Staged photo? What the hell were those people watching so intently?

by editor on May 6, 2011

You’ve probably seen this photo of the President and his national security staff watching the “live video feed” of the Osama Bin Laden raid. Oopsie! Now it turns out there was no live video feed, which gives rise to the obvious question, was there a director standing just off camera saying, “OK, now everyone look really tense.”

staged obama photo

The Telegraph UK did the work the American media couldn’t be bothered with:

Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.

A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound.

Mr Panetta said: “Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.

staged obama photo

So strong. So reassuring. So noble. So 100% staged.

Are we being paranoid right wing bloggers eagerly making up nonsense about the Obama admnistration? Hardly. The International Business Times reports that other photos of the noble Commander In Chief were faked during the aftermath of the Osama raid:

The White House hotly debated whether to release photos of Osama Bin Laden after Sunday’s raid on his Pakistan compound, but when it came to the President’s own photos, there was only one way to go: staged.

While the photo that ran on many newspapers and websites the next morning appeared as if it were taken during Obama’s address to the nation the night before, it was actually the result of an elaborate post-speech production.

“As President Obama continued his nine-minute address in front of just one main network camera, the photographers were held outside the room by staff and asked to remain completely silent,” Reuters photographer Jason Reed explained in his blog.

“Once Obama was off the air, we were escorted in front of that teleprompter and the President then re-enacted the walk-out and first 30 seconds of the statement for us.”

Determining what’s real and what’s not becomes more difficult each day with this administration.

The photos may not be real, but the picture is becoming increasingly clearer.

Source: Telegraph UK, International Business Times

155
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
21 Comment threads
134 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
22 Comment authors
GruffGadflynonkenyanRandome-11LarkGruffGadfly Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Olivia
Member
Olivia

I’m going to do one last round of responses before I write you off for a while; “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” You’ve been repeatedly proven wrong
*****************
Not true. Others have disagreed with me, and refused to accept that I might have a valid point. That’s not the same thing as “proving” me wrong.
*****************
(your acceptance of this fact doesn’t have anything to do with it’s validity, sorry), yet continue to spout the same nonsense. So, here we go-

Agnostic NOW, I was raised Catholic. I have a broader understanding of Christianity than the majority of practicing Christians; I read a lot, and I used to try to talk to priests/pastors/etc. of different denominations to get some answers for some of the problems I had with faith, and when they not only couldn’t answer but got offended at my refusal to just take their word that they were right, my faith took that last little dip into nonexistence. As far as GENUINE Christians go, they tend to be conservative; again, your acceptance of this fact has nothing to do with it’s validity. The Bible as it is understood today is conservative in nature.
************************
Absolutely incorrect. The Bible is not a political treatise; the teachings of Jesus, in particular, were decidedly apolitical. Yes, I realize that the right wing has tried to hijack Christianity for its own purposes, but they don’t own it any more than they own the sun or the moon.
You can brag about your grasp of religion all you like, but, if you don’t understand even that one basic concept, then you don’t know anything about the religion you chose to reject.
************************
For the next bit- No, actually, you have that backwards. I made a statement, and when asked I pointed out that they were based on my personal observations. You claimed I was wrong. Now, as I was using my PERSONAL observations as the basis for that statement, if you want to refute me you need to prove that what I have observed is false. I’ve already pointed out the basis for my claim, you need to offer yours.
************************
Okay, here it is. After reading several of your posts, I see you as someone who thinks he’s smarter and more perceptive than other people, and therefore can trust his gut feeling. Unfortunately, gut feelings are notoriously inaccurate, especially if used to sit in moral judgment of others. So, no, I’m not going to scurry around hunting up statistics—-Im just going to say that, whenever people claim to know as much as you do about other people’s private business, and when what you claim to know just happens to dovetail perfectly with popular prejudices about those people, I take your claims with a big grain of salt.
*****************
Next: Why would I bother to go into detail with you? If I told you about all robberies and such I’ve seen, you’d just claim they were all tragic Robin Hoods, stealing from the rich to help the poor.
If I brought up single parent households where the parent spends all their money on weed and booze instead of food and clothing for their children, you’d discount that as something I made up.
No evidence can sway those who refuse to listen to opposing ideas.
*******************
You see, your gut feeling was wrong there. I realize that crime exists, and also that very poor areas tend to be high crime areas. What’s more, I used to work with addicts. Once again, you made a snap judgment about me, based on stereotypes, without knowing anything about me as an individual.
*******************
“Trying to get your goat?” No, I’m flat out saying that I don’t believe you are a nurse, although I accept that it’s possible that you ARE a nurse, just hopelessly ignorant of the field in which you work.
*******************
Then you know much less about the nursing field than you think you do. Again, you talk like someone who thinks he’s smarter than other people, and therefore is something of an armchair expert about nursing and emergency rescue. But it doesn’t work that way. You got into an accident; they made you go to the hospital when you didn’t want to; you’ve convinced yourself that anyone who doesn’t agree that you were right and they were wrong is ignorant; and you refuse to accept the possibility that they might have had good reason for handling it the way they did.
*******************
Wasn’t meant to be derogatory to office workers in general, just to you, since as I said, I believe you hold down a desk some where and are putting on airs in order to gain some credibility. As to why would you lie about it? Again, to gain credibility. Your prima ballerina comment makes no sense- if you were having a debate about Gothic architecture, it wouldn’t make much sense to pretend to be an actor to try to be taken seriously.
******************
Again, I was joking. But I’m beginning to see that humor doesn’t work well with you.
******************
Pretending to not understand why I think you would bother with lying about being a nurse in an argument having largely to do with health care makes me that much more sure that it’s true. You may be slow, but if you were so dumb you couldn’t figure that out, I don’t think you’d be capable of operating a keyboard
******************
Or perhaps it’s just that I’m not a dishonest person, and don’t understand why you assume I would misrepresent myself on a message board. Another snap assumption, based on past prejudices.
******************
Hmm. Well, while I won’t stipulate whether or not the hospital in which you claim to work has internet, it doesn’t change the fact that you have/are/probably will continue to spend a pretty ridiculous amount of time on this site. Even with several days off. Is your life so sad that you can’t think of anything better to do with all of that time?
*******************
My posting plans, Mr. Gruff, are none of your business. If you think I post too often or too much, then stop trying to engage me in these long arguments.
*******************
Actually, it’s more like they don’t want you posting here, but if they see a particularly stupid comment, it’s difficult to just let it slide. Since your posts are riddled with stupid comments, the cycle continues. I’m going to try to do my part to break the cycle, though- as I said, after this last round of responses, I won’t be responding to any of your posts for a while. At least a week. Hopefully in that time everybody else will have started to ignore you as well, and you’ll have left.

One can only hope…
*******************
I understand. Heaven forbid anyone whose political views don’t match your own should dare to offer any input. Can’t have a variety of opinions during a discussion, after all—-that might actually force people to do some thinking, rather than just reacting. 🙂
(Just to clarify: yes, that was said in jest, too—-but this time I meant every word of it.)

alien
Guest

Olivia it took me a week to convince someone i don’t own a Prius (assuming i even succeeded.. I’m not even particularly concerned about AGW)

I don’t understand why some people choose to debate over assertions of people they don’t know. Its mind-boggling, and puts them at an immediate disadvantage.

nonkenyan
Member
nonkenyan

‘Olivia it took me a week to convince someone i don’t own a Prius’
Do you need a kleenex?

alien
Guest

[sniffle] sure, can you bring me one? I can give you your lobotomy

perlcat
Member

Sorry, dude, that woman in Brazil took your box.

I’d shake her hand, but for some reason, I just don’t want to.

nonkenyan
Member
nonkenyan

The word is ‘snivel’, and also can mean a runny nose. But, in your case it means, “sham emotion; whining, as a child”. Lobotomy performed on me by you? Is that so you can be smarter than me?Or, is that ‘smarter than I’. Congratulations on your relationship with Olivia. I hope you can keep each other entertained by bitching about how you get treated by others on this site.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

The word is ‘snivel’, and also can mean a runny nose. But, in your case it means, “sham emotion; whining, as a child”. Lobotomy performed on me by you? Is that so you can be smarter than me?Or, is that ‘smarter than I’. Congratulations on your relationship with Olivia. I hope you can keep each other entertained by bitching about how you get treated by others on this site.
*******************
I don’t see either of us “bitching” about our treatment here. I don’t know about Alien, but I rather enjoy watching you guys scramble around flinging personal insults,when you can’t come up with an intelligent response to challenging questions.

And, actually, “sniffle” is a perfectly legitimate word. But, if you frequent this board very much, you’re probably much more familiar with “sniveling.”

nonkenyan
Member
nonkenyan

Typical. If you’re going to quote someone, which is what you do when you use quotation marks, you should quote them accurately. I see you’ve quoted me as writing, “I’ll bet you’re on welfare”. My question was, in fact, “are you on welfare?’. But, you can’t get that right because you are basically dishonest, and that’s the proof, ‘cuz that’s the truth. Personal insults. Let’s see. I was reading one of your exhaustingly long comments where you wrote what republicans do and what republicans think, and I wanted to be accurate, but when I went back to your comment it had already been hidden due to low rating, and I was weary from reading half-page comments of yours. If you’re not a republican, don’t tell us what we do. Don’t tell us what we think. Most of us identify ourselves as conservatives, not necessarilly republicans. You take a lot for granted, and you judge, just like everyone else. As your pal alien wrote to KQ:, “Welcome to the internet.”

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Olivia it took me a week to convince someone i don’t own a Prius (assuming i even succeeded.. I’m not even particularly concerned about AGW)

I don’t understand why some people choose to debate over assertions of people they don’t know. Its mind-boggling, and puts them at an immediate disadvantage.

*****************************
I think it’s because they’ve been fed a lot of goofy stereotypes, and swallowed them. That’s all they seem to have! If you try to discuss an issue with them, about 90% of the time they respond with a bogus assumption:
“I’ll bet you’re lying about being a nurse.”
“I’ll bet you’re a lousy nurse.”
“I’ll bet you don’t give anything to charity.”
“I’ll bet you voted for Obama only out of ‘White Guilt'” (which pundit invented that buzzword, anyway?)
“I’ll bet you’re on welfare.”
I’ve seen a handful of intelligent responses and challenges here—the kind that actually made me stop and think. But they’re few and far between, with this barrage of childish attacks and name callings.

That said….other than it’s not an American car, what do they have against the Prius? 😉

alien
Guest

a few months back i got charged with having a big welfare TV and a huge appetite for cheese doodles, all because I questioned the sanity of global Caliphate conspiracies.. Maybe those tasty snacks go well with the Kaliphate Kool-Aid

I know you say you enjoy watching them scramble.. i can see that on some level, but more and more it just wastes time, and its not a challenge to refute a stupid assertion someone makes about you. Seems to me that you’ve forced a few players here to step up their game

I’ve always been nagged by the cheese doodle thing, so i googled “cheese doodles welfare” just now.. and holy hell that’s a minefield 😉

Olivia
Member
Olivia

know you say you enjoy watching them scramble.. i can see that on some level, but more and more it just wastes time, and its not a challenge to refute a stupid assertion someone makes about you. Seems to me that you’ve forced a few players here to step up their game

***********************************
Interesting (but not surprising) that they dish it out so easily, but have such a hard time taking it in return. Maybe that’s why they stick to a website where almost everyone has the same viewpoints.
***********************************

I’ve always been nagged by the cheese doodle thing, so i googled “cheese doodles welfare” just now.. and holy hell that’s a minefield
***********************************
I don’t think I’ve ever even seen “cheese doodles.” Is that a real product? It sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would have said, and everyone rushed to quote as if it were Holy Writ.

GruffGadfly
Member
GruffGadfly

I’m going to do one last round of responses before I write you off for a while; “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” You’ve been repeatedly proven wrong (your acceptance of this fact doesn’t have anything to do with it’s validity, sorry), yet continue to spout the same nonsense. So, here we go-

Agnostic NOW, I was raised Catholic. I have a broader understanding of Christianity than the majority of practicing Christians; I read a lot, and I used to try to talk to priests/pastors/etc. of different denominations to get some answers for some of the problems I had with faith, and when they not only couldn’t answer but got offended at my refusal to just take their word that they were right, my faith took that last little dip into nonexistence. As far as GENUINE Christians go, they tend to be conservative; again, your acceptance of this fact has nothing to do with it’s validity. The Bible as it is understood today is conservative in nature.

For the next bit- No, actually, you have that backwards. I made a statement, and when asked I pointed out that they were based on my personal observations. You claimed I was wrong. Now, as I was using my PERSONAL observations as the basis for that statement, if you want to refute me you need to prove that what I have observed is false. I’ve already pointed out the basis for my claim, you need to offer yours.

Next: Why would I bother to go into detail with you? If I told you about all robberies and such I’ve seen, you’d just claim they were all tragic Robin Hoods, stealing from the rich to help the poor. If I brought up single parent households where the parent spends all their money on weed and booze instead of food and clothing for their children, you’d discount that as something I made up. No evidence can sway those who refuse to listen to opposing ideas.

If you couldn’t figure that out, you need some serious work in reading comprehension. “Half in jest” or not, you made a statement. That statement was incorrect. Your later claim that you made no statement was also incorrect. Your current claim that, ‘oh, that was a joke so it doesn’t count, tee hee!” doesn’t change any of that.

“Trying to get your goat?” No, I’m flat out saying that I don’t believe you are a nurse, although I accept that it’s possible that you ARE a nurse, just hopelessly ignorant of the field in which you work. Actually, that was pretty clear the first time I said it.

Wasn’t meant to be derogatory to office workers in general, just to you, since as I said, I believe you hold down a desk some where and are putting on airs in order to gain some credibility. As to why would you lie about it? Again, to gain credibility. Your prima ballerina comment makes no sense- if you were having a debate about Gothic architecture, it wouldn’t make much sense to pretend to be an actor to try to be taken seriously. Pretending to not understand why I think you would bother with lying about being a nurse in an argument having largely to do with health care makes me that much more sure that it’s true. You may be slow, but if you were so dumb you couldn’t figure that out, I don’t think you’d be capable of operating a keyboard.

Hmm. Well, while I won’t stipulate whether or not the hospital in which you claim to work has internet, it doesn’t change the fact that you have/are/probably will continue to spend a pretty ridiculous amount of time on this site. Even with several days off. Is your life so sad that you can’t think of anything better to do with all of that time?

Actually, it’s more like they don’t want you posting here, but if they see a particularly stupid comment, it’s difficult to just let it slide. Since your posts are riddled with stupid comments, the cycle continues. I’m going to try to do my part to break the cycle, though- as I said, after this last round of responses, I won’t be responding to any of your posts for a while. At least a week. Hopefully in that time everybody else will have started to ignore you as well, and you’ll have left.

One can only hope…

Olivia
Member
Olivia

You’re doing a bit of stereotyping yourself – sorry, but I’m agnostic, not Christian. This is an example of an understandable stereotype, though- genuine Christians are generally conservatives, and the reverse is true as well.
*********************
You just admitted that you’re not a Christian, so I’ll overlook your ignorance here. The fact is that “genuine” Christians come in all political stripes. It’s the phony ones who think you have to be of a particular political persuasion to qualify as a Christian.
**********************
So, you take issue with me stating my observations on typical liberals, and the different types of people either demanding or receiving handouts. Tough. Refute them with proof that the MAJORITY of the groups I described don’t, or aren’t likely to, conform to my stated observations.
****************************
Nothing doing, Gruff. YOU made the assertion; therefore it’s incumbent on YOU, not me, to back it up with statistics. Or you could just leave it alone, and reinforce my impression that you have a seriously prejudiced outlook.
***************************
People don’t need to come out and say, “I never do anything that doesn’t profit me, personally,” for me to see them living extremely selfish lives. If we had to wait for people to admit to their faults before we called them out for them, our prisons would be empty.
***************************
On what are you basing your assumption that these people live “extremely selfish lives”? And what makes you so sure you can see into their minds and hearts and private lives?
***************************
“Disappointed that I don’t fit into the popular liberal stereotype?”

Uh, “Disappointed that…” here is used as preparation for a STATEMENT that you think I will find disappointing, “…I don’t fit into the popular liberal stereotype. As I said yesterday, if you’re going to try to play with words, you need to up your game. It isn’t bigotry to point out your self-contradictory statements and firm adherence to liberal ideology, sorry.
************************
Sorry, but I can’t make head or tail of the above rambling statement. But my comment was made half in jest. I was poking you a bit for those endless stereotypes.
*************************
Given your ignorance in medical matters, I highly doubt you’re a nurse. Is it possible that you are, yet have remained hopelessly ignorant of everything to do with medical care? Of course. My money’s on you being a desk jockey, though.
*************************
And I’m guessing that you’re trying to get my goat by claiming I must not be a nurse. That’s okay—-it isn’t important to me that you believe me. But it’s rather silly for you to think I’d be making that up. If I were in the habit of misrepresenting myself, I’d tell everyone I was a prima ballerina. 🙂

By the way, why the repeated derogatory remarks about “desk jockeys”? I’m assuming you’re referring to unit clerks, or possibly nursing administrators? I don’t hold either of those jobs (and never have), but I wouldn’t be ashamed to admit it if I did. One of my “typical liberal” traits—–I don’t really understand why anyone would put down someone who does honest work that fills an important need.
***************************
Oh, as far as that book you recommended? I’ll actually probably look into it.
Might take me a while though; judging by the combination of both your post count and post length, though, I’m thinking you have MUCH more free time than I do. Actually, your ability to spend so much time on this site kinda supports my desk jockey theory, don’t you think?
***********
Not particularly, since we don’t have internet access at work. (Even if we did, there’s no time for playing on the internet.) I’ve been posting here because I had several days off in a row, and because people keep responding to my posts. Go figure, huh? They don’t want me posting here, but they won’t leave me alone when I do. 🙂

Olivia
Member
Olivia

I’d recommend reading the book to which that article refers, along with “Makers and Takers” by Peter Schweizer. Moving on…
******************************
And I’d recommend that YOU read The Working Poor: Invisible in America, by Shipler. But you won’t, because it provides statistics and information that you wouldn’t want to hear.
**********************************
As far as your second translation, “I painted three stereotypes, based on prejudice and wishful thinking.” Yeah, prejudice and wishful thinking… or, you know, personal observation, as I said. Since I live in Illinois, the majority of people I come in to contact with are liberal, doubly so among my friends, considering my age bracket. So, I hear constantly about how the poor need help in the form on confiscatory taxation from people who I know for a fact do nothing to help the poor themselves.
********************
SURE you do. As an Illinois liberal myself, I know that I’D immediately rush to boast to disgruntled far right wingers that I don’t want to do anything to help the poor. @@
Don’t even bother to go there, Gruff. I can see through your stereotyping attempts a mile away. It’s not as if they were some brand new ploy among the far right.
********************
It’s not a geographic thing, either- the lion’s share of liberals I’ve spoken to from around the country have this the-government-should-do-it-because-I-won’t ideology.
*********************
Oh, now ALL the liberals in the nation are confiding this startling new lack of altruism only to you? This yarn just keeps on getting more and more entertaining. Next thing we know, you’ll be telling me that GOD appeared to you in a burning bush (pun intended), and sent you those bogus stereotypes Himself…..engraved on stone tablets. 😀
*********************
Oh, except for the occasional college age kids I know who join up with Greenpeace or some other far-left group and claim to be helping something.
*********************************************
Boatload of glib generalizations indicating nothing, other than your own desire to stereotype people who don’t agree with your political opinions.
**********************************************
As far as the other groups- I live in an urban area; of all the people I know on welfare, only a tiny fraction ever actually try to work their way out of their situations. Oddly, of all the handicapped people I know, only one has ever said he thinks it’s anybody else’s responsibility to help him, and he’s fairly close to being right, given his situation. The TRULY helpless should receive some help, yes, but the people who fall under the category make up a tiny percentage of the people on the public dole.
*******************************************
More stereotypes. As a nurse, I’ve cared for disabled people, as well as people who receive regular government checks, and people who work for a living. Oddly enough, I’ve found lazy bums AND people with a good work ethic in all three groups. And why not? People are individuals, with varying reactions to adversity, and in fact varying TYPES of adversity. Sure, I’ve seen disabled people with great attitudes. I’ve also seen disabled people addicted to painkillers, or with past traumatic brain injury, who are extremely demanding and manipulative. Disability doesn’t magically endow people with virtues and sterling work ethics, any more than government assistance magically turns them into lazy drunks.

