08/07 Doonesbury/Rush Limbaugh synchronicity
Mike Marshall
Oh, another similarity. Obama is asking citizens to rat each other out
like Hitler did. Obama's the one that's got the snitch website right
out of the White House, fl...@whitehouse.com, asking citizens to
report people who are saying weird, odd things.
Trudeau:
The Family deliberates, evoking their heros, a list that unfortunately
includes Hitler and Mao.
-Mike
Jim O'Malley
news:h5ili5$fqt$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu...
Please note: The White House is http://whitehouse.gov.
http://whitehouse.com was an adult and political entertainment website that
first came online in 1997. According to a statement on the web, it was
originally created by Ransom Scott as a place where uncensored discussion of
government policies could occur before adult content was added to make it
more profitable. More recently, the adult content has been eradicated.
Jim in Amarillo
Ted Goldblatt
> Limbaugh:
> Oh, another similarity. Obama is asking citizens to rat each other out
> like Hitler did. Obama's the one that's got the snitch website right
> out of the White House, fl...@whitehouse.com, asking citizens to
> report people who are saying weird, odd things.
>
More impressive if whitehouse.com was actually the White House (which is
whitehouse.gov) rather than a commercial site that wants to drive page
views by encouraging controversy. (Which I'm guessing Limbaugh knows
but doesn't care about, since it is the same technique he uses himself...)
Jim O'Malley
"Ted Goldblatt" <ted.go...@att.net> wrote in message
news:h5j413$gr2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> More impressive if whitehouse.com was actually the White House (which is
> whitehouse.gov) rather than a commercial site that wants to drive page
> views by encouraging controversy. (Which I'm guessing Limbaugh knows but
> doesn't care about, since it is the same technique he uses himself...)
Ted, The White House did indeed start this...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/
Mark simply defaulted to the ".com" mode.
Jim in Amarillo
Charlie Foxtrot
Yeah, and the Kool-Aid drinkers will still find a way to twist this
into a reason to raise their hands and shout, "Praise be Obama!"
Foxtrot
If you think you hate me from what I write here, check out my blog on my MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/bennettron
If you actually think I'm an okay guy, go ahead and add me as your friend if you are active at MySpace.
Mike Marshall
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/
>Mark simply defaulted to the ".com" mode.
I cut and pasted from the Chicago Tribune. BTW: my name's not "Mark"...
-Mike
Jim O'Malley
Apologies, Mike... one corollary to Murphy's Law states any message
commenting on another user's error will contain an error of its own.
It's sad that the Trib made such an error.
Jim in Amarillo
Dann
news:h5k4oq$4nb$1...@news.eternal-september.org.
Pity that they didn't have more bloggers on their staff.....
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Now also on Facebook in case you just can't get enough of me!
Peter B. Steiger
> Yeah, and the Kool-Aid drinkers will still find a way to twist this into
> a reason to raise their hands and shout, "Praise be Obama!"
You know, I can't stand O any more than any other politician, but when I
dump on them I at least manage to come up with real facts rather than
fall back on juvenile names to discredit people I oppose. Surely you can
do better than that, can't you?
WRT the item in question, Obama is not asking for "citizens to report
people who are saying weird, odd things"; the proponents of his pet
health reform plan are asking us to do their legwork as it specifically
applies to health care propaganda - send to that email address anything
we consider misinformation about health care reform, so they can spin it
to their advantage.
Sleazy? Sure, they're politicians. But it's just run-of-the-mill
propaganda sleaze, which is a whole different grade of sleazy than "If
mommy is a Commie than ya gotta turn her in".
I have a friend who has lately taken to forwarding me those mass-email-
forwarded bits of outrage, the latest being a story about O snubbing some
soldiers in a hospital. I quickly pointed him to the appropriate Snopes
article and another site which not only refuted the claim but went on to
interview the soldier in question who was appalled that his father wrote
the email and disavowed any of the claims therein. My friend's reponse?
"Of course Snopes refuted the story because they love Obama and hate
Bush".
I didn't bother sending him page after page of Snopes articles disproving
hate propaganda directed at either Bush; some people are so bent on full-
scale paranoia of their particular nemesis that no amount of reason in
the world will stop them spouting nonsense like "Kool-aid drinkers" and
"Praise be Obama". You don't sound superior when you say stuff like
that, Charlie, you sound like an idiot. And I know you're not.
I guess what I'm saying is, is it too much to ask the haters on both
sides of the fence to at least pretend to be a little rational? Never
mind, it was a rhetorical question... sadly, I already know the answer.
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes
where you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com.
Sherwood Harrington
> I guess what I'm saying is, is it too much to ask the haters on both
> sides of the fence to at least pretend to be a little rational? Never
> mind, it was a rhetorical question... sadly, I already know the answer.
I hate people who ask questions they already know the answer to.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Nutcase Party Creek, California
JC Dill
> I have a friend who has lately taken to forwarding me those mass-email-
> forwarded bits of outrage, the latest being a story about O snubbing some
> soldiers in a hospital. I quickly pointed him to the appropriate Snopes
> article and another site which not only refuted the claim but went on to
> interview the soldier in question who was appalled that his father wrote
> the email and disavowed any of the claims therein. My friend's reponse?
> "Of course Snopes refuted the story because they love Obama and hate
> Bush".
I don't understand how people with so little common sense manage to
survive in today's world.
The popularity of the right-wing pundits is just showing how easily some
people are led, like sheep to slaughter. This is how cults get started.
Their followers' inability to understand that they have been
brainwashed and are IN a cult is a major part of the problem.
jc
Dann
vYJeDXnZ2dn...@bresnan.com.
> I guess what I'm saying is, is it too much to ask the haters on both
> sides of the fence to at least pretend to be a little rational? Never
> mind, it was a rhetorical question... sadly, I already know the answer.
Why yes!!
Oops. Sorry. You already knew that.
A good rant otherwise.
As I said to a friend a while back. I don't need Mr. Obama to be evil to
have a reason to criticize his administration.
Just being wrong is enough.
Dann
> The popularity of the right-wing pundits is just showing how easily some
> people are led, like sheep to slaughter. This is how cults get started.
> Their followers' inability to understand that they have been
> brainwashed and are IN a cult is a major part of the problem.
The popularity of the left-wing pundits is just showing how easily some
people are led, like sheep to slaughter. This is how cults get started.
Their followers' inability to understand that they have been
brainwashed and are IN a cult is a major part of the problem.
It cuts both ways.
Jym Dyer
sections devoted to tracking and debunking lies. Obviously,
there's been an acute need for that. Calling this a "snitch
site" suggests that there's some sort of jackbooted consequence
for reporting what happens at public events, which is kind of
ridiculous. (To be fair, "kind of ridiculous" is the best way
to describe right-wing political discourse these days.)
> Yeah, and the Kool-Aid drinkers will still find a way to twist
> this into a reason to raise their hands and shout, "Praise be
> Obama!"
=v= The "Kool-Aid" and "messiah" talking points are like totally
two months ago. You must've missed the memo: this month it's
"racist" and "socialist."
=v= Speaking of having Hitler as a hero, got any intelligent
commentary about how Fox News has organized Brownshirts* to
disrupt Congressional Town Hall meetings? Such commentary, to
be intelligent, would necessarily address the "disrupt" part
of the question, just to be clear.
<_Jym_>
________________________________________________________________
* The exact shade of brown would of course be from teabagging.
Dann
news:Jym.08Aug20...@econet.org.
> =v= Speaking of having Hitler as a hero, got any intelligent
> commentary about how Fox News has organized Brownshirts* to
> disrupt Congressional Town Hall meetings? Such commentary, to
> be intelligent, would necessarily address the "disrupt" part
> of the question, just to be clear.
If there are any Brownshirts in play here, it would be the union thugs and
Acorn "organizers" the left is using to force out the door the many honest
citizens with legitimate grievances from using their First Amendment rights
to complain to their elected officials.
JC Dill
> On 08 Aug 2009, JC Dill said the following in news:h5khiu$ts7$1...@aioe.org.
>
>> The popularity of the right-wing pundits is just showing how easily some
>> people are led, like sheep to slaughter. This is how cults get started.
>> Their followers' inability to understand that they have been
>> brainwashed and are IN a cult is a major part of the problem.
>
> The popularity of the left-wing pundits is just showing how easily some
> people are led, like sheep to slaughter. This is how cults get started.
> Their followers' inability to understand that they have been
> brainwashed and are IN a cult is a major part of the problem.
Dann, Are you NUTS?
> It cuts both ways.
It does, if you are a right-wing whacko who can't comprehend plain facts
and who disbelieves everything the non-right-wing media says, claiming
they are all lies. I can't disprove a negative, but I *can* prove that
many of the "facts" put forth by right-wing pundits are lies. The whole
"global warming is a myth" comes to mind - there is clear data that
global warming is real, and is increasing at an unprecedented pace.
Another favorite lie is "trickle down economics works" (it doesn't).
And that grand old favorite "torture works" (no, it doesn't, and we have
GitMo to prove it - we haven't accomplished anything with all the
torture that went on in GitMo.) Look at Iran for an example of what you
get when you torture people - all the false "confessions" of their
political opponents which any sane thinking person knows is BS. Sure,
they got "confessions" but they didn't stop the revolution because
everyone knows the revolutionaries don't believe the things they were
forced (with torture) to say. The intel we got from torture at GitMo is
similarly useless. OTOH, we created a terrorist fermentation tank in
GitMo and many of those who weren't terrorists when they entered GitMo
became terrorists after they left. Great job all that torture did, right?
The center (most of the people in the US are in the center) are far more
likely to believe the data put out by "liberal" media than the data put
out by the "right wing" media. Are you saying that all the people in
the center are deluded (along with all the "liberals") and only the
right-wing media and their followers are sane?
Finally, I don't know anyone who takes a left-wing pundit's word as
gospel truth. They are always questioning them. OTOH, the right-wing
pundits' followers never question the "news" they get from FAUX, etc.
Their whole "we report, you decide" is bogus - they never give the
liberal side a fair airing. The liberal side never gets:
1) equal air time
2) the last word
So how can their presentation be "fair and balanced" and how can
*anyone* decide based on the information presented? They can't so they
follow the pundits who have laid out the "facts" in a biased presentation.
jc
JC Dill
> On 08 Aug 2009, Jym Dyer said the following in
> news:Jym.08Aug20...@econet.org.
>
>> =v= Speaking of having Hitler as a hero, got any intelligent
>> commentary about how Fox News has organized Brownshirts* to
>> disrupt Congressional Town Hall meetings? Such commentary, to
>> be intelligent, would necessarily address the "disrupt" part
>> of the question, just to be clear.
>
> If there are any Brownshirts in play here, it would be the union thugs and
> Acorn "organizers" the left is using to force out the door the many honest
> citizens with legitimate grievances from using their First Amendment rights
> to complain to their elected officials.
Cite? All the cases I know about go entirely in the other direction -
when Bush used the Secret Service to keep protesting demonstraters away
while letting supporters demonstrate their support at much closer distances:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x129448
Paul Ciszek
In article <h5khii$bc1$2...@blue.rahul.net>,
Sherwood Harrington <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>
>> I guess what I'm saying is, is it too much to ask the haters on both
>> sides of the fence to at least pretend to be a little rational? Never
>> mind, it was a rhetorical question... sadly, I already know the answer.
>
>I hate people who ask questions they already know the answer to.
To bring this back to comics:
http://www.nicky510.com/comics/2009-08-07Corner4.png
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Dann
news:h5km75$36f$2...@aioe.org.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/83137/
With links to a real live media story from there.
Someone protesting at a Russ Carnahan meeting was beaten by SEIU members
for his trouble.
And from Mr. Obama himself...."I don't want the folks who created the
mess do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can
clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a
lot of talking."
Which is the long way of saying "shut up, you opinion is no longer
required".
I'm a big fan of comity and spirited debate. The current group of
elected Democrats in Washington don't seem to share that sentiment.
Charlie Foxtrot
>=v= The "Kool-Aid" and "messiah" talking points are like totally
>two months ago. You must've missed the memo: this month it's
>"racist" and "socialist."
>
Actually, I understood and knew "this months" characteristics of Obama
long before he was elected.
Charlie Foxtrot
<see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>
>I didn't bother sending him page after page of Snopes articles disproving
>hate propaganda directed at either Bush; some people are so bent on full-
>scale paranoia of their particular nemesis that no amount of reason in
>the world will stop them spouting nonsense like "Kool-aid drinkers" and
>"Praise be Obama". You don't sound superior when you say stuff like
>that, Charlie, you sound like an idiot. And I know you're not.
Well, I thank you for the "I know you're not (an idiot)" comment but I
must say I was not trying to sound superior in the least.
If anything I'm just confused how any rational person can look at what
Obama is doing and still be in starry-eyed, puppy-love Heaven over the
man.
I'm no dyed in the wool Republican. I was raised Democrat and my
family's income came from politics. I did not leave the Democratic
party, it left me, somewhere in the 1990s. When I bought my house in
1997 and went to change my voting registration, when they asked my
party affiliation I, literally, paused for several seconds and could
not believe that I was hearing the word "Republican" come out of my
mouth but I knew, in my heart, I could not support what the Democratic
party had become.
I know, they both have their problems but I'm not going to waste my
time and vote on some fringe party, either.
But as far as presidents go... Looking back at the ones that I really
remember:
I liked Ford. Nixon's mess got me to pay attention to the news and
take an interest in our government. Ford probably got a raw deal,
coming in as Nixon's VP. I had no problems with him and really (even
though not old enough to vote) was pulling for him against Carter.
However, once in office, I had no problems with Carter. I thought he
did okay and got blamed for a lot of stuff that was not his fault
(kind of like our last president).
I definitely pulled for him against Reagan. I could not stand Reagan.
I hated his entire eight years. Not that he did anything wrong,
either. I just thought he was as inept and nothing more than one
sound bite after another. Much like I feel about Obama.
Bush Senior, I loved and can't, for the life of me, figure out how he
was denied a second term. I actually voted for him in 1988. I can't
help it, I liked the man. Despite being Reagan's VP, I felt he had
things going for him.
Clinton, I was indifferent to for 8 years. Did not vote for him in
1992 but did in 1996. None of his antics swayed me to like him more
or less and his leadership and administration was pretty solid, as far
as I'm concerned.
George W. Bush, I liked and really supported. To the extent that I've
had personal conversations and correspondence with him. He got me to
walk into my local GOP office and give my time and services. And this
was long before 9-11 - although some of the same people who would
pooh-pooh a claim that Obama is an ego-maniacal Socialist Hellbent on
world domination would be more than happy to tell you that if I was
that involved with GOP politics and have had personal time with George
W. Bush, that I was likely involved in the planning of that GOP-staged
tragedy.
So I've had four presidents, in my lifetime, that I really liked. One
was a Democrat, the rest Republican.
I've had one that I thought was okay and could not find a reason to
dislike or like, he was a Democrat.
I had one president that I abhorred, he was a Republican.
But our current leader is in a class by himself. He seems like a
decent guy. I'd probably have a nice time sharing some beer with him,
although I'd hassle him about the Bud Light thing. Sgt. Crowley (who
I think was in the wrong in that mess and should have lost his job
over it - for acting stupidly) had the best taste in beer of that
bunch.
But I digress. Obama is the first president in my 44 years who has
scared the Hell out of me. I've never looked at what a president was
doing and thought, "My God, he's trying to destroy everything that
makes the USA what it is."
Call me crazy but I like Capitalism. I like that people can become
wealthy. I like making my own decisions. I was always taught that
our elected officials are elected to serve we, the people.
So why the Hell is there a man on my television telling us that those
who oppose his healthcare bill are just trying to make it about him.
After all, he's doing it for us because we NEED it.
I hate to let Obama in on this but I - not he or any entity - decides
what I need.
As for the blind love of the man... When people would talk bad about
Bush, you know what I and most Republicans did? We'd shake our heads
and move along. They have the right to their opinion.
But when we talk down Obama, the response is amazing. I've seen
people who have never looked at a ballot in their lives almost break
down in tears because I've criticized - and this was what one of my
acquaintences called him - "The Peoples' President."
I didn't even bother to explain the irony of that to her.
Point being, it's politics and I know, first hand, that if it's
politics it's dirty and there are a lot of things going on that, for
your own comfort, you're best to just never find out about.
That said, if Obama is so open in his agenda on some pretty
destructive shit, what do you suppose he HASN'T told his flock about?
No president should get the "Oh, he's so wonderful" treatment from a
huge block of people.
On the same point, no president should have as many people afraid that
he's out to destroy their way of life, either.
Barack Obama scares me.
Sorry for such a long rant but some of the people here in RACS needed
something to rip to shreds. Here you go, guys!
Foxtrot
PS, I should add, since someone else will do it for me if I don't -
he's black. Just a statement of fact but now at least it's in my post
for anyone who wants to brush me off as a racist.
John Lorentz
>But I digress. Obama is the first president in my 44 years who has
>scared the Hell out of me. I've never looked at what a president was
>doing and thought, "My God, he's trying to destroy everything that
>makes the USA what it is."
Then you are indeed a fool.
Peter B. Steiger
> Sorry for such a long rant but some of the people here in RACS needed
> something to rip to shreds. Here you go, guys!
Nope, that's EXACTLY what you should have said in the first place instead
of the lazy "drink the kool-aid" remark. Heck, I agreed with much of
what you said!
Dann
> Dann wrote:
>> On 08 Aug 2009, JC Dill said the following in
>> news:h5khiu$ts7$1...@aioe.org.
>>
>>> The popularity of the right-wing pundits is just showing how easily
>>> some people are led, like sheep to slaughter. This is how cults get
>>> started.
>>> Their followers' inability to understand that they have been
>>> brainwashed and are IN a cult is a major part of the problem.
>>
>> The popularity of the left-wing pundits is just showing how easily
>> some people are led, like sheep to slaughter. This is how cults get
>> started.
>> Their followers' inability to understand that they have been
>> brainwashed and are IN a cult is a major part of the problem.
>
> Dann, Are you NUTS?
Obviously this conversation is going places!
>> It cuts both ways.
>
> It does, if you are a right-wing whacko who can't comprehend plain
> facts and who disbelieves everything the non-right-wing media says,
> claiming they are all lies. I can't disprove a negative, but I *can*
> prove that many of the "facts" put forth by right-wing pundits are
> lies.
If you think that demogogery is something that only occurs on the right,
the perhaps one of us _is_ nuts.
> The whole "global warming is a myth" comes to mind - there is
> clear data that global warming is real, and is increasing at an
> unprecedented pace.
Ummm...except for the fact that any warming trend ended about ten years
ago and the last five years or so have seen a cooling trend. Both of
which were not predicted by the major climate models. Both of which were
predictable based on the various sunspot cycles.
And then there were the 60 German scientists [some of whom had worked on
the IPCC report] that published a public letter to the German government
this past week indicating that any anthropogenic factor in climate change
had been overemphasized while the natural factors [i.e. solar activity,
various oceanic cycles, etc.] had been underemphasized.
> Another favorite lie is "trickle down economics
> works" (it doesn't).
Except for the evidence of the last 30 years that it does...sure.
> And that grand old favorite "torture works" (no,
> it doesn't, and we have GitMo to prove it - we haven't accomplished
> anything with all the torture that went on in GitMo.)
That sort of depends on your objective. If you want a factual
confession, then torture is useless. Gathering useful intel is another
question altogether. It can and does work quite well for that purpose.
The last eight years have demonstrated that quite well.
Not that I'm defending torture. Just pointing out that it does work for
some objectives.
> The center (most of the people in the US are in the center) are far
> more likely to believe the data put out by "liberal" media than the
> data put out by the "right wing" media. Are you saying that all the
> people in the center are deluded (along with all the "liberals") and
> only the right-wing media and their followers are sane?
What I'm saying is that demogogery exists in every political persuasion.
If you think that leftists don't act like sheep from time to
time....well...I'm working on being a better person.
> Finally, I don't know anyone who takes a left-wing pundit's word as
> gospel truth. They are always questioning them. OTOH, the right-wing
> pundits' followers never question the "news" they get from FAUX, etc.
> Their whole "we report, you decide" is bogus - they never give the
> liberal side a fair airing. The liberal side never gets:
>
> 1) equal air time
> 2) the last word
Except for CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, etc.....sure.
> So how can their presentation be "fair and balanced" and how can
> *anyone* decide based on the information presented? They can't so
> they follow the pundits who have laid out the "facts" in a biased
> presentation.
That's why having a lot of different news sources is a good idea. Read
'em all. Then make up your own mind.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
wrote:
Thanks, Peter, for eloquently putting into words my feelings about the
lack of civility and intelligent discussion about real issues that
need to be addressed like adults. Nothing gets solved if no one
listens.
Mike Marshall
>Except for CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, etc.....sure.
Have you watched a good sampling of Bill Moyers Journal? Some people
he has on there will make you want to pull your hair out,
others are facinating, I find myself hanging on their every word...
(some are borrrr-ing)... maybe that's what "balanced" means...
-Mike "they all got something to say"
Jym Dyer
>> the "disrupt" part of the question, just to be clear.
> If there are any Brownshirts in play here, it would be the
> union thugs and Acorn "organizers" the left is using to force
> out the door the many honest citizens with legitimate grievances
> from using their First Amendment rights to complain to their
> elected officials.
=v= Uh-huh. Because unions are so powerful, and of course ACORN
secretly took over the country shortly after John McCain praised
them for the work they do. Where do you get this stuff?
=v= You missed the part about what would make the commentary
intelligent: the fact that your "honest citizens" aren't there
to speak but specifically to
*** => DISRUPT <= ***
anyone and everyone else from saying anything they disagree with.
