Audiovisual Commentary on Healthcare in the US
I really enjoyed the Fresh Air interview with T.R. Reid, author of The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care. He does a good job of cutting through the B.S.
So does Kevin Drum, in Back to Basics:
Let’s recap: the United States spends about twice as much on healthcare as any other developed nation in the world and in return receives just about the worst care. Can someone remind me again why there’s even a debate about whether we should put up with this?
Finally, as I think about a good friend of mine who’s currently in the hospital, I keep hearing Matthew Good’s “99% of Us Is Failure”. Here’s a live solo version:
August 31st, 2009 at 6:29 am
Show’s over folks, we can all go home, Drum has declared the debate finished, all that is left to do is socialize it. Just like global warming, when the liberal says the debate is done, it’s done.
What would it be like to play a game of football with the opposing coach being a liberal like Drum or JBC. The game has been a back and forth affair, one team is a few points ahead for a while and then they are behind, it is early in the fourth quarter and your team is ahead by a couple touchdowns, there is still a lot of time left so you aren’t yet comfortable with your lead. The liberal coach calls a timeout and walks on the field to the umpire, he says “look ump, we’re better players, my guys went to better schools, we flew in on a nicer plane than our opponents, we’re just better, only an idiot would disagree, so I’m going to declare this game over and my team the winners.” He then turns to his team and tells them to get on the bus, plane leaves in an hour.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:41 am
“when the liberal says the debate is done, it’s done.”
Yeah, liberals are the only ones who have ever done anything like that. (I wish the Internet could show you just how far my eyes rolled while I was writing that.)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/18/rumsfeld/
“I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best.”
August 31st, 2009 at 8:37 am
wwnj, dumbest analogy yet
Smith, the frothing mouth brigade waving their guns around the recent townhalls cannot be reasoned with. By using facts (liberal!) and math (liberal!) you present information that the wwnj brain simply cannot process.
Example: several times folks have boiled the ‘debate’ down to a single sentence like “the United States spends about twice as much on healthcare as any other developed nation in the world and in return receives just about the worst care”. Right there you have math (almost 2:1!) and fact (worse care). You won’t get wwnjs to ‘debate’ this in any meaningful way. Partially because they are all-in on defeating scary brack man and partially because they’ve ginned this up to something like ‘if the O-nazis reduce the growth of healthcare costs and cover everyone, it is the worstest tyranny ever! also!’
We elected some folks who said they’d change things. Let’s make sure the change is for the better. A larded compromise
We don’t need more Democrats, we need more liberals.
I looked up that Bill Maher quote that pretty much sums it up:
August 31st, 2009 at 8:40 am
whoops
a larded compromise bill will make things worse, not better. A public option is needed to squeeze a few percent of the profit and greed out of health ‘insurance’.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:30 am
“and in return receives just about the worst care” no debate should be available for a sobering fact like that, we’re done here. the worst except in the area of quality of care, but why should that be an important factor when there’s socialize’n to be done. Nothin left to talk about once that’s on the table.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:48 am
“quality of care” means that rich patients undergoing a hang-nail removal procedure will find a chocolate on the pillow of their private hospital beds each night.
“quality of care” was such a meaningless measure relative to the other measures (i.e. patient health outcomes) that it seems to have been dropped from the WHO analysis.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:12 am
truly, like having a ‘debate’ with the dining room table
enjoy your stay in the Wingnutoverse
August 31st, 2009 at 10:30 am
Mathew Good: One of our greatest exports, right up there with Pam Anderson. Although I think her chest was made in the good ole USofA lol. I think that’s one of those health innovations shcb refers to that the world would be lost without.
Nice post!
