Just when you thought the Obama birth certificate controversy had officially been put to bed, up pops this video analysis of the President’s long-discredited “forged” birth certificate.
The supposedly forged document has been floating around on the internet for a year or so and has been condemned as blatantly phony.
Therein lies the problem. If the forgery is, in fact, a forgery, it has some very interesting similarities to and differences from the new “authentic” long form birth certificate released a couple weeks ago.
As we always say, we think the guy was born in Hawaii, but this video makes you wonder.
H/T: iOwnTheWorld.com
This post was last modified on January 31, 2021
View Comments (348)
Question:
When the children begin sports its about learning the rules, learning about sportsmanship and having fun. In the upper levels of sports, such as 14/15 yr old baseball leagues does crying and throwing a fit qualify as good sportsmanship at that age?
I don't think so and many parents agree with me and think these fit throwing children should not be allowed to play until and unless they will act their age. We expect 3, 4, 5 yr olds to act in that manner but at 15? No.
Question:
When the children begin sports its about learning the rules, learning about sportsmanship and having fun. In the upper levels of sports, such as 14/15 yr old baseball leagues does crying and throwing a fit qualify as good sportsmanship at that age?
**************************
No. But the issue being discussed here wasn't teenagers crying---it was parent spectators taunting the kids.
Last time. I never said I stood at the game taunting the children, I would never do that. I am a parent as well. I have never once said anything to one of the boys on our team. My husband is one of the coaches and he believes the way I do. He says they are good kids but that some kids simply are not athletic and should do something else. We talk about it to each other not to their parents and not to the children. Wow, I am 46 years old and I have never said anything directly to a child to purposely hurt them. What is wrong with you? You enjoy attacking people without even knowing them or asking a simple question. I would not have argued with you so much if you had simply asked: Do you tell that to the kids? The answer is absolutely NOT. That is for their parents to do in a kind and loving way letting them know they should try other activities.
You might want to ask some questions prior to going on the attack simply because you do not like what was written. Amazing.
Last time. I never said I stood at the game taunting the children, I would never do that. I am a parent as well. I have never once said anything to one of the boys on our team. My husband is one of the coaches and he believes the way I do. He says they are good kids but that some kids simply are not athletic and should do something else. We talk about it to each other not to their parents and not to the children. Wow, I am 46 years old and I have never said anything directly to a child to purposely hurt them. What is wrong with you? You enjoy attacking people without even knowing them or asking a simple question. I would not have argued with you so much if you had simply asked: Do you tell that to the kids? The answer is absolutely NOT. That is for their parents to do in a kind and loving way letting them know they should try other activities.
You might want to ask some questions prior to going on the attack simply because you do not like what was written. Amazing.
***************************
The only thing I have to go by is how you choose to present yourself here. And, I'm sorry, but there's a huge difference between saying "They are good kids but.... some kids simply are not athletic and should do something else," and "Thank goodness the coaches make the kids who suck ride the bench this weekend but then they are so bad they don’t even deserve to be on the bench. They should have been at home finding something they are good at rather than mucking up our kid’s teams."
It seems to me that, if you truly see those kids as "sucky" and "mucking up OUR kids' teams," you're not going to be able to hide your disdain very well during the excitement of a game. Yet, if you DON'T actually have that kind of disdain for the kids, I wonder why you'd choose to present yourself as if you did.
I'd like to throw out a question here to anyone who cares to answer it: do you think that kids' activities (not just team sports, but also activities like art, drama, choir, ballet and gymnastics) should be limited to kids who have talent, and parents who can and will help them practice at home? It's nice, I think, for talented kids to have an opportunity to excel, but should there not be opportunity for less talented ("sucky," if you will) kids to participate in these activities, too?
(And, no, I'm not trying to make trouble here. I really would like to hear other opinions on this.)
That's a fair question. Sports is competition where individuals and teams train to win. They don't train to be mediocre or to lose. Everyone knows that, except people who let their kids play soccer, where losers get bigger trophys than winners to boost their self-esteem. That probably started in California. Seriously, if a kid can't act, he's not gonna get the lead role in the school play. If the art is anything but art, no award. No talent, no award. Talent is developed. That's why everyone should have a chance to play. That doesn't mean the better player shouldn't play more. Drama teachers, choir, art, and coaches want the best from the student and the best FOR the team. If parents don't like their kid's role they can get involved, as you and your husband, and contribute to the process. Look, kids are pretty good judges of their own ability. If a kid can't make a 3 point shot, he'll probably quit shooting them in a game. His team mates may have some say, so will the coach.
That’s a fair question. Sports is competition where individuals and teams train to win. They don’t train to be mediocre or to lose. Everyone knows that, except people who let their kids play soccer, where losers get bigger trophys than winners to boost their self-esteem.
****************************
I've never in my life seen a competition (soccer or otherwise) where "losers" got bigger trophies than the winners. Where did you witness this?
****************************
That probably started in California. Seriously, if a kid can’t act, he’s not gonna get the lead role in the school play.
****************************
Hmmm....apparently you didn't see the god-awful performance of the director's kids in the local children's play, back when I was in college. But I digress........ ;)
***************************
If the art is anything but art, no award. No talent, no award. Talent is developed. That’s why everyone should have a chance to play. That doesn’t mean the better player shouldn’t play more.
*****************************
I agree. But the question here wasn't about whether less able participants should play the best positions or get lead roles. It was about whether they should be able to be on a team, period.
So you're saying that you think all kids should have a place on the team if they want one and are willing to fill the practice requirements, but expect that, if they're not very good, they won't be playing much? That sounds reasonable to me. I don't like the idea of telling a kid, "You're not athletically talented, so you can't play." Team sports, after all, are as much for teaching coordination, teamwork, problem solving strategies, and handling competition (and defeat), as they are for winning games and getting trophies. And untalented kids need to learn those skills as much as anyone else.
I don’t like the idea of telling a kid, “You’re not athletically talented, so you can’t play.” (That's you)
***************************************************
You don't have to, because you're not a coach. You've never been a coach, and I hope you'll never be a coach (that was mean, sorry) Who were you quoting that time? I'm a coach. I've coached from little kids K through HS ranks, year round (not soccer) and never said anything like that to a player. You're quoting other people's BS, probably what youi talked about a lot in 'college' or just quoting the voice in you head.
You might be a nice person. You seem to have compassion for the kids..We all do. Don't you get it? You get your feathers ruffled pretty easy, so do I. But you take everyon'e comments and dice them up. I think you have a couple of my sentences in a group that completely misrepresents what my point was..And when someone write's, 'Seriously,...' you may consider the previous may contain sarcasm. Hard to tell, sometimes, when not face to face in conversation. Something is lost. Look, you're letting us know your opinion, which I consider valid. But, you're in with a lot of people that are tired of it. Aren't you a little tired? Some of your posts are from (like) 3:09 AM.
For real? I think this is getting to you.
We don't tell the kids that, we keep our opinions to ourselves. Neither of us would ever hurt a child in that manner.
For us it's like when parents tell their kids they can be anything they want to be, that isn't always true, if you don't have the brains to be a brain surgeon you can not be one. We are honest with our kids, when our daughter joined choir we sat her down and told her it wasn't her forte but she already knew that. She only joined to get the cool trip at the end of the school year. She knows she doesn't have a singing voice we just wanted to make certain she didn't get hurt. We do our best with our own children and leave others to theirs. Nice day All, We are playing a championship game tonight. Another nail biter as the coach sat some great players out this morning and played the 3 kids who aren't so great. We hung on and pulled it out once our 3 were back on the field.