=v= Speaking as an honest citizen with legitimate grievances who
has been abused by official flag-waving thuggery and jailed for
*non*-disruptive use of my First Amendment rights, I take great
offense at your equating honest citizens with these bozos.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> about ten years ago and the last five years or so have
> seen a cooling trend.
=v= Denialists: putting the "iresome" in "tiresome."
That argument is about as compelling as "We had a cold
day this summer, so I guess that shows them whut for."
=v= Again with the stupid and thoroughly-debunked sunspot
cycle nonsense? Really, denialists need new material.
But I guess it's cheaper and simpler just to rely on short
attention spans and people who seem to think the word "fact"
makes something true.
<_Jym_>
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 12:54:42 +0000, Charlie Foxtrot sez:
>> Sorry for such a long rant but some of the people here in RACS needed
>> something to rip to shreds. Here you go, guys!
>
>Nope, that's EXACTLY what you should have said in the first place instead
>of the lazy "drink the kool-aid" remark. Heck, I agreed with much of
>what you said!
What is "much"? There's a lot in there most rational people
wouldn't touch . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Peter B. Steiger
> What is "much"? There's a lot in there most rational people
> wouldn't touch . . .
Right, because people who hold opposing viewpoints from your own
are ipso facto irrational. Like I said at the start, I knew it
was pointless to ask if folks of either flavor could avoid just
that kind of pointless attack.
Dann
news:Jym.10Aug20...@econet.org.
>> Ummm...except for the fact that any warming trend ended
>> about ten years ago and the last five years or so have
>> seen a cooling trend.
>
> =v= Denialists: putting the "iresome" in "tiresome."
> That argument is about as compelling as "We had a cold
> day this summer, so I guess that shows them whut for."
Ahhhh....reducto ad ridiculum already.
> =v= Again with the stupid and thoroughly-debunked sunspot
> cycle nonsense? Really, denialists need new material.
> But I guess it's cheaper and simpler just to rely on short
> attention spans and people who seem to think the word "fact"
> makes something true.
The fact is that there are a great many flaws with the IPCC's view on
anthropogenic climate change. That isn't to say that humanity may not
have an affect. Just that it isn't the effect they are advertising.
Dann
news:Jym.10Aug20...@econet.org.
>>> Such commentary, to be intelligent, would necessarily address
>>> the "disrupt" part of the question, just to be clear.
>> If there are any Brownshirts in play here, it would be the
>> union thugs and Acorn "organizers" the left is using to force
>> out the door the many honest citizens with legitimate grievances
>> from using their First Amendment rights to complain to their
>> elected officials.
>
> =v= Uh-huh. Because unions are so powerful, and of course ACORN
> secretly took over the country shortly after John McCain praised
> them for the work they do. Where do you get this stuff?
>
> =v= You missed the part about what would make the commentary
> intelligent: the fact that your "honest citizens" aren't there
> to speak but specifically to
>
> *** => DISRUPT <= ***
>
> anyone and everyone else from saying anything they disagree with.
And when folks of your political persuasion do the same...or worse...what
do you call it then?
They were seeking to peacefully use their right of free speech to seek a
redress of grievances with their elected officials. And at least one
person was beaten for his trouble.
Then there's the guy in Detroit that has anonymous thugs calling his home
in the middle of the night to leave threatening messages after he had the
temerity to question John Conyers over health care reform.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
I prefer the term "Carboners"; not only in line with the Bithers
and Deathers, but can easily be changed to "Car-Boners"!
Oh, and to further sink that "cooling trend" nonsense:
<http://www.adn.com/news/environment/warming/story/890552.html>
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:41:03 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez sez:
>> What is "much"? There's a lot in there most rational people
>> wouldn't touch . . .
>
>Right, because people who hold opposing viewpoints from your own
>are ipso facto irrational. Like I said at the start, I knew it
>was pointless to ask if folks of either flavor could avoid just
>that kind of pointless attack.
So . . . what is "much"?
In case you forgot:
"Nope, that's EXACTLY what you should have said in the first place
instead
of the lazy "drink the kool-aid" remark. Heck, I agreed with much of
what you said!"
--
- ReFlex76
JC Dill
>> The whole "global warming is a myth" comes to mind - there is
>> clear data that global warming is real, and is increasing at an
>> unprecedented pace.
>
> Ummm...except for the fact that any warming trend ended about ten years
> ago and the last five years or so have seen a cooling trend.
You are incorrect.
We have warming in some areas, cooling in other, and the average, over
the whole earth (you know, that whole "global" thing?) is that temps are
still going UP. Global Ocean Surface Temperatures were the Warmest on
Record (going back to 1880) for June 2009. See:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090717_juneglobalstats.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/ann/global.html
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/evidenceforwarming.htm
>> Another favorite lie is "trickle down economics
>> works" (it doesn't).
>
> Except for the evidence of the last 30 years that it does...sure.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
The tax cuts in the maximum tax rate, particularly the cuts made by
Reagan, Bush I and Bush II greatly increased the federal deficit - both
the actual debt and the debt as a percentage of GDP. These Republican
and "conservative" presidents claimed these cuts would "trickle down" to
the rest of the citizens and stimulate the economy and a stimulated
economy would take in more taxes, but that didn't happen, so while we
cut taxes and kept spending the deficit grew ever more enormous.
The tax cuts did not:
Produce economic growth (growth in the GDP)
Produce median income growth
Increase hourly wages
Create jobs (reduce unemployment)
So how, exactly DID the tax cuts "trickle down" and why do we have such
an enormous deficit if the cuts produced a stronger economy that would
"lift all boats" and generate more taxes?
Reagan ran on a platform (twice) that included promising to balance the
budget yet he never ONCE submitted a balanced budget to congress.
Bush had complete control of congress (house and senate) for 6 years, so
we can lay the entire blame for his administration and budgets in those
6 years on the Republicans.
So "show me the money" - show me evidence that these tax cuts did
anything other than produce massive deficits in the Federal Budget.
>> And that grand old favorite "torture works" (no,
>> it doesn't, and we have GitMo to prove it - we haven't accomplished
>> anything with all the torture that went on in GitMo.)
>
> That sort of depends on your objective. If you want a factual
> confession, then torture is useless. Gathering useful intel is another
> question altogether. It can and does work quite well for that purpose.
>
> The last eight years have demonstrated that quite well.
>
> Not that I'm defending torture. Just pointing out that it does work for
> some objectives.
We haven't obtained ANY useful intel under torture. The people we are
trying to obtain the information from have either resisted, fed lies, or
fed information we already knew (so we didn't get any "useful" intel).
In case you have forgotten, we still haven't found Osama bin Laden.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301303.html
quote:
"It was like flipping a switch," said Kiriakou about Abu Zubaida's
response to being waterboarded. But the al-Qaeda operative's confessions
-- descriptions of fantastic plots from a man who intelligence analysts
were convinced was mentally ill -- probably didn't give the CIA any
actionable intelligence. Of course, we may never know the whole truth,
since the CIA destroyed the videotapes of Abu Zubaida's interrogation.
snip
The Japanese fascists, no strangers to torture, said it best in their
field manual, which was found in Burma during World War II: They
described torture as the clumsiest possible method of gathering
intelligence. Like most sensible torturers, they preferred to use
torture for intimidation, not information.
endquote
And that's what we were really doing when we used torture, we were using
it for intimidation. We wanted the prisoners to know we would torture
them, and then get them to cooperate. But it did NOT work. We
waterboarded one guy over 100 times! If torture works, why did we have
to do it more than once?
Instead we illegally took 6 Red Crescent aid workers, married men with
children, who had already been exonerated once (in Bosnia) and
transported them to Gitmo and then tortured them and held them for 7
years without a fair hearing of the charges against them, and then we
were finally forced to admit we had NOTHING on 5 of them (we have some
evidence on one of them, the rest were considered guilty by association,
by working at the same place, the Red Crescent/Red Cross in Bosnia), and
forced to release them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Six
And don't forget the Uyhgurs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_in_Guantanamo
Yep, we tortured them too. We tortured innocent people. We kept them
in Gitmo for years and years with no contact with their friends or
families. Aren't you even the least bit ashamed this was done by your
government on innocent people?
>> The center (most of the people in the US are in the center) are far
>> more likely to believe the data put out by "liberal" media than the
>> data put out by the "right wing" media. Are you saying that all the
>> people in the center are deluded (along with all the "liberals") and
>> only the right-wing media and their followers are sane?
>
> What I'm saying is that demogogery exists in every political persuasion.
> If you think that leftists don't act like sheep from time to
> time....well...I'm working on being a better person.
Some of them, from time to time, perhaps.
But the people who watch FAUX are acting like sheep ALL the time. I
don't know anyone on the right who is actually going and looking up the
data - they believe whatever FAUX tells them. When FAUX lies, they
don't know, they don't hear the correction. Just as you believe (as you
stated above) the lies FAUX has been spreading about the trickle-down
theory, about global warming, about torture. You obviously haven't gone
and looked at the actual data or else you wouldn't have written what you
wrote above.
>> Finally, I don't know anyone who takes a left-wing pundit's word as
>> gospel truth. They are always questioning them. OTOH, the right-wing
>> pundits' followers never question the "news" they get from FAUX, etc.
>> Their whole "we report, you decide" is bogus - they never give the
>> liberal side a fair airing. The liberal side never gets:
>>
>> 1) equal air time
>> 2) the last word
>
> Except for CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, etc.....sure.
These forums give fair consideration to all views (too much at times -
for example there's no point in giving a holocaust denier "equal time"
or ANY time to explain their position, but many of these media outlets
do give them time), but FAUX doesn't.
FAUX and company never gives equal air time or the last word to a
liberal view. They do NOT present a "fair and balanced" view of the
situation. Anyone who watches FAUX and tries to claim they have heard
"both sides" because FAUX is "fair and balanced" is deluded. And so far
I haven't met a FAUX watcher who admits that FAUX's reporting is biased.
They all claim it IS "fair and balanced". Sheep. All of them.
I'd have a lot more respect for FAUX if they would just come out and
admit: "We don't try to present a fair and balanced view. We are
conservatives, and we promote a conservative viewpoint." Then their
viewers couldn't hide behind the "fair and balanced" BS and would have
to admit they don't educate themselves with all viewpoints or by
searching out the data for themselves.
>> So how can their presentation be "fair and balanced" and how can
>> *anyone* decide based on the information presented? They can't so
>> they follow the pundits who have laid out the "facts" in a biased
>> presentation.
>
> That's why having a lot of different news sources is a good idea. Read
> 'em all. Then make up your own mind.
I don't know anyone who watches FAUX who regularly follows
other-than-conservative media, unless they are on the left and watching
FAUX just to see what BS FAUX is spewing today. FAUX watchers don't
watch a variety and then make up their own minds - they believe what
FAUX has told them to believe.
jc
PatONeill
> They were seeking to peacefully use their right of free speech to seek a
> redress of grievances with their elected officials. And at least one
> person was beaten for his trouble.
>
When you refuse to let others speak, when you shout down all those who
disagree with you, when interrupt the other speakers--including the
person you presumably came to address--so that he cannot answer your
own questions, no--you are not using your right of free speech.
Rather, you are interfering with the rights of free speech and
assembly of others.
LNER...@juno.com
Dann
And when folks of your political persuasion do the same...or
worse...what
do you call it then?
Because they have.
--
Regards,
Dann
Invid Fan
<fa0a9a60-8b4d-434d...@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
idiots :)
> Because they have.
>
Very true. One just asks for consistency on both sides on how to
consider these people.
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Dann
> In article
> <fa0a9a60-8b4d-434d-a6fe-6c40edf14...@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > And when folks of your political persuasion do the same...or
> > worse...what
> > do you call it then?
>
> idiots :)
>
> > Because they have.
>
> Very true. One just asks for consistency on both sides on how to
> consider these people.
My point exactly.
It is always a pleasure to discover common ground. <grin>
--
Regards,
Dann
Mike Marshall
>And when folks of your political persuasion do the same...or
>worse...what
>do you call it then?
"Don't taze me, bro"
-Mike
Mike Marshall
>>> works" (it doesn't).
Does "Trickle Down" Work?
Economic Development Strategies and Job Chains in Local Labor Markets
Joseph Persky, Daniel Felsenstein, Virginia Carlson
W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research
Kalamazoo, Michigan
...addresses the central theme of this volume: does
trickle down work? As suggested above, the answer is a cautious and
reserved, "Yes, but not very well."
"In the Real World of Work and Wages, Trickle-Down Theories Don't Hold Up"
Robert H. Frank
The New York Times
A Theory of Trickle-Down Growth and Development
Philippe Aghion; Patrick Bolton
The Review of Economic Studies
The main economic insight which comes out of our analysis in this paper is
that, even though wealth does trickle-down from the rich to the poor and
leads to a unique steady-state distribution of wealth under sufficiently
high rates of capital accumulation, there is still room for wealth
redistribution policies to improve the long-run efficiency of the economy.
In other words, the trickle down mechanism is not sufficient to eventually
reach an efficient distribution of resources, even in the best possible
scenario.
>for example there's no point in giving a holocaust denier "equal time"
>or ANY time to explain their position...
Sure there is.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/
It was really cool watching these people trying to support their
arguments...
-Mike
Peter B. Steiger
> So . . . what is "much"?
No, I didn't forget; I was trying to get you to argue for your favorite
pol or against your nemesis on the basis of actual fact or at least
philosophical differences, rather than pointless ad hominem. OK, let's
see...
<remainder of quotes are from Charlie Foxtrot's rant>
> Ford probably got a raw deal, coming in as Nixon's VP.
Yeah, I can go along with that. I think Ford also pulled a lot of
politics-as-usual stunts, but frankly at the time I was more interested
in how Fonzie was going to pull Ritchie out of trouble from one week to
the next. I did think that folks were focusing on some stupid, pointless
aspects of Ford that had nothing to do with his merits or failures as
President (I'm talking to YOU, Chevy Chase).
> However, once in office, I had no problems with Carter. I
> thought he did okay and got blamed for a lot of stuff that
> was not his fault (kind of like our last president).
I definitely agree with that. People bitch about how terrible Carter's
foreign policy was, but how much of that was actually his fault? Would
he have been treated better if he had gotten us into another endless war
right after Vietnam? Carter was also brutally honest, and people didn't
like to be told what they needed to hear.
>I definitely pulled for him against Reagan. I could not stand Reagan.
>I hated his entire eight years. Not that he did anything wrong,
>either. I just thought he was as inept and nothing more than one
>sound bite after another.
Oh, absolutely. Reagan's wild success showed me just how shallow the
American voters are; all they cared about was Hollywood glamour and
clever sound bites.
> Bush Senior, I loved and can't, for the life of me, figure out
> how he was denied a second term.
Compared to the alternatives, I certainly preferred Bush Sr. But again,
"preferred" is an overstatement; more like "disliked somewhat less".
Bush, like everyone *except* Carter, made promises he could not possibly
fulfill and sold out the voters for the sake of his business friends.
> Clinton, I was indifferent to for 8 years.
Not me. I guess I gave him the benefit of the doubt at first, but the
more I heard about Whitewater the more I realized it was just business as
usual. I think the adultery thing was blown out of proportion
politically, but it said a lot about his integrity as a human being and
cemented the negative impression I had of the man. I was appalled that
he was able to shake all that off and get re-elected.
> George W. Bush, I liked and really supported.
There we part company. I saw him as the worst example of the rich and
powerful taking care of their own. NO actual abilities of his own, just
a pampered lifetime of getting privileges handed to him; the whole
business of his "military service" stuck in my craw much the way
Zippergate did with Clinton.
So I guess I agree with Charlie about everyone he disliked, and much for
the same reasons, and disagree with him about everyone he liked (apart
from Carter) - which is a long way of repeating my primary mantra that
the pols of both stripes are lying weasels, every one of them, and I
wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.
> So I've had four presidents, in my lifetime, that I really liked.
> One was a Democrat, the rest Republican.
I agree with the sentiment that likes and dislikes are not separated
by rigid party lines, but by the character of each person.
> I've never looked at what a president was doing and thought,
> "My God, he's trying to destroy everything that makes the USA what
> it is."
I don't feel that strongly about Obama, but of course I don't trust him
(see above). His apparent disinterest in the rights of the unborn is
enough by itself to make me wish for anyone else to lead our country, and
his willingness to throw trillions of dollars of MY money around propping
up people and businesses that should take responsibility for their
actions is way more socialism than I'm prepared to accept.
> Call me crazy but I like Capitalism. I like that people can become
> wealthy. I like making my own decisions. I was always taught that
> our elected officials are elected to serve we, the people.
Nothing to disagree with there!
> Point being, it's politics and I know, first hand, that if it's
> politics it's dirty and there are a lot of things going on that,
> for your own comfort, you're best to just never find out about.
Yup.
> That said, if Obama is so open in his agenda on some pretty
> destructive shit, what do you suppose he HASN'T told his flock
> about?
In other words, like I've been saying - "trust no one."
> No president should get the "Oh, he's so wonderful" treatment
> from a huge block of people.
Yup.
> On the same point, no president should have as many people
> afraid that he's out to destroy their way of life, either.
True, although if we follow the "trust no one" principle, we won't be
caught by surprise.
So, Senor Gonzales, what is it about Charlie's rant that "most rational
people wouldn't touch"?
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<jim.o...@image66amarillo.com> wrote:
>
>"Ted Goldblatt" <ted.go...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:h5j413$gr2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> More impressive if whitehouse.com was actually the White House (which is
>> whitehouse.gov) rather than a commercial site that wants to drive page
>> views by encouraging controversy. (Which I'm guessing Limbaugh knows but
>> doesn't care about, since it is the same technique he uses himself...)
>
>Ted, The White House did indeed start this...
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/
>Mark simply defaulted to the ".com" mode.
>
So, I guess they were suppossed to just *let* the lies go
unchallenged . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:38:33 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez sez:
>> So . . . what is "much"?
>
>No, I didn't forget; I was trying to get you to argue for your favorite
>pol or against your nemesis on the basis of actual fact or at least
>philosophical differences, rather than pointless ad hominem. OK, let's
>see...
>
Let's!
><remainder of quotes are from Charlie Foxtrot's rant>
>> Ford probably got a raw deal, coming in as Nixon's VP.
>Yeah, I can go along with that. I think Ford also pulled a lot of
>politics-as-usual stunts, but frankly at the time I was more interested
>in how Fonzie was going to pull Ritchie out of trouble from one week to
>the next. I did think that folks were focusing on some stupid, pointless
>aspects of Ford that had nothing to do with his merits or failures as
>President (I'm talking to YOU, Chevy Chase).
>
That's the way public perception works; you could walk perfectly
99.99% of the time, but it's that time you stumble down stairs that
people remember; and yeah, Chevy's immitation didn't help . . .
>> However, once in office, I had no problems with Carter. I
>> thought he did okay and got blamed for a lot of stuff that
>> was not his fault (kind of like our last president).
>I definitely agree with that. People bitch about how terrible Carter's
>foreign policy was, but how much of that was actually his fault? Would
>he have been treated better if he had gotten us into another endless war
>right after Vietnam? Carter was also brutally honest, and people didn't
>like to be told what they needed to hear.
>
Sadly, that's the way things tend to work . . .
>>I definitely pulled for him against Reagan. I could not stand Reagan.
>>I hated his entire eight years. Not that he did anything wrong,
>>either. I just thought he was as inept and nothing more than one
>>sound bite after another.
>Oh, absolutely. Reagan's wild success showed me just how shallow the
>American voters are; all they cared about was Hollywood glamour and
>clever sound bites.
>
As the first Hollywood actor to get elected President, perhaps no
less should have been expected . . .
>> Bush Senior, I loved and can't, for the life of me, figure out
>> how he was denied a second term.
>Compared to the alternatives, I certainly preferred Bush Sr. But again,
>"preferred" is an overstatement; more like "disliked somewhat less".
>Bush, like everyone *except* Carter, made promises he could not possibly
>fulfill and sold out the voters for the sake of his business friends.
>
>> Clinton, I was indifferent to for 8 years.
>Not me. I guess I gave him the benefit of the doubt at first, but the
>more I heard about Whitewater the more I realized it was just business as
>usual. I think the adultery thing was blown out of proportion
>politically, but it said a lot about his integrity as a human being and
>cemented the negative impression I had of the man. I was appalled that
>he was able to shake all that off and get re-elected.
>
Well, the more I heard about Whitewater, the more I thought,
"what's the big deal?" I found it a comfortable eight years.
>> George W. Bush, I liked and really supported.
>There we part company. I saw him as the worst example of the rich and
>powerful taking care of their own. NO actual abilities of his own, just
>a pampered lifetime of getting privileges handed to him; the whole
>business of his "military service" stuck in my craw much the way
>Zippergate did with Clinton.
>
>So I guess I agree with Charlie about everyone he disliked, and much for
>the same reasons, and disagree with him about everyone he liked (apart
>from Carter) - which is a long way of repeating my primary mantra that
>the pols of both stripes are lying weasels, every one of them, and I
>wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.
>
>
>> So I've had four presidents, in my lifetime, that I really liked.
>> One was a Democrat, the rest Republican.
>I agree with the sentiment that likes and dislikes are not separated
>by rigid party lines, but by the character of each person.
>
I find character overrated; if "character" were such an issue,
George S. Patton would never have made it out of boot camp. Those
overlooked things called competence and performance tend to entice me
a tad more.
>> I've never looked at what a president was doing and thought,
>> "My God, he's trying to destroy everything that makes the USA what
>> it is."
. . . aaand here's where things go crazy. This statement almost
screams irrational!
