Natural born has never been clearly defined through a Supreme Court decision, but children born to citizens overseas have always been given the right of citizenship.

I hate it when Democrats, who are all liars with a sense of moral superiority, make generalizations.

That doesn't have any relevance to the discussion on health alternatives, but thanks for the input. I'd also note that I haven't posted a single link on this current 'racism' discussion, which is contrary to what you're implying.

Well, there is an easy answer to your question


But the easy answer is too easy. Let's look at your original question:


By whom? Using what standard? Congress? The Courts? Well, I suppose that if someone came into court with evidence that Obama was not a citizen, they could try and bring suit. But would they have standing to bring that suit? Standing means a tangible injury in fact to you. You can't just ask courts to redress wrongs qua wrongs. You need some skin in the game. Standing is a very complicated concept as legal concepts go. The case would probably be thrown out on those grounds.

But let's say that standing isn't an issue. The courts might still refuse to hear the case b/c the qualification of the President is Constitutionally left to Congress. See Nixon v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, this is a very complex issue as legal issues go.

This question (which I know you are bringing up as more of an academic exercise) is sort of like the people who asked 5 years ago "what if we get evidence for certain that Bush lied about the war but the GOP in Congress does not do anything about it? Can we impeach him anyway?" The answer there is, it really is up to Congress. The framers left questions like that to the most politically accountable branch (elections every two years). And that's not really the worst solution. I mean, one could argue that the GOP lost seats, in part, b/c the GOP members of Congress did not stand up to Bush enough. And that also explains the Blue Dogs today.

At the end of the day, if Congress decides that an individual is qualified to be President and does not want to impeach that person, I think that that person will get to be President upon winning election.

You've been really snarky and curt for a few pages, its kind of cute (except the part about just making shit up that nobody said).

I'm talking about my experience on this board (I didn't say liar - so you actually lied about that, as well as a couple of other things - but you absolutely do have a sense of moral superiority over anyone with a different opinion from you. That comes across in you dismissive snarkiness), and the product that the Democratic party sells for votes.

It's hillarious, time and time again. Sarah Palin makes an insane facebook post and you all just erupt with glee. "OMG - WE'RE RIGHT!!! A REPUBLICAN SAID SOMETHING DUMB!! Hooray! Let's make this the center of the debate, even with people that don't in any way agree with what she said!" It's nothing more than an attempt to invalidate any rational opinion that dare goes against your own. "These are the same people that are spreading LIES about death panels!"

That's why I skipped over that part in my question - more interested in what the result would be rather than how it could happen.

Not in favor of eliminating medicare/medicaid at all. You've got to provide coverage for all those senior citizens out there somehow, and with them not working and bringing in income expecting them to be able to save enough for cost-of-living and healthcare costs that are much more variable than those of a working-age population is a bad idea. they couldn't do it. you'd have senior-bankruptcies and seniors on welfare because they had gone bankrupt paying medical bills. plus at that point you're saying that someone would have to spend 20% of their income before they'd get relief? That's just building in a profit margin for current insurers. And seniors' gross income is so low that 15-20% is like nothing, so I don't know how that would save any money versus having them in a federal program where there's less overhead and better bargining power.

i agree 100% with "breaking up medical cartels" as you put it.

very much in favor of eliminating the link between healthcare and employment.



I must have missed that. I'd honestly rather have productive policy decisions and maybe even learn something and consider alternatives than blather on about stupid shit.

I would figure that either Biden would take over (thinking that the constitutional disability bit covers this) or Obama & quite a few members of Congress would be physically removed from their offices by an enraged populace.

The last few pages have been very good and I enjoyed being a spectator.

Too add I doubt Obama gets removed from the presidency because if his birth was an issue they should have brought it up before the election.

I think there are good ideas here, but I also think there are some unintended consequences. First, on the "ear infection issue", I completely disagree. My 4-year old had a string of 6-7 ear infections in 8 months when he was 2. We had to be very careful not to use the same antibiotic to make sure he didn't build up immunities and when different doses were needed. We ended up switching between 4 different ones over that time. There also was the issue of the first one giving him hives all over his body. Having a parent just show up at the pharmacy and randomly pick antibiotics when they're kid doesn't feel well is a TERRIBLE idea for that kid's future health/immune system.

As to the employer issue, it sounds great to say "let's break the link between employer and insurance". However, employers currently subsidize a large portion of the health insurance premium costs for most people. If you take them out of the game then you need to ensure two things:

1. People get enough of a raise from their employer to cover the employer's portion of the premiums.
2. People understand that they are now paying for both their and their employer's piece of the premium and it will cost more. IE, a policy that was costing them $300 a month may now cost $500-600 a month because they are responsible for the full premium.

I also like the incentive to hold a good job in order to get a deal on health insurance. Now, I think better individual options should be out there (esp for entrepreneurs) - but the fact that most people know they can get very good health care coverage for their family by holding a full time job (in most cases) is healthy for our society. It's one of the reasons (IMO) that our unemployment tends to be much lower than many areas of Europe.

I don't think you need antibiotics on the shelf, but allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe more would be helpful. Your worries are legit, but it doesn't take paying a doctor for each visit to insure a child's safety.