I don’t like the idea of telling a kid, “You’re not athletically talented, so you can’t play.” ************************************************You don’t have to, because you’re not a coach. You’ve never been a coach, and I hope you’ll never be a coach (that was mean, sorry)
**********************
No offense taken. I'm NOT a coach for kids' sports, and have no particular plans to become one.
**********************
Who were you quoting that time? I’m a coach. I’ve coached from little kids K through HS ranks, year round (not soccer) and never said anything like that to a player. You’re quoting other people’s BS, probably what youi talked about a lot in ‘college’ or just quoting the voice in you head.
**********************
No, I didn't go around discussing kids' sports in college. As I already explained (twice), I was responding directly to Tesslea's comment: "Thank goodness the coaches make the kids who suck ride the bench this weekend but then they are so bad they don’t even deserve to be on the bench. They should have been at home finding something they are good at rather than mucking up our kid’s teams. "
In her defense, Tesslea did clarify afterward, and it seems that she's not as hard-nosed as she came across in that original post. But, if you're honest, you'll agree that it would have been reasonable to conclude, from such a comment, that she thought those kids shouldn't have been on the team.
*******************************
You might be a nice person. You seem to have compassion for the kids..We all do. Don’t you get it?
*******************************
Compassion for selected kids. If you have compassion for all kids, I haven't yet seen it expressed in your posts. But I'll keep on looking. :)
*******************************
You get your feathers ruffled pretty easy, so do I.
*******************************
Actually, I'm of a calm and unusually tolerant temperament (as my coworkers often tell me). But I don't suffer ignorance, bigotry and injustice gladly, whether aimed at me or at someone else. And that, I think, is as it should be.
*******************************
But you take everyon’e comments and dice them up.
I think you have a couple of my sentences in a group that completely misrepresents what my point was..And when someone write’s, ‘Seriously,…’ you may consider the previous may contain sarcasm. Hard to tell, sometimes, when not face to face in conversation. Something is lost. Look, you’re letting us know your opinion, which I consider valid. But, you’re in with a lot of people that are tired of it.
************************
That's the price you pay for posting on a public board, instead of in private e mail or a private chat: sometimes you're stuck hearing opinions that you don't like, or that you're "tired of."
**********************
Aren’t you a little tired? Some of your posts are from (like) 3:09 AM.
For real? I think this is getting to you.
*********************
No, I've never posted on this board at 3 am, but I've noticed that posts here (mine and those of others) are often timed at odd hours. I just assumed it was because we're posting from different time zones, or perhaps because that's what time the post actually showed up on the board.
It's kind of you to worry that I might be getting tired, but I'm not. When I see a lot of misconceptions being bandied about (especially about us liberals), I'm seldom so tired that I can't take the time to debunk them. :)
She can't do that. She'd have to admit that there is room for people with a point of view not sanctioned by her.
It is far easier for her to choose sentence fragments from your postings to take umbrage at. She's not arguing with *you* -- she's arguing with the straw man version of you she has in her head, and you know what? Like all straw men, it is always conveniently wrong.
If you do not vote down the line democrat, you've sinned in her opinion, and in order to gain absolution, you have to renounce all of those bad conservative thoughts you've been thinking. Your failing to renounce your beliefs makes you a target for incoherent postings aimed at your reformation through some undiscovered process that she calls 'logic', but others would call 'indoctrination and dogma'.
You know, I have had my ass handed to me at one time or another by donavan and alien -- however, we respect each other, and respect each others' perspectives, even though we mutually may consider each other to be unrealistic. As people, I would be thrilled to have a beer and a discussion with either -- while they do get into p*ssing matches from time to time, they are willing to accord respect when given it. They do not require a renunciation of our beliefs, and accept that their politicians of choice are human and therefore, it may be necessary from time to time to vote them out. This other person, however, considers republicans and conservatives to be badlife, and therefore, no matter how corrupt, would admittedly be unable to vote for the person as opposed to the party.
You will never get anywhere attempting to hold a discussion with such a person. It is degrading to yourself to accept the basic premise of the discussion -- the requirement to convince her your ideas have merit would require a capitulation of all your own ideas and a blind faith assumption of her arguments as your own. It is the definition of bargaining or holding a discussion in bad faith. A living example of the "no true scotsman" logical fallacy is the only result, should you take the time to spell out our ideas in detail.
If I were to, for example, to tell an Armenian that the reason he is wrong is because of his heritage, and he has to renounce it before we could have productive discussions, I would be the jerk. This isn't to say that a person who embraces a cruel ideology deserves a break -- just that being a republican isn't the instant ticket to hell that she believes it to be, and we as a group stand for a lot more than the straw men she paints us as in order to justify feeling superior. Republicanism isn't the cruel ideology she *needs* it to be to justify her bigotry. However, she will never hesitate to portray it that way. It's unethical and sociopathic behavior.
I know her measure, and I know yours. You are a good person, a good wife, a good mother -- a little sweet, and a little over the top with crazy love when it comes to your kids, but you'd never stoop to cruelty. You deserve better than to embroil yourself in an argument that you cannot win -- not because you do not have facts, rhetoric or sound opinion on your side, but because the argument, like the cake, is a lie.
Here's my simple rule for dealing with people like that: Only a crazy person argues with crazy people.
It is far easier for her to choose sentence fragments from your postings to take umbrage at. She’s not arguing with *you* — she’s arguing with the straw man version of you she has in her head, and you know what? Like all straw men, it is always conveniently wrong.
If you do not vote down the line democrat, you’ve sinned in her opinion, and in order to gain absolution, you have to renounce all of those bad conservative thoughts you’ve been thinking.
***********************
My goodness, you read an awful lot into my objection to adults deriding less athletically talented kids as "sucky."
I'm still trying to make sense out of your observation that calling other people's less talented kids "sucky" is evidence of "sweetness," but that objecting to such behavior is "unethical and sociopathic" and "bigoted." :)
Thank you Perlcat and you are so very right. I think I'm in love again... too bad I'm so in love with my husband I'd hunt you down! And I'd love to have a beer with you anytime. A pleasant evening to you.
Yeah, my wife would have a problem with it. ;-)
Everybody needs to be somebody's hero -- I am hers. and she, mine.
Have a good evening, and enjoy that man of yours -- he has a treasure on his hands.
Perlcat, you charming devil, you.
wow... I went to Disney and I came back and this is still going on?!
There is still a snake in the grass here someone should get their garden hoe out... Hope you had a great time!
Yes I did thanks!
You are most welcome, fun is always a good thing.
Just for fun a Texans way of dealing with showbama supporters:
In Texas there is a town called New Braunfels , where there is a large German-speaking population.
One day, a local rancher driving down a country road noticed a man using his hand to drink water from the rancher's stock pond. The rancher rolled down the window and shouted: "Sehr angenehm! Trink das wasser nicht. Die kuhen haben dahin gesheissen." Which means: ("Glad to meet you! Don't drink the water. The cows have shit in it.")
The man shouted back: "I'm from New York and just down here campaigning for Obama's health care plan. I can't understand you. Please speak in English."
The rancher replied: "Use both hands. You'll get more."
Ahahahahaahahaha! I would be tempted to the same.
