall Street. From the military industrial complex. And from the health insurance pharma complex."
Nader's missive seeks donations for Single Payer Action, a new advocacy group pushing a government-run healthcare plan along the lines of national insurance plans in Canada and Britain.
Supporters of such a plan say it is the only way to cover everyone while cutting costs, but Obama is not among them, saying that while it might make sense if starting from scratch, it makes more sense now to build upon the current system, under which most Americans get their health coverage through their employer.
To combat critics who call his plan socialized medicine, the president reassures that he would not force anyone to change their coverage.
But Nader's new group isn't giving up. Single Payer Action members have confronted members of Congress in their home districts to press them on the issue.
"Let's break through the corporate barriers and make single payer for all a reality," he says in the email. "Together, we can make the difference. Onward to a life-saving, cost-saving single payer."
118 Comments so far
Show AllGo Ralph! (I voted for you too.)
Same here! Yay, Ralph! And yes, I don't have Obama Betrayal Syndrome because this is exactly what I expected of a presidential candidate that voted for things like the Patriot Act, FISA with retroactive immunity for telecoms, was against marriage equality, put "all options on the table" for Iran... etc. etc. Just wish the rest of you folks would have woken up sooner.
When I wish people would have woken up sooner and realized the truth, I used to feel left out and sometimes depressed to watch everyone around me acting so politically ignorant. Sometimes the Obamabots can be completely laughable the way they talk but often times I would get the lonely feeling but since coming here, I've been slowly getting out of it in addition to reading books on gaining happiness and confidence no matter the odds in life. Like the Dubya worshippers, trying to reason with them is like trying to lift a mountain. Countless times I would challenge Obamabots on the issues and either they go mute and walk away or put their fingers in their ears and sing "a-la-la-la-a-la-la-la". However, I have met quite a few who have voted Obama but truly regret their vote. You can usually tell who really regrets their vote vs who pretends to by talking to them on the issues and seeing who you can get to forget about party loyalty. With the way Obama is regressing faster than even some of us who voted Nader predicted, I hope that building a really larger voting bloc of Nader (or whoever takes his place) in 2012 will surpass 5%. We cannot afford to give up.
There's a delicious irony in seeing Nader cite the "I Want My Money Back" column from CD in his letter given how many of his self-described "supporters" maliciously excoriated the author for failing to share what they claim to be their perspicacity.
Apparently, Ralph doesn't bear grudges. Why do posters who claim to have voted for him continue to do so?
q
Besides the switch and bait, is there anything Nader has done that meets with your approval? Or is this just more of the pusillanimous or reactionary liberals of the Democratic pseudo-left pretending to be a part of Left-wing movement? When in fact they hold a hidden agenda demonstrating again and again that their allegiance is to capitalism, state-corporate power nexus, careerism, and other right-wing values. Ralph made clear in his book Crashing the Party his reason for getting into politics in the first place. He listed, ad infinitum, the examples of inaction, along with obstructionism on progressive and popular policies by the Democrats. He noticed that left-wing/progressive ideas (ideas popular with large majorities of the population—but unpopular with big-business) were routinely shunned by the Democrats.
More obfuscations?
How old are you? 12?
Your spite-filled, hysterical rant, full of childish name-calling and having absolutely nothing to do with my point, is a perfect example of the kind of ugliness that I was describing. I guess that I should thank you for the demonstration.
It becomes clearer every day that CD is increasingly infested with right-wing drones whose purpose is to make the site unusable by Progressives.
Please explain to everyone exactly what it is that you think that I'm trying to obfuscate by pointing out the irony of Ralph's citation.
q
I don't think Nader-supporters have any more of a grudge with Obama-supporters than with Bush-supporters.
But I'm not writing about true Nader supporters. I'm responding to the hatefest being staged on this site by posters who claim to be Naderites but who obviously have a disruptive agenda in mind.
q
We see you for what you are.
Hope, apparently a "true Nader" supporter is someone who passes through the filter of the feeble minded, because 'she' represents an authentic arbitrator of what a "true Nader" supporter, ought to comport themselves. I would suggest she is nothing more than an Obama plant, disseminating Obama Administration talking points, ad nausea.