>I don't feel that strongly about Obama, but of course I don't trust him
>(see above). His apparent disinterest in the rights of the unborn is
>enough by itself to make me wish for anyone else to lead our country,
Ummm, "disinterest in the rights of the unborn"? If you mean that
"live birth" bill in Illinois he voted against, there was already such
a law in Illinois's books, the proposed bill would have imposed some
draconian restrictions as well. It should also be pointed out that
making abortion illegal would not make it go away, it might even lead
to higher abortion rates! (e.g. Brazil has three times the abortion
rate of the US) "Safe, Legal, and Rare" is more than words.
and
>his willingness to throw trillions of dollars of MY money around propping
>up people and businesses that should take responsibility for their
>actions is way more socialism than I'm prepared to accept.
>
Ummm, that's technically corporatism, not socialism. Actually
*nationalizing* said businesses, as happened in Peru in the late 1960s
(mines became SINAMOS; oil became PETROPERU), now *that* would be
socialism.
>> Call me crazy but I like Capitalism. I like that people can become
>> wealthy. I like making my own decisions. I was always taught that
>> our elected officials are elected to serve we, the people.
>Nothing to disagree with there!
>
Same here! Of course, taken in context with the previous paragraph,
it implies President Obama is against all this; more tidbits of
irrationality.
>> Point being, it's politics and I know, first hand, that if it's
>> politics it's dirty and there are a lot of things going on that,
>> for your own comfort, you're best to just never find out about.
>Yup.
>
Yes; rather . . . general . . .
>> That said, if Obama is so open in his agenda on some pretty
>> destructive shit, what do you suppose he HASN'T told his flock
>> about?
>In other words, like I've been saying - "trust no one."
>
No explanation to what "pretty destructive shit" means, so more
irrationality; the paranoid rhetorical question afterward still more.
>> No president should get the "Oh, he's so wonderful" treatment
>> from a huge block of people.
>Yup.
>
>> On the same point, no president should have as many people
>> afraid that he's out to destroy their way of life, either.
>True, although if we follow the "trust no one" principle, we won't be
>caught by surprise.
>
"Out to destroy their way of life" seems quite irrational,
especially claiming it applies to "many people"; though admitedly,
"many" could mean any number. No nation should be afflicted with such
a plague of ignorance.
>So, Senor Gonzales, what is it about Charlie's rant that "most rational
>people wouldn't touch"?
I don't know who this "Gonzales" is, (my last name ends with a
"z"); but I hope I covered the irrational aspects above, obviously
things rational people wouldn't touch.
--
- ReFlex76
JC Dill
> So why the Hell is there a man on my television telling us that those
> who oppose his healthcare bill are just trying to make it about him.
> After all, he's doing it for us because we NEED it.
>
> I hate to let Obama in on this but I - not he or any entity - decides
> what I need.
Spoken like someone who is happy with his health insurance. What about
those who are working poor with no health insurance, and who simply can
NOT afford the coverage (it would be in excess of 30% of their take-home
pay, and they are living from paycheck to paycheck as it is)? What
about people who change jobs but have pre-existing conditions and their
new employer's health insurance won't cover the existing condition?
What about people who get laid off and can't afford the COBRA payments -
they exceed their unemployment benefits? What about when insurers use
minor errors in an insurance application to deny life-saving treatment?
When Obama says "we need it" he's talking about those who don't have
good insurance - those who have no insurance, or who have insurance that
is refusing to cover "pre-existing conditions" or who got laid off and
can't afford to continue their coverage. It sounds to me like you are
saying "I've got mine, the rest of you can go to hell".
This is the typical "conservative" viewpoint, why should the "haves"
help pay for the "have nots"?
Here's why: It's in the best interest of everyone - of society as a
whole - when all citizens have a minimum standard of essential services.
This is why we tax everyone to pay for schools, even those who don't
have children. It's in our best interest to have an educated society.
As a rule, uneducated or poorly educated children are far more likely to
grow up to a life of crime, commit crimes against the "rest of us".
It's why we tax everyone to pay for fire services instead of each
homeowner paying (or not paying) for "fire suppression assistance" as we
now pay (or don't pay) for "roadside assistance", because it's not in
anyone's best interest to let your neighbor's home burn as it might
spread into your home. This isn't about socialism, it's about creating
a society that benefits everyone including the "haves".
The health care crisis has similar problems. People without health
insurance are less likely to get promptly treated for communicable
diseases, such as tuberculosis or H1N1. If the "have nots" don't get
treatment, the "haves" are more likely to get sick. People without
health insurance are also more likely to crowd into emergency rooms with
conditions that are much better treated in local doctor's offices. This
means that when someone with health insurance has an actual emergency
and needs care in an emergency room your care may be delayed, and you
may catch one of those communicable diseases that could have been
avoided if they had received treatment sooner, or at their doctor's office.
It's in *everyones best interest* to have good basic health care for
everyone. On average everyone will be healthier, even those with good
health insurance.
> As for the blind love of the man... When people would talk bad about
> Bush, you know what I and most Republicans did? We'd shake our heads
> and move along. They have the right to their opinion.
>
> But when we talk down Obama, the response is amazing. I've seen
> people who have never looked at a ballot in their lives almost break
> down in tears because I've criticized - and this was what one of my
> acquaintences called him - "The Peoples' President."
This is because, for the most part, the criticisms are made personal.
People who criticize him call him all sorts of derogatory names (wrapped
up in flowery words) such as The Anointed One etc. They apparently
can't make their criticisms based on actions or policy, without
attacking the man simply for being popular. In doing so, they expose
their opposition for what it is, sour grapes. In case you didn't
notice, conservatives LOST the election. Complaining that he's not
following the (unpopular) conservative policies is inane. He's pushing
forth with the policies he promoted when he campaigned for the job.
The center LIKES the job he's been doing. He gets relatively high marks
from people "in the center" on every program he has put forth so far.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/06/cnn-poll-clinton-receives-a-b/
> That said, if Obama is so open in his agenda on some pretty
> destructive shit, what do you suppose he HASN'T told his flock about?
There you go again, using "flock" - see, you can't simply make your
point, you have to add derogatory terms. You just proved my point above
(about derogatory names).
Perhaps, just perhaps Obama is telling it like it is, For Better or For
Worse. Perhaps he's actually an honest man. Perhaps this is why the
Republicans hate him so much, because it's so far outside how they roll
they don't know what to do about it. It would explain why conservatives
and Republicans love Palin so much, because honesty certainly isn't her
long suit. Talking about a "flock" - I have yet to meet a conservative
or Republican who admits she's an embarrassment - meanwhile the other
80% sees her for the "pretty talking head" without any character or
common sense that she has proven herself to be.
> On the same point, no president should have as many people afraid that
> he's out to destroy their way of life, either.
>
> Barack Obama scares me.
He doesn't scare me. I don't think he's out to destroy our way of life.
U.S President Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't destroy the American
Way of Life with his New Deal program in the 30s following the Great
Depression, and Obama isn't destroying the American Way of Life with by
continuing the Stimulus programs (started by Bush) following the
economic collapse caused by 8 years of destruction created by BushCo.
All the right-wing wacko-nuts who claim Obama's policies will "destroy
us" gave a pass on all the destruction that BushCo caused. Take a look
at the budget Obama inherited:
www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes
These figures are from 2008, before the economic collapse. We were
running a 1.4 Trillion Dollar ANNUAL deficit before the economic
collapse. Every year we were paying 28 Billion on the interest on the
debt! (Where was the outrage from FOX about the deficit before Obama
was at the helm?)
This was the result of Bush's tax cuts on the rich, with Bush having a
Republican controlled congress passing his budgets for 6 of the 8 years.
This is our legacy from the search for the non-existent WMDs in Iraq.
Take a look at that budget and tell me how you propose to get us out
of the hole BushCo dug us into.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
The other reason we are so far in debt is from the economic policies,
tax policies, and budgets (while Congress passes the budget, it starts
with the president submitting a budget to Congress) of the past 3
Republican Presidents - Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. (Despite running on
a platform of promising to balance the budget, Reagan never once
submitted a balanced budget to Congress during his 8 years as president.
Both of the Bushes were smarter in this aspect, they didn't promise to
balance the budget.) If these "conservative" presidents hadn't dug us
into this hole, then the money we needed to invest to stimulate the
economy and get us out of the financial crisis would be there, ready to
use. Instead, the government has to go further into debt to stimulate
the economy. Blame the past administrations, not Obama. He inherited
this mess and he's doing the best job possible to get us out of it. Can
you imagine the morass this country would be in if we had McCain at the
helm? (With "winners quit and quitters win" Palin just a heartbeat away
from the presidency?) EGADS!
The right-wing news media and pundits (more on this later) who criticize
the New Deal (and by extension the Stimulus Program) are ignorant, they
don't know or understand most of what the New Deal did and how it truly
benefited society, or they deny it because it serves their political
purpose (like the holocaust deniers, like the birthers).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
quote:
The WPA, CCC and other relief programs were shut down during World War
II by the Conservative Coalition (i.e., the opponents of the New Deal in
Congress); they argued the return of full employment made them
superfluous. Many regulations were ended during the wave of deregulation
from 1975 to 1989. Several New Deal programs remain active, with some
still operating under the original names, including the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
(FCIC), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA). The largest programs still in existence today
are the Social Security System, Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), and Fannie Mae.
endquote
So, what was the cause of the recent economic collapse? It stems from
*deregulation*, from the removal of the regulations put in place after
the great collapse in the late 1920s, to prevent a future collapse! And
who agitated for the removal of these regulations? The CONSERVATIVES.
They CAUSED this mess, and they are playing a diversionary tactic to
blame Obama for the problems he has encountered cleaning up their mess!
Back to the New Deal. Most of our public water projects and sewer
systems stem from programs started during the New Deal. This is why US
has clean water even in very poor areas, unlike poor neighborhoods
(slums) in much of the rest of the world such as in India. The money
that was "spent" in the New Deal produced real benefits for all of the
US. It built roads, buildings, dams, sidewalks, sewers, water projects.
It was an investment IN THE US.
The current stimulus projects are similar projects.
Sure, there's always a few projects that some people think aren't
important. Take "art" for example. There are always people who think
we shouldn't spend money on art. What do you think artists do when you
buy their art? Do you think they put that money under a mattress? Or
do they spend it, pay for rent and utilities and buy groceries and pay
for gas? The money is going to circulate, and stimulate their local
economy. This is why we have so many beautiful public murals from the
30s, but for every dollar spent on a mural many hundreds more were spent
on infrastructure, buildings, roads sewers, etc. and just as in the 30s,
most of the Stimulus projects today are for infrastructure, for "shovel
ready" projects that will last for scores or hundreds of years. Yet you
don't hear about all the worthy projects on "fair and balanced" FAUX News.
Why should we have art at all? If there's a purpose for art, isn't
there a purpose for public art? And if there's a purpose for public
art, then why shouldn't the government spend (a very small percentage of
government spending) on art projects for everyone, so everyone can
appreciate art and not just the wealthy?
This brings us full circle back to the comics. Why should a news paper
run comics at all? When you make an argument for comics in the
newspaper, you are also making an argument for public art. And
suddenly, funding an art project doesn't look like such a bad idea, does
it? If newspapers can afford comics (and by extension those who
purchase newspapers) even in these challenging economic times, then the
government (and by extension, all of us) can also afford to fund a few
art projects, even in the Stimulus program.
But you wouldn't ever know it if you get all your news from FAUX.
jc
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>Dann wrote:
>
>>> The whole "global warming is a myth" comes to mind - there is
>>> clear data that global warming is real, and is increasing at an
>>> unprecedented pace.
>>
>> Ummm...except for the fact that any warming trend ended about ten years
>> ago and the last five years or so have seen a cooling trend.
>
>You are incorrect.
>
>We have warming in some areas, cooling in other, and the average, over
>the whole earth (you know, that whole "global" thing?) is that temps are
>still going UP. Global Ocean Surface Temperatures were the Warmest on
>Record (going back to 1880) for June 2009. See:
>
>http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090717_juneglobalstats.html
>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/ann/global.html
>http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/evidenceforwarming.htm
>
Now now, there you go with facts, figures, and reality!
The solution is quite simple:
- Bring back effective New Deal regulations, especially those repealed
in the 70s and 80s.
- Let the Bush tax cuts die.
- Repeal the Reagan tax cuts.
Milton Friedman is dead, it's time for his toxic economic policies
to die as well.
The whole "liberal media" thing is debunked on a daily basis here:
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
BTW, that guy who was "beaten for his trouble"; it seems that when
people noticed no clear injuries on him, the "beating" became
"slipped"; now, in one of those uber-ironic twists, it's revealed he
has no health insurance!:
<http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019423.php>
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
Nice of you to admit those prevously defended as "seeking to
peacefully use their right of free speech" are just idiots out to
cause trouble!
--
- ReFlex76
Charlie Foxtrot
wrote:
>Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
>
>> So why the Hell is there a man on my television telling us that those
>> who oppose his healthcare bill are just trying to make it about him.
>> After all, he's doing it for us because we NEED it.
>>
>> I hate to let Obama in on this but I - not he or any entity - decides
>> what I need.
>
>Spoken like someone who is happy with his health insurance.
Before I even read another word, let me respond.
I have not had a job that provided health insurance since the first
job I held out of college from 1988 to 1991. And it was a complete
horse-shit policy from Blue Cross-Blue Shield. So bad was the
coverage that one of my co-workers used to joke that if he broke his
leg, he'd have to break the other and an arm to at least get near to
paying the annual deductable.
And while I could, in theory, afford health insurance I choose not to
because I can not justify the costs when that money can be spent on
something else and should medical needs arrise, I can then make
sacrifices to pay the medical bills.
> What about
>those who are working poor with no health insurance, and who simply can
>NOT afford the coverage (it would be in excess of 30% of their take-home
>pay, and they are living from paycheck to paycheck as it is)? What
>about people who change jobs but have pre-existing conditions and their
>new employer's health insurance won't cover the existing condition?
>What about people who get laid off and can't afford the COBRA payments -
>they exceed their unemployment benefits? What about when insurers use
>minor errors in an insurance application to deny life-saving treatment?
>
>When Obama says "we need it" he's talking about those who don't have
>good insurance - those who have no insurance, or who have insurance that
>is refusing to cover "pre-existing conditions" or who got laid off and
>can't afford to continue their coverage. It sounds to me like you are
>saying "I've got mine, the rest of you can go to hell".
>
I don't have mine. I accept that if I become stricken with some fatal
illness that I'm going to have to die.
>This is the typical "conservative" viewpoint, why should the "haves"
>help pay for the "have nots"?
>
Exactly. Why should they?
That all sounds great on paper. It would sound really good, sitting
in a college dorm room, snowed in and coming up with ways to save the
world.
We've all done it.
Then I chose to grow up and face reality. We can not save people from
themselves.
I'm a prime example. I refuse to pay the ridiculous premiums for
health insurance. I pay, out of pocket, for teeth cleanings four
times per year to keep my teeth healthy. I pay, out of pocket, for my
eye care. I pay, out of pocket, for my physical each year.
Anything that comes up during those routine visits that needs to be
corrected, I pay out of pocket and the total that I've paid in my
adult life is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay below what I would have paid in
JUST premiums. Not to mention the deductibles.
But if I get some grave illness.... Hey, I'm going to have to die.
Big deal. It happens to all of us, eventually.
My question is, if I refuse to throw away money so that if I get a
terminal illness, my life won't be prolonged - and I would not enjoy
living to get from one treatment to the next - why, in God's name,
would you want to have any of your money go to keeping me alive?
We can't save people from themselves and I really don't want anyone to
try to save me.
>> As for the blind love of the man... When people would talk bad about
>> Bush, you know what I and most Republicans did? We'd shake our heads
>> and move along. They have the right to their opinion.
>>
>> But when we talk down Obama, the response is amazing. I've seen
>> people who have never looked at a ballot in their lives almost break
>> down in tears because I've criticized - and this was what one of my
>> acquaintences called him - "The Peoples' President."
>
>This is because, for the most part, the criticisms are made personal.
>People who criticize him call him all sorts of derogatory names (wrapped
>up in flowery words) such as The Anointed One etc.
People called George W. Bush things like "chimp."
>They apparently
>can't make their criticisms based on actions or policy, without
>attacking the man simply for being popular.
I don't attack Obama for being popular. I question the rational of
the people who idolize him. If anything I applaud him for being able
to work the crowd.
In fact, when I criticized him for seeking approval and applause, my
son said, "But Dad, that's what you've done to make money your whole
life. You want to hear people laugh at your jokes, applaud your
performance and to like you enough that they want more."
I told him that was true but I flog my ego by getting on stage or
behind a microphone five days a week and earn enough money to keep he
and I comfortable.
I'd be dangerous as an open powder keg with a lit flare set on top of
it if I were the President of the United States with the need for
approval and applause.
Look at Obama. He relishes his detractors in the same way that Howard
Stern does his. It gives him something to poke at, much to the
delight of his fans.
The President of the United States of America should be above that.
Leave making fun of people who don't like them to people like Howard
and me. We won't hurt the country in the process of gratifying our
egos and making a buck.
> In doing so, they expose
>their opposition for what it is, sour grapes. In case you didn't
>notice, conservatives LOST the election. Complaining that he's not
>following the (unpopular) conservative policies is inane. He's pushing
>forth with the policies he promoted when he campaigned for the job.
>
I don't want him to follow conservative policies. At the same time, I
don't want him to make us weaker as a nation. Previous Democratic
presidents have not pushed policies that made us a weaker nation.
>The center LIKES the job he's been doing. He gets relatively high marks
>from people "in the center" on every program he has put forth so far.
>
>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/06/cnn-poll-clinton-receives-a-b/
>
Let me digress a bit. In high school we had to take an IQ test.
Everyone was comparing their scores. My friend Jeff got 100. As
typical average as one can score on an IQ test.
Jeff was one of the nicest people I've ever known. Still is. He's a
good father to his children and deserved a better wife than the one
that left him saddled, alone, with the children, denying them of a
mother.
Awesome dude, he really is. Worked his way up the ladder at the place
he worked as teenager and is a department manager now.
Jeff is also one of the dumbest people I know. He can be taught to
handle tasks and is more responsible than most people I know but he is
not that bright. He'll never create anything. When faced with a
problem he always needs help and can not solve the problem on his own.
He is the center. He is a typical American. He's also a dumb ass
with an IQ of 100.
I grew up a lot the day we got those test results and I saw Jeff's. I
realized that his score was representative of the dead center of the
bell curve.
More terrifying was the realization that after we take all the Jeff's
from the dead center we are left with two equal halves. One of those
groups - a full half of the population that didn't score 100 - is
comprised of nothing but people who are less intelligent than the
dumbest friend I had.
I don't say "dumbest friend" in a mean way. We loved Jeff but
everyone in our group knew that he was never going to keep up with any
of the rest of us academically or professionally.
Good guy but dumb as a box of rocks and the other half of the
population would make him look like a genious compared to most of
them.
And those in the center of the bell curve tend to lean toward the left
of the curve for their associations. Not that the "smart kids" were
going to reject them. They just feared that they couldn't keep up.
Jeff was the exception to the rule in that he clung to the brighter
kids because, quite frankly, the not so bright kids scared him.
That day I started to understand why and my understanding has really
culminated with the election of Obama. He is up front about his
hatred of what America is and his desire to change it in his own
image. When he speaks in public his words are slickly designed to
"talk to" the center and the left of the bell curve.
He's going to take care of everyone because he cares so much. Just
like Jeff was propped up by his friends through school. Foxtrot and a
few others took care of him and made sure he passed his classes.
Obama's going to take care of the "have nots" and make sure they see a
doctor.
What's next? What else will he take care of for them. Socialist and
communist nations are born when someone takes advantage of the
unwashed masses and their fears that someone else has it so much
better.
The difference between Obama and the unwashed masses and Me and Jeff
are that I actually liked and cared about Jeff and helped him make it
through school so that he can have a "good job" as a perishables
manager of a supermarket at the age of 44.
I got nothing in return for helping Jeff graduate high school. Just
the good feeling of helping out someone in need.
Obama, on the other hand doesn't give a rat's ass about the people he
is saying he wants to "help." The only person Obama wants to help is
Obama. He is not in office to help the people of the USA. He is in
office to gratify his own ego and to accumulate as much power as he
can.
And I just wasted my time writing all this because no one who needs to
open their eyes is going to even give a fleeting thought to thinking,
"Wow, maybe this Obama isn't all he seems to be."
Antonio mentioned that GW Bush, to him, represented the ultimate in
someone who already had power and riches using the office to help out
his cronies.
Well, at least he helped out his cronies. Obama isn't going to have
any coat tail riders. He might have some underlings he tosses bones
to but it's all about him.
That's where he gets called names like "The Annointed One."
>> That said, if Obama is so open in his agenda on some pretty
>> destructive shit, what do you suppose he HASN'T told his flock about?
>
>There you go again, using "flock" - see, you can't simply make your
>point, you have to add derogatory terms. You just proved my point above
>(about derogatory names).
>
How? I'm not criticizing Obama. I'm criticizing the fools who can't
see him for what he is. A flock follows blindly. Most Obama
supporters I talk to have no idea what he's doing they are just happy
he's not George W. Bush.
>Perhaps, just perhaps Obama is telling it like it is, For Better or For
>Worse. Perhaps he's actually an honest man. Perhaps this is why the
>Republicans hate him so much, because it's so far outside how they roll
>they don't know what to do about it. It would explain why conservatives
>and Republicans love Palin so much, because honesty certainly isn't her
>long suit. Talking about a "flock" - I have yet to meet a conservative
>or Republican who admits she's an embarrassment - meanwhile the other
>80% sees her for the "pretty talking head" without any character or
>common sense that she has proven herself to be.
>
Actually, most every Republican who is not involved with the higher
workings of the party DOES consider her an embarrassment. If she runs
for national office, it's not going to be with a whole lot of support.
Take that from someone who spends a lot of time working with his local
GOP office.
>> On the same point, no president should have as many people afraid that
>> he's out to destroy their way of life, either.