Don't apologize for nothing Tess, I thought it was funny. I have visited New Braunfels many a time over the years, I got a lot of family in Texas, and always stopped to buy a link or two of sausage.
And scrapple! It may come from the Pennsylvania Dutch but the German version is just as good. A couple of slices of sourdough bread, a slice of scrapple with a bit of horseradish mustard, ain't no better eating than that!!
Scrapple, no, nice big plate of kraut & dumplings, yes. Mmmmm.
Let me know when you go to Sturgis, and I'll feed you up good.
Between my German cooking, and the wife's Russian cooking, you're going to need a bigger seat.
For everyone else other than, well, it knows what it is:
Success is not a goal nor an entitlement, it is a by product of hard work. When you want to be the best at your chosen path having to deal with others who are not as serious about it simply hinder your own ability to prove yourself. Sportsmanship is for 3 yr olds, not people at the top of their game or those striving to get there. It is also reserved for those who don't cry and throw baby fits by the way... because that is not good sportsmanship by any means.
Sportsmanship is for 3 yr olds, not people at the top of their game or those striving to get there.
*************************
"Sportsmanship is for 3 year olds."
Thank you, Tesslea. Whether or not it was intentional (and whether or not you meant it as a joke), you've just told me a great deal about your character.
Thank you again for reminding me why I'm a liberal.
Dear Editor,
Some people are simply rude and unacceptable. They refuse to believe the truth and are solely alive to disrupt proceedings and be nasty to anyone who doesn't think as they do. When one begins nicely and is thrashed the thrashed will fight back will they not? Well, I've decided not to fight with anyone who is plainly "plain" not only in mind but in soul. Thank you.
Some people are simply rude and unacceptable. They refuse to believe the truth and are solely alive to disrupt proceedings and be nasty to anyone who doesn’t think as they do.
**************************
That's exactly what I hear so many parents today complaining about: parents who insist on bullying and insulting selected players at kids' competitive sports events. Some of them are even crass enough to insist that "sportsmanship is for three year olds." Can you imagine?
Under all circumstances where I am conscious and able to communicate, I have the right to refuse care.
You have REPEATEDLY claimed that patients do not have the right to refuse care- that if a doctor or an EMT says they need treatment, they are obligated to comply.
*********************************
Wrong----I never made that statement, and have corrected you several times when you've claimed I did. What I said was that there are some occasions when the paramedics MUST bring you in for medical clearance. ***************************
We all know you have trouble with history, but “a few posts ago” isn’t too much to keep in mind, is it? If pressed, I assume you might have been willing to concede that elective procedures are, you know, elective, but outside of that you’ve made it pretty clear that you didn’t believe that patients had the right to refuse.
***************************
Again: under certain circumstances.
***************************
Now, after I pointed you were wrong in such a way that you couldn’t talk your way out of it, you try to claim that it was all just a misunderstanding. Sorry, I’m literate, that doesn’t work with me.
****************************
Apparently you're not as literate as you claim to be, because I've corrected you on that misconception at least five times now, but you keep repeating it anyway.
One more time, nice and slowly: I did not state that you can NEVER sign a release and opt not to go to the hospital. What I stated is that in MOST cases you CAN refuse treatment, but that in A FEW situations you cannot.
********************************
The exceptions to the right to refusal of treatment as far as ambulatory care are as follows-
Minors, assuming there is no parent or guardian available to refuse care on their behalf, must submit to treatment.
Living Wills don’t effect ambulatory care; they apply only to treatment within a hospital. Seeing as how I already said, though, that if I’m unconscious they could treat me, that point is moot.
********************
Living wills, as I already pointed out to you in some detail, are not releases, nor do they affect ordinary emergency treatment. They are advance directives pertaining to resuscitation measures. Taking someone to a hospital to be checked out after a car accident has nothing to do with resuscitation measures, unless he happens to be in (or threatening to go into) respiratory or cardiac arrest.
***************************
If you are in an altered mental state (drunk/stoned, high/low blood sugar), or are suicidal or homicidal, and the EMT deems you to be in need of care, they are required to bring you in, with force if necessary.
**************************
They don't usually bring in patients with low blood sugar, because these patients usually come around quickly with an amp of dextrose. Happens quite often, and the patient usually signs a release. (But the paramedic still has to get authorization over the radio, before signing off.)
***************************
Seeing as how the EMT initially cleared me, he obviously knew I didn’t need care, so THAT point is moot.
***************************
No, it isn't, because the EMT is not a doctor, and doesn't make such decisions on his own. They work with protocols, just as ER nurses do. That means that they have standing orders for many different kinds of treatments, but they're still required to radio in for permission to release the patient. That permission, apparently, was not given in your case.
***********************************
As to keeping your living will on you at all times? People often file copies of them with nearby hospitals just in case they end up needing them.
Besides which, if you’ve written a living will, you should make it known to friends and family and provide them with copies, so that in a situation where you end up in a hospital in which you haven’t filed your LW, your associates can inform the hospital of it’s existence and provide them with a copy. Assuming you don’t want to keep the long form of your living will on you, it is recommended that you keep a card or some such with you indicating that you have a living will, along with information about how to access it.
*********************
All very good advice.....but the fact remains that, when a patient is unstable enough that we need to start worrying about advance directives, we don't have a lot of time to go rummaging through wallets or calling up relatives. If he starts to deteriorate and we can't immediately lay our hands on a Living Will, we have no choice but to treat him as a full code----CPR, intubation, emergency drips, the whole bit.
This has nothing to do with your situation, though. But it's an important to think about, anyway, for anyone who doesn't want "everything" done if s/he should go into cardiac or respiratory arrest.
******************
Personally, I think it’d be great of the medical community took it upon themselves to create some sort of nationwide directory in which you can file your living will. Could save a lot of hassle and confusion.
******************
Sounds like a very good idea.
*********************
As far as your next point, I addressed it earlier in this comment- unless you are an unaccompanied minor, unconscious, or in an altered mental state, you can, in fact, refuse ambulatory treatment.
****************
Were you in fact ambulatory on this occasion? Or had they immobilized you on a backboard?
****************
You bring up a jury, in which case the issue would be informed consent. If a patient refuses to allow the doctor to inform him of all the risks, he is blameless. Now, will some juries side with the patient anyways? Yes. The fact that our legal system is broken in regards to medical malpractice suits is known, though- it’s one of the causes of the increasing cost of medical care. We need broad reform in that area. Maybe we wouldn’t have to spend a fortune on medical care if doctors didn’t have to spend a fortune defending themselves from frivolous litigation.
***********************
EVERYONE thinks such litigation is "frivolous"......right up until THEY feel the need to sue. I notice you, too, were hinting about suing, because of that hospital bill you felt you shouldn't have to pay. Do you consider THAT to be a "frivolous" lawsuit? A lot of people would, you know.
**************************
“It’s not your place to dictate, pal. If you received medical services, you get a bill. Etc. etc.”
Actually, if I’m unconscious and the treatment I receive after ambulatory care is in violation of my LW, I would sue not only to avoid paying for the unwanted care, but I could justifiably sue damages besides.
***********************
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe you'd first have to prove that you WERE damaged by their insistence that you receive care, and that they had failed to follow reasonable standards of care by requiring you to be taken to the hospital.
*************************
That’s like saying a car salesman can throw some keys at you, then claim you owe him thirty five grand: that’s just not how it works.
