Why do elected Republicans and con bloggers hate sick people?
Health care reform and affordable, dependable medical care are a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. In this country no group is more discriminated against then the ill. We are bankrupted, denied life saving health care and left to die.
The radio con men provide political cover for Republicans to discriminate against and destroy the lives of those who get catastrophically sick or injured. Why do you hate us so much.
I am sitting here today owing TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR to my son's doctor according to our health insurance company. They will pay no more on the bill, deductibles, out of pocket, usual and customary charges, patient's responsibility and other crapola are slung at my wife and I by the insurance company to explain why they won't pay this bill. Ordinarily they spend their time trying to find a way to drop coverage on him completely.
Without treatment, he suffocates to death in a matter of weeks which seems like what Rush, Glenn Beck, the other talking heads on FOX and their fellow Republicans desire.
I am disabled and unable to work. I have some of my son's same genetic time bombs that have left me 'dead' once, nearly dead many times, and unable to be in the workplace any longer but at least I can still walk and use my hands unlike my son who got a far more vicious version of the immune dysfunction.
Neither my son or I ever did drugs, smoked, drank alcohol etc. No vices. We were great students in school. We worked and earned money for as long as our bodies allowed.
So again I ask, why do Republicans hate us? What did we do to deserve your hate? Why do you guys hate my son and I? Why do you hate all the other sick people in this country as well?
And if it is not hate for the sick that motivates elected Republicans and their followers, what explains their immoral almost criminal indifference to the sick and injured around them?
And since when is noting the criminal neglect of the ill and injured in America, 'whining'? And why is America a 'nanny state' if it does what all human societies have done since time immemorial--take care of the sick and injured? My son and I may be physically sick, but you cons defending the status quo in health care, are mentally and morally sick. I would rather be us than you.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Are cons rich or are they stupid?
It is not an either/or choice.
It's both.
There is a very small, very elite cabal of very wealthy, very powerful, VERY SMART elites that benefits from having poor and middle class working people work harder to get paid less and make them richer.
This is a very hard sell in a democracy where “majority [supposedly] rules” - to convince the majority of hard working people to work harder for less, so they can have more wealth.
THEY KNOW THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND.
The only way they can convince poor and working people to make them richer is to LIE.
Hence, the “misinformation.”
They do not need to convince everyone.
Just enough.
The suckers.
The losers.
The gullible.
Hence: the STUPIDITY.
Again, I refer to my example on the current new season of Survivor.
If you are not a Survivor fan, I suggest you go back and watch the first two episodes (you can watch the entire segments on the CBS website).
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/?season=19
It is a study in conservative strategy.
Russell Hantz is a multi-millionnaire TEXAS OIL COMPANY OWNER.
Most of the contestants are young, struggling wannabees.
He is smart in dealing LIES AND MISINFORMATION; they are gullible and STUPID.
Russell has been open and candid in his sidebar interviews that he knows poor, struggling young people will never vote to give a rich oil company owner a million bucks, so his entire strategy is based 100% on LIES and cheating and he is open about it (to us, via sidebar interviews).
Sad part?
It works!
A couple of people, including a police officer, easily saw thru his lies.
These are like liberals, the smart people.
He simply arranged to have them voted out.
It is not a question of MISINFORMATION or STUPIDITY.
It is the combination of intentional MISINFORMATION from a few smart by evil liars, targeting the STUPIDITY of enough gullibe suckers for them to take advantage of.
It's both.
There is a very small, very elite cabal of very wealthy, very powerful, VERY SMART elites that benefits from having poor and middle class working people work harder to get paid less and make them richer.
This is a very hard sell in a democracy where “majority [supposedly] rules” - to convince the majority of hard working people to work harder for less, so they can have more wealth.
THEY KNOW THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND.
The only way they can convince poor and working people to make them richer is to LIE.
Hence, the “misinformation.”
They do not need to convince everyone.
Just enough.
The suckers.
The losers.
The gullible.
Hence: the STUPIDITY.
Again, I refer to my example on the current new season of Survivor.
If you are not a Survivor fan, I suggest you go back and watch the first two episodes (you can watch the entire segments on the CBS website).
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/?season=19
It is a study in conservative strategy.
Russell Hantz is a multi-millionnaire TEXAS OIL COMPANY OWNER.
Most of the contestants are young, struggling wannabees.
He is smart in dealing LIES AND MISINFORMATION; they are gullible and STUPID.
Russell has been open and candid in his sidebar interviews that he knows poor, struggling young people will never vote to give a rich oil company owner a million bucks, so his entire strategy is based 100% on LIES and cheating and he is open about it (to us, via sidebar interviews).
Sad part?
It works!
A couple of people, including a police officer, easily saw thru his lies.
These are like liberals, the smart people.
He simply arranged to have them voted out.
It is not a question of MISINFORMATION or STUPIDITY.
It is the combination of intentional MISINFORMATION from a few smart by evil liars, targeting the STUPIDITY of enough gullibe suckers for them to take advantage of.
The cons will take back the country in 2010
you won't get an answer about the elections from the cons because they don't have one. THEY JUST DON'T GET IT!
Clinton: There Won't Be A Repeat Of '94 Elections
Bill Clinton predicted on Sunday that Democrats in Congress would avoid the political bloodbath during the 2010 elections that they witnessed during the first mid-term elections under his presidency.....
...."There's no way they can make it that bad," Clinton said, when asked if he was worried about a repeat of the '94 elections, in which Republicans took over the House for the first time in 40 years.
"Number one," Clinton explained, "the country is more diverse and more interested in positive action. Number two, they've seen this movie before, because they had eight years under President Bush when the Republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad. And--[laughing]--number three, the Democrats haven't taken on the gun lobby like I did, and they took 15 of our members out. So I don't think-- it'll be, whatever happens, it'll be manageable for the president."
All of which was not to suggest that Clinton was dismissing the GOP's capacity for exacting political blood. At another point in his interview, the former president - whose legacy was, in part, defined by the loss of Congress in '94 - smarted that the so-called "vast right wing conspiracy" still exists and has its eyes set on the current White House.
"Oh, you bet," said Clinton. "Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was, because America has changed demographically. But it's as virulent as it was. I mean, they're saying things about him. You know, it's like when they accused me of murder, and all that stuff they did. ... But ... it's not really good for the Republicans and the country, what's going on now. I mean, they may be hurting President Obama. They can take his numbers down. They can run his opposition up. But, fundamentally, he and his team have a positive agenda for America. Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail." ...
That last sentence sums it all up! It will be many elections before the cons get even close to "taking back THEIR country". They haven't even started working in that direction.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/27/clinton-there-wont-be-a-r_n_301140.html
Clinton: There Won't Be A Repeat Of '94 Elections
Bill Clinton predicted on Sunday that Democrats in Congress would avoid the political bloodbath during the 2010 elections that they witnessed during the first mid-term elections under his presidency.....
...."There's no way they can make it that bad," Clinton said, when asked if he was worried about a repeat of the '94 elections, in which Republicans took over the House for the first time in 40 years.
"Number one," Clinton explained, "the country is more diverse and more interested in positive action. Number two, they've seen this movie before, because they had eight years under President Bush when the Republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad. And--[laughing]--number three, the Democrats haven't taken on the gun lobby like I did, and they took 15 of our members out. So I don't think-- it'll be, whatever happens, it'll be manageable for the president."
All of which was not to suggest that Clinton was dismissing the GOP's capacity for exacting political blood. At another point in his interview, the former president - whose legacy was, in part, defined by the loss of Congress in '94 - smarted that the so-called "vast right wing conspiracy" still exists and has its eyes set on the current White House.
"Oh, you bet," said Clinton. "Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was, because America has changed demographically. But it's as virulent as it was. I mean, they're saying things about him. You know, it's like when they accused me of murder, and all that stuff they did. ... But ... it's not really good for the Republicans and the country, what's going on now. I mean, they may be hurting President Obama. They can take his numbers down. They can run his opposition up. But, fundamentally, he and his team have a positive agenda for America. Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail." ...
That last sentence sums it all up! It will be many elections before the cons get even close to "taking back THEIR country". They haven't even started working in that direction.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/27/clinton-there-wont-be-a-r_n_301140.html
Prop 13 saved California homeowners
From a Time magazine analysis (June 27,2009) QUOTE ...at the root of California's misery lies Proposition 13, the anti-tax measure that ignited the Reagan Revolution and the conservative era.
In Washington, the Reagan-Bush era is over. But in California, the conservative legacy lives on.
Before Prop 13, in the 1950s and '60s, California was a liberal showcase. Governors Earl Warren and Pat Brown responded to the population growth of the postwar boom with a massive program of public infrastructure — the nation's finest public college system, the freeway system and the state aqueduct that carries water from the well-watered north to the parched south.
When Ronald Reagan was governor, he actually raised taxes.
Then Proposition 13 shot the tires out of Pat Brown's liberal state.
Liberal legislative leaders such as Willie Brown and John Burton jerry-rigged repairs and kept the damaged vehicle running for 30 years. Now Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger says there is no choice but to complete the demolition by slashing essential services.
ENDQUOTE We look for the enemy, and the enemy is us (or at least the conservatives amongst us).
In Washington, the Reagan-Bush era is over. But in California, the conservative legacy lives on.
Before Prop 13, in the 1950s and '60s, California was a liberal showcase. Governors Earl Warren and Pat Brown responded to the population growth of the postwar boom with a massive program of public infrastructure — the nation's finest public college system, the freeway system and the state aqueduct that carries water from the well-watered north to the parched south.
When Ronald Reagan was governor, he actually raised taxes.
Then Proposition 13 shot the tires out of Pat Brown's liberal state.
Liberal legislative leaders such as Willie Brown and John Burton jerry-rigged repairs and kept the damaged vehicle running for 30 years. Now Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger says there is no choice but to complete the demolition by slashing essential services.
ENDQUOTE We look for the enemy, and the enemy is us (or at least the conservatives amongst us).
Limbaugh and Glenn Beck listeners know they are good Americans
Ditto. Ditto. Megadittoes.”
“Please do our thinking for us.”
THAT is your idea of people who CAN “think for themselves”?
Yeah, yeah. I know. That’s Druggie Limbaugh’s callers.
Same "mentality."
Guess what, I have listened to and watched Glenn Beck.
He is a sniveling, crying snake oil salesman and the only people who give him the slightest credibility are (as I described at 9:09 a.m.):
The suckers.
The losers.
The gullible.
Hence: the STUPID.
Oh yeah, he calls for no violence.
Just TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK (with no violence, of course).
Guess what: when there is a free and fair election and you want to TAKE BACK THE COUNTRY from the lopsided majority, that is violence.
When you call women’s doctors murderers and baby killers and then are shocked, SHOCKED! that someone goes and kills them, sorry, if you fall for that “who me?” look, then you are not one of the elite liars, you are their poor, pathetic victim.
“Please do our thinking for us.”
THAT is your idea of people who CAN “think for themselves”?
Yeah, yeah. I know. That’s Druggie Limbaugh’s callers.
Same "mentality."
Guess what, I have listened to and watched Glenn Beck.
He is a sniveling, crying snake oil salesman and the only people who give him the slightest credibility are (as I described at 9:09 a.m.):
The suckers.
The losers.
The gullible.
Hence: the STUPID.
Oh yeah, he calls for no violence.
Just TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK (with no violence, of course).
Guess what: when there is a free and fair election and you want to TAKE BACK THE COUNTRY from the lopsided majority, that is violence.
When you call women’s doctors murderers and baby killers and then are shocked, SHOCKED! that someone goes and kills them, sorry, if you fall for that “who me?” look, then you are not one of the elite liars, you are their poor, pathetic victim.
California's Prop 13 lead to needed property tax reform
You are half right, Rush - there was a real need for property tax reform that caused Prop 13 to be so popular.
Unfortunately, the cure was worse than the disease.
A better reform would have been two fold:
1. Split property tax rolls (and tax rates) between commercial and owner-occupied primary residences, with a huge primary exemption for the latter so no one would ever be taxed out of their home.
2. Make all property taxes progressive. Make the primary exemption level high enough that modest owner-occupied primary residences would pay NO property taxes, but that income property or exorbitant mansions would pay higher taxes on the PORTION of value in the higher brackets.
But of course Howard Jarvis was a multi millionaire COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER.
Prop 13 was sold as, but not really written for, property tax relief for small family homes.
Again, the big lie, the rich elite MANIPULATIVE MISINFORMATION fooling the gullible victims of STUPIDITY as they vote to give the million dollar prize to the guy who is already a millionaire.
Unfortunately, the cure was worse than the disease.
A better reform would have been two fold:
1. Split property tax rolls (and tax rates) between commercial and owner-occupied primary residences, with a huge primary exemption for the latter so no one would ever be taxed out of their home.
2. Make all property taxes progressive. Make the primary exemption level high enough that modest owner-occupied primary residences would pay NO property taxes, but that income property or exorbitant mansions would pay higher taxes on the PORTION of value in the higher brackets.
But of course Howard Jarvis was a multi millionaire COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER.
Prop 13 was sold as, but not really written for, property tax relief for small family homes.
Again, the big lie, the rich elite MANIPULATIVE MISINFORMATION fooling the gullible victims of STUPIDITY as they vote to give the million dollar prize to the guy who is already a millionaire.
You might be a conservative if...
You might be a conservative if “you accuse a those who disagree with you of being a gutless traitor” or “if you have an unhealthy obsession with Keith Olberman”.
You might be a conservative “if you’re a pro-lifer who supports the death penalty and your knee jerk reaction to every international problem is “nuke em”.
You might be a conservative “if you think attempts to conserve energy or water are the work of Satan”.
You might be a conservative “if your arguments pivot on word play (e.g. czar, climate change, Obamayomama)”
You might be a conservative “if you confuse weather for climate or science for religion”.
You might be a conservative “if you pretend you’re a constitutional lawyer because you took a business law class back in 1962”.
You might be a conservative “if you think the best diplomacy is invading a country and worrying about the implications afterwards”.
You might be a conservative “if you quote the bible in over 50% of your conversations”
You might be a conservative “if you think Obama is a Muslim terrorist who plans to return to his planet after destroying the United States”
You might be a conservative “if you attack socialism while submitting your medical bills to Medicare”
You might be a conservative “if you support Prop 8 while boasting all men are created equal” or
You might be a conservative “if you think talking about health care problems is more honorable than actually trying to solve health care problems” or
You might be a conservative“if you blame all the problems in your life on people of color” or
You might be a conservative“if you call yourself a Christian while spewing speech filled with hate, intolerance and lies” or
You might be a conservative “if you say you love America yet you hate over half the Americans” or
You are DEFINITELY a conservative “if you have complaints but no solutions.”
You might be a conservative “if you’re a pro-lifer who supports the death penalty and your knee jerk reaction to every international problem is “nuke em”.
You might be a conservative “if you think attempts to conserve energy or water are the work of Satan”.
You might be a conservative “if your arguments pivot on word play (e.g. czar, climate change, Obamayomama)”
You might be a conservative “if you confuse weather for climate or science for religion”.
You might be a conservative “if you pretend you’re a constitutional lawyer because you took a business law class back in 1962”.
You might be a conservative “if you think the best diplomacy is invading a country and worrying about the implications afterwards”.
You might be a conservative “if you quote the bible in over 50% of your conversations”
You might be a conservative “if you think Obama is a Muslim terrorist who plans to return to his planet after destroying the United States”
You might be a conservative “if you attack socialism while submitting your medical bills to Medicare”
You might be a conservative “if you support Prop 8 while boasting all men are created equal” or
You might be a conservative “if you think talking about health care problems is more honorable than actually trying to solve health care problems” or
You might be a conservative“if you blame all the problems in your life on people of color” or
You might be a conservative“if you call yourself a Christian while spewing speech filled with hate, intolerance and lies” or
You might be a conservative “if you say you love America yet you hate over half the Americans” or
You are DEFINITELY a conservative “if you have complaints but no solutions.”
Saturday, September 26, 2009
YOU LIE, there were a million marchers
A addled brained Rush Limbaugh limp brain accused me with the following "You lie." when I said there were no where near a million marchers.
Well mister limp brain, I just happened to be visiting my in laws in Fall Church near Washington DC and was in DC to witness the whole shebang. Trust me, there were no million protesters at the Capital area that day. A liberal estimation would be 125,000 to 150,000 tops. A conservative estimate of the gathering would be 75,000.
BTW, no problem flying out of Ronnie Regan airport on 091409 so I guess the million crowd did not affect flights.
Well mister limp brain, I just happened to be visiting my in laws in Fall Church near Washington DC and was in DC to witness the whole shebang. Trust me, there were no million protesters at the Capital area that day. A liberal estimation would be 125,000 to 150,000 tops. A conservative estimate of the gathering would be 75,000.
BTW, no problem flying out of Ronnie Regan airport on 091409 so I guess the million crowd did not affect flights.
Teabaggers, whatcha got?
Um, Rush, I hate to interrupt your infantile rant (I know it's fun to jump up and down screaming...I loved it as a child), but we get that you want "No" part of the government option.
Shall I take from your rant that you are putting forth yourself as your choice for the Presidency? If not, then who?
C'mon you Rush. You are swearing that your numbers are in the many millions.
OK! We take you seriously as a movement.
So, when you win and Obama and the others are given the boot, who will replace them?
I have to vote for SOMEONE, right? So do you? Whatcha got?
Shall I take from your rant that you are putting forth yourself as your choice for the Presidency? If not, then who?
C'mon you Rush. You are swearing that your numbers are in the many millions.
OK! We take you seriously as a movement.
So, when you win and Obama and the others are given the boot, who will replace them?
I have to vote for SOMEONE, right? So do you? Whatcha got?