September 3rd, 2009 at 5:02 am
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/03/rangel-prejudice-obama-halting-health-care-reform/
Sigh…
September 6th, 2009 at 5:34 am
Rosen went out on a limb on Friday saying that Van Jones would be fired within 48 hours, well it was the kind of limb that is big enough for you and your buddy and a case of beer to sit on all day fishing. This was kind of a no brainer since we have seen Obama be fairly pragmatic when it comes to getting rid of liabilities, he tossed his pastor of twenty years under the bus in a heartbeat for just being a racist, this guy had a lot more strikes against him than that. As usually happens in these cases it wasn’t the publicized act that got him fired, it was all the stuff that had passed under the radar of the media, of course we are talking about a media that is as proficient as Sergeant Shultz of Hogan’s Heroes running said radar “I see nothing, nothing!” Being a truther was one thing, but at some point him admitting to being a communist was going to come out (East Bay Express, 2005). We can’t have communists in the administration trying to socialize as much as they can, as quickly as the can. Doesn’t look good to the unwashed, pitchfork wielding masses.
Charles Krauthammer had a good piece the other day on the messiah being a mere mortal. It’s way too early to declare him a one term president but at least it doesn’t appear he’s a shoe in either.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/04/obama_the_mortal_98160.html
September 6th, 2009 at 5:41 am
and some interesting stats from Morris
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/09/03/poll-disaster-for-obama/
September 7th, 2009 at 7:55 am
BTW I’ve always thought Canada’s greatest export is Alex Tilley, I’m on my 4th hat with 3 of them still going strong. When they say don’t use bleach, they mean it. I’m rarely outside without one of them covering the ole bald spot.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
I thought basketball was our greatest export… ;-)
September 7th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
More “innovation” from the Germans? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17739-extreme-steel-velcro-takes-a-35tonne-load.html
September 7th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
This sounds really good, also from Boing boing – Al Franken talks down objectors to health care reform using reason and civil discourse. Listened to 3 minutes of it and it’s good, but then lost interest cuz I’m not American and the USA health care debate is getting boring – but if you’re American you might get something from this.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:47 am
Now that I’m interested in. We make building facades in Europe, that may be something we can use. I’ll send this to my guys over there. I may even be able to use it on ceilings. I wonder how you can get it off of you can’t peel it though? The way we hang metal ceilings is twenty year old technology so I’ve been designing new ways to hang it in my spare time this year, I’ve been reinventing the wheel but this would be different. So far I’ve only come up with one idea that looks patentable.
Thanks
Basketball? Was Michael Nesmith Canadian? Now he was a Monkey, but another Nesmith invented basketball didn’t he? Michael Nesmith’s mother invented liquid paper. But I reeeeally digress.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:29 am
James Naismith invented basketball in Ontario, Canada in the 1860s.
Back to hc, look what I just read on my lunch hour:
The fight over health care overhaul is on track be the most expensive issue ever to hit the hallways of Congress.
The bill for lobbyists, television ads and political donations has topped $375 million — or enough to pay the entire insurance tab for about 30,000 families a year.
The big spenders range from drug companies, hospitals and doctor groups to organizations that advocate for unions, immigrants and retirees.
The largest chunk has gone to direct lobbying of lawmakers and other policymakers. In the first half of 2009, the health care industry spent nearly $280 million on lobbyists , according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
*shakes head in disgust*
September 8th, 2009 at 11:05 am
not a penny at taxpayer expense, there is a lot at stake here, it cost a lot to play the game in American politics
September 8th, 2009 at 11:11 am
sure wwnj, when I want a toe sucking asshole to give me biased political opinion, I’ll be sure to look up Dick Morris. Or when I want a screaming maniac like Charles Krauthammer, you’ve been kind enough to send many links to his screetchings. Or if i want to check the propaganda arm of the GOP, I’ll tune into FauxNEWZ We Distort, You Deride!
Speaking of FauxNEWZ, Glen (bonkers) Beck has been frothing at the mouth about Obama’s Seekrit Army of Scary Black Folk! for months now. Anyone recall the segment where he shows ‘militant’ black guys at a townhall in PA, where he calls these guys Black Panthers and Obama’s ‘army’ (blah blah blah).