************************
I did say that one of your options in such a case would be to consult a lawyer, did I not? That still doesn't mean that payment of the bill is optional. It means only that you can take legal action, to try to get out of paying it.
***********************
…The quote I copy and pasted FROM YOUR OWN COMMENT is why I say you must not be able to make up your mind. You claimed in another discussion that illegals don’t receive free care because they are billed. The fact that you now point out the fact that medical bills can be difficult to pay off doesn’t address the fact that you previously claimed that illegals weren’t getting free treatment. After words, you claim that that you never stated or implied any such thing, despite, again, the EXACT QUOTATION TAKEN FROM YOUR OWN COMMENT. Somebody says that illegals get free medical care courtesy of the taxpayers, you say no; you then claim that MY medical care would be being payed for by the taxpayers; sorry, but you can’t deny that that implies that the illegals are paying their bills and I’m not.
************************
You're getting emotional, which is causing you to take my comment as an insult, which it was not.
There are going to be times (many times) when patients---regardless of immigration status---- cannot or do not pay their bills. In those cases, the rest of us end up indirectly subsidizing their treatment through higher health care costs.
As I explained to you in some detail----apparently you were too busy being miffed to read through it carefully---- if you are in a bad collision and end up with serious disabilities as a result, chances are that you'll run out of money long before you've paid for all the care and rehab you're going to need. Which means that, no matter how responsible you are, no matter how patriotic, no matter how virtuous, no matter how LEGAL, the taxpayers are going to end up subsidizing your care through Medicaid.
Illegal immigrants ("Illegal" is an adjective, not a noun----sorry; pet peeve of mine) might or might not pay the hospital bill they're sent: it depends on the individual and the bill. (It also depends on whether they used a fake ID when they checked in.) But, if a patient---ANY patient----doesn't pay his/her bill, it doesn't mean that his/her health care is "free"------it means that s/he owes the hospital a lot of money, and that in due time the bill will be turned over to a collection agency.
Some right wingers have argued with me that this means those people are getting "free" health care. My response to that (along with reminding them that ER treatment isn't the same thing as health care) is, if a person robs a liquor store and gets away with 20 cases of beer, that doesn't mean that the liquor store is giving away free beer. It means that the person took something without paying for it.
**********************
As far as the cop overstepping his authority- I explain the circumstances where this may happen above. Since the EMT cleared me, though, they don’t apply.
**************
Again, the EMT isn't a physician, which means he doesn't have the authority to release you without getting authorization from the doctor first. No doubt he was pretty sure the doctor WOULD release you, but it would have been wiser to check before telling you you didn't have to go in.
**************
As it stands, this isn’t the only debt some hospitals claim to be owed for which I hold no responsibility- it would cost more time and money than I have to fight all of it. At this point, the only reason I haven’t filed bankruptcy is because I have some legitimate debt that I owe, and I intend to make good on it. If it strikes you as odd that I’m putting off bankruptcy, not to try to salvage my credit rating, but because I feel a moral obligation to pay off my legitimate debts, that’s because that’s a more typically conservative viewpoint.
************************
No, that's another stereotype, and not a very reliable one. I have a politically conservative shirttail relation, for example, who's very irresponsible financially, and declared bankruptcy more than once. If it weren't for his politically liberal MIL (who has very little money, but will gladly give it away to help those in need-----another liberal stereotype shattered), he'd be in even worse financial straits than he is. He didn't hesitate to go out and buy a lot of "stuff" before his last bankruptcy, knowing that he wouldn't have to pay for any of it once it went through. Quite a charmer, huh?
And let me remind you that two of the most conservative Republican presidents of modern times added hugely to the federal deficit, yet cut taxes instead of using the revenue to address that deficit. Wouldn't you agree that they should have "made good" on those debts, before handing out more goodies to the taxpayers?
Me? I pay my bills, and I've never declared bankruptcy, or even come close to declaring bankruptcy. I guess you'd consider me an atypical liberal, although I know quite a few liberals who are as fiscally responsible as I am. ;)
***************************
Life expectancy doesn’t necessarily reflect quality of care. There are too many long-lived people who ignore their physicians for that to be the case.
***************************
But those long lived people apparently DO have physicians, if they're ignoring them---which means that they're receiving health care. And receiving health care isn't the same thing as controlling risk factors, although both are important.
People who lack regular health care often have potentially serious medical problems without realizing it. They might not feel anything other than unusual tiredness, or miscellaneous aches and pains, or difficulty urinating, or an unexpected weight gain or loss----and, if they lack medical care, they're likely to assume that these are all normal signs of aging-----but those signs can indicate cancer, hypothyroidism, congestive heart failure, diabetes or a host of other problems, that are often treatable but tend to get much worse, even life threatening, if neglected for long.
It's comforting to believe that it doesn't make much difference to one's life expectancy whether one can afford to see a doctor or not, but that, of course, is nonsense. I've seen at least 50 patients this past week alone, to whom a doctor's care made a LOT of difference.
***********************
You can try to right off the evidence those conservatives sited to point out the inferiority of socialized medicine, but you’ve said nothing to refute those points. Guess you’re stipulating them as valid, and just hope people will ignore them.
************************
I'm not sure which points you're referring to----would you please enlighten me? If you're talking about the examples I gave in my post----the point I was making was that there is similar evidence in our own system. So someone in Canada has to wait for 2 years to get elective hip replacement surgery? How long does an uninsured American have to wait? So there was a report in the Telegraph that someone in England died of a ruptured bowel in the emergency waiting room? That happened in Los Angeles, too, just a year or so ago, to an uninsured woman. So you've heard that Canadians come over to the U.S. for certain surgeries? My answer to that is it's great that they can afford to do that. Many Americans can't.
That's the problem with anecdotes. Too often, pundits with an ax to grind will compare the best our country has to offer to its well-insured patients, with a horror story from Canada or England. What they should be doing is comparing the best to the best, and the worst to the worst; otherwise, it serves no purpose.
*************************
As for your final bit-
1. The percentage of citizens who are uninsured is a bit over 10%.
****************
Where did you get this figure?
****************
Now, that doesn’t take into account people who either A. Can afford insurance but decide not to get it, or B. People who are eligible for government assistance with medical care, but haven’t bothered enrolling.
********************
That's an extremely popular debate point with the anti-reform crowd, but the fact remains that many, many Americans---working Americans, as well as unemployed-----want health insurance, but can't afford to get it. There are even more Americans (who right wingers don't like to mention), who are UNDERinsured-----meaning that they have high deductibles and copays, which makes their insurance rather worthless, except for major emergencies.
I always get irritated with far righters try to excuse injustice by blaming those who are targeted by the unjust policy. "But they're too lazy and irresponsible to bother getting insurance" is largely a red herring, put out there for the convenience of lazy minds, who don't like change and therefore prefer to pretend that no change is needed.
With those groups taken into account, the RELEVANT percentage of uninsured Americans dips well below 10%.
**************
And, again, where did you get your figures?
**************
I’m sorry, but I’d rather not destroy the system in which the vast majority of citizens have access to the best medical care in the world.
**************
If we had such a system, I'd agree with you. But, when our patchwork system results in thousands of uninsured people driving for hours to their state fairgrounds, to stand in line in hopes of a free medical or dental treatment in the Cattle pavilion, we as a nation have a BIG problem. And trying to minimize or excuse it isn't likely to make it go away.