The Tea Bag protests are real. Really, really, I mean it
One more then I'm outa here to have a great and active morning.
The teabaggers are always comparing themselves to the 60s protesters. Fair enough.
And Rush reminds us all that the 60s protesters were also screaming "Hell No". They were burning their draft cards, remember? Now THAT was a "Hell No" with cojones! They were prepared to go to prison for their principles, and many did go.
So, teabaggers, the gauntlet is thrown. Do you really mean "Hell No"?
The path of action is clear: refuse to pay your taxes, plain and simple.
Show Obama's government that you will not be pushed around any longer and are willing to go to jail to prove it.
This kind of peaceful resistance, it's called. Civil Disobedience. It worked for MLK and Ghandi and the peace movement, it could work for you! They can't arrest EVERYONE, can they? The police can't turn against good citizens, can they?
I'll wait and see if you mean it, or if your "protests" are just tailgating parties.
The teabaggers are always comparing themselves to the 60s protesters. Fair enough.
And Rush reminds us all that the 60s protesters were also screaming "Hell No". They were burning their draft cards, remember? Now THAT was a "Hell No" with cojones! They were prepared to go to prison for their principles, and many did go.
So, teabaggers, the gauntlet is thrown. Do you really mean "Hell No"?
The path of action is clear: refuse to pay your taxes, plain and simple.
Show Obama's government that you will not be pushed around any longer and are willing to go to jail to prove it.
This kind of peaceful resistance, it's called. Civil Disobedience. It worked for MLK and Ghandi and the peace movement, it could work for you! They can't arrest EVERYONE, can they? The police can't turn against good citizens, can they?
I'll wait and see if you mean it, or if your "protests" are just tailgating parties.
El Rushbo, could you clarify?
Clould you clarify Rush?
According to you, "Reid and Pelosi demonize the Republicans/Right/Conservatives any chance they get...."Now is this like what Kenneth Star did?
You assert that "White House appears to ignore the voices of dissent".....Is this like Bush's "stay the course 'cause I'm the Commander In Chief and you cannot criticize the CIC in a time of war" after Bush invaded a country based on lies?
You charge that "Reid threatens nuclear option to force Healthcare reform bill through".....Is this the same that was done twice to push the tax cuts for the rich in the early 2000's and the medicare bill?
Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page!
According to you, "Reid and Pelosi demonize the Republicans/Right/Conservatives any chance they get...."Now is this like what Kenneth Star did?
You assert that "White House appears to ignore the voices of dissent".....Is this like Bush's "stay the course 'cause I'm the Commander In Chief and you cannot criticize the CIC in a time of war" after Bush invaded a country based on lies?
You charge that "Reid threatens nuclear option to force Healthcare reform bill through".....Is this the same that was done twice to push the tax cuts for the rich in the early 2000's and the medicare bill?
Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page!
Tom DiRoma--Obama wants a socialist government
To Tom DiRoma:
I agree. What’s up with the socialist government?
They make me pay for water and sewage from their socialist infrastructure. They make me purchase liability insurance when I drive. They make me pay for Medicare (before I can use it for free). They tax me for parks and roads that I don’t use 24 hours a day. They make me pay for the army and navy even when enemy army is on our border.
Now the socialists have the nerve to suggest I purchase health insurance so I’m forced to help pay for my own medical costs. What an outrage!
I say people without health insurances (whether they can afford it or not) are socialist scum and they should just keep going to emergency rooms so the costs continue to be passed onto tax payers in the most invisible and expensive way possible.
Actually without health coverage maybe they’ll pass a little sooner, so us privileged Republicans don’t have to see their scroungy dirty little faces.
Praise the Lord.
The secret Tom is to vote Republican so us freedom loving patriots don’t get forced to pay for the social services we enjoy nor for our social responsibilities.
So organize a tea party in your neighborhood Tom and keep dumbing it down.
And oh yes, Obama is a Nazi.
(For the mentally challenged in the Kool-aid crowd, the above post was an example of SARCASM--look up the word and learn something)
I agree. What’s up with the socialist government?
They make me pay for water and sewage from their socialist infrastructure. They make me purchase liability insurance when I drive. They make me pay for Medicare (before I can use it for free). They tax me for parks and roads that I don’t use 24 hours a day. They make me pay for the army and navy even when enemy army is on our border.
Now the socialists have the nerve to suggest I purchase health insurance so I’m forced to help pay for my own medical costs. What an outrage!
I say people without health insurances (whether they can afford it or not) are socialist scum and they should just keep going to emergency rooms so the costs continue to be passed onto tax payers in the most invisible and expensive way possible.
Actually without health coverage maybe they’ll pass a little sooner, so us privileged Republicans don’t have to see their scroungy dirty little faces.
Praise the Lord.
The secret Tom is to vote Republican so us freedom loving patriots don’t get forced to pay for the social services we enjoy nor for our social responsibilities.
So organize a tea party in your neighborhood Tom and keep dumbing it down.
And oh yes, Obama is a Nazi.
(For the mentally challenged in the Kool-aid crowd, the above post was an example of SARCASM--look up the word and learn something)
Joint session of Congress is too a good place to heckle a president
To a Glenn Beck mobster:
I do believe you have acknowledged in this forum that you spent a part of your life in one of the U.S. military services. May I draw an scenario for you in response of your justification of Joe Wilson's breach of decorum.
Let us presume that your commanding officer, whatever his rank, is formally addressing all troops, NCOs, and officers in your regiment. Let us further presume that as your commanding officer is speaking, he misstates a fact, and you know that he is wrong.
Do you shout from the audience, "sir, you just misspoke!"
Or do you let your commanding officer continue his address uninterrupted, and then bring attention of his mistake at an appropriate time and in a proper venue?
Ithink that it's fine for Joe Wilson to claim that Barack Obama lies. He just needs to know when and where he can assert that opinion. At a joint session of congress, in those halls as the president speaks, is not a suitable time or place.
Or do you think that it is?
I do believe you have acknowledged in this forum that you spent a part of your life in one of the U.S. military services. May I draw an scenario for you in response of your justification of Joe Wilson's breach of decorum.
Let us presume that your commanding officer, whatever his rank, is formally addressing all troops, NCOs, and officers in your regiment. Let us further presume that as your commanding officer is speaking, he misstates a fact, and you know that he is wrong.
Do you shout from the audience, "sir, you just misspoke!"
Or do you let your commanding officer continue his address uninterrupted, and then bring attention of his mistake at an appropriate time and in a proper venue?
Ithink that it's fine for Joe Wilson to claim that Barack Obama lies. He just needs to know when and where he can assert that opinion. At a joint session of congress, in those halls as the president speaks, is not a suitable time or place.
Or do you think that it is?
95% of liberals hate cops
A Limbaugh loon stated that 95% of liberals hate cops.
What have I EVER said that would make you think I was a cop hating loon?"
May I offer the fact that you exploit police officers in your attempt to degrade liberals (as in "95% of liberal posters hate cops").
You obviously pulled the 95% from the same place you extract all your other information from, and I’m sure police appreciate your carelessness with facts that are related to their public reputation.
Personally, my brother is a cop and I actually love my brother and what he and his fellow officers do.
I suspect he'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use him and other officers as a vehicle to peddle your ignorance.
Why don’t you leave the police alone and use Beck, Rush and Hannity to attack liberals, because these guys probably are hated by 95% of liberals.
What have I EVER said that would make you think I was a cop hating loon?"
May I offer the fact that you exploit police officers in your attempt to degrade liberals (as in "95% of liberal posters hate cops").
You obviously pulled the 95% from the same place you extract all your other information from, and I’m sure police appreciate your carelessness with facts that are related to their public reputation.
Personally, my brother is a cop and I actually love my brother and what he and his fellow officers do.
I suspect he'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use him and other officers as a vehicle to peddle your ignorance.
Why don’t you leave the police alone and use Beck, Rush and Hannity to attack liberals, because these guys probably are hated by 95% of liberals.
Show me a poll where Americans favor public option
One of Limbaugh's limp brained listeners asks
.....Please show me one poll showing that Americans want a public option? PUBLIC being the key word......
Does this work for you:
Poll: Public Option Favored By 65% Of Americans
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html?
Here is another:
"The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll found solid support for a government-run insurance plan, or so-called public option, that would compete with private insurers. Other surveys have found similar results.
But what members of the public seem to prefer and what Congress plans to give them may not be the same thing.
For example, the Times/CBS poll asked: Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private insurance plans? The poll question was phrased generally so that it could be asked in repeated surveys over time regardless of any specific legislative proposal."
With the question asked that way, most respondents supported the idea, with 65 percent in favor, 26 percent opposed and 9 percent offering no position.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/a-primer-the-public-may-have-more-appetite-for-a-public-option-than-congress/
A "GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED HEALH CARE PLAN" IS THE PUBLIC OPTION.
.....Please show me one poll showing that Americans want a public option? PUBLIC being the key word......
Does this work for you:
Poll: Public Option Favored By 65% Of Americans
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html?
Here is another:
"The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll found solid support for a government-run insurance plan, or so-called public option, that would compete with private insurers. Other surveys have found similar results.
But what members of the public seem to prefer and what Congress plans to give them may not be the same thing.
For example, the Times/CBS poll asked: Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private insurance plans? The poll question was phrased generally so that it could be asked in repeated surveys over time regardless of any specific legislative proposal."
With the question asked that way, most respondents supported the idea, with 65 percent in favor, 26 percent opposed and 9 percent offering no position.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/a-primer-the-public-may-have-more-appetite-for-a-public-option-than-congress/
A "GOVERNMENT ADMINISTERED HEALH CARE PLAN" IS THE PUBLIC OPTION.
Death caused by our NON-Health Care System
Read this and weep.
R.I.P. Kimi Young, 22, Another Casualty of Our For-Profit Deathcare System.
By Susie Madrak Sa#####ay Sep 26, 2009 1:00pm
OXFORD — Friends say the Miami University graduate who died this week after reportedly suffering from swine flu delayed getting medical treatment because she did not have health insurance.
News of Kimberly Young’s death Wednesday, Sept. 23, came as a shock to those who knew the vibrant 22-year-old who was working at least two jobs in Oxford after graduating with a double major in December 2008.
Young became ill about two weeks ago, but didn’t seek care initially because she didn’t have health insurance and was worried about the cost, according to Brent Mowery, her friend and former roommate.
Mowery said Young eventually went to an urgent care facility in Hamilton where she was given pain medication and then sent home.
On Tuesday, Sept. 22, Young’s condition suddenly worsened and her roommate drove her to McCullough Hyde Memorial Hospital in Oxford, where she was flown in critical condition to University Hospital in Cincinnati.
“That’s the most tragic part about it. If she had insurance, she would have gone to the doctor,” Mowery said.
Family members indicated that Young died from complications from the H1N1 virus, but the Ohio Department of Health, the Hamilton County Health District and the Butler County Health Department were unable to confirm she had been infected with the virus.
www.crooksandliars.com
R.I.P. Kimi Young, 22, Another Casualty of Our For-Profit Deathcare System.
By Susie Madrak Sa#####ay Sep 26, 2009 1:00pm
OXFORD — Friends say the Miami University graduate who died this week after reportedly suffering from swine flu delayed getting medical treatment because she did not have health insurance.
News of Kimberly Young’s death Wednesday, Sept. 23, came as a shock to those who knew the vibrant 22-year-old who was working at least two jobs in Oxford after graduating with a double major in December 2008.
Young became ill about two weeks ago, but didn’t seek care initially because she didn’t have health insurance and was worried about the cost, according to Brent Mowery, her friend and former roommate.
Mowery said Young eventually went to an urgent care facility in Hamilton where she was given pain medication and then sent home.
On Tuesday, Sept. 22, Young’s condition suddenly worsened and her roommate drove her to McCullough Hyde Memorial Hospital in Oxford, where she was flown in critical condition to University Hospital in Cincinnati.
“That’s the most tragic part about it. If she had insurance, she would have gone to the doctor,” Mowery said.
Family members indicated that Young died from complications from the H1N1 virus, but the Ohio Department of Health, the Hamilton County Health District and the Butler County Health Department were unable to confirm she had been infected with the virus.
www.crooksandliars.com
Friday, September 25, 2009
White roofs to save the planet, ha ha. Holden wants to kill babies to save the earth.
Rush, Each time you promise to educate someone you immediately stick your foot in your mouth. You're little more than a science illiterate trying to play a scientist on a blog.
First, white roofs do actually reflect more solar radiation than black roofs. I think Eisenhower and everyone else (except Ron) would agree. Or do you think Eisenhower would be opposed to such hard core technology as white roof tiles.
Eisenhower would probably be impressed by Obama’s science adviser John Holdren, recent president of the most prestigious science organization (AAAS president) and a highly respected, knowledgeable and experienced scientist.
Who would be your science adviser Ron, Glenn Beck, the president of the Creationist’s Club?
I suspect Eisenhower would think you’re slimy for taking Holdren’s work from 30 years ago and selling it as eugenics. Way back then Holdren addressed population problems (which I’m sure you believe are not a problem because God would never allow an exhaustion of resources) and Holdren suggested a variety of measures to help prevent overpopulation, for silly reason like preventing excessive poverty, starvation, extreme environmental degradation, etc.
He denies the wacko conservative claim that he supported forced sterilization if mothers had too many kids.
Regardless, only a science illiterate like you would mistake limiting the number of children for each mother with eugenics.
A little tip Ron, next time you want to educate someone try educating yourself first.
I have a sincere question for you Rush. Do you think it’s wise for a president to have science advisers, yes or no? If yes, why would you call the adviser a czar?
And thanks Rush for telling me I’m hung up on the“military industrial complex.” I had no idea I had such an obsession.
First, white roofs do actually reflect more solar radiation than black roofs. I think Eisenhower and everyone else (except Ron) would agree. Or do you think Eisenhower would be opposed to such hard core technology as white roof tiles.
Eisenhower would probably be impressed by Obama’s science adviser John Holdren, recent president of the most prestigious science organization (AAAS president) and a highly respected, knowledgeable and experienced scientist.
Who would be your science adviser Ron, Glenn Beck, the president of the Creationist’s Club?
I suspect Eisenhower would think you’re slimy for taking Holdren’s work from 30 years ago and selling it as eugenics. Way back then Holdren addressed population problems (which I’m sure you believe are not a problem because God would never allow an exhaustion of resources) and Holdren suggested a variety of measures to help prevent overpopulation, for silly reason like preventing excessive poverty, starvation, extreme environmental degradation, etc.
He denies the wacko conservative claim that he supported forced sterilization if mothers had too many kids.
Regardless, only a science illiterate like you would mistake limiting the number of children for each mother with eugenics.
A little tip Ron, next time you want to educate someone try educating yourself first.
I have a sincere question for you Rush. Do you think it’s wise for a president to have science advisers, yes or no? If yes, why would you call the adviser a czar?
And thanks Rush for telling me I’m hung up on the“military industrial complex.” I had no idea I had such an obsession.
Obama is an amateur in handling of Honduras problem
Yesterday, the ever amiable and genteel, Michael Savage, accused the the Obama administration of diplomatic amateurism regarding its handling of the power crisis in Honduras. I asked Michael Savage several times to explain his indictment of amateurism. Finally he responded with all the warmth that he can muster in his heart, by referring to an article of the Honduran Constitution. little did I realize that this master of vulgarity had knowledge in Honduran Constitutional law.
Today I encountered a most interesting editorial in THE WASHINGTON POST. it's entitled "Honduras Gets Messier But There is a Clear Strategy: Elections." I found the following excerpt enlightening:
"...Mr. Zelaya [the ousted president] was reduced to making hysterical accusations about being bombarded with radiation and toxic gases by 'Israeli mercenaries.'
"Such behavior ought to deter any responsible member of the Organization of American States--starting with Brazil [in whose embassy in Tegucigalpa Manuel Zelaya found sanctuary]--from supporting more than a token return by Mr. Zelaya to office.
The Obama administration has backed such a restoration (as have we) so as to void Mr. Zelaya's illegal removal from the country in June and thus uphold the larger principle of respect for democratic order in the region."
I think that Michael Savage's obsessive dislike for Obama prevents him from considering larger principles. Savage can come up with snide short insults against president Obama, but he seems perfectly incapable of any profound criticism that might substantively help the president and the republic as well. I consider Savage's negative observations about the affairs of the republic marginal at best.
Today I encountered a most interesting editorial in THE WASHINGTON POST. it's entitled "Honduras Gets Messier But There is a Clear Strategy: Elections." I found the following excerpt enlightening:
"...Mr. Zelaya [the ousted president] was reduced to making hysterical accusations about being bombarded with radiation and toxic gases by 'Israeli mercenaries.'
"Such behavior ought to deter any responsible member of the Organization of American States--starting with Brazil [in whose embassy in Tegucigalpa Manuel Zelaya found sanctuary]--from supporting more than a token return by Mr. Zelaya to office.
The Obama administration has backed such a restoration (as have we) so as to void Mr. Zelaya's illegal removal from the country in June and thus uphold the larger principle of respect for democratic order in the region."
I think that Michael Savage's obsessive dislike for Obama prevents him from considering larger principles. Savage can come up with snide short insults against president Obama, but he seems perfectly incapable of any profound criticism that might substantively help the president and the republic as well. I consider Savage's negative observations about the affairs of the republic marginal at best.
Liberals don't want necessary cost effective public/provate contracts
No Rush - you’re not following here.
Of course I support public/private partnerships and see a role for private sector contracts with the government.
It is the hypocrisy that I hold up to appropriate ridicule.
1. Your mouthpiece and sycophant, Ron claims to be a defense contractor and hold oil stocks. He supported a phony invasion based purely on lies, which benefits those who support military activity, and which also just happened to conquer an oil-rich nation to boost those alleged oil stocks.