I invite you to re-read my post and then re-read the one above, and then tell me with a straight face, who is the one teetering under hysteria? As far as obfuscations, I can again refer you to our last encounter. Since you never offered a rebuttal to my last post (on that thread) I assumed you conceded the point. As far as "name calling" goes, where exactly did I call you a name? Conversely, you assert the following about me: "How old are you? 12?"
Again, I thank you for the continued demonstration of your own galactic stupidity asserting me as a "right wing drone." Your self-righteousness is appalling, and your continued ignorance of progressive issues/values astonishing in scope.
Please take the last word and make it memorable.
"Since you never offered a rebuttal to my last post (on that thread) I assumed you conceded the point."
Ah! Behold the hollow boast of the genuine troll whose goal in life is always to have the last word. Who else wallows in past threads to keep his spite alive?
The fact that I may not respond to you means that I concede nothing except that you are wasting my time.
I notice that you still haven't clarified exactly what you accuse me of obfuscating.
You also haven't answered my question about your age. My guess was based on the silliness of your content.
q
quickstepper-
You will have to stepquickly to avoid the plethora of arrows elohim will fire at your person (not ideas). But somehow, this mighty archer, no matter from what gully or ravine of invctive he fires from, always claims the higher ground!
Least that was my experience!
Man, what are you ingesting? The insults originated with quicksstep.
As I said, "least that was my experience," and an experience with another is ingesting, you have that most correct, peace be with you.
.
The real cause of why US voters keep voting for Democrats and Republicans every 4 years is TV. Jim Morrison from The Doors said it clearly:
"Did you know that we are ruled by TV?" -Jim Morrison, The Doors
.
There is some truth is what you say even though it is a bit of an oversimplification.
q
What is Obama syndrome?
I have studied the administration's position on a lot of issues including Health care.
I want Universal Single-payer for everyone and I want it now.
I need to hear voices like Mr. Nader's to be in touch with what the independent movement is buzzing about.
I just don't share his belief that an independent and highly respected lawyer can break down the doors of the Congressional country club and run an effective executive campaign over congressional criminals like my own state's Federal Senators or my Congressional representative.
Do you remember the campaign cycle just 12 months ago when both houses locked Mr. Nader out of every single committee meeting that he wanted to participate in or lobbied to get on the election ballot from ANY state in the Union?
I want Mr. Nader to be what he is the best at.
I just don't see that the Congress Corp. will ever trust or follow anything that they can't buy or bully.
I do respect you Mr. Nader but this world is just not ready for a politician that wants to deal fairly and honestly with the American public.
In conclusion I must admit that some congressional members in fact do act for their constituents but the frustrating hurdles that Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn talk about would just make you lose your patience with the whole group. Let's not even get started on what Congressman Pete Sessions wants to talk about. The short answer is like turning the clock back to election year 2000 and all of the "Eat my dust" rhetoric spewed by the Republicans.
I am patient and I am using my time to study Health care, Economic reform, Military authorization and Criminal Justice. I will work to make this system work for us and prove that it does or I will join the fringe of unaffiliated citizens that won't get to participate in making changes because nobody will trust them if they can't be bought.
You may have a valid point about Nader getting blocked even if he were to win. However, two things.
1. He would still maintain the courage to keep fighting for what best and honest and put Congress to shame and even in danger of losing their seats.
2. Let us all unite and cooperate by throwing out the traitors in both parties screwing us all in both houses of Congress starting in 2010.
I would SO love to do that. The problem is that not enough independents are running in most of the races I've seen. In my state, WA, we have the added hurdle now of the "Top 2 Primary", which really locks it up for the Republicrats.
I am aware of the stipulations of those who choose to run outside the two major party candidates. And if the rules aren't enough, the two parties will waste plenty of taxpayer money just to keep them off the ballots if the media isn't keeping them off the air to begin with. I need to look up my state rules too. In KS City and St Louis, there's plenty of choices of indies in some elections. In rural MO though, about the only 3rd party I see is Libertarian if there is a 3rd party candidate on the ballot. As it is I vote in most local and state wide elections in addition to the federal ones since I strongly believe that it all adds up. Maybe if we increase the voter turnout on the local and state elections first will we have a better shot at correcting our quirky election laws.