And, last response to you for a week:
Yet again, no, you didn't. You claimed that people were required to cooperate with medical personal. Later, after I shoved those statements down your throat, you switched gears. Feel like I've said this before, but my memory isn't that short; luckily, even if it were, all of your comments are preserved here for me to look back on.
Again: you painted it as though a patient having the right to refuse was the exception, not the other way around.
Your next bit is just a repeat of the lies from the first two, so moving on...
I've already pointed out the limitations of LW's, so moving on...
Alright? There are cases where extreme variations from normal blood sugar levels can effect brain chemistry; in those cases, patients are not seen as being able to provide informed consent. This is not common, nor did I say or imply that it was. Granted, I could have worded it better, so I'll give you that.
Your next point is irrelevant to the fact that LWs still control what type of care you can receive. How does pointing out that there are situations in which the medical staff don't have access to that information have anything to do with it? Actually, re-reading that, you paint a picture where the staff involved don't even bother TRYING to find out about any sort of advanced directive, so they would be liable.
As to my condition? I was sitting up on my own, handcuffed because I told the cop that I didn't consent to treatment and wouldn't consent to treatment.
If I sued,(I've already made it clear that I'm not, but you would have had to giving my comments more than a cursory glance to realize that, I guess) of course it wouldn't be frivolous- it would be a suit against an assumed obligation on my part to pay for services that were forced on me in violation of my rights. How the hell would that be frivolous?
As far as proving damages- well, skipping right past the punitive damages I would likely be rewarded in such a case, there's the negative effect that non-payment for those wrongfully charged bills have had on my credit. How's that for you?
Your next bit is akin to saying I would be obligated to pay for the car, but that I would be within my rights to sue. You really are a mental midget.
Caps in that case are meant to indicate emphasis, not emotion. As to it being taken as an insult- no, not really. Just pointing out that you seem to believe that illegals will pay off their bills, but that citizens won't. I specified myself in this case because a good part of this debate seems to have shifted towards arguing over a situation of mine that I offered as an anecdote.
Illegal can't be used as a noun? Huh, better tell these guys: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegals
Well, since we don't enforce our immigration law, they certainly see it as free. They know full well they can go to a hospital and receive treatment without ever having to pay for it, since they often using fake names or provide fake mailing addresses during admittance. Is it supposed to be free? Of course not; that's why conservatives have a huge problem with out country's current policy of non-enforcement in regards to immigration law.
Again, the EMT released me, so the point is moot. Now, did he follow proper procedure in doing so? Apparently not. That doesn't change the fact that I was told I was not required to submit to care, then almost immediately afterwords forced into it. A staggering number of criminal cases are dismissed due to failure to follow proper procedure; why would you think this would be any different?
Sorry, but you aren't seriously using anecdotal evidence in the same post as your dismissal of anecdotal evidence, are you? Again, all generalizations have exceptions. Besides which, I never claimed or implied that all conservatives are fiscally responsible- simply that feeling a moral obligation to pay off your legitimate debt is a typically conservative trait. News flash- there are liberals who display some conservative traits.
Oh, and his liberal mother in law is atypical for a liberal in that she gave her own money, but par for the course in that she does more harm than good in her attempt to help her son law. She happens to be an honest liberal, few of them as there are; genuine good intentions, just confused as to how to go about acting on them.
The physician bit you open with next is nonsensical. Here, let me try- "This man owns a dog . He lives in an area with no crime. His dog protects him from criminals."
The fact that somebody has a physician doesn't effect their health if they ignore that physician. Do YOU even know what point you were going for there?
As for the rest- I'm not denying that access to healthcare generally has a positive effect on health. I'm denying that life expectancy is the standard by which a health care system should be judged.
As to the point-by-point of your next bit- your first two deny that American health care is superior, while your third confirms it. Yeesh, if you can't even remember what you said one sentence before, it's no wonder you can't keep track of all the contradictions in your comments.
The Census Bureau put the number of uninsured citizens around 35 million, which is a bit over 10%.
As far as your next bit; so, you'll stipulate that with the given Census figure adjusted for people who either decide against buying insurance or opt out of programs they're qualified for the number drops below 10%? Good.
Under-insured..."Oh no, they still have to pay for a significant portion of their own healthcare!" Get real.
Again- Census Bureau
It isn't minimizing it to point out that it's a small percentage of the population that your referring to. Nor would any of this be an issue in the first place if liberal policies hadn't inflated the cost of medical care to such outrageous levels.
If you have a dependable car, and you start having car troubles, it's probably a good idea to see if you can fix it before scrapping it in favor of a Russian Lada.
And, last response to you for a week:
**********************
Gruff, you need to stop posting these long treatises. People are blaming ME for them.
**********************
Yet again, no, you didn’t. You claimed that people were required to cooperate with medical personal. Later, after I shoved those statements down your throat, you switched gears. Feel like I’ve said this before, but my memory isn’t that short; luckily, even if it were, all of your comments are preserved here for me to look back on.
Again: you painted it as though a patient having the right to refuse was the exception, not the other way around.
Your next bit is just a repeat of the lies from the first two, so moving on…
I’ve already pointed out the limitations of LW’s, so moving on…
***********************
Gruff, you have a problem (which I sort of guessed at, from your very first post about the rollover). You heed only what you want to hear----whatever will make you sound right, and those who disagree with you wrong.
You got into a rollover and didn't want to be checked out. The EMT, according to your account, told you you didn't have to go to the hospital (even though it's standard procedure to call in and get permission to release a patient).
The hospital said you had to go in. The police said you had to go in. The ER nurse who's posting this said they can (in certain circumstances) MAKE you get checked out.
Yet you're STILL arguing that you're right, and the rest of the world is wrong. Even though you clearly haven't done anything about it----engage a lawyer, check the police report, question the hospital about proper EMS procedure.
That suggests that the problem might be with YOU, rather than the system you're complaining about.
**********************
Alright? There are cases where extreme variations from normal blood sugar levels can effect brain chemistry; in those cases, patients are not seen as being able to provide informed consent. This is not common, nor did I say or imply that it was. Granted, I could have worded it better, so I’ll give you that.
Your next point is irrelevant to the fact that LWs still control what type of care you can receive. How does pointing out that there are situations in which the medical staff don’t have access to that information have anything to do with it? Actually, re-reading that, you paint a picture where the staff involved don’t even bother TRYING to find out about any sort of advanced directive, so they would be liable.
***********************
The ER staff must prioritize, Gruff. If your airway is compromised, or you're going into shock, what do you think we're going to do? Let you deteriorate while we fumble around looking for phone numbers in your wallet? Or get that IV going, and start looking for a source to your deteriorating condition?
Again: in an ideal situation, we'd like to see that Living Will, along with a list of the patient's current medications and medical history, immediately on arrival. It doesn't always happen; we do the best we can to locate the information if it isn't; but we're not Superman. We can't do everything at once, so we do the best we can with what we have.
*********************
As to my condition? I was sitting up on my own, handcuffed because I told the cop that I didn’t consent to treatment and wouldn’t consent to treatment.
********************
Ah---you didn't mention the handcuffs in your earlier account. That makes a significant difference. In certain circumstances, the police can and will take custody of an accident victim if he refuses to cooperate with EMS personnel, when it's deemed necessary that he be cleared by a physician.
I don't know the circumstances of this situation (and something tells me you're conveniently skipping over a few details), but the police do have the power to do that----in certain situations. I'm rather amazed that you seem so outraged over this perceived violation of your rights....yet you haven't even asked for a copy of the police report, to find out their rationale for taking you into custody. Something just isn't ringing true here.