I don't like the idea of removing healthcare from employment precisely because of the cost issue you cite. I can't imagine every business transferring the costs of healthcare into salaries, at least not right away. Without another option a lot of people would see their healthcare costs rise substantially with little added income.

I'm not worried about moral incentives to work and I think the current system keeps people in jobs just to keep healthcare. As long as insurance costs money people are still going to need to work and I'd rather find a way to give people the freedom to move to a new job or start a business without having to lose insurance. IMO our current system penalizes risk.

Page 103 to be exact. :) FWIW, the merits of the bills are up for debate, but they are alternatives to what's been proposed........

The Obama Presidency - hopes and predictions - Page 103 - Front Office Football Central

I guess, in an off-the-record comment with an ABC reporter, Obama called Kanye West a "jackass".

Now, that is something Obama has said that I think everyone in this thread, both the racists and the commie-pinko-bastards, can agree on.

Obama will unite the nation at least on this issue.

It's very hard to have a productive discussion when you jump to generalizations so quickly. I favor a return to the Clinton tax rates, your response is that I hate rich people and want everyone to have the same income. I favor healthcare reform, you respond saying I want most to have worse care than they do now. I make clear that I don't believe the majority of protestors are racist, but that there is a racist element that is being tolerated , you respond saying I think anyone opposed to any Obama position is a racist so I won't have to discuss the issues.

I can, and do, have productive debates with Arles ,Cam, Steve, etc., but what's the point of discussing issues with someone who assumes I'm being disingenuous?

To be fair, posting a link to the text of bills, any bill, is unlikely to get many takers. There has been quite a lot of healthcare debate over the past weeks around here.

I will say that I have a much larger respect for Taylor Swift after that incident. She may not have reacted due to total shock that Kanye was being that stupid, but I'm sure that there are a lot of people who would have laid Kanye out on the spot for pulling that crap. At the very least, they would have asked him what the hell his problem was.

that's the key issue for me, and why i support separating it from employment. but if a way can be found to allow people the freedom to move between jobs without having to lose insurance, or run the risk of "preexisting conditions" denying them coverage while not separating it from employment i'm okay with that.

although i do think there needs to be an option for people who cannot get healthcare through work. what about walmart workers or others in the service-sector who do necessary jobs but whose employers don't offer healthcare or they can't afford it b/c they can't get 40hrs a week at one job?

the last thing we want is them continuing to use the ER as their primary care physician. that benefits nobody, and our premiums end up subsidizing it

Where are you trying to have a productive discussion? Maybe a few pages back, but all I see recently are little quips attacking concepts that nobody here has supported (like that people don't think racism exists, "Yep, no racism whatsoever" - that was a very disingenous post.).

I wish I had time to pick apart all the lies in your post, but you're clearly on a roll of dishonesty so there's no point. You've lied and mischaracterized everything I said.

Dispute over seat sparked attack on school bus, student says - STLtoday.com

This:

A student on a Belleville West High School bus was beaten for his choice of seat, not because he was white, according to a witness and police.

"The incident appears now to be more about a couple of bullies on a bus dictating where people sit," said Belleville Police Capt. Don Sax, who originally said Monday's attack may have been racially motivated.

D'Vante Lott, 16, said he was on the bus and witnessed the attack by the two black students.

The victim walked onto the bus, looking for an open seat, but students kept turning him down, as D'Vante said happened often with this student.

I just saw the video and I thought everyone involved was white, this is the one that happened in Illinois right?

The cheering didn't come off as racist because I have seen people cheer fights when both people were of the same race.

It sucks that kid had to take that beating however some of the responses I have heard (FoxNews) are calling for them to be jailed and tried as adults.

I hope they are not jailed but they do need to be punished for attacking that kid who just wanted to sit down.

I hope they are jailed which would hopefully teach them a lesson that behavior like that is not acceptable in society.

I also don't care if the issue was racial or not, I just found it fascinating that with two wars, massive health care debate, and in the midst of a major recession, conservative news sites were treating a fight on a school bus as the top story.

Or that a story about bullying with some racist elements that should be relegated to some local paper gets national play :rolleyes:

SI

Agreed. It's much like the 'beer summit' fiasco.

Sort of- in that when it was a local story. Unfortunately for Obama, he forgot that when the President gets involved, it becomes news no matter what it is.

So, in that way, the local story was just that. But the "beer summit" was sortof news because once it escalated and the President was involved, it becomes a national story.

SI

As for those two proposals:

Safety Net - Interesting idea although I'm not sure how it would play out. You're essentially going to get the same results from society though. The rich will have to pay more for medical bills and insurance to cover those who can't. It's also essentially nationalized health care and more "socialist" than the current plan on the table.

My biggest concern with this would be people avoiding minor issues and causing more catastrophic situations. I still think preventative medicine is important and getting people healthier in the country.

I don't think it's a bad idea, but I do think there would be a lot of questions I'd have on the details.

Break up the Medical Cartels - My biggest concern with this is that I think it hurts doctors who actually spend the time to take the long road through school. Would this plan cause more potential doctors to take less schooling? Does it lower the overall qualifications of our medical field?