I don’t know what his business is.
Let’s say it is making armor for our vehicles.
HE SUPPORTED A WAR FOR OIL.
Yes, now that we are there, maybe his product reduces deaths.
If we had not gone at all, if we didn’t have ANY soldiers on those oil fields - ooopsie, I mean battle fields - there would be no deaths of heroes to reduce.
2. Again, it is the hypocrisy - over and over and over he ridicules “gummint” spending, but much of that “gummint” spending that he whines about goes to CONTRACTORS LIKE HIM.
If he had either not supported the war, or at least not always ridiculed those who - LIKE HIM - benefit from public spending, the target of ridicule wouldn’t have been quite so juicy.
As for his “character,” Ron joins other conservatives who have been repeatedly, repeatedly caught red-handed misrepresenting their own sources, misrepresenting what liberals’ own blogs said, or just made up “facts” with no sources at all that others quickly debunked with valid sources.
That is not an honest engagement on the issues.
That does not reflect well on his “character.”
No matter who he is, respected, wealthy, successful defense contractor or wannabee pimply-faced teenaged geek, lying about sources is not “character.”
Of course I support public/private partnerships and see a role for private sector contracts with the government.
It is the hypocrisy that I hold up to appropriate ridicule.
1. Your mouthpiece and sycophant, Ron claims to be a defense contractor and hold oil stocks. He supported a phony invasion based purely on lies, which benefits those who support military activity, and which also just happened to conquer an oil-rich nation to boost those alleged oil stocks.
I don’t know what his business is.
Let’s say it is making armor for our vehicles.
HE SUPPORTED A WAR FOR OIL.
Yes, now that we are there, maybe his product reduces deaths.
If we had not gone at all, if we didn’t have ANY soldiers on those oil fields - ooopsie, I mean battle fields - there would be no deaths of heroes to reduce.
2. Again, it is the hypocrisy - over and over and over he ridicules “gummint” spending, but much of that “gummint” spending that he whines about goes to CONTRACTORS LIKE HIM.
If he had either not supported the war, or at least not always ridiculed those who - LIKE HIM - benefit from public spending, the target of ridicule wouldn’t have been quite so juicy.
As for his “character,” Ron joins other conservatives who have been repeatedly, repeatedly caught red-handed misrepresenting their own sources, misrepresenting what liberals’ own blogs said, or just made up “facts” with no sources at all that others quickly debunked with valid sources.
That is not an honest engagement on the issues.
That does not reflect well on his “character.”
No matter who he is, respected, wealthy, successful defense contractor or wannabee pimply-faced teenaged geek, lying about sources is not “character.”
Liberals did not like Bush's appointments,cons not silly to argue about czars
No, Rush. - you’re missing the point about what is being compared.
None of the liberals and, more important, NONE OF THE CONSERVATIVES, every complained about Bush’s number of “czars.”
THE POINT is not about the “czars” at all.
The NUMBER was IRRELEVANT.
THE POINT is the utter hypocrisy of the conservative DOUBLE STANDARD.
If they are going to suddenly get all worked up about “czars,” they need to be reminded of their own - THEY HAD A LOT AND NO ONE - liberal or conservative - PLAYED THAT SILLY GAME WITH THEM.
Disagree?
Find the prominent liberal who ever went loco about “czars” during the Reagan or Bush years.
None of the liberals and, more important, NONE OF THE CONSERVATIVES, every complained about Bush’s number of “czars.”
THE POINT is not about the “czars” at all.
The NUMBER was IRRELEVANT.
THE POINT is the utter hypocrisy of the conservative DOUBLE STANDARD.
If they are going to suddenly get all worked up about “czars,” they need to be reminded of their own - THEY HAD A LOT AND NO ONE - liberal or conservative - PLAYED THAT SILLY GAME WITH THEM.
Disagree?
Find the prominent liberal who ever went loco about “czars” during the Reagan or Bush years.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
No way anyone could have done anything about stopping 9/11
The Bush team did not take terror threats seriously as an issue, and for this history dealt them and us disaster.
My comment was about the specific August report.
Certainly, Bush should've at least banged his fist on the desk and told people to make this a high priority. He clearly did not, nor had an interest in it.
I do think that Bush and Cheney entered the White House on a mission to do things Cheney had always wanted to do, and the real world of things like terrorism were not part of the agenda at the time. What was on the agenda?
As I recall, task number one was getting the Reagan presidential files out of the public domain. No, that was number two.
Number one was spreading lies about how the Clinton team had vandalized the White House, remember?
Little did we know that these actions told us everything we'd need to know about Bush.
My comment was about the specific August report.
Certainly, Bush should've at least banged his fist on the desk and told people to make this a high priority. He clearly did not, nor had an interest in it.
I do think that Bush and Cheney entered the White House on a mission to do things Cheney had always wanted to do, and the real world of things like terrorism were not part of the agenda at the time. What was on the agenda?
As I recall, task number one was getting the Reagan presidential files out of the public domain. No, that was number two.
Number one was spreading lies about how the Clinton team had vandalized the White House, remember?
Little did we know that these actions told us everything we'd need to know about Bush.
Bush's PDB did not say anything about flying planes into buildings
Sorry, Rush, it is YOU who is caught in your LIES and your repeated DISTORTION.
Again, pardon me for being able to CONNECT THE DOTS that YOU and your FAILED PREZ failed to connect.
What is that, just a conservative thingy?
Pardon me for seeing the words “HIJACK” “New York” “surveillance of buildings” and thinking that someone might imagine the POSSIBILITY of hijacked planes being flown into buildings just because it didn’t actually use the word “airplane”?
Sheesh!
Are conservatives really THAT STUPID?
I STAND BY MY INTERPRETATION that this raised the POSSIBILITY (not the prediction, but the POSSIBILITY) of flying planes into buildings in New York.
But here is where YOU LIED, Rush:
Look at how you distort what I said!
You claimed I said that “the PDB said that airplanes were going to fly into bldgs.”
The exact words you put in my keyboard: “AIRPLANES WERE GOING TO FLY INTO BLDGS.”
BUT I DID NOT SAY THAT!
I did not say they “WILL” or “were going to” fly into buildings, YOU changed “could” happen into “WERE GOING TO” happen. YOU CHANGED WHAT I SAID!
You took my ACCURATE statement that they “COULD” (meaning possibility) and changed it to “WERE GOING TO.”
You know, it is kind of annoying to be scolded for an inaccurate statement by someone who ignored what I actually said, WHICH WAS ACCURATE, and changed it into something not accurate, and then scolded me for being inaccurate based on the false statement HE FABRICATED and then attributed to me.
Again, pardon me for being able to CONNECT THE DOTS that YOU and your FAILED PREZ failed to connect.
What is that, just a conservative thingy?
Pardon me for seeing the words “HIJACK” “New York” “surveillance of buildings” and thinking that someone might imagine the POSSIBILITY of hijacked planes being flown into buildings just because it didn’t actually use the word “airplane”?
Sheesh!
Are conservatives really THAT STUPID?
I STAND BY MY INTERPRETATION that this raised the POSSIBILITY (not the prediction, but the POSSIBILITY) of flying planes into buildings in New York.
But here is where YOU LIED, Rush:
Look at how you distort what I said!
You claimed I said that “the PDB said that airplanes were going to fly into bldgs.”
The exact words you put in my keyboard: “AIRPLANES WERE GOING TO FLY INTO BLDGS.”
BUT I DID NOT SAY THAT!
I did not say they “WILL” or “were going to” fly into buildings, YOU changed “could” happen into “WERE GOING TO” happen. YOU CHANGED WHAT I SAID!
You took my ACCURATE statement that they “COULD” (meaning possibility) and changed it to “WERE GOING TO.”
You know, it is kind of annoying to be scolded for an inaccurate statement by someone who ignored what I actually said, WHICH WAS ACCURATE, and changed it into something not accurate, and then scolded me for being inaccurate based on the false statement HE FABRICATED and then attributed to me.
Bush was really was interested in stopping terrorism after 2000 election
Bush's priorities upon being elected according to InfoPlease:
"In his first months in office Bush moved quickly to win congressional approval of his tax-cut program, as well as to halt or modify the institution of various regulations proposed in the last weeks of the Clinton administration. Many of his proposed measures were generally conservative and probusiness, as in legislation to modify bankruptcy laws, proposals to fund church-run social welfare programs, and the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and of the antiballistic missile (ABM) treaty (see disarmament, nuclear; Strategic Defense Initiative).
In other areas, however, his administration pursued a less traditionally conservative course, for example, securing the establishment of federally mandated nationwide standardized testing for public school students.
President Bush was also unusual in assigning greater policy-making and governing responsibilities to the vice president and members of the cabinet than earlier administrations had."
Bush also eliminated Clinton's counterterrorism office because this was a low priority compared to the above.
Apart from any specifics in the Daily Bulletin in August, it's pretty clear from the record that Bush had other items on his agenda and thus turned out to be lax in homeland security.
In effect, he gambled on this not being a hot problem and lost (we all lost).
He got his tax cuts and NCLB and deregulation, which were his goals.
"In his first months in office Bush moved quickly to win congressional approval of his tax-cut program, as well as to halt or modify the institution of various regulations proposed in the last weeks of the Clinton administration. Many of his proposed measures were generally conservative and probusiness, as in legislation to modify bankruptcy laws, proposals to fund church-run social welfare programs, and the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and of the antiballistic missile (ABM) treaty (see disarmament, nuclear; Strategic Defense Initiative).
In other areas, however, his administration pursued a less traditionally conservative course, for example, securing the establishment of federally mandated nationwide standardized testing for public school students.
President Bush was also unusual in assigning greater policy-making and governing responsibilities to the vice president and members of the cabinet than earlier administrations had."
Bush also eliminated Clinton's counterterrorism office because this was a low priority compared to the above.
Apart from any specifics in the Daily Bulletin in August, it's pretty clear from the record that Bush had other items on his agenda and thus turned out to be lax in homeland security.
In effect, he gambled on this not being a hot problem and lost (we all lost).
He got his tax cuts and NCLB and deregulation, which were his goals.
Liberals blame Bush for 9/11
I have said here repeatedly that I do not blame Bush for 911 the way some do (and the way others blame Clinton for all kinds of things).
I did say that terrorism was not a priority for the Bush team, and there is a ton of evidence for this.
If it had been a high priority, perhaps it might've been averted, but we'll never know.
Certainly when the intel about Iraq was before Bush's team, also loaded with ambiguity and partial leads and non-leads, they had no problem taking action based on these.
And I would say that in this case it was a holy disaster that they did so.
That's why I'm not crazy about retrospectively blaming Bush for not having taken more action before 911.
Yet, for all that, the fact remains that it was NOT a priority for him, for better or worse. Comprende?
I did say that terrorism was not a priority for the Bush team, and there is a ton of evidence for this.
If it had been a high priority, perhaps it might've been averted, but we'll never know.
Certainly when the intel about Iraq was before Bush's team, also loaded with ambiguity and partial leads and non-leads, they had no problem taking action based on these.
And I would say that in this case it was a holy disaster that they did so.
That's why I'm not crazy about retrospectively blaming Bush for not having taken more action before 911.
Yet, for all that, the fact remains that it was NOT a priority for him, for better or worse. Comprende?
Bush had no SPECIFIC warning about 9/11
Iceman at 3:43 p.m. continues to live in his own little alternate reality.
Hey Rush, what part of all those very specific warnings are you not understanding?
Bush dropped the ball on the numerous advance warnings about an Al Qaeda terror attack.
Bush ignored the files prepared by outgoing National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.
Bush ignored and fired terrorism expert Richard Clarke who had served since Reagan.
Bush GAVE $43 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE TALIBAN in May of 2001.
Bush ignored FBI agent Coleen Rowley’s specific warnings about terrorists taking flight lessons.
Bush ignored FBI informant Elie Assad pointing to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist.
Bush ignored the 8-6-01 PDB that inconveniently interrupted yet another vacation.
What part of “HIJACK” “New York” and “surveillance of buildings” rules out the possibility of thinking that someone might imagine the POSSIBILITY of hijacked planes being flown into buildings just because it didn’t actually use the word “airplane”?
Wow!
I guess conservatives really are incapable of connecting dots!
They just can’t accept responsibility.
EVER.
Like Rush never being able to acknowledge his many, many mistakes.
Just imagine, if PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE JR had taken his rightful place after winning the 2000 election, we would be able to keep our shoes and belts on at airports.
Hey Rush, what part of all those very specific warnings are you not understanding?
Bush dropped the ball on the numerous advance warnings about an Al Qaeda terror attack.
Bush ignored the files prepared by outgoing National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.
Bush ignored and fired terrorism expert Richard Clarke who had served since Reagan.
Bush GAVE $43 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE TALIBAN in May of 2001.
Bush ignored FBI agent Coleen Rowley’s specific warnings about terrorists taking flight lessons.
Bush ignored FBI informant Elie Assad pointing to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist.
Bush ignored the 8-6-01 PDB that inconveniently interrupted yet another vacation.
What part of “HIJACK” “New York” and “surveillance of buildings” rules out the possibility of thinking that someone might imagine the POSSIBILITY of hijacked planes being flown into buildings just because it didn’t actually use the word “airplane”?
Wow!
I guess conservatives really are incapable of connecting dots!
They just can’t accept responsibility.
EVER.
Like Rush never being able to acknowledge his many, many mistakes.
Just imagine, if PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE JR had taken his rightful place after winning the 2000 election, we would be able to keep our shoes and belts on at airports.
Rush, who has never, ever been able to document or source a single thing he has ever said (as any REAL JOURNALIST would do), has the nerve to accuse others of lying when they present FACTS backed up with the kind of SOURCES Rush can only dream about.
He responds to my specific point about FBI agent Coleen Rowley by saying that the “Example that a woman FBI agent reported her suspicions that Arabs were taking flying lessons and theat that was wrong”
Rush then says, “Liberals say that this report was made by the agent to Bush and that he ignored the report.”
In the manner of an Glenn Beck and Michael Savage (if they are even different people), Rush did not quote me and invents his own words to put into my keyboard.
Rush cannot even support his own statements, but has to INVENT and LIE and say I said things I did not say.
I never said that the “report was made by the agent to Bush and that he ignored the report.”
I simply did not say it; Rush just made that up and, as usual, cannot cite any specific date and time where I did.
Obviously, just like Glenn Beck, Rush understands NOTHING of real leadership and delegation.
I never said that FBI agent Coleen Rowley specifically made the report TO BUSH.
I said she made the report.
In fact, she made TWO reports, May
It is the failure of the delegatory chain of command of the Bush administration, who like Rush and Glenn Beck simply have no idea of how delegation or the chain of command work, that allowed the communication to break down between the sources of intelligence and the terrorism experts who were BEING IGNORED AND FIRED (such as Richard Clarke who had held that position since Ronald Reagan!)
UNLIKE RUSH I CAN PROVIDE SOURCES.
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings - testimony of COLEEN ROWLEY:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=279&wit_id=628
From the CIA:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no3/article10.html
Bush’s own Dept of Justice report (released in 2004):
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0606/chapter1.htm
As usual...
1. Rush has NO SOURCES (as any REAL JOURNALIST would)
2. Rush LIES about what others have said
3. Rush is WRONG on the facts, WRONG on the truth. WRONG on his [nonexistent] sources
Y’know what, Rush. - since you are so CLUELESS about how to find sources, and know NOTHING about REAL JOURNALISM, I’m gonna be a real nice li’l birdie and help ya out.
HOW TO FIND SOURCES
Step 1: it is easy to find sources IF YOUR FACTS ARE VALID TO START WITH.
It’s a real bi*ch to try to prove something that AIN’T TRUE.
He responds to my specific point about FBI agent Coleen Rowley by saying that the “Example that a woman FBI agent reported her suspicions that Arabs were taking flying lessons and theat that was wrong”
Rush then says, “Liberals say that this report was made by the agent to Bush and that he ignored the report.”
In the manner of an Glenn Beck and Michael Savage (if they are even different people), Rush did not quote me and invents his own words to put into my keyboard.
Rush cannot even support his own statements, but has to INVENT and LIE and say I said things I did not say.
I never said that the “report was made by the agent to Bush and that he ignored the report.”
I simply did not say it; Rush just made that up and, as usual, cannot cite any specific date and time where I did.
Obviously, just like Glenn Beck, Rush understands NOTHING of real leadership and delegation.
I never said that FBI agent Coleen Rowley specifically made the report TO BUSH.
I said she made the report.
In fact, she made TWO reports, May
It is the failure of the delegatory chain of command of the Bush administration, who like Rush and Glenn Beck simply have no idea of how delegation or the chain of command work, that allowed the communication to break down between the sources of intelligence and the terrorism experts who were BEING IGNORED AND FIRED (such as Richard Clarke who had held that position since Ronald Reagan!)
UNLIKE RUSH I CAN PROVIDE SOURCES.
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings - testimony of COLEEN ROWLEY:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=279&wit_id=628
From the CIA:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no3/article10.html
Bush’s own Dept of Justice report (released in 2004):
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0606/chapter1.htm
As usual...
1. Rush has NO SOURCES (as any REAL JOURNALIST would)
2. Rush LIES about what others have said
3. Rush is WRONG on the facts, WRONG on the truth. WRONG on his [nonexistent] sources
Y’know what, Rush. - since you are so CLUELESS about how to find sources, and know NOTHING about REAL JOURNALISM, I’m gonna be a real nice li’l birdie and help ya out.
HOW TO FIND SOURCES
Step 1: it is easy to find sources IF YOUR FACTS ARE VALID TO START WITH.