*************************
If I sued, (I’ve already made it clear that I’m not, but you would have had to giving my comments more than a cursory glance to realize that, I guess) of course it wouldn’t be frivolous- it would be a suit against an assumed obligation on my part to pay for services that were forced on me in violation of my rights. How the hell would that be frivolous?
**********************
That's exactly my point, Gruff. Lawsuits are only "frivolous" when it's somebody else (someone you don't know or care about) who's filing them. That's why I have to smile at all these "tort reform" snap solutions to health care costs. Everyone thinks such suits are "frivolous" until THEY are on the receiving end of malpractice or injustice.
*********************
As far as proving damages- well, skipping right past the punitive damages I would likely be rewarded in such a case, there’s the negative effect that non-payment for those wrongfully charged bills have had on my credit. How’s that for you?
**********************
So why HAVEN'T you paid on those bills? If you've decided not to sue, there's no good reason I can think of to stiff the hospital. That's tantamount to stealing.
************************
Your next bit is akin to saying I would be obligated to pay for the car, but that I would be within my rights to sue. You really are a mental midget.
*************************
I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, Gruff. I said nothing at all about paying for a car, and I merely pointed out your options, one of which is to engage a lawyer. It would be HIS/HER decision whether or not a lawsuit was warranted.
**************************
Caps in that case are meant to indicate emphasis, not emotion. As to it being taken as an insult- no, not really. Just pointing out that you seem to believe that illegals will pay off their bills, but that citizens won’t. I specified myself in this case because a good part of this debate seems to have shifted towards arguing over a situation of mine that I offered as an anecdote.
Illegal can’t be used as a noun? Huh, better tell these guys: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegals
**********************
"Ain't" is in the dictionary, too, but I think we can agree that it's still an improper term. My objection to such terms (as well as "blacks" and "whites") is that they're dehumanizing. But, hey, this is a right wing forum, and dehumanizing others is what you guys do. Carry on, and never mind me....... :D
***************************
Well, since we don’t enforce our immigration law, they certainly see it as free. They know full well they can go to a hospital and receive treatment without ever having to pay for it, since they often using fake names or provide fake mailing addresses during admittance. Is it supposed to be free? Of course not; that’s why conservatives have a huge problem with out country’s current policy of non-enforcement in regards to immigration law.
**********************
But, Gruff, you're doing exactly the same thing you accuse them of doing: stiffing the hospital for your bill, because you've decided you shouldn't have to pay it. Which will translate into higher medical costs for the rest of us, whether caused by a brown skinned patient who speaks Spanish, or a white conservative Amurrican who claims to be making a political statement by not paying his bills.
Sorry, but that smacks of hypocrisy to me. It also smacks of some serious irresponsibility on your part, both before and after the fact.
*****************************
Again, the EMT released me, so the point is moot.
*****************************
The EMT is not authorized to release patients on his own. Either he was rather incompetent, or you heard only what you wanted to hear (and that's not unusual with trauma patients).
*****************************
Now, did he follow proper procedure in doing so? Apparently not. That doesn’t change the fact that I was told I was not required to submit to care, then almost immediately afterwords forced into it. A staggering number of criminal cases are dismissed due to failure to follow proper procedure; why would you think this would be any different?
*************************
Yet you've chosen not to sue. Again, something isn't ringing true in your account. Either you honestly believe that your rights were violated, or you don't. And, if you believe that they were, and CARE that they were, why have you not pursued it further? It doesn't make sense.
*************************
Sorry, but you aren’t seriously using anecdotal evidence in the same post as your dismissal of anecdotal evidence, are you? Again, all generalizations have exceptions. Besides which, I never claimed or implied that all conservatives are fiscally responsible- simply that feeling a moral obligation to pay off your legitimate debt is a typically conservative trait. News flash- there are liberals who display some conservative traits.
***********************
I guess you're right. The term "conservative" doesn't always have political connotations. So I guess you're NOT a conservative, when it comes to paying off your debts?---such as the hospital bill? Or are you trying to rationalize it with the use of the world "legitimate"----as in, "I don't feel I should have to pay this; therefore it's not legitimate"?
***********************
Oh, and his liberal mother in law is atypical for a liberal in that she gave her own money,
*************************
Wrong again. We liberals are more charitable than your right wing polls make us out to be. That much can be seen in our nonjudgmental attitudes. Do you honestly think we can swallow the idea of a conservative being charitable if s/he is constantly blaming the poor and disenfranchised for their own misfortunes?
****************************
but par for the course in that she does more harm than good in her attempt to help her son law. She happens to be an honest liberal, few of them as there are; genuine good intentions, just confused as to how to go about acting on them.
****************************
No, just old-school family oriented. She eventually learned (the hard way) that bailing this guy out was (in her words) "pouring money down a rat hole." The rest of her (liberal) family had recognized that long ago.
You see, we're not as blind and sentimental as the far right loves to depict us. I've never been one for handing out money indiscriminately---not even to my own kids----just for making sure that people have the tools they need to make something of themselves.
*****************************
The physician bit you open with next is nonsensical. Here, let me try- “This man owns a dog . He lives in an area with no crime. His dog protects him from criminals.”
The fact that somebody has a physician doesn’t effect their health if they ignore that physician. Do YOU even know what point you were going for there?
***********************
Do you still have that Webster dictionary handy? I do wish you'd learn the difference between "effect" and "affect"---this is about the fifth time you've made that mistake.
You're seeing it in black and white terms. Most people don't totally ignore their doctors' recommendations. Some follow them to the letter; many follow most of them, but not others. (Common example: cardiac patients who take their medications and get regular checkups, but don't get regular exercise.)
****************************
As for the rest- I’m not denying that access to healthcare generally has a positive effect on health. I’m denying that life expectancy is the standard by which a health care system should be judged.
*****************************
So tell me what criteria YOU use, to determine that our patchwork and incomplete system is superior to all others in the world. (And try to do it without ignoring the tens of millions who are uninsured, underinsured or unable to find a doctor who will take Medicaid.)
******************************
As to the point-by-point of your next bit- your first two deny that American health care is superior, while your third confirms it. Yeesh, if you can’t even remember what you said one sentence before, it’s no wonder you can’t keep track of all the contradictions in your comments.
*************************
My point is that we have great health care available to the well-heeled and well-insured. But it's NOT available to all. You're making my point much more complicated than it actually is.
*************************
The Census Bureau put the number of uninsured citizens around 35 million, which is a bit over 10%.
********************
Odd---my source (the U.S. government) puts it at 50.7 million. Which is much more than 10%.
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb10-144.html
***********************
As far as your next bit; so, you’ll stipulate that with the given Census figure adjusted for people who either decide against buying insurance or opt out of programs they’re qualified for the number drops below 10%? Good.
*************************
Under-insured…”Oh no, they still have to pay for a significant portion of their own healthcare!” Get real.
************************
Wrong. Many underinsured people can't afford to see a doctor. They don't qualify for Medicaid, but they either can't afford or aren't offered good health insurance.
Let's get realistic: when a person's insurance has a $5000 deductible, and high copays after that, s/he's not going to go to the doctor unless absolutely necessary. Which means that a lot of medical problems that are relatively cheap to treat (hypothyroidism, type 1 diabetes, hypertension) will go undetected until they cause major (read: expensive and disabling) complications later on.