>>
>> Barack Obama scares me.
>
>He doesn't scare me. I don't think he's out to destroy our way of life.
> U.S President Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't destroy the American
>Way of Life with his New Deal program in the 30s following the Great
>Depression, and Obama isn't destroying the American Way of Life with by
>continuing the Stimulus programs (started by Bush) following the
>economic collapse caused by 8 years of destruction created by BushCo.
>All the right-wing wacko-nuts who claim Obama's policies will "destroy
>us" gave a pass on all the destruction that BushCo caused. Take a look
>at the budget Obama inherited:
>
>www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes
>
>These figures are from 2008, before the economic collapse.
Take it from someone who runs a business that depends on people having
disposable income. The economy began its descent in 2007.
> We were
>running a 1.4 Trillion Dollar ANNUAL deficit before the economic
>collapse. Every year we were paying 28 Billion on the interest on the
>debt! (Where was the outrage from FOX about the deficit before Obama
>was at the helm?)
>
>This was the result of Bush's tax cuts on the rich, with Bush having a
>Republican controlled congress passing his budgets for 6 of the 8 years.
> This is our legacy from the search for the non-existent WMDs in Iraq.
About those WMDs. If people could handle the truth it would have just
been stated, "Hey, we're pretty sick of Sadam Hussein so we're going
to hunt him down and kill him."
I'd have had no problem with that. All those people in the center and
to the left would have had a fit because they can't process that
sometimes dirty work has to be done.
So we came up with a logical reason to do it and too many nosy types
told people stuff that they had no need to know about.
Is Saddam Hussein being dead affecting your life in any way? Do you
really care that he was killed? The man didn't do as he was told by
the people who helped make him a leader. He paid the price.
Reality. I understand it. I just wish that since I know the center
and left will NEVER understand it, they'd just stop trying to act like
they do and, God forbid, thinking they can handle it better.
(I snipped the whole budget thing because I admit that I don't have
anywhere close to the knowledge of the subject to put up an argument.
Neither do you but I, at least, admit it.)
>
>Back to the New Deal. Most of our public water projects and sewer
>systems stem from programs started during the New Deal. This is why US
>has clean water even in very poor areas, unlike poor neighborhoods
>(slums) in much of the rest of the world such as in India. The money
>that was "spent" in the New Deal produced real benefits for all of the
>US. It built roads, buildings, dams, sidewalks, sewers, water projects.
> It was an investment IN THE US.
>
Exactly. It was for a better infra-structure. Socialized medicine is
NOT the same thing as what came from the New Deal programs.
The New Deal programs created jobs for people who need them.
Socialized medicine isn't going to create any jobs it's just going to
cost money.
It's almost a way of saying, "Don't worry about a job, we'll make sure
you can see a doctor if you need to."
>The current stimulus projects are similar projects.
>
No, they are not.
>Sure, there's always a few projects that some people think aren't
>important. Take "art" for example. There are always people who think
>we shouldn't spend money on art. What do you think artists do when you
>buy their art? Do you think they put that money under a mattress? Or
>do they spend it, pay for rent and utilities and buy groceries and pay
>for gas? The money is going to circulate, and stimulate their local
>economy. This is why we have so many beautiful public murals from the
>30s, but for every dollar spent on a mural many hundreds more were spent
>on infrastructure, buildings, roads sewers, etc. and just as in the 30s,
>most of the Stimulus projects today are for infrastructure, for "shovel
>ready" projects that will last for scores or hundreds of years. Yet you
>don't hear about all the worthy projects on "fair and balanced" FAUX News.
>
>Why should we have art at all? If there's a purpose for art, isn't
>there a purpose for public art? And if there's a purpose for public
>art, then why shouldn't the government spend (a very small percentage of
>government spending) on art projects for everyone, so everyone can
>appreciate art and not just the wealthy?
>
No. I don't see a whole lot of people appreciating "pubic art." Most
of it ends up being ridiculed because they DON'T understand it.
Chicago's Picasso sculpture comes to mind and a sculpture in downtown
Tampa that they call "The Big Chicken."
>This brings us full circle back to the comics. Why should a news paper
>run comics at all? When you make an argument for comics in the
>newspaper, you are also making an argument for public art. And
>suddenly, funding an art project doesn't look like such a bad idea, does
>it? If newspapers can afford comics (and by extension those who
>purchase newspapers) even in these challenging economic times, then the
>government (and by extension, all of us) can also afford to fund a few
>art projects, even in the Stimulus program.
>
Although the model is changing and will change a lot in the next
decade or so, comics have never been something that a newspaper puts
in because they "can afford to."
It's more a case of they can't afford NOT to. Comics draw readers.
Almost every reader survey over the last century has put the line up
of comics as one of the top reasons people will buy a newspaper.
Comics increase circulation which increases ad rates.
So, sorry, but that's a really terrible analogy. Especially since
it's not an analogy at all.
Papers spending money to have comics increases their revenue. A
governement body throwing money at an art project gets no return, what
so ever.
Now, a city, or whatever, spending money on an art museum that would
offer free educational tours to schools from that city, or county or
whatever, would be a different thing altogether because the population
gets something back from it.
To put up a mural or sculpture that, experience says, most will call
"ugly" or "an eye-sore" is foolish waste.
But still, neither case is analogous to a newspaper running comics.
Foxtrot
If you think you hate me from what I write here, check out my blog on my MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/bennettron
If you actually think I'm an okay guy, go ahead and add me as your friend if you are active at MySpace.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:50:26 -0500, "Peter B. Steiger"
>
So in other words, Peter's opinions, based on his calm examination of
his perceptions and facts, is irrational because it doesn't mesh with
your opinion.
Dann
news:gbu485tn2bmqko5p7...@4ax.com.
> Obama, on the other hand doesn't give a rat's ass about the people he
> is saying he wants to "help." The only person Obama wants to help is
> Obama. He is not in office to help the people of the USA. He is in
> office to gratify his own ego and to accumulate as much power as he
> can.
I'm staying out of the rest of this particular thread drift, except for
the above.
The above is wrong. At least, it isn't any more correct than it would be
applied to every other President except Jimmy Carter.
You don't apply for the job of "leader of the free world" without having
an oversized ego in the first place.
I don't doubt Mr. Obama's compassion.
What I doubt is his understanding of how markets work. He has some
interesting ideas of how he thinks they _should_ work, but very little
apparent understanding of how things _do_ work. I'm sure you will
appreciate the difference.
Some of what Mr. Obama has advocated has been pretty good. Other
items....not so much.
A lot of what he has done has represented little if any change from the
previous administration. In some cases that is a good thing. In other
cases....not so much.
I understand and appreciate a great deal of what you are saying,
particularly about the current cult of personality, but you are wrong
about Mr. Obama's compassion.
His heart is in the right place. His head....no so much.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Ummm, no, I actually found most of Peter's opinions quite rational,
I was actually rather specific about what I found irrational. I would
hope I was clear enough for that to be understood, but would be glad
to clear up any confusion.
--
- ReFlex76
jcdill
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:29:01 -0700, JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
>>
>>> So why the Hell is there a man on my television telling us that those
>>> who oppose his healthcare bill are just trying to make it about him.
>>> After all, he's doing it for us because we NEED it.
>>>
>>> I hate to let Obama in on this but I - not he or any entity - decides
>>> what I need.
>> Spoken like someone who is happy with his health insurance.
>
> Before I even read another word, let me respond.
>
> I have not had a job that provided health insurance since the first
> job I held out of college from 1988 to 1991. And it was a complete
> horse-shit policy from Blue Cross-Blue Shield. So bad was the
> coverage that one of my co-workers used to joke that if he broke his
> leg, he'd have to break the other and an arm to at least get near to
> paying the annual deductable.
>
> And while I could, in theory, afford health insurance I choose not to
> because I can not justify the costs when that money can be spent on
> something else and should medical needs arrise, I can then make
> sacrifices to pay the medical bills.
That's going to be a whole lot of not-fun if/when you get seriously
sick. My father had the same approach to insurance, and he almost lost
the house paying for my mother's cancer treatment. (Surgery twice,
chemo for a year, radiation treatment, travel to Japan for experimental
treatment, and in the end it was 3 years of treatment that didn't save
her.) If we hadn't had the good luck to have a mostly-paid-for house
that was located in an area with significant real-estate appreciation
since it was purchased, he would have lost the house and perhaps not had
enough to pay for all her treatments. And as "expensive treatments" go,
this wasn't nearly as bad as it is for some. No bone marrow transplant,
no internal surgery (my mother had breast cancer).
>> This is the typical "conservative" viewpoint, why should the "haves"
>> help pay for the "have nots"?
>>
> Exactly. Why should they?
As I said below, because it benefits everyone.
It has been proven around the world.
For instance, the best way to educate a population is to educate girls!
Countries that educate their girls advance the welfare of everyone in
the country (improve their economy, improve lifespans, etc.) much faster
than countries that just educate the boys. Sure, it costs more to
educate boys and girls than to just educate boys. And many of the woman
never hold jobs outside the home. But educated women do a better job IN
the home. They are better able to understand why sanitation is
important, clean water is important, etc. Even in 3rd world countries
where people are literally "dirt poor" it produces huge results when
they educate girls as well as boys.
> I pay out of pocket and the total that I've paid in my
> adult life is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay below what I would have paid in
> JUST premiums. Not to mention the deductibles.
>
> But if I get some grave illness.... Hey, I'm going to have to die.
> Big deal. It happens to all of us, eventually.
A very large percentage of all medical procedures (and thus the
associated costs) are performed during the last 6 months of life. We
spend a lot of money trying to not die.
And a similar very large percentage of the costs are spent on not-dying
- the same procedures as above, but the people survive. Sometimes they
survive for many more years.
This is the primary reason why health insurance costs are so high. So
the question is, when it comes to your life-threatening situation, are
you going to pay the costs for treatment, or just die? You can pay
up-front (insurance) or pay later (self-pay) or just not be able to
afford treatment and die.
> My question is, if I refuse to throw away money so that if I get a
> terminal illness, my life won't be prolonged - and I would not enjoy
> living to get from one treatment to the next - why, in God's name,
> would you want to have any of your money go to keeping me alive?
I don't. You can opt to refuse treatment. But I don't think your
choice should be forced on everyone else!
> People called George W. Bush things like "chimp."
I never heard anyone CALL him chimp. The worst nickname for Bush I
heard (and used) was Shrub - a play on his name.
I've seen comics that mocked Bush as a caricature of a chimp. Bush was
mocked mostly for his facial expressions - Obama is mocked mostly for
his ears. You don't see any Obama supporters complaining about Obama
comics that mock him for his ears - it's a given that a politician is
going to have caricatures done that mock prominent features.
>> They apparently
>> can't make their criticisms based on actions or policy, without
>> attacking the man simply for being popular.
>
> I don't attack Obama for being popular. I question the rational of
> the people who idolize him.
I don't know who these people are. I only hear the conservatives
describing them as "straw men" for their arguments against Obama. In
everyday discussions I haven't yet run into anyone who thought he was
flawless. Those who support him still have issues with some of his
policies, such as how he campaigned on a platform for equal rights for
all but still hasn't repealed DADT which is a big issue in my circle (a
gay-friendly circle in Silicon Valley).
> In fact, when I criticized him for seeking approval and applause, my
> son said, "But Dad, that's what you've done to make money your whole
> life. You want to hear people laugh at your jokes, applaud your
> performance and to like you enough that they want more."
Smart kid!
> I told him that was true but I flog my ego by getting on stage or
> behind a microphone five days a week and earn enough money to keep he
> and I comfortable.
>
> I'd be dangerous as an open powder keg with a lit flare set on top of
> it if I were the President of the United States with the need for
> approval and applause.
>
> Look at Obama. He relishes his detractors in the same way that Howard
> Stern does his. It gives him something to poke at, much to the
> delight of his fans.
>
> The President of the United States of America should be above that.
Good luck with that.
First, the people who want the job have to have a pretty big ego to deal
with the inordinate difficulty of getting the job, without snapping at
some point (or at someone) along the way.
Second, the conservatives will never LET a Democratic president be
"above that" - they create non-issues (birthers, etc.) to rail against.
> Leave making fun of people who don't like them to people like Howard
> and me. We won't hurt the country in the process of gratifying our
> egos and making a buck.
Actually, I think the people "making fun" are part of the problem. It's
not just "innocent fun" - it is planting seeds that grow into weeds and
make it harder to get a clear view of what is really going on.
>> In doing so, they expose
>> their opposition for what it is, sour grapes. In case you didn't
>> notice, conservatives LOST the election. Complaining that he's not
>> following the (unpopular) conservative policies is inane. He's pushing
>> forth with the policies he promoted when he campaigned for the job.
>>
> I don't want him to follow conservative policies. At the same time, I
> don't want him to make us weaker as a nation. Previous Democratic
> presidents have not pushed policies that made us a weaker nation.
This is insane. Bush made us a weaker nation. He ruined our standing
as a nation to be admired (and cooperated with) in the world political
scene. He made us hated around the world. Obama has made great strides
mending this mess. Do you think those women would have ever been freed
from North Korea if Bush had been president? Would Bush have been
willing to send a political rival like Bill Clinton to ask for their
release? Never in a million years. He would have done what he always
did, threaten, be a bully, and it could have led to war, or led to the
women going to a labor camp or worse (executed).
>> The center LIKES the job he's been doing. He gets relatively high marks
>>from people "in the center" on every program he has put forth so far.
>> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/06/cnn-poll-clinton-receives-a-b/
>>
>
> Let me digress a bit. In high school we had to take an IQ test.
> Everyone was comparing their scores. My friend Jeff got 100. As
> typical average as one can score on an IQ test.
<snip>
> Good guy but dumb as a box of rocks and the other half of the
> population would make him look like a genious compared to most of
> them.
Sounds like all the people rallying at the Tea Parties, if you ask me.
Too dumb to realize how they are being manipulated by the conservative
media. Too dumb to realize that their "grass roots" campaign is really
a well-organized media stunt.
> And those in the center of the bell curve tend to lean toward the left
> of the curve for their associations. Not that the "smart kids" were
> going to reject them. They just feared that they couldn't keep up.
> Jeff was the exception to the rule in that he clung to the brighter
> kids because, quite frankly, the not so bright kids scared him.
>
> That day I started to understand why and my understanding has really
> culminated with the election of Obama. He is up front about his
> hatred of what America is and his desire to change it in his own
> image. When he speaks in public his words are slickly designed to
> "talk to" the center and the left of the bell curve.
Obama has tremendous support among the very smart people in high tech.
These are people who have very high IQs, where an IQ of 120 will put you
on the low end of the bell curve in that environment. Where a
secretary/admin will have an IQ of 120 or higher. They strongly support
his policies (including his tax policies). This is because they see the
wisdom in an environment where we take care of the less fortunate (e.g.
"educate the girls") to benefit everyone. This is because they are
smart enough to understand how seed money can be used to build something
worth far more than its cost when you invest it wisely.
> Obama, on the other hand doesn't give a rat's ass about the people he
> is saying he wants to "help." The only person Obama wants to help is
> Obama. He is not in office to help the people of the USA. He is in
> office to gratify his own ego and to accumulate as much power as he
> can.
Now you are just making things up. If this were true of Obama, it was
even MORE true of McCain! Talk about an ego trip.
> And I just wasted my time writing all this because no one who needs to
> open their eyes is going to even give a fleeting thought to thinking,
> "Wow, maybe this Obama isn't all he seems to be."
>
> Antonio mentioned that GW Bush, to him, represented the ultimate in
> someone who already had power and riches using the office to help out
> his cronies.
>
> Well, at least he helped out his cronies.
You say that like it's a good thing. LOOK AT THE DEFICIT. He reduced
taxes on the rich, spent money on two wars, funneled money to his
buddies (Haliburton etc.) and left us with the tab.
> That's where he gets called names like "The Annointed One."
None of what you said leads to that name. It's pure fabrication by the
conservative press.
>>> That said, if Obama is so open in his agenda on some pretty
>>> destructive shit, what do you suppose he HASN'T told his flock about?
>> There you go again, using "flock" - see, you can't simply make your
>> point, you have to add derogatory terms. You just proved my point above
>> (about derogatory names).
>>
> How? I'm not criticizing Obama. I'm criticizing the fools who can't
> see him for what he is. A flock follows blindly. Most Obama
> supporters I talk to have no idea what he's doing they are just happy
> he's not George W. Bush.
That says volumes about how bad Bush was, doesn't it?
How many Obama supporters do you personally know as friends? Or are you
just believing that we are all "as portrayed" by FAUX? Because I don't
know a single Obama supporter who is happy with *everything* he's doing.
Like all presidents, he's doing some things we like, and some things
we dislike, and on average we feel he's doing a good job, especially
with the problems he has encountered with the lies being spread by
conservative media (FAUX) and the lack of cooperation by Republicans in
Congress. He could just say "screw you" and stop trying to create
bipartisan programs, and ignore all conservative objections. He could
just rely on his party to back his programs, and push forward, ands
ignore the conservatives entirely, instead of trying to find reasonable
middle ground that works for everyone.
>> Perhaps, just perhaps Obama is telling it like it is, For Better or For
>> Worse. Perhaps he's actually an honest man. Perhaps this is why the
>> Republicans hate him so much, because it's so far outside how they roll
>> they don't know what to do about it. It would explain why conservatives
>> and Republicans love Palin so much, because honesty certainly isn't her
>> long suit. Talking about a "flock" - I have yet to meet a conservative
>> or Republican who admits she's an embarrassment - meanwhile the other
>> 80% sees her for the "pretty talking head" without any character or
>> common sense that she has proven herself to be.
>>
> Actually, most every Republican who is not involved with the higher
> workings of the party DOES consider her an embarrassment. If she runs
> for national office, it's not going to be with a whole lot of support.
But she appeals to your BASE. All those sub-100 IQ Republicans LOVE
Palin. Look at the monster your man (McCain) created! You guys
supported him and this is what you got.
> Take that from someone who spends a lot of time working with his local
> GOP office.
Try telling that to FAUX. They treat her like *she* is the Anointed
One. The only time you hear anything negative about Palin on FAUX is
when they bring in a whipping boy liberal to taunt and then talk over
and then laugh at. The conservatives on FAUX never admit that Palin has
said or done something dumb. She complains about people bringing her
kids into issues, then she brings her kids into issues HERSELF. Oh,
it's OK for her to bring her kids up when she wants to make HER point
but if anyone else brings her kids into an issue, suddenly that's
hitting below the belt. The woman has no sense of shame. Talk about an
ego!
>>> On the same point, no president should have as many people afraid that
>>> he's out to destroy their way of life, either.
>>>
>>> Barack Obama scares me.
>> He doesn't scare me. I don't think he's out to destroy our way of life.
>> U.S President Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't destroy the American
>> Way of Life with his New Deal program in the 30s following the Great
>> Depression, and Obama isn't destroying the American Way of Life with by
>> continuing the Stimulus programs (started by Bush) following the
>> economic collapse caused by 8 years of destruction created by BushCo.
>> All the right-wing wacko-nuts who claim Obama's policies will "destroy
>> us" gave a pass on all the destruction that BushCo caused. Take a look
>> at the budget Obama inherited:
>>
>> www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes
>>
>> These figures are from 2008, before the economic collapse.
>
> Take it from someone who runs a business that depends on people having
> disposable income. The economy began its descent in 2007.
The economy doesn't turn around overnight - it reacts to policy
decisions made years before. (This is why the Stimulus program will
take a while before we see the full benefits). An economy that is in
descent in 2007 is falling because of policies and economic decisions
made in prior years. Let's see - who was the party in control from 2000
thru 2006??? Who was the president from 2000 to 2006? Who lowered
taxes (and increased the deficit) during those years? Who squandered
billions of tax payer dollars (and thousands of lives) on the search for
non-existent WMDs in Iraq? Oh, yeah, it was your man, Bush.
Where was FAUX then? Why weren't they questioning Bush's policies that
led to a huge increase in the deficit, and the subsequent decline in the
economy?
>> We were
>> running a 1.4 Trillion Dollar ANNUAL deficit before the economic
>> collapse. Every year we were paying 28 Billion on the interest on the
>> debt! (Where was the outrage from FOX about the deficit before Obama
>> was at the helm?)
>>
>> This was the result of Bush's tax cuts on the rich, with Bush having a
>> Republican controlled congress passing his budgets for 6 of the 8 years.
>> This is our legacy from the search for the non-existent WMDs in Iraq.
>
> About those WMDs. If people could handle the truth it would have just
> been stated, "Hey, we're pretty sick of Sadam Hussein so we're going
> to hunt him down and kill him."
Since when is it our right to go after the head of state of another
country, invade their country, to kill their leader? Do you *really*
think this is what the US is supposed to do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky2t_tDsZrk
Quote:
Going after Saddam Hussein was Topic A, 10 days after the inauguration,
8 months before September 11th.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it."
"The President saying 'Go find me a way to do this.' "
In other words, he manufactured a plausible reason to fool congress and
the US to back him in his war against Saddam Hussein.
> I'd have had no problem with that. All those people in the center and
> to the left would have had a fit because they can't process that
> sometimes dirty work has to be done.
And we have to kill 5,000 Americans to get it done? I Don't Think So.
(Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that were killed.)
This was an immoral and illegal war. Bush used American's fear of Al
Queda and Osama bin Laden to trump up charges against Iraq. He grasped
at faulty intel that they could use to trump up his WMD evidence to get
Congress and the UN to back him. Lies, all if it was based on lies and
he KNEW it was all based on lies. He should have been impeached.
Bush II will go down in history as one of the worst US Presidents ever.
> So we came up with a logical reason to do it and too many nosy types
> told people stuff that they had no need to know about.
>
> Is Saddam Hussein being dead affecting your life in any way? Do you
> really care that he was killed?