I think there is an issue with having to spend a lot of time and money seeing a doctor for minor things, but I also like the fact that we are being diagnosed by highly educated people. That 1 in 1,000 chance that the ear infection is something more serious is still important to me when seeing a doctor. I don't know if the answer to our medical situation is flooding it with less educated doctors. I also don't know if that creates a whole new industry of charlatans that peddle "medical services" with inferior backgrounds. Kind of like the chiropractic industry on steroids.

I personally would like to see those smaller clinics that pop up in Walgreens and such take off a little more. It's a real doctor, but it's one that is there for real basic stuff like physicals and ear infections. It's quick and much cheaper than your regular doctor. I also feel safer knowing that the one prescribing the medication is someone who has been to medical school and not some vocational school.

I would be more in favor of making it easier financially for medical students to get their degree. Whether that be subsidized loans, special rates, or help to schools medical programs. That way you are creating more doctors but they are fully qualified.

I don't know what to tell you man. If all these signs and videos are photoshopped/edited, then it's truly a great hoax. If the images and videos are of the event, I'm not sure why it matters what political affiliation a blog leans toward posts it. Either something happened or it didn't. Is it your intention that all those blogs you found the images/videos on are fabricating them?

In any event, here is a CNN interview with one of the leaders of the Tea Party movement. Besides confirming his beliefs in Obama's Indonesian Muslim affiliation and racist beliefs, he gets a nice jab in to those pesky homosexuals too. But then again, maybe this video was fabricated by the left too with Anderson Cooper and James Carville look-a-likes.

Except for the part where the kids on the bus weren't personal friends with Obama.

Yep. :D

nice thoughts. i like what you say about medical schools and flooding the market with underqualified doctors and stuff.

here's something i'm against that the administration is doing - the move to "cloud computing."

U.S. government sets up online 'app store' - CNN.com

i don't want government employees using gmail or the creation of a "government cloud" where public data will be stored on google servers.

it's one step closer to googlezon and i don't like it very much at all!!

I have a lot of respect for Obama for distancing himself from race card his supporters are trying to play. This comes after Jimmy Carter said yesterday that the, "overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man"

Obama disagrees:

WH: President Obama Disagrees with Former President Carter that Most Animosity Towards Obama is Race-Based - Political Punch

Perhaps he learned something from the beer summit, but it was an important thing for him to say. It wouldn't take much from him for things to really get out of control.

weren't we going to try to stop going back to this well again and again? :confused:

now you're just going to incite another round of back-and-forth over it :banghead:

Great story :rolleyes: . First, you didn't post the end of the story:

Next, Captain Sax was taken to task by the Belleville government for stating it was racially motivated before he knew the facts. So, his backtrack was the correct move (with some spin) given he didn't know the facts when he made that comment.

The rest of the article is misleading. They basically interviewed an African American kid who was suspended 3 days for "rooting it on" and his mom - asking if they thought race was a component. That's a pretty impartial duo there - what are they supposed to say 'Well, I don't think my son should be suspended - but that white boy had it comin!'

The area where that bus picks up has a lot of poorer kids and is around 60-70% black (with the rest being poorer whites). To think race didn't play a part is being blind to the socio-economic reality of that area (which has a history of severe racism). Put it this way, if a black kid on a bus with 70% white kids started getting punched by a white kid with numerous white kids yelling encouragement - I have a feeling many might think race was involved (and they would also be correct given the history of this area).

I'm all for not trying to insert race where it doesn't seem to fit (ie, the health care debate), but this is certainly a situation where race played a part and ignoring it will not make the situation any better. This area needs to start dealing with race issues (both white-black and black-white) as we are well into the 21st century and people need to start accepting both races in the community. To be honest, it's one of the reasons I wanted to leave Illinois as a High School Senior (and go to Arizona). Just downplaying the race element of this crime does nothing to help the serious situation in that community.

Well, I thought what Obama said was in the spirit of getting back to a productive debate, and I appreciated it. I also like to say something postive about the president when I can.

along with the jab at gays and the reiteration of his feelings on Obama's 'indonesian muslim' descent, he at least confirms my long held belief that the Health Care debate and the people yelling, "We want our country back" arent really pissed about health care but are pissed about the littany of things since TARP, ie. bailouts, AIG, etc.

While I find it curious that you see a clear racial component to this story, but not in the tea party movement, I think it's worth getting into what constitutes a racial element.

I'm with you in thinking that race was some sort of factor in the fight, but not in the "Let's get the white guy" manner. It's been proven that racial groups have a tendency to see the worst in the motives of other racial groups. So whatever this white kid did or didn't do was likely seen as more threatening than the same behavior from a black kid. Add in the economic and social history of the area and I'm sure there's a relative distrust blacks and whites that makes it more likely for confrontation.

This tendency to forgive your own race more easily and blame other races more easily is universal across racial groups. In some sense we're all racists whether we want to be or not. It doesn't mean we're all going to go out and start a racial holy war, but it's important that we understand our own tendencies. I can tell you I'm much more aware of the way I perceive young black men as I'm driving through downtown Newburgh.