I also find it very, very strange that all these people would be so willing to share the details of their private financial situations with you, when you’re so clearly inclined to make ugly assumptions about welfare recipients. (You also, like so many far righters I’ve talked with, don’t seem to be aware that welfare was reformed 16 years ago, and that, therefore, it’s no longer available for longterm use.)

Sounds to me as if you’re making it up as you go along. That’s usually the case, I’ve found, with those who try to lump categorize everyone, according to currently popular stereotypes.
********************************

Seeing into your bank account? Well, you’re a liberal, and since your spouting the typical liberal nonsense here, I don’t think it’s going to far to assume that the trends in liberal’s charitable giving apply to you, too.
**********************************
Another bogus stereotype, based on a handful of right wing polls, falsely described as “studies.”
**********************************
“I made no claims about myself.”

Huh…look a bit further on the page and you’ll see where you put, “Disappointed that I don’t fit into the popular liberal stereotype?”
That sure LOOKS like you claiming to not fall into the typical liberal stereotype, one part of which is type B in my little breakdown up there.
******************************
That’s not a claim. That’s an observation that your perceptions seem to be based entirely on prejudices fed you by right wing pundits. That sort of practice is called “bigotry,” and it’s generally frowned on by thinking people.

I’ll finish addressing your rant later.

GruffGadfly
Member
GruffGadfly

Hahaha, “I’ll finish addressing your rant later.” The only parts of my post that you responded to are the ones that you try to write off as stereotypes and a repeated attempt to discount certain studies you don’t want to have to acknowledge. The reason you can’t respond to the rest of it yet is because you have nothing with which to refute any of it.

Stereotypes= generalizations. The fact that generalizations have exceptions doesn’t disprove them. Generalizations always have exceptions, otherwise they wouldn’t be referred to as such. Now, when dealing with groups numbering in the millions, the number of exceptions can be quite large, while remaining insignificant as far as percentage of that population.

For example…

You’re doing a bit of stereotyping yourself – sorry, but I’m agnostic, not Christian. This is an example of an understandable stereotype, though- genuine Christians are generally conservatives, and the reverse is true as well.

So, you take issue with me stating my observations on typical liberals, and the different types of people either demanding or receiving handouts. Tough. Refute them with proof that the MAJORITY of the groups I described don’t, or aren’t likely to, conform to my stated observations.

People don’t need to come out and say, “I never do anything that doesn’t profit me, personally,” for me to see them living extremely selfish lives. If we had to wait for people to admit to their faults before we called them out for them, our prisons would be empty.

“Disappointed that I don’t fit into the popular liberal stereotype?”

Uh, “Disappointed that…” here is used as preparation for a STATEMENT that you think I will find disappointing, “…I don’t fit into the popular liberal stereotype. As I said yesterday, if you’re going to try to play with words, you need to up your game. It isn’t bigotry to point out your self-contradictory statements and firm adherence to liberal ideology, sorry.

Given your ignorance in medical matters, I highly doubt you’re a nurse. Is it possible that you are, yet have remained hopelessly ignorant of everything to do with medical care? Of course. My money’s on you being a desk jockey, though.

Oh, as far as that book you recommended? I’ll actually probably look into it. Might take me a while though; judging by the combination of both your post count and post length, though, I’m thinking you have MUCH more free time than I do. Actually, your ability to spend so much time on this site kinda supports my desk jockey theory, don’t you think?

Done for the day; not all of my time can be spent setting you straight.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Not so much “studies” as right wing polls. I guess it never occurred to you that:
1) not everyone tells the truth about how much they give to charities
2) it’s very common to overestimate the value of dry goods donated to charity (“What do you mean, it was only a smashed up old plastic yard chair? It had a lot of sentimental value to me, and I don’t think it was unreasonable to estimate its value at $50!”)
3) whenever you try to lump categorize people’s motives, it’s going to be more about what you WANT to believe than what’s actually true
4) for religious or spiritual reasons, people don’t always tell others about their charitable donations

Speaking for myself, I don’t fit into any of your homemade categories. I’m one of those who hates waste, either of money, opportunity, resources or a life, so I believe in ensuring that everyone has the tools s/he needs to get ahead. (Those tools being, not just school supplies, but also things like decent health and nutrition, reliable transportation, decent shelter from the elements, and knowledgeable resources who can answer questions, clear up misconceptions, and/or point them in the right direction.)

By the way, I’d be more inclined to believe that ultrapopular conservatives-are-more-charitable-than-liberals claim, if I didn’t see so many conservatives constantly bashing the poor, the uninsured and the jobless.
*******************************
Lmao, how is life over there in B?
******************************
Translation: “I can’t dispute your logic, so I’ll try to derail you by pretending I know who you are and where you live.”

Thank you, “Gruff”—– you’ve just destroyed whatever credibility your argument had to begin with. You’ve also confirmed an unpleasant stereotype about far righters—–that they can’t reason or debate, and are all (and only) about attacking and threats.

Moving right along:
****************************

1- Seems like you might have done a tiny bit of looking, maybe one site or so, before you decided that, yes, what I said was accurate, but for the sake of making a point you should pretend that those (numerous) studies aren’t valid.
***********************
Sorry, but it isn’t my responsibility to scurry around trying to back up your claims. That’s YOUR job. If you expected to have any credibility, you should have produced the “studies” you’re referring to. Need I even ask why you were reluctant to do that?
************************
2- The studies hold true in pretty much every category, from dry goods to money to blood.
***********************
Oh, right. Those blood banks are known for quizzing potential donors about their political affiliations, and keeping track of how much blood each Republican and Democrat gives. You ARE a gullible one, aren’t you? @@
**********************
Swing and a miss, kiddo.
***********************
Not unless you produce some solid evidence, pal. Did you seriously expect me to accept such a claim, purely on your say-so? 🙂
So….where is it? Got anything a little more credible than the usual far right wing blogs and opinion pieces?
************************
3- I painted three broad types, there. Those are based on personal observation of every group involved

**********************
Translation: “I painted three stereotypes, based on prejudice and wishful thinking.”
**********************
; you really have no leg to stand on here, as you admitted yourself you don’t even know anybody on welfare. You don’t strike me as the type to willingly associate with the handicapped, either, so there’s that.
*********************
More wishful thinking. What is your rationale for assuming that you’re more familiar with disabled people and welfare recipients than I am?—–or more qualified to describe their thought processes, living situations, challenges and personal values?
********************
Alien, here, seems to spend most of his time on here sticking up for you after you get done spouting off some nonsense and people jump on you for it, and even he didn’t seem too see a problem with the groupings.

********************
That’s his business. In any case, this discussion isn’t about Alien’s views, or your expectation that I should conform to them. It’s about my challenge to your opinion. You posted three stereotypes, and insinuated that you’re in a better position than I am to know how valid these stereotypes are. So I’ll ask you, once again: what makes you so confident that you understand social program recipients’ motives better than I do?

*************************
4- No, for reasons of either shame or modesty, actually. Shame, for you B’ers, because you’re embarrassed to admit just how little you give, despite all your talk about helping the poor. Modesty from that unlisted fourth group Alien referred to, since they donate to help people, not for display.
************************
Oh, my goodness—–now you claim to be able to see into my bank account, and how much I withdraw to give to charities. You’re really piling on the blind assumptions today, aren’t you?
***********************
Funny how you claim none of these apply to you. Everything about you screams “B!”
***********************
You misunderstand me again. I made no claims about myself, or what imaginary categories I belong to. My claim was that you’re repeating stereotypes, based on opinion and wishful thinking rather than reality.
***********************
All the programs you claim to support

***********************
But I made no claims here about “supporting” any program in particular, other than universal health care. Are you making blind assumptions again?

***********************
because they help people generally work more to keep them in the shitty situations they’re in. What you call conservative “bashing” of the poor is us decrying the programs you libs set in place to spend billions of dollars to keep those people poor and uneducated.

*************************
Nonsense. If you truly believed that social programs serve only to destroy people’s motivation to help themselves, you’d be adamantly opposed to corporate welfare and tax breaks. That’s a copout, designed to make selfishness appear virtuous.

In fact, there’s absolutely no reason to assume that affordable health care, proper nutrition, decent public transportation and high quality schools (with adequate supplies and facilities) would be likely to stifle ambition. What DOES stifle ambition (and quickly, too) is the observation that there’s no way out of poverty—–that those who are born into it are handicapped by bad neighborhoods, dead-end jobs (assuming they’re lucky enough to find work), few or no positive role models, poor nutrition, poor health, and substandard education opportunities.
*****************************

The trouble I sometimes have with individual liberals is figuring out whether they’re just ignorant, or else agree with the program of soft oppression the democrats have been pushing for decades.
*****************************
That’s because you’ve swallowed a lot of misinformation about us. One huge misconception parroted by most far righters is the notion that people can still live on welfare for decades at a time. Apparently the far right propaganda machine hasn’t broken the news to them yet that welfare was reformed almost a full generation ago.

Another misconception is that we just want to hand money over to poor people, no strings attached. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Still another misconception (which is completely illogical, but it reinforces their desire to be selfish) is the idea that a person can magically go from rags to riches, even without opportunities or assistance from others, just by working hard and having a plucky can-do attitude. (Of course, they’d never dream of following this course of action themselves, or subjecting their kids to it. Apparently they think their own kids are magically immune to losing their motivation if they’re given decent health care, decent nutrition, a quality education and a safe place to live. Go figure, huh?) 🙂

So…..do you have sources for those “studies,” or don’t you? Or do you just want to admit that you only read a blurb about it on some right wing website, and never thought to look up any of the details?

GruffGadfly
Member
GruffGadfly

Funny how your little “translation” there says I can’t refute your logic, yet the rest of your comment is a response to…uh, well, my refutation of your logic. Slick.

I’m “attacking” your willful ignorance, the rest of my insults stem from the condescending and insulting manner you assumed as soon as you started posting on this site. Oh, and where have I threatened you?

As far as posting specific studies; why bother? Your little point-by-point up there wasn’t denying the existence of them, it was attacking their credibility. From that we can tell that you stipulate that they’re there, and have probably seen at least one (based on a survey, I’d guess, since you specified), you just don’t want to admit the truth contained within them.
Here, I’ll throw you a bone- http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

I’d recommend reading the book to which that article refers, along with “Makers and Takers” by Peter Schweizer. Moving on…

As far as your second translation, “I painted three stereotypes, based on prejudice and wishful thinking.” Yeah, prejudice and wishful thinking… or, you know, personal observation, as I said. Since I live in Illinois, the majority of people I come in to contact with are liberal, doubly so among my friends, considering my age bracket. So, I hear constantly about how the poor need help in the form on confiscatory taxation from people who I know for a fact do nothing to help the poor themselves. It’s not a geographic thing, either- the lion’s share of liberals I’ve spoken to from around the country have this the-government-should-do-it-because-I-won’t ideology. Oh, except for the occasional college age kids I know who join up with Greenpeace or some other far-left group and claim to be helping something.
As far as the other groups- I live in an urban area; of all the people I know on welfare, only a tiny fraction ever actually try to work their way out of their situations. Oddly, of all the handicapped people I know, only one has ever said he thinks it’s anybody else’s responsibility to help him, and he’s fairly close to being right, given his situation. The TRULY helpless should receive some help, yes, but the people who fall under the category make up a tiny percentage of the people on the public dole.

Seeing into your bank account? Well, you’re a liberal, and since your spouting the typical liberal nonsense here, I don’t think it’s going to far to assume that the trends in liberal’s charitable giving apply to you, too.

“I made no claims about myself.”

Huh…look a bit further on the page and you’ll see where you put, “Disappointed that I don’t fit into the popular liberal stereotype?”
That sure LOOKS like you claiming to not fall into the typical liberal stereotype, one part of which is type B in my little breakdown up there.
Seriously, if you can’t even keep track of what you said, how do you intend to disprove what I say, even in cases where I’m referring to what you said (haha, there must be a simpler way to say that, but I’m half asleep)?

Hmm, well, defense of something can be seen as support of it. You’re defending the welfare state, so it can be logically assumed that you support it.

Oddly enough, I AM opposed to corporate welfare- I raised just as much hell about the Bush bailouts as I am now about Obama’s spending sprees. As far as tax breaks- yeah, against those, too. I’m in favor of a flat tax with no deductions or loopholes.

Ok, breakdown of the next bit-

1. Health care would be affordable if the government didn’t force health care providers to accept ridiculously low fees for services provided to people on public aid, hugely inflating the prices for everybody NOT on public aid. For that matter, with the restrictions on health insurance companies blocking them from operating across state lines, competition is limited, driving prices up. Revamping governmental medical insurance and removing that restriction on insurers, along with tort reform, would do wonders to drop prices. Not immediately, as it would take time for the market to adjust, but all the same.

2. You don’t spend much time in urban areas, do you? I assure you, the vegetables and such here are just as nutritious as the ones you buy where you live. Turns out, eating a healthy diet is a choice, not a situation you happen to find yourself in.

3. “Man, I’m so glad the government cuts me a check every week so I don’t have to work. Wait, what? They dropped the bus fare? Hot damn, I suddenly feel the urge to seek out gainful employment!” Huh, doesn’t make too much sense, does it? Besides which, most major cities have public transportation already. You’ve heard of that rousing Chicago success story, the CTA, right?

4. Schools, eh? We’ll ignore the detrimental effect liberal teacher’s unions have had/are having/will continue to have on public education and get to reform. Why is it liberals are so against charter schools? Is it because they’ve been proven successful? You know, with the quality education most charter schools tend to provide their students, they could have a huge positive impact on a lot of poor kids’ lives. What’s that you say? It would strip power from the far-left unions? Educating people often leads to them being able to lift themselves out of poverty? Damn, there goes two huge voting blocs for Democrats: teacher’s unions, and poor people seeking welfare because they’ve been purposely kept too ignorant to realize how much welfare holds them back.

4. Well, I’ve already tangentially addressed Democrat’s concerted efforts to keep them poor, but let’s move on to your claim that they CAN’T rise out of poverty in this system. Are you living in the same country as me? There are new “rags to riches” stories out all the time. The common trend you’ll see in them is that the focus on the story is on a person who worked hard to improve their situation and succeeded. Are there people who work hard but fall short? Yes, of course. Re-read the Constitution for me, though, and point out where “Right to an easy life” is listed.

5. Unlisted, but is it safe to assume that “affordable housing” is something you’d be a proponent of?
In that thread, we have
A. The renting option (public housing/housing projects, call it what you will) for which you can turn to the always-lovely Cabrini Green in Chicago which they just, finally and thankfully, tore down. If you don’t like the Chicago example, you’re free to turn to Philly…wait…or New Orleans…shit…DC? Damn…
or B. Home ownership (making it easier for poor people to get housing loans). Hmm, that one sounds familiar…Oh, yeah! That housing bubble that just torpedoed us into the worst recession in recent memory!

I think this level of government “help” should be reserved for felons; at least make sure somebody deserves it before you move in to wreak havoc on their lives.

Of course, the people taking advantage of these programs deserve some of the blame, as well, but less so. I can’t pretend to be surprised that people who were intentionally kept uneducated want to go for what is often advertised as the easy way out, especially when apologists will paint them as victims; of course, according their narrative, they’re victims of evil conservatives, not the programs designed to keep them down.

And no, that trouble I talked about towards the end doesn’t come from misconceptions, it, like those “types” I talked about before, stems from observation of the group being referred to.

For one, I’ve known people that have been on government aid for over 10 years, so try again, there.

Well, considering that what few restrictions we have on welfare eligibility general come from conservatives pitching a fit whenever lib’s try to start handing out money, I don’t see it that way. Especially when I keep hearing from the left about how difficult it is to get public aid…what a joke.

Again, there are too many successful people in this country who started out poor for your bit about it being impossible to rise out of poverty to be credible. Is it difficult? Yes. For reasons as to why, read the rest of this comment again. “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life.” Liberal version? “Let than man learn how to fish, and he won’t need us. Keep him from learning how to fish, and we can get him to keep us in power by tossing him some fish sticks once in a while”

As far as the parenting angle- actually, parents who care enough about their kids to want them to be a success DO push them to work hard and work well. Your assumption that this isn’t so makes me think that your womb may be as barren as your skull.

For that last bit- Well, to repeat myself, you’ve already stipulated their existence once. Despite that, and the extraordinary ease with which you could find the information if you made even a token effort, I provided a link to an article, which includes information on a book I suggest you pick up, and suggested another book for you to read. Could I provide you more? Yes, but I prefer people put forth at least SOME effort to remove their own ignorance.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Again, there are too many successful people in this country who started out poor for your bit about it being impossible to rise out of poverty to be credible.