I don't care one way or another about Saddam Hussein. I care about all
the American Soldiers who died, I care about all the innocent Iraqi
civilians who died. I care about the trillions of dollars wasted and I
especially care about all the billions funneled into BushCo's buddies
companies (Haliburton) and the debt we are now carrying that we have to
find a way to pay for.
> The man didn't do as he was told by
> the people who helped make him a leader. He paid the price.
The Iraqi people didn't invite us to kill him, and although many are
glad he's gone they aren't exactly "thankful" that we did it the way we
did it. Just because *we* wanted him gone (at any cost) doesn't mean
*they* wanted him gone, at the cost *they* paid.
This is one of the reasons I have no respect for Bush I - he could have
taken Saddam out years earlier but he wanted the symbolic "40 hours" and
stopped the war before he got Saddam. THAT I would have supported.
Iraq should have never invaded Kuwait, and as long as we were pushing
them out it would have been fine to go get their leader so he couldn't
pull a stunt like that again.
This is why Bush II wanted to go get Saddam. He wanted to do something
(anything) better than Daddy did and he didn't care about the cost -
about the cost of the war in dollars, or about the human cost (ours, or
theirs).
> Reality. I understand it. I just wish that since I know the center
> and left will NEVER understand it, they'd just stop trying to act like
> they do and, God forbid, thinking they can handle it better.
This is a bunch of crap. Just about anyone could have handled the past
8 years better than Bush II. The man was a puppet, and he was
manipulated into doing what his handlers wanted, funneling money into
his buddies pockets and giving us the bill (deficit). He wanted a war,
and they wanted to profit from it.
> (I snipped the whole budget thing because I admit that I don't have
> anywhere close to the knowledge of the subject to put up an argument.
>
> Neither do you but I, at least, admit it.)
I understand where the debt comes from. It comes from lowering taxes on
the rich, leading to a budget shortfall, which is not "fixed" by raising
all boats and producing increased tax revenues (the trickle down
theory). Instead we just didn't take in enough money to pay for
everything, and the debt grew and grew. This was and is a Republican
policy. Look at the wiki to debt by US presidential administration -
the connection is clear.
>> Back to the New Deal. Most of our public water projects and sewer
>> systems stem from programs started during the New Deal. This is why US
>> has clean water even in very poor areas, unlike poor neighborhoods
>> (slums) in much of the rest of the world such as in India. The money
>> that was "spent" in the New Deal produced real benefits for all of the
>> US. It built roads, buildings, dams, sidewalks, sewers, water projects.
>> It was an investment IN THE US.
>>
> Exactly. It was for a better infra-structure. Socialized medicine is
> NOT the same thing as what came from the New Deal programs.
It's NOT socialized medicine! The government won't be providing the
medical care. It will simply create an insurance program that people
can *elect* to utilize, if they prefer it to the current insurance
options. If you don't like the USPS use FedEx or UPS. If you don't
like the Government backed insurance program, then use your company's
health insurance program, or buy your own insurance, or self-insure.
Most of the people criticizing the health reform proposals can't even
articulate why they think it is "socialized medicine" except to parrot
that term that they heard on FAUX. They don't understand what it means,
just that it must be bad and if FAUX says that is what the government
plan is, then FAUX must be correct (wrong!) and it must be a bad plan.
> The New Deal programs created jobs for people who need them.
> Socialized medicine isn't going to create any jobs it's just going to
> cost money.
The Health Care Initiative is not about creating jobs - we have the
Stimulus program for that. Each is designed to do what it is designed
to do. It is stupid to complain that one doesn't accomplish the goals
of the other!
> It's almost a way of saying, "Don't worry about a job, we'll make sure
> you can see a doctor if you need to."
>
>
>> The current stimulus projects are similar projects.
>>
> No, they are not.
You have been watching FAUX again, haven't you? They never talk about
all the good projects, which is the great majority of the projects. For
example, here are some lists of projects in California.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/09pr3.htm
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state/CA
I'm sure, if you dig hard enough you might find one or two to quibble
about. But the great majority are substantial infrastructure projects.
>> Sure, there's always a few projects that some people think aren't
>> important. Take "art" for example. There are always people who think
>> we shouldn't spend money on art. What do you think artists do when you
>> buy their art? Do you think they put that money under a mattress? Or
>> do they spend it, pay for rent and utilities and buy groceries and pay
>> for gas? The money is going to circulate, and stimulate their local
>> economy. This is why we have so many beautiful public murals from the
>> 30s, but for every dollar spent on a mural many hundreds more were spent
>> on infrastructure, buildings, roads sewers, etc. and just as in the 30s,
>> most of the Stimulus projects today are for infrastructure, for "shovel
>> ready" projects that will last for scores or hundreds of years. Yet you
>> don't hear about all the worthy projects on "fair and balanced" FAUX News.
>>
>> Why should we have art at all? If there's a purpose for art, isn't
>> there a purpose for public art? And if there's a purpose for public
>> art, then why shouldn't the government spend (a very small percentage of
>> government spending) on art projects for everyone, so everyone can
>> appreciate art and not just the wealthy?
>>
> No. I don't see a whole lot of people appreciating "pubic art." Most
> of it ends up being ridiculed because they DON'T understand it.
> Chicago's Picasso sculpture comes to mind and a sculpture in downtown
> Tampa that they call "The Big Chicken."
The art that gets ridiculed is a *tiny* fraction of Public Art. It's
the art that gets *news*, but there are many art projects that aren't
ridiculed, that are appreciated. But good news ("people like government
project") doesn't make for good ratings, so the media doesn't give it
any play.
We have a ridiculed art project here too (a statue of a coiled snake
that looks like a pile of feces).
http://photos.igougo.com/images/p43515-San_Jose-Statue_of_Quetzalcoatl.jpg
We also have a lot of amazing public art.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2299/2088796384_f4aa33b673.jpg?v=0
http://www.93950.com/images/fat_b.jpg
http://artshiftsanjose.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/publicartitaloscnga.jpg
http://www.slcced.com/northtemple.htm
http://tripinator.com/wp-content/see-no-evil-20090521-212138.jpg
This last one moves around in San Francisco, I saw it in Chinatown a few
weeks ago.
We had a new sculpture series recently installed on a highly trafficked
public trail that I saw for the first time yesterday. I can't find any
photos online yet. (I can't take my camera when I ride my bike - I
don't have a rack and my camera is too big to take along with my camelback.)
>> This brings us full circle back to the comics. Why should a news paper
>> run comics at all? When you make an argument for comics in the
>> newspaper, you are also making an argument for public art. And
>> suddenly, funding an art project doesn't look like such a bad idea, does
>> it? If newspapers can afford comics (and by extension those who
>> purchase newspapers) even in these challenging economic times, then the
>> government (and by extension, all of us) can also afford to fund a few
>> art projects, even in the Stimulus program.
>>
> Although the model is changing and will change a lot in the next
> decade or so, comics have never been something that a newspaper puts
> in because they "can afford to."
>
> It's more a case of they can't afford NOT to. Comics draw readers.
Public art draws people to come see it, too. Public art draws people to
downtown areas, and then they spend money downtown. This is also why
cities put on projects like Art & Wine Festivals, Jazz Festivals, etc.
> Almost every reader survey over the last century has put the line up
> of comics as one of the top reasons people will buy a newspaper.
That sure explains why the WSJ is one of the top selling newspapers. :-)
> Comics increase circulation which increases ad rates.
So if the WSJ adds comics their circulation will increase?
> So, sorry, but that's a really terrible analogy. Especially since
> it's not an analogy at all.
>
> Papers spending money to have comics increases their revenue. A
> governement body throwing money at an art project gets no return, what
> so ever.
You are wrong, see above.
> Now, a city, or whatever, spending money on an art museum that would
> offer free educational tours to schools from that city, or county or
> whatever, would be a different thing altogether because the population
> gets something back from it.
So the population only gets "something back from it" if it is
educational? There is no benefit to the population from something that
is simply beautiful or inspiring or thought-provoking, or even funny?
Why do we bother to eradicate graffiti if we don't care about the beauty
and aesthetics of our surroundings? Do you read comics for the
educational benefit, or do you read them because they are beautiful, or
inspiring, or thought provoking, or funny?
> To put up a mural or sculpture that, experience says, most will call
> "ugly" or "an eye-sore" is foolish waste.
Most public art is not "ugly" or "an eye-sore". But this is what you
come to believe when you rely on the conservative media to "inform" you
about public art!
> But still, neither case is analogous to a newspaper running comics.
I disagree. In both cases people are drawn to things that add
enjoyment. Public art adds enjoyment to public spaces, drawing people
to business areas. Comics add enjoyment to the paper, drawing people to
subscribe or buy a paper, or visit the paper's website.
jc
JC Dill
> On 12 Aug 2009, Charlie Foxtrot said the following in
> news:gbu485tn2bmqko5p7...@4ax.com.
>
>> Obama, on the other hand doesn't give a rat's ass about the people he
>> is saying he wants to "help." The only person Obama wants to help is
>> Obama. He is not in office to help the people of the USA. He is in
>> office to gratify his own ego and to accumulate as much power as he
>> can.
>
> I'm staying out of the rest of this particular thread drift, except for
> the above.
>
> The above is wrong. At least, it isn't any more correct than it would be
> applied to every other President except Jimmy Carter.
>
> You don't apply for the job of "leader of the free world" without having
> an oversized ego in the first place.
>
> I don't doubt Mr. Obama's compassion.
>
> What I doubt is his understanding of how markets work. He has some
> interesting ideas of how he thinks they _should_ work, but very little
> apparent understanding of how things _do_ work. I'm sure you will
> appreciate the difference.
Well, in a few years we will know the outcome.
> Some of what Mr. Obama has advocated has been pretty good. Other
> items....not so much.
>
> A lot of what he has done has represented little if any change from the
> previous administration. In some cases that is a good thing. In other
> cases....not so much.
>
> I understand and appreciate a great deal of what you are saying,
> particularly about the current cult of personality, but you are wrong
> about Mr. Obama's compassion.
>
> His heart is in the right place. His head....no so much.
While you and I may disagree about his head on some issues, we agree on
his heart.
jc
Dann
>> His heart is in the right place. His head....no so much.
>
> While you and I may disagree about his head on some issues, we agree on
> his heart.
Modest agreement is certainly better than no agreement at all. <grin>
Jym Dyer
> And when folks of your political persuasion do the same...
> or worse...what do you call it then?
=v= Yeah, dodge the issue with an _ad_hominem_ diversion to
what you imagine some guy on Usenet would or wouldn't call
something. Well, this guy on Usenet calls a disruption a
disruption, but that's not what really matters, is it?
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> "Don't taze me, bro"
=v= My last message has my actual answer to this stupid
question. Your answer is so very confused. You seem to
be trying to say that Andrew Meyer is "of [my] political
persuasion." Could you actually possibly believe that?
<_Jym_>
Mike Peterson
Reminds me of a demonstration back in college when Dow Chemical and
the CIA came to the placement bureau at the same time. Lots of people
showed up to demonstrate against them, or, that is, to demonstrate
their feelings that working for them was immoral.
The debate that emerged (on site, among the demonstrators) became
known as "worms versus sardines." The worms were in favor of sitting
in front of the bureau office, but not in a way that kept people from
entering -- rather, anyone who wanted to interview would have to step
over them, implicitly acknowledging that they knew there was a moral
question being raised.
The sardines were in favor of packing closely enough that anyone who
wanted to interview would have to physically walk ON them to get in --
essentially blocking the doors.
The problem with this kind of "debate" is that those who favor bearing
witness rather than obstructing are in a no-win position, unless they
can actually persuade the obstructors to change their plans. They can
bear all the witness they want, but the central focus of the
demonstration will necessarily be on those who obstruct.
With regard to the town meetings, I don't know how many people show up
in opposition to health care reform but willing to have an intelligent
debate, because, inevitably, the people who are determined to disrupt
become the focus of the event.
Going back to the Sixties, there were always far more dissenters in
favor of bearing witness than in favor of raising hell. Over time,
however, the loud, obnoxious and occasionally (not often) violent
people drove out the more reasonable folks. I would predict that this
will happen with the right wing, and a good deal faster simply because
of the speed of communication these days. And also because some of
those nutbags are packing heat and, at some point, it's going to turn
very dark and scary.
Incidentally, having been to demonstrations and covered a variety of
events, I'd like to hear from someone who has been to some of these
events to find out how much intelligent give-and-take took place apart
from the moments of screaming idiots who make the evening news. What
is the balance, over the course of a 90-minute gathering? Inquiring
minds want to know.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Mark Jackson
> Going back to the Sixties, there were always far more dissenters in
> favor of bearing witness than in favor of raising hell.
The one time I saw a US flag burned at an antiwar demonstration
(University of Illinois, 1970) the act was roundly booed.
> Over time,
> however, the loud, obnoxious and occasionally (not often) violent
> people drove out the more reasonable folks. I would predict that this
> will happen with the right wing, and a good deal faster simply because
> of the speed of communication these days. And also because some of
> those nutbags are packing heat and, at some point, it's going to turn
> very dark and scary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13collins.html
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
As time goes on the technical problems become
more automatic, while the people problems
become more surrealistic. - Henry Barnes
Charlie Foxtrot
I can totally go with that opinion.
I can see that, in his mind, he probably does think he's doing the
right thing. Then again, so did someone else, almost 3/4 of a century
ago... Not that I'd want to invoke Godwin's Law.
BUT - I will say that my mother-in-law fled to the US from a country
that was divided by a wall for quite a while. She has said that
Obama's attitude, approach and actions remind her very much of the
leader who made her so uncomfortable she left the land she loved so
much.
Charlie Foxtrot
wrote:
>That's going to be a whole lot of not-fun if/when you get seriously
>sick. My father had the same approach to insurance, and he almost lost
>the house paying for my mother's cancer treatment. (Surgery twice,
>chemo for a year, radiation treatment, travel to Japan for experimental
>treatment, and in the end it was 3 years of treatment that didn't save
>her.)
And, like I said, that's not a "life" I wish to lead. If I'm
terminal, let me die. I've had fun in life. I've enjoyed myself. If
it's my time, it's my time.
>It has been proven around the world.
>
>For instance, the best way to educate a population is to educate girls!
> Countries that educate their girls advance the welfare of everyone in
>the country (improve their economy, improve lifespans, etc.) much faster
>than countries that just educate the boys. Sure, it costs more to
>educate boys and girls than to just educate boys. And many of the woman
>never hold jobs outside the home. But educated women do a better job IN
>the home. They are better able to understand why sanitation is
>important, clean water is important, etc. Even in 3rd world countries
>where people are literally "dirt poor" it produces huge results when
>they educate girls as well as boys.
>
I'm glad you got that off your chest. Not sure what it supports in
this discussion but, hey, thanks for telling us something any rational
person already knows.
>A very large percentage of all medical procedures (and thus the
>associated costs) are performed during the last 6 months of life. We
>spend a lot of money trying to not die.
>
And like I said, when it's time to die, it's time to die. I don't
want to prolong my life. My mom was very adamant about the same
thing. To the point that when she was in the hospital, in a coma,
connected to all sorts of tubes and wires with no ability to ever
breath or pump her heart on her own AND the hospital kept wanting to
do more tests... I finally pulled the head doctor into a room and
asked, "If my mom did not have my dad's infinite insurance policy,
would you be begging the family to sign off on more tests?"
>This is the primary reason why health insurance costs are so high.
No. Insurance costs are high because of the nature of insurance.
Your property insurance, it's there if your property is damaged. You
don't use it much so unless you live in a hurricane prone area (and
even there up until they found out they could get away with it) your
property insurance does not cost that much.
Your auto insurance, unless you drive like crap, also doesn't cost
that much. It's there for if you need it and you don't use it that
much.
In fact, quite a few people will never make a claim on their property
or their auto insurance.
Health insurance is something different. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad
if you could only get catastrophic care type insurance. Then it would
be the same as the other two. Something most people never use and,
thus, the costs stay low.
However, once you started dealing with coveing routine stuff, everyone
started "making sure they got their money's worth" on their health
insurance.
It's not a case of policy A needed to make a claim so the money from
it, along with policies B,C and D (who did not make any claims) paid
for what was needed and policy E ( who did not make any claims)
provided the insurance company some operating cash and profit.
Medical insurance is a case of policies A,B,C,D and E all wanting
their money's worth and the company needing to boost rates to cover
that plus their operating costs and generate some profit.
Now add to that doctors and hospitals boosting their rates because
they know the insurance companies will take care of the insured and
then they'll have the extra cash to cover the uninsured who default on
their bills.
Now, imagine this - and if any of Obama's jack-booted thugs are
scouring Usenet to see if anyone is talking smack about the Mesiah,
please to pass this bit of common sense along to the rotten bastard...
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MEDICAL CARE AFFORDABLE TO ALL, THERE IS A SIMPLE
SOLOUTION. TELL THE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT YOU HOPE THEY ENJOYED
THEIR RUN AND HOPE THEY MADE A LOT OF MONEY BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING
SHUT DOWN.
Now we don't have to play "let's ride the fence and try to convince
everyone that we're not trying to jump onto the socialist side." Now
we can let true capitalism run our medical industry.
If someone wants to see a doctor - GASP! - they pay for it!
If a doctor wants patients - GASP! - he charges prices they can
afford!
If a doctor wants a lot of money - GASP! - he can be really good at
what he does and charge more to the people willing to pay more for
exceptional skill!
If a doctor prefers to be rich of heart instead of wallet, he can
charge affordable prices and make his services easily accessible to
the poor.
And before you say that we'll still have those who can't afford it,
I'm sure that there are plenty of church-based and private charities
that would be happy to help those people. They already exist and
could do a lot more without the current price-gouging that goes on in
the medical field thanks to the insurance industry.
>
>> My question is, if I refuse to throw away money so that if I get a
>> terminal illness, my life won't be prolonged - and I would not enjoy
>> living to get from one treatment to the next - why, in God's name,
>> would you want to have any of your money go to keeping me alive?
>
>I don't. You can opt to refuse treatment. But I don't think your
>choice should be forced on everyone else!
>
But the thing is, even if I refuse treatment, my taxes and your taxes
will have already paid for me to have that treatment.
How flawed is that?
>> People called George W. Bush things like "chimp."
>
>I never heard anyone CALL him chimp. The worst nickname for Bush I
>heard (and used) was Shrub - a play on his name.
>
Then you've covered your ears and eyes to a lot of stuff.
They also implied that he was retarded quite a bit.
>> I don't attack Obama for being popular. I question the rational of
>> the people who idolize him.
>
>I don't know who these people are. I only hear the conservatives
>describing them as "straw men" for their arguments against Obama. In
>everyday discussions I haven't yet run into anyone who thought he was
>flawless.
Then you need to get out in the world and talk to people. This makes
it clear that you live with blinders on and don't get down in the
trenches and talk to the people you want to rescue with things like
government health care.
Talk to the masses. They are not very bright.
>This is insane. Bush made us a weaker nation. He ruined our standing
>as a nation to be admired (and cooperated with) in the world political
>scene. He made us hated around the world.
I had a great Honors English teacher in high school. He used to say
that no one, truly, disliked or hated something or someone. They just
were not able to understand it.
People around the world don't hate us. They envy us, yes they do.
But most just don't understand what it's like to be the most powerful
nation in the world because - GASP! - they aren't part of the most
powerful nation in the world!
The lack of understanding leads to fear that manufactures hatred which
creates envy.
And you know what? Every one of those people who "hates" us would be
screaming for our help the minute some piece of shit terrorist group
decides they need to wipe them out to make Allah happy.
> Obama has made great strides
>mending this mess.
He's made us look weak, much to the joy of our true enemies. One of
the nations we need the most - Russia - did not exactly welcome him
with open arms. Did you see the video of him going down the receiving
line and everyone refusing to shake his hand but eagerly grasping the
hands of the Russian dignitaries behind him?
Yeah, it's pretty ignorant behavior from adults that dare call
themselves leaders. I mean, if I were in public and Obama came by,
I'd shake his hand, smile and say, "Pleased to meet you Mr.
President," because it's the respect the office deserves. They could
have saved their animosity for behind closed doors and should have.
But think about it. That's quite a statement to make.
> Do you think those women would have ever been freed
>from North Korea if Bush had been president?
Maybe. We'll never know.
> Would Bush have been
>willing to send a political rival like Bill Clinton to ask for their
>release?
Maybe. We'll never know.
> Never in a million years. He would have done what he always
>did, threaten, be a bully, and it could have led to war, or led to the
>women going to a labor camp or worse (executed).
>
Fine speculation. But, then again, someone like me sees a two life
colateral damage amount acceptable if it gave us reason to give North
Korea the ass kicking it deserves to get back in line.
>>> The center LIKES the job he's been doing. He gets relatively high marks
>>>from people "in the center" on every program he has put forth so far.
>>> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/06/cnn-poll-clinton-receives-a-b/
>>>
>>
>> Let me digress a bit. In high school we had to take an IQ test.
>> Everyone was comparing their scores. My friend Jeff got 100. As
>> typical average as one can score on an IQ test.
>
><snip>
>
>> Good guy but dumb as a box of rocks and the other half of the
>> population would make him look like a genious compared to most of
>> them.
>
>Sounds like all the people rallying at the Tea Parties, if you ask me.
>Too dumb to realize how they are being manipulated by the conservative
>media. Too dumb to realize that their "grass roots" campaign is really
>a well-organized media stunt.
>
Yeah, those idiots are an embarassment.
>> How? I'm not criticizing Obama. I'm criticizing the fools who can't
>> see him for what he is. A flock follows blindly. Most Obama
>> supporters I talk to have no idea what he's doing they are just happy
>> he's not George W. Bush.
>
>That says volumes about how bad Bush was, doesn't it?