Great post.

I think there's racial overtones in a ton of situations. Where it becomes an issue is when it drives destructive (or even unfair) behavior. If John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean is president taking these actions, you would still have the tea party gatherings and a similar level of dissent on the health care issue. Now, are there some backwater idiots taking a shot using race/muslim crap reasons? I'm sure there are, but it's not the main reason for the dissent.

In the bus instance, I firmly believe if the kid finding a seat is black - there's no fight. So, it was an issue about race where racial divides played a role in this unfortunate incident. These are the instances where we need to look at race in communities and see what can be done to try and prevent this (or atleast improve the community acceptance). This goes for other instances where white kids may gang up on a Black/Hispanic/Asian kid in other communities as well. As an aside, I was very much involved in helping the African American community in Belleville/East St Louis when I was in High School and you had numerous instances of unfair citations/pulling over of lawful black motorists by white policemen in nicer areas. That was another instance where awareness was needed and the community needed to understand this was not acceptable behavior.

That is quite the astute observation there Steve. We also don't have people accusing Obama of overstating his war injuries or being a screaming nutjob.

I look forward to your next tidbit of polical genius.

the 'woop' by Dean had to be the most inappropriate mischaracterization basis Ive ever seen or remember. Im not saying he isnt a nutjob but that was so unfair it was unreal. I mean people score and do stuff and if we judged them based on their celebration alone it would be a sad state but I dont think that's what you meant....you mightve just been repeating that cheapshot, instead of focusing on Dean's other real faults.

It's a sad thread when Flasch is the reasonable one (j/k Flasch).

Yes, I was referring to the attack most people still remember about Dean, just as I was referring to the attack most people remember when it comes to Kerry.

Well, Cam, look who is the other person other than Flasch who responded ;).

It wouldn't be much of a hoax at all. One person takes a few protester pics...photoshops them and sells them (or provides for free) the images to one liberal blogger that is less than discerning. This blog shares these images with other blogs or the same source of the images happens to have more than one contact in the blogoshpere...since none of them have fulltime staffed journalists and at the end of the day...they aren't expected to be as bullet-proof with their sources of information as conventional media. It isn't some "conspiracy"...it's called "lazy journalism" and it does happen sometimes.

And if you cannot see the inherent benefit to a liberal blogger to paint anti-Obama protesters as racists...well, I'll assume you do know better.



Calm down sugar pants. Nobody is asking you to prove (or disprove) the existance of God.

He writes inflammatory things on his blog to gin up xenophobic sentiments in order to rally any and all people who dislike Obama (and for any reason, I'm sure). He's a typical zealot playing to the lowest denominator. I'm sure he's outraged by overtaxation, but his tact hurts that cause and I wish he wouldn't.

I honestly hate to even bring this level of nuance up...but I feel compelled to given the context and the general direction of the thread at this point...but what he called Obama was "xenophobic" and/or "islamaphobic", but not "racist"...and there is a difference. Unless Indonesians or Muslims have a race all of their own now. Don't get me wrong...the guy is a sleazeball, might be a closet racist for all I know, but do we now just assume anti-foreigner = racist? Is it always about the color of skin?

I watched this video 3 times and did not catch the gay jab you guys caught...it might be there, but damned if I could catch it.

These pictures are not limited to liberal blogs and to be quite honest, I just find it highly implausible that they all got together to masterly photoshop these events. I guess they also could have paid people to stand around and scream racist stuff at the rallies to make them look bad in videos. Seems highly implausible again, but if you truly believe that, then so be it.

I'm also assuming you believe that the ACORN videos that have surfaced are doctored as well since they were done by conservatives who can "benefit" from it.


Racist or xenophobic, I still think the jist of it was that "he's not one of us". It just showed to me that this wasn't about health care or spending, but about the color of his skin or his ethnic background. I also think the "welfare thug" comment is tinged with some racial condescension.

Again, my only comment was that the tea parties seemed to have a racial element to them (not the opposition, just the tea parties). An interview of a leader of the tea parties goes on TV to make racist, xenophobic, and homophobic remarks. I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore.

I gotta tell you...I might be dense...but I did not hear the anti-gay remark (or any remark about homosexuality or anything close).

Is this beginning, middle, or end?

I don't really have the time or attention to give a proper response to your post, but I think you've hit something with particular phrase. Hopefully I'll be able to respond properly tomorrow.

The nipple-clip, feather boa in the streets of San Francisco didn't come across as a shot at gays? His blog seems to reference the gay pride parades as extremist, violent events.

This is also a guy who made the rounds on the cable news networks with racist rants against blacks after Katrina. But like you said, no racism in this event at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/us...7obama.html?hp

So I'm guessing you think members of the Congressional Black Caucus aren't "black people in positions of power"?

I agree with that editorial you posted.

So what's Colin Powell's excuse? Or has he just been Uncle Tom'd as he was referred to when he was Bush's Secretary of State?

So you are able to speak for "black people in power"? Good lord.

dola: I also love your description of Ta-Neishi Coates. "Blogger on The Atlantic and black man".