It’s a real bi*ch to try to prove something that AIN’T TRUE.
Southerners are not too stupid to know Obama is an American, the poll was done by Daily Kos
Rush ranted on: September 24, 2009,
"That poll was done by the Dailykos.
Wikipedia:
Daily Kos (pronounced /ˈkoʊs/) is an American political blog, publishing news and opinion from a liberal or progressive point of view."
Kos didn't do the poll. Kos had RESEARCH 2000 do the poll. RESEARCH 2000 is a respected nonpartisan firm
"RESEARCH 2000 is a nonpartisan full service research firm that conducts surveys and focus groups for advocacy groups, trade associations, businesses and over 200 news media organizations"
http://publicdiplomacy.wikia.com/wiki/Research_2000
"According to a new poll from Research 2000 (commissioned by Daily Kos), a majority of Southerners either believe that Barack Obama was not born in the United States (23 percent) or are not sure (30 percent). Only 47 percent of Southern respondents believe Obama was born in the USA. By contrast, 93 percent of Northeasterns said yes, he was born here, 90 percent of Midwesterners did and 87 percent of Westerners."
"And while 93 percent of Democrats say he was born in the country and 83 percent of Independents, the figure is only 42 percent for Republicans. A majority of Republicans either believe he was born abroad (28 percent) or don't know (30 percent)."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/31/poll-on-birthers-most-southerners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship.html
"That poll was done by the Dailykos.
Wikipedia:
Daily Kos (pronounced /ˈkoʊs/) is an American political blog, publishing news and opinion from a liberal or progressive point of view."
Kos didn't do the poll. Kos had RESEARCH 2000 do the poll. RESEARCH 2000 is a respected nonpartisan firm
"RESEARCH 2000 is a nonpartisan full service research firm that conducts surveys and focus groups for advocacy groups, trade associations, businesses and over 200 news media organizations"
http://publicdiplomacy.wikia.com/wiki/Research_2000
"According to a new poll from Research 2000 (commissioned by Daily Kos), a majority of Southerners either believe that Barack Obama was not born in the United States (23 percent) or are not sure (30 percent). Only 47 percent of Southern respondents believe Obama was born in the USA. By contrast, 93 percent of Northeasterns said yes, he was born here, 90 percent of Midwesterners did and 87 percent of Westerners."
"And while 93 percent of Democrats say he was born in the country and 83 percent of Independents, the figure is only 42 percent for Republicans. A majority of Republicans either believe he was born abroad (28 percent) or don't know (30 percent)."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/31/poll-on-birthers-most-southerners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship.html
Bush never got the Crowley report that said terrorists were taking flying lessons
Hey Glenn Beck - the 9/11 Commission Report is an excellent resource and thank you for providing the link.
It can be easily downloaded as a “.pdf” file and saved on your computer for later searching with any “.pdf” reading program.
So, appreciation to Beck for that.
However, it is only one of many excellent resources, and is the compilation of a POLITICAL body, and reflects certain compromises made to accommodate both Democratic and Republican members of the Committee.
Unfortunately, your big “correctamundo” to Rush misses the mark.
Yes, it is correct that Rowley (not Crowley) did not give the report directly to Bush.
Since I never said that, the point makes both you and Rush end up looking even stupider than usual.
The problem was that Bush was a lousy administrator and could not manage his chain of command, allowing these kinds of communication failures and failures to “connect the dots” (Michael Savage didn’t even understand what this meant), unlike Clinton and Obama who have been able to KEEP US SAFE by bringing out the best in their subordinates and letting them do what they are good at.
It can be easily downloaded as a “.pdf” file and saved on your computer for later searching with any “.pdf” reading program.
So, appreciation to Beck for that.
However, it is only one of many excellent resources, and is the compilation of a POLITICAL body, and reflects certain compromises made to accommodate both Democratic and Republican members of the Committee.
Unfortunately, your big “correctamundo” to Rush misses the mark.
Yes, it is correct that Rowley (not Crowley) did not give the report directly to Bush.
Since I never said that, the point makes both you and Rush end up looking even stupider than usual.
The problem was that Bush was a lousy administrator and could not manage his chain of command, allowing these kinds of communication failures and failures to “connect the dots” (Michael Savage didn’t even understand what this meant), unlike Clinton and Obama who have been able to KEEP US SAFE by bringing out the best in their subordinates and letting them do what they are good at.
What about all the Dems that don't believe Obama was born here
Poor Rush, our esteemed journalist (heh heh), read an op-ed piece in this morning's LATimes which overtaxed his journalistic research abilities and exhausted his brain.
There are six times as many Republican halfwits as Democrats.
"And while 93 percent of Democrats say he was born in the country and 83 percent of Independents, the figure is only 42 percent for Republicans.
A majority of Republicans either believe he was born abroad (28 percent) or don't know (30 percent)."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/31/poll-on-birthers-most-southerners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship.html
There are six times as many Republican halfwits as Democrats.
"And while 93 percent of Democrats say he was born in the country and 83 percent of Independents, the figure is only 42 percent for Republicans.
A majority of Republicans either believe he was born abroad (28 percent) or don't know (30 percent)."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/07/31/poll-on-birthers-most-southerners-republicans-question-obama-citizenship.html
When the Democrats screw up, the Republicans will take over again
Rush, years ago that could have been true. But today the repubs have at least three things going against them:
1. They screwed up BIG TIME. President Obama would have to be a complete failure - and that 'ain't gonna happen.
2. They have done nothing - and at the rate they are going will not have done zip for THEM to gain the trust of Americans. Americans are not buying the politics of destruction any longer.
3. The face of America has changed - the GOP does not reflect America - you can't win an election with 30%. This alone will make them an obsolete party if they continue to focus on their base and not include and embrace all Americans.
It's a good time for a strong third party candidate - but as I've said many times in the past - get the money out of politics. Until then - business as usual.
Obama certainly opposed the Vietnam War
Rush you ranted today:
"...Vietnam, a war Obama certainly opposed."
Obama was born in 1961. the u.s. evacauted all government personnel in 1975. Can you indicate anywhere during this 14 year period of obama's life that he opposed the Vietnam war?
Has he ever as an adult expressed his opposition to what the united states did in Vietnam?
Are you nuts, drunk or on Oxycontin again?
"...Vietnam, a war Obama certainly opposed."
Obama was born in 1961. the u.s. evacauted all government personnel in 1975. Can you indicate anywhere during this 14 year period of obama's life that he opposed the Vietnam war?
Has he ever as an adult expressed his opposition to what the united states did in Vietnam?
Are you nuts, drunk or on Oxycontin again?
Obama didn't get the Somali pirates, the navy got them
Hey Rush - sorry you are still have so much trouble understanding the concept of hierarchy, chain of command, delegating, and stuff like that.
Perhaps conservatives just don’t understand this, which explains much of their incompetence.
When I say “Obama” got the pirates, I don’t mean he personally was pulling the trigger of a Navy Seal sharpshooter rifle.
When I say “Obama” started an investigation, I don’t mean he was personally giving attention to details that he could delegate to his Justice Department.
When I say “Bush” ignored the warnings, I mean the administrative machinery of his presidency that allowed communication to break down and dots to go unconnected.
Remember when Harry S Truman said, “The buck stops here.”
He meant that no matter what happens anywhere in HIS administration, it is HIS administration and HIS responsibility.
Truman got it.
Truman was a Democrat.
Perhaps conservatives just don’t understand this, which explains much of their incompetence.
When I say “Obama” got the pirates, I don’t mean he personally was pulling the trigger of a Navy Seal sharpshooter rifle.
When I say “Obama” started an investigation, I don’t mean he was personally giving attention to details that he could delegate to his Justice Department.
When I say “Bush” ignored the warnings, I mean the administrative machinery of his presidency that allowed communication to break down and dots to go unconnected.
Remember when Harry S Truman said, “The buck stops here.”
He meant that no matter what happens anywhere in HIS administration, it is HIS administration and HIS responsibility.
Truman got it.
Truman was a Democrat.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Sudanese offered bin Laden to Clinton. He did nothing.
Oopsie, Rush, you are just rehashing old, old stuff that you keep bringing up, I keep responding to, and a few months later you'll bring it up again.
1. This was 1996, before adequate intelligence had confirmed a basis for U.S. action against Bin Laden and 2 years BEFORE the kill order and the alleged myth about not shooting the "tall man" who "might have been" Bin Laden. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
2. As Clinton clearly states, and the "inconvenient truths" you keep ignoring, Clinton did not have a lawful basis at that time. The Sudanese were not credible contacts and we did not have diplomatic relations with the Sudanese (though they were trying to reestablish them).
CLINTON DID NOT IGNORE THIS. We did suspect that Bin Laden was a bad guy.
CLINTON TOOK ACTION. He contact the Saudi government, where Bin Laden was a citizen, and where they did have legal status to act, to take action.
THE SAUDIS, Bush's buddies, Bush's oil cronies, REFUSED TO ACT. At that point, there was no legal action appropriate for that time.
You are so desperate to obey those who pull your puppet strings.
1. This was 1996, before adequate intelligence had confirmed a basis for U.S. action against Bin Laden and 2 years BEFORE the kill order and the alleged myth about not shooting the "tall man" who "might have been" Bin Laden. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
2. As Clinton clearly states, and the "inconvenient truths" you keep ignoring, Clinton did not have a lawful basis at that time. The Sudanese were not credible contacts and we did not have diplomatic relations with the Sudanese (though they were trying to reestablish them).
CLINTON DID NOT IGNORE THIS. We did suspect that Bin Laden was a bad guy.
CLINTON TOOK ACTION. He contact the Saudi government, where Bin Laden was a citizen, and where they did have legal status to act, to take action.
THE SAUDIS, Bush's buddies, Bush's oil cronies, REFUSED TO ACT. At that point, there was no legal action appropriate for that time.
You are so desperate to obey those who pull your puppet strings.
The pre-9/11 intel was too vague for Bush to take action, but Clinton should have killed bin Laden
I can imagine someone like Rush making the case that Bush can't be blamed for 911 because, jeeze, the info was vague and how much can a President do?
So Rush could criticize me for asking too much of Bush. But then Rush shows he is nothing but another irrational partisan: he insists that Clinton COULD and SHOULD have stopped the planners.
Rush wants it both ways. The info was too vague to blame Bush, but whatever info there was, it was what Clinton could gather.
Rush says that that vague info should've been enough for Clinton to prevent the attack, but the same info was too vague for Bush to have done a thing.
This is why it's hard to take the Rush seriously.
So Rush could criticize me for asking too much of Bush. But then Rush shows he is nothing but another irrational partisan: he insists that Clinton COULD and SHOULD have stopped the planners.
Rush wants it both ways. The info was too vague to blame Bush, but whatever info there was, it was what Clinton could gather.
Rush says that that vague info should've been enough for Clinton to prevent the attack, but the same info was too vague for Bush to have done a thing.
This is why it's hard to take the Rush seriously.
Bush did everything anyone could have to prevent 9/11
Ooopsie, Rush. (echoed by the pathetic, childish name calling of Glenn Beck) is back to telling his pathetic half-truths.
Yeppers, Rush, the 8/6 PDB was never so meticulous at to state the date or time of airplanes flying into buildings.
It warned that Bin Laden was preparing to attack inside the U.S.
Bush did nothing.
It warned that prominent buildings in New York were being surveiled by terrorists.
Bush did nothing.
It warned that some had warned of possible hijackings.
Bush did nothing.
Condoleezza Rice later stated in May 2002 (recounted in a 9-25-02 PBS interview):
“I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/july-dec02/rice_9-25.html
FBI agent Coleen Rowley specifically warned of terrorists taking flight lessons.
Bush did nothing.
FBI undercover informant Elie Assad, having infiltrated Al Qaeda cells, pointed to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist to trail, but was diverted to insignificant “wannabee” terrorists over his objection and
BUSH DID NOTHING.
Sorry, Rushbo, but just because PDB didn’t predict the specific flight numbers, passenger manifests or other details, does not change the fact that everything points to Bush’s reckless disregard of warnings that ALLOWED 9/11 TO HAPPEN, unlike Clinton and Obama who intercepted and blocked terror attacks.
Yeppers, Rush, the 8/6 PDB was never so meticulous at to state the date or time of airplanes flying into buildings.
It warned that Bin Laden was preparing to attack inside the U.S.
Bush did nothing.
It warned that prominent buildings in New York were being surveiled by terrorists.
Bush did nothing.
It warned that some had warned of possible hijackings.
Bush did nothing.
Condoleezza Rice later stated in May 2002 (recounted in a 9-25-02 PBS interview):
“I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/july-dec02/rice_9-25.html
FBI agent Coleen Rowley specifically warned of terrorists taking flight lessons.
Bush did nothing.
FBI undercover informant Elie Assad, having infiltrated Al Qaeda cells, pointed to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist to trail, but was diverted to insignificant “wannabee” terrorists over his objection and
BUSH DID NOTHING.
Sorry, Rushbo, but just because PDB didn’t predict the specific flight numbers, passenger manifests or other details, does not change the fact that everything points to Bush’s reckless disregard of warnings that ALLOWED 9/11 TO HAPPEN, unlike Clinton and Obama who intercepted and blocked terror attacks.
where is the waste in our healthcare, giving grandma an operation?
Part of the "waste" I think you are referring to, relates to subsidies paid by the government to the insurance companies to supplement the premiums.
Once a public option or single payer system is in place, these subsidies or "waste" no longer exist.
The system run by the insurance companies needs 30-40% for overhead and profit. The single payer or public option will be run on less than 10%.
Once a public option or single payer system is in place, these subsidies or "waste" no longer exist.
The system run by the insurance companies needs 30-40% for overhead and profit. The single payer or public option will be run on less than 10%.
Rep Vitter got Holdren to admit to de-population views
I’m sorry, Rushie boy, I missed the part in the questioning by PROSTITUTE CUSTOMER DAVID VITTER where John Holdren stated that he ever supported forced abortions or forced sterilizations, which is what you accused him of earlier.
He clearly supported the concept of population control through VOLUNTARY availability of abortion and reproductive CHOICE.
So please point out where Holdren supported the de-population views of others that he cited and rejected, and where he reiterated them in the responses to PROSTITUTE CUSTOMER VITTER.
Then tell us why you are trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
::::::: waving wings wildly ::::::
Oh, I know, I know, I know the answer - call on me!
He clearly supported the concept of population control through VOLUNTARY availability of abortion and reproductive CHOICE.
So please point out where Holdren supported the de-population views of others that he cited and rejected, and where he reiterated them in the responses to PROSTITUTE CUSTOMER VITTER.
Then tell us why you are trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
::::::: waving wings wildly ::::::
Oh, I know, I know, I know the answer - call on me!
Rush kicks liberal butt!
I hate to tell you, folks, but when it comes to factual support for claims here, I have Rush and robots beat to a pulp.
I know this drives Kool-aid crowd crazy, but when you just look at the claims and the facts behind them, I am kicking royal butt here, day after day.
Sorry. I wish you didn't resort to name-calling and hollering so much (not that I am completely innocent of these), but for truth, I am definitely winning here big time.
I know this drives Kool-aid crowd crazy, but when you just look at the claims and the facts behind them, I am kicking royal butt here, day after day.
Sorry. I wish you didn't resort to name-calling and hollering so much (not that I am completely innocent of these), but for truth, I am definitely winning here big time.
Wait till the election of 2010. Dems will be crying.
Speaking of elections in 2010 and 2012.
Let's see, the stock market is booming, foreclosures down and homesales up, recession easing, America once again respected around the world, health care reform passed.
Americans are recognizing the GOP as the party of no, the party of destruction, and just aren't buying into their lies.
Oh, and let's not forget that the GOP has and will not have done zip and can't find anyone to run.
So as far as the upcoming election goes: "BRING EM ON"!
Let's see, the stock market is booming, foreclosures down and homesales up, recession easing, America once again respected around the world, health care reform passed.
Americans are recognizing the GOP as the party of no, the party of destruction, and just aren't buying into their lies.
Oh, and let's not forget that the GOP has and will not have done zip and can't find anyone to run.
So as far as the upcoming election goes: "BRING EM ON"!
Obama is ramming change down our throats
Glenn Beck Welcome to the real world of "Change".
The conservatives have had 8 years of trickle down policies and 2 wars that have bankrupted the country. Well the rich got richer and everyone else got poorer.
The Bush administration chose to kick the can down the road to the next administration and now we are getting the changes that are necessary for the country to recover from the lack of attention or response to so many problems President Obama faced upon entering office.
You seem to feel empowered enough by the tea party crowd to cast out veiled threats to the government that you will somehow rise up and retake that which is rightfully yours. Well good luck with your Coup D'Etat Rush.
I know conservatives do not like change. They prefer that things stay the same or that change happens verrry slowly.
Well we have a President who can actually multi-task and he is able to make the many corrections of failed policies that will get our Country back on the right track.
Hardly tyranny, just a black man in office who was elected by a majority of the people and given a mandate to fix all the things that were broken by his predecessor.
Get used to 8 years of President Obama and then 8 years of Hillary Clinton.
It will take that long to fix all the toys GWBush got his hands on.
The conservatives have had 8 years of trickle down policies and 2 wars that have bankrupted the country. Well the rich got richer and everyone else got poorer.
The Bush administration chose to kick the can down the road to the next administration and now we are getting the changes that are necessary for the country to recover from the lack of attention or response to so many problems President Obama faced upon entering office.
You seem to feel empowered enough by the tea party crowd to cast out veiled threats to the government that you will somehow rise up and retake that which is rightfully yours. Well good luck with your Coup D'Etat Rush.
I know conservatives do not like change. They prefer that things stay the same or that change happens verrry slowly.