************************
It isn’t minimizing it to point out that it’s a small percentage of the population that your referring to.
*************************
Actually, it is "minimizing," since your figure was totally different from the one in the official governmental statistics.
************************
Nor would any of this be an issue in the first place if liberal policies hadn’t inflated the cost of medical care to such outrageous levels.
*************************
That wasn't "liberal policies," Gruff. That was the elaborate house-of-cards system that's been built up, in the never-ending effort between people to access affordable health care, and the insurance companies to access hefty profits. Our health care system costs MUCH more per capita than any other system in the world, and, in most cases, patient outcomes haven't been any better. (Especially if you factor in the outcome of those who should have gotten care, but didn't due to financial contstraints.
********************************
If you have a dependable car, and you start having car troubles, it’s probably a good idea to see if you can fix it before scrapping it in favor of a Russian Lada.
*******************************
Not a good comparison, since every other health care system in the world is much less expensive than our own.
Here's a better comparison: If your old Ford truck is costing you hundreds of dollars a month for repairs; yet still doesn't work 1/6 of the time, maybe you'd best stop making excuses for it, and trade it in on a newer, more reliable vehicle.
As someone once put it: conservatives have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Maybe it's time to say goodbye to the idea that health care is a luxury, to be sold to the most profitable consumers.
If we have any interest in maintaining a healthy and productive society, we're going to have to.
You are full of shit, period. I never thought I would live long enough to see 20 years of age. Now I am close to 60, have lived a good life, and could care less if I am gone tomorrow. That is the problem with all "health care" programs. Medicare, Medicaid, insurance programs, all of them are set up to suck as much money as possible out of our pockets by keeping people alive when they would be better off letting it go.
This "healthy society" bullshit you talk about means one thing to me. You want me to live longer, work longer, just so you can keep getting a paycheck. You need me to justify your existence and that ain't happening. If God, Budda, Mohammed or Jim Jones decides my time to go is tomorrow, so be it. At least I will be able to slide into home plate dirty, tired, looking like crap, and tell St. Peter "Thank the Big Man upstairs for me! It was one hell of a ride!".
If you cannot give me a different reason for living life then go away, boring people are worse than death itself.
Thank YOU Whiskeyriver ~! Now that is the truth and exactly how I believe as well. When its my day to go there won't be anything I can do about it and I'd go willingly and happily, that is just life. Some people are like splinters, you think you've dug it all out but then there is that one stubborn piece you just can't get to but then I'm not afraid to get a knife and dig it out all the way. Its like a snake in your yard, get out the .22 shoot the darn thing and hang it over the fence in warning to the others to stay away.
You must not be much of a nurse or you would have a real job, like being a real nurse in a real hospital.
Can you explain to us why you have all this time to spout your nonsense here? Or, are you just another internet troll with nothing better to do than to copy and paste your meaningless rants on this website?
Time to go away child, you are boring the hell out of us.
She's probably Kevorkian's assistant -- her personality is the perfect fit for that, as long as the patients don't mind her "selling past the close."
What was that conversation between Nancy Astor and Churchill?
“'Mr. Churchill, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea!' And if you were my wife, I would drink it!”
We check all the comments pretty closely to make sure no one says anything obscene, but I just can't read your crap anymore, Olivia. If you were my wife I'd pray for SEAL Team 6 to break down my door and shoot me in the eye.
I've honestly stopped reading your stuff because you're so damn wordy. At this point you could post photos of Obama and farm animals and I'd probably overlook them because you bore the living hell out of me.
This is a section for comments, not novels. Are you completely unaware of the concept of economy of expression? I'm sure I speak for others when I say that your arguments would be a lot more effective if they were more succinct. Correction: A LOT more succinct.
Thank YOU ~!
Thank you... considering I have stopped responding to this particular person.
And just so everyone knows to the comment I had in my mail box from her this morning... I do help our son win. I am the one who catches for him when he practices his pitching out front, I am the one who pitches to him when he is practicing catching. I am the one who takes him to the batting cages so he can practice hitting and I am the one who drives him to his practices and games. I am the one who tells him it is not his fault when the other kids don't practice at all and it really isn't their fault either, its their parents fault for not helping their children realize that success is a by product of hard work, it isn't a goal and they are not entitled to it either. And many of these parents have never allowed their sons to play ball before because, their own words, the mothers were afraid they might be hurt. These boys are 13, 14 and 15 yrs of age, our son played his first year of t ball at age 4, he was racing BMX, local, state and nationally ranked and riding motocross at age 6, also playing football. He has never been hurt, none of our kids have been seriously hurt. All three have learned that to earn something you must work hard for it, no one will hand anything to you on a silver platter. Our daughter was a three time state champion and ranked nationally in BMX for 6 years, she was an award winning cheer leader as well. Our youngest began racing bikes at age 3 and at age 4 beat a group of 5 yrs olds for 2nd place at the ABA grand nationals, they all know only hard work gets you what you want. If some parents place their kids in situations they are not prepared for they should not be allowed to participate and its their parents fault. And I may take crap for this too but all our kids are healthy and in shape, I am a retired Fitness professional and we take their sports very seriously. My husband was a high school all state quarterback and played college football and baseball, he is also now a certified sports official for football and basketball, middle, high school and college levels. When we sign one of our kids up for a sport they are prepared to play hard and yes to win, because that is what its about. It is what life is about it isn't about having fun at the level our son plays now, he is preparing to play high school football and baseball and he should not have to play ball with kids and parents who could care less or just want to have fun. Our baseball league plays year round and it is taken very seriously and we appreciate the fact that it is. Our kids want to win they don't want to play with losers or 14 yr old boys who cry and throw a baby fit when they strike out or miss a catch because they are afraid of the ball. Those kids should just go home and let the kids who care and work hard play ball. Okay tirade over.... sorry but that "woman" is truly ignorant.
Our kids want to win they don’t want to play with losers or 14 yr old boys who cry and throw a baby fit when they strike out or miss a catch because they are afraid of the ball. Those kids should just go home and let the kids who care and work hard play ball. Okay tirade over…. sorry but that “woman” is truly ignorant.
***************************
What's even more "ignorant" is a grown woman who can't understand that kids' games are as much about practicing good sportsmanship (i.e., learning not to ridicule the other kids, just because you don't like their parents' political affiliation or practice habits) as they are about celebrating athletic excellence.
Most of what you said here might have come across as sensible and appropriate----if only it weren't for the nasty tone in the first post. I mean, strutting around boasting "we won," and deriding "losers" and "sucky kids" on the bench?
Sounds to me as if somebody's reliving her own unfinished emotional business through her kids' sports activities. Sounds to me, too, as if somebody was never taught how to handle victory gracefully.
I really don't want to respond to any more of your incessant diatribe; however, you obviously don't have any children who work their rears off practicing and striving to be the best and then are forced to play with others who could care less and are only doing it to please their parents who are by the way the ones living through their children. I do not need to live through my kids, I danced classical ballet with a company from the age of 8 until I was 19, I was a ranked barrel racer for years, and I play clarinet, flute, trumpet, sax and drums. I have no need to live through my children, if I was I believe that one of them would have been forced to take on something I believed I should have been more accomplishment at which I don't because I worked hard and earned every one I received, deserved and earned them.