I admit it, I have 'egg on my face'.
I can't say that I bought in to the whole "hope & change" mantra but I did start to hope. He pissed me off with the FISA vote and at that point I started to question what was this guy really about. I was so worried that McSame/Palin had a shot that I went for the 'lesser of two evils'.
Mr.Nader is the real deal. Mr.Kucinich would have also been good for the country. Both were marginalized and dismissed as not 'viable' candidates by the MSM.
You get what you pay for..
imo
http://opinionsandreasons.blogspot.com/
Elemental,
Me too. But at least we can admit we were duped and see through Obama's BS. I have so many friends who still stand by their man and refuse to criticize anything, tell me to "be patient" (sounds like Obama talking to the gay community) and that "Single Payer is too radical"; it can't happen now, etc.
Including my own Congressman, who said they will pass "some kind of health care reform, but it won't be single payer." He won't get my vote next time.
"But at least we can admit we were duped and see through Obama's BS."
Now that's who I welcome aboard. NMLib, I forgive you. Now is the time to join us for better days ahead. We may not win right away but if we can keep building support and keep fighting through the gak, we'll win closer to single payer than we can imagine. God bless you and I hope you're getting better. I'm sorry to hear about the way your folks still mistreated you when you tried to ask them about supporting single payer health care.
I hope they are on board, but after Obysmal promised to vote against FISA and then voted for it...
can someone please explain to me how he got your votes?
I'm not saying this because I don't want you on board. I do.
But until that's explained, how do I know you won't be "fooled" again?
I love a man or woman who never gives up his or her heart and convictions for what's right for America which was why I especially loved Nader's candidacy and found him to be a special independent amongst the many I voted for in local, state, and federal elections.
As for Marie and her wanting her money back, Marie may have claimed to have learned her lessons but I still think she should have thought and checked before throwing money down a corporate blackhole. I proudly voted for Nader thrice and each time prouder than the last. I wanted to give the Democratic Party a chance but not one issue could they be honestly or clearly state their positions.
Sometimes, it can feel sad and depressing being alone but I don't want to just say "I told you so" but I also want to bring aboard those who not only acknowledge their error in judgement but are ready to turn a new leaf. If you've been voting Republican or Democrat but are sick and tired of them not delivering on anything, vote with your heart and mind on the issues and you'll see why Nader, Mckinney, Sheehan, and even leftouts in the parties such as Paul and Kucinich make far more sense. I'm tired of being told that 3rd parties aren't "electable", "can't raise enough money", "are too liberal or nutty", etc ... The more voters stop falling for monied bs and pixy dusts, the better they'll feel about themselves and the less left-out we independent voters will feel as well. It's long time to spread the words and get help people and even those who are constrained by life's stressful hells overcome the seductive media. I don't know how it can be done but we've got to try all venues and connect the issues. United we stand, divided we fall !
You claim that you don't want to say "I told you so" but you keep doing just that.
You also make this ridiculous statement: ". . . I also want to bring aboard those who not only acknowledge their error in judgement but are ready to turn a new leaf."
Please explain to me how relentlessly throwing other folks' choices in their faces and taunting them that you were much smarter is going to bring them "aboard" any cause which you support.
The only reasonable assumption to make is that you're just another right-wing plant whose intent is to foul the air for emerging third-party movements.
And please don't whine that I haven't read your posts. I have.
q
Your narrow mindedness is showing or you're just having another rotten day. You Democrat Party Apologists (DPAs) just don't get it. I'm not going to bother explaining again and raise my blood pressure. You obviously haven't comprehended very well even if you did read our posts. And you think I'm a rightwing plant? Dream on and kiss my ass !
Don't forget about Mike Gravel, too. He was the only one brave enough to suggest a National Initiative. He is still touring and giving talks about this. We should all be voting for this. It will enact a constitutional amendment making the people (US) the fourth branch of government, participating in legislation.
www.vote.org.