Well we have a President who can actually multi-task and he is able to make the many corrections of failed policies that will get our Country back on the right track.
Hardly tyranny, just a black man in office who was elected by a majority of the people and given a mandate to fix all the things that were broken by his predecessor.
Get used to 8 years of President Obama and then 8 years of Hillary Clinton.
It will take that long to fix all the toys GWBush got his hands on.
President Obama's science czar, John Holdren, calls for depopulating the Earth
- Rush Limbaugh continues to humiliate himself today as he did yesterday, trying to somehow link a low level science appointee (John Holdren) with the really dishonest claim that Holdren advocated or supported forced abortion or forced sterilization.
As we saw yesterday when Rush got caught red-handed quoting lengthy passages that all came from one chapter in a book about population, from THIRTY TWO (32) years ago, of which the scientist was the third-billed contributor, the passages were all from a chapter in which the authors discussed some of the approaches others were suggesting, before rejecting them in favor of merely supporting the availability of VOLUNTARY birth control and the right of women to make that choice.
Citing passages without noting the authors’ rejection of them is the same as if I were to note that Rush Limbaugh cited the pro-Chinese view and then claimed that proved they supported it, without noting their subsequent statements of opposition.
[But ooopsie, Rush did not even provide any statements of opposition!
Just quoted directly from the parts of the book he claimed represented the authors’ views]
So we see that Rush, in a further display of his dishonesty is drawing from other sources that he is nt citing.
All the way around, conservatives are, once again, forced to base their entire position on LIES proving that even they know that
THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND.
In any case, Limbaugh today goes on from this lying, dishonest premise, to claim that liberals (or “progressives,” - whatever they’re calling us these days) do not support personal liberty, only dictatorship.
No, it is those who OPPOSE CHOICE who OPPOSE FREEDOM.
Anyone who takes a position that the “gummint” should make personal choices for a woman essentially agrees with the Chinese dictators that the “gummint” should make those choices; their only beef is that, in China’s case, the “gummint” is making a different choice than they want.
But it is still about the nanny “gummint” making your personal, moral, medical, religious and relatinship choices.
Liberals are liars and ignorant, too.
More of the usual combinationn of IGNORANCE and LIES from Michael Savage.
1. He is obviously ignorant of the meaning of COLA in Social Security. It stands for “Cost Of Living Adjustment.” In an inflationary cycle, it means values increase; in a deflationary recession cycle, it means that values do not go up - in fact, if benefits were truly indexed to inflation/deflation, they would actually be reduced and, if they are not, such benefits might actually be increased in real dollar values.
2. The details on Medicare, as with all details of health care reform, are still in flux. Perhaps Veritruthiness could be more specific and cite the specific proposal, with reference, he is referring to.
3. OUTRIGHT LIE. This has been asked repetitively, over and over, and has been ANSWERED.
There was no “six month” promise, ESPECIALLY on Afghanistan, since the President said during the campaign there should be an orderly withdrawal from IRAQ over 16-18 months (NOT SIX), and that they should be moved to where Al Qaeda is - in AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN.
Since this has been repeatedly brought to Savage's attention, with a request for a source to backup his claim which HE CANNOT PROVIDE, the repetition herewith is an INTENTIONAL LIE.
But then, as we have seen, every time a conservative has to LIE about liberals' views, they are just proving that they cannot respond to actual liberals' views and that even they know
THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND
Someone who uses a fake radio name being caught in direct LIES over and over and over is just like the used car salesman who calls himself “Honest Joe” and says, “trust me.”
1. He is obviously ignorant of the meaning of COLA in Social Security. It stands for “Cost Of Living Adjustment.” In an inflationary cycle, it means values increase; in a deflationary recession cycle, it means that values do not go up - in fact, if benefits were truly indexed to inflation/deflation, they would actually be reduced and, if they are not, such benefits might actually be increased in real dollar values.
2. The details on Medicare, as with all details of health care reform, are still in flux. Perhaps Veritruthiness could be more specific and cite the specific proposal, with reference, he is referring to.
3. OUTRIGHT LIE. This has been asked repetitively, over and over, and has been ANSWERED.
There was no “six month” promise, ESPECIALLY on Afghanistan, since the President said during the campaign there should be an orderly withdrawal from IRAQ over 16-18 months (NOT SIX), and that they should be moved to where Al Qaeda is - in AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN.
Since this has been repeatedly brought to Savage's attention, with a request for a source to backup his claim which HE CANNOT PROVIDE, the repetition herewith is an INTENTIONAL LIE.
But then, as we have seen, every time a conservative has to LIE about liberals' views, they are just proving that they cannot respond to actual liberals' views and that even they know
THE TRUTH IS NOT THEIR FRIEND
Someone who uses a fake radio name being caught in direct LIES over and over and over is just like the used car salesman who calls himself “Honest Joe” and says, “trust me.”
Ignore the past and be condemned to relive it
Rush is correct that “those who ignore history will have to relive it” (a mangling of the quote by George Santayana - born in Spain and lifelong Spanish citizen - perhaps Rush does not understand that merely speaking Spanish does not create a monolithic sameness - there is huge difference between Mexicans, Cubans, South Americans and European Spanish - you’re welcome, Rush, I’m here to educate on subjects about which you apparently know so little).
The correct statement is, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," from “Reason in Common Sense,” which was Volume I of his 1905 series “The Life of Reason,” written in English.
But then, we already knew that Rush is not so good with sources, as any REAL journalist would be.
The real point, however, is this: Clinton and Obama learned from the past and KEPT US SAFE.
Frat boy Bush came to the White House, ignored the terror files, ignored his own terror advisors, ignored repeated warnings, and allowed 9/11 to happen.
Look at the record - the past - that Raoul wants to “ignore” or “cannot remember”:
Clinton:
1. The 1993 WTC attack happened FIVE WEEKS (not 8 months) into the Clinton presidency.
HE CAUGHT THEM ALL and those who are still alive are all still in Federal prison!
2. Clinton quickly mastered the intricacies of Al Qaeda terrorism and developed extensive intelligence. Clinton intercepted and prevented the planned LAX and Millennium attacks. He had a standing KILL order on Bin Laden (contrary to other conservative lies and myths).
3. Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger turned over all the files and data to Bush’s incoming NSA Condoleezza Rice, who PROMPTLY IGNORED THEM and never touched them until after 9/11.
Obama:
1. Barack Obama got the Somali Pirates. Obama made the call. Obama delegated to those on the scene instead of micromanaging from an “undisclosed location.”
2. Barack Obama intercepted the planned Al Qaeda attacks by Najibullah Zazi, his father Mohammed Wali Zazi and New York Imam Ahmad Wais Afzali.
Bush:
1. Rejected warnings from top terror advisors: Richard Clarke, the top counterinsurgency expert, who had been serving through Reagan, Daddy Bush and Clinton, asked to meet with Bush regarding urgent terror intelligence within a week of Bush’s taking office. Bush ignored him. Clarke repeatedly tried to meet with Bush and was rebuffed, the last time ONE WEEK before 9/11.
2. Bush gave $43 MILLION DOLLARS to the Taliban May 17 2001, even after we knew they had blown up the Buddhist shrines and were persecuting women.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/
3. FBI agents have testified of warning of known Islamic terrorists (including several who were actually involved in 9/11) in flight schools and BUSH IGNORED THEM. Specifically, FBI agent Coleen Rowley submitted formal warnings that were IGNORED.
4. FBI undercover informant Elie Assad, having infiltrated Al Qaeda cells, pointed to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist to trail, but was diverted to insignificant “wannabee” terrorists over his objection.
5. Bush got a very specific Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) on August 6, 2001, which specified that Bin Laden was planning an attack inside the United States that could possibly include flying aircraft into buildings. Bush was on vacation and IGNORED IT. (Condoleezza Rice would later ask how anyone could have expected terrorists to fly planes into buildings.)
6. After the attacks, Bush promised to get Bin Laden “dead or alive.”
Bush is gone.
OSAMA BIN LADEN is STILL ON THE LOOSE.
The correct statement is, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," from “Reason in Common Sense,” which was Volume I of his 1905 series “The Life of Reason,” written in English.
But then, we already knew that Rush is not so good with sources, as any REAL journalist would be.
The real point, however, is this: Clinton and Obama learned from the past and KEPT US SAFE.
Frat boy Bush came to the White House, ignored the terror files, ignored his own terror advisors, ignored repeated warnings, and allowed 9/11 to happen.
Look at the record - the past - that Raoul wants to “ignore” or “cannot remember”:
Clinton:
1. The 1993 WTC attack happened FIVE WEEKS (not 8 months) into the Clinton presidency.
HE CAUGHT THEM ALL and those who are still alive are all still in Federal prison!
2. Clinton quickly mastered the intricacies of Al Qaeda terrorism and developed extensive intelligence. Clinton intercepted and prevented the planned LAX and Millennium attacks. He had a standing KILL order on Bin Laden (contrary to other conservative lies and myths).
3. Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger turned over all the files and data to Bush’s incoming NSA Condoleezza Rice, who PROMPTLY IGNORED THEM and never touched them until after 9/11.
Obama:
1. Barack Obama got the Somali Pirates. Obama made the call. Obama delegated to those on the scene instead of micromanaging from an “undisclosed location.”
2. Barack Obama intercepted the planned Al Qaeda attacks by Najibullah Zazi, his father Mohammed Wali Zazi and New York Imam Ahmad Wais Afzali.
Bush:
1. Rejected warnings from top terror advisors: Richard Clarke, the top counterinsurgency expert, who had been serving through Reagan, Daddy Bush and Clinton, asked to meet with Bush regarding urgent terror intelligence within a week of Bush’s taking office. Bush ignored him. Clarke repeatedly tried to meet with Bush and was rebuffed, the last time ONE WEEK before 9/11.
2. Bush gave $43 MILLION DOLLARS to the Taliban May 17 2001, even after we knew they had blown up the Buddhist shrines and were persecuting women.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/
3. FBI agents have testified of warning of known Islamic terrorists (including several who were actually involved in 9/11) in flight schools and BUSH IGNORED THEM. Specifically, FBI agent Coleen Rowley submitted formal warnings that were IGNORED.
4. FBI undercover informant Elie Assad, having infiltrated Al Qaeda cells, pointed to Mohammad Atta as a terrorist to trail, but was diverted to insignificant “wannabee” terrorists over his objection.
5. Bush got a very specific Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) on August 6, 2001, which specified that Bin Laden was planning an attack inside the United States that could possibly include flying aircraft into buildings. Bush was on vacation and IGNORED IT. (Condoleezza Rice would later ask how anyone could have expected terrorists to fly planes into buildings.)
6. After the attacks, Bush promised to get Bin Laden “dead or alive.”
Bush is gone.
OSAMA BIN LADEN is STILL ON THE LOOSE.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Catholic Online calls for RICO investigation of ACORN
I correctly noted that the allegations have been responded to with allegations of fraud in editing.
At this point EVERYTHING is an allegation.
The point is that many are calling for the death penalty for ACORN without giving them a fair chance to present their evidence in response.
And especially as to official organizational policies as opposed to rogue “loose cannon” individuals.
Even CONSERVATIVE columnist Saunders - while (like me and many liberals) is saying, essentially, Hey, not so fast - let’s get the facts in first.
In contrast, there are concluded criminal and civil trials that have PROVED direct, OFFICIAL policies of the Catholic Church complicit in protecting and harboring CHILD MOLESTERS and coverups of serious felonies and obstruction of justice that is ongoing.
Do you join me in stating whatever standard is applied to ACORN should be applied to subsidiaries of the Catholic Church that receive any public funds?
Do you join me is saying that, if Catholic Online is going to call for a RICO investigation of ACORN, they should be even handed and call for a RICO investigation of the Catholic Church’s OFFICIAL POLICIES of harboring, protecting and obstructing?
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34434
At this point EVERYTHING is an allegation.
The point is that many are calling for the death penalty for ACORN without giving them a fair chance to present their evidence in response.
And especially as to official organizational policies as opposed to rogue “loose cannon” individuals.
Even CONSERVATIVE columnist Saunders - while (like me and many liberals) is saying, essentially, Hey, not so fast - let’s get the facts in first.
In contrast, there are concluded criminal and civil trials that have PROVED direct, OFFICIAL policies of the Catholic Church complicit in protecting and harboring CHILD MOLESTERS and coverups of serious felonies and obstruction of justice that is ongoing.
Do you join me in stating whatever standard is applied to ACORN should be applied to subsidiaries of the Catholic Church that receive any public funds?
Do you join me is saying that, if Catholic Online is going to call for a RICO investigation of ACORN, they should be even handed and call for a RICO investigation of the Catholic Church’s OFFICIAL POLICIES of harboring, protecting and obstructing?
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34434
Malpractice reform would cut our medical costs
The malpractice punitive awards are individually large, but they are a VERY small part of our health care costs. The reactions do add up significantly; the malpractice insurance premiums AND the defensive medicine practices are costly.
Does it ever occur to anyone that these defensive medical practices are what makes us think our medical care is the best? It's not, but it can look like it because of the extensive tests and procedures we can throw at any problem. Or perceived possible future problem. The lack of a problem, the successful preventative care more common in better health care systems is harder to measure.
When reality hits, and we see that our country's health care system is 37th best, it's hard to see. Just because you can't (or won't) see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
A national single payer - Medicare for All - would almost eliminate the malpractice problem, as most gov paid would be about remediation, fixing, and accommodating any unfortunate happenstance. I can't believe that that's scary to anyone.
Does it ever occur to anyone that these defensive medical practices are what makes us think our medical care is the best? It's not, but it can look like it because of the extensive tests and procedures we can throw at any problem. Or perceived possible future problem. The lack of a problem, the successful preventative care more common in better health care systems is harder to measure.
When reality hits, and we see that our country's health care system is 37th best, it's hard to see. Just because you can't (or won't) see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
A national single payer - Medicare for All - would almost eliminate the malpractice problem, as most gov paid would be about remediation, fixing, and accommodating any unfortunate happenstance. I can't believe that that's scary to anyone.
There is NO RACISM in America! Deal with it!
Rush, let me say it one last time. Do you believe there are still any anti-Black racists in America? Let me assume you do. I agree.
Do you think that anti-Obama rallies and rhetoric appeal to these folks? Let me assume you do. I agree.
For whatever reasons many non-racist folks might be protesting or angry, they are joined by as many racists as have the energy to join up. The racists are lovin' it.
It doesn't mean much about the others, except that their numbers just have to include the most vile racists we've got.
That's just how it is. With a Black President, it could not be otherwise. Move on.
Do you think that anti-Obama rallies and rhetoric appeal to these folks? Let me assume you do. I agree.
For whatever reasons many non-racist folks might be protesting or angry, they are joined by as many racists as have the energy to join up. The racists are lovin' it.
It doesn't mean much about the others, except that their numbers just have to include the most vile racists we've got.
That's just how it is. With a Black President, it could not be otherwise. Move on.
CO2 is a harmless NATURAL gas in the atmosphere
There is somewhat of a balance between the CO2 taken up (during photosynthesis) and the CO2 expelled (during respiration, as occurs in the nearly 7 billion humans you describe).
Every sugar you eat required 6 CO2s from the atmosphere to produce it and it will release 6CO2s back to the atmosphere when you metabolize it.
The same holds true for your heat question, in that the energy humans release isn’t magically created by them, but instead came from the food molecules (stored solar energy) they metabolized.
The problem is not the normal flow of energy and CO2 on earth, instead it's the fossil fuels (e.g. the billions and billions of tons of sugars that have not been metabolized, and instead have been sequestered in the earth for over a hundred million years and have only VERY RECENTLY been combusted at high rates by human activities. This fossil source of CO2 would still be safely locked in the earth had humans not used them for fuels, thus releasing them into the atmosphere where they are contributing to an increasingly warming of the earth's surface where we live.
There has been a measured and very significant increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last two hundred years corresponding to increasingly warm earth surface temperatures.
Every sugar you eat required 6 CO2s from the atmosphere to produce it and it will release 6CO2s back to the atmosphere when you metabolize it.
The same holds true for your heat question, in that the energy humans release isn’t magically created by them, but instead came from the food molecules (stored solar energy) they metabolized.
The problem is not the normal flow of energy and CO2 on earth, instead it's the fossil fuels (e.g. the billions and billions of tons of sugars that have not been metabolized, and instead have been sequestered in the earth for over a hundred million years and have only VERY RECENTLY been combusted at high rates by human activities. This fossil source of CO2 would still be safely locked in the earth had humans not used them for fuels, thus releasing them into the atmosphere where they are contributing to an increasingly warming of the earth's surface where we live.
There has been a measured and very significant increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last two hundred years corresponding to increasingly warm earth surface temperatures.
Being homosexual is a CHOICE!
Once again, a concise summary of the TWO reasons why Pat Robertson's obsessive preoccupation with others’ private lives is both desperate and nonsensical:
1. Biological sciences prove conclusively that sexual orientation is not something an individual chooses.
2. So what if it were? Why should Robertson be butting his nose into others’ private lives?
1. Biological sciences prove conclusively that sexual orientation is not something an individual chooses.
2. So what if it were? Why should Robertson be butting his nose into others’ private lives?
Liberals play the race card when they have nothing else
Rush, is there any mention of race that is not "playing the race card", in your opinion.
I think not.
I think when you say "stop playing the race card" what you really mean is "no one should talk about race in America".
Sorry. When I see signs with Obama stereotyped as a Sambo or when I hear a Southern Representative who is a "son of confederate general" shout out "you lie" despite the rules that prohibit this, I say, "racists are there".
Is stating a simple opinion, explained by the facts that lead me to this opinion, "playing the race card"?