Could we start providing these handy descriptions for all pundits? "Maureen Dowd, New York Times Columnist and white woman, said..."

As for the nipple-clip, feather-boa comment...I honestly did not associate the comment to gay people. He mentioned "hippies". I have never heard hippies used as slang, codeword, etc. for gay. Nipple-clip, feather boa wearing I guess is what constitues anti-gay...just sounded like a shitty analogy more than a potshot. But I'm sure you heard that remark to mean "gay people = racists". Which is very similar to your own remarks whic have been understood to mean "Anti-Obama policy = racist"...see how we all see and read into things just a little differently? Best to be careful on big, slippery slopes with the "thought police" stuff.



You have not read a single post of me saying that. You see racists and immediately feel it's got to be everybody...all 10k people (or however many)...or the majority is perfectly fine with it. What you don't seem to understand is that there are perfectly logical reasons white racists follow small-government ideology (and subsequently show up at such events). But there is not an inherent racist element to small-government ideology. It seems you want to link the 2. Well, I'm sorry you're just wrong.

I also think I've made it pretty clear I'm not defending this guy's CNN video, his blog, his high school science teacher, his brother's dog, or anything about him. Apparently you are fixated on him. He is an organizer for Tea Party events...happens to be xenophobic (and racist based on your findings). Really sucks this kind of guy is out in front on topics I happen to agree with...but that makes me a racist now? Should I also not like the color blue if a racist likes it?

Who might he be referring to that would like Obama to dance? Me? You? Republicans? White people? Some white people...but we can never find them? Who?

Must be over my head I guess.

Remember, Obama supporters are very, very adept at calling people racists. They took Bill Clinton, a guy who was known by some as "the first black President", and made him seem like a racist in the primaries.

So why doesn't Obama distance himself from such people as the Clintons who are clearly capable of such bigotry?

i'm done with this thread for now - can somebody fetch me back to it via PM when all the back and forth over the tea party racist shit is over?

i thought we had gotten past it earlier, but it seems like a couple people haven't wanted to let it go tonight and i'm honestly bored of talking about it. i'd rather be talking actual politics and ideas

I can't wait till Jimmy Carter dies.

I'm just announcing right now, ahead of time, that I'll be shitting all over that thread.

I don't know many nipple pierced hippies wearing pink boas. Maybe it wasn't a shot at gays, but he has a history of calling gay pride parades extremists events and uses examples in San Francisco frequently.


I don't know where you see me labeling every anti-Obama person a racist. I'm anti most of Obama's policies and I don't consider myself a racist.
I simply stated that the tea parties seemed to have a racial vibe to it. Doesn't mean everyone there is a racist, doesn't mean even the majority are. It just means that there seems to be some racist elements to these gatherings.

That's all I'm arguing. Nothing about policy or opposition. Just whether the tea parties have a semi-racist vibe to them. I posted some pictures, pointed in the direction of some videos, showed flyers being posted online, and introduced you to one of the leaders of the tea party movement who has a history of racism that he doesn't shy away from. You can try and turn those comments into something they are not, but I'm strictly speaking about the tea party movement.

This idea that much of the dissent on Obama's policies is based in some sort of racism just doesn't make sense. Now, are there some people in this country not comfortable with the idea that a black man is president? I'm sure there are. Just like I'm sure a portion of society voted for him primarily on the idea that he is black and would break the color barrier.

Here's what we know:

1. A majority of Americans voted for him to be president.
2. He had 76% approval, 11% disapproval, 13% uncertain ratings in his first month in office.
3. His approval rating now fluctuates between 48 and 52 percent (based on which source you prefer) and his disapproval rating is in the 48-50% range as well.

S0, 89% were willing to give Obama a shot or already approved. That doesn't strike me as a population full of racist people. The fact that his disapproval has gone from 11% to around 50% doesn't seem to have anything to do with his skin color (unless a large number of people suddenly turned racist in the summer).

I'm sorry, I'll drop it.

Anyway, on health care. Here is what I'd propose:

1) Tort reform - I don't buy that this is the primary reason for high costs, but I still think aspects of it are a bit crazy. While malpractice does weed out poorer physicians who have made a lot of mistakes, there is also an element of doctors being too cautious. For instance, I went into the doctor with a real bad neck (from sleeping on the couch). I got an MRI and CAT scan ($6000 total) for what turned out to be a strain. Not sure on the details, but some caps would help along with some laws on what can/can't doctors be sued for. To make up for patients not being able to sue as much, I do think a more stringent governing of doctors needs to be in place for those who rack up too many complaints.

2) Financial assistance for Students - Make it easier for people to get a medical degree. It's real tough to go through life till you're 28 without a full time job paying the bills. Subsidized loans and grants should be offered. No lowering of standards, but assistance should make the road to becoming a doctor easier for those who have financial issues up front. This equates to more doctors, more personalized treatment, and lower costs.

3) Education on Health - We can all agree that probably the easiest way to lower costs is to just have this country healthier. No reason our kids should not be learning about good/bad carbs in school. About good/bad fats. What foods are good and what processed sugars do to your body. I honestly knew jack shit about health when I got out of school. Didn't know that wheat bread was much healthier than white bread. This stuff needs to be taught to kids. I'd also throw in getting some healthier lunches and dropping the vending machines from these schools. We don't let kids smoke or drink, so why can't we ban soda and such from junior highs and high schools?