I had mixed feelings about Gravel. I loved the way he tried to force the media to open up. I was concerned about his support of VAT but other than that, plenty to love about him. I thought Kucinich was better though. Gravel I believe is closer to Paul and I thought I heard that Gravel joined the Libertarian Party after being crushed and trashed by his own party establishment. Despite all that, a Gravel/Kucinich ticket would have pulled me into voting Democrat unless Gravel were to pull an Obama but Gravel showed no early signs unlike Obama. Thank you for the information on Gravel.
PS: I loved the way he forced the Pentagon and Congress to reign in war spending on Vietnam. I can't imagine any senator or rep doing it today on any of these wars and occupations except for maybe Sanders. If MO could trade one of its senators for Sanders, I'll have a better chance of reaching out to him on this issue.
I started out supporting Kucinich too, but he ended his run really early (even before my state's primary/caucus). So I had to start hunting around for another candidate to support. I didn't like any of the candidates that the media was pushing very much and, even though they didn't give Gravel much opportunity to talk in the debates, the few things he did get in, I really appreciated. I also saw a lot of support from young supporters online for him, so I thought I'd check him out. What an incredible bio. I couldn't believe that the media was ignoring him so much after all the things I learned about him:
helped end the draft through a fillibuster
instrumental in getting the Alaska pipeline built
helped stop nuclear testing in the pacific
released the pentagon papers into the public record (at risk of IMPRISONMENT)
was behind most environmental legislation in the 70's
He has a true track record. So I decided to support him at my caucus. I was the only one, I think. I became active on his website and, after a time and poor treatment by his own party, he did indeed make the move to the Libertarian party. I actually changed parties so I could continue to support him at their convention. Unfortunately, Bob Barr stepped in at the last minute and stole the nomination. You wouldn't believe the stunts that his "supporters" did to get him the nomination. They essentially took over the party. It was so cheesy. They disrupted the function by walking around the room in stupid cowboy hats. It was a fiasco.
Nader had announced he was running shortly prior to this as well. We (Gravel supporters) were really hoping Nader would ask him to run with him, but he chose Gonzales instead. But, that was ok because when Gravel didn't get the Libertarian nomination, I was able to then move my support to Nader. What an interesting election it was for me. I went through two official parties and one independent. :-)
Gravel does support the Fair Tax (not exactly the same as a VAT if I understand correctly). There's been a lot of controversy over it, but it really isn't a bad idea. It would actually discourage consumption and encourage reuse/recycling.
I agree... the only senator I can see living up to Gravel's standards would be Sanders. I wish either of them was my senator!
There was actually some talk about a Gravel/Kucinich ticket too. I remember Gravel saying that Kucinich is "too nice". :-) I was lucky enough to meet Senator Gravel twice during the political campaign. Amazingly cool guy.
I wonder who wrote the "Nader Nags..." headline copy?
It's like writing "Nader Harps On Single-Care...", or maybe "Nader Fusses at Obama..."
Nags?
"I don't nag... your MOTHER nags!"
· Yr Obd't Servant
Nader Nags. Obama Obfuscates.
And they can't be bothered to find a file picture of Ralph, either.
Obama's main flaw is that he has an american libertarian capitalist world view. Which is a flawed world view. What we need in this country is a change toward collectivism, and marxism.
Read this from:
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch07.htm
6) Reforminsm and revolutionism. What is the difference between revolutionary tactics and reformist tactics?
Some think that Leninism is opposed to reforms, opposed to compromises and to agreements in general. This is absolutely wrong. Bolsheviks know as well as anybody else that in a certain sense "every little helps," that under certain conditions reforms in general, and compromises and agreements in particular, are necessary and useful.
"To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie," says Lenin, "a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted, and complicated than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to refuse beforehand to manoeuvre, to utilise the conflict of interests (even though temporary) among one's enemies, to reject agreements and compromises with possible (even though temporary, unstable, vacillating and conditional) allies-is not this ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not as though, when making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain, we were to refuse beforehand ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace our steps, ever to abandon the course once selected and to try others?" (see Vol. XXV, p. 210).