No it says how little the common person understands about government
and what, sometimes, needs to be done.
>How many Obama supporters do you personally know as friends?
Almost everyone who comes into my bar. They aren't the brightest
people in the world. These are people who come into a strip club
several nights per week. Like it or not, my "immoral" customer base
is filled with Obama supporters.
A lot of my high school drop-out staff registered to vote so they
could vote for Obama.
Here, let me give you some examples.
Dan. Customer. Mid-thirties. Owns a small, rented warehouse, on the
cheap auto body shop business. Dan told me that he registered to vote
for the first time so he could vote for Obama. This was before the
election.
I asked him why. His answer? "Because Bush totally dropped the ball
on the mid-east. He should have just gone in there and blown
everything up. He should have rounded up every Muslim in the US and
killed them off. That's why I'm voting for Obama."
I asked him if he realized the reason that we did not do what needed
to be done - blow up the mid-east - was because the Democrats would
have thrown a fit.
He just looked confused.
Selina. Cocktail waitress. Early thirties. Selina told me she was
voting for Obama because he made her smile.
I asked her what she thought qualified him for the office of
President. She said that he made her smile and no presidential
candidate has ever made her smile.
Christa. Former dancer. 29. After Obama's Leno appearance. "Now I
know I love him. He, truly, is The People's President."
I asked her what she liked about him. She said that it was because he
spoke like her generation.
I asked her what he was saying that moved her so. She said that he
said the "kind of stuff presiedents talk about" but in a way that
sounded like someone from her generation.
I asked her if she had any idea what he was talking about while
sounding like someone of her generation. She said she doesn't really
keep up on that stuff but she just likes the way he sounds.
Jennifer. Does independent contractor work as a house or business
cleaner. 26. At a Superbowl party, she asked if I voted for Obama.
I said I did not and asked her why she did.
Her answer was simple: "Because he's a black guy and he's cool."
I asked if there was anything else that made her think he was the most
qualified. Her answer: "No, he's a cool black guy and that makes for
a great change and we needed that."
JC, you seem to be on the far right of the IQ bell-curve, with the
rest of RACS. Get out of the ivory tower and go talk to the people in
the 90-110 appex. It will scare you. If you have the moxy, go get
some of those in the sub-90 areas. That will really make you question
if we should let "everyone" vote.
>Or are you
>just believing that we are all "as portrayed" by FAUX?
You know, I kind of resent the implication that I get everything from
Fox News, which you seem to think calling "FAUX" makes you clever.
JC, I read the papers, get news from multiple sources and it's not
that I'm cheerleading Fox News. It's more of just being disgusted by
the news outlets that fawn over him.
Even more, it's the non-news entertainment world that really gets me.
SNL has made fun of presidents, whether they deserved it or not, for
35 years. Obama, though, is cheered and fawned over by SNL. How does
a show make fun of Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II but
kiss ass to Obama? This is the type of stuff that really bothers me.
Why are there Obama comic books? Christ, I'm waiting for MAD to come
out with an Obama-worship issue that doesn't skewer him but, rather,
skewer those who oppose him.
We've gone from "fight the power" to complete sycophants to the power.
Maybe I'm missing something. Is he really so incredible that the
traditional subversive voices quit fighting the power to fight the
descenters?
It's pretty hard to keep a President in check when long time critics
of EVERY president suddenly seem to want to spend time taking long,
hot showers with the president, rubbing a loofah on his back.
Just this evening, I glanced at the magazine rack at the grocery
store. Obama was on the cover of Rolling Stone. My poor, departed
idol, Hunter S. Thompson, is rolling in his grave.
> Because I don't
>know a single Obama supporter who is happy with *everything* he's doing.
But I know quite a few who have no idea what he's doing at all AND
they aren't worried about that.
>
>Since when is it our right to go after the head of state of another
>country, invade their country, to kill their leader? Do you *really*
>think this is what the US is supposed to do?
>
If it's needed.
You've got no problem with a president who wants to force his beliefs
on the American people. Why would you have a problem with one who
keep our self-declared enemies in line?
You love that Obama will say "We're so sorry. Please don't hate us!"
to other countries while praising him telling We the People "you're
getting this health care policy because you need it."
I guess we have different priorities in mind when we think of national
leadership.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky2t_tDsZrk
>
>Quote:
>
>Going after Saddam Hussein was Topic A, 10 days after the inauguration,
>8 months before September 11th.
>
>"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it."
>"The President saying 'Go find me a way to do this.' "
>
>In other words, he manufactured a plausible reason to fool congress and
>the US to back him in his war against Saddam Hussein.
>
So, let's see.... Fox News spouting their interpretation of what
Obama is doing - an interpretation that is identical to the
interpretation of a good segment of the US population - is complete
and total bullshit.
However, the angry words of a disgruntled, former staff member -
complete and total hearsay, no interpretation of ACTUAL WITNESSED
events, just he said, she said stuff - that's pure, 100% real factual
stuff!
And like I said, quite a lot of us would have had no problem with,
"Hussein is pissing me off and we need to take him out." People like
you create a need to create a reason.
>> I'd have had no problem with that. All those people in the center and
>> to the left would have had a fit because they can't process that
>> sometimes dirty work has to be done.
>
>And we have to kill 5,000 Americans to get it done? I Don't Think So.
I'm with you there. But you and other liberals would have had a fit
if we just pulled all American personell out of Iraq and blew it to
Kingdom Come.
So it's your fault American soldiers had to die because you would have
had a fit if we just did it the easy way.
>(Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that were killed.)
Honestly, I've got zero problems with killing people whose religious
beliefs tell them the world won't be good until me, you and every
other person between the Pacific and Atlantic and south of Canada,
North of Mexico, are dead, by their hands. And in reality, they
probably would be happy to be rid of the Canadians too. Not to
mention most of Europe and the former Soviet Union. Oh, yeah, and
Mexico is predominantly Christian too, so they need to go... and so
on and so on and so on.
No, I've got no problems with killing those people at all. If I were
younger, I'd sign up in hopes of tagging some myself.
>This was an immoral and illegal war. Bush used American's fear of Al
>Queda and Osama bin Laden to trump up charges against Iraq. He grasped
>at faulty intel that they could use to trump up his WMD evidence to get
>Congress and the UN to back him. Lies, all if it was based on lies and
>he KNEW it was all based on lies. He should have been impeached.
>
No. The vile cocksuckers who couldn't keep their noses out of it and
then couldn't keep their mouths shut need to learn that a lot of stuff
that goes on in government needn't be exposed to others who will
understand the need for it even less.
>Bush II will go down in history as one of the worst US Presidents ever.
>
Only because he didn't do what he needed to do at the end of his term.
Pull all American personell out of the middle east and erase the
region from the face of the world.
Then, at least, in about 100 years, people would look back at a
century of world peace and wonder how anyone ever called him a
criminal.
>> So we came up with a logical reason to do it and too many nosy types
>> told people stuff that they had no need to know about.
>>
>> Is Saddam Hussein being dead affecting your life in any way? Do you
>> really care that he was killed?
>
>I don't care one way or another about Saddam Hussein. I care about all
>the American Soldiers who died,
Then you needed to let what needed to be done get done properly. It
could have all been taken care of without one soldier losing his or
her life.
But that would have been "wrong."
>I care about all the innocent Iraqi
>civilians who died.
Innocent Iraqi civilians is an oxymoron.
> I care about the trillions of dollars wasted and I
>especially care about all the billions funneled into BushCo's buddies
>companies (Haliburton) and the debt we are now carrying that we have to
>find a way to pay for.
>
But you don't have a care in the world about Obama adding to that debt
beyond comprehension. Because that's going to be good for us in the
long run. Like educating girls. :/
>The Iraqi people didn't invite us to kill him, and although many are
>glad he's gone they aren't exactly "thankful" that we did it the way we
>did it. Just because *we* wanted him gone (at any cost) doesn't mean
>*they* wanted him gone, at the cost *they* paid.
>
What they want is irrelevent if he was in our way.
>This is one of the reasons I have no respect for Bush I - he could have
>taken Saddam out years earlier but he wanted the symbolic "40 hours" and
>stopped the war before he got Saddam. THAT I would have supported.
>Iraq should have never invaded Kuwait, and as long as we were pushing
>them out it would have been fine to go get their leader so he couldn't
>pull a stunt like that again.
>
Well, talk to the liberals that Bush wanted to appease by not just
taking Husein's head back then.
>This is why Bush II wanted to go get Saddam. He wanted to do something
>(anything) better than Daddy did and he didn't care about the cost -
>about the cost of the war in dollars, or about the human cost (ours, or
>theirs).
>
This from someone who wants every Obama critic to be parrotting what
they hear on Fox News.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that bit of pure speculative
conjecture sounds?
>This is a bunch of crap. Just about anyone could have handled the past
>8 years better than Bush II. The man was a puppet, and he was
>manipulated into doing what his handlers wanted, funneling money into
>his buddies pockets and giving us the bill (deficit). He wanted a war,
>and they wanted to profit from it.
>
Please tell me you're not one of the loonies who think 9-11 was staged
by the US government. I want to respect your opinions but you're
starting to walk the fence, waivering to the lunatic fringe side.
>> (I snipped the whole budget thing because I admit that I don't have
>> anywhere close to the knowledge of the subject to put up an argument.
>>
>> Neither do you but I, at least, admit it.)
>
>I understand where the debt comes from. It comes from lowering taxes on
>the rich, leading to a budget shortfall, which is not "fixed" by raising
>all boats and producing increased tax revenues (the trickle down
>theory). Instead we just didn't take in enough money to pay for
>everything, and the debt grew and grew. This was and is a Republican
>policy. Look at the wiki to debt by US presidential administration -
>the connection is clear.
>
Okay, you proved my point.
>It's NOT socialized medicine! The government won't be providing the
>medical care. It will simply create an insurance program that people
>can *elect* to utilize, if they prefer it to the current insurance
>options. If you don't like the USPS use FedEx or UPS. If you don't
>like the Government backed insurance program, then use your company's
>health insurance program, or buy your own insurance, or self-insure.
>
Uh, that would be nice if it were true.
>Most of the people criticizing the health reform proposals can't even
>articulate why they think it is "socialized medicine" except to parrot
>that term that they heard on FAUX. They don't understand what it means,
>just that it must be bad and if FAUX says that is what the government
>plan is, then FAUX must be correct (wrong!) and it must be a bad plan.
>
Let's see, we all pay taxes to support the government health program
and anyone who doesn't have private insurance will go on the
government program that everyone pays for. So, since we are all
paying for it, why pay twice? Pretty soon everyone is on the
government program that the working people pay for but those who don't
pay into the system can still take advantage of...
Okay, you're right. It's not socialized medicine at all. :/
>> The New Deal programs created jobs for people who need them.
>> Socialized medicine isn't going to create any jobs it's just going to
>> cost money.
>
>The Health Care Initiative is not about creating jobs - we have the
>Stimulus program for that. Each is designed to do what it is designed
>to do. It is stupid to complain that one doesn't accomplish the goals
>of the other!
>
Then why were you using the New Deal policies as a comparison to
support why you support government health care?
>> It's almost a way of saying, "Don't worry about a job, we'll make sure
>> you can see a doctor if you need to."
>>
>>
>>> The current stimulus projects are similar projects.
>>>
>> No, they are not.
>
>You have been watching FAUX again, haven't you? They never talk about
>all the good projects, which is the great majority of the projects. For
>example, here are some lists of projects in California.
>
>http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/09pr3.htm
>http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state/CA
>
>I'm sure, if you dig hard enough you might find one or two to quibble
>about. But the great majority are substantial infrastructure projects.
>
What does any of that have to do with government health care and the
road to socialism?
No one ever said every government project is wrong.
Dann
news:o8c9859kc2r0pci7m...@4ax.com.
> I can see that, in his mind, he probably does think he's doing the
> right thing. Then again, so did someone else, almost 3/4 of a century
> ago... Not that I'd want to invoke Godwin's Law.
Quite an accomplisment there....48 colors of bullshit in one paragraph.
At least the nutball leftists[1] had the stones to come right out and say
that they considered Mr. Bush to be the moral equivalent of Hitler.
Whatever Mr. Obama is, he ain't Hitler. It isn't even close.
You shouldn't have to demonize someone just to have a reason to oppose
his policies. The fact that he is simply wrong...and Mr. Obama is on
several subjects....is more than enough.
[1] those folks being a subset of yer overall group of leftists. No
implication of nutballery is being implied towards the larger group.
jcdill
>
> And, like I said, that's not a "life" I wish to lead. If I'm
> terminal, let me die. I've had fun in life. I've enjoyed myself. If
> it's my time, it's my time.
If that's the choice you want, go for it. But not all serious illnesses
are 100% terminal. Many are treatable, many can be cured, but often at
great expense. If you don't have insurance, then you won't be able to
afford the cure and you will die, when you might have had a great chance
to have treatment and live.
> I'm glad you got that off your chest. Not sure what it supports in
> this discussion but, hey, thanks for telling us something any rational
> person already knows.
It's just as rational to understand that educating girls is good for the
population as a whole, and that providing basic health care for everyone
is good for the population as a whole.
> And like I said, when it's time to die, it's time to die. I don't
> want to prolong my life. My mom was very adamant about the same
> thing. To the point that when she was in the hospital, in a coma,
> connected to all sorts of tubes and wires with no ability to ever
> breath or pump her heart on her own AND the hospital kept wanting to
> do more tests... I finally pulled the head doctor into a room and
> asked, "If my mom did not have my dad's infinite insurance policy,
> would you be begging the family to sign off on more tests?"
My mother choose to have no more tests or treatments, and to die at home
with her family, not in the hospital wired into a dozen machines.
My grandfather had a stroke when he was 96, and another more serious
stroke when he was 96 1/2. When we went to visit his arms were tied to
his hospital bed. When my mother, asked, outraged, why this was being
done she was told that he kept pulling out the oxygen tubes in his nose.
Mom said "he doesn't want it". The hospital insisted it was for his
own good. She said again "He doesn't want it. He's 96 1/2 years old,
and if he doesn't want oxygen tubes up his nose, he doesn't want them!".
Unfortunately this was in the days before living wills, and it was
extremely difficult to get the hospital to honor anyone's wishes. Back
then hospital staff had a NOMS policy - to keep people from dying at
almost any cost, Not On My Shift.
As you might have figured out, I'm extremely sensitive to patient choice
in these matters. But the important thing is for each person to have a
choice. If you have no choice - if you have to be hooked up to tubes
when you don't want to be hooked up to tubes OR if you can't get care
because you can't afford care, both of those are not good situations.
>> This is the primary reason why health insurance costs are so high.
>
> No. Insurance costs are high because of the nature of insurance.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. It isn't the "nature of
insurance" that makes insurance expensive, it's the services you get
when you utilize the insurance that makes the coverage expensive.
> Your property insurance, it's there if your property is damaged. You
> don't use it much so unless you live in a hurricane prone area (and
> even there up until they found out they could get away with it) your
> property insurance does not cost that much.
There is no such thing as "property insurance". There is Home Owner's
insurance, which covers the value of the buildings on your property, and
which provides liability insurance if someone is injured on your
property. The property itself is not covered, what is covered are the
buildings and the owners.
> Your auto insurance, unless you drive like crap, also doesn't cost
> that much. It's there for if you need it and you don't use it that
> much.
Again, it makes no sense. There's a reason collusion and comprehensive
cost a lot more for a newer vehicle than an old vehicle, and why your
insurance rate drops even more if you don't have collusion/comprehensive
coverage at all.
> Health insurance is something different. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad
> if you could only get catastrophic care type insurance.
You can, just get a policy with a very high deductible.
> However, once you started dealing with coveing routine stuff, everyone
> started "making sure they got their money's worth" on their health
> insurance.
It's actually a good idea to have routine care. Many life threatening
conditions are easily (and less expensively) treatable if they are
caught early, which happens if you have an annual physical or if you go
get treatment when you first have symptoms. But many people put off
going to the doctor when they don't have insurance coverage AND they
don't have a lot of spare funds. This is why insurance companies like
to offer plans with low deductibles so that people can AFFORD to get
routine care, because it lowers costs in the long run.
> Now, imagine this - and if any of Obama's jack-booted thugs are
> scouring Usenet to see if anyone is talking smack about the Mesiah,
There you go again, with the name calling. It is just more proof that
you can't make your points.
> IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MEDICAL CARE AFFORDABLE TO ALL, THERE IS A SIMPLE
> SOLOUTION. TELL THE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT YOU HOPE THEY ENJOYED
> THEIR RUN AND HOPE THEY MADE A LOT OF MONEY BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING
> SHUT DOWN.
What happened to the free market? What happened to capitalism? What do
you think gives Obama or Congress has the authority to do this?
> Now we don't have to play "let's ride the fence and try to convince
> everyone that we're not trying to jump onto the socialist side." Now
> we can let true capitalism run our medical industry.
>
> If someone wants to see a doctor - GASP! - they pay for it!
This means only the really wealthy will be able to afford cancer
surgery, heart surgery, brain surgery. The rest of us will just die.
That might be OK with you, but it's not OK with me, and I'm pretty sure
there are more people who see it my way than see it your way.
> And before you say that we'll still have those who can't afford it,
> I'm sure that there are plenty of church-based and private charities
> that would be happy to help those people.
"Those people" will be 95% of the population with serious illnesses.
This is where the bulk of our medical costs are. Sure, we will save
money, but we will die younger, of preventable and curable conditions.
>>> My question is, if I refuse to throw away money so that if I get a
>>> terminal illness, my life won't be prolonged - and I would not enjoy
>>> living to get from one treatment to the next - why, in God's name,
>>> would you want to have any of your money go to keeping me alive?
>> I don't. You can opt to refuse treatment. But I don't think your
>> choice should be forced on everyone else!
>>
> But the thing is, even if I refuse treatment, my taxes and your taxes
> will have already paid for me to have that treatment.
>
> How flawed is that?
It's not just flawed, it's inaccurate. The taxes will only pay for
actual treatments. Doctors won't get paid a set fee no matter how many
or how few people they treat. They will get paid (as they do now) for
actually treating people. If people elect to not get treatment, then
they won't get paid and there won't be taxes "paying for that treatment".
>>> People called George W. Bush things like "chimp."
>> I never heard anyone CALL him chimp. The worst nickname for Bush I
>> heard (and used) was Shrub - a play on his name.
>>
> Then you've covered your ears and eyes to a lot of stuff.
Wrong.
> They also implied that he was retarded quite a bit.
No, they said he was a C student, which he WAS. They said he couldn't
string together a rational sentence, which was correct. Bushisms are
rampant because he rambled and made so many nonsensical statements.
>>> I don't attack Obama for being popular. I question the rational of
>>> the people who idolize him.
>> I don't know who these people are. I only hear the conservatives
>> describing them as "straw men" for their arguments against Obama. In
>> everyday discussions I haven't yet run into anyone who thought he was
>> flawless.
>
> Then you need to get out in the world and talk to people. This makes
> it clear that you live with blinders on and don't get down in the
> trenches and talk to the people you want to rescue with things like
> government health care.
I share a house with someone who LOVES Rush, Hannity, watches FAUX
non-stop. He repeatedly gets "facts" wrong, and BELIEVES these lies.
Even when I debunk them. I know how and why he's getting this
misinformation and I'm powerless to do anything about it.
> Talk to the masses. They are not very bright.
And they believe the lies from Palin, from Hannity, from FAUX and then
they go and repeat these lies at "Town Meetings" and by the shear volume
of these repeated lies they seem to develop truth. But no matter how
often these lies are repeated, they are STILL LIES.
>> This is insane. Bush made us a weaker nation. He ruined our standing
>> as a nation to be admired (and cooperated with) in the world political
>> scene. He made us hated around the world.
>
> I had a great Honors English teacher in high school. He used to say
> that no one, truly, disliked or hated something or someone. They just
> were not able to understand it.
>
> People around the world don't hate us.
What about Hezbolla, what about the Taliban, what about Al Queda, what
about North Korea, what about the conservatives who stole the election
in Iran? What about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who lost
someone in the war, killed by Americans?
> They envy us, yes they do.
They envy that we aren't living in an occupied country, that's for damn
sure.
> But most just don't understand what it's like to be the most powerful
> nation in the world because - GASP! - they aren't part of the most
> powerful nation in the world!
>
> The lack of understanding leads to fear that manufactures hatred which
> creates envy.
>
> And you know what? Every one of those people who "hates" us would be
> screaming for our help the minute some piece of shit terrorist group
> decides they need to wipe them out to make Allah happy.
What does that have to do with Bush's world bullying? Are you saying
that the bully somehow isn't a bully when you go to the bully for
protection from a bigger problem?
>> Obama has made great strides mending this mess.
>
> He's made us look weak,
More bullshit. He is restoring the world's trust in the US.
> much to the joy of our true enemies. One of
> the nations we need the most - Russia - did not exactly welcome him
> with open arms. Did you see the video of him going down the receiving
> line and everyone refusing to shake his hand but eagerly grasping the
> hands of the Russian dignitaries behind him?
No, I didn't see it. I didn't even hear about it. Can you link to it
for me?
> Yeah, it's pretty ignorant behavior from adults that dare call
> themselves leaders. I mean, if I were in public and Obama came by,
> I'd shake his hand, smile and say, "Pleased to meet you Mr.
> President," because it's the respect the office deserves. They could
> have saved their animosity for behind closed doors and should have.
> But think about it. That's quite a statement to make.
Russians are very arrogant, so it isn't surprising they would do this.
Russians are also quite racist, so it's not surprising they would have
this attitude towards any man of African descent.
>> Sounds like all the people rallying at the Tea Parties, if you ask me.
>> Too dumb to realize how they are being manipulated by the conservative
>> media. Too dumb to realize that their "grass roots" campaign is really
>> a well-organized media stunt.
