I don't need to brag in any way about what I do. If someone does that, it's hardly charity IMO. With that said, I don't see where it's ever appropriate to attack a person on a board with no basis for the attack in regards to their personal life.

As for the argument that I'm somehow little more than a talking point machine, it's false and I've proved that repeatedly. No one bothers to discuss it when I agree with Obama (which I have several times), but they'll attack me the moment I agree with the Republican side of things. Why? There's little question why.

And I'm not going to feed the unicorns and rainbows view of the world like you would prefer. There's a lot of crap being fed through the government right now, and most of it is equally as nasty as the spending increases under Bush. Ignoring it does nothing, though you're certainly welcome to ignore my opinions and links if you choose to do so. It would be an improvement over unwarranted personal attacks for sure.

You seem awfully cranky these days, Mike.

So stating that his unwarranted attack was false is now 'playing the innocent victim'? I apologize. I thought I was correcting a false statement. My mistake.

I work in a state with among the highest unemployment, whose leaders think it's more important to brand textbooks as theories and ban stem cell research instead of putting plans forward to do something. The University is cutting 10-15% (because of the state budget) and I am about to be on teaching duty again this semester.

Oh, and I have a 4 month old meaning I'm neither getting laid or sleeping :banghead: :banghead:

:p

Hey, at least you have a beautiful child who will one day sleep through the night, right? I know that doesn't help much. I don't actually remember much from when my youngest were that age. I was sleeping in the guest room since my wife wanted the twins in bed with her to make nursing easier. I got sleep, but that was about it. :p

As for the teaching duties, what are your usual job duties? Is this something that you're not supposed to be doing? Look on the bright side... at least now you can get valuable face-to-face indoctrination time with the next generation. ;)

Ain't that the truth. My wife & I were just talking about our almost-1-year-old and thinking about how our memories of, say, the first 3 months are somewhat hazy. I mean, we remember the good (i.e. cute) stuff, but we know that it was uber-hard, just not the exact details of why it was uber-hard.

I think this is how people convince themselves to have another kid, honestly.... :D

Well I received an e-mail today from my very conservative great Aunt and Uncle (former Priest and Nun who are shockingly on Medicare). In this forward that many others have passed on is a massive list of bullshit about the plan. Here are a few of the talking points:

- We will apparently be euthanizing old people.
- You'll be required to speak other languages
- Required to sign power of attorney over to people
- Can't pick your doctor
- Tons of stuff about ACORN that didn't make sense
- Mandatory abortions!
- Government taking over all medical schools
- Government will dictate what you are allowed to eat

There's a lot more. I mean I know many of these people are not too bright and would struggle to read through a couple pages of the actual bill. But the misinformation out there is really crazy. I understand people not wanting it because they think it won't work or will cost too much. But to have the party give credibility to ridiculous euthanasia myths shows they really don't have much to stand on. When people can't win on the issue, they make stuff up.

I personally don't care either way anymore. I can afford insurance and will (knock on wood) always be able to. The people up in arms are the ones that need some form of health care reform the most. The Red states are the unhealthiest and the ones with the worst life expectancy rates.

Here's a thorough debunking of that email:

PolitiFact | E-mail 'analysis' of health bill needs a check-up

You can say that you're unbias, but lets be honest here. You weren't posting daily about Bush spending like crazy but you are about Obama. It just seems to me that the D and R mean more to you than the actual issue at hand. Otherwise I'd be able to search back in time and find your outrage toward the last Medicare changes.

The game between the parties is more important to some than the issues. There isn't anything wrong with it, to each their own. But don't get all bent out of shape when people tell you that's what you're doing.

It's faux anyways.

IIRC, according to CBO estimates and the like, its not going to fund the health program, regardless of "how the current bill is set up". It's a pipe dream. And if you think that it will be possible to fund the program with "how the current bill is set up", then I have a bridge to sell you.

Guess what, there will be explosion in the deficit and then people will be told that taxes will have to be raised on everyone to close the deficit.

...and the circle of stupid is complete. Sarah Palin says that Obama's "Death Panel" could have her Down Syndrome baby killed

AdolfOliverPanties

2009-08-07 06:14:14 PM

GOOD GOD THIS WOMAN IS A FARKING MORAN!

Trig is in no danger. He is the brains of the family.

How about they come up with actual constructive criticism and ideas instead of just lies to scare people? WTF!!!!