4) Increase Competition - Not sure on all the laws but we don't really have any competition in the health insurance space. You maybe have 2-3 options in your area. Lets make it more like car insurance where we have 10-15 options at our fingertips. Auto insurance prices have been dropping this decade too.

5) Open Borders to Prescriptions - It's pathetic that we can't buy drugs from Canada or the UK. We shouldn't be forced to pay for the R&D of the rest of the world. Any squabbles Pharma has with these other countries and their prices are between them, not us.

6) Public Option for Some - I know it's a boogey man but we already have one in place. It's just confusing and fucked up. So lets provide health insurance for those who can't get it. Not just income wise, but those who have pre-existing conditions. Allow them to pay a % of their income that is pre-determined to be what they can afford. I don't think this has to cover a large percent of the country, just the 10-15% who can't get health insurance because of cost or pre-existing conditions. The pre-existing conditions is a big thing for me too as I don't think people should be punished in our country for losing out on the genetic lottery. I have no problem with loose weight/health requirements too. We shouldn't be paying for smokers and morbidly obese individuals who refuse to lose weight.

7) Tougher Regulations on Everyone - Insurance companies should not be allowed to bully poorer patients who can't afford legal representation. Doctors should not be allowed to over-prescribe procedures for financial windfall. Lets lock down the excess and fraud in the system with some tougher enforcement. Bust up some of these scams, bring in doctors who are cheating the system for questioning.


I think all these would help lower costs. It's not my dream scenario but I think it would be a massive help to the system. End goal is to get the country healthier, lower costs, and give more people access.

Dude, what numbers are you looking at? Obama's at 45/48 in New Jersey right now among likely voters. Do you ever contribute anything other than the latest talking points circulating among the liberal blogs?

Your posts are incoherent from one to the next (you've posted approvingly of the idea that racism is inherent in the Obama protests, while now claiming that most of his disapproval isn't racist in nature), you make needlessly partisan snipes when none are needed, your political analysis brings absolutely nothing to the table, as far as I know you don't contribute anything else to the board in terms of intelligent conversation (I don't play WW, so if that's where you hang out and have the witty and captivating exchanges you seem incapable of achieving in this thread forgive me), and you don't even have the little tiny mouse-balls in your sac that it would take to come right out and actually call someone a racist on the interwebs. Instead, you outsource the job to a black man... and you don't even pay him for it.

For the first time in my more than six years of posting here, I am putting someone on ignore. I thought you should know the reason why you're the lucky guy to pop my cherry, SteveBollea.

I don't often agree with Arles in political threads, but these two posts were right on the money, in my opinion.

In my opinion, I think where people are getting confused is that while clearly a majority of people who oppose Obama's policies are not racists, the element who are racist, xenophobic, or have otherwise truly anti-social views are more vocal than their numbers would suggest, and have been given more of a stage by the MSM (starting with Fox News, as usual) than, perhaps, they deserve. With this backdrop, it's easy to make the assumption that this truly virulent group is actually larger than it is.

Having said that, none of you should discount the very clear polling that shows that one part of the country (the SouthEast), which happens to be a very particular bastion of the current GOP, is having considerable trouble coming to terms with the fact that Obama won the election, and has reacted to it by espousing beliefs (Obama's a muslim, Obama wasn't born in the U.S., etc...) that are outside the bounds of rationality. Whether that's racism, generalized hating-all-Democrats/Northerners or something else, it's a development that's having a considerable influence on the national conversation.

Glad you've got the thread covered, I've been looking forward to pissing on his grave for a number of years already.

Well, Arles was able to make the point I was trying (and apparently failing) to make for me. That roughly 90% of the counrty was giving him the benefit of the doubt, and roughly 10% were staunchly not going to support him. My only contention is that the 10% cannot ALL be racists (not that anybody was implying this) and that of that 10% that are...they didn't all show up for these events nor did they even come close to representing a majority sentiment. That is really all I was trying to get at.

Apologies for my part in continuing a silly exchange that likely accomplished nothing.

Am I the only one who thinks it rather scarey not just that some people replied 'Yes' - but that this question was asked in the first place, I mean come on what is it the 1600's?

Yay! After all that, he accomplished nothing! So I say call their bluff- go with the House bill because it's clear the Dems aren't getting any political cover from the GOP for a bipartisan vote. So screw 'em, and do the bill that you think works best.

SI

It's a sure bet you aren't the only one ... but that doesn't make it any less offensive that you'd point something this blatantly mocking of Christians. But frankly Marc, that's pretty much what I've come to expect from you.

Apparently we don't have enough fucking liberals of our own, now we're importing them, just one more mistake in a long line that we've made at the national level.

Then, is your public option needed if additional regulations on insurance companies involve the prohibition of pre-existing condition exclusions and force insurance companies to take everyone?