Turns out they are actually dancers… lol
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/glenn-becks-scary-negro-militants-tu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JdlxRzH6T4
Conservatard bedwetters better just take a deep breath and stfu for a while.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:13 am
“In the first half of 2009, the health care industry spent nearly $280 million on lobbyists”
I wonder what kind of impact this has on health care costs.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Excellent question, Smith.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:42 am
And you’re right, shcb, it does cost a lot to play the game. But I thought democracy was supposed to be about debating ideas. I guess whoever has the most money – not necessarily the best idea – wins?
September 8th, 2009 at 11:48 am
.0139%
September 8th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Or coverage for 30,00 families.
And that’s only the first half of 2009… July – August aren’t included in that amount.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
It’s about 93 cents per person (figuring 300m people so it is probably a few cents less). You could cut that in half if you tell your side to stop promoting socialized care, that would be fine with me.
41,672 people so about 10,000 families
September 8th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
“I thought democracy was supposed to be about debating ideas.”
In politics, you debate with your wallet.
September 9th, 2009 at 6:24 am
NL,
It’s all part of this free speech thing, we believe that you not only have the right to say what you want, but you have the right to say it in the way you want, within reason of course. If two men have opposing views of an issue they not only have the right to stand at either end of the town square and tell their view, they have the right to decide how they want to make their presentation. This right also extends to how this production is paid for. If I like what one man is saying I have the right to buy him a bull horn so his voice is heard better than his opponent.
You said “the best idea” but what is the best? That depends on your objectives. Both men could have the “best” idea for their objectives, both could be totally honest and truthful and yet totally opposite in their approach given their different objectives. It isn’t governments place to decide who has the “best” idea. If you perceive money in politics as a problem there is no solution to that problem without limiting the rights of the candidates or their donors, then that becomes a debate in and of itself, with both sides having different objectives….
September 9th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Interesting opinion piece in Salon:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/09/09/healthcare/
September 9th, 2009 at 8:59 am
shcb, I’m not saying anyone should restrict free speech, not sure where that came from. Indeed I completey agree that democracy should be about “who shouts the loudest”. But in this day and age, that means whoever has the most money to spread whatever information they want – facts be damned. A segment of your population is being drowned out by corporations. I don’t think that’s good for any country. I don’t really expect you to understand, since the side you’re on happens to have all the money right now. Maybe one day you’ll be on the other side.
Not only do I think we have a better hc system, I think you could learn a lot from our campaign finance laws as well :)
September 9th, 2009 at 9:30 am
But those are just platitudes, Obama outspent McCain by a long shot, in fact one of the reasons he was able to do so was because McCain limited himself to those campaign finance laws (I think, correct me if I’m wrong Smith).
“A segment of your population is being drowned out by corporations.”
How so? What is a corporation? It’s a bunch of people working for a common goal, what is a government, it’s the same thing, most of your solutions are to replace corporations with a larger corporation, government.
I work for a corporation with a world wide employment of several thousand and yet when I asked to help the owner carry his bags up the stairs once he said in his Dutch accent “I have two good arms” my corporation is owned by a man and his two sons, they have faces and they have names. I owned a corporation, it had a world wide employment of 6 at its height. My wife currently owns a corporation, it has a world wide employment of 1. They are all owned by people with faces and names. My stock is invested in corporations, corporations I expect to make a profit. There, I said it, the evil 6 letter word, profit. Profit I have used to make my own retirement, by automobiles, a house on acreage, raise kids and put them through college. Thirty years ago I crested the hill outside Denver in a Chevy Vega with an engine I had rebuilt myself, all my belongings in the world in two cardboard boxes and said “I’m going to own this town some day” well, that was a little optimistic but profit has allowed me to realize more success than I rationally ever expected.
September 9th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Go back and read what I said, if you limit the amount someone can spend, either the candidate or the donor, you are limiting free speech.