Rep. John Boehner: Your tax dollars will be used for abortions - FALSE

Liberty Counsel: School health clinics will indoctrinate your children and abort your grandchildren - PANTS ON FIRE

Club for Growth: People will be allowed to die if their treatments are too expensive - FALSE

Rep. Dan Lungren: The government will tell old women who need pacemakers to just take a pain pill instead - FALSE

Former NY Lt. Gov Betsy McCaughey: The government will require old people to get end-of-life counseling to tell them how to end their life sooner - PANTS ON FIRE

Investors Business Daily: The health care bill outlaws private insurance - PANTS ON FIRE

Hot Karl Rove: 120 million will lose their insurance and be forced onto government rolls - FALSE

Mitch McConnel: A public option will end private insurance because it they won't be able to compete - BARELY TRUE

Conservatives for Patients' Rights: Your healthcare costs will go up 95% if you buy your own insurance - BULLCRAP

Family Research Council: Surgery for seniors won't be funded, but abortions will - BULLCRAP

Patients United Now: We're going Canadian - BULLCRAP

Would you say then that your posted criticisms have been equally fair towards Obama and Bush spending?

Germany's Cash-For-Clunkes Corruption
Germany's Cash-for-Clunkers Black-Market Scandal - Yahoo! News

First of all, I thought the Obama administation invented "Cash for Clunkers". I guess not.

Facts from the article.

1. The German version allows any vehicle nine years or older to be turned in for 3,600 tax-payer dollars.

2. The Germans have a limit set at aound $7.2 billion dollars for their program that started in February. (for us to match their effort, based on population alone, we will ultimately need to earmark aound $15 billion for this program.)

Concerns raised in the article

1. Police are estimating that Germans "scrapped" 50,000 clunkers that have made their way to eastern Europe/Africa. So those cars aren't saving the environment anyway. That's $180 million German tax-payer dollars that were used to set up a fairly lucrative black-market for older cars and just moves the pollution to other countries/regions.

I think I've been pretty consistent in terms of bashing both sides on spending. I criticized Bush for wasteful spending on the war in Iraq and selling out Medicare to Big Pharma. I've criticized Obama for cash for clunkers and the stimulus package.

While I'm fiscally conservative on most stuff, I do think health care should be treated the same way we treat police and fire services. Something that we are all entitled to. I don't think it should raise the deficit though and the money should come from other areas like welfare, foreign aid, closing tax loopholes, and some major reforms in many departments of government.

Okay, I didn't realize that you were equally vocal against Bush spending and Obama spending. I'm sure it was just an inaccurate perception I developed.

That's not more important to me and I've been very consistent in that manner. I come down on both sides of the issue depending on the topic. If you're here to argue the bias of a person, that's fine. I'm here to argue the issues. As bad as Bush was in regard to economics, it wasn't nearly as bad as what we're seeing under Obama with the deficit.

Noticed this morning that there's been a rash of town hall meetings canceled due to 'security concerns'. It can be easily argued at this point that the Democrats went to the people and didn't like the response, so they just took the ball and ran back to Washington. Judging from their reactions at some of these smaller events, they don't want to hear people's opinions.

Dennis Moore, a local rep, was going to have his at a place that holds 300 people. After he found out that people who oppose the health care bill would be coming, he moved it to a 30 person coffee shop and issues passes to certain constituents. As a result, he's going to have a large group of people outside the door showing their dissatisfaction at his sudden change of heart. Poor choice and not in the interest of the general public.

The only thing I'm indoctrinating is to get these kids of out undergraduate mentality (read and regurgitate) and in to graduate school mode (think, plan, and defend). I teach every fall to 1st year grad students, but it's medical-related so politics stays out of it. I do volunteer to go around the community and try to tell people that science is helpful and we're not all out to convince their kids Jesus didn't exist. That, and stem cell research can actually be beneficial and we're not stealing embryos and encouraging abortions.

Teaching is ok, but takes lots of time.

Or there are 'security concerns'...you know like the Congressional security forces investigating death threats and such/


Health care debate degenerates into brawls, death threats - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com


but I dont want to divert you off your bias and spin train.

Yes, it's really telling that the best GOP argument against this plan is to lie through their teeth.

I'm amazed that so many people are falling for it.

I also especially like the sentiment that so many seniors have like "Keep the government out of my healthcare" while they enjoy the benefit of Medicare. That's some kind of intelligence you got there!