Obviously, therefore, it is not a matter of reforms or of compromises and agreements, but of the use people make of reforms and agreements.
To a reformist, reforms are everything, while revolutionary work is something incidental, something just to talk about, mere eyewash. That is why, with reformist tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are inevitability transformed into an instrument for strengthening that rule, an instrument for disintegrating the revolution.
To a revolutionary, on the contrary, the main thing is revolutionary work and not reforms; to him reforms are a by-product of the revolution. That is why, with revolutionary tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are naturally transformed into an instrument for strengthening the revolution, into a strongpoint for the further development of the revolutionary movement.
The revolutionary will accept a reform in order to use it as an aid in combining legal work with illegal work to intensify, under its cover, the illegal work for the revolutionary preparation of the masses for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.
That is the essence of making revolutionary use of reforms and agreements under the conditions of imperialism.
The reformist, on the contrary, will accept reforms in order to renounce all illegal work, to thwart the preparation of the masses for the revolution and to rest in the shade of "bestowed" reforms.
That is the essence of reformist tactics.
Such is the position in regard to reforms and agreements under the conditions of imperialism.
The situation changes somewhat, however, after the overthrow of imperialism, under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under certain conditions, in a certain situation, the proletarian power may find itself compelled temporarily to leave the path of the revolutionary reconstruction of the existing order of things and to take the path of its gradual transformation, the "reformist path," as Lenin says in his well-known article "The Importance of Gold,"1 the path of flanking movements, of reforms and concessions to the non-proletarian classes-in order to disintegrate these classes, to give the revolution a respite, to recuperate one's forces and prepare the conditions for a new offensive. It cannot be denied that in a sense this is a "reformist" path. But it must be borne in mind that there is a fundamental distinction here, which consists in the fact that in this case the reform emanates from the proletarian power, it strengthens the proletarian power, it procures for it a necessary respite, its purpose is to disintegrate, not the revolution, but the non-proletarian classes.
Under such conditions a reform is thus transformed into its opposite.
The proletarian power is able to adopt such a policy because, and only because, the sweep of the revolution in the preceding period was great enough and therefore provided a sufficiently wide expanse within which to retreat, substituting for offensive tactics the tactics of temporary retreat, the tactics of flanking movements.
Thus, while formerly, under bourgeois rule, reforms were a by-product of revolution, now under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the source of reforms is the revolutionary gains of the proletariat, the reserves accumulated in the hands of the proletariat consisting of these gains.
"Only Marxism," says Lenin, "has precisely and correctly defined the relation of reforms to revolution. However, Marx was able to see this relation only from one aspect, namely, under the conditions preceding the first to any extant permanent and lasting victory of the proletariat, if only in a single country. Under those conditions, the basis of the proper relations was: reforms are a by-product of the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat... After the victory of the proletariat, if only in a single country, something new enters into the relation between reforms and revolution. In principal, it is the same as before, but a change in form takes place, which Marx himself could not foresee, but which can be appreciated only on the basis of the philosophy and politics of Marxism...After the victory (while still remaining a 'by-product' on an international scale) they (i.e., reforms-J.St.) are, in addition, for the country in which victory has been achieved, a necessary and legitimate respite in those cases when, after the utmost exertion of effort, it becomes obvious that sufficient strength is lacking for the revolutionary accomplishment of this or that transition. Victory creates such a 'reserve of strength' that it is possible to hold out even in a forced retreat, to hold out both materially and morally" (see Vol. XXVII, pp. 84-85).
Interesting discussion.
Why do you think that socialist governments have - to this point in history - failed (Cuba notwithstanding)?
q
Have they failed? We have a number of governments that, while maybe not fully socialist are definitely socialist-leaning and they seem to be doing quite well.
Some have failed under the weight of their own mismanagement, some have failed under the weight of U.S. subterfuge (Chile, Nicaragua, etc.).
There are some quasi-socialist countries (in Scandinavia) that are doing pretty well, thank you.