September 9th, 2009 at 11:15 am
What? What does a conversation over campaign finance laws/corporate influence have to do with restricting free speech? What if everyone was given the same amount of money (public financing) and then let the most appealing person win?
Why does every conversation with someone on the far right turn into a battle over free speech, facism, socialism and all that crap?
Comparing government to a corporation doesn’t make sense to me either. If people aren’t happy with the government and the way it’s behaving they vote them out of office. It’s that whole “power to the people thing”.
How can “Joe Six-pack” compete against a multi-billion dollar corporation
September 9th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Joe six pack sends his 20 bucks to a PAC, the Sierra club, one of Soros’ groups, the NRA, NFIB, AARP or any other lobbying group and he and a few thousand or million like him are suddenly on the same playing field as the corporation.
If people don’t like what a corporation is doing they don’t buy their product or they quit their job, they don’t have to wait until the next election.
The Supreme Court has ruled that money given to a political party is free speech, if you, Canada or the United States wants to limit that free speech that is your prerogative but it is limiting that speech.
Your second paragraph was another platitude. But to answer your question in generalities, it is only when we are discussing politics with liberals that everything turns to whatever buzzword you want to use. Liberals are socialists, conservatives aren’t, so whatever your point is we are probably going to disagree on the grounds that your view is socialistic because it is, just as you toss out corporatism as a pejorative.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
The problem with giving all the candidates the same money is that you will also have to eliminate the free speech of unions, political parties, clubs and associations and individuals.
The teacher’s union on the left or the NRA on the right wouldn’t be able to put out adds supporting one candidate or issue or the other because in essence they are campaigning for one candidate or the other, spending money on one candidate or issue or the other
would have to be accounted for in the limits or banned. If you limit money, how do you determine which issue goes with which candidate? If one Republican from the west supports gun rights and a Republican from the east doesn’t how do you determine who gets the tab for the money the NRA spends? As soon as you limit the amount a group of citizens can spend you would definitely be limiting free speech. To take it to the absurd extreme, if you ban spending by groups, they couldn’t even hold a meeting or put out a newsletter if there was mention of any political issue in that letter or at that meeting which would defeat the whole purpose of most of these groups. This would eliminate the ability to organize and fight the good fight for the cause you believe in, whatever that cause is. You sure you want that?
September 9th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
You libs just don’t get it: RIGHT wing, it sez RIGHT right on the label, see?
knarls and NL, I think this says it pretty well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXXBCFnhsUc
I love the accent of Linda Silas (sounds like some of my relatives =)
Why can’t I buy into Medicare again?
What wonders have obscene ‘insurance’ company profits and 31% of every dollar spent on administration costs actually brought us?
Universal healthcare. We can afford it twice over if we drop the bush tax cuts for the very rich (OK, keep the smaller cuts for Joe Sixpack, we’d still have tons of money left over).
This chart says it all:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/study-bush-tax-cuts-cost-more-twice-m
Tell you what, if you righties don’t want the public option, don’t take it. Do nothing. Great. Make sure you don’t collect Medicare or Social Security either. Remember when gwb’s Very Bright Idea was to sink Social Security into the stock market? How would that have turned out in the last 12 months or so?
September 9th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
if overhead in the US is 31% and it is 8% in Canada, and we are going to a Canadaian system that should save almost a half trillion dollars every year (441 billion) why do we need to raise taxes on anyone? seems we will be getting a refund.
September 9th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Shoot, we’ll have the stimulus bill paid off in a couple years.
September 9th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
shcb, if I remember correctly the comparable overhead figure in the Cdn system (c. 1997) was about 16%, so based on your 441 figure the savings would be more like $288 billion. That’s if you move to a Canadian type system… which LB is sure will never happen. I’d agree, because US health insurers & big pharma have deep enough pockets to dominate the debate by about 100 decibels for the next 100 years and thus prevent any real savings from being implemented. Unless somehow you wwnj’ers could be motivated to get on-side, how about instead of your cynical talk about refunds why don’t you think of all the extra wars the next Republican president (if there is another R president) could fund with $288 billion. That’s one or two gigantic military operations each year! Yee-ha!