**************************
I didn’t say it was impossible. I said, and continue to say, that it’s almost impossible without help and opportunities from the outside.

It does no good to have high academic standards, if you don’t understand the material and there’s no one to help you get through it.

It does no good to be smart and ambitious, if there are no jobs available, and no affordable transportation to those that ARE available.

It does no good to be creative and resourceful, if you can’t afford the supplies needed to transfer that creativity into accomplishments.

It does no good to have a can-do attitude, if you’re struggling with untreated depression, hypothyroidism, subclinical infections or chronic pain.

It does no good to have a school voucher system, if you can’t afford to travel to the school you choose, or if the transportation available to you is unsafe or unreliable.

It does no good to be a voracious reader, if you don’t have a computer or local library at your disposal, and your family can’t afford to buy you books.

Sure, there will always be a few people who defy the odds and succeed anyway. But, if you look a little closer, you will almost always find that they had some sort of extra help along the way.

I know it’s extremely popular for far righters to believe that Horatio Alger was a nonfiction writer, but the fact is that, in this complicated time we live in, it takes a lot more than energy and pluck to turn a child born into poverty into a well educated and competent professional adult.

KimmyQueen
Member

Welcome Back NonKenyan! 🙂

Randome-11
Guest
Randome-11

What surprise me is how BADLY this staging was made.

I mean, with them getting at the helm of one of the biggest governements of the world, one would expect them to at least being able to handle that.

Big Al
Member
Big Al

The gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

perlcat
Member

“The gang that couldn’t find their dick with both hands, and yet, there he was, second from the left.”

Olivia
Member
Olivia

“The gang that couldn’t find their dick with both hands, and yet, there he was, second from the left.”

——————————

This from the poster who accused me of lacking empathy, and being “shrill,” “pathetic,” a “zealot,” a “fool,” an “ideologue,” unattractive, a “troll,” and an “elitist,” among other things.

I guess, then, I’m in good company. You seem to resort to name calling and childish insults when what you actually mean is “liberal who says stuff I don’t like.”

KimmyQueen
Member

Okay so going back on the real story here I found this: Hasidic newspaper deletes Hillary from photo because she is too sexy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110509/ts_yblog_thecutline/wheres-hillary-hasidic-paper-breaks-the-rules-by-editing-her-out-of-white-house-photo) or some BS…

Her hand to her mouth is sexually suggestive and they deleted the other female in the room because it could cost someone to sin. This is just so odd to me.

perlcat
Member

I bet it made ol’ Hillary’s day.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

perlcat May 9, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Like or Dislike: 0 0
I bet it made ol’ Hillary’s day.

****************

And I would bet that being sexually attractive was the farthest thing from her mind during that meeting. We’re not, after all, talking about Sarah Palin here—–we’re talking about a professional.

perlcat
Member

This is an excellent illustration of your total lack of empathy to other members of the human race.

Of course, Hillary maintains herself with the decorum appropriate to her office. Does better than her boss, a fool and an ideologue like yourself. However, I do not know many women who wouldn’t be amused to say the least at the thought of being “too hot for Hasidic news” — regardless of age, or relative attractiveness. However, apparently, you have issues sufficient to put you on the small side of that ratio. Sounds like someone’s planning on dying old, shrill, and alone in a cloud of abuse and invective, wondering at why no one *chooses* to be near you.

You may have failed to have noticed that by definition she was photoshopped out of the image *after* the picture was taken, so her professionalism in the picture had nothing to do with her potential reaction to being photoshopped out of it. I sure did, and so I got a charge out of your reaction.

It may amuse or possibly perplex you that I consider you as much of a smallminded blowhard and zealot as those people driving vans around with pictures of aborted fetuses, making life even harder for young women facing a traumatic choice — in complete contradiction to the religion they purport to follow.

You take a situation where you can take things one way or the other, and you always take your ideology with you, being hard-coded into your pathetic excuse for a character. When that isn’t enough, you have to throw in a dig at Sarah Palin’s professionalism — whom I don’t care about either way, given that her ability to impact and/or lead has been effectively destroyed in a feminist sanctioned misogynistic frenzy.

All that, and to one of the few people who took the time to treat you with some respect, take you seriously, and debate you.

You will not convince me of anything more than the fact that, given how well you take any statement of opinion here, that you *do* have the bedside manners of a troll, and the total lack of human empathy to be able to take note of it. Don’t even bother to protest this — you aren’t qualified to judge that, given past behavior.

I pity the people that are forced to come into contact with a compassionless ideologue such as yourself. I’m not big on self-pity, so we’re done here.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Of course, Hillary maintains herself with the decorum appropriate to her office. Does better than her boss, a fool and an ideologue like yourself. However, I do not know many women who wouldn’t be amused to say the least at the thought of being “too hot for Hasidic news” — regardless of age, or relative attractiveness.

*********************

Amused, yes. But claiming that it would “make her day,” particularly at such a time, is rather a stretch.

By the way, there are women from very conservative religions and cultures who won’t let a male doctor examine them without a female nurse being present at all times. Oddly enough, I’ve never known a male doctor who interpreted that (even jokingly) to mean that he was “too hot for” such women.

******************************

I pity the people that are forced to come into contact with a compassionless ideologue such as yourself. I’m not big on self-pity, so we’re done here.

*******************************

I think you don’t like me because I challenge your pat right wing notions, rather than applauding and high-fiving them, as most posters do here. In fact, I’m no troll. But I do think that real discussion is impossible, if the people participating can’t tolerate being challenged or listening to opinions that don’t echo their own.

But I’ve got to say, I got a big kick out of your argument that it’s all the fault of “misogynist” feminists that no one takes Sarah Palin seriously of late. Apparently you think her own ignorance, divisiveness and relentless chase for the celebrity limelight had nothing to do with it? 🙂

nonkenyan
Member
nonkenyan

Professionals are those who get paid for what they do, as Sarah Palin does. On the other hand, sluts get paid, too. I wouldn’t take those comments of yours to Alaska

nonkenyan
Member
nonkenyan

I beg your pardon. I should have used the word, ‘prostitute’. Prostitutes get paid, too. Are you on welfare?

Olivia
Member
Olivia

I beg your pardon. I should have used the word, ‘prostitute’. Prostitutes get paid, too. Are you on welfare?

*****************************
No, I’ve never been on welfare. Wouldn’t even know how to go about applying for welfare, since I don’t even know anyone who’s been on welfare. I’m not a prostitute, either. I work at a respectable job, live within my income, I’ve never been arrested, and my personal life is above reproach.

Disappointed that I don’t fit into the popular liberal stereotype?

GruffGadfly
Member
GruffGadfly

Heh, actual, you fit into one of the BIGGEST liberal stereotypes.
Saying this is what really gave it away- “Wouldn’t even know how to go about applying for welfare, since I DON’T EVEN KNOW ANYONE WHO’S BEEN ON WELFARE.”

Let’s see if you can figure out why you’re a cliche without me having to explain it to you…

alien
Guest

you have vexed my brains, sir. I can say the same thing about welfare. How does this work in your mind?

GruffGadfly
Member
GruffGadfly

The three main types of people pushing government handouts-

A- people who don’t want to be forced to get up and work for themselves.

B- People who feel guilty (usually subconsciously, and always irrationally unless you chalk all your achievements up to dishonesty) on some level for not needing those handouts.

C- People who legitimately can’t get out and help themselves. Granted, this is by far the quietest of the three.

The first two are liberal stereotypes, and Olivia has pretty clearly shown which one she falls under.

Due to that subconscious guilt combined with their inherent greed, liberals who fall under “B” will try to push for legislation designed to redistribute wealth, regardless of whether or not the recipients are actually to the point where they NEED it.

Some fun extra credit- as much as liberals talk about their overwhelming empathy for the poor, conservatives generally donate more to charities. Plenty of easily available studies available if you don’t want to take my word for it.

alien
Guest

Ok definitely interesting. I’d say there’s another type, which we’d both fall under: We are only concerned about the quiet C group (many of these are children, i’d venture)

The A group can be put to work, conscripted if necessary. Identifying the cheats in any system is always a core challenge

GruffGadfly
Member
GruffGadfly

Agreed. Children, and those with disabilities of the type that genuinely prevent them from working. “But I have a bad back!” doesn’t qualify.

perlcat
Member

“… Identifying the cheats in any system is always a core challenge”

True that.

I *do* know several people on welfare. It’s a small town, and I shop in the grocery store with them, go to church with a few of them, and also try to help them get on their feet at places like the city mission. Gotta get my hands dirty, you know.

However, to me, the most dangerous ones are not those in group A. Serial whiners will all find a job when people stop listening. Their audience is probably their worst encouragement. Group B is the most dangerous, because they are not seeking to help people in order to actually to help them participate in society — they are helping them in the modern equivalent of papal indulgences,

To make matters worse, they do not want to lower themselves to use their *own* time/money/resources — they seek to assuage their conscience and implement “social justice” with Other People’s Money a.k.a. OPM. “Social justice” is a euphemism for “redistribution” on the theory that people that have more have done something wrong and don’t “deserve” it. I know what justice is — but when you add the word “social” in front of it, it becomes something else.

I have yet to hear from someone I’d consider to be in Group B that tithes*. Normally, as GruffGadfly says, they don’t associate with real actual poor people. This isn’t to do the old “Socrates is a man” fallacy — there are perfectly wonderful people that for one reason or another haven’t taken that step, and I would not for a minute consider you to be in group B. There’s a lot that is admirable in your character. The key to being in group B is to be unwilling to use your own personal resources to help.

The theory of redistribution can be refined down to “Money is the root of all evil”, which is a misquote of Scripture. It should be “…the love of money is the root of all evil”. A person that seeks to aid others with OPM is still in love with their cash — otherwise, they’d part with more of it, and they’d take more of an interest in whether or not it actually helps those they claim they support.

The goal of charity is to put people on their feet. The goal of redistribution is to punish success. They don’t mix.

Natch, those in group A will not complain about group B’s ‘assistance’. Those in group C quietly use what they have been given to rise out of their situation, which they often view as embarrassing and undesirable. I have no beef with them.

* (You don’t have to give to a church to give 10% for the good of our society — in fact, I personally prefer to allocate my money to the charities themselves. Saves a lot of embarrassment, should I find my preacher was skimming off the top, and I have more confidence that the money is going where it does the most good.)

Olivia
Member
Olivia

The three main types of people pushing government handouts-

A- people who don’t want to be forced to get up and work for themselves.

B- People who feel guilty (usually subconsciously, and always irrationally unless you chalk all your achievements up to dishonesty) on some level for not needing those handouts.

C- People who legitimately can’t get out and help themselves. Granted, this is by far the quietest of the three.

The first two are liberal stereotypes, and Olivia has pretty clearly shown which one she falls under.

Due to that subconscious guilt combined with their inherent greed, liberals who fall under “B” will try to push for legislation designed to redistribute wealth, regardless of whether or not the recipients are actually to the point where they NEED it.

Some fun extra credit- as much as liberals talk about their overwhelming empathy for the poor, conservatives generally donate more to charities. Plenty of easily available studies available if you don’t want to take my word for it.

****************************

Not so much “studies” as right wing polls. I guess it never occurred to you that:
1) not everyone tells the truth about how much they give to charities
2) it’s very common to overestimate the value of dry goods donated to charity (“What do you mean, it was only a smashed up old plastic yard chair? It had a lot of sentimental value to me, and I don’t think it was unreasonable to estimate its value at $50!”)
3) whenever you try to lump categorize people’s motives, it’s going to be more about what you WANT to believe than what’s actually true
4) for religious or spiritual reasons, people don’t always tell others about their charitable donations

Speaking for myself, I don’t fit into any of your homemade categories. I’m one of those who hates waste, either of money, opportunity, resources or a life, so I believe in ensuring that everyone has the tools s/he needs to get ahead. (Those tools being, not just school supplies, but also things like decent health and nutrition, reliable transportation, decent shelter from the elements, and knowledgeable resources who can answer questions, clear up misconceptions, and/or point them in the right direction.)

By the way, I’d be more inclined to believe that ultrapopular conservatives-are-more-charitable-than-liberals claim, if I didn’t see so many conservatives constantly bashing the poor, the uninsured and the jobless. 🙂

GruffGadfly
Member
GruffGadfly

Not so much “studies” as right wing polls. I guess it never occurred to you that:
1) not everyone tells the truth about how much they give to charities
2) it’s very common to overestimate the value of dry goods donated to charity (“What do you mean, it was only a smashed up old plastic yard chair? It had a lot of sentimental value to me, and I don’t think it was unreasonable to estimate its value at $50!”)
3) whenever you try to lump categorize people’s motives, it’s going to be more about what you WANT to believe than what’s actually true
4) for religious or spiritual reasons, people don’t always tell others about their charitable donations

Speaking for myself, I don’t fit into any of your homemade categories. I’m one of those who hates waste, either of money, opportunity, resources or a life, so I believe in ensuring that everyone has the tools s/he needs to get ahead. (Those tools being, not just school supplies, but also things like decent health and nutrition, reliable transportation, decent shelter from the elements, and knowledgeable resources who can answer questions, clear up misconceptions, and/or point them in the right direction.)

By the way, I’d be more inclined to believe that ultrapopular conservatives-are-more-charitable-than-liberals claim, if I didn’t see so many conservatives constantly bashing the poor, the uninsured and the jobless. 🙂

Lmao, how is life over there in B?

1- Seems like you might have done a tiny bit of looking, maybe one site or so, before you decided that, yes, what I said was accurate, but for the sake of making a point you should pretend that those (numerous) studies aren’t valid.

2- The studies hold true in pretty much every category, from dry goods to money to blood. Swing and a miss, kiddo.

3- I painted three broad types, there. Those are based on personal observation of every group involved; you really have no leg to stand on here, as you admitted yourself you don’t even know anybody on welfare. You don’t strike me as the type to willingly associate with the handicapped, either, so there’s that. Alien, here, seems to spend most of his time on here sticking up for you after you get done spouting off some nonsense and people jump on you for it, and even he didn’t seem too see a problem with the groupings.

4- No, for reasons of either shame or modesty, actually. Shame, for you B’ers, because you’re embarrassed to admit just how little you give, despite all your talk about helping the poor. Modesty from that unlisted fourth group Alien referred to, since they donate to help people, not for display.

Funny how you claim none of these apply to you. Everything about you screams “B!”

All the programs you claim to support because they help people generally work more to keep them in the shitty situations they’re in. What you call conservative “bashing” of the poor is us decrying the programs you libs set in place to spend billions of dollars to keep those people poor and uneducated.

The trouble I sometimes have with individual liberals is figuring out whether they’re just ignorant, or else agree with the program of soft oppression the democrats have been pushing for decades.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Heh, actual, you fit into one of the BIGGEST liberal stereotypes.
Saying this is what really gave it away- “Wouldn’t even know how to go about applying for welfare, since I DON’T EVEN KNOW ANYONE WHO’S BEEN ON WELFARE.”

Let’s see if you can figure out why you’re a cliche without me having to explain it to you…

**********************
No idea. Please go ahead and explain it to me….without making any leaps in logic or bogus assumptions.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

perlcat May 9, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Like or Dislike: 0 0
I bet it made ol’ Hillary’s day.

****************

And I would bet that being sexually attractive was the farthest thing from her mind during that meeting. We’re not, after all, talking about Sarah Palin here—–we’re talking about a professional statesman.

KimmyQueen
Member

I am sure Hillary got a kick out of that. It is after all funny

RockingHorseGuy
Member

They lost me when they said Hillary and sexy in the same sentence.

Big Al
Member
Big Al

Olivia, Obviously “The same facts impress us differently.” Thomas Jefferson [To John Adams]
Please tell me something about communism that you disagree with.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Sure. I disagree with the idea of the government owning all businesses amd property, and I think a classless society is an unrealistic goal to strive for.

Stereotyping again? Is that all you far righters know how to do???

Now, you tell me what principles of fascism you disagree with.

Big Al
Member
Big Al

Communism and Fascism are very close to each other and both are founded on taking away liberty and freedom and were spawns of the left. Liberty and freedom are the way to go. If you never deviate from that idea you will never be very wrong. Here is a gem for you:Ecclesiastes 10:2

A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left.

alien
Guest

From inception fascista viscously opposed anything resembling marxism or soviet communism. The only way you can conflate the two is to redefine terms

perlcat
Member

That’s an interesting subject, actually.

In one, the end game was to result in a massive state that owned all the businesses, ran for, and benefiting the connected political class. The plan for the remaining population was serfdom after all the purges and pogroms got done.

In the other one, the end game was to result in a massive state that worked hand in glove with all the businesses owned by members of the connected political class, benefiting same. The plan for the remaining population was serfdom after all the purges and pogroms got done.

Both were a statist’s wet dream — and yes, while the National Socialists viciously hated the Soviet-style socialism and vice-versa, I think they were in a way competing for the same mind-share — that of the “let’s rearrange everything and have *me* in charge” type.

To me it is like arguing the difference between Beelzebub and Asmodeus. (Or, Carter and Obama if you want another example.) Either is big Time Bad, and I don’ want either Enemy of Liberty in my country.

alien
Guest

Both are authoritarian, this is the commonality you describe. If by “end game” you mean to illustrate the natural progression of events within both systems–as they occurred in history–you merely describe a pattern of emergent human behavior that predates the formalization of both systems by millennia.

You describe the end games of Plutocracy, and Absolute Monarchy, and Imperialism. Everything about the American experiment is to counter these concentrations of power in the hands of a few.

If, instead, by “end game” you mean the stated goals (the delusional *intent*, even), they diverge quite dramatically. The fascist recognizes that classes cannot be eliminated, so seeks to lock down conflict between them. The communist wishes to eliminate all classes. The fascist is nationalist and view the state’s power as paramount and ultimately expansionistic, the communist wishes to spread organically across nations. The fascist exploits profit motive to service the state, the communist wishes to eliminate profit entirely.

In terms of philosophy, each is a hive viewing the other as Enemy. Neither is immune to the predations of the authoritarian, and neither is viable in the long run.

Of course they both suck, but conflation at this level is the least interesting way to look at it

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Big Al: Communism and Fascism are very close to each other and both are founded on taking away liberty and freedom and were spawns of the left. Liberty and freedom are the way to go. If you never deviate from that idea you will never be very wrong. Here is a gem for you:Ecclesiastes 10:2

It’s a popular right wing misconception that communism, fascism and socialism are all pretty much the same thing, but that’s utter hogwash. The only thing they have in common is that right wing Americans disapprove of all three of them, almost to the point of phobia.