I have no idea what you are accusing me of other than saying "racism exists"...and you think that saying this is somehow wrong.
Well, sorry Rush. It is what it is.
I think not.
I think when you say "stop playing the race card" what you really mean is "no one should talk about race in America".
Sorry. When I see signs with Obama stereotyped as a Sambo or when I hear a Southern Representative who is a "son of confederate general" shout out "you lie" despite the rules that prohibit this, I say, "racists are there".
Is stating a simple opinion, explained by the facts that lead me to this opinion, "playing the race card"?
I have no idea what you are accusing me of other than saying "racism exists"...and you think that saying this is somehow wrong.
Well, sorry Rush. It is what it is.
Terrorist were planning World Trade Center attacks while Clinton was president
Sorry, Rush.
The history books will give the date of Bush's inauguration and the date of the WTC attack.
I don't recall reading many history books that recorded when evildoers were thinking about doing evil and blaming the President at the time.
I know that for you, everything terrible just HAS to be the fault of a Democrat, but then again you don't write the history books.
And the historians hardly listen to your radio rants, in case that surprises you.
I'm sure you will pay to have your own version of history published, and that tome will be treasured in the future far more than all the books written by the bona fide historians.
So don't fret. All the future greats will no doubt recognize that of all of us here on earth, it will have been Rush and only Rush that got it all right! Right.
LOL
The history books will give the date of Bush's inauguration and the date of the WTC attack.
I don't recall reading many history books that recorded when evildoers were thinking about doing evil and blaming the President at the time.
I know that for you, everything terrible just HAS to be the fault of a Democrat, but then again you don't write the history books.
And the historians hardly listen to your radio rants, in case that surprises you.
I'm sure you will pay to have your own version of history published, and that tome will be treasured in the future far more than all the books written by the bona fide historians.
So don't fret. All the future greats will no doubt recognize that of all of us here on earth, it will have been Rush and only Rush that got it all right! Right.
LOL
I don't want my taxes funding health care
I'd add that for many like myself I hate the fact that I have to pay more taxes because religious groups are excused from paying taxes.
Makes me even more frustrated when they use their tax savings to help remove freedoms from others (e.g. Prop 8), build ridiculously expensive churches (to show off their wealth) or send missionaries to other countries (which ends up fueling religious tensions in other regions).
I'd rather support the poor than help support hypocrites praying to invisible Gods.
At the same time I understand it's not a perfect world and we each can't get what we want all the time, it's about compromising.
And compromising isn't something "me me me" conservatives are very skilled at.
And, Rush, I would bet that you cannot find a person in the USA whose tax dollars are not used to fund something s/he doesn't believe in.
Mine pay Blackwater mercenaries a fortune to kill people that are not a threat to me or mine.
They also pay for torturers to do their thing. And for executions. I could go on and on and on.
Makes me even more frustrated when they use their tax savings to help remove freedoms from others (e.g. Prop 8), build ridiculously expensive churches (to show off their wealth) or send missionaries to other countries (which ends up fueling religious tensions in other regions).
I'd rather support the poor than help support hypocrites praying to invisible Gods.
At the same time I understand it's not a perfect world and we each can't get what we want all the time, it's about compromising.
And compromising isn't something "me me me" conservatives are very skilled at.
And, Rush, I would bet that you cannot find a person in the USA whose tax dollars are not used to fund something s/he doesn't believe in.
Mine pay Blackwater mercenaries a fortune to kill people that are not a threat to me or mine.
They also pay for torturers to do their thing. And for executions. I could go on and on and on.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
ACORN should be investigated for RICO violations
Hey Rush, - once again I refer to the article by ultra CONSERVATIVE columnist Debra J. Saunders published last Friday in the NCT, which can be found on the NCT site at:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/saunders/article_043f5213-1c68-5562-9129-561c0215098d.html
While Ms. Saunders usually drives me nuts with her convoluted logic, at she bases them carefully on facts, unlike most conservatives like those we have seen today who keep fabricating their own (non)reality.
Ms. Sanders asks some very important questions, including some that I asked several days ago in addition to those raised by me.
To what extent were these the actions of individual rogue "loose cannons" as opposed to organizational policies, such as official policies of the Catholic church to protect child molesters and cover up serious felonies?
Does everyone calling for a RICO investigation also call on the same for EVERY organization guilty of conspiracies to commit or conceal serious crimes - not merely those that are alleged, but those with histories of convictions and civil judgments?
How many times were these fakers turned away? How many did they have to go to before they got a handful that fell for their ruse?
Turns out not everyone was fooled by them! At one place, they were even threatened with having the cops called on them!
Not only that, but it turns out that they spliced, diced and did some creative editing to make it appear that some of the comments were knowingly in support of illegal acts when, in reality, they were edited to make it look that way.
Check out Saunders' article.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/saunders/article_043f5213-1c68-5562-9129-561c0215098d.html
While Ms. Saunders usually drives me nuts with her convoluted logic, at she bases them carefully on facts, unlike most conservatives like those we have seen today who keep fabricating their own (non)reality.
Ms. Sanders asks some very important questions, including some that I asked several days ago in addition to those raised by me.
To what extent were these the actions of individual rogue "loose cannons" as opposed to organizational policies, such as official policies of the Catholic church to protect child molesters and cover up serious felonies?
Does everyone calling for a RICO investigation also call on the same for EVERY organization guilty of conspiracies to commit or conceal serious crimes - not merely those that are alleged, but those with histories of convictions and civil judgments?
How many times were these fakers turned away? How many did they have to go to before they got a handful that fell for their ruse?
Turns out not everyone was fooled by them! At one place, they were even threatened with having the cops called on them!
Not only that, but it turns out that they spliced, diced and did some creative editing to make it appear that some of the comments were knowingly in support of illegal acts when, in reality, they were edited to make it look that way.
Check out Saunders' article.
Europeans have VAT and many other taxes we do not have
Let's just say the way Europeans are taxed is a little different by method than it is done here.
We do have the VAT, the bund (federation), the lander (kinda like states) and the kommunen (village/city) tax.
The very word for tax in German translates to English as "help" or guide/steer and about 90-5% of the taxes are levied at the federal level.
The system is what we would consider progressive, and ranges anywhere from 0-45% for persons and anywhere from 15-30% for corporations.
With that tax, health care, social security, even prostitutes have a retirement, education or vocational training after high school is provided, we provide long term care for elders, accident care, the disabled are provided care and there are other benefits derived from the taxes paid or not paid.
Quite honestly, when I add up all of the taxes, taxes disguised as fees, on returns, bills I pay, etc. living here in CA, I'm at a little less than the highest 45% of German taxation without nearly the benefits.
We do have the VAT, the bund (federation), the lander (kinda like states) and the kommunen (village/city) tax.
The very word for tax in German translates to English as "help" or guide/steer and about 90-5% of the taxes are levied at the federal level.
The system is what we would consider progressive, and ranges anywhere from 0-45% for persons and anywhere from 15-30% for corporations.
With that tax, health care, social security, even prostitutes have a retirement, education or vocational training after high school is provided, we provide long term care for elders, accident care, the disabled are provided care and there are other benefits derived from the taxes paid or not paid.
Quite honestly, when I add up all of the taxes, taxes disguised as fees, on returns, bills I pay, etc. living here in CA, I'm at a little less than the highest 45% of German taxation without nearly the benefits.
There aren't 50 million uninsured Americans
Liebaugh says, "there aren't 50 million uninsured Americans."
According to Rush, there are very few uninsured Americans. If I agree, and go farther, and say there are NO uninsured Americans, how much longer can we afford to pay the for-profit thugs who are skimming 20-30% off the top of every dollar we spend for health care.
Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs:
Over the last decade, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have increased 119 percent.
Employees have seen their share of job-based coverage increase at nearly the same rate during this period jumping from $1,543 to $3,354
The cumulative increase in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have raised at four times the rate of inflation and wage increases during last decade. This increase has made it much more difficult for businesses to continue to provide coverage to their employees and for those workers to afford coverage themselves.
The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost. Health insurance costs are the fastest growing expense for employers. Employer health insurance costs overtook profits in 2008, and the gap grows steadily.
Total health insurance costs for employers could reach nearly $850 billion by 2019. Individual and family spending will jump considerably from $326 billion in 2009 to $550 billion in 2019.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that job-based health insurance could increase 100 percent over the next decade.7 Employer-based family insurance costs for a family of four will reach nearly $25,000 per year by 2018 absent health care reform.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
According to Rush, there are very few uninsured Americans. If I agree, and go farther, and say there are NO uninsured Americans, how much longer can we afford to pay the for-profit thugs who are skimming 20-30% off the top of every dollar we spend for health care.
Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs:
Over the last decade, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have increased 119 percent.
Employees have seen their share of job-based coverage increase at nearly the same rate during this period jumping from $1,543 to $3,354
The cumulative increase in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have raised at four times the rate of inflation and wage increases during last decade. This increase has made it much more difficult for businesses to continue to provide coverage to their employees and for those workers to afford coverage themselves.
The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,000 a year, and the employee foots about 30 percent of this cost. Health insurance costs are the fastest growing expense for employers. Employer health insurance costs overtook profits in 2008, and the gap grows steadily.
Total health insurance costs for employers could reach nearly $850 billion by 2019. Individual and family spending will jump considerably from $326 billion in 2009 to $550 billion in 2019.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that job-based health insurance could increase 100 percent over the next decade.7 Employer-based family insurance costs for a family of four will reach nearly $25,000 per year by 2018 absent health care reform.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Obama appointing czars is SCARY!
For the other complete idiots who think Glenn Beck's rants about czars have any meaning, czar is NOT a term used by anybody in the Executive Branch. It is a term created by the press who did not want to write out four or five word titular names given to advisers and experts hired and often CONFIRMED by Congress who are at least TWO levels removed from associating with or meeting with the President.
The term "czar" was first used in term of FDR--a rubber "czar" was put in charge of helping secure a supply of rubber to make tires for WWII effort. Bill Bennett was called the DRUG CZAR during term of Ronald Reagan. Little Boy Bush had 47 czars! Yes, W the incompetent, hired 50% more czars than Obama has hired. Why didn't broken brained Beck complain about those czars?
Where is the Fairness and Accuracy Doctrine. When nut jobs like Beck are allowed to lie and spew any kind of nonsense on mass media outlets then clueless joes write letters to the editor showing they have no ability for reasoned thought. The LTE writers get in such a lather that they write drivel. Most incredible is that reputable newspapers would print these nut cases LTE about czars. Remember when newspapers had standards?
The lunatic fringe gets ever loonier.
The term "czar" was first used in term of FDR--a rubber "czar" was put in charge of helping secure a supply of rubber to make tires for WWII effort. Bill Bennett was called the DRUG CZAR during term of Ronald Reagan. Little Boy Bush had 47 czars! Yes, W the incompetent, hired 50% more czars than Obama has hired. Why didn't broken brained Beck complain about those czars?
Where is the Fairness and Accuracy Doctrine. When nut jobs like Beck are allowed to lie and spew any kind of nonsense on mass media outlets then clueless joes write letters to the editor showing they have no ability for reasoned thought. The LTE writers get in such a lather that they write drivel. Most incredible is that reputable newspapers would print these nut cases LTE about czars. Remember when newspapers had standards?
The lunatic fringe gets ever loonier.
FOX is Fair and Balanced
"I saw where a Fox News (can they really be called that?) Producer was filmed revving up a 9/12 Rally crowd. What would you call that? Propaganda? BS? Film Making? Hilarious?"
Watch it and weep, Rush. "Fair and Balanced" heh heh
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/fox-news-producer-caught_n_292529.html
Watch it and weep, Rush. "Fair and Balanced" heh heh
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/fox-news-producer-caught_n_292529.html
You are certainly correct about the higher tax rate in Canada.
However when you combine what the U. S. employer and employee pays for health insurance premiums plus the deductibles and co-pays was well as caps on some catastrophic illnesses, the Canadian tax rate is a bargain.
No Canadian ever went bankrupt due to rescision, deductibles, co-pays or caps.
No Canadian ever died because he had no health insurance.
However when you combine what the U. S. employer and employee pays for health insurance premiums plus the deductibles and co-pays was well as caps on some catastrophic illnesses, the Canadian tax rate is a bargain.
No Canadian ever went bankrupt due to rescision, deductibles, co-pays or caps.
No Canadian ever died because he had no health insurance.
Why are we in such a all fired up hurry to 'fix' health care?
My sardonic sense of humor is indicative of the state of my existence.
Do you wonder why we're in such an all fired hurry to get all of this health care "cared" for by the end of the year?
After 45 years of devoted service, my beloved my husband's company is drastically changing our cherry health care.
Oh, those premiums are increasing, we cannot increase what we put away for our spending account (maxed), but everything else is increasing as well including co-pays as a percentage of the total, our deductibles, prescriptions and what will even be covered is dramatically decreasing.
I wouldn't be worried about it except my husband is already working an additional 5-7 years past his retirement to keep me insured and has his own health issues.
Right now NO one will insure me except his company, I can't get into a plan for my small business without having disastrous expensive premiums.
My disease requires management by specialists and sometimes it is a delicate well choreographed dance with the insurance we have had just to continue to do that.
Rush asked earlier what the President HAS done right?
Well, this life long conservative believes it is long past time, and I ain't got a lot of time left, to reform insurance industry practices in this country.
But, I never forget that I am one of the few, the proud, the insured. And that is largely because I have a loving spouse who will live in a tent to make certain I am! And, sadly I'm still alive and kickin (one of my favorite 80's songs) probably because I am insured and am grateful to be.
Do you wonder why we're in such an all fired hurry to get all of this health care "cared" for by the end of the year?
After 45 years of devoted service, my beloved my husband's company is drastically changing our cherry health care.
Oh, those premiums are increasing, we cannot increase what we put away for our spending account (maxed), but everything else is increasing as well including co-pays as a percentage of the total, our deductibles, prescriptions and what will even be covered is dramatically decreasing.
I wouldn't be worried about it except my husband is already working an additional 5-7 years past his retirement to keep me insured and has his own health issues.
Right now NO one will insure me except his company, I can't get into a plan for my small business without having disastrous expensive premiums.
My disease requires management by specialists and sometimes it is a delicate well choreographed dance with the insurance we have had just to continue to do that.
Rush asked earlier what the President HAS done right?
Well, this life long conservative believes it is long past time, and I ain't got a lot of time left, to reform insurance industry practices in this country.
But, I never forget that I am one of the few, the proud, the insured. And that is largely because I have a loving spouse who will live in a tent to make certain I am! And, sadly I'm still alive and kickin (one of my favorite 80's songs) probably because I am insured and am grateful to be.
Conservatives ar the TRUE American patriots
During my afternoon readings I came across James McPherson's article, "Lincoln Off His Pedestal." it appeared in the September 24 issue of THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS. I found the following excerpt, in which McPherson quotes Lincoln, especially interesting:
"'The central idea pervading this struggle,' he said in May 1861 after the Confederacy had begun the war by firing on American troops and the American flag at Fort Sumter, 'is the necessity that is upon us, of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves.'"
Those individuals who are constantly denigrating the U.S. government and its elected officials with lies about their acts and slurs against their characters would do well to remember these words of Lincoln. As I recall, the confederates tried to paint themselves as the true patriots during the civil war who upheld the standards of the founders against the encroachments of the central government in Washington, D.C. in fact they were upholding a society and economy based upon slave labor.
Individuals who constantly accuse the obama administration and its supporters of racism need to measure their words and state explicitly when and where any of them have done so. asserting that any Google search will document such an assertion is intellectually indolent and without merit.
I have no problem with people expressing genuine disagreement with Obama on domestic and foreign issues. but when they accuse the president of vile acts, and associate him with vile personalities like Hitler and Stalin, they remind me of the confederate ideologues. They are the ones who painted Lincoln as a despot and the Washington government as a tyranny.
After John Wilkes shot Lincoln, he shout; "sic semper tyrannis!" the real question who was the tyrant--Lincoln who brought the political end of slavery, or Wilkes who robbed the United States of one of its great men?
I likewise pose the question to the most obdurate opponents of president Obama. who obstructs civil discourse and reasonable discussion of legislation in our republic--is it president Obama who has consistently sought conciliation with the republicans, or is it Sen Grassley, Rep. Joe Wilson, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity who have said that he supports death panels and called him a liar and a communist?
Ibelieve that the extreme conservatives' denunciations against obama are as hollow as were those of the confederates against lincoln.
"'The central idea pervading this struggle,' he said in May 1861 after the Confederacy had begun the war by firing on American troops and the American flag at Fort Sumter, 'is the necessity that is upon us, of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves.'"
Those individuals who are constantly denigrating the U.S. government and its elected officials with lies about their acts and slurs against their characters would do well to remember these words of Lincoln. As I recall, the confederates tried to paint themselves as the true patriots during the civil war who upheld the standards of the founders against the encroachments of the central government in Washington, D.C. in fact they were upholding a society and economy based upon slave labor.
Individuals who constantly accuse the obama administration and its supporters of racism need to measure their words and state explicitly when and where any of them have done so. asserting that any Google search will document such an assertion is intellectually indolent and without merit.
I have no problem with people expressing genuine disagreement with Obama on domestic and foreign issues. but when they accuse the president of vile acts, and associate him with vile personalities like Hitler and Stalin, they remind me of the confederate ideologues. They are the ones who painted Lincoln as a despot and the Washington government as a tyranny.
After John Wilkes shot Lincoln, he shout; "sic semper tyrannis!" the real question who was the tyrant--Lincoln who brought the political end of slavery, or Wilkes who robbed the United States of one of its great men?
