Your use of the term "narrow minded extremist right-wing..." really shows your true colors. Please continue to speak in such vague anti-concepts,( http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anti-c... ) as it really gives us a better idea of your programming, and thusly, the areas where you refuse to think.
Examples:
1. Narrow minded. I presume one uses that term as a reflection of the common labels, open mind vs. closed mind. If that is so, then I would argue, in the same line of thought of Ayn Rand, that both states are a reflection of the same condition of mind; inactive. A closed mind refuses to study new evidence and proceeds illogically, based on a static condition of knowledge; it is a refusal to grow, learn, experience or understand more. An open mind would be likened to a trash receptacle on the street, just waiting for any passer-by to deposit his little tidbit which is then mixed in with a jumbled mess of others oddities; it is a refusal to judge, discriminate, choose, and integrate ideas. Both conditions stem from a refusal to think. The antithesis to those would be an active mind, constantly judging everything and everyone, for the purpose of a non-contradictory, consciously chosen, system of thought.
2. When you denounce 'extremism', you do so as an endorsement of compromise and 'the middle ground.' Can there be compromise between food and poison or property owner and burglar? A thing is either good or bad, promoting life or death. Anything less than 'extreme' good, is a furtherance of evil. So since extremism is bad, maybe food with just a little poison might be ok.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compro...
3. Right-wing. A floating label that can be applied with the same ease as the first two, for the purpose of discrediting its carrier; and with no strict definition, can be applied to anyone ranging the gamut from an anarchist to Mitt Romney or John McCain. It is simply media hyperbole; and therefore, carries very little weight around here.

I know you preceded that statement with, "I hate to say it"; but you said it. Just a little food for thought. One must choose their words and what they mean very carefully around here.

Harry Reid is so far into the left field that to analyze what he says is giving him way too much credit. There are plenty of other enemies of the state and civilization whose actions and words need to be analyzed, but spending this effort on Reid is like seriously analyzing the actions of a mediocre court jester.

Why Reid felt he could say such a generalizing statement? Here is one why: Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals under tactics: 5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

Your response was to call us narrow minded. Is that name calling?

so you see my post about the woman living off the grid and fighting with city authorities as conservative leaning? lol You'll be happy to know that my conservative friends on this site will be the first to tell you that they do not consider me a good conservative

Most comments in the Gulch tend toward the conservative end of the spectrum because conservatives tend to protect and value freedom more than liberals do. Leftists tend to want an oligarchy to call all the shots. IMO conservatives are far more likely to be objective than liberals.

You prove my point you don't discuss facts you avoid the issue being discussed. You are wrong about this site being a conservative republican website.

Since you are suggesting that Reid did not say them and people have provided evidence, the burden is on you to back you statement with some evidence. Again you have avoided the issue.

Real people have come forward and told their stories. They make up the statistics. Their stories are compelling but Harry Reid has chosen to ignore them because of his ideology. Why would you ask for statistics when you can listen to the actual people who are having their lives turned upside down as a result of this law?

maybe I don't understand what you're asking-but embedded in the article is video of Reid making the comments. Why do we have to get into his head why he lied. It's obvious. There are overwhelming stories from people who actually supported the ACA and are denied coverage, forced to change doctors and hospitals, are put into situations where they pay so much more now under the exchanges. Do you expect on this thread that it is the responsibility of the poster and commenters to go find all of these cases (which many are already posted in here) and prove Reid wrong? It is Reid's burden of proof in making his statement. Please note he does not cite one shred of evidence for HIS claim.

One has a very hard time getting the facts when the ones reporting them keep changing what was reported and admit they were wrong in the initial report. Do you have access to statistics more accurate than those reported by the Secretary of HHS, who admitted they were wrong?

In my opinion calling everyone here "ignorant bullies who have nothing more than propaganda to work with" would be name calling. Would that be sort of a pot and kettle thing?

Troll alert!!!!!!!

All of the stories I have cited here are from left leaning newspapers. Your turn

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/art...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/07/us/pol...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/nyregi...

It is not an opinion it is a fact. This law has been a colossal mess from the start. The problems with the website are just a side show. I have listened to and talked to many who have been adversely affected. Sign up numbers have been disappointing according to the White House. The numbers just don't add up and the tax payer is on the hook for this monster. Get some rest.