Communism, for example, refers to a type of economy, rather than a type of government. Fascism is a type of government, but it has nothing whatever to do with liberalism. (That, too, is a popular right wing misconception, based on the fact that Hitler called his fascist movement “National Socialism,” even though it had nothing to do with socialism. So, in effect, right wingers believe that Nazism is the same thing as socialism because Hitler said so. I guess they never heard that Hitler was inclined to lie, huh?)

As for your comment that “liberty and freedom are the only way to go” (BTW, could someone explain the difference between liberty and freedom?): that notion isn’t exclusive to right wingers, or even to Americans in general. ALL countries claim to want “liberty and freedom.” But not all of them want it for all members of their society.

Take the Tea Party movement, for example. On the surface, they claim to want freedom for all. But, when you take a closer look, it becomes evident that they want unfettered freedom for THEMSELVES–even if it tramples on the liberty of those who don’t think as they do. For example:
___the freedom to stockpile and carry loaded weapons in public, even if doing so intimidates others.
___the freedom to enjoy all the advantages of living in this great country at bargain basement prices (even if their bargain means placing a hardship on future generations)
___freedom of worship, but only for selected religions
___ freedom for businesses to make a profit, even if it means polluting the air and water, unfair treatment of employees, or gouging the public
___freedom to send their own kids to religious schools at taxpayer expense (but not to provide economically disadvantaged schools with quality staff, materials and programs at taxpayer expense)
___freedom to think for oneself (as long as what one thinks conforms to right wing religious and patriotic expectations)
___freedom to make medical decisions in privacy, without interference from politicians, clergymen or busybodies (as long as the person making the decisions isn’t a pregnant woman)

So it isn’t enough just to yell, “I want liberty and freedom!” The trick is to ensure as much liberty as possible for all, without trampling on anyone else’s rights. Which means, no matter how you slice, dice and spin it, (1) that unfettered freedom for all is impossible, and (2) that one person’s idea of a free society might not seem so to another person from that same society.

perlcat
Member

Some of what you say I agree with.
1) that unfettered freedom for all is impossible
2) that one person’s idea of a free society might not seem so to another person from that same society

That’s what we have laws for.

However some of your sub-points are rather weak, or rely upon mischaracterization of the TPM.

___”the freedom to stockpile and carry loaded weapons in public, even if doing so intimidates others.”

I know a misogynist who is intimidated by strong women. By this logic, should we be locking strong women up, too?

___”the freedom to enjoy all the advantages of living in this great country at bargain basement prices (even if their bargain means placing a hardship on future generations)”

Very badly mischaracterized. One major goal of the TPM is to reduce the footprint of the federal government in order that our descendants don’t have to pay for our excesses. One goal of the people opposing the TPM is to preserve the spending status quo, with the new “emergency spending” added as the new baseline. Who is placing a hardship on future generations again?

___”freedom of worship, but only for selected religions”

Thats an ad hominem attack. I have friends who are muslim, catholic, mormon, wiccan, and atheist. Under our laws, they have the same right as I. I may not agree with their choices, but to force them to choose my religion is not only constitutional, it is wrong.

___ “freedom for businesses to make a profit, even if it means polluting the air and water, unfair treatment of employees, or gouging the public”

Not so. Less regulation, yes, but if you wish to say that conservatives wish to throw off all the bonds of government, both good and bad, you’ve effectively labeled them anarchists. They are not anarchists. These people have riding lawn mowers for pete’s sake — do you have any idea how upset they have to be to get up and protest? Your politicians do, and that is precisely why the slander and disinformation is happening.

___”freedom to send their own kids to religious schools at taxpayer expense (but not to provide economically disadvantaged schools with quality staff, materials and programs at taxpayer expense)”

Actually, most parents would be glad to pay for underprivileged schools — if their educational product wasn’t such a bust. I know of a school with 5 seniors, and all 5 dropped out. With a teacher:student ratio of 5:5, you’d think they could have kept them from falling through the cracks. I suppose the teachers were all pretty busy. Not sure doing what, though.

It is a sad fact that the teacher’s union’s emphasis is on increasing membership, rather than increasing teacher effectiveness and teacher salary. What we pay our teachers is a crime — but as long as we keep on adding teachers without regard to their effectiveness, we’re wasting money.

Who wants to waste money? As a matter of fact, if a parent already spends the extra money to send their children to a school where the kids stand a chance of learning what they need to know, then they already are stating that they believe that with the right amount of pay, their children can be taught. Again, a mischaracterization.

___”freedom to think for oneself (as long as what one thinks conforms to right wing religious and patriotic expectations)”

Straw man — you have no proof. Further, given that I have opinions that fly in the face of what many think on this site, and haven’t been chased off puts the lie to that. In fact, they give me a forum. Can you believe that? A Republican who openly states he’s against the death penalty, and they do not run him off with a wall of hate? Clearly there’s something wrong with this here wall.

___”freedom to make medical decisions in privacy, without interference from politicians, clergymen or busybodies (as long as the person making the decisions isn’t a pregnant woman”

Another straw man argument.

There are things that the TPM does that are not right — and also with any group of two or more people, one or more might not be entirely sane. However, mischaracterizing the group as a whole, or conflating the entire movement with the actions of a selected few is an intellectual cheat to yourself. There are good people in that movement who have good intentions, good ideas, and the welfare of their entire nation at heart. Ignoring, disparaging or dismissing them based upon what you can read on a bumper sticker is intellectually lazy.

kb
Member
kb

Well said, Perlcat. Thank you.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Interesting: you call me “intellectually lazy” for being critical of perceived Tea Party motives; yet you don’t have a problem with bashing the perceived motives of teachers’ unions.

Pointing out that trying to hobble women’s efforts to seek abortion, while claiming to be committed to smaller government, is not a “straw man argument.” If one wants smaller government, one of the prices you pay for it is having to put up with people doing things you disapprove of. Natural consequences.

With your argument that people won’t spend money on a school iwth a high dropout rate: it’s unrealistic to blame that all on the school, or to try to punish the school by denying adequate funding. It’s also unrealistic to assume that you’ll get better results by refusing to consider increased funding. It’s a favorite right wing argument that throwing money at a problem won’t necessarily fix it. Yet the top school districts in the nation, by and large, receive generous funding, through affluent taxpayers or elsewhere. Do you think those taxpayers might know something you don’t?

You argue that YOU don’t discriminate against religion. Where did you get the idea that I was referring to you? I don’t even know you. I was referring to the current right wing vogue for demanding that public schools observe (Christian) holidays, lead (Christian) school prayers, and teach creationism in science class. I was also referring to the fringe movement demanding that we marginalize Muslims, on the grounds that they could be in cahoots with terrorists, and that we not allow them to build a community center within a mile of Ground Zero.

You defend Tea Party efforts to reduce spending (primarily by cutting social programs that THEY don’t need or want)—but you, like most of them, don’t seem to consider the longterm consequences of denying affordable health care to a large percentage of the work force. Sounds like you’re assuming that those people will conveniently die, thereby saving us all that expense. Well, it doesn’t happen that way. Just as you’re going to pay a lot more in car repairs if you fail to provide basic maintenance (like oil changes), an aging and unhealthy work force will cost us dearly in the long term.

perlcat
Member

Perceived motives? Correct that to observed behavior. I have teachers I know — and am related to. It’s a pain to get into the job, and once you’re in, your salary sucks, well, forever. You hear all about how all this is fixed by teacher:student ratio, and what do you know? When it is 1:20 or better, the students still fail. The answer we are then told is we need to get to 1:15.

My relatives tell me they’d love to put up with 1:30 or 1:40 if their salary was doubled. The job would suck a whole lot less if they had the paycheck to match their education and experience. So who’s putting a stop to this? It is always cheaper for the administrators to hire fewer teachers and pay them more — even at a doubled salary, the school saves money. The only winners in this are the unions.

I don’t follow your “smaller government equals reduced access to health care for women. Especially women.” argument. I always thought that the medical field was a separate entity from government, but who knew? Now that Olivia has set me straight, I am now a genuis.

“Yet the top school districts in the nation, by and large, receive generous funding, through affluent taxpayers or elsewhere.”

You’re missing something there. Causality. Haven’t proved anything, just laid some innuendo and class envy down amidst the insinuation that more money equals better. A rich school district also has things like heavily involved parents, too. Are you saying that a parent can just abandon their kid to the ministration of a Beverly Hills 90210, and they’ll come out a highly achieving genius? I highly doubt that. You’ve got no causality, and therefore, no argument.

I got a friend, he spent a lot of money educating his daughter. The best schools. The best activities. She’s a heroin addict. All that money just poisons her. Are you telling me that if he’d have just gotten a better teacher that she’d not be addicted to heroin? I’d have to say that the best thing he could do is to cut her off until she can take responsibility for herself — I know rehab was a fail, all 8 times.

I have no problems with paying teachers a decent salary. If the performance is there, they deserve the pay. It is shameful that a teacher would have to paint houses and do janitorial work to make ends meet. Unfortunately, the current mentality is that “more teachers equals good.” Without the results to back that up, and having known POOR (money-wise) private schools with a 1:75 student ratio that graduate over 96% of their students, I’d have to say that the matter deserves more than a bumper sticker solution.

You have also been overly biased with respect to the Tea Party. If I went there, they’d accept me. If I spoke against religious bias (and I have), they’d still accept me (and they have). You on the other hand, have labeled them as the Religious Right, and are arguing with your perceptions of who they are and what they represent, rather than the actual people there. Sad,really.

Would I defend muslims to the Tea Party? Yes, I have — but there are limits — people are upset. A lot has happened to destroy any sensible dialog between muslim and non-muslim, and unfortunately, the burden of proof resides with them — because as long as they don’t repudiate things like abrogation and taqqiya, people feel they are bargaining in bad faith. Because by definition, both those items *are* bad faith codified into religious law.

We read all the time about the persecution of the Copts, the persecution of the Abyssinians, the rapes, murders and human trafficking in the African continent, the persecution of Jews, and such — but as long as their representatives here feel that there is religious justification in not speaking up, people here lack a foundation for building the kind of trust and understanding heeded. When muslims realize and start to deal with their perception issues, then we can have traction. Until then, it doesn’t matter what you call it. I’d call it a natural reaction — a peculiarly Western revulsion stemming from what is clearly evil performed in the name of a religion, and the perceived reluctance of their co-practitioners living here to acknowledge it as a problem,

CAIR, for example, now that Osama is dead, managed to denounce him as a “typical white supremacist”, but apparently is unable to denounce things like the murder of dentists in Afghanistan. They must have a deep-seated hatred of good teeth and healthy children. Or maybe the dentists were doing something awful to the children they healed for free.

As to the community center? Until the perception problem is dealt with, it is the height of cultural insensitivity to build what has been clearly perceived as a monument, not to the murdered innocents, but to the triumph of islam over the West on 9/11/01.

Whether it is or is not that may be a matter of conjecture — but the perception remains, and calling people who feel that way bigots is also the height of insensitivity, They had plenty of locations for a mosque in the city — the city certainly has no problems denying the Greek Orthodox church the right to REBUILD in the location.

Do I think that some people would always be angry about it, and resist a mosque in that particular location? Yes. But most people would at some point say that the time for grieving is over. However, in the culture we have, with a mass media that feeds upon terrorist actions, the grieving process may have to wait for the killings to stop first. We get ample reminders that they have not every time we set foot on an airplane. No wonder people are angry about it.

As to health care? I think about it all the time. Unfortunately, I have had first-hand experience with socialized medicine. You can say whatever you want, but I simply do not believe that we as Americans are prepared for the cuts in services, or the cuts in availability, or the draconian decisions associated with it. Did you know that you are making at least double what you should be if this were a socialized medicine country with a mature system? A doctor makes about what a computer technician makes. A nurse makes about what CNA makes. However, there are not so many nurses — when you go to a hospital, you will be expected to bring your own bedding, nursing, and food. If you want the anesthesia, you have to buy the doctor a little something.

When the wife’s friend went in for a hysterectomy, she spent four months there — the procedure is one we haven’t used since the 1960’s. But it’s free! When the wife had hers, and she told her friend she’d be home that afternoon, her friend thought she was being sent home to die. When she found out otherwise, she cried for days — not because she wished my wife any ill, but for sheer misery at the months she spent at the hospital thanks to the misery of free health care. Sure hope you don’t need one of those anytime soon! OTOH, maybe you’d better have it done while they’re still doing them that way. The gynecologist who operated on my wife says he’ll retire rather than take the 50% pay cut already on the table. I can’t imagine he’s the only one. Of course, maybe you could get a really cute intern to operate on you — did I mention they take a more active role?

People in socialized countries die from heart attacks in their ‘old age’ — we as a statistical body die from cancer — the next livability stage after that. My mother-in-law only got one cataract fixed — one eye is good enough for the State. My sister-in-law is a doctor who makes around $300 a month. It’s a good salary — one she spent some 20+ years to work up to! If our medical system would let her practice here, she’d be here in a shot — but our system won’t let her without basically going all the way through med school again. However, she can go to any socialized medicine nation in the world and start practicing immediately. I don’t know whether to be grateful for such high standards we have here, or frightened about the only obvious way to get more doctors going — lower standards as they have done.

From the provider end, we are going to face a massive shortage of doctors — so we will either have to lower our standards, or turn people away. It is just reality. As busy as doctors are here, it will double, but their pay will drop, as there are two ways to reduce medical costs in a socialized system — turn people away, or pay the doctor less.

Was our medical system hopelessly broken and in need of a fix? Of course it was. Only an idiot could say that it was perfect. However, I wonder about the sanity of replacing a dysfunctional system with a nonfunctional system on the basis of propaganda exemplified by a movie produced by a lardass in a baseball cap who would *never* subject his corpulent person to such degradation as to participate in the scheme he proposes for such as you and I. Other proposals have been put forth as a solution to reduce costs — but have been openly derided for partisan reasons. If there was any serious intention for a debate, they should have received at least a fair consideration before being thrown out.

So, therefore, I do not believe when any person on the left tries to justify their new and improved socialized medicine. Garbage by any other name is still garbage, and a naked grab at power is a naked grab at power — and the innocent will continue to suffer. However, as always, the “right” will be blamed for the disaster this new system has caused — because we had the temerity to question it. The left will continue to insinuate that if there was no opposition to their scheme it would have worked perfectly, conveniently omitting the fact that others affected by this discussion have every right to participate in the discussion.

I know I won’t convince you of anything. But do me a favor, print this out, and when it happens as I have said, you can read it and wonder how it is that so many can be so blind for so long.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Was our medical system hopelessly broken and in need of a fix? Of course it was. Only an idiot could say that it was perfect. However, I wonder about the sanity of replacing a dysfunctional system with a nonfunctional system on the basis of propaganda exemplified by a movie produced by a lardass in a baseball cap who would *never* subject his corpulent person to such degradation as to participate in the scheme he proposes for such as you and I. Other proposals have been put forth as a solution to reduce costs — but have been openly derided for partisan reasons. If there was any serious intention for a debate, they should have received at least a fair consideration before being thrown out.

So, therefore, I do not believe when any person on the left tries to justify their new and improved socialized medicine. Garbage by any other name is still garbage, and a naked grab at power is a naked grab at power — and the innocent will continue to suffer. However, as always, the “right” will be blamed for the disaster this new system has caused — because we had the temerity to question it. The left will continue to insinuate that if there was no opposition to their scheme it would have worked perfectly, conveniently omitting the fact that others affected by this discussion have every right to participate in the discussion.

*************************

Wrong. No one here has claimed that the new system (which was after all a huge compromise) will work “perfectly.” It will still be a flawed health care system. But a policy that treats health care as a commodity to be sold for the biggest profit possible, is not a health care system at all. Moreover, allowing a large percentage of Americans to walk around with untreated medical disorders is NOT the way to bring this nation back to prosperity. It’s an example of looking only at short term gains.

By the way, have you ever had any experience with sociaized medicine? Personal experience, mind you, not “Well, our neighbor’s cousin is real good friends with a couple from Sweden, who say that socialized medicine sucks.” I have seen it from the other side—as a patient—-and, as a nurse, I’m probably better qualified than many to evaluate its quality.

Quite simply, we the people of the United States are being had. We’re paying up to five times as much as citizens of other nations for our care—at least, those who are lucky enough to be able to get insurance. Without insurance, Americans (even really, really thrifty and responsible Americans) are often just one major illness or injury away from insolvency or even bankruptcy.

You might not like Michael Moore—-he is pretty slobby looking, and he doesn’t always get his facts straight. But he was certainly on target when he chose to shine a spotllight on our health care crisis.

perlcat
Member

I am *so* sorry that my personal experience with socialized medicine is insufficient — managing my wife’s care, my mother-in-law’s care and talking frequently with my sister-in-law being insufficient experience in your opinion to qualify as such.

Apparently, having my medicinal needs taken care of right here given my knowledge of the alternatives renders my experience null and void in your opinion.

After all, you’re a nurse — I’m just a stupid patient and the relative of other stupid patients. What the hell would *we* know? Your condescension and “no true scotsman” fallacy are remarkably poor motivation to choose medical tourism to a socialized medicine country or, worse, to attempt to bring it here without a full understanding of the real consequences to the patients — those people you apparently feel are not qualified to judge the quality or price of their own care.

Therein lies the gulf separating your ideas and mine — dysfunctional or not, our system works better from my perspective (a.k.a. the “patient’s”), and you’d rather not talk about the actual care. Just the cost. How about you talk to the people that pay you (patients) before you decide what is good for us. I’d prefer that you not try to save me money by giving me something that I and some 70% of this nation. Do. Not. Want. We don’t need either friends or enemies like that.

To throw your logic back at you, one apparently positive experience with socialized medicine, and maybe a breathless, sycophantic textbook or course does not make an expert out of you. That logic does not fly, especially in the face of my multiple overwhelmingly negative experiences with it. Ooooh — sorry — I forgot — since I did not *personally* go under the knife (wonder what new disqualification you would have come up with if I had) my opinions and experiences are null and void.

I’m quite happy with how my appendectomy went. My father-in-law’s was brutal in comparison — I’d let you talk to him, he was a wonderful man, spoke English fluently, but sadly, he died from congestive heart failure at 60, rest his soul. However, in defense of socialized medicine, the best available treatment, sending him home when he complained about abnormal tiredness, fluid retention, shortness of breath, worked real good. Or maybe not so much. You could talk to my dad, though — he’s 77,and our medical system treated his obscure heart condition just fine. Mom says that every day she spends with her grumpy old man is worth it — but to you, he’s just another stupid patient, a statistic, and when the medicine for his condition gets too expensive, since there are only a few (some 50 in the US) there’s no point in treating them.