Obviously, this is a strawman argument of the highest magnitude. I'm the one that said that the behavior exhibited in some of these town hall meetings has not been the best. No one has said that violence is appropriate in any way. But that doesn't change the fact that there there are legitimate concerns about the policies being proposed by this administration and the outrage is without question a response to these questionable policies. If anything, the majority of people who have legitimate concerns should be pissed off that a couple of yahoos decided to prank a death threat. It's given representatives in favor of this plan an excuse to hide in a cave rather than face their constituents.

I like the part where people generalize an entire age group based on the stupid comments of a few people. It makes no sense, but it's a fun way to debate.

The News is all about profiling these days, how can you avoid it?

WTF!?

Youre the one who insinuated that theyre not really cancelling meetings because of threats AND you throw quotes around it to boot. I simply said, that it could be because there is actual violence being threatened. Why not stop playing the victim card in your posts and stick with it....you think theyre full of shit, thats a fine opinion to have. YOU SAID


you used the quotes around security concerns, not me and followed up the sentence about those concerns with your 'took the ball and went home' commentary. Stand by your post for credibility sake and reiterate your point instead of spinning to and fro like a top. Just say:

"They arent really shutting down the meetings because of threats but because they dont like the feedback theyre getting" and follow it up when challenged with a, "thats right. I said it and I meant it" instead of playing your victim card, throwing up your strawman, claiming others picked something to use out of context, generalized you, misunderstood your statement, and that you sincerely are shocked about something.

Isn't it fair to guess that politicians on both sides in general get a lot of threats? If each one resulted in canceled appointments and events and what not, nothing would get done. Terrorists wouldn't even bother to bomb things--they would just send letters.

unless of course there is an organized mob mentality growing or being fomented. If anything that would be the time to lay low, let it pass, and then start the debate. Im not saying that they arent conveniently using that but I am saying it is just as likely that they are scared at some of that shit as MBBF's silly insinuations, faux neutrality and such.

Chief, "fair" is the key word you used and the answer is YES it is fair and both scenarios should be treated with equal possibility....unless of course the spinster needs to use it to boost their point or discount a counter-point. He parses polling data, leaves out truths, and links to partisan crap all while wearing a veil of neutrality and unbiased thought, and that is just nothing but Bullshit and the day he admits it will be the day where he becomes relevent again. Until then he'll always have peaked when he made the Obama/bowling 'faux-outrage' run.

I don't lean one way or another on the possibility for why such town hall meetings were canceled (either option seems as strong a possibility as the other), but my pessimism about the intentions of politicians (both sides, all sides, whatever) feeds my inclination toward the belief that this cancellation is motivated more by political considerations than security concerns.

I think that security concerns have to be rather significant and possible these days for an event to be canceled for them. The political ramifications for canceling these events is great, so it would require a very significant security threat for a politician to choose to go that route. However, canceling such events makes perfect sense within the political game, where canceling it here may hurt, but the political gain (or of political fallout) elsewhere could outgain the negative consequences of canceling the event.

excellent post!

Is it really about a huge public uprising or is it the fact that the Glenn Becks of the world are telling people to show up at these things and disrupt them? A small percent of people make a large percent of the noise. These townhalls are not filled with the average moderate middle class family. They are filled with the farthest of the left and right looking for confrontations. In the same way that I don't think the Cindy Sheehans and Code Pink of the world represent the public because they showed up in force at various events.

How is that a strawman argument? You questioned the motives for cancelling a townhall for security reasons. He showed you links to articles of violent townhalls and representatives receiving death threats.

It's probably both. One of the reasons too is that it's kind of pointless. From what I've read, the protesters scream and yell the whole time and don't let the representative talk or answer questions. You can't really have a townhall if you aren't willing to sit and listen and ask questions in a respectful manner.

Reminds me of the kid who doesn't want to hear something, plugs his ears with his fingers and screams. If you had serious concerns about your dad getting euthanized, wouldn't you want to ask your representative if it's in the bill?

Hard to ask "respectfully" of people you hold in utter & complete contempt.


Neither were a lot of voting booths that put the fence turtle in the Oval Office either.

What issue or what stance gives you the utter and complete contempt? I understand not liking spending and stuff, but what causes the compete hatred of someone else. I've yet to hear why from people.

Middle class voted for Obama (as did just about every major demographic).