I likewise pose the question to the most obdurate opponents of president Obama. who obstructs civil discourse and reasonable discussion of legislation in our republic--is it president Obama who has consistently sought conciliation with the republicans, or is it Sen Grassley, Rep. Joe Wilson, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity who have said that he supports death panels and called him a liar and a communist?
Ibelieve that the extreme conservatives' denunciations against obama are as hollow as were those of the confederates against lincoln.
Let's talk ACORN instead of Health Care
Monica Crowley blindly dittoes the current “change the subject” distraction of conservatives about ACORN, echoing the “guilty until proven innocent” mentality of “shoot from the hip” conservatives who consistently guess and get it wrong.
Yes, we need to look into the allegations, and where individuals did something wrong, hold them accountable (so far, ACORN, acting far more rapidly than most other agencies, has already fired a number of workers and is still investigating further).
We need to differentiate between the official policies of an organization (including inadequate safeguards and oversight), and the actions of rogue “lone wolf” loose cannons.
The “gotcha” distraction mentality of conservatives is on full display here.
Well, I have to narrow that down. I mean the WACKO conservatives.
Though a dying breed, there are still some conservatives making a serious effort to be fair.
I cite the article by Debra J. Saunders, a far-right conservative who I rarely agree with, but who I at least admire for basing wrong conclusions on valid primary facts.
Her article, published in the North County Times last Friday (9/18), presents a CONSERVATIVE view on the dangers of rushing to judgment on ACORN.
The article can be found on the NCT website at:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/saunders/article_043f5213-1c68-5562-9129-561c0215098d.html
I strongly encourage CONSERVATIVES to read a CONSERVATIVE voice on the need for care in basing judgments on facts, not first impressions.
Yes, we need to look into the allegations, and where individuals did something wrong, hold them accountable (so far, ACORN, acting far more rapidly than most other agencies, has already fired a number of workers and is still investigating further).
We need to differentiate between the official policies of an organization (including inadequate safeguards and oversight), and the actions of rogue “lone wolf” loose cannons.
The “gotcha” distraction mentality of conservatives is on full display here.
Well, I have to narrow that down. I mean the WACKO conservatives.
Though a dying breed, there are still some conservatives making a serious effort to be fair.
I cite the article by Debra J. Saunders, a far-right conservative who I rarely agree with, but who I at least admire for basing wrong conclusions on valid primary facts.
Her article, published in the North County Times last Friday (9/18), presents a CONSERVATIVE view on the dangers of rushing to judgment on ACORN.
The article can be found on the NCT website at:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/saunders/article_043f5213-1c68-5562-9129-561c0215098d.html
I strongly encourage CONSERVATIVES to read a CONSERVATIVE voice on the need for care in basing judgments on facts, not first impressions.
Liberals idolize the Canadian Health Care System
Too bad Rush cannot just talk about truths without his spins.
First, I don't know anyone here who "idolizes" Canadian health care, nor has anyone proposed that we take up their exact system.
Second, Rush calls his finding "the" truth about Canadian health care.
Is there just ONE truth about that system, Rush?
Are there also other truths? Such as universal coverage?
It's too bad Rush always has an axe to grind in his posts, which reliably lead him to exaggeration, self-promotion, dishonesty. He claims to be a journalist. He actually has the ability to be one. But he stubbornly refuses, instead opting for narcissistic overstatement and insults.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, Rush.
First, I don't know anyone here who "idolizes" Canadian health care, nor has anyone proposed that we take up their exact system.
Second, Rush calls his finding "the" truth about Canadian health care.
Is there just ONE truth about that system, Rush?
Are there also other truths? Such as universal coverage?
It's too bad Rush always has an axe to grind in his posts, which reliably lead him to exaggeration, self-promotion, dishonesty. He claims to be a journalist. He actually has the ability to be one. But he stubbornly refuses, instead opting for narcissistic overstatement and insults.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, Rush.
Obama can never do anything right
I see that Obama and Ahmadinejab are heading to the UN. The question I have to ask here is: will Rush, Hannity, Beck and our local representative of these wise souls root for Obama or Ahmadinejab?
If Ahmadinejab makes an anti-Obama speech at the General Assembly, will Rush, glenn Beck and Hannity cheer him on?
This Question is tongue in cheek, of course. We all know how all these fine Americans will react to the UN meetings.
No matter what Obama or Ahmadinejab say, the yahoos will criticize Obama for whatever he does.
I don't see why they even wait until the actual events transpire. Write your rants now, boys. Save time! Rush, Beck, Hannity: give us your take on it now.
Why wait for the facts? The conclusions are already in, right?
If Ahmadinejab makes an anti-Obama speech at the General Assembly, will Rush, glenn Beck and Hannity cheer him on?
This Question is tongue in cheek, of course. We all know how all these fine Americans will react to the UN meetings.
No matter what Obama or Ahmadinejab say, the yahoos will criticize Obama for whatever he does.
I don't see why they even wait until the actual events transpire. Write your rants now, boys. Save time! Rush, Beck, Hannity: give us your take on it now.
Why wait for the facts? The conclusions are already in, right?
The Republican wrote a health care plan in seven NOT thousands of pages
More of the usual simplistic drivel from Rush Liebaugh.
The fact is that the US healthcare system is broken, and massive reform is needed.
Not only that, but in a country that prizes individual FREEDOM and CHOICE, it is imperative that individuals and businesses be afforded as wide a range as possible for CHOICES and OPTIONS.
That, of course, is not something that is going to fit into a seven page COMIC BOOK, which the old Rushie stupidly brags is “not even written by a lawyer” - like that’s just what we need major surgery performed by an amateur quack instead of a trained surgeon!
Yes, Rush, what a world of difference: comparing a profession, extensive legal document that will actually provide comprehensive reform, adequate oversight and real choices, with an amateurish piece of garbage that will accomplish nothing.
The former, of course, would never fit into seven worthless pages.
The fact is that the US healthcare system is broken, and massive reform is needed.
Not only that, but in a country that prizes individual FREEDOM and CHOICE, it is imperative that individuals and businesses be afforded as wide a range as possible for CHOICES and OPTIONS.
That, of course, is not something that is going to fit into a seven page COMIC BOOK, which the old Rushie stupidly brags is “not even written by a lawyer” - like that’s just what we need major surgery performed by an amateur quack instead of a trained surgeon!
Yes, Rush, what a world of difference: comparing a profession, extensive legal document that will actually provide comprehensive reform, adequate oversight and real choices, with an amateurish piece of garbage that will accomplish nothing.
The former, of course, would never fit into seven worthless pages.
Individual decisions for the good of the individual will also move toward the common good
Rush you are once again using a simplistic view of interpersonal and international interactions. It is not true that nations act in their own best interests, nor even individuals.
Individual decision-makers act in what they PERCEIVE to be their own best interests, but the interests of individual decision makers do not always dovetail smoothly with those of their nation as a whole, and certainly not always with other individual decision makers.
In the case of environmental and climate issues, the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS have at least a strong SHORT-TERM profit incentive to try to enact policies that may not be in the interests of other national stakeholders, the general public or certainly not even in their own long-term interests.
Individual decision-makers act in what they PERCEIVE to be their own best interests, but the interests of individual decision makers do not always dovetail smoothly with those of their nation as a whole, and certainly not always with other individual decision makers.
In the case of environmental and climate issues, the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS have at least a strong SHORT-TERM profit incentive to try to enact policies that may not be in the interests of other national stakeholders, the general public or certainly not even in their own long-term interests.
CANADIANS HEAD TO THE UNITED STATES FOR URGENT CARE
The lie by US media con-men (Rush, Beck, FOX not news): Canada's government-run health care is so bad that needy patients need to pay for care in the United States.
The liars: The advocacy group Patients United Now is running a television ad featuring Ontario resident Shona Holmes, who claims, "I survived a brain tumor, but if I had relied on my government health care, I'd be dead." She says she traveled to the United States for lifesaving treatment.
In June, Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said, "For cardiac bypass surgery, patients in Ontario are told they may have to wait six months for a surgery that Americans can often get right away."
The debunking: Holmes did indeed pay $100,000 for care she received from Minnesota's famed Mayo Clinic, considered one of the best medical centers in the world.
But Holmes' treatment was not a lifesaving anti-cancer measure. The Mayo Clinic's own Web site explains that she had a cyst -- not a brain tumor -- which was not necessarily life-threatening. (It also explains that Mayo is a nonprofit cooperative and strongly supports health-care reform.)
In general, Canadians are not flocking south for health care, and for good reason. According to a report from the Fraser Institute, a prominent Canadian think tank, both the Canadian and U.S. governments spend about 7 percent of their GDPs on health-care costs. (The United States, including private expenditure, spends about 16 percent of GDP on health care.) But all Canadians are covered for all medical care, plus some prescription drug costs. In the United States, 47 million are uninsured, and hundreds of thousands declare bankruptcy every year due to medical bills.
There are wait times in Canada, but nobody waits for emergency surgery; McConnell's claim about bypass patients is untrue. In 2007, a non-emergency patient in Ontario waited about 61 days for elective bypass surgery, according to Canada's health service. Such collected data is not made public in the United States.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/18/the_most_outrageous_us_lies_about_global_healthcare?page=0,1
The liars: The advocacy group Patients United Now is running a television ad featuring Ontario resident Shona Holmes, who claims, "I survived a brain tumor, but if I had relied on my government health care, I'd be dead." She says she traveled to the United States for lifesaving treatment.
In June, Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said, "For cardiac bypass surgery, patients in Ontario are told they may have to wait six months for a surgery that Americans can often get right away."
The debunking: Holmes did indeed pay $100,000 for care she received from Minnesota's famed Mayo Clinic, considered one of the best medical centers in the world.
But Holmes' treatment was not a lifesaving anti-cancer measure. The Mayo Clinic's own Web site explains that she had a cyst -- not a brain tumor -- which was not necessarily life-threatening. (It also explains that Mayo is a nonprofit cooperative and strongly supports health-care reform.)
In general, Canadians are not flocking south for health care, and for good reason. According to a report from the Fraser Institute, a prominent Canadian think tank, both the Canadian and U.S. governments spend about 7 percent of their GDPs on health-care costs. (The United States, including private expenditure, spends about 16 percent of GDP on health care.) But all Canadians are covered for all medical care, plus some prescription drug costs. In the United States, 47 million are uninsured, and hundreds of thousands declare bankruptcy every year due to medical bills.
There are wait times in Canada, but nobody waits for emergency surgery; McConnell's claim about bypass patients is untrue. In 2007, a non-emergency patient in Ontario waited about 61 days for elective bypass surgery, according to Canada's health service. Such collected data is not made public in the United States.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/18/the_most_outrageous_us_lies_about_global_healthcare?page=0,1
Cancer patients have the best hope of survival in the UC
While we might still have some of the best hope for cancer patients in the world, it is still only available for people lucky enough to be insured (and insured well).
Only a couple of weeks ago there was one well known ignoramus (Limbaugh) was asking for proof that lack of health insurance can be connected with more possibility of dying.
Late last week it was all over the news that thousands die every year due to lack of insurance.
The ignoranmus in question will remain in denial. No way he will ever admit he is wrong. He must appease his stubborn, wrong headed thinking with denials or his head would explode.
Only a couple of weeks ago there was one well known ignoramus (Limbaugh) was asking for proof that lack of health insurance can be connected with more possibility of dying.
Late last week it was all over the news that thousands die every year due to lack of insurance.
The ignoranmus in question will remain in denial. No way he will ever admit he is wrong. He must appease his stubborn, wrong headed thinking with denials or his head would explode.
At least US has SPEEDY health care, you have to wait in other countries
So we have speedy health care we have in this country. There just might be just a little wait, but not as long as those Germans or Canadians do!
No offense, but your insurance, Rush, actually did pretty well for turning your "case" around in "just" 7 weeks and 11 total.
In our case my husband went 12 weeks after the MRI, during which time the tumor went from the size of an olive to a softball. Fast growing sucker wrapped around bone, too, MRI didn't show surgeon that because, well, it was taken at olive sized.
I, too, have had a tumor. As I indicated in my post I waited 7 weeks from diagnosis to surgery to have my cancerous tumor removed. Like Rush I had very good insurance, Blue Cross PPO (now Anthem).
But, jeepers ya think we expect a little too much from the 37th best health care system in the world, paying 9,000 a year in premiums, another 4,000 in co-pays and BTW its going up this year, and think we should have gotten care faster?
We could be seen as ungrateful, unappreciative, rich people expecting the system to work faster, better, more efficiently for our our health care dollars! We're the lucky few WITH insurance!
No offense, but your insurance, Rush, actually did pretty well for turning your "case" around in "just" 7 weeks and 11 total.
In our case my husband went 12 weeks after the MRI, during which time the tumor went from the size of an olive to a softball. Fast growing sucker wrapped around bone, too, MRI didn't show surgeon that because, well, it was taken at olive sized.
I, too, have had a tumor. As I indicated in my post I waited 7 weeks from diagnosis to surgery to have my cancerous tumor removed. Like Rush I had very good insurance, Blue Cross PPO (now Anthem).
But, jeepers ya think we expect a little too much from the 37th best health care system in the world, paying 9,000 a year in premiums, another 4,000 in co-pays and BTW its going up this year, and think we should have gotten care faster?
We could be seen as ungrateful, unappreciative, rich people expecting the system to work faster, better, more efficiently for our our health care dollars! We're the lucky few WITH insurance!
Canadian Health Care is not as good as US Healthcare
I've mentioned in this forum that I spend part of the year in Canada.
I have never heard a Canadian who wanted to trade their system for ours.
I never met a Canadian who came to the U. S. for their medical care.
And, believe it or not, no Canadian ever told me they felt cheated because they couldn't pay 12 thousand dollars a year for their family's health insurance or because they would never experience the thrill of being told, after paying premiums for many years, that their insurance was being canceled for a pre-existing condition just prior to life-saving surgery.
Here's the problem, Rush: under the current US medical care system, lots of people do not have coverage - a life and death proposition for many - at a reasonable, affordable rate and, in many cases, it is not available at all, at any price.
You know, one other personal observation as a person who has spent a lot of time hanging around labs, docs offices, hospitals etc here in the United States while taking care of my own and other family member's health.
I have to say, I really don't meet up with a lot of Canadians, Swedes, Germans, Brits or Japanese citizens waiting at any US medical facility for family or having procedures themselves. The foreign, non-citizens I see are poor immigrants who are speaking Spanish.
Which country with a civilized health care system that covers ALL citizens is it that "flocks" here to the US for medical care? NONE!!!!
Seems like Canadians are doin' sumthin' right!
I have never heard a Canadian who wanted to trade their system for ours.
I never met a Canadian who came to the U. S. for their medical care.
And, believe it or not, no Canadian ever told me they felt cheated because they couldn't pay 12 thousand dollars a year for their family's health insurance or because they would never experience the thrill of being told, after paying premiums for many years, that their insurance was being canceled for a pre-existing condition just prior to life-saving surgery.
Here's the problem, Rush: under the current US medical care system, lots of people do not have coverage - a life and death proposition for many - at a reasonable, affordable rate and, in many cases, it is not available at all, at any price.
You know, one other personal observation as a person who has spent a lot of time hanging around labs, docs offices, hospitals etc here in the United States while taking care of my own and other family member's health.
I have to say, I really don't meet up with a lot of Canadians, Swedes, Germans, Brits or Japanese citizens waiting at any US medical facility for family or having procedures themselves. The foreign, non-citizens I see are poor immigrants who are speaking Spanish.
Which country with a civilized health care system that covers ALL citizens is it that "flocks" here to the US for medical care? NONE!!!!
Seems like Canadians are doin' sumthin' right!
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Tea Party participants are not a disgrace
I don't think the teabaggers are a disgrace.
I just don't think they have a very clear sense of what they're against other than taxes and Obama.
I respect their message of "Don't raise my taxes" regardless of whether I agree with it.
But all the other stuff makes no sense to me or, apparently, to them.
I don't know how they will know if they have succeeded.
Makes me suspicious.
I just don't think they have a very clear sense of what they're against other than taxes and Obama.
I respect their message of "Don't raise my taxes" regardless of whether I agree with it.
But all the other stuff makes no sense to me or, apparently, to them.
I don't know how they will know if they have succeeded.
Makes me suspicious.
Joe Wilson is NOT a racist
I have no qualms stating my opinion that Joe Wilson is a racist.
I look at his record. He's the Representative from South Carolina.
He was a member of the Sons of Confederate Generals.
He fought to keep the Confederate flag waving at the SC state capital.
He was an intern for, and admired, Strom Thurmond.
I have no reason not to assume he is a racist.
This doesn't mean anyone else is, but I'm pretty sure Joe is.
I look at his record. He's the Representative from South Carolina.
He was a member of the Sons of Confederate Generals.
He fought to keep the Confederate flag waving at the SC state capital.
He was an intern for, and admired, Strom Thurmond.
I have no reason not to assume he is a racist.
This doesn't mean anyone else is, but I'm pretty sure Joe is.
Everyone has medical care in the US, its called the ER
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.
"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.
Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090917/hl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_deaths
"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.
Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090917/hl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_deaths
The DC Metro did not prepare extra transportation for the 9/12ers
Republican, thy name is hypocrisy; another example:
"You may have heard that GOP Rep. Kevin Brady, staunch tea partier, is protesting that the taxpayer-funded D.C. Metro didn’t adequately prepare for the anti-government 9/12 rally. He’s even suggesting Metro’s failure to transport tea partiers may have hurt turnout."
"A Democrat, however, points out to me that Brady voted against Federal funding for the very same Metro he’s blaming for offering the tea partiers substandard service."