September 9th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/apr/01/iraq-war-100-month/
September 10th, 2009 at 4:55 am
You guys see the preview for Moore’s new film, “Capitalism: A Love Story”?
Like him or not, I think he makes really good films.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhydyxRjujU
September 10th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Knarly,
I was getting those figures from some sites I was reading last night. I was trying to get a feel for where this 31% number is coming from. Now you’re not as economically illiterate as Enky so you would get a kick out of reading some of it. They were saying that the insurance companies were using 15% of medical costs for overhead and that another 15% was being used in the administration of doctor’s offices all the way down to nursing homes. Then they were saying Canada’s overhead was 8%, your 16% is probably closer. They were also comparing the 30% to the 7% or 8% of Medicare, but of course they conveniently left out the 15% they claim doctor’s offices use to process claims to insurance companies, do they think that magically is reduced to 0 when dealing with the government? Go ask the car dealers that have had to fill out double digit numbers of pages for each car to get the $4,500 for the clunkers program.
Of course there is no analysis of where the 31% comes from, my guess is that there is a lot of doubling up in there and the 15% is about right. The insurance companies make about 4% or 5% profit and really past that everything they do is overhead for the system, overhead that either they or a government employee will do, and that is probably in the 8% to 15% range, for them and the doctor’s office. The profit percentage is of that 8% to 15%, not the total cost of healthcare. And that would be in line with the Canadian numbers your using. Makes sense.
Then we get to what is overhead, which is probably why the numbers are so varied. A hospital administrator or someone that works in accounting is obvious, but what about an ambulance driver? What about a paramedic? He is employed by the fire department, not a hospital, but he is definitely a key link in the providing of health care, school nurses, social workers? Now all this is well and good as long as you are counting the same items in both comparisons, but are they?
My main point though is Obama keeps saying cost of healthcare will go down but this is how we will “pay for it”, those two phrases don’t seem to go together, if you are saving money you don’t need to “pay for it” you already are, and then some.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:33 am
Actually last night Obama had a really good line for you guys (R’s):
“First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for — from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.”
So you can understand when you folks bitch about cost why many of us just shake our head and don’t take you seriously. If cost is your main concern, where were you when those intiatives were being passed without being paid for, huh?
September 10th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Well, for in the first place what Obama says and what he does are two different things
Money is fungible.
During those tax breaks government receipts increased as the economy grew for most of those years, not much, but it did grow.
“requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize.” I’ll believe that provision when I see it, wait until you see the wording in it, there will be a lot of if this and if that in it.
What is the deficit now? Being fiscally conservative isn’t in his DNA, why should I believe he’ll start now?
“requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize.” Where would those cuts come from, he is already cutting Medicare a half billion dollars, the military? Already cut the F-22 program. Let’s see, if we raise taxes and call it “fees” we could say that the “fees” are actually a reduction in the cost of healthcare, ergo, a savings. And that is already in the bill, cool, got it covered. All without raising “taxes”. “Damn I’m good” he’ll say
“requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promiseddon’t materialize.” Hmm, a little doubt there? Hedging our bets? We know we’re lying and people are figuring it out the longer this drags out and my poll numbers plummet so we need a backup plan to tell the angry hordes with pitchforks? Take your choice, my money is d) all the above.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Like I said, we just shake our head. You have no credibility when it comes to “fiscal restraint” and he nailed you guys on it last night. I just saw a poll showing his numbers shot up 15 points after that speech. People just wanted him to take charge, and now he has and you’re in trouble. He’s about to resurrect candidate Obama and the machine behind it. Look out.