A lot of folks really don't need much more than consorting with the enemy. And make no mistake, the left is the primary enemy for a lot of Americans.


And a large chunk of them didn't, nor were they the core of his support.

Enemy on what though? I mean what are the issues that make them "the enemy". This is what I'm trying to get. Is it just because it says D next to their name or are their certain issues that have turned them into your mortal enemy?

:lol:

:confused:

you're in denial

It's true the middle class (which I would define as 50K-100K) voted almost 50/50 for both candidates. I am a middle class voter that did not vote for Obama (and I didn't vote for McCain either) and I side with Obama on a lot of social issues and some economic ones. But this health care proposal is ridiculous and I don't need Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh to tell me that its a massive clusterfuck. So quit acting like there aren't middle class people out there who support the president on many ideas, hope the economy recovers, and still think his health care plan is horrible for my situation. If there weren't valid viewpoints on both sides it wouldn't be an issue.

I'm going to take that question at face value because, well, I believe that's honestly how you're asking it. But damn, it might be easier to list the issues that we aren't diametrically opposed on, would be a hell of a lot shorter list.

There's no way I could even begin to do a comprehensive list at 10p on a Saturday night & especially not with an increasingly roaring headache, so I'm going to use a little bit of a cheat sheet just to avoid overlooking even some obvious highlights.

While I know that Obama's stances & statements aren't absolute gospel for the party (and McCain's definitely weren't for that matter either), I figure this candidates-on-the-issues guide from The New York Times looks to be deep enough to at least keep me from missing most of the bigger stuff.

You phrased the question about "are there certain issues", so I'll skip the mostly obvious differences in positions and just hit the issues, I imagine the differences between general (D) positions and my own should be pretty obvious. These aren't in particular order beyond how they appear on the issues list provided with the article.

Climate change - both cause and appropriate federal gov't response
Taxation - most particularly the use of progressive taxation, but also corporate & individual tax rates under current system,
Intelligent design - if, how, when, & where it is appropriate to teach
Energy - Arctic drilling; windfall taxes on energy companies, nuclear power, ethanol subsidies,
Health Care - appropriate role of gov't in health care
Immigration - particularly amnesty but also more general areas as well
Iraq - numerous disagreements there
Gay Marriage - federal amendment, adoptions (and in general with much of the party, although noting here that Obama has not personally been a proponent of gay marriage itself)
Gun Control - proper role vs Constitutional guarantees
SCOTUS - appropriate judges worthy of appointment
Consitution - to paraphrase Obama's own words, "static vs living document"

And those are just some broad areas cribbed from key issues identified by the NYT from the last election. We could certainly add some more top-line issues such as approaches to education, church/state issues, crime & punishment, affirmative action, various bits of so-called civil rights policy & legislation, and proper use of various approaches in foreign policy.

Off the top of my head the only two areas where I don't find myself in substantial disagreement with generally (D) positions I can think of are legal access to abortion and stem-cell research and depending upon whose doing the talking for them Social Security & the importance of its solvency.

When I look at the issues, I really don't see a lot of differences between the two candidates. I also don't see that as being an "enemy". They just have different views than you. There is probably no candidate I can think of that would have the same exact views as you (nor me or anyone else for that matter).

While politics are a fun topic to debate and there are things I'd like to see in the country, I guess I don't take it as serious. Most of the issues you mentioned will have little impact on my life. I think it would make the country better or worse, but that still doesn't necessarily effect me heavily in anyway.

I guess the only thing that matters to me is progressing society so we don't get left behind. It's a global economy and global system. Staying in the same place or moving backwards on social issues isn't safe for the country and its continued dominance on the world stage.

Were you around when we talked about this a couple of years ago (IIRC)?
Don't be offended by me not remembering or anything, I just can't always recall who was in on what conversation, especially not so far back (short & even intermediate term memory is not a strong suit of mine & it's getting worse with age).

At one level, it's my liberal (no pun intended) use of the word. Comes down to definition, and by defintion that which opposes me/my interests is my "enemy".

And/But at another level


Every one of those things impacts how I perceive the quality of my life, my interest in continuing to live said life, etc etc each & every day.


But then we get to talk about what constitutes "backwards" vs "forwards" or how we personally define those things.

And it's too late in the night for that, I'm gonna go play CivRev for an hour or so to entertain my son (once he finally burns out on the 360 after endless hours per day, he thinks I'm supposed to play something so he can watch me instead of TV).