"Soon after the 9/12 march, Brady released a letter he sent to D.C. Metro griping that it had failed to transport tea partiers to the protest. Brady said they “were frustrated and disappointed that our nation’s capitol” failed to “provide a basic level of transit for them.”
"Brady’s office complained about a train shortage. 'METRO did not prepare for Tea Party March!' he tweeted. 'People couldn’t get on, missed start of march. I will demand answers.'"
"But earlier this year, Brady voted against the stimulus package. It provided millions upon millions of dollars for all manner of improvements to … the D.C. Metro."
http://crooksandliars.com/
"You may have heard that GOP Rep. Kevin Brady, staunch tea partier, is protesting that the taxpayer-funded D.C. Metro didn’t adequately prepare for the anti-government 9/12 rally. He’s even suggesting Metro’s failure to transport tea partiers may have hurt turnout."
"A Democrat, however, points out to me that Brady voted against Federal funding for the very same Metro he’s blaming for offering the tea partiers substandard service."
"Soon after the 9/12 march, Brady released a letter he sent to D.C. Metro griping that it had failed to transport tea partiers to the protest. Brady said they “were frustrated and disappointed that our nation’s capitol” failed to “provide a basic level of transit for them.”
"Brady’s office complained about a train shortage. 'METRO did not prepare for Tea Party March!' he tweeted. 'People couldn’t get on, missed start of march. I will demand answers.'"
"But earlier this year, Brady voted against the stimulus package. It provided millions upon millions of dollars for all manner of improvements to … the D.C. Metro."
http://crooksandliars.com/
What should have been on the 9/12ers signs
It's nice to say - no more taxes but that sends no message. But here are some ideas for better signs.
We have to help our legislators prioritize.
Here's a start:
1) get out of Iraq,
2) get out of Afghanistan,
3) increase tax on short term capital gains
4) In fact roll back many of the Bush tax cuts to the rich
5) Pass medical care cost controls to help medicare costs be contained and to contain a family's cost of medical insurance (including premiums, co pays and pharma)
6) Rein in banking.
Were any of those signs at the tea parties or was everything only ACORN and Obama's fault?
We have to help our legislators prioritize.
Here's a start:
1) get out of Iraq,
2) get out of Afghanistan,
3) increase tax on short term capital gains
4) In fact roll back many of the Bush tax cuts to the rich
5) Pass medical care cost controls to help medicare costs be contained and to contain a family's cost of medical insurance (including premiums, co pays and pharma)
6) Rein in banking.
Were any of those signs at the tea parties or was everything only ACORN and Obama's fault?
Obama said race was not a factor in opposition to him
Thanks for letting us know racism isn't a factor here.
Wow, I really need to read more because I had no idea the racist had recently embraced people of color and could really could care less if their leader is black or white.
Thanks for the update.
On a serious note, if you were Obama would you play into the conservative wacko's hands by agreeing that race is a factor. Obama is too smart to wallow with the pigs.
Wow, I really need to read more because I had no idea the racist had recently embraced people of color and could really could care less if their leader is black or white.
Thanks for the update.
On a serious note, if you were Obama would you play into the conservative wacko's hands by agreeing that race is a factor. Obama is too smart to wallow with the pigs.
It was not a FREAK SHOW last Saturday at DC on 9/12
More signs from the halfwit freak show last Saturday
.
http://washingtonindependent.com/58779/scenes-from-the-912-dc-tea-party-protest-part-i
http://washingtonindependent.com/58796/scenes-from-the-912-dc-tea-party-protest-part-ii
http://twitpic.com/hgplk
http://twitpic.com/hhlk6
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marisseay/3912551351/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marisseay/3912546337/in/photostream/
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/12/912-signs/
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2009/09/unarmed_this_time.html
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10316810
.
http://washingtonindependent.com/58779/scenes-from-the-912-dc-tea-party-protest-part-i
http://washingtonindependent.com/58796/scenes-from-the-912-dc-tea-party-protest-part-ii
http://twitpic.com/hgplk
http://twitpic.com/hhlk6
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marisseay/3912551351/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marisseay/3912546337/in/photostream/
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/12/912-signs/
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2009/09/unarmed_this_time.html
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10316810
The law says life must be protected, why aren't the unborn protected?
This law means the life of an ACTUAL (not potential) human being, with real EEG brain waves (the same standard for the beginning of clinical LIFE as clinical DEATH) that is not occupying the most private part of another person's body if the owner of that body doesn't want it there.
Islamic prayer in DC instead of National Day of Prayer
Rush said: "Check this out. They are going to broadcast Islamic prayer in Washington, DC on the 25th of this month!
http://islamoncapitolhill.com/Home_Page.html (the link has sound)
This is unbelievable! You can’t have Christian prayer at a ball game, but this is acceptable! And Obama canceled the National Day of Prayer earlier this year."
President Obama DID NOT cancel the National Day of Prayer this year. Where do you people get these lies, FOX?
Any group, religious or secular, has the right to assemble on
Capitol Hill and chant whatever they want, just like the halfwits who assembled there last Saturday.
Here's the announcement from YOUR post:
"ON THIS DAY....
The Athan will be chanted on Capitol Hill, echoing off of the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and other great edifices that surround Capitol Hill
Thousands of Muslims from all races, creeds, colors and ethnicities will gather for the sole purpose of prayer
Bonds of friendship will be formed between those in attendance, both Muslims and Non-Muslims
Muslim youth will experience tours of the Library of Congress and the Supreme Court.
The peace, beauty and solidarity of Islam will shine through America's capitol.
A DAY OF ISLAMIC UNITY..."
It looks as if it will be a peaceful and beautiful event.
Now don't you feel silly for getting upset over nothing?
Oh, and Rush, they broadcast public prayers in Congress all the time.
Watch C-SPAN some day.
http://islamoncapitolhill.com/Home_Page.html (the link has sound)
This is unbelievable! You can’t have Christian prayer at a ball game, but this is acceptable! And Obama canceled the National Day of Prayer earlier this year."
President Obama DID NOT cancel the National Day of Prayer this year. Where do you people get these lies, FOX?
Any group, religious or secular, has the right to assemble on
Capitol Hill and chant whatever they want, just like the halfwits who assembled there last Saturday.
Here's the announcement from YOUR post:
"ON THIS DAY....
The Athan will be chanted on Capitol Hill, echoing off of the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and other great edifices that surround Capitol Hill
Thousands of Muslims from all races, creeds, colors and ethnicities will gather for the sole purpose of prayer
Bonds of friendship will be formed between those in attendance, both Muslims and Non-Muslims
Muslim youth will experience tours of the Library of Congress and the Supreme Court.
The peace, beauty and solidarity of Islam will shine through America's capitol.
A DAY OF ISLAMIC UNITY..."
It looks as if it will be a peaceful and beautiful event.
Now don't you feel silly for getting upset over nothing?
Oh, and Rush, they broadcast public prayers in Congress all the time.
Watch C-SPAN some day.
Obama canceled the National Day of Prayer
No Rush, absolutely not, President Obama DID NOT CANCEL THE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER.
Any person or group has the right to pray on Capitol Hill. Prayer is not prohibited in the public arena. Prayer is only prohibited where there is a captive audience, like in public schools, sports arenas, etc.
In case you haven't turned to the AM radio band, there's plenty of praying being broadcast there.
I am not the one who mentioned Obama NOT canceling the National Day of Prayer but, even so, YOU ARE WRONG. He did not cancel it; he kept his own observances private.
And Congress routinely opens its sessions with a public prayer.
While I find that to be offensive to the Constitution, it does happen routinely.
Like I said, stop guessing (wrong) and watch C-SPAN.
Obama did not cancel the Nat'l Day of Prayer. He did cancel the traditonal White House Ceremony and instead issued a paper proclamation.
So why did you claim he canceled it if you knew he didn't? Were you being dishonest?
He was correct to cancel the traditional White house Ceremony.
He is the Commander in Chief. He's not the Chief Priest, Chief Minister, or Chief Rabbi.
Any person or group has the right to pray on Capitol Hill. Prayer is not prohibited in the public arena. Prayer is only prohibited where there is a captive audience, like in public schools, sports arenas, etc.
In case you haven't turned to the AM radio band, there's plenty of praying being broadcast there.
I am not the one who mentioned Obama NOT canceling the National Day of Prayer but, even so, YOU ARE WRONG. He did not cancel it; he kept his own observances private.
And Congress routinely opens its sessions with a public prayer.
While I find that to be offensive to the Constitution, it does happen routinely.
Like I said, stop guessing (wrong) and watch C-SPAN.
Obama did not cancel the Nat'l Day of Prayer. He did cancel the traditonal White House Ceremony and instead issued a paper proclamation.
So why did you claim he canceled it if you knew he didn't? Were you being dishonest?
He was correct to cancel the traditional White house Ceremony.
He is the Commander in Chief. He's not the Chief Priest, Chief Minister, or Chief Rabbi.
Friday, September 18, 2009
9/12 aren't deluded good people, they represent an evil that could destroy democracy
Thank you very much for your response to my remarks at about the 9/12 march. I am not as understanding or as kind a person as you and that speaks well for you. My 69 years have made me impatient with people who seem to have pride in their own stupidity, like these marchers and several posters on this forum, especially when their stupidity could be a significant factor in bringing down our democracy.
Having lived in the south during the 60s I was especially sensitive to a great deal of racist bile in the marcher's remarks. I am sick to death of this sickness in our society and I blame right wing hate radio and TV personalities like Beck and the FOX crew for it.
I agree with you that we are in desperate need of a fairness doctrine. I spend much of the year in Canada, where the Telecommunication Commission requires spoken-word programs to offer differing views. This makes for an civilized and intelligent political climate compared to the ugliness of our political landscape.
Thanks again for your insightful remarks.
Having lived in the south during the 60s I was especially sensitive to a great deal of racist bile in the marcher's remarks. I am sick to death of this sickness in our society and I blame right wing hate radio and TV personalities like Beck and the FOX crew for it.
I agree with you that we are in desperate need of a fairness doctrine. I spend much of the year in Canada, where the Telecommunication Commission requires spoken-word programs to offer differing views. This makes for an civilized and intelligent political climate compared to the ugliness of our political landscape.
Thanks again for your insightful remarks.
Most doctors do not like the public option
Rush, I'm glad you called attention to the fact that AMA membership is declining. It's believed the membership is declining because the AMA has a history of opposing government plans beginning with Truman's plan in the 40s, Medicare in the 60s, and until yesterday, the President's plan. Perhaps that's why the AMA changed its position on a national health plan.
Here is the latest and most respected poll covering the physicians response to Obama's plan.
"Most doctors — 63 percent — say they favor giving patients a choice that would include both public and private insurance. That's the position of President Obama and of many congressional Democrats. In addition, another 10 percent of doctors say they favor a public option only; they'd like to see a single-payer health care system. Together, the two groups add up to 73 percent.
"The survey was published online Monday Sept. 14, 2009 by the New England Journal of Medicine. It was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a health care research organization that favors health reform."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960
Here is the latest and most respected poll covering the physicians response to Obama's plan.
"Most doctors — 63 percent — say they favor giving patients a choice that would include both public and private insurance. That's the position of President Obama and of many congressional Democrats. In addition, another 10 percent of doctors say they favor a public option only; they'd like to see a single-payer health care system. Together, the two groups add up to 73 percent.
"The survey was published online Monday Sept. 14, 2009 by the New England Journal of Medicine. It was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a health care research organization that favors health reform."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960
FOX not News NEVER lies!
We all 'know' that FOX not NEWS is fair and balanced (because they tell us they are). We know they would never lie because they are not part of the Main Stream Media. FOX never, never lies.
In response to a full page ad that FOX not NEWS against the other stations for not "COVERING" the 9/12 march - Rick Sanchez ripped into FOX not NEWS and CALLED THEM A LIAR!
You go Rick:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/fox-news-newspaper-ad-mak_n_291494.html
In response to a full page ad that FOX not NEWS against the other stations for not "COVERING" the 9/12 march - Rick Sanchez ripped into FOX not NEWS and CALLED THEM A LIAR!
You go Rick:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/fox-news-newspaper-ad-mak_n_291494.html
Rush is not ignorant of Constitutional Law
Rush:
When a man has the graciousness to acknowledge he has made one error and another man is so ungracious as to continue gloating over that one single instance over and over again for MONTHS on end, the latter has demonstrated how small his soul is, how low his own sense of self esteem is, and his utter lack of civility.
Yes, Rush, after you had suffered through agonizing months of getting humiliatingly caught with factual errors, wrong citations, and total ignorance of Constitutional Law, there was one time - ONE TIME - all the way back on May 8 at 5:21 p.m., more than 4 months ago - when I listed several individuals that I opined merited impeachment and wrongly included legislators. When you brought that to my attention, I did the research and found that, although it is not specified in the Constitution itself, nor any U.S. Supreme Court decision, the only instance in which charges of impeachment were brought, back in 1798, resulted in the Senate dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, establishing the general understanding that they are not subject to impeachment but only to their own internal processes of discipline. I acknowledged this history and graciously conceded the point. You have not been gracious in accepting that acknowledgment.
So since you think playing “gotcha” is so mature, or you are so excited to have finally been right for once in your life, let’s look at some of the embarrassing Constitutional absurdities YOU came up with, but which you were neither big enough or gracious enough to acknowledge. You have proven yourself to be not only arrogant, but smallish and petty.
On 5/28 you misstated both the basis of the decision in Bush v. Gore (531 U.S. 98 (2000)), and the vote count as to the outcome (you said 7-2, which was only the vote on the question of whether there was an equal protection violation; as to whether or not that inequality could be remedied, thus the need to block the recount, the vote was 5-4).
On 5/22 , you gave an incorrect description of the constitutional basis of the California State Supreme Court decision in "In re Marriage Cases" ((S147999) consolidated appeal regarding same sex marriage prior to the election to pass a Constitutional amendment.
On 4/24 you repeated for a second time, the absurd claim that it requires FIVE decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, when in fact it only requires ONE, and having established a single precedent, Courts will rarely even consider a rehearing unless they are willing to consider overturning the precedent, which requires obtaining at least four justices’ consent in order to issue a writ of certiorari and hear the case.
On 4/10 you stated that “the Court has never exactly defined what the 2nd Amendment is....” obviously oblivious to the fact that they did just exactly that in District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 290 (2008)),
On 4/10 you stated that the Supreme Court had never mandated separation of church and state. I promptly replied with just a few cases in which they very clearly did just that, of which you admitted to having no knowledge:
Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
Abington School District v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
In none of the above were you big enough, as I was, to acknowledge your error.
You merely slinked away and hid for a few days, licking your wounds, until you came back later to pretend that your history of total ignorance would be forgotten.
Now, Rush, do you want to be gracious enough to accept the fact that I acknowledged an error MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS AGO and, if not man enough to acknowledge when you have made a fool of yourself, at least move on and accept when someone else is, or do you want me to keep going on with even more Constitutional ignorance with which you have humiliated yourself over the months?
When a man has the graciousness to acknowledge he has made one error and another man is so ungracious as to continue gloating over that one single instance over and over again for MONTHS on end, the latter has demonstrated how small his soul is, how low his own sense of self esteem is, and his utter lack of civility.
Yes, Rush, after you had suffered through agonizing months of getting humiliatingly caught with factual errors, wrong citations, and total ignorance of Constitutional Law, there was one time - ONE TIME - all the way back on May 8 at 5:21 p.m., more than 4 months ago - when I listed several individuals that I opined merited impeachment and wrongly included legislators. When you brought that to my attention, I did the research and found that, although it is not specified in the Constitution itself, nor any U.S. Supreme Court decision, the only instance in which charges of impeachment were brought, back in 1798, resulted in the Senate dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, establishing the general understanding that they are not subject to impeachment but only to their own internal processes of discipline. I acknowledged this history and graciously conceded the point. You have not been gracious in accepting that acknowledgment.
So since you think playing “gotcha” is so mature, or you are so excited to have finally been right for once in your life, let’s look at some of the embarrassing Constitutional absurdities YOU came up with, but which you were neither big enough or gracious enough to acknowledge. You have proven yourself to be not only arrogant, but smallish and petty.
On 5/28 you misstated both the basis of the decision in Bush v. Gore (531 U.S. 98 (2000)), and the vote count as to the outcome (you said 7-2, which was only the vote on the question of whether there was an equal protection violation; as to whether or not that inequality could be remedied, thus the need to block the recount, the vote was 5-4).
On 5/22 , you gave an incorrect description of the constitutional basis of the California State Supreme Court decision in "In re Marriage Cases" ((S147999) consolidated appeal regarding same sex marriage prior to the election to pass a Constitutional amendment.
On 4/24 you repeated for a second time, the absurd claim that it requires FIVE decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, when in fact it only requires ONE, and having established a single precedent, Courts will rarely even consider a rehearing unless they are willing to consider overturning the precedent, which requires obtaining at least four justices’ consent in order to issue a writ of certiorari and hear the case.
On 4/10 you stated that “the Court has never exactly defined what the 2nd Amendment is....” obviously oblivious to the fact that they did just exactly that in District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 290 (2008)),
On 4/10 you stated that the Supreme Court had never mandated separation of church and state. I promptly replied with just a few cases in which they very clearly did just that, of which you admitted to having no knowledge:
Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
Abington School District v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
In none of the above were you big enough, as I was, to acknowledge your error.
You merely slinked away and hid for a few days, licking your wounds, until you came back later to pretend that your history of total ignorance would be forgotten.
Now, Rush, do you want to be gracious enough to accept the fact that I acknowledged an error MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS AGO and, if not man enough to acknowledge when you have made a fool of yourself, at least move on and accept when someone else is, or do you want me to keep going on with even more Constitutional ignorance with which you have humiliated yourself over the months?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