Face it — at heart, you’re an elitist, and don’t particularly care about the effect upon your patients as long as it serves your political purpose. If this were not true, then you’d care about their opinions enough to take them seriously. My concerns and experiences, however you may discount them, were dismissed by you so quickly that all’s I can feel is a profound sadness and pity for the people you encounter in your profession. There but for the grace of God go I, I guess.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Face it — at heart, you’re an elitist, and don’t particularly care about the effect upon your patients as long as it serves your political purpose. If this were not true, then you’d care about their opinions enough to take them seriously. My concerns and experiences, however you may discount them, were dismissed by you so quickly that all’s I can feel is a profound sadness and pity for the people you encounter in your profession. There but for the grace of God go I, I guess.

*************************

My goodness, you read an awful lot into my comment, which simply pointed out that you’re knocking a health care system without ever having experienced it, or even observed it firsthand. In what way does that make you a victim, or me an elitist who doesn’t care about my patients? :>D

You accused me of not caring “about the actual care” involved with socialized medicine….but you didn’t even bother to ask me about it. I’d be glad to discuss standards of care under the particular system I’ve observed and experienced. I’d also be glad to point out to you that that particular country has a better track record for average life expectancy than the U.S. Many socialized medicine systems do, you know.

I’ve argued this issue with right wingers quite a few times. In most cases, I’ve found that they’re merely repeating what they’ve been told, which all too often skews the facts, compares the best our system has to offer (i.e., the experience of those with topnotch health insurance) to horror stories under socialized medicine, or focuses on red herrings (e.g., “We have a lot more MRIs in the U.S. than they have in Canada!” rather than patient outcome.

So how about it? If you think I’m wrong, why not explain why? Wouldn’t that make a lot more sense than attacking my (imagined) beside manner and my professionalism, and claiming victimhood?

After all, if you’re correct that our for-profit system is the best in the world, you ought to be able to explain why. Not just for those who are lucky enough to have good insurance, but also those who are stuck with Medicaid, cheap plans with high deductibles and copays, and self-pay.

perlcat
Member

I’m sooooo happy you had a good experience with socialized medicine.

I think that our particular government is incapable of implementing a functional medical system, especially given their integral role in making what we had as dysfunctional as it is. I see this as just a new version of the usual electioneering schemes already in use, with the notable difference that lives and people’s well being hang in the balance. I, for one, do *not* welcome our new overlords and their power brokerage scheme.

A few examples of what government has done:

Tort reform. A congress with any guts at all could have dealt with that. They won’t, because it shuts off the election money. Once again, ambulance chasing and graft rule the day.

Corporate welfare, sweetheart deals, and bad accounting practices that in a business would land them in prison, where they’d deserve to rot.

Health insurance mandated by the federal labor laws — how messed up is that? Most people need medical care, not medical insurance.

Most people use medical insurance as a vehicle to pay normal medical bills, and pay no attention to price — when was the last time you went to a different doctor because they overcharged you? If you don’t care what it costs, I guarantee that it will be high. That’s not the medical facility’s fault — nobody’s keeping them honest. Don’t blame them for the laziness of people who managed to insulate themselves from the true cost of their medical care.

Here’s another way of looking at it. If you got a crack in the windshield of your car, and took it in to have it replaced for “free” under your full coverage*, the auto repair place would charge the insurance company $300 for the windshield. (They have to — have you ever tried to get money out of an insurance company’s A/P department? Slow, slow, slow.) The insurance company, not being a charity, will ultimately pass it on to you with a profit margin — so your “free” windshield would cost about $600. If you went to the auto repair place and offered cash, you’d pay $150 for the same repair. A remarkable difference in price, simply for being willing to pay for your repair yourself.

I pay $60 a month for full family insurance. I have a *very* high deductible, but in the event of a catastrophe, I am covered to the nines — that being the purpose of insurance. I pay cash for my medical bills, and I shop for the best value. Why do I have to subsidize profligacy?

Why shouldn’t world + dog be able to get into an insurance pool such as mine? I realize this may be a form of hell for you — a cheap plan with a high deductible, but, hey, when the wife and I had surgery in the same year, they paid for everything (but the deductible, of course). I bet thousands of people reading this would love such a plan.

You shop, don’t you? Why don’t you just buy your stuff when you want as opposed to when you can get a bargain? Why would you blame the stores for having high in-season pricing? The people that don’t care about money pay the high prices, and the people that shop get bargains. Seems fair enough to me.

Restricted entry into the market. In other nations, the bar to get into medicine is not nearly so high. When you artificially reduce the number of practitioners, you increase their ability to get the highest price. No accident there. However, that will be broken when we stop paying doctors enough to cover their malpractice premiums, we desperately need more doctors, and the pipeline of new practitioners is hopelessly inadequate due to prospective med student’s reluctance to get into a profession that won’t pay 8 years of student loans off. I’ll get my sister-in-law to immigrate then — she’s a great ENT.

You know, I have answered you with *experience* after *experience* of my own. You reply that it is not the right kind of experience, and you know better. I have no expectations for a rational discussion on how to *actually* fix medical care in the US — and I do have knowledge and experience on the subject. You just don’t think it’s valid.

Honestly, there’s no point to this debate. You have made your mind up, and regardless of the opinions, reservations, bad experiences, and concerns of anyone else, *you know better*. After all, we’re just a bunch of “right wingers”, going by rumors, and anecdotal information.

*Something Barack does not understand — when he was selling this tripe, he explained how he drove a beater in college, wrecked it and could not get an insurance payout — apparently unaware of the difference between liability and full coverage — either he’s ignorant, stupid, or lying — and I was laughing too hard to really be able to tell what it was. The fact that the people listening to him weren’t laughing was the funniest part of all. Must’ve been serving idiot sandwiches in the DNC cafeteria again that day.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

I’m sooooo happy you had a good experience with socialized medicine.

I think that our particular government is incapable of implementing a functional medical system, especially given their integral role in making what we had as dysfunctional as it is.

************************

OF COURSE you think that, because the right wing media has pushed that particular talking point ad nauseam.

First, I don’t see how you can be sure it wouldn’t work here, when you’ve already admitted that you’ve never experienced or witnessed socialized medicine firsthand.

Second, you must take a pretty dim view of this country, being as confident as you are that we’re incapable of doing what other nations have been doing successfully for decades.

Third, it’s very fashionable, among the far right these days, to claim that the government can’t do things as well as the private sector can. But what they constantly fail to see is that the government can’t pick and choose its customers, as private businesses can. If you insist that health care should be managed by the private sector, then, inevitably, those who most need affordable health care will be left without it. Why would any businessman willingly take on a customer who is obviously not going to be profitable to him and his company?

Fourth, the far right habitually ignores the fact that WE ARE PAYING FOR THESE PEOPLE, whether it’s through taxes or higher prices, and whether we’re subsidizing comparatively inexpensive ongoing health care management, or extremely expensive damage control. We in the U.S. pay more per capita for health care than any other nation on Earth—far more—–yet we still have tens of million walking around with no health care plan at all, and millions more who are underinsured. Medical bills are still the #1 reason for personal bankruptcy here in the U.S. (though it’s popular to assume that bankruptcy happens only to “irresponsible” and “lazy” people).

Fifth: Americans are so used to the ridiculously overblown markups on health care that they tend to take it for granted that such markups are necessary. But that’s not true. One example: if you were to come to my workplace and the doctor ordered an IV for you, it would take me all of two minutes, plus perhaps $4 worth of equipment, to get that IV in you. Yet you’d be charged over $80.00 for it—-and that doesn’t include the IV fluid. A liter bag of saline IV solution costs the hospital around a dollar—-but your insurance company is charged over $100 for it. Why is this? Because the hospital has to make up for the losses it sustains when uninsured patients can’t or don’t pay their bills.

So why aren’t you hearing more about these problems? Because, based on the content of most of your posts here, it’s obvious that you depend on right wing media for much of your information—-and the right wing is solidly pro-business.

By the way: your snarky comment in an earlier post was very telling: “one apparently positive experience with socialized medicine, and maybe a breathless, sycophantic textbook or course does not make an expert out of you” True, it doesn’t make an expert out of me—-but being a health care professional, as well as one who has experienced socialized medicine (not just once, BTW) DOES make me better qualified to evaluate it than someone who’s never witnessed it, never experienced it, and doesn’t actually know how quality can be measured in this area——but is still pretty sure that we shouldn’t even try it.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

One more thing: you appear to be defending the right of gun owners to intimidate others by carrying loaded weapons in public, by claiming that you know someone who’s intimidated by strong women.

Taking your logic a step further, does that mean that we should allow gang members with loaded weapons to harass citizens on the street, on the grounds that it’s silly to pay attention to people complaining about feeling intimidated?

perlcat
Member

No, what I am saying is that intimidation can be perceptual. If I went into a bad neighborhood, I might be intimidated by the people walking the streets — but I have no right to hold them responsible for it. Being different is no crime.

Your being intimidated by a person with a handgun is not completely rational. You have no idea how many people are wandering around with concealed carry weapons, and so therefore, your measure of what constitutes a threat is directly related to your perceptions of it rather than the actual incidence of people carrying firearms while in your presence. If you actually *did* know the numbers, you may be shocked. I was.

There are multiple motivations behind the carrying of a weapon in plain sight — the major one *is* threat reduction. It is much like an old MP friend of mine said when he was patrolling bars in Vietnam — he had no chance of actually arresting the people doing what they shouldn’t — and if he did, he probably would have been killed. But as long as he was visible, the amount of bad behavior was reduced.

To deny the bearer of arms his constitutional right based upon your level of intimidation is to both eloquently state the value of the act of carrying a weapon in full view, and make a statement that you oppose his right to do so.

However. I do not really believe that the Incorporation clause was all that good of an idea — and so, if you decide that your community should ban firearms of all sorts and descriptions, so far as I’m concerned, you should be able to do so. However, I would not move there — I prefer to live in a low crime area, and those are made possible by the deterrent effect of this right.

GruffGadfly
Member
GruffGadfly

Defending the Second Amendment? How absurd!

Maybe it needs a re-write- “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You know, unless somebody complains about it, in which case, infringe away!”

Comparing simple possession of a firearm to thugs actively harassing people is nonsense and you know it. I’m a big guy, 6’3, and some times intimidate people without meaning to. By your logic, simply because somebody MIGHT be intimidated by my presence, I should be barred from public life. Now, if somebody who carries whips out their piece and starts using it to intimidate people intentionally, have them arrested- that’s called menacing, and it’s a crime.

“…on the grounds that it’s silly to pay attention to people complaining about feeling intimidated?”

Silly to listen to them if what they claim to be intimidated by isn’t actively trying to be intimidating. Otherwise, I could call the police and have them start doing something about all he kids walking around with sagged pants and dew-rags; sure, I know the vast majority are harmless, but a lot of older people associate those trends with gang violence, and feel intimidated.

Also- you defend abortion. Explain to me, really quick- why is it that if a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged with double homicide, yet if a woman decides to kill her own baby, it’s “choice?”

Big Al
Member
Big Al

When I said Liberty and Freedom it was in this context-Freedom is on a personal level but Liberty is on a sovereign level.
Do you know how many liberals can fit on the head of a pin?
Just one if you prick him real good!

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Also- you defend abortion. Explain to me, really quick- why is it that if a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged with double homicide, yet if a woman decides to kill her own baby, it’s “choice?”

*************

I don’t “defend abortion.” I defend the woman’s right to govern her own uterus (and the contents thereof), without politicians, clergymen and busybodies trying to interfere. It always intrigues me how unwilling so many right wingers are to trust the woman herself to make intelligent decisions. You really take a dim view of us, don’t you?

Most—–not all—-states have fetal homicide laws on the books, varying quite a bit in severity and extent. In most cases, the emphasis is on punishing the perpetrator for interrupting the woman’s pregnancy against her will, and has little (or nothing) to do with ensuring civil rights for fetuses. Most also specify that such laws are not applicable to legal abortions. So your argument doesn’t hold up very well (not at this point in time, anyway) if you’re trying to use such laws to prove that fetuses have civil rights.

P.S. I would take your argument more seriously, if you’d refrain from using all the emotionally charged buzzwords. The procedure is called abortion, not “killing,” and it’s done to a fetus, not a “baby.”

GruffGadfly
Member
GruffGadfly

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Anybody can play with words, give it up.

By defending a “woman’s right to choose” you are defending abortion. Claiming that along with saying you don’t defend abortion is like saying, “I don’t defend murder, I just defend a persons right to involuntarily terminate his neighbor.” No matter what kind of chauvinist you try to paint me as, the fact that I don’t think a woman has a right to kill an inconvenient child doesn’t mean I think women are unintelligent. Sorry, swing and a miss, try again.

Your second bit actually shows the contradiction- when talking about states that pursue additional charges for violent crimes against pregnant women, you agree that when the mother chooses to kill her baby (just for you) it isn’t a crime.

You call them “emotional buzzwords,” yet the whole issue of abortion is based on whether or not an unborn baby qualifies as a separate life. Since I believe it does, “killing” and “baby” are the applicable terms. I could just as easily point out your choices of referring to them as fetuses and abortions as an attempt to use the least emotional phrasing possible in order to avoid the fact that you’re referring to the termination of a human life. I’m going to have to add on to that bit from the beginning of this comment- “Anybody can play with words, and I’m MUCH better at it than you, so don’t think you can hide the fact that nothing you say has any substance to it.”

I’ll go on to point out that the ONLY part of my comment you responded to was something I included as an afterthought. Reaching for some way to save face?

GruffGadfly
Member
GruffGadfly

Oh, and take your time, I’m off for now, so you have all day to try to think of something to respond with that doesn’t make you sound like a child.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Anybody can play with words, give it up.

By defending a “woman’s right to choose” you are defending abortion.
************************
No, I’m defending her right to make her own medical decisions. If she chooses to have the baby, I heartily support that right (up to and including ensuring access to affordable prenatal and pediatric care).
************************
Claiming that along with saying you don’t defend abortion is like saying, “I don’t defend murder, I just defend a persons right to involuntarily terminate his neighbor.”

**************************
Wrong. (In any case, I think you meant “voluntarily.”) Abortion isn’t murder, no matter how hard you try to pretend that it is. The term “murder” has legal connotations, and, as we speak, it is NOT illegal to terminate a fetus (even though some states are trying hard to create as many stumbling blocks as possible, in order to coerce the woman).
*************************
No matter what kind of chauvinist you try to paint me as, the fact that I don’t think a woman has a right to kill an inconvenient child doesn’t mean I think women are unintelligent. Sorry, swing and a miss, try again.
*************************
Abortion isn’t “kill(ing) a child.” Abortion is terminating a pregnancy. Now, don’t give me a lot of right wing balderdash about “it’s a baby TO ME.” LEGALLY, it is not a person until it’s born. And we’re talking legalities here, not Gruff’s personal opinion.
And, yes, when you claim that YOU know better than the woman what’s best for her and the fetus growing inside of her, you are in effect proclaiming yourself to be smarter than she is. Just as you did when you insisted that the doctor, the police and the ER nurse were wrong, and you were right, when you didn’t want to go to the hospital but were made to anyway.
*************************

Your second bit actually shows the contradiction- when talking about states that pursue additional charges for violent crimes against pregnant women, you agree that when the mother chooses to kill her baby (just for you) it isn’t a crime.
**************************
The additional charges aren’t based on double murder. They’re based on terminating the woman’s pregnancy without her consent.
**************************
You call them “emotional buzzwords,” yet the whole issue of abortion is based on whether or not an unborn baby qualifies as a separate life. Since I believe it does,
***************************
Doesn’t matter what you “believe.” LEGALLY, a fetus is not (yet) an individual. LEGALLY, a fetus doesn’t have civil rights and liberties.
***************************
“killing” and “baby” are the applicable terms. I could just as easily point out your choices of referring to them as fetuses and abortions as an attempt to use the least emotional phrasing possible in order to avoid the fact that you’re referring to the termination of a human life.
***************************
I’m using physiologically accurate terms. You’re resorting to colloquialisms and right wing doublespeak, in an effort to lend emotional weight to your antichoice argument.
***************************
I’m going to have to add on to that bit from the beginning of this comment- “Anybody can play with words, and I’m MUCH better at it than you, so don’t think you can hide the fact that nothing you say has any substance to it.”
****************************
Psssst, Gruff: you’re not that good at playing with words. You’re good at parroting the same old right wing buzzwords, but I can spot those manipulative attempts from a mile away. 😀
****************************
I’ll go on to point out that the ONLY part of my comment you responded to was something I included as an afterthought. Reaching for some way to save face?
****************************
Now, Gruff, if you want to make accusations like the above, you’re going to have to C&P the remark in question. It’s simply too hard, with these huge forums, to hunt back through the thread to see what the Sam Hill you’re talking about.
Bottom line is this: If you want to control someone’s uterus, grow your own. It is completely illogical for you to presume that YOU are smarter and better equipped than women, to determine how best to manage their uteruses, plus the contents therein.

GruffGadfly
Member
GruffGadfly

Ha, love how this apparently shut you up. It’s been nearly a full day, and you’ve responded to plenty of other comments, so I’m taking your lack of response on this (and the continued lack of response on my original response to you) as a victory, thanks.

Of course, upon seeing this you’ll start blustering about some nonsense, but we’ll both know you gave up. Have a good one; I’m done with you for at least a couple days. Rest up, and try again later- maybe next time you won’t drop the ball.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

The Ten Cannots:
• You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
• You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
• You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
• You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
• You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
• You cannot help small men by tearing do wn big men.
• You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
• You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
• You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
• You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

So, if you believe in this list of rules, I presume that you also:

1) pay cash for ALL purchases, including house, car, college tuition, health care and major appliances?
2) refrain from trashing the president of the United States (who certainly qualifies as “rich” and “big”—-as well as all other liberals with wealth or power?
3) grow your own food, haul your own water, sew your own clothes, maintain, wash and service your own car, mow your own lawn, care for and educate your own children (no babysitters, coaches or teachers), handle your own minor medical emergencies, and decline health insurance?
4) plan to decline social security and Medicare after using up what you’ve paid into both (which will take about 5 years, tops)?
5) oppose tax cuts for wealthy investors, on the grounds that paying higher taxes builds character?
6) oppose corporate welfare, for the same reason?
7) refrain from trashing the president and all other political leaders (since virtually all of them qualify as “rich” and/or “big”)?
8) plan to stop using the sociological term “class,” when what you’re really referring to is “annual income.” That is a very common right wing error of late, popularized by freshman college dropout Rush Limbaugh.