>>
> Yeah, those idiots are an embarassment.
Thank goodness, we agree on something! :-)
>>> How? I'm not criticizing Obama. I'm criticizing the fools who can't
>>> see him for what he is. A flock follows blindly. Most Obama
>>> supporters I talk to have no idea what he's doing they are just happy
>>> he's not George W. Bush.
>
>> That says volumes about how bad Bush was, doesn't it?
>
> No it says how little the common person understands about government
> and what, sometimes, needs to be done.
There are many who are not "common people" who understand all-too-well
the damage Bush II did to this country. This is part of why there was
such an upswelling of support for Obama, people with educations, people
with good common sense saw a chance to put this country back on track
and they seized the chance and did something with it.
>> How many Obama supporters do you personally know as friends?
>
> Almost everyone who comes into my bar. They aren't the brightest
> people in the world.
Duh. People who are really bright quickly tire of the bar scene.
> JC, you seem to be on the far right of the IQ bell-curve, with the
> rest of RACS.
Thank you for that. You are correct - I've been tested several times at
various ages and never tested below 132.
> Get out of the ivory tower and go talk to the people in
> the 90-110 appex. It will scare you.
I'm *living* with one of them. 8th grade education. Huge FAUX fan.
> If you have the moxy, go get
> some of those in the sub-90 areas. That will really make you question
> if we should let "everyone" vote.
My question isn't if we should let everyone vote, it's if we should let
everyone on TV have "freedom of speech" when they keep repeating lies.
You should have seen the token liberal on Hannity tonight, practically
banging his head on the table when Hannity repeated the lie about
"mandates". How does FAUX get away with this crap and call themselves a
news organization? Do we need to threaten to pull their press
credentials to get them to start acting like a respectable news
organization and actually require their reporters and hosts get the
facts straight? We don't give press credentials to the Weekly World
News either so why give them to FAUX?
> You know, I kind of resent the implication that I get everything from
> Fox News, which you seem to think calling "FAUX" makes you clever.
You keep harping on their pet talking points, including getting facts wrong.
> JC, I read the papers, get news from multiple sources and it's not
> that I'm cheerleading Fox News. It's more of just being disgusted by
> the news outlets that fawn over him.
I see criticism of Obama on all the news channels when he makes a
mis-step. They all criticised him for "bowing" before the Arab sheik.
They all criticised him for jumping in and calling the Boston officer
"stupid" for arresting Gates.
> Even more, it's the non-news entertainment world that really gets me.
> SNL has made fun of presidents, whether they deserved it or not, for
> 35 years. Obama, though, is cheered and fawned over by SNL.
I don't watch SNL but he was mocked on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, an NPR
radio show, a few weeks ago.
> How does
> a show make fun of Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II but
> kiss ass to Obama? This is the type of stuff that really bothers me.
This is more BS - Clinton wasn't mocked in his first few months of
office, Bush I wasn't mocked in his first few months of office, Reagan
wasn't mocked in his first few months office. It generally takes a
while for a new president to build up enough gaffes that are mock-worthy.
> Why are there Obama comic books?
Because he's popular, because he's the first "man of color" to be
president. We would have Palin comic books if she were president too,
because she's a woman (and if she were elected president she would
therefore be popular). And mostly, because they SELL.
> Christ, I'm waiting for MAD to come
> out with an Obama-worship issue that doesn't skewer him but, rather,
> skewer those who oppose him.
I'm sure it's in the works. They are just waiting for enough gaffes
that they can successfully mock, and then it will be out.
> We've gone from "fight the power" to complete sycophants to the power.
There you go again. Look at the problems with health care - clearly we
aren't being "complete sycophants to the power" or it would have been
passed already!
> Maybe I'm missing something.
You are. Stop drinking the Conservative CoolAde.
>> Because I don't
>> know a single Obama supporter who is happy with *everything* he's doing.
>
> But I know quite a few who have no idea what he's doing at all AND
> they aren't worried about that.
I'm sure they were equally ignorant about all our previous presidents as
well. So what else is new?
>> Since when is it our right to go after the head of state of another
>> country, invade their country, to kill their leader? Do you *really*
>> think this is what the US is supposed to do?
>>
> If it's needed.
WRONG. We don't have that right unless we are attacked. We were never
attacked by Iraq.
> You've got no problem with a president who wants to force his beliefs
> on the American people.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said nor do I believe that. I
don't think Obama is "trying to force his beliefs" on us. I believe
he's doing what the majority WANT, what the majority ELECTED HIM TO DO.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean he's doing a bad job.
> Why would you have a problem with one who
> keep our self-declared enemies in line?
He was already being "kept in line". He had disarmed the WMDs as
required by the UN, but we trumped up evidence that he still had them as
a pretense to invade his country, capture and execute him. Because Bush
II was such a bully he couldn't imagine any other way. He couldn't
conceive of a way to let him "save face" and continue to be disarmed and
ultimately rendered harmless. He couldn't conceive a way to help the
Iraqi citizens overthrow their own government (if they wished) instead
of invading and then setting up the government "we" wanted them to have
which may not really work very well in their society.
> You love that Obama will say "We're so sorry. Please don't hate us!"
Damn straight. I was 100% with the Dixie Chicks on being totally
embarrassed at Bush's actions, and apologizing for them. These
apologies from our head-of-state are 8 years late in coming but at least
they are coming now. Saying "we are so sorry" is the least we could do
for all the harm we caused over the last 8 years.
> to other countries while praising him telling We the People "you're
> getting this health care policy because you need it."
He ran on a platform of reforming health care, people elected him
because of the things he said he would do, and now he's working to get
it done. How can that be a bad thing?
> I guess we have different priorities in mind when we think of national
> leadership.
I guess you want someone to abandon the things they said they would do
when they were running for office, and then do what you want them to do
instead. You must have loved "I promise to balance the budget" Reagan.
> However, the angry words of a disgruntled, former staff member -
> complete and total hearsay, no interpretation of ACTUAL WITNESSED
> events, just he said, she said stuff - that's pure, 100% real factual
> stuff!
The "former staff member" had notes from these meetings, notes taken
during the meetings, that backed up his allegations. This is not total
hearsay. There is substantial evidence to backup these allegation.
> And like I said, quite a lot of us would have had no problem with,
> "Hussein is pissing me off and we need to take him out." People like
> you create a need to create a reason.
People like me who think we have no moral authority to be the world's
judge and jury. Damn straight. It boggles my mind that you think we
have any right to say "he pisses me off and we need to take him out".
>> (Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that were killed.)
>
> Honestly, I've got zero problems with killing people whose religious
> beliefs tell them the world won't be good
Oh boy, now you trot this one out. Do you believe that Reverend Wright
speaks for all Americans? No? Well guess what? The crazy Ayatollahs
don't speak for all Muslims either.
Just as a literal reading of the Bible comes up with all sorts of crazy
"beliefs", you can find similar passages in the Koran. This doesn't
mean that the average Christian (or average resident in a predominantly
Christian nation) believes that it's OK for a man to sell his daughter
into slavery, and equally the average Muslim (or Iraqi) doesn't believe
it is necessary to kill all the "non believers" to achieve salvation.
The next time you start to brand an Iraqi or Muslim with one of these
crazy beliefs, think about how outraged you would feel if you were
branded with Reverend Wright's teachings....
> No, I've got no problems with killing those people at all. If I were
> younger, I'd sign up in hopes of tagging some myself.
You are an embarassment. Ignorant, racist, judgmental.
>> This was an immoral and illegal war. Bush used American's fear of Al
>> Queda and Osama bin Laden to trump up charges against Iraq. He grasped
>> at faulty intel that they could use to trump up his WMD evidence to get
>> Congress and the UN to back him. Lies, all if it was based on lies and
>> he KNEW it was all based on lies. He should have been impeached.
>>
> No. The vile cocksuckers who couldn't keep their noses out of it and
> then couldn't keep their mouths shut need to learn that a lot of stuff
> that goes on in government needn't be exposed to others who will
> understand the need for it even less.
I can't believe you TRUST these idiots. These are the lies we have
unearthed, who knows what other lies we haven't unearthed yet.
>> Bush II will go down in history as one of the worst US Presidents ever.
>>
> Only because he didn't do what he needed to do at the end of his term.
> Pull all American personell out of the middle east and erase the
> region from the face of the world.
And bring down the hate of the rest of the world on the US for
generations to come. Thank GOODNESS someone in that administration had
more common sense than you have demonstrated!
> Then, at least, in about 100 years, people would look back at a
> century of world peace and wonder how anyone ever called him a
> criminal.
Just watch how Obama does it, without "wiping the region off the face of
the earth". That is how a diplomat works.
> Then you needed to let what needed to be done get done properly.
It did not "need to be done". This is all excuse making for a very bad
decision that cost over 5000 US Soldiers their lives, countless more
arms and legs and sanity, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who lost
their lives or a loved one.
>> I care about all the innocent Iraqi
>> civilians who died.
>
> Innocent Iraqi civilians is an oxymoron.
How do you face yourself every morning in the mirror, being so full of
ignorance and hate?
>> I care about the trillions of dollars wasted and I
>> especially care about all the billions funneled into BushCo's buddies
>> companies (Haliburton) and the debt we are now carrying that we have to
>> find a way to pay for.
>>
> But you don't have a care in the world about Obama adding to that debt
> beyond comprehension.
What was beyond comprehension was the cost of the Iraq war. Here is
what the Iraq war has cost, to date:
673408626251
Let's add in some commas:
673,408,626,251
That's 673 Billion Dollars. $2,186.39 per person, and going up every day.
> What they want is irrelevent if he was in our way.
Obviously there's no point in continuing, you are a lost cause if you
truly believe that what the citizens of Iraq wanted was irrelevant if we
felt Saddam was "in our way". All I can say is How Dare You? How dare
you be so conceited that you feel we have any right at all to invade
another country and take out their leader? Is it no wonder that we were
so hated the world over for out bullying? It's because of people like
you we elected a C Student and bully like Bush II and ruined our
standing in the world.
>> This is one of the reasons I have no respect for Bush I - he could have
>> taken Saddam out years earlier but he wanted the symbolic "40 hours" and
>> stopped the war before he got Saddam. THAT I would have supported.
>> Iraq should have never invaded Kuwait, and as long as we were pushing
>> them out it would have been fine to go get their leader so he couldn't
>> pull a stunt like that again.
>>
> Well, talk to the liberals that Bush wanted to appease by not just
> taking Husein's head back then.
The liberals weren't asking him to stop at "40 hours" - that was his
idea and his alone.
>
>> This is why Bush II wanted to go get Saddam. He wanted to do something
>> (anything) better than Daddy did and he didn't care about the cost -
>> about the cost of the war in dollars, or about the human cost (ours, or
>> theirs).
>>
> This from someone who wants every Obama critic to be parrotting what
> they hear on Fox News.
What?
> Do you have any idea how ridiculous that bit of pure speculative
> conjecture sounds?
It's obvious. It's why he was planning to invade Iraq from day one. He
didn't run on a platform to invade Iraq. He didn't ask us if that's
what WE wanted. He manufactured reasons to do it because HE wanted to
do it, for purely egotistical reasons.
>> This is a bunch of crap. Just about anyone could have handled the past
>> 8 years better than Bush II. The man was a puppet, and he was
>> manipulated into doing what his handlers wanted, funneling money into
>> his buddies pockets and giving us the bill (deficit). He wanted a war,
>> and they wanted to profit from it.
>>
> Please tell me you're not one of the loonies who think 9-11 was staged
> by the US government.
No, I don't. I also don't believe there was a bomb in the towers, and I
understand how the damage of the collapse of the first 2 towers lead to
the collapse of the 3rd tower (building 7 IIRC) a few hours later. It's
rather obvious to anyone with CERT training that the other buildings had
to be seriously damaged by the shock and debris.
> I want to respect your opinions but you're
> starting to walk the fence, waivering to the lunatic fringe side.
>
>>> (I snipped the whole budget thing because I admit that I don't have
>>> anywhere close to the knowledge of the subject to put up an argument.
>>>
>>> Neither do you but I, at least, admit it.)
>> I understand where the debt comes from. It comes from lowering taxes on
>> the rich, leading to a budget shortfall, which is not "fixed" by raising
>> all boats and producing increased tax revenues (the trickle down
>> theory). Instead we just didn't take in enough money to pay for
>> everything, and the debt grew and grew. This was and is a Republican
>> policy. Look at the wiki to debt by US presidential administration -
>> the connection is clear.
>>
> Okay, you proved my point.
I know you are but what am I? (Makes just as much non-sense as anything
you said.)
The data is clear. The connection is clear.
>> It's NOT socialized medicine! The government won't be providing the
>> medical care. It will simply create an insurance program that people
>> can *elect* to utilize, if they prefer it to the current insurance
>> options. If you don't like the USPS use FedEx or UPS. If you don't
>> like the Government backed insurance program, then use your company's
>> health insurance program, or buy your own insurance, or self-insure.
>>
> Uh, that would be nice if it were true.
It IS true. Every fact the conservatives trot out to try to label this
"socialized medicine" has been proven false. They mis-state things and
then argue with their mis-statements.
>> Most of the people criticizing the health reform proposals can't even
>> articulate why they think it is "socialized medicine" except to parrot
>> that term that they heard on FAUX. They don't understand what it means,
>> just that it must be bad and if FAUX says that is what the government
>> plan is, then FAUX must be correct (wrong!) and it must be a bad plan.
>>
> Let's see, we all pay taxes to support the government health program
> and anyone who doesn't have private insurance will go on the
> government program that everyone pays for. So, since we are all
> paying for it, why pay twice? Pretty soon everyone is on the
> government program that the working people pay for but those who don't
> pay into the system can still take advantage of...
>
> Okay, you're right. It's not socialized medicine at all. :/
That's not how it works. You mis-stated the "facts" and then denigrate
your straw-man argument.
>>> The New Deal programs created jobs for people who need them.
>>> Socialized medicine isn't going to create any jobs it's just going to
>>> cost money.
>> The Health Care Initiative is not about creating jobs - we have the
>> Stimulus program for that. Each is designed to do what it is designed
>> to do. It is stupid to complain that one doesn't accomplish the goals
>> of the other!
>>
> Then why were you using the New Deal policies as a comparison to
> support why you support government health care?
I was showing how the New Deal worked, and how the Stimulus plan works,
to show how we KNOW that these things work. It's a different subject,
but it's a good plan and it IS working.
> No one ever said every government project is wrong.
OK, name the programs Obama has proposed or enacted you think are right.
jc
Peter B. Steiger
> So in other words, Peter's opinions, based on his calm examination of
> his perceptions and facts, is irrational because it doesn't mesh with
> your opinion.
Thanks for the support, but I think he was reacting to my quoted excerpts
from Charlie Foxtrot's longer speech. If I read it right, what Antonio
finds irrational is Charlie's concern that Obama is "trying to destroy
everything that makes the USA what it is", that O's policies are pulling
the country away from capitalism, that O's policies are "pretty
destructive", and that O inspires fear among "many people" that he is
"out to destroy their way of life".
That said, if you s/Peter/Charlie/ in your reply, I think it fits. I
don't agree that Obama has the capability, thanks to good ol' American
gridlock, to actually destroy anything that affects my day-to-day
lifestyle, but I respect other people's opinions enough to understand why
he feels that way and I certainly don't think it's irrational.
PS - mea culpa on the name misspelling! I've only seen "GonzaleZ" for
the past umpteen years here; you'd think I would have learned to spell it
by now.
Peter B. Steiger
> Now, imagine this - and if any of Obama's jack-booted thugs are scouring
> Usenet to see if anyone is talking smack about the Mesiah, please to
> pass this bit of common sense along to the rotten bastard...
Charlie, I just spent 10 minutes explaining why I don't think you're
irrational just because I disagree with you. Now take a deep breath and
try that again without "jack-booted thugs" and "Mesiah" [sic]. Nixon had
thugs, but even they wore suits and nice shoes. And if you sincerely
believed that O had enforcers who punished people for speaking ill of
him, you wouldn't have vented so much rage against him in this thread on
such an easily tracable forum.
Peter B. Steiger
> There's a reason collusion and comprehensive
> cost a lot more for a newer vehicle than an old vehicle, and why your
> insurance rate drops even more if you don't have collusion/comprehensive
> coverage at all.
OK, I just can't let that go. I don't know if that was a Freudian slip
or a deliberate funny, but I have to say I think our insurance rates
would be MUCH lower if we had "collusion" protection. Har!
LNER...@juno.com
> With regard to the town meetings, I don't know how many people show up
> in opposition to health care reform but willing to have an intelligent
> debate, because, inevitably, the people who are determined to disrupt
> become the focus of the event.
>
critters that are holding these "town hall meetings" are actually any
more interested in "having an intelligent debate" on the subject? Or
are they out there "selling" the concept/proposals to the American
people, or--as some see it--just ramming it down their figurative
throats?
For a while, there was this political "dog and pony show" of
candidates, legislators, etc. going on what they called "listening
tours"--it was a favorite term of Hillary Clinton. Funny how I'm not
hearing that term much about the current Congress-folks' August tours
and meetings............... I mean, the ones that didn't run off to
Dubai or wherever.........
Mike Peterson
> > With regard to the town meetings, I don't know how many people show up
> > in opposition to health care reform but willing to have an intelligent
> > debate, because, inevitably, the people who are determined to disrupt
> > become the focus of the event.
>
> That being said, do you sincerely believe that all the Congress-
> critters that are holding these "town hall meetings" are actually any
> more interested in "having an intelligent debate" on the subject? Or
> are they out there "selling" the concept/proposals to the American
> people, or--as some see it--just ramming it down their figurative
> throats?
It varies considerably. Do I think "ALL" of them are listening? Hell
no. I'd be a fool to that that, of more than 500 representatives and
senators, there wasn't an arrogant jackass in the bunch. In fact, I'm
willing to stipulate more than one.
But I don't think that's a tendency that goes only in the liberal or
conservative camp, and I think arrogance and not listening are also
traits of those in the general public who think it makes them sound
intelligent to express total skepticism.
To answer your question, I've run into a fair number of members of
Congress who listen. So, while I don't believe they all are interested
in a debate, I'd say quite a few are.
HTH
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:43:42 -0700, Blinky the Wonder Wombat sez:
>> So in other words, Peter's opinions, based on his calm examination of
>> his perceptions and facts, is irrational because it doesn't mesh with
>> your opinion.
>
>Thanks for the support, but I think he was reacting to my quoted excerpts
>from Charlie Foxtrot's longer speech. If I read it right, what Antonio
>finds irrational is Charlie's concern that Obama is "trying to destroy
>everything that makes the USA what it is", that O's policies are pulling
>the country away from capitalism, that O's policies are "pretty
>destructive", and that O inspires fear among "many people" that he is
>"out to destroy their way of life".
>
Not "if," you did indeed read that right!
>That said, if you s/Peter/Charlie/ in your reply, I think it fits. I
>don't agree that Obama has the capability, thanks to good ol' American
>gridlock, to actually destroy anything that affects my day-to-day
>lifestyle, but I respect other people's opinions enough to understand why
>he feels that way and I certainly don't think it's irrational.
>
>PS - mea culpa on the name misspelling! I've only seen "GonzaleZ" for
>the past umpteen years here; you'd think I would have learned to spell it
>by now.
S'ok, as much at it annoys me, I've come to accept it from the
countless times it's happened . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Mike Marshall
>Russians are very arrogant, so it isn't surprising they would do this.
>Russians are also quite racist, so it's not surprising they would have
>this attitude towards any man of African descent.
I love irony!
-Mike "I hear Russians all look alike, too"
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
And of course, there never was any snubbing of Obama by the Russians
in the first place, as any intelligent viewer of the video clip would
ascertain.
JC Dill
> On Aug 14, 10:18 pm, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>> jcdill <jcdill.li...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Russians are very arrogant, so it isn't surprising they would do this.
>>> Russians are also quite racist, so it's not surprising they would have
>>> this attitude towards any man of African descent.
>> I love irony!
I've known several people from Russia, and have several friends who have
lived in Russia (and in other parts of the USSR, back when it was a
USSR), and they all say the same thing.
>> -Mike "I hear Russians all look alike, too"
>
> And of course, there never was any snubbing of Obama by the Russians
> in the first place, as any intelligent viewer of the video clip would
> ascertain.
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/snubbed.asp
Oops. Thanks for that.
jc
Charlie Foxtrot
<see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:59:58 +0000, Charlie Foxtrot sez:
>> Now, imagine this - and if any of Obama's jack-booted thugs are scouring
>> Usenet to see if anyone is talking smack about the Mesiah, please to
>> pass this bit of common sense along to the rotten bastard...
>
>Charlie, I just spent 10 minutes explaining why I don't think you're
>irrational just because I disagree with you. Now take a deep breath and
>try that again without "jack-booted thugs" and "Mesiah" [sic]. Nixon had
>thugs, but even they wore suits and nice shoes. And if you sincerely
>believed that O had enforcers who punished people for speaking ill of
>him, you wouldn't have vented so much rage against him in this thread on
>such an easily tracable forum.
Yeah, I know but I couldn't resist laying the bait for JC to jump on.
Charlie Foxtrot
I'm glad someone besides me found that little bit funny.
JC thinks we're all equal. People who think like him are just more
equal than those who don't.
Charlie Foxtrot
wrote:
Well, at this point, JC has descended into name calling (I'm racist,
filled with hate, etc.), crying about putting words in his mouth as he
insists I watch Fox News, bitched about my statement that Muslims want
us to be dead and then making a similar outlandish blanket statement
regarding Russians.
All that, I'm fine with. However since he is gifted with ESP and can
predict the future (he told me just wait until I see how Obama
eliminates the threats of our enemies by being a pacifist diplomat) I
just can't argue that. The man can see the future.