And, there is one capitalist country, in particular, that is crumbling under the weight of it's own mismanagement and greed. Can you guess which?
P.S. Cuba is Communist, not Socialist.
OK, then I'm a quasi-Socialist. I hate socialism, but I love quasi-Socialism.
Feel better now?
Cuba withstanding
...
"...socialist governments have - to this point in history - failed (Cuba notwithstanding)?"
I'll have to remember that. I guess it makes it easier to win an argument when you disallow every piece of evidence that doesn't support your argument. Most governments are failures. Our government is a monstrous failure that continues to hang on by borrowing (aka stealing) soil, water, air, labor, wild and domestic species diversity bodily integrity and well just about everything including a livable planet from others, including our children and grandchildren.
That Cuba has survived under conditions that to any other type of government would be certain, utter and instant defeat is amazing. That it has provided for all its people and that they have a better life (according to them, and to statistics) than most people in this country is a moving testament to the power of economic, if not political democracy, to the power of creative Jeffersonian answers to food production, health care, transportation, housing and other necessities. I sure wish political freedom and sustainable lives were compatible, but as long as there are havens for biophobia like the US, it seems sustainability will always be crushed and replaced with Batistas Jr. The only people who have any power to change that are you and me. Are you with me?
J4zonian no I'm not with you on the Cuba issue. If you think Cuba's government is anything like a Jeffersonian democracy, you are nuts. There is no freedom of speech in Cuba, and last time I checked freedom of speech is a corner stone of democracy. While I agree that Cuba is underdeveloped, is not because of Fidel's design, it's out of necessity. Oh, by the way I lived there when I was young. My father spend six years in a concentration camp because he wanted to immigrate to Spain. In Cuba if you are a dissenter, like you are in this country, you get thrown in jail just for opening your mouth and critiquing the system.
The government in Cuba is a repressive abomination, and Fidel Castro is a War criminal(intervention in Angola) that needs to stand trial for his crimes against the Cuban people.
Send this video to everyone you know who may have forgotten what Obama said in 2003:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
Don't you just love the mainstream press...How they love to hate Ralph Nader! "NAGS" I would hardly say what Nader does as Nagging....more like DEMANDING...what mature people do. Geez!
The fact that Nader was and still is right that both parties are corporate parties and that a huge number of registered Democrats have been dumping their label and becoming "independent" registered voters (like what Nader is) just proves that people are fessing up to the truth that the Democratic Party does not represent US...the people!
My wish is that those who betrayed Nader and went so far as to beg him in public not to run (like Michael Moore & Bill Maher) and those who wrote open letters for him to not run...Like David Korten and the Nation writer John Nichols) would ask for Ralph Naders forgiveness.
Our elections system is screwed-up and serves no one but the rich!!! We either need to change it or stop participating in it and acting like we are doing some civic activity!
peace
m
Quickstepper.....WHAT A GEM YOU ARE...
"The only reasonable assumption to make is that you're just another right-wing plant whose intent is to foul the air for emerging third-party movements."
Nader a right-wing plant??? Oh my God....you have no idea who Ralph Nader is!! What are you 20 years old??? You need to do your homework like renting the video "Trade Secrets: A Bill Moyers Special" on the chemical industry....several times Nader's name was mentioned as a problem for the chemical industry...SURE NADER IS A RIGHT-WINGER!!!
for those of you interested....go to: http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/program/documents.html
Quickstepper....you are a dope.
Nicely stated. But her existential angst is likely to find a new target. Good luck with it.
freethinker -
I obviously did not mean Nader but JenniferBedingfield. That should be unmistakable by the fact that I was responding to her post. Even if you missed the physical context then the quotations in my response make it clear.
Are you really that stupid?
q
Freethink & Jennifer: Don't you Cats love it when some one makes proclamations about not making proclamations about engaging in "spite-filled, hysterical rant[s], full of childish name-calling[?]"
**snicker**
Really got you with that line, didn't I?
q
As long as you keep editing your remarks, and then adding rebuttals after the fact, I agree with you. It is a neat ancillary benefit of the software. Carry on with your non-sense.