I like the 13% that aren't sure he's the anti-christ: "You know, I'm open to the possibility, but I still need more evidence" ;)

SI

Let's be honest, though. This is the same area of the country that was all into conspiracy theories about President Clinton (I'm sure the polling numbers for whether Clinton had Vince Foster killed or raped Juanita Broadrick would show the Southeast was far more accepting than other areas of the country).

I always love getting these notices at work. You never know what you'll see when you open one. This one's relatively tame, though I do wonder if some of his less religious supporters cringe at the reference to 'Our Lord' at the end of the notice.

I just don't get why it starts on the 15th of September and goes to the 15th of October? Why not just make it the month of September?

Maybe its to encompase Mexican Independance and Columbus Day... I dunno.

Google & Wiki can be your friend ;)
National Hispanic Heritage Month - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"September 15 was chosen as the starting point for the celebration because it is the anniversary of independence of five Latin American countries: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. They all declared independence in 1821. In addition, Mexico, Chile and Belize celebrate their independence days on September 16, September 18 and September 21, respectively. "

I believe that actually is the reason for it, though I'd agree with you that it's a bit confusing since it's not really a specific month per se.

Edit: Looks like Jon tracked it down.

Yeah- I'd rather government business be on their own servers. I don't like this idea at all. It just adds another layer of obfuscation to blame when something goes wrong and puts data in the hands of someone who really shouldn't have access to it.

SI

I don't dispute that. Jon alone has made clear why there's a hate-all-Democrats, hate-all-Northerners undercurrent in the SE. I guess my question (and honestly, it's more of a rhetorical question) is why such a significant portion of the population there have to slip the bonds of rationality and either believe in these conspiracy theories or just froth at the mouth with xenophobic or even racist sentiment.

Having said that, it would be interesting to look at polling data and see if one can make similar conclusions about the geographic distribution of people who believed in the more outrageous conspiracy theories attached to George W. Bush.

I think there are a couple of news stories that have flown under the radar the last day or two what with all the big news about Kanye West saying something stupid (again), some missing Yale student, and ACORN giving tax advice to prostitutes. I mean, how can you not help but focus on crap like that (if you have the IQ of a turnip)

I think DT's story about the government going over to "cloud computing" to save costs- hey you want to cut costs, here's the crap that goes on sometimes- is pretty significant if they store any data of note. I think it's only a matter of time before some of that starts leaking out and no one knows where it's coming from.

Mehdi Ghezali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can't find any good American news sources about this, but there's the recapture of Mehdi Ghezali in Pakistan. He was a Guantanamo detainee, released back in 2004 as no longer being a threat. He claims he was just going to meet someone there but he was going to meet an alleged Taliban leader so who knows.

U.S. scraps missile defense shield plans - CNN.com
And this one's kindof a slap in the face to the Czech Republic and Poland. I guess if Obama thinks this can get Russia to play ball with Iran and that they're the greater threat, great. But I think this is like the health care negotiations- compromise, compromise, compromise- and then still not get what you want all the while taking all of your bargaining chips off the table.

SI

1) Where the hell do you work that you're getting White House press releases delivered to your inbox? Is your name Rahm Emanuel or Wolf Blitzer?

2) Really? You're going to question the boilerplate text of a proclamation? It's on *EVERY SINGLE ONE*

The first four that I found when Googling "Presidential proclamation" or something like that:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/a_nat...econciliation/ A Day of Renewal and Reconciliation
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...lity-Day-2009/ Women's Equality Day
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...T-Pride-Month/ LBGT Pride Month
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...te-Life-Month/ Organ Donor Month

They *all* end with: "IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this {date}th day of {month}, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third."

(On a lark, I tried to search for athiest proclamation and got "No results. Did you mean wealthiest?")

So, really, you were going to make mention of that? Some wording that hasn't changed in probably a hundred years if not 233 years?

SI

Sorry didn't think it'd be that offensive to you - was more aimed at wondering why the survey was including a question like that which seemed inappropriate than attacking Christians.

Surely adding in questions like that to a survey, legitimizes using religion as a weapon in politics? (ie. asking that question will then make people consider whether he 'could be the anti-christ' and that is the only reason I could see for asking it). But following that vein of thought, it also indicates that the people behind the survey believe that enough Americans not only are Christian, but believe in the Anti-christ (and the fact that he might be here now) passionately enough to allow it to affect their voting - something which frankly surprises me.

That sort of thing is generally frowned upon or illegal (depending on the situation/country) in Europe - its a bit like asking in a survey "Do you believe Obama has raped anyone in the last year" - the question implies that its very possible it has, otherwise it wouldn't be asked).

I've noticed over here its generally much more acceptable for churches to recruit by scaremongering (ie. 'The end is nigh', 'You're going to burn if you don't sign up' etc.) whereas back home its simply not the done thing.

I personally don't think that anyone should choose a religion because of scaremongering - making people do things because they're scared is intimidation and pressure selling; it can also lead to people acting blindly and without sense/logic in a worst case scenario.

... and yes I undoubtably think that way because I grew up in England - we're much lower key generally with religion than it is over here; back home religion is something you don't push on other people. Its a private thing shared with like minded souls, if you search it out its there to be found, if not then fine.