Watching the speech last night you can’t help but chuckle when the camera pans to the right and all you see is a bunch of old, sour-looking white men with their arms crossed in disbelief that a black man is standing before them on the cusp of reforming something that’s been talked about for decades. It definitely brought a smile to my face. It must suck to be so bitter and angry all the time.
September 10th, 2009 at 8:35 am
NL – good posts, but you missed something: we don’t just shake our heads, we roll our eyes too.
If the lack of credibility about fiscal responsibility in the rite wing wasn’t so pathetic, it would be funny to listen to them now. As it is, shcb’s excuses and extensive frenetic attempts to rationalize (see recent posts above) are testaments to the depths of self-delusion from which they suffer.
He is right about one thing though, Obama is poor at keeping his promises. (e.g. Stay in Iraq how long?? Continue torture programs? Rendition programs? & the list does go on.)
September 10th, 2009 at 8:40 am
knarly, great take away quote from that link you posted:
If you can look at this chart and say with a straight face that Rs are financial conservatives, you have to be a wwnj (or just plain certifiable)
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/study-bush-tax-cuts-cost-more-twice-m
facts are such liberal things, eh?
September 10th, 2009 at 9:02 am
I’m not bitter and angry, just realistic
September 10th, 2009 at 9:09 am
From Victor Davis Hanson today:
I’m a thinkn’ you guys are in the mesmerized camp.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:17 am
I thought this was insightful:
September 10th, 2009 at 9:40 am
I’d gladly give up the pittance that I received from the bush tax cuts to go back to the longest strongest economic expansion in modern history. The Clinton Years. I made nearly twice as much each year during the Clinton era vs the bush-disaster. We lived off savings from that time during the bush years.
Social Security would be in much better shape if the gov would stop raiding the SS taxes to fund illegal wars of aggression and tax cuts for the rich. Same with Medicare: the bush medicare drug plan was an unfunded mandate. Same with the ‘off the books’ Iraq war and the other one bushie and co bungled. Not to mention slamming the economy into a brick wall. Actually that isn’t quite accurate. More like they drove it off a cliff.
When are you going to wake up to the plain fact that ‘conservative’ ideology is a bag full of corporate greed, insider stock scams, torture, lawlessness and irresponsibility? We could toss in racism, fascism, sexism, and religious zealotry. I would guess that would be never for fossilized nutbars like wwnj.
Obama better realize these good ol boys aint never gonna accept a black yankee. Ever. Reconciliation (and forget the knuckledragging liars).
September 10th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I wasn’t refering to you, shcb, I was talking about those on the Right side of the aisle during the speech. I know you’re not angry, you’re actually a pretty good sport :)
It’s funny, I know that we pretty much disagree on everything on a fundamental level due to our respective outlooks on things and have no chance on changing each others minds on anything… but hey, it’s fun and it passes the time eh.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
keeps us out of the bars…. well…..
September 10th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
On a lighter note, my wife and I are in our fifties, pretty set in our ways, you know the drill. We both said we would never eat sushi, well one night on a whim we did. OMG we’re hooked, I found this great wasabi, I got a legitimate wooden sushi rice bowl, rice paddle, and mat, I’m reading books, going to Asian markets to find the freshest fish, I have my eye on a three hundred dollar Hattori knife (once you own one of his knives it is hard to anything else) Hattori is 67 now and only works when he wants so you have to wait for his knives for months sometimes, and after a 6 thousand dollar fence this summer I can’t really afford a new kinfe but….we are just bonkers for the stuff. Guess you can teach old dogs.