So the "Sucky" kids are just that with Sucky parents who should not sign their kids up to play if they SUCK. No trophies or medals for everyone especially the ones who do not DESERVE them because they have not EARNED them. Now I am done with you because you simply do not understand even though you believe that you do. Go post to someone else, I will ignore you and your foolishness from this point onward.
I really don’t want to respond to any more of your incessant diatribe; however, you obviously don’t have any children who work their rears off practicing and striving to be the best and then are forced to play with others who could care less and are only doing it to please their parents who are by the way the ones living through their children. I do not need to live through my kids, I danced classical ballet with a company from the age of 8 until I was 19, I was a ranked barrel racer for years, and I play clarinet, flute, trumpet, sax and drums......
****************************
......and, despite allegedly excelling at all these extremely demanding and competitive activities, you STILL didn't learn a thing about good sportsmanship??
Something smells about your whole account.....and I'm not talking about the kids' socks.
Hey, sweetie. You don't have to justify anything to us.
There is no one here that can say that you do not care about your son -- he won't ever be in a position to say "My mom didn't give a damn about me."
You're a good mother, and his number one cheerleader, and that is both sweet and wonderful. You need have no regrets for caring. It takes a mighty small person to try to make themselves bigger by making other people smaller, if you know what I mean.
I rode the bench all through school -- because when push came to shove, I wasn't all that important. But when I saw how other parents cared about their kids and took the time to be with them, and fill them with a love of healthy things like sports, I was jealous.
(Thinking back, my childhood was a *lot* like being Homer Simpson's introverted kid, with Bart Simpson as an older brother. Pretty sure that at least half of Confederate Railroad, Junior Brown, and Steve Earle's music catalog was about him...)
Thanks Perlcat, with my husband traveling so much I am the one who does most of the sports activities. Luckily my dad was a baseball coach so I know what I'm doing. Riding the bench sucks and I feel sorry for the kids but I wish they would start having tryouts again like we had as kids, not every kid is meant for sports there are so many wonderful things and parents should let their kids choose instead of living their fantasies through their poor kids. I wasn't allowed to play sports as a kid, I was a girl and back then girls didn't play. I did dance ballet and I competed in rodeos and 3 day eventing with my horses but no boy sports. When my mother saw how good I could throw a baseball she sent me to etiquette school just in case I was getting crazy thoughts in my head about acting like a boy, hehehe. I was jealous of girls in school who were allowed to play sports because I always knew I'd be good at it but in my family young ladies were expected to do ladylike things and sports was not one of them. I understand that jealousy very much.
Now the hubby left for three weeks in Abilene for catastrophe duty, after that he may be leaving for Alabama and we have all stars beginning next Monday, I will be a very busy mom.
Yes, you can't mother all of those children -- their parents have to step up, or their kids have to learn that when they grow up & have kids, to *not* do what their parents did.
I always noticed that when the girls were in girl scouts -- and we'd ask for a buck or two for an activity -- that the parents that didn't care couldn't come up with it -- but they could always come up with the money for their cigs, their pot, and their booze.
That's why I think that all cars should run on alcohol -- people can always seem to come up with the money for that.
I always noticed that when the girls were in girl scouts — and we’d ask for a buck or two for an activity — that the parents that didn’t care couldn’t come up with it — but they could always come up with the money for their cigs, their pot, and their booze.
***********************
It's called "addiction."
Its called a weak mind and soul, addiction by you know what.
Its called a weak mind and soul, addiction by you know what.
*********************
It's called "addiction" by mental health experts; "a weak mind and soul" by ignoramuses who are anxious to feel morally superior to others.
That doesn't mean I'm defending addictive behavior---it causes terrible destruction to families, with the kids getting the brunt of it far too often. But don't kid yourself-----these people don't deliberately set out to be disappointments and failures. It's the nature of the disease----and no one (yourself included) is completely immune to it.
Yeah, I don't buy the "addiction" bit. That's an excuse, not a reason. If any of those people had only $5 between them and ruination, they'd spend the $5 on their vices and then go without, rather than do without the money 5 minutes earlier and do something positive for their kid.
Only a fool would think that an addiction is a valid reason to ignore a child. It's like Ol' Flip Wilson used to say -- "The devil made me do it." Yeah. Sure. Right.
Only a fool would think that an addiction is a valid reason to ignore a child.
********************
Who said it was a "valid reason" for anything? I wasn't making excuses for those parents----just handing Tesslea a reality check.
Hmmm. Being waterboarded? Or having to read an Olivia post?
I CAN'T DECIDE!!!
I can. I would rather be waterboarded than read her drivel.
I've been waterboarded and though it sucks very badly, it is survivorable...I can't say that about the moon goop coming from Olivia's PC and I think I'm burning up my scroll function trying to get past all of her alligator shit!
Olivia, you humble me...I thought I was the wordy and pointless one.
Yeah. I just read the "stop feeding the troll ' memo from KimmyQueen. Thanks KQ and Mr Ed
I am surprised that this is still going on. It gets points for determination, but at some point it has to get tired and go.
I see nothing has changed since I've been cheering our boys to victory at their baseball and football games. Thank goodness the coaches make the kids who suck ride the bench this weekend but then they are so bad they don't even deserve to be on the bench. They should have been at home finding something they are good at rather than mucking up our kid's teams. But then their liberal mommies and daddies tell them they are special and can be anything they want as if that were true which it most certainly isn't. Only medals and trophies for the kids who practice and know that success is a by product of hard work not their parents telling them lies and making them believe they are good when they are not. We won thanks to the sucky kids sitting out thank God!!! Finally, maybe their ignorant parents will get the message. Nice day All ~!
We won thanks to the sucky kids sitting out thank God!!!
***********************
No, THEY won. YOU sat on a bench and b*tched about the other kids' parents.
I never said anyting about tax-cuts. I said “regulation”. Make it illegal for companies to refuse customers with pre-existing conditions or to raise their premiums for the same reasons. Problem solved. You really are making it out to be harder than it is.
*************************
Why, no, I'm not. Basically, what you're advocating is for the federal government to force a private, for-profit business to accept all customers, whether or not accepting all customers is in the best interests of the company's bottom line.
I'm having a very hard time seeing how such a proposal would be palatable to a libertarian....or the insurance industry. I'm also (obviously) no business expert, so feel free to explain to me how such a system would be likely to attract investors.
From a health care point of view (which I do know a thing or two about), I can easily imagine the insurance company taking great trouble to find ways to deny claims. They're pretty skilled at that already, you know, and I can well believe that they'd get even more skilled, if they were to be saddled with clients they didn't want, and claims they didn't want to pay on.
******************************
As for the waterboarding: Of course it causes panic, that’s the point. And I still believe it’s a legal option. I do not however think that it is a good option as I have yet to see any evidence that it actually worked
************************
My point wasn't just that it causes panic. My point was that it also causes pain, plus it carries a potential for serious injury. You're repeatedly compromising someone's airway, which is the equivalent of pretending to strangle him for short intervals in rapid succession. Don't kid yourself---the fact that it doesn't cause visible bleeding or fractures doesn't mean that it couldn't be torture.
0
I'd have to have Olivia end up as my nurse. Regardless what ailment I had she'd talk me to death.
I’d have to have Olivia end up as my nurse. Regardless what ailment I had she’d talk me to death.
*************************
No, I leave my political views at home. I'd behave very professionally, and give you the best care I possibly could, regardless of your attitude or manners.
And, just to make sure you got the best, I'd start your IV with the biggest needle available. :D