Finally - I thought there was an active separation of state and religion in America?, isn't that meant to discount that sort of line of questioning/propaganda?


Thats an interesting comment - what do you define as being a 'liberal' if you don't mind me asking? - mainly interested because I see a lot of terms thrown around in the media over here and used generally as 'scaremongering' to try and prevent things from happening.

For instance any change to the status quo which might hurt large corporations is known as 'socialist' or 'communist' etc.

(for example the current 'health changes' being proposed have been repeatedly indicated as socialist)

I've seen similar things where people try and discredit each other by using the term 'liberal' - each time I hear it the meaning seems somewhat different (hence my question).

PS - thanks for your warm welcome to the country ;) ... I'm enjoying it here so far :D
PPS - My wife is a very active Christian (and heading off on a missions trip to Haiti next month) in case you weren't aware. While compared to her and yourself I'm a lukewarm Christian and will happily admit I'm openly cynical about a LOT of the stuff involved (don't believe that the bible is literally true for instance) I do try and respect other peoples opinions as much as possible.

1. I'm a contractor for the federal government on the side. If you work in any capacity for the gov't, you receive one of these. It goes out to everyone regardless of whether it has anything to do with what you do.

2. I was joking around about the 'Our Lord' part. Little fun with religion never hurt anyone.

Thanks! But, I'd still think it'd be less confusing to have it just be the month of September.

Preach.

If I could wave a magic wand I'd have all of that crap take a back seat to today's presentation of the Medal of Honor to the family of Sergeant Jared Monti:

I'll take a crack at answering for Jon, in the hope that it will serve to annoy him. :D


When you intimate that asking a question like that is something best left in the 1600s, you ignore the fact that many Christians in the U.S. fervently believe in things like the coming of the Anti-Christ and whatnot. I'm not sure if Jon believes this personally, but he's probably offended by your (perceived) self-righteous conclusion that people who think this way are backwards.


First, that's a chicken-and-egg argument, but it's probably more likely that polls use this type of question because religion is already used as a weapon in politics rather than vice versa.

Second, depending on how they survey is constructed, it could be a poor question to ask (similar to push-polling), but I haven't seen the survey, so I can't say (how about a link, Cam or Steve?).


Well, stop being surprised. :p


Jon's definition of liberal is more, uh, liberal (pardon the pun) than most. Given that you're from a foreign country, don't denounce government-run programs out of hand, and have espoused generally egalitarian notions, you've got three strikes against you in his worldview already. Don't let it bother you, though, much of this applies to everyone else here as well. :D


Thanks to GOP operatives since 1994, "liberal" has essentially just become a pejorative description, devoid of any actual meaning. In mixed company we call ourselves "progressives" now. :D

I'm far from an expert on this but aren't there concerns about the effectiveness of these weapon systems?

He's not getting rid of it, though. He's just moving it.

You really needn't go out of your way. Just keep breathing, that'll cover it.


Perhaps no greater proof exists of the persistently delusional state of our liberals than this misnomer.

I can still go for extra credit though, right?


You're looking at it the wrong way. By calling ourselves "progressives" we get to, conversely, call you lot "regressives". It's this kind of subtle and nuanced wordplay that brings amusement into our otherwise serious, productive and sophisticated lives. :D

Seems like overkill to me, but it's your time to manage as you see fit. Kind of like giving 110% effort, it isn't actually possible but the phrase still lingers.



Hence my previous reference to the delusional state of existence.

I see. I just watched this clip on the Washington Post website where he says the tech used is "proven and cost-effective." I thought knocking one of these things out of the sky was like trying to "stop a bullet with a bullet" but maybe that is in reference to Russian ICBMs rather than the Iranian short and medium range missiles that Obama seems more worried about.

if by "concerns on the effectiveness" you mean "they can't even get it to work when they cheat on the test launches" then yes, there are concerns.

the shit doesn't work.

I'm sure glad they didn't end the space program because "the shit doesn't work" early on in the program.

But we didn't watch every test fail real life conditions and say "Fuck it, we're going to the Moon anyways."

Research/testing should continue, but deployment is a waste of money at this point.

Yet they still put a man on the moon within 13 years of forming NASA. It is now pushing 25 years since the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization was formed.

Yeah, but realizing you have a limit to what you can do with technology over the next 20~50 years is a real reason to step back for a second.

If you can spend $100B today or wait until technology advances and pay $10B in 10 years- it's worth waiting. Even if you had a time machine and knew the future, it'd be like trying to manufacture wifi cell phones in the 80s- why do it then when it has limited uses and the infrastructure won't be there for decades.

SI

This seems to ignore successful tests for reasons I'm not sure why, except for political gain.


Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Though it was claimed by some this last test was rigged:

the shit should work...the shit will work. someday. but deploying it, or building coalitions based around deploying it and thus creating enemies or inflaming your enemies at this point makes no sense, because it's not a credible weapons system at this point.

There have been a LOT of questions about the legitimacy of test results. Theodore Postol has made it his major area of research, and to me he's a trustworthy person.

Unless your goal is to build a coalition and inflame your enemies, I suppose

SI