My santuko isn’t the best knife for it but I still make a pretty reasonable imitation of the real thing. My next undertaking is Japanese soup, it looks fun.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
for a little sushi fun, kind of outdated but so am I
http://realwasabi.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/tuna-fish-stories-the-candidates-spin-the-sushi/
September 11th, 2009 at 8:43 am
This is really good: ‘Stupid Panels’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqDKbCwiaVY
September 11th, 2009 at 9:56 am
NL – That’s a very, very good clip. Olberman nailed it. Wrong Way Wilson is the poster child of all that is wrong with Republicans. I liked the part starting at 3:55, and many other parts of that…
September 11th, 2009 at 10:27 am
oh please, What Wilson did was inappropriate and doesn’t help our cause but you guys evidently never watched the State of the Union Shows when Democrats moaned and groaned or the occasional boo during a Republican dog and pony
September 11th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Yes, they’re always like that.
I don’t look to too many politicians for moral guidance but to shout “You lie!” to the President in that room is on a completely different level of disrespect. Especially whe it’s absolutley, verifiably false. As Olberman pointed out, what if a Dem yelled at Bush for lying about Iraq in that room… you guys would have LOST it. And that was an actual lie.
I think people are just getting really sick of the double standards. So when you have the next R president and people start showing up at his or her events with machine guns, you can thank yourselves.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:02 am
shcb – LOL at your idiotic comment. It totally fails to address Oberman’s points. OF COURSE Wilson’s comments were totally inappropriate, but the key you have missed is that they were utterly, inarguably and inexcusably WRONG on something that would be readily apparent to “newborns and most higher forms of barn animals.” Also the ipitome of stupid, and entirely hypocritical.
shcb, honestly, I’m trying to be helpful to you here: you really should do yourself a favour by listening to the clip before commenting on it further so you don’t continue to sound like the same kind of absolute idiot as Wrong Way Wilson.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:03 am
errata – epitome
September 11th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
You’re right, I didn’t watch the clip, I find Obberman very difficult to stomach. I’ll watch it tonight after the appropriate liquid lubrication. There is a race tonight so I can forget what I saw after a few good laps. I’m guessing Wilson was correct in his statement but it that still doesn’t make it right to be that disrespectful, this isn’t the British Parliament and we’re not Democrats. I tend to not watch these things when I’m interested in what the president has to say so I had no intention to watch this one, but I can probably survive a few minutes of it.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Well then shcb, try to listen to the general gist of it and get the core substance (rather than getting so tied up in knots about Olberman’s peripheral comments that you miss the key points.)
If you really are going to limit your viewing to a few minutes (which I’d advise against simply due to the entertainment value of the rant alone) make sure you catch the bit starting around the 3:50 mark and note that the clip was better at the end so watching the first couple of minutes may be the worst choice.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
google HR3200 sec 246
Funny how CNN (those commies!) is trumpeting that Addison Graves Wilson, Sr (oooops, he’s also “Joe’ like ‘Joe’ the Plumber…) has raised $200,000 (golly! did Dick Cheney really kick in a hundred k?) since he screamed at Obama. Buried in the details of the article is the fact that his D opponent will have raised close to $1 million in the same time period. Funny how facts have such a liberal bias, yet our media is a right wing corporatist red-light district. And this from the second most ‘liberal’ cable news network.
Groaning or cheering is fine. Having a redneck rethug screaming invective while the President is speaking is a new development. Fact. The guy belongs to a confederate secessionist group. Fact.
Maybe you should just bring your gutta percha cane next time Addison, er, uh, I mean ‘Joe’.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Thanks for giving me a benchmark Knarly, I only had to endure about ten seconds of it. Of course Wilson was correct but as I said it was inappropriate. If someone is interested I’d be happy to explain. But I doubt anyone is really open minded enough to care.
Mike Coffman was right behind Wilson at the speech; he and Tom said that there isn’t a nicer guy than Wilson, very quiet, a real southern gentleman so they were shocked when he yelled out what he did. Mike said they were grumbling softly, “read the bill!” and things like that in that section. So Wilson said under his breath, “you lie”, then he did what he did. Mike said as soon as the speech was over Rahm Emanuel was over there and he was all shades of red, of course Wilson had made a hasty retreat and was nowhere to be found, so Rahm found the Republican leadership and read them the riot act, sounds like it was all pretty comical. Coffman said he saw Wilson yesterday and he was in pretty rough shape, he didn’t think he had gotten much sleep. He put his arm around him and said that maybe some good would come out of it since people were talking about the sleight of hand of the Democrats.