I don't know if I was or not, but that makes more sense. I use the word enemy more in the "you killed my family" sense of the word.

Maybe I'm just a more solitary guy, but I never really cared much how others lived their life. I could care less if a gay couple gets married in California. If the guy down the street smokes a joint every night after work. Or if some guy in Utah wants to build a harem of women to call his wives. I don't use how other people choose to live their lives as the basis for my happiness.

Have you tried playing him yet in a game like that? I'd love to have kids one day that would have the same gaming interests as me. I'm of the belief that some of those games like Civilization are actually good for kids.

We play Ticket To Ride from time to time, Carcassone too. Yeah, I know, it feels kind of cheesy to play card/board games on the console but I've also never had a cat scramble the board playing that way either ;)

There are some good teaching moments that come up with a lot of games but really I've found that those moments happen with a lot of things. Case in point might be that I can't even begin to tell you how many sidebar topics we've covered while watching Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations, which we both love. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much of that is me & how much of that is really him. I mean, after all, I do have a kid who watches Nick & Disney shows and picks out the commercials that are either poorly targeted or have a target that's a lot less than obvious.

Here is a primary example of why it's a very dangerous practice politically for the Democrats to start lumping people together and assuming that they are part of any 'astroturfing'. A man in Georgia asked a legitimate question concerning health care and the representative decided to fly off the handle and say that this meeting was only for the concerns of the people in his district and that he wasn't going to let the guy 'hijack' the meeting.

Two problems:

1. The guy that asked the question was a doctor and a voter in the guy's district.

2. It's obvious from the shaking heads in the audience that there were a lot of other constituents who didn't appreciate him calling out this doctor with his false assumptions concerning the doctor's motives.

This is quickly becoming something beyond health care. These comments could easily come home to roost in elections next year when their opponent notes that they were combative with their OWN voters assuming that only 'astroturfers' could be showing opposition to the bill. It's a very dangerous assumption.

Video:

11Alive.com | Atlanta, GA | Video

Article:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblo...doctor-over-h/

dola

I'm not a huge fan of the former KC mayor, Emmanuel Cleaver III, but he was smart to distance himself from the Democratic Party rhetoric that the leaders seem intent on pushing. Kudos to him. Another Democratic representative who refuses to lump into a group the people who show up for his public gatherings.

Health care issue divides Lee's Summit crowd waiting for Cleaver - Kansas City Star

Eh, it's not likely to bother David Scott's job security. He's already survived being called out for referring to his female opponents as bitches, for back taxes on his business, for funneling over a half million dollars of campaign donations to said company (a billboard & t-shirt company), and being described as one of the most corrupt members of Congress.

He also won his last election with the largest vote margin (69.9%) of any opposed Congressman in Georgia ... and that was running against a black female. The only way he's going anywhere is if he gets seen covorting with members of the GOP.

You completely sidestepped your ridiculous "strawman" post from before which is a typical MBBF tactic. Throw your shit on the wall, get called on it, and then ignore the ramifications so that the initial post hangs out there and you never have to clarify, quantify, justify, or repeal. It is no wonder you constantly have to spin, its in order to never have to face the music of your own creation.

Your "this is quickly becoming...." assumptions are so wrought with insinuation, hope, and spin that its amazing that you throw your hands up in a defensive manner and cry victim as if you dont know what youre trying to accomplish.

Here, "It is quickly becoming apparent that the Republicans cant stay in a monogamous relationship and its becoming bigger than simply that, since we all know that that certainly leads to scatological behavior and drug usage."

Prove it wrong...or simply go back and admit that there is just as likely a possibility that real violence is being threatened and that could equally be why meetings are being cancelled instead of insinuating that ALL Democratic Politicians are pussies and simply dont want to face the music.

And you cherry pick one rep. who falls in your corner and completely discount another rep who is scared from receiving a death threat even though both deserve equal weight. Nice. Well played spin master.

It sounds weird but I was one of the few kids I knew that was into the strategy games like Civilization, Sim City, etc. I really think it helped me later in life. I became real good at problem solving and math in general going through school. Having to figure out numbers for building cities or what's the odds of winning a particular battle seem silly, but they actually get the mind working. Felt it gave me an advantage over those who just sat around playing Doom.

Anymore talking points today MBBF, or do they get put out a little slower on the weekend?