JC Dill
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:18:50 +0000 (UTC), Mike Marshall
> <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>
>> jcdill <jcdill...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Russians are very arrogant, so it isn't surprising they would do this.
>>> Russians are also quite racist, so it's not surprising they would have
>>> this attitude towards any man of African descent.
>> I love irony!
>>
>> -Mike "I hear Russians all look alike, too"
>
> I'm glad someone besides me found that little bit funny.
>
> JC thinks we're all equal. People who think like him are just more
> equal than those who don't.
And you apparently think all of us are "hims". I'm a "her". Funny how
that goes, huh?
jc
Sherwood Harrington
> JC thinks we're all equal. People who think like him are just more
> equal than those who don't.
People who think like "him" don't ever think like JC.
If this were the most blatant of the assumptions you make, Charlie, I'd go
on about it a little more.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Sherwood Harrington
[ankle-deep feces]
Jesus, this guy really *means* this stuff, doesn't he?
Wow.
I'd keep him on board for the entertainment, but, sadly, I can see that
sort of excrement on the tee-vee any time with less effort.
*plonk*
Jym Dyer
> Someone protesting at a Russ Carnahan meeting was beaten by
> SEIU members for his trouble.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/83137/
=v= More information has since come to light, of course. Your
martyr is a teabagger named Kenneth Gladney. There are those
who attest that *he* started the altercation.
=v= A web search on his name yields a video of the incident,
which does not show the start of the altercation but does
show the supposed thugs fallen to the ground while Gladney is
standing up, and even strutting around with no sign of pain.
But then, of course, Gladney did a perfunctory walk-in/walk-out
at the emergency room and later a dramatic appearance the next
day in a wheelchair.
=v= I snickered when you revealed your source as Pajamas Media.
Their journalistic intergrity were revealed when they hired Joe
the Plumber as a reporter. As you might recall, that guy is not
named Joe, is not a licensed plumber, and used his on-camera
opportunity to accost Obama with a lie about buying a business
that he has never had the capability to buy. Looks like they
found themselves another hero with the same level of honesty.
<_Jym_>
P.S.: Gladney, who is black, claimed he was called a racial
epithet by the supposed SEIU thug, and is calling it hate
speech. The supposed SEIU thug is also black, but hey, does
anyone really expect dishonest teabaggers to make a lick of
sense at this point?
Jym Dyer
> BTW, that guy who was "beaten for his trouble"; it seems that
> when people noticed no clear injuries on him, the "beating"
> became "slipped" ...
=v= Yep, he slipped right into the seat of a prop wheelchair.
> ... now, in one of those uber-ironic twists, it's revealed
> he has no health insurance!:
=v= He lost his health insurance when he lost his job, but his
wife has a job and he is covered by her health insurance. He
is now blaming the media for misreporting this. Probably gonna
charge them with hate speech, while he's at it.
<_Jym_>
Invid Fan
wrote:
> Blinky the Wonder Wombat wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 10:18 pm, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> >> jcdill <jcdill.li...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> Russians are very arrogant, so it isn't surprising they would do this.
> >>> Russians are also quite racist, so it's not surprising they would have
> >>> this attitude towards any man of African descent.
> >> I love irony!
>
> I've known several people from Russia, and have several friends who have
> lived in Russia (and in other parts of the USSR, back when it was a
> USSR), and they all say the same thing.
>
Interesting. I rented a DVD of USSR animated propaganda, and the
included documentary credited a children's poem and later animated
short about a stupid American who wouldn't say at a hotel that had
Black guests with making Russians feel Black Americans were their
"brothers". Maybe that poem isn't read much anymore :)
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Invid Fan
Foxtrot <Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:18:50 +0000 (UTC), Mike Marshall
> <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>
> >jcdill <jcdill...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>Russians are very arrogant, so it isn't surprising they would do this.
> >>Russians are also quite racist, so it's not surprising they would have
> >>this attitude towards any man of African descent.
> >
> >I love irony!
> >
> >-Mike "I hear Russians all look alike, too"
>
> I'm glad someone besides me found that little bit funny.
>
> JC thinks we're all equal. People who think like him are just more
> equal than those who don't.
>
My father use to pride himself on looking at both sides of an issue
before taking a position on it. However, he then felt that anyone who
came down on a different side obviously hadn't look at both sides like
he had and thus could be ignored. That made my teen years oh so much
fun :)
Invid Fan
wrote:
> Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
Not knowing you personally, he had a 50% chance of being right. At
least he didn't go with 'it' :)
(I personally assume everyone online is a hermaphrodite, hedging my
bets)
aemeijers
As the son and grandson of immigrants from a country the Russians
occupied for 50+ years, I have some near-firsthand (albeit dated)
insight into this matter.
1. Official or semi-official propaganda releases are not the same thing
as the prevailing cultural views for the average lug on the street. The
propaganda you saw was likely designed for view at home, or in client
(or potential client) states.
2. Not so much racism as tribalism. You don't look/dress like me or my
daddy, you speak a different dialect or language, therefore you are
scary. To make you less scary, I mock you. Note that despite the
Communist claims to the contrary, and the forced mass migrations, USSR
was never a melting pot. People held tightly to their ethnic traditions
and customs, perhaps in response to losing everything else. If they had
an everything else. Until last 20? years or so, not much of a middle
class in most of that part of world. Still pretty much serfs and
masters, even if fewer of the serfs worked in the fields. Other than the
genetic mixing and intermarriage that always occurs with long-term
military occupations, there was never a lot of fraternization between
disparate groups, at least in the first couple of generations. Probably
not that different from the various waves of immigrants in this country.
3. See the dictionary for 'Balkanization'. The only reason they didn't
shoot at each other (much) for most of 20th century was Pax Sovieticus.
Once USSR fell apart, and left all those arms laying around, well, old
habits die hard. That may be part of the reason for the nostalgia some
older folks over there have for the old days. It may not have been free,
but they can't miss what they never had in their generation. And (unless
you pissed off the masters), it was less scary. I don't agree,
obviously, but I can see where they are coming from.
As screwed up as our country (the US) is, and in spite of all the dumb
stuff it does, I will always be grateful to my maternal grandparents for
walking away from the upper-middle-class (both degreed professionals,
etc) life they had over there, when they saw the handwriting on the
wall, and voting with their feet. Not sure I would have had the guts
under similar circumstances. Had to be way up there on the scary scale.
--
aem sends...
Mike Marshall
Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> writes:
->==Your martyr is a teabagger
1. teabagger - a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers
his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging"
How about you? Can you give it a rest?
-Mike
Mike Beede
Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
I'm afraid it's acquired another meaning recently.
Mike Beede
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> In article <h67dat$6d...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
Don't fool yourself; the term was specifically picked up because of
the sexual conotation.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
I've seen "they" and "he/she" work fine, among others . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:07:08 -0700, jcdill <jcdill...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>Well, at this point, JC has descended into name calling (I'm racist,
>filled with hate, etc.), crying about putting words in his mouth as he
>insists I watch Fox News, bitched about my statement that Muslims want
>us to be dead and then making a similar outlandish blanket statement
>regarding Russians.
>
>All that, I'm fine with. However since he is gifted with ESP and can
>predict the future (he told me just wait until I see how Obama
>eliminates the threats of our enemies by being a pacifist diplomat) I
>just can't argue that. The man can see the future.
>
Translation:
"Ok, I'm getting my ass kicked here, so I'll go with that bait I laid
out, and claim offense at being called a racist and filled with hate,
though what I said was indeed racist and filled with hate. Oooh, and
that Russian thing.
Oh, and I'll throw in a crack at Obama being a pacifist diplomat,
though even I know he's sent more troops to Afghanistan, and maintains
a pretty hard line with Iran.
Hmmm, I would sure look like a jackass if 'he' turns out to be a
'she.'"
--
- ReFlex76
Charlie Foxtrot
wrote:
That's as ridiculous as your semantics/possible regionalism "there's
no such thing as "property insurance" that made me realize debating
with you was a completely lost cause. FWIW, I've always heard of home
owners and renters insurance policies referred to as "property
insurance." No, they don't insure the land (property) that your
dwelling is built on but they DO protect your personal property, IE:
dwelling, personal posession inside said dwelling - all referred to as
"personal property."
That argument, along with this is nothing more than a feeble attempt
to make a personal put-down which, quite frankly, isn't needed in this
debate considering that your arguments are sound and worthy of
discussion.
When one does not know the sex of the person that they are referring
to, "him" is usually the default to write as opposed to him/her and
he/she.
But I give you props for the guts to advance (or would it be the
opposite of advance?) the stereo-type that women can't stay on logic
and let their emotions overtake them every time.
Foxtrot
PS: That last paragraph was pure bait. I have to tell you so that,
hopefully, you'll avoid making yourself look more foolish than you
already have.
Yeah, that was bait too. How hard is it to resist?
Charlie Foxtrot
<sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>Charlie Foxtrot <Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> JC thinks we're all equal. People who think like him are just more
>> equal than those who don't.
>
>People who think like "him" don't ever think like JC.
>
>If this were the most blatant of the assumptions you make, Charlie, I'd go
>on about it a little more.
Honestly, how the hell is the default, generic "him" for someone whose
gender is unknown to the writer, any kind of assumption?
That's just pure ridiculousness and anyone who makes such an assertion
in all seriousness has been far too blinded by the PC movement to ever
function as a normal human being again.
Sherwood Harrington
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:27:46 +0000 (UTC), Sherwood Harrington
> <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>>Charlie Foxtrot <Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> JC thinks we're all equal. People who think like him are just more
>>> equal than those who don't.
>>
>>People who think like "him" don't ever think like JC.
>>
>>If this were the most blatant of the assumptions you make, Charlie, I'd go
>>on about it a little more.
> Honestly, how the hell is the default, generic "him" for someone whose
> gender is unknown to the writer, any kind of assumption?
> That's just pure ridiculousness and anyone who makes such an assertion
> in all seriousness has been far too blinded by the PC movement to ever
> function as a normal human being again.
Oh?
I can't ever "function as a normal human being again?"
I can disprove that wild-ass assertion right here, right now:
PLONK.
You're a jackass, "Charlie Foxtrot." Good riddance.
Default User
> (I personally assume everyone online is a hermaphrodite, hedging my
> bets)
Sez the person with the ambiguous name and the handle that's no help at
all.
Brian
--
Day 194 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Charlie Foxtrot
<AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:13:47 GMT, Charlie Foxtrot
><Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:07:08 -0700, jcdill <jcdill...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>Well, at this point, JC has descended into name calling (I'm racist,
>>filled with hate, etc.), crying about putting words in his mouth as he
>>insists I watch Fox News, bitched about my statement that Muslims want
>>us to be dead and then making a similar outlandish blanket statement
>>regarding Russians.
>>
>>All that, I'm fine with. However since he is gifted with ESP and can
>>predict the future (he told me just wait until I see how Obama
>>eliminates the threats of our enemies by being a pacifist diplomat) I
>>just can't argue that. The man can see the future.
>>
>
> Translation:
>
>"Ok, I'm getting my ass kicked here, so I'll go with that bait I laid
>out, and claim offense at being called a racist and filled with hate,
>though what I said was indeed racist and filled with hate. Oooh, and
>that Russian thing.
>
Typical. My question is how is being cautious of people who have a
great number of their ilk declaring their hatred of "you" being
hateful of them?
And, truth be told, it's getting rather boring. My off-topic tangent
begat a bigger off-topic tangent and so on and so on. It's now turned
into JC and I both taking cues from one another to have an excuse to
write about something each of us feels like writing about that have
nothing to do with what the other is saying, let alone what the group
is about.
What's getting accomplished? JC has pointed out that SHE is a big fan
of public art and finds it valuable. I got to use my old "half the
population is less intelligent than the dumbest close friend I've ever
had" story. We've both shown we have no idea how the federal
budget/deficit works. JC has been able to act smug and feel superior
and I've been able to sit back and laugh at how easy it is to get
someone to take completely insane, over the top statements at face
value and either be too obtuse or refuse to read between the lines and
see the true intent of the statement. And with so many others falling
in line - proving my point of how easy it is for mob-mentality to take
over when like-minded people have a common villain - and only a couple
seeming to actually "get" where I'm coming from, I've had my fun with
RACS for a while.
> Oh, and I'll throw in a crack at Obama being a pacifist diplomat,
>though even I know he's sent more troops to Afghanistan, and maintains
>a pretty hard line with Iran.
>
Let's just see where that whole thing goes before we pass judgement on
it. Here's a clue for you - I doubt that any of this is being done on
Obama's decision alone. You can make a safe bet that his handlers
have insisted on it for, basically, the same reasons I have given,
regarding mid-east. If they say they aren't going to rest until we're
dead, we have to make sure they don't get a chance to see that happen
- at a minimum.
And before any of the usual suspects goes off on the "handlers"
remark, every president has handlers that keep him on track. And,
yes, when our first woman president has come and gone, I'll still
write something like "every president has handlers that keep HIM on
track" and there will be no intended slight to the past president(s)
that were women.
> Hmmm, I would sure look like a jackass if 'he' turns out to be a
>'she.'"
Are you people really serious about the default use of "him" when the
writer does not know the sex of the person they are writing about?
That's just too crazy.
If the writer in question were Joe C., I'd write"him." If the writer
were Janice C., I'd happily write "her." When the writer signs "JC,"
I'm going with the default of "him" with no offense intended or
assumptions of anything made.
Talk about weak arguments.
Now, one last thing for all of you: Aren't you glad that Anthony won
out, in the end, and he and Liz got married in FBOFW? It's so nice to
see the nice guy win for a change. ;)
Charlie Foxtrot
<sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>Charlie Foxtrot <Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>[ankle-deep feces]
>
>Jesus, this guy really *means* this stuff, doesn't he?
>
>Wow.
>
>I'd keep him on board for the entertainment, but, sadly, I can see that
>sort of excrement on the tee-vee any time with less effort.
>
>*plonk*
Thanks for the compliment.
Here, let me use the same argument someone else just used regarding
me...
All you are saying is "I can't handle people who don't think like me!
Can't they understand that we'd all be equal and happy if we all
thought like me? My mind is on fire because some of the shit he's
saying is hitting home and making sense but I don't want it to so I'm
just going to make it all invisible to me!"
Why'd you have to go and make the ultimate declaration of being
pathetic, Sherwood?
Charlie Foxtrot
<sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>Charlie Foxtrot <Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>[ankle-deep feces]
>
>Jesus, this guy really *means* this stuff, doesn't he?
>
>Wow.
>
>I'd keep him on board for the entertainment, but, sadly, I can see that
>sort of excrement on the tee-vee any time with less effort.
>
>*plonk*
Okay, now that I've made my stereo-typical wise-ass comment to this,
let's try actual discussion...
This response just, so perfectly, illustrates everything I've been
trying to point out about Obama and Obama supporters.
Polls are showing that close to two-thirds of the population are not
interested in national health care. But the response of the people
elected to serve "We the People" is to ignore those people and attempt
to villify them to those who are still offering blind support of
anything attached to the name "Obama."
That's what Sherwood is doing here. His public plonking
self-gratification is nothing more than a plea to the like-minded of
"Please, please don't listen to him! He's not making any sense!"
When the actual, underlying fear is, "Jesus H. Christ, if he keeps
this up, someone might change their mind! We can't have that!"
That's the comparison to the Obama administration.
Now, to compare this to Obama supporters, this is a spot-on
illustration of what I'm saying about Obama supporters. They have
this blind love, admiration, whatever it is they have in their hopes
and dreams for Obama success and they don't want anyone to feel any
differently. And when someone does they get angry.
I don't get angry at anyone with a different view than mine.
In fact, in my back and forth with JC where SHE (I'll never forget
that) conveniently ignored my response to her question of how many
friends I have that support Obama, I pointed out that I knew quite a
few people who have zero understanding of government and politics,
many who had never voted before in their lives, who voted for Obama
for either or both mis-guided or superficial reasons.
RACS, on the other hand, is comprised of people who have shown me
their intelligence and knowledge on a vast array of subjects and is,
literally, the only group I participate in, both on-line and in real
life, where I know of a group of people, whose intelligence I highly
regard, where the vast majority (or at least those who vocalize their
opinion) are pro-Obama.
So I'm, naturally, fascinated and eager to find out why you all would
feel that way. You're all on my side of the bell-curve. JC boasted
of her 132 IQ, well, if she comes up another 44 points we'll be on the
same level but we're all, clearly, in the top 20 percentile.
And that brings me to Sherwood and his or her (got to be careful
around here, never know if someone's parents were dead-set on
"Sherwood" be it a boy or a girl) irrational decision to just not read
my words any longer. To the point of blocking my words from ever
getting to his or her (lol) computer.
Now, I've been a daily lurker and once a week or so contributor to
this group since the turn of the millenium and I find it strange that
after ten years, someone would say "NO MORE!" And over what? Because
I dared to say, "I'm not happy with the president that you support"?
That's just crazy but so typical of the Obama supporters I have
encountered in physical life and internet life. I've, literally,
watched a woman I've known for two decades break down in tears and
tell me her views of me were completely changed because I asked her to
explain why she liked Obama beyond his ability to make her smile.
So that's where I think it's crazy that Sherwood would, suddenly,
forget anything I've said over the last ten years that he might have
agreed with, laughed at/with, disagreed with, changed his mind over or
changed my mind over. That's all forgotten because I don't think
Obama is a good president and I don't think he'll do anything good but
a lot that is harmful to us as a nation.
Obama supporters don't want to debate that. They just don't want to
hear it.
It's pretty hard to convince me of otherwise (and JC and others who
have chimed in on HER and my exchanges have actually given me some
stuff to look into and a couple of them, so far, have made me have a
more open mind on the subject) when the decision is to just not want
to hear what I have to say - not just on this subject but ANYTHING.
It's juvenile and imature and that's, exactly, how I have seen most
Obama supporters thus far. And before anyone flies off the handle,
"most" is not "all" and quite a few of you have been the exception to
my perceived rule.
I'm saddened, enlightened and pleased - all at the same time - with
this. I'm saddened that a, seemingly, intelligent person could say
"plonk!" to someone who has been in their little group for ten years
over something that SHOULD be talked about amongst intelligent people.
I'm enlightened because I've been shown that smart people can still
make stupid, emotion-based decisions on something they should be
logical about. I'm pleased because my words did have an effect and if
even one lurker read this thread and changed their mind - be it to my
side of the argument or others' side of the argument - then good has
come from it all.
Charlie Foxtrot
<sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>Charlie Foxtrot <Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:27:46 +0000 (UTC), Sherwood Harrington
>> <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>
>>>Charlie Foxtrot <Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> JC thinks we're all equal. People who think like him are just more
>>>> equal than those who don't.
>>>
>>>People who think like "him" don't ever think like JC.
>>>
>>>If this were the most blatant of the assumptions you make, Charlie, I'd go
>>>on about it a little more.
>
>> Honestly, how the hell is the default, generic "him" for someone whose
>> gender is unknown to the writer, any kind of assumption?
>
>> That's just pure ridiculousness and anyone who makes such an assertion
>> in all seriousness has been far too blinded by the PC movement to ever
>> function as a normal human being again.
>
>Oh?
>
>I can't ever "function as a normal human being again?"
>
>I can disprove that wild-ass assertion right here, right now:
>
>PLONK.
>
>You're a jackass, "Charlie Foxtrot." Good riddance.
Well, that was, certainly mature. Especially since you already
claimed to plonk me earlier.
Charlie Foxtrot
<sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>Charlie Foxtrot <Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:27:46 +0000 (UTC), Sherwood Harrington
>> <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>
>>>Charlie Foxtrot <Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> JC thinks we're all equal. People who think like him are just more
>>>> equal than those who don't.
>>>
>>>People who think like "him" don't ever think like JC.
>>>
>>>If this were the most blatant of the assumptions you make, Charlie, I'd go
>>>on about it a little more.
>
>> Honestly, how the hell is the default, generic "him" for someone whose
>> gender is unknown to the writer, any kind of assumption?
>
>> That's just pure ridiculousness and anyone who makes such an assertion
>> in all seriousness has been far too blinded by the PC movement to ever
>> function as a normal human being again.
>
>Oh?
>
>I can't ever "function as a normal human being again?"
>
>I can disprove that wild-ass assertion right here, right now:
>
>PLONK.
>
>You're a jackass, "Charlie Foxtrot." Good riddance.
So you DID make such an assertion in all seriousness? That's really,
really sad.
Or is the reality that you're pissed off that I called you on making
such a ridiculous assertion in the first place? Be honest with
yourself.
You're really upset that, maybe, one person might think you're kind of
foolish for that, aren't you?
Charlie Foxtrot
<sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>Charlie Foxtrot <Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>[ankle-deep feces]
>
>Jesus, this guy really *means* this stuff, doesn't he?
>
>Wow.
>
>I'd keep him on board for the entertainment, but, sadly, I can see that
>sort of excrement on the tee-vee any time with less effort.
>
>*plonk*
Okay, one more crack, because I can't help myself. I'm just picturing
Sherwood balling up his useless, little, tiny fists, gritting his
teeth and shaking his little, tiny, useless fists up and down while he
makes growling noises. Then he screams (upsetting anyone who might
live in the same dwelling) "Damn you, Charlie Foxtrot! You God Damn,
rotten son of a bitch! How dare you say I'll never function as a
normal human being again?"
For the record, I said that if he was serious in his ridiculous
statement, he couldn't function as a normal human being. I'm really
sorry to have to have watched him prove it. I, honestly, thought he
was actually a rational human being who made an irrational statement.
But then he got so mad...
I mean, when I make ridiculous statements - and I do it all the time -
and someone calls me on it, the worst I do is blush and think "Maybe I
should lighten up."
I never get all pissed off.
The different types of personalities and their various flaws are
really fascinating, aren't they?