Big Al
Member
Big Al

“More buzzwords flying around. Social programs aren’t necessarily “Marxism.”-They may just be socialism.
“The right wing media has programmed you into being frightened to death of any government programs other than a huge military, but the fact is that government social programs are part of the glue that holds this society together.” If they are outside of the enumerated powers stated in Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution then they are unconstitutional. “The Tenth Amendment [The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.] is the foundation of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

“Interestingly enough, I haven’t noticed many so-called libertarians and independents turning down social security and Medicare, even though you quickly run through whatever you paid into them throughout your lifetime, and are then dependent on taxpayers to foot the bill for you.”-Your description sounds very much like the definition of a Ponzi scheme. By your own characterization it is destined to fail. The sum of good government is one “which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” Thomas Jefferson

“Interestingly, too, you far righters don’t seem to have an answer for what you think should be done if we have tens of millions of uninsured Americans walking around with untreated illnesses and disorders.” Here is your answer-Let them pay for it.
“Somehow, you’ve got the notion that unhealthy Americans can be just as productive as those who can afford health care, which is of course completely illogical.”-No I don’t. I find a large percentage doesn’t have to be productive at all.
“And let’s not forget that we’re competing with many other nations that offer affordable health care to ALL citizens and legal residents.”-Our legal reidents and illegal aliens get health care. Go to any emergency room in a lrge city and watch for a day.
The question boils down to: do you have a sense of civic responsibility, or don’t you?- I find your idea if civic responsibility skewed. “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated. … A wise and frugal government…shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” Thomas Jefferson
“…powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated…” and “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined” James Madison

Because, if you don’t, then why are you enjoying the blessings of living in this great nation, if you lack the willingness and self-discipline to give back to it?-I have no willingness for I oppose your idea of utopia. “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” James Madison
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison

The Ten Cannots:
• You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
• You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
• You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
• You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
• You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
• You cannot help small men by tearing do wn big men.
• You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
• You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
• You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
• You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

William J. H. Boetcker
You can learn alot from some dead white guys.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

“And let’s not forget that we’re competing with many other nations that offer affordable health care to ALL citizens and legal residents.”-Our legal reidents and illegal aliens get health care. Go to any emergency room in a lrge city and watch for a day.

***************************

I work in an emergency room, pal. Federal EMTALA laws require that everyone who presents to the ER, regardless of age, gender, creed, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, immigration status or ability to pay, has the right to be seen and assessed, and MUST be stabilized.

In no way does that mean that they’re seen or treated for free. (This was a popular misconception put out there by Rush Limbaugh, clearly with the intent to get his dittoheads fightin’ mad. But it’s not true. Indigent and uninsured patients are sent a bill, just as insured patients are, and expected to make arrangements to pay it. And it’s usually a big one.)

One other pet right wing misconception that I’m getting tired of correcting: Emergency room treatment is not an adequate substitute for “health care.” It’s meant only to tide the person over until s/he can be seen by his/her own doctor. There are many tests that cannot be run on an emergency basis, and most ER doctors will not prescribe more than two weeks’ worth of medication. (Which, by the way, must be paid for, just as ER services must be paid for.) So the ER is NOT the place to go, if you need ongoing management of conditions like high blood pressure, thyroid disorders, diabetes, renal insufficiency, chronic pain, circulatory problems, coronary artery disease, pregnancy or longterm infections. Nor is it going to help you if you need a hip or knee replacement. Those are not emergency conditions, so ER doctors are limited to perhaps giving a pain shot and some antiinflammatories, and a referral to an orthopedic surgeon (who will expect payment up front for an office visit).

So, no, it is NOT true that all Americans (and alien residents, illegal and otherwise) have access to affordable health care. Emergency treatment is not health care, any more than “But you can always call the fire department” is an adequate substitute for smoke detectors.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

“Indigent and uninsured patients are sent a bill, just as insured patients are, and expected to make arrangements to pay it. And it’s usually a big one.)”

But, can you show me a case of an illegal alien actually PAYING the bill?

Olivia
Member
Olivia

And, as usual, as soon as the dust settles the far right Obamaphobes are going into overdrive, trying to discredit his achievements.
Never mind that he succeeded in doing what Bush failed to do—-in fact, stopped even trying to do. Never mind that he did what so many were convinced was impossible. Never mind that he went ahead with a risky decision quietly and coolly, without bluster, without swagger, and (thank God) without pretending to be a cowboy. Obama isn’t “transparent” enough! Obama plays GOLF! Obama looked INTENT in a picture! Obama might not have gone to CHURCH last Sunday! Therefore, what he accomplished last week (and all of his life) counts for nothing. @@

Big Al
Member
Big Al

Please state his “achievements”,I need some standup material for the club tonight.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Gee, I guess you’ve already forgotten that he got bin Laden. He also stopped the economy from going into freefall when he inherited the worst recession in 70 years from Bush. He got a toehold in reforming health care. He showed American youth that you don’t have to be white, rich and politically connected to become president. And he helped to turn around the reputation we Americans were earning as a nation full of ignorant warmongers and religious hypocrites.
Of course, if you feel that getting bin Laden (and, yes, he was very much a part of that successful effort) was a bad idea, or badly handled, feel free to explain why. And try to come up with something more substantial than “I bet that picture was a photo-op,” or “He probably went golfing that day.”

Jim Stewart
Member
Jim Stewart

“he inherited the worst recession in 70 years from Bush.” And proceeded to make it worse. He took the Bush deficits and showed everyone what real deficit spending is all about. Obama said if we passed his Porkulus bill that unemployment would not rise above 8 percent. (OOPS!) Gas prices have doubled with Obama’s masterful energy plan (see tire gauge).

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Well, at least you didn’t parrot the usual right wing misconception that Obama “promised” unemployment wouldn’t go >8%.
His administration ESTIMATED that unemployment wouldn’t go >8.5%. It was an error, but not as big an error as Republicans made when they assumed that 5+ years of war-on-credit, tax cuts and trickle-down economics would stimulate the economy.
By the way, what are Republicans doing to create jobs now? Last time I looked, they were too busy trying to control women’s uteruses, and give corporate handouts, to worry about the average working person.

perlcat
Member

To be honest, I care no more for the corporate welfare that many so-called Republicans love than for individual welfare. It’s all rent-seeking, and not only ripe for abuse in itself, is fully loaded with waste, fraud, and abuse on top of the diversion of economic resources to non-productive members of society (yes, a defense contractor that charges $800 for a toilet seat is non-productive in my book, as is a contractor that pays a lobbyist to tilt laws and contracts in his favor, as is a perfectly healthy, capable human being who elects to not work in order to collect government benefits for not working. A parasite is a parasite based upon their actions, and not upon their political affiliations, choice of business entity, or relative matters of political expediency and election schemes.)

Your ‘control over women’s uteruses’ bit is rather amusing, albeit in a tragically ironic fashion. In full disclosure, I believe that if something is alive and human, making it not-alive is a form of murder — whether that is taking it off the life support in a hospital, snuffing a senior with a pillow, or running 60,000 volts through him. That’s why I am as opposed to the death penalty as I am abortion. So I guess I’m not your typical Republican. (However, I also believe that if you have the knowledge that if you end one person’s life, they will not end other people’s lives, you have to make an allowance in the courts — why would we be so kind as to enable a murderer to continue to murder — and if the only effective deterrent is to have the state kill him, then you have to do what you have to do.)

Personally, I don’t give a damn what you do with your uterus, as long as you don’t force me to sit through that insufferably rapey ‘Vagina Monologues’. However, not only am I not that desperate, my wife would strenuously object to my being led around by another woman’s uterus, so this is a no-go anyway. (She wears the pants in the family, and if I ever want them to come off, I know what I need to do…)

The ironic part of your statement is that your beloved Democratic party has fully aided and abetted massive illegal immigration of Hispanic peoples in the foolish hope that they will be remembered and subsequently rewarded at the polls. The Hispanic people I know are traditionally catholic, and traditionally socially conservative. They do vote democrat while they are in transition, but once established, their values do take over. Your political party has made a distinct effort to separate itself from social conservatism as well as all other forms of conservatism. That’s problematic in an amusing way.

Being a member of the Catholic church does not make an allowance for certain matters of life and death. Their position on abortion is unequivocal, and not something they arrived at through polling or following evolving cultural mores. The Popes have reiterated that time after time, in the face of protest after protest. Certainly, there are people who profess the Catholic faith who also embrace what you may euphemistically call ‘choice’, but the Catholic Church simply does not agree with them. However, for matters of political expediency, this departure from values is tolerated — although extremely unwillingly.

Personally, I call a Catholic who votes for ‘choice’ a ‘hypocrite’, — on the basis that if they have such a strong difference on a fundamental belief of their church, that they cannot be a Catholic in religion. They may embrace the parts of the culture they like, but a Catholic they are not. If your religion says you don’t get to pick and choose whatever you like about it, then if you then decide you will pick some and not others, you are no longer in compliance. A Nancy Pelosi who wishes not to be shackled by the Church’s teachings she finds offensive and wrong had best leave the church, integrity intact.

Societally, a group of voters that willingly reduces their numbers through population control means (birth control and abortion are doubly effective in this regard) will eventually be marginalized. It is simple — fewer living voters (outside Chicago, of course) translates into fewer votes. Thus, over time, the popular euphemism, ‘choice’ has devolved in the vernacular to the less pleasing term ‘abortion’, and eventually, will lead to legislation that you will find appalling as members of the ‘liberal’ public increasingly wipe themselves off the demographic map. This is already happening, but is slow. Inevitable, but slow.

At some point, this imported bloc of Hispanic voters *will* vote their beliefs. That also is demographics. It may be convenient for an immigrant to vote for college tuition, but once they become part of the citizenry, and the initial backlash against their immigration has subsided (and it will — it always does) this bloc will vote massively against the legislation that their church views as anathema. This will happen suddenly — like in 8 to 10 years. As an opponent to the ending of human lives, I find this interesting. I bet you have a different word for it.

It is a documented fact that in matters of legal systems, while the Catholic church supports religious freedom while in the minority and unable to effect the legislation they want, once in power, their position is to establish a state religion and start saving souls full speed, full time. They are refreshingly honest about it, as opposed to certain other world ‘religions’.

If you think that won’t happen, then you’re quite naive, I can assure you. When it does, and we have had our religious freedom crushed, I am not thanking the likes of you, or your uterii.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

I’ll give you credit for being civil and expressing your own opinion, instead of parroting right wing propaganda.

Personally, I have no problem with the Catholic anti-abortion stance. But I do have a problem with using one’s religious beliefs to oppose a woman’s right to privacy. I’m sorry, but the Pope doesn’t rule over the uteruses of non-Catholics—so, whether or not you feel that women who seek abortions are making the wrong decision, it’s not your place to take that decision away from them. Hold all the prayer vigils you please; display all the “I’m glad Mom didn’t abort me” bumper stickers you like; pray for aborted fetuses if it comforts you; but it is NOT YOUR BUSINESS to deny women the right to do what they feel is necessary, concerning their own bodies.

That’s what it means to live in a society that separates church and state. Lots of things are done in this country every day that violate MY religious beliefs—-sometimes with the blessings of government——but I realize that I can’t always get my way. The country isn’t Burger KIng, and, just because I pay taxes to support it, doesn’t mean I’m “always right.”

I can’t comment on Vagina Monologues, since I’ve never seen it.

perlcat
Member

Well, bless your heart. Good you never saw that trash — pedophilia is pedophilia, no matter how you church it up.

What you think of the Pope will no longer be a matter for separation of church and state. Constitutional amendments can and have been repealed.

The demographic problems the democratic party has created will be its undoing. That was my point, and I’m afraid you still haven’t come up with an answer for that. When you are thinking in terms of “first A, then B”, you need to also think beyond B to the rest of the alphabet. Until then, you are being controlled and guided to a destination not of your own choosing.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Constitutional amendments can be repealed only if they’re found to be unconstitutional. And, for that to happen with Roe v. Wade, it would have to be determined that women have no right to privacy, when it comes to making medical decisions pertaining to themselves. It would also have to be determined that fetuses have civil rights, which would open up a whole new can of worms. Miscarriages would need to be subject to police investigation, to rule out the possibility of foul play. Women would be pitted against the fetuses growing in and being nourished by their own bodies. And obstetricians would be faced with huge legal liabilities, when forced to choose between the life of the mother and that of the fetus.
It’s no coincidence, I think, that the anti-choice movement is spearheaded by men, particularly strongly religious men. Most of the world’s major religions, in their most conservative form, are about keeping women subservient. And to give politicians and religious leaders the power to control a woman’s uterus is one very powerful way of letting her know that she’s NOT on an equal footing with men.
Your comments about the Democratic party are too vague and cryptic for me to respond to. You’ll have to be a lot more specific (if you can), if you want me to take them seriously.

perlcat
Member

“Constitutional amendments can be repealed only if they’re found to be unconstitutional”

That’s a silly statement. You’re smart enough to know that. By definition, if they are in the constitution, they are constitutional. The 18th amendment was constitutional. Was it good legislation? Hell, no. The costs to society were far too high.

There are two ways to put in a constitutional amendment. Neither really has any protection against any form of “good legislation” or even a protection against bigotry or other bad behavior. If they pass the relatively more difficult process, they are now constitutional, for better or worse. The thought apparently was that if people wanted it that bad, it must be OK. There’s holes in that logic.

This greater difficulty is exactly why our federal legislation performs all kinds of judicial gymnastics to pronounce things constitutional under vaguely related passages like the commerce clause. It is dangerous, because it renders the actual constitution null and void — if you ignore it *here*, why not *there*?

Many countries have wonderful constitutions saying all kinds of great stuff about human rights — but they are dysfunctional nations because they ignore their own constitutions.

As an example of the tenuous relationship with the commerce clause — suppose you grow wheat on your farm. You don’t sell it. You feed it to your chickens. You don’t sell your chickens. You eat them. However, this has been defined as ‘interstate commerce’ because you *might* buy wheat on the market, and if you do, it might come from another state. The fact that you don’t, or that you just might prefer to eat something else if you run out of wheat is apparently immaterial.

The part you are saying about Roe v Wade is also silly. That is a judicial interpretation of the constitution. The particular right it is based upon can be amended depending upon the times. Congress can also enact legislation ‘clarifying’ that the ‘right to privacy’ this is based upon simply does not exist. They have that right, and such legislation has ample precedent. That’s the most likely circumstance.

As to other precedents — the President and Congress can simply order the Supreme Court to not hear cases in those lines, stripping them of the ability to interpret in ways that the other two branches do not like. Sound crazy? Maybe, but it has happened before. Lincoln was good at stuff like that. This particular balance of power we have now is only so because we think that’s the way it ought to work. The precedent for changing it is already there, and in the face of a populist revolt against abortion, that may be one way to do it.

I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing. The worst part about our government right now is that the federal government has grown WAY beyond its mandate — and the Supreme Court, being a non-elected body, tends to rubber stamp decisions along those lines. We as Americans have already grown accustomed to the concept of “liberal” and “conservative” justices — there should be only “the law” and its interpretation. Cutting their power in favor of people that at least have to convince an electorate to vote for them is a means of regaining control.

As an example of a critical failing in the constitutional process — the Social Security Administration. FDR should have had an amendment to institute it. Right now, it *is* unconstitutional, but it should be. You can’t have blatant disregard for the constitution, and then try to revere it ten minutes later. However, the bar was apparently too high then.

I can’t see how you could return control of something like this to the states — imagine the trouble a destination for seniors like Florida would have. The only way to make that work would involve restricting migration, or diverting funds from state to state. However, leaving the funds in the control of an out-of-control congress has resulted in massive governmental fraud.

You cannot have a ‘trust fund’ stuffed full of IOU’s for a fiat currency. When things are good, it is OK, but when gov’t cranks up the inflation machine to escape their debt, the old and the infirm will suffer.

I guess what all I’m saying boils down to is this. The right (and many others) you claim will be revoked by a changing demographic. That is not an “if”. It is a “when”. Argue all you want, but there are so many ways to reflect the will of the people upon our government that all have precedent and validity that you’re simply wasting your breath reiterating your belief that it will stand.

The 18th Amendment was an actual part of the Constitution. When the people decided it had to go, it went. Telling me that it is “religious men” who want this to happen is a straw man argument that only serves for you to lull yourself into the kind of apathy to enable this process.

whiskeyriver
Member
whiskeyriver

You liberals just don’t get it do you. I don’t care what you do with your body, sleep around all you want. If you have to get an abortion every few months, I don’t care. Just don’t expect me to PAY FOR YOUR MISTAKES!

Pay your abortions yourself. You spread your legs, you live with the results of your actions. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs, gooberment, or anything else. Except for one little thing, who has to pay. You or the taxpayer, me. I make enough mistakes on my own, pay my own way, don’t ask you for any free ride, so why are you asking me for one.

KimmyQueen
Member

I am going to have to agree with whiskey on this. I really don’t have the time to care about people’s personal choices. What I do care about is that I don’t have to pay for other people’s personal choices. I don’t ask for people to pay for my stuff and for my way of life. I don’t think it is just for others to expect me to pay for their stuff and way of life.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

So, does that mean that, if you choose to smoke or be overweight or sedentary, you’ll pay your own way if you end up with heart disease or circulatory problems or COPD?
Does it mean that, if you have an aged parent who requires round-the-clock nursing care, you’ll quit your job and care for him/her yourself, rather than accept Medicaid or other government funding?
Does it mean that, if you forget to lock your car or your front door and end up being burglarized, you’ll refrain from bothering the police about it, because it was YOUR fault and not theirs that you were robbed?
Does it mean that, if you fail to watch where you’re stepping and slip on the ice, fall and break your leg, you won’t submit a claim to your insurance company?
But of course it doesn’t. I suspect that you’re very tolerant of your own mistakes and omissions, because that’s the right wing way. It’s “those people” (i.e., urban black people, liberals, Mexicans, single mothers, foreigners, Muslims, or whatever the scapegoat du jour is) whose mistakes stick in your craw.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

All you got is straw men, Olivia? Come on, write something interesting for a change.

Lark
Member
Lark

That’s it exactly, whiskeyriver. I am pro life for me and pro choice for everyone else. But I’m not interested in paying for anyone’s abortion. If you feel you need one, you get one and you pay for it yourself. Leave my money out of it. I don’t ask anyone else to pay for my medical expenses.

Olivia – Um, last I checked, if I did any of those things you mentioned, I would certainly be the one paying for my medical expenses. Unless there’s some magical little medical fairy floating around that I’ve missed the checks to my doctors are being cashed out of my personal checking account. If I have an insurance company, it’s because I have a job that provides health insurance that I was smart enough to get.

And the police? We all pay for the police. My taxes go to them so that they can protect me. I wouldn’t choose to be robbed. An abortion would be a CHOICE based on my own irresponsible behavior. I’ve managed to make it to 36 years old as a single woman and have managed to never put myself in a situation where I would need an abortion. Hmmm…. I wonder why? I’m pretty sure that it’s because I make appropriate birth control choices. And that’s what it’s all about – choice. If someone chooses to have irresponsible sex than they are also choosing to deal with the consequences out of their own pocketbook – not mine.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Olivia – Um, last I checked, if I did any of those things you mentioned, I would certainly be the one paying for my medical expenses. Unless there’s some magical little medical fairy floating around that I’ve missed the checks to my doctors are being cashed out of my personal checking account. If I have an insurance company, it’s because I have a job that provides health insurance that I was smart enough to get.

************************

z—–If you have health insurance, and it’s paying toward medical bills for an accident or illness, then you’re not necessarily paying your own way. In fact, other insured people, like me, are usually helping to foot the bill for that emergency appendectomy or fractured femur or CDiff infection. The only way to be completely independent is to go self pay—-and very, very few Americans can afford to do that.

The fact that you have health insurance through your job doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re smarter than someone who doesn’t. Not all employers offer health insurance, and that can place a huge burden on workers today, who might (quite naturally) feel reluctant to quit a decent job in this economy, and try to find something else with better benefits.

Until the day ALL Americans have ready access to affordable health care, it will be unrealistic and unfair to put down those without insurance, or to pat yourself on the back for being “smart” enough to get it. You had the opportunity and took advantage of it, that’s all. Many don’t.

If you truly think that abortion is all (and only) about irresponsible behavior, you need to go back to school for a basic sex ed class. First: not all women “chose” to have irresponsible sex. Second: many of those late term abortions that the right loves to rag about are performed on nonviable or dead fetuses. Third: no form of birth control, except total abstinence, is completely foolproof; so boasting about your “appropriate birth control choices” is rather unreasonably smug. And, fourth, abortion is not an easy or painless procedure. It’s ridiculous to assume that women would rather run off to get an abortion on impulse, than to take a pill or use an IUD (which is in effect an early abortifacient, since it prevents implantation but not conception).

That’s one very big reason I’m in favor of keeping this decision in the hands of the woman herself: because the public can so easily be manipulated into assuming that pregnant women are too stupid and shallow to make good choices. And that is not necessarily true.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

One aspect of abortion that I never see mentioned. How come is it that there isn’t any requirement to get the consent of the father of this “potential child?” It’s ok for the woman, with her total control over “her vagina,” to kill the child, even if the father is of the mind to bring up his child, with or without the help of the woman? I guess if you’re going to kill a child, the desires of the father aren’t really going to enter into your decision, anyway.
Yes, I know that most abortions are performed on women who don’t even have any idea who the “father” is, but still, this must come up on occasion.

KimmyQueen
Member

Exactly. Men are not all dogs or wolves or pigs. I am sure that many realize that a mistake was made but are more than able and willing to step out to the plate even if it means the Mother wants to walk away after she gives birth. I believe that this thing about this being their bodies and blah blah blah is selfish and egoistic. It wasn’t just their bodies when they allowed the guy’s penis inside, they shared their bodies at that point in time, and it is certainly not just their bodies when it is being occupied by a child either. So anyway I totally agree with everything you said right there.

alien
Guest

I like that you dropped in here Olivia.. 90% of this site hates me, but you can have some good discussions with some folk here (e.g. sir perlcat) if you can get through their anti-liberal flak/missile-defenses/shields/landmines

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Thank you! I appreciate your comments and information. 🙂

Babydoll102187
Member
Babydoll102187

Ok, I wasnt going to to comment but I just have to give my two cents, for whatever it may be worth…
Abortion=murder.
It is not a nameless facesless fetus, it its a human being who deserves to live.
It is not a “choice”. That is a great lie to convince women that they have the right to choose life or death because it is their bodies. The moment at conception this is where life begins.
It is also one of the greatest things a woman can do, to be a mother. To allow a woman to choice whether or not to keep that life, serverly diminishes the grandness of what she can become, because all women are capable of great love, especially too their children. Telling a woman that it is not a life, that abortion of it is ok, has robbed this country of its coinscience at its very begining. And today we are seeing our country erode because of it.
There are many things tax dollars should go towards in an effort to make this country great, but this is not one of them. The government has the responsiblity to protect its citizens, unborn and born alike.

nonkenyan
Member
nonkenyan

I don’t think 90% is accurate. When did you conduct a survey?

KimmyQueen
Member

Yet nobody told him to make things worst. All the plans were there for him to REVERSE what Bush did, instead he made things worst. So this does not play.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Worse in what way? How has your life changed for the worse since Obama took office?

KimmyQueen
Member

Is THIS a SERIOUS question? Look around you! Yet if you want MY personal story as to how things are worst since he took office? Well for one I have never seen such a steady and unending rise of gas/fuel and not only as that affected my use of my vehicle, but it also affected prices of grocery and other products. I almost died the first time I spent over $300 on the SAME grocery items I have been buying for years in the same place I always buy them. I am taking a very good look at the taxes paid three years ago and the taxes paid now, everything has gone up and/or additional state and federal taxes have been attached to everything. From water to cellphone bills. It has gotten to the point where these companies have started to send letters and note that the only reason they are applying these taxes is because the government is TAXING THEM and they will not and cannot absorb them they must pass it on to the consumer. Clothes have become expensive, I cannot buy new clothes UNLESS I REALLY need it. My money doesn’t LAST as much as it did a few years ago. Saving has become impossible. I mean I cannot believe you even ask that considering the unemployment numbers which are probably worst than reported, the fact that they keep printing money, which devalues the money that we already have. The Euro and OTHER currencies that used to be worth less than crap are now seriously making a problem for the dollar. Obama’s ass kissing as done NOTHING to stop the hate. Our friends are dwindling. You must be blind.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

I didn’t ask for a Rush Limbaugh rundown on how the country is worse off. I asked for YOU to tell me how YOU are worse off with Obama as president.
The euro is currently worth $1.43. In 2008—on Bush’s watch—-it was worth $1.66. (I know—I was in Europe at the time.) So, no, the dollar hasn’t gotten weaker than it was when Bush was still running the country. You’re blaming Obama for the natural consequences of a deep recession—-a recession that started well before he was president.
Taxes haven’t gone up during the Obama administration. That’s an ultrapopular Tea Party misconception with no basis in fact. So, if you’re having trouble making ends meet, you’ll have to look further than Obama.

alien
Guest

where is this data coming from? This is 5 graphs, each with 2 points of data. What about 6 or 12 months before 01/09? You are measuring from dollar’s rally due to global recession of the time (even gold was collapsing and wobbly and late ’08). Look at USDX over the last 2 decades

Olivia
Member
Olivia

No, Editor, my figures were based on actual currency values, not what I paid to a currency exchange. Now, you can quibble all you please, but the fact remains that (1) the dollar was in trouble against the euro during much of Bush’s administration, and (2) it actually improved somewhat during Obama’s. I travel to Europe every year, and I experienced the progressive decline of the dollar over those years.
The dollar is still rather weak, not because that dastardly Obama is furiously printing more money, but because we’re in the middle of a very deep recession. I know it’s popular to blame the whole thing on Obama, but, like it or not, he inherited it. And, so far, I don’t see the new crop of Republicans doing much to address it, other than proposing the same old failed tinkle-down economics that they always try to pull.

alien
Guest

OK i understand the scoping of your data, but i thought I understood her to be talking about pre-Obama as well.

Thanks for the XE link.. actually a pretty cool site

KimmyQueen
Member

All you have to do is get statements from before Obama and after Obama to see the increased taxes. It is plain to see. However you don’t want to see it because you believe Obama is all great. Fantastic. However, you never answered the question as to why Obama dug deeper into recession and continued to follow Bush’s government expansion policies that were SO BAD in the eyes of everyone, instead of doing EVERYTHING opposite to what Bush was doing WHICH would have led to the recession to stop or reverse itself.

Now with that said: Do you lack reading comprehension? It must be, because I TOLD YOU my own personal issues since Obama took office. Since you are either unable to read nor comprehend text, I have nothing much more else to say to you until you learn to comprehend what you read.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

There’s nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, Queen. You’re simply parroting the same all-too-familiar right wing scripting that has been debunked over and over. No, it is NOT true that Obama has raised taxes. Yes, it IS true that he spent a lot. It always costs more to fix a disaster than it does to cause one. And pretending that the recession didn’t exist wasn’t a valid option, any more than pretending that you don’t have an infectious disease will cause it to go away.
But I understand why you don’t want to discuss this any more. It’s awfully hard to argue facts and logic when all you have is a head full of propaganda.

KimmyQueen
Member

“There’s nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, Queen.” Yes, there must be.
“You’re simply parroting the same all-too-familiar right wing scripting that has been debunked over and over.” How is that possible when I placed you MY experiences? My experiences MATCH with the truth that is out there in the news and other people’s experiences? I cannot parrot what is truth and real to me and to what is happening to me. How can you debunk personal experience? You chose to ignore my issues or else didn’t understand it. You chose to ignore the truth of what I have experienced and what is really happening, becuase it doesn’t comform to your biases. Obama may not be 100% at fault, but he doesn’t get off easy after three years of Presidency. Let me ask you something if he does get another term, does he get to continue to blame Bush after another four years of doing the same that he is doing now?

“No, it is NOT true that Obama has raised taxes.” Another example that you didn’t understand what I wrote. If you look at your statements there are tons of taxes state and federal. Obama went around not raising income taxes by raising taxes on other areas of our lives. You DO realize that income taxes ARE NOT the only taxes you pay right? Even things that are called fees are still taxes. If you are paying more deductibles in insurances, you are paying taxes placed on the insurance companies. You just don’t get it.

“Yes, it IS true that he spent a lot.” A lot is a serious understatement. He has spent more money than any other President in the history of this country in less than three years. It is alarming. I cannot even understand how you cannot find that alarming.

“It always costs more to fix a disaster than it does to cause one.” That is BS to the nth degree and I am sure you wouldn’t be so forgiven if it was Bush instead of Obama in office. Obama could have reverse Bush’s spending without costing him anything even close to what he spent. He pushed for expensive healthcare reform at the worst of times.

“And pretending that the recession didn’t exist wasn’t a valid option, any more than pretending that you don’t have an infectious disease will cause it to go away.” Non-sequitur because I never express such a thing. You are ASSuming.

“But I understand why you don’t want to discuss this any more.” You also lack understanding, because I never told you such a thing. What I DID tell you that unless you are able to comprehend what it is written and not read into you what you want to read into it, I cannot have a valid argument with you.

“It’s awfully hard to argue facts and logic when all you have is a head full of propaganda.”

DITTO absolutly right BACK at you.

alien
Guest

Here’s my own bullsh-t.. Tear it apart.

1) The dollar has been in a long decline, many years before Obama took office. It rallied somewhat during the Great Recession because global markets panicked and had few other safe havens.
2) We paid for $4/gal years ago, when Bush was President. Back then, I blamed speculators and weak dollar too (now watch, commodities are collapsing and the dollar is enjoying a little bit of resurgence, but don’t expect that to last. The last batch of silver i bought a couple months back cost too much 8( )
3) Taxes have been lower since Obama. This is evident in policy and in my tax statements. Some of these tax cuts were in the stimulus bill (cuts which contribute to Debt..)
4) The Great Recession increased government spending through various safety nets kicking in due to millions of new jobless (many of these formulas are on auto-pilot.. so blame Johnson perhaps)
5) The Great Recession decreased government revenue for obvious reasons
6) The differential produced by 4&5 would’ve been McCain’s to deal with too.
7) The economy was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month during the campaign and after the election, before Obama entered office. This would’ve been McCain’s too.
8) Bush turned structural surpluses into historic deficits. Add two or three hundred billion dollars a year to service this debt (falsely attribute that to Obama if you like.. it would’ve been McCain’s too)
9) Obama seems unwilling or unable to reverse budgetary bleeding.. I still suspect they place too much faith in macroeconomic magic (inflate our way out of debt and back into U.S. as strong exporter..??)

Blindly blaming Obama for all of this ignores some fundamentals and will not contribute to viable solutions. You want strong dollar and budget surpluses? Review the 90’s through a bi-partisan lens.

KimmyQueen
Member

Are you replying to me? Why? You and I have nothing to do with one another. I think I have made myself clear on that. I don’t like you and I don’t respond to your posts even if I disagree. I don’t even bother reading them anymore. What is your problem? I wasn’t talking to you, nor do I care about you nor your posts. I am not blindly blaming Obama, but Obama doesn’t get a pass considering that he could have reversed the mistakes of others if he wanted it. Stop ASSuming. Unless I want your opinion on something I will ask for it.

alien
Guest

LOL I know you are so very special, KQ, and wish to will me away, but i’m not the one with the big problem.. Why reply? Because debate is fun, i don’t normally downvote you, and I gave you the courtesy of backing it. How many times have you asked for that?

So you can call me names, ask me to GO AWAY!!, or debate facts.. You can pretend i’m one of those liberals you are good at stomping

KimmyQueen
Member

I don’t wish to do ANYTHING for you, to you or with you. I don’t like you. Plain and simple. I don’t think I am this nor that. I just simply don’t like you. When I don’t like a person, I don’t talk to them. Why are we going over this again? It is clear that I have no respect for you and viceversa, so why do you want to continue having discussions with me? Stop it. Like I said, if I want your opinons I will ask for it, but you don’t have to wait for it, because I won’t ask. Leave me alone. I have in mind to think that it is you that puts thumbs down on random posts around the site. Regardless if it is you or not, I dont care about you. So please just leave me alone. Now in order to stop the madness if you want to reply to this, please feel free and show the entire thread that you are obsessed. Overall at this point in time I very gracefully asked you to stop, but if you want to continue, then go ahead and talk to yourself.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

One question, vis a vis Obama helping to turn the recession around. I blame much of the recession on Clinton’s desire to put unqualified people into home loans, fueling a huge housing bubble, that had no choice but to burst when the people who shouldn’t have gotten loans started to default on them. So why is Obama now proposing that we do more of the same thing? Looking for a double dip?

alien
Guest

its been months since i’ve said anything to you, and that was cuz *you* started in on me in a religion thread. That’s hardly obsessed. And look elsewhere for your downvote troll. It ain’t me.

Get over yourself. If I want to hang a reply off yours in thread I’m going to do so. If you don’t like notification emails, learn how to operate your filter. Maybe Admin can code in a Do Not Reply for you when I’m around, or maybe they like the traffic. Welcome to the internet

nonkenyan
Member
nonkenyan

I gave you a thumbs down before reading your ‘Hidden due to low rating’, because I tend to side with KQ, everytime, and you. Well, we know you. Right? I’m back. And, you haven’t changed a bit. Please, don’t ever change.

perlcat
Member

1) It began its decline during the 1930’s, when FDR took metals out of circulation, but the true criminal action was Nixon’s disassociating the dollar with gold. (Yes, I call Tricky Dick out on this one. He should have never done that.)

2) I’m blaming governments. A lot of the crude oil deals I’ve read involve up to a 95% royalty. Most of the oil we get comes from offshore (a.k.a. government lands), government lands per se, and the middle east. That’s where the roalty money goes — i.e., Government is the true ‘Big Oil’, and not some bunch of straw men in Houston. After the 95% royalty, of the rest of the price of gas, in my state, the government (state, local, and Federal) get 40 cents, and so-called ‘Big Oil’ gets 8 cents. Amusingly enough, one comment I read on a blog about that was that they essentially thought that the huge volume of oil would eventually bring Big Oil into having the biggest amount of revenue. I wish I knew that guy’s name. I’d like to sell him something. Our government benefited from OPEC as much as any. If we exhausted the oil in the Persian Gulf, and disclosed the true amount of tax in gasoline, and cut just the royalty part down, we’d be spending about seventy five cents a gallon. This oil on government lands, after all, *does* belong to the American People — why are we paying for it twice?

3) I don’t think that Mr. Obama views that as a plus, though. I especially don’t think that he plans for that to continue. However, if you look at the erosion of savings through inflation as a hidden tax (I do), and the explosion in oil royalties as a tax we pay to world+dog (I do), then the ratios change somewhat.

4) Yes and no. Extending unemployment benefits was done through multiple acts of Congress — hardly automatic, unless you consider a supermajority some form of automation — I just think of it as the bunny hug Republicans got us for failing to stick to the principles that got them into office. I blame them and Wilson on this one. Johnson may have taken the ball and run with it, but the game was already well underway as a result of WW I, and the last Republican majority ought to be horse whipped for what they did.

5) Yes. However, spending increased, too. Dramatically. Unfortunately, the unprecedented extra spending we were told was a one-time-affair turned into the new baseline — and conservatives are getting called heartless for asking about it.

6) Yes, and McCain was a bigger idiot than Bush. (I may miss Bush, but I am not in love with him — we haven’t had a Republican leader I really like in years — one that actually follows principles. Bush was OK, right up until he thought he ought to push through the bailout bill.)

McCain represents the worst sort of compromise in politics — blindly giving your opponent half of what they demand. Doesn’t take your opponent long to figure out they just need to double their requests. He had no chance to govern at any rate — the press was dead set against him from the start — because of that ‘R’ after his name. Schmuck or not, he had no chance.

I see politician after politician on the Right trashed by the press for things that politicians on the Left do time after time to the accompaniment of press crickets. (Dan Quayle/Joe Biden stupid utterance deathmatch! Film at 11!) Until the press starts doing their damned job, objectively reporting the news in an impartial manner, no Republican president will be treated fairly. Without that, how can they accomplish anything? Press coverage matters.

7) No doubt. However, I cannot believe that McCain would be idiot enough to say that gas prices were going to be higher, or that Americans would need to pay higher heating and electricity bills — the press would have roasted him. Again, Barry does it, and crickets.

8) Actually, if you may recall, our press had a hand in this. They did a remarkable job of undermining consumer confidence. On the other hand, after they did that, now they have a guy in office they like, and they reverse their story line, the economy does not respond. Because people actually *are* out of their jobs.

It may be one thing to try to scare Joe Public with a “things are going to hell in a handbasket under Bush with an increase from 4 to 4.05% unemployment” report, but as long as he has his job, he doesn’t believe it affects him. When he’s out of work, on the other hand, he isn’t believing the “happy days are here again, we’re back to 8.5% unemployment”. I can take you to several auto parts stores in town and show you several people I know were furloughed from where I work. They do not and will not believe the economy has improved until they get their job back. I’m inclined to agree. Being hard-core union people, they think Barry will fix it. Not being such, I just have one word for them: “Schmucks”.

Blatant propaganda like that is flushing our conventional media right down the toilet of history. Where it belongs. Damned propaganda outlets.

9) Barry has several major failings. He believes he’s smarter than everybody else, because everybody has told him so, and he also does not believe the public is intelligent enough to figure him out. I remember early in his presidency, a commenter said “Right now, many view him as a charming liar. At some point, they will drop the ‘charming’ bit and call him what he is.”

He also believes in the power of the PhD, but does not surround himself with people with actual experience in the Real World. At a minimum, such ‘experts’ are not held in as high esteem by the public, and the public has a valid point in this regard.

At the end of all this, gas prices are high and going higher. Energy costs are going to go through the roof. Government spending took on a new baseline, literally trillions above what it was, and our congress is unable to deal effectively with it. Barry & his administration told so many half-truths about the UBL killing, that neutral people are not crediting him for it. What’s not to love, I say.

I just hope he can keep up the schmuckery for 18 months.

He’ll not only destroy his own candidacy, but also his political party — especially as they have fully engaged lemming mode. Now if the Republicans can get their heads out of their collective asses and show some principles, we will have a fix.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

I noticed that (1) your observations are all based on emotional reactions, rather than facts or logic, and (2) they can all be traced back to Rush Limbaugh rants, shopworn buzzwords and all.
I’m sure yoiur unemployed friends FEEL that the recession is unchanged or worse. We were told, in 2008, that the effects of it would be felt for decades. Again, I’m amused by the far righters who expected it to be magically cured within two years. But things are (slowly) improving, even if the improvement hasn’t trickled down to the average Joe. The stock market is slowly improving. Businesses are starting to hire again. And it’s the Republican Obamaphobes, not Obama (he doesn’t use the name “Barry,” Mr. Buzzwords) who’s fighting to destroy unions and union jobs.
The “He thinks he’s so great” and “He thinks education is so great” mentality, as well as the repetitive whine “The media keeps picking on Republicans” is middle-school talk, fed to the gullible by right wing gasbags. The sweeping generalization “He lacks EXPERIENCE” is more nonsense from same. Obama, far more than Bush, understands what the average Joe is up against today—-the guy whose daddy isn’t a millionaire with political pull, and who can’t afford to screw around in college if he wants to get ahead.
As for your contempt for higher education vs. “the real world,” that, too, is straight out of right wing propaganda. I’ll bet you also believe that “common sense” is more important than higher education, don’t you? (“Common sense” being right wing doublespeak for “embracing far right wing doctrine.”) Well, it doesn’t. The purpose of higher education is to teach the student to think, to reason, and to separate fallacies, propaganda and emotional reactions from the truth. Those skills are essential in a true leader. And, contrary to popular right wing assumptions, the United States of America is not a business enterprise, and therefore doesn’t require its leaders to be businessmen. The last time we did that, the businessmens’ cronies profited enormously—-while ordinary working people got the shaft.
The high price of gas and oil is the result of speculation, not Big Bad Government stealing all the money. (You said yourself that you thought Bush was fine up until the bailout proposal, which means that you had no problem with gas prices going >$4.00 on his watch.) Indeed, the oil companies have shown huge profits this past year (without commensurate taxes, BTW), while the consumers struggled. And yet the GOP clamors to deregulate them still further!

perlcat
Member

Oh, good grief. I take the time to answer alien with my thoughts & perspective, and you resort to talking points, drivel, straw man and ad hominem attacks, and insinuation that I ‘get it from Rush’ as if that somehow cheapens my point.

For what its worth, I don’t listen to Rush. I don’t have time for it. These are my own opinions.

You really are a close-minded partisan tool. I enjoy sparring with alien, because I can learn from hoim. He may take opposing sides, but he also takes me seriously, and I know that when he replies, it won’t be with garbage like you’ve typed. You are not even half as intelligent or open minded as you would like to think.

Are you aware that what you babble is just as much bigotry as anything else? Until you can take anothers’ viewpoint seriously enough to treat them like a human instead of something you can respond to with the left wing version of trogloditry, we’ve got nothing to learn from each other.

In closing, I have to ask — if you are so much against Rush, how often have you listened to him to have formed that opinion? Once? Twice? Weekly? or, is it the usual left wing “Never”, as you reserve your daily two minutes’ hate for him based upon what you are told?

whiskeyriver
Member
whiskeyriver

Let’s see now. Unemployment has stayed right up there, about 9% nationally, so all that porkbarrel spending of borrowed money has helped our economy.

The last time gas and diesel fuel prices were this high was, suprise!, never! There was one short spike in 2005 when the national average for gasoline got close to $4.00 per gallon but policies enacted by the republican led Congress and President Bush soon forced oil companies to lower their prices and we were buying gas for less than $2.00 per gallon. I’m not so hopeful with the Obummer in office, I don’t think we will see gas prices below $3.00 as long as he is in office.

The higher cost for energy means manufacturing costs rise, which means Hersheys and Mars has to charge more for the candy bars fat kids like, which means I have to charge more for the candy bars I sell to said fat kids.

Since the cost of diesel fuel has gone up so much it costs me more to get the Hershey and Mars candy bars delivered to my store so I have to add even more to the price for the candy bars the little fat kids like. Which means they cannot afford to buy as many candy bars as they were buying two years ago.

Are you getting the point here? Don’t you understand that the current energy policies are hurting everyone at the lower income levels, just families trying to house and feed their children? Are you so damn dumb that you don’t understand that the more it cost for gas to get to work and back home, the less money working folks have to feed their children?

If you don’t get the point then the only logical conclusion is you are one of two kinds of person. You are a gooberment employee or a welfare patient. Either on, it makes no difference, I just want you to think about one thing: When the well runs dry, when we working taxpayers have nothing left to give, who is going to feed your sorry ass? It won’t be me, I have a family of my own to take care of.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

If you don’t get the point then the only logical conclusion is you are one of two kinds of person. You are a gooberment employee or a welfare patient. Either on, it makes no difference, I just want you to think about one thing: When the well runs dry, when we working taxpayers have nothing left to give, who is going to feed your sorry ass? It won’t be me, I have a family of my own to take care of.

That’s the problem with embracing stereotypes—it usually leads you to faulty conclusions. I’m neither of the above. I work for a private company, and I’ve never been on welfare (or unemployment) in my life. But I do recognize, as so many far righters do not, that this nation is a community, not a co-op for hermits. As such, we must take some responsibility for the whole group, if we expect to remain functional and competitive. Otherwise, we end up going the way of nations like Somalia. I trust that that’s not your ideal of how a country should be run?
I could take your concerns about the “well run(ning) dry” a lot more seriously, if you proposed raising taxes back to what they were before Bush Jr. got his ham handed mitts on our tax system. As I recall, we were doing just fine then; there wasn’t any shortage of people trying to become millionaires (high taxes and all), and no one was worried sick about a growing deficit.
If you can’t tolerate the idea of going back to those tax levels, then I must either conclude that (1) you’re too poor to pay any taxes at all (in which case you have a lot of nerve sneering at other expecting a free lunch), (2) you’re not very serious about addressing the deficit, or (3) you’re just parroting right wing propaganda, without really thinking about what it means.

alien
Guest
alien

Agreed that abandoning government surpluses was a fundamental mistake

RockingHorseGuy
Member

Come on Alien. You don’t really believe that there was ever a surplus, do you?

RockingHorseGuy
Member

So, Whiskey, what your’e saying is that the Obama Administration drove fuel prices up in an effort to combat child obesity? That’s sheer genius! I knew Obama was a genius, the first time I saw him speak without a teleprompter.

Big Al
Member
Big Al

“Gee, I guess you’ve already forgotten that he got Bin Laden.”-No,no-one is letting me forget that.It is what I will hear first and foremost and will be for all time of the Wonderful Wizard of Oz as your rebuttel proves.
“He also stopped the economy from going into free fall when he inherited the worst recession in 70 years from Bush.”-There is no proof that he saved the economy. It sounds like you are parroting the position of the left. There is a very strong case to be made that Obungler’s spending has deepend the crisis. Possibly turning a recession into a depression. Perhaps you should look up the average length of a recession.
“He got a toehold in reforming health care.”-And it is a disaster and going to be a bigger disaster. I am into free markets not free Marxism.
” He showed American youth that you don’t have to be white, rich and politically connected to become president.”-If the youth of America don’t understand that you the sky is the limit then I would argue that it is a problem with our education system. Which has been under attack since the 60’s. Please get over that he is black. Herman Cain for President!
“And he helped to turn around the reputation we Americans were earning as a nation full of ignorant warmongers and religious hypocrites.”-Now we are just ignorant kinetic military action mongers and I will pray for you-Not! lol.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

More buzzwords flying around. Social programs aren’t necessarily “Marxism.” The right wing media has programmed you into being frightened to death of any government programs other than a huge military, but the fact is that government social programs are part of the glue that holds this society together. Interestingly enough, I haven’t noticed many so-called libertarians and independents turning down social security and Medicare, even though you quickly run through whatever you paid into them throughout your lifetime, and are then dependent on taxpayers to foot the bill for you.
Interestingly, too, you far righters don’t seem to have an answer for what you think should be done if we have tens of millions of uninsured Americans walking around with untreated illnesses and disorders. Somehow, you’ve got the notion that unhealthy Americans can be just as productive as those who can afford health care, which is of course completely illogical. And let’s not forget that we’re competing with many other nations that offer affordable health care to ALL citizens and legal residents.
The question boils down to: do you have a sense of civic responsibility, or don’t you? Because, if you don’t, then why are you enjoying the blessings of living in this great nation, if you lack the willingness and self-discipline to give back to it?

kb
Member
kb

Talk about talking points and buzzwords….take your own advice, Olivia.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

“He showed American youth that you don’t have to be white, rich and politically connected to become president.”

Yep, he showed them alright. Not only do you not have to be white, rich, and politically connected,………..oh, wait. Ok, so you don’t have to be white. Or at least you don’t have to be more than half white. As for the rich and connected part, check your facts.

And we would LOVE to see your facts, with documentation please, that shows that he was “very much a part of that successful effort.”

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Sorry, let me reword that: He showed American youth that you don’t have to be BORN white, rich and politically connected to become president.

Whether or not you choose to believe it, that was by no means a “given” to American children who weren’t born any of those things. And, certainly the Republican party, with their usual lineup of greedy old white men who were born or married into money, has done nothing to convince those kids otherwise.

perlcat
Member

“And, certainly the Republican party, with their usual lineup of greedy old white men who were born or married into money, has done nothing to convince those kids otherwise.”

Sorry, I have trouble turning that into something I can use to tell the difference between the two political parties. A lot of trouble. Instead, I think both are part and parcel of an american elite political class whose goals and aims runs counter to everything this country stands for.

This kind of says what I think we’re dealing with. And remember, nobody named Rush was referenced in this rant. (oops — I just referenced Rush. Oops. Did it again…)

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print

alien
Guest
alien

this is not the place to celebrate bin Laden’s death, most assuredly

perlcat
Member

I’m a little confused by that statement.

I personally don’t particularly care about his death, believe it or not — glad that the islamofascists lost their figurehead, but I highly doubt that he played that great of a role in the past several years — he spent a lot of the time holed up and walled off from the world. Sure, he came out with a rant from time to time, but I think time will show that al-qaida kept him as in the dark as possible.

It’s useful to control the information to your figurehead — he remains the target, and you can operate “in his name” with relative anonymity. Now that he’s gone, we will have a whole laundry list of people we need to find and hopefully snuff.

The maniacs have operated quite well without his active leadership — so his death doesn’t mean as much as many people hope it will. In terms of symbolism, it has weight — but in terms of putting an end to terrorism, it just moves the problem down the line. In fact, if his underlings were doing what I suspect (controlling what he knows), then his computers and other media are going to be effectively useless, except placing our military in the position of being the tool to consolidate power by weeding out ‘undesirables’ in their organization.

My guess is that UBL became a figurehead on the day that he left the cave and moved down to “Hey, Abbot-abad”. He probably knew no more about their operations than the average viewer of that ridiculous islamic satellite ‘news’ station, and his guards had orders to snuff him if he ever came close to being able to talk to interrogators so we wouldn’t find that out.

If you want to study intrigue, read persian history. They wrote the book on that kind of underhanded shit.

alien
Guest

heh, you always snag me when i’m being glib on mobile, and too lazy to elaborate/type.

So, Bar vs Internet. I’m thinking of pure and vengeful crowing, the kind we partook in at happy hour after work last Tuesday. It was more about the badassery of Navy seals then Obama vs Bush. We contemplated turning Bin Laden into Bacon, Deadwood style, by throwing him into the trough. We thought Obama played it more like the Israelis would, except then he blew that by immediately announcing the results and mildly exalting in the response. We thought Bush fell upon Afghanistan like an avenging angel (even as Agnostic I can get chills over a Wrath so righteous it almost seems *holy*)

Someone at another table was looking up headshot recipes and wondering if bartender knew how to make one.

That fun is bled dry on most of the internets.. Its not particularly fun here.. (someone saying Obama lost his soul-mate and now is in mourning.. that makes no sense even in bad comedy). Its way worse on TheBlaze and there’s too much kneejerk anti-Bush mewling elsewhere. A lot of people are simply angry, or just too pleased with themselves, that Obama gave the final order and not Bush

So, apologies, i don’t mean to sound like I’m just talking about this site. People act differently in bars then internet

perlcat
Member

Yep, alcohol is definitely a factor.

I was a bit disturbed by all the celebration — I understand the why of it, and I would not tell people to not be glad — but I saw it as something that was inevitable — eventually, they would find him, and the plan for him was already well known.

I guess I am not very bloodthirsty. I try to avoid most of the parts of our culture that are — we as a people have no idea how desensitized we have become to violence thanks to what passes for ‘entertainment’ in these parts. Ever since I turned the TV off, and made a conscious effort to avoid violent media, scenes such as this stand out, However, I like myself more as a consequence.

Olivia
Member
Olivia

Well, we found some common ground, Perlcat. I was relieved that bin Laden is no longer a threat to us or anyone else, but I can’t and won’t exult over anyone’s violent death.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

But you got to admit, this is funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfF1vkMQ0h0

GruffGadfly
Member
GruffGadfly

Never mind that he would have been politically destroyed if he hadn’t given the kill order…

Never mind that the info that lead to the operation in the first place was obtained through the methods and policies set in place by the Bush administration….

Never mind that nobody (nobody intelligent, anyway) thought it was impossible.

Never mind that there was almost zero personal risk involved with giving the order, as opposed to the utter ruin that would come to him if he had the opportunity and failed to take it.

Never mind that he’s been swaggering about it since it happened (yeah, the plan to not discuss the details of the op held together for all of a day, well played there.)

Never mind that the Congress that ate out of his hand routinely shut GOP lawmakers out of key discussions and decisions.

Never mind…just never mind, right?

You keep whining about all of us being conservative propagandists, yet all you ever offer is the same low-level liberal propaganda used to shepherd the easily influenced into the democrat’s pens.

Oh, a couple quick bits about your other comments later in this thread-

Buying into insurance, since it is a choice, doesn’t fall under the category of forcing others to pay for you.

So long as the killing of a pregnant woman = double homicide, abortion = murder. See, whether or not that child counts as a life or not doesn’t change with the opinion of the woman who happens to be carrying it. Oh, and I’m agnostic, so you can skip the part where you claim I’m only pro life because some clergyman tells me to be.

This recession that Obama inherited from Bush? Oh, this is one of my favorites. Yeah, the seeds for that were planted by your previous liberal golden boys, Carter and Clinton. The Community Reinvestment Act. Heard of it? Put into place by Carter, turned into an economy-ruining nightmare by Clinton. It was passed by the democrats in order to make sure people who couldn’t pay off loans…got loans…. Makes sense, right? So, housing bubble grows, bubble bursts, and viola! Economy down the shitter. Then, get a bunch of liberal talking heads and at least one incompetent presidential candidate (who can’t stop talking about “hope” and “change” for some reason or another) on tv screaming about a depression, and you shoot consumer confidence all to hell. Low consumer confidence= lower levels of consumption= economic downturn during a time when the economy is already screwed due to the aforementioned housing bubble. I’ll grant you the fact that Bush HELPED [censored] it up, but then again, he was an economic liberal, so that’s to be expected.

Seriously, if you want to argue with conservatives, do your homework and get a damn clue. Sorry, you just aren’t up to par.

rs
Member

This administration is as transparent as mud!

Babydoll102187
Member
Babydoll102187

AH HA! So the media really is Pres Obama’s PR reps! I knew it( insert sarcasm here:) )

KimmyQueen
Member

This is just WEIRD!!!!! Everything about this man is just so fake and weird.

hardwurkindaddy
Member
hardwurkindaddy

By the look on Hilary’s face they probably dug up some old White House footage of Bill and Monica.

whiskeyriver
Member
whiskeyriver

Nah, they are watching an old porn movie starring “Long” John Holmes. Shillery looks like she is wishing she could have met him, the men are glad they don’t have to compete with him.

perlcat
Member

Maybe Hillary didn’t pay the extortion money, and they’re watching ‘Bill & Hillary make a porno’.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

So much for the egg and bean burrito I was having for breakfast. You just took away my appetite, Perlcat.

perlcat
Member

Sorry about ruining a perfectly good burrito.

perlcat
Member

I can only imagine how this went out over the PA system:

“Photo op in the situation room, code red, stat!”

DJ
Guest
DJ

I think they were Rickrolled.

perlcat
Member

I was thinking that it was Barry unveiling his NFL fantasy football draft picks.

Hillary is gonna be *so* screwed this year in her FFL. Barry is, after all, a man of absolute magnitude. (props for those that know where that line comes from)

LA Sunset
Member

I think this is a shot of them watching the first round of the NCAA Tourney. You know, when there’s a shit load of game on during working hours.

Big Al
Member
Big Al

Barry-“Couldn’t you this have waited till after my golf game?”

AZ Dude
Member
AZ Dude

Funny you should say that, Big Al because in the WSJ this past Tuesday, buried within an article about the raid, it was stated that after President Obama gave the final “go” for the mission early on Sunday, Leon Panetta went to church while the President left to “play nine holes of golf.” I’m shocked–shocked I tell you–by this revelation.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

I get the feeling that the director who put together the top photo told Obama to look like he was rousted out of bed for this one. You know, working overtime to keep us safe.