Oh, I saw today that Wilson has had $700,000 in contributions by noon today, so maybe some good will come out of it. It was inappropriate and I’m sure Joe wishes he wouldn’t have said it, but all you can do is move forward.
September 12th, 2009 at 7:19 am
I finally watched the Matthew Good thing at the beginning of this thread, Oh My God!!! What the hell was that? That was the most depressing thing I have seen in a while, I couldn’t understand most of the words but he looked like his hemorrhoids were really acting up that day. I am so glad I’m not a self loathing, guilt ridden liberal every time I see something like that, I’ve got to go get some sunshine.
September 14th, 2009 at 5:03 am
“Oh, I saw today that Wilson has had $700,000 in contributions…”
Except that his opponent raised more than double that. So yes, some good did come out of it.
Can’t you read?
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Is reading too liberal for you redneck fucks? Instead of listening to some fat, drug-addicted slob why don’t you read the bill?
Bunch of racist fucks. And dumb as mud.
Seriously, Southern Republicans are completely stupid. I guess watching cars drive around in circles for hours will do that do you.
September 14th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Boy let your guard down there a little didn’t you? Racist? How pray tell how is this racist? You couldn’t just ask nice could you? The thing is that you are simply reading, you aren’t studying the situation, yes we can read, there are a few rednecks that can actually put a few words together to form one of those sentence things. But we not only can read, we also actually understand things, we understand that you not only have to look at what a person says but what he does as well. Now you found that section of 3200 somewhere, probably not from the bill, I’m guessing Smith and I are the only people here that have the actual bill on their computers, but if you do have the bill on your computer find where it says there is a requirement to prove that a person is here legally. Its not there, because Republicans have on two separate occasions offered amendments to change wording to require proof, in both cases every Democrat on those committees voted against it. This is like making traffic laws without any police to enforce those laws. Roll Call claims that the Hispanic Caucus told Nancy that if she changed wording they would pull support for the bill. It helps to know the whole story. Now we haven’t even started into the section of the bill that deals with anchor babies, did you read that section? It is pretty plain as well.
I’ve always found it comical that Sam Ervin was considered such a brilliant man but as soon as someone with that same southern accent registers Republican he is suddenly stupid. Thank God liberals are so open minded.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Yes, you’ll need ID to get treated, Mr Foreign National! A valid driver’s license, Socialist Security card, insurance card, passport if yer an evil foreigner type and you have to answer 20 questions posed by the glowering redneck with the six shooter at the door (most questions deal with NASCAR arcana and WWF minutia). It’ll be just like voting in a southern town.
Funny how wwnj has one passage from the bill memorized (furiners is gonna get healed! garrrr!), but can’t actually read and more importantly comprehend H.R. 3200: Sec 246. If he has the bill on his computer, it would take just a moment to confirm this passage I copied as the truth. No subsidies for non-US citizens. Fact.
Currently the people of the USA have laws (Addison Graves ‘joe’ Wilson voted for this btw) that grant healthcare to injured persons who may not have a valid ID on them at the time of their injury (or have been separated from their ID, perhaps an auto accident or a mugging). I doubt wwnj has ‘read’ or ‘understood’ stats that say about half the illegal immigrants in the USA already buy health insurance or get it thru their employer. If there are 12 million illegals and half of them already buy insurance, that leaves about 6 million who may get some healthcare at some point. These folks just don’t saunter into the hospital and demand manicures and hangnail treatments (in spanish, of course). They do come in with worse things than they should if they had decent, humane minimal healthcare because they wait until they are on death’s doorstep or are in an auto accident or industrial calamity. But facts is so liberal!
This is why Canadians buy supplemental insurance while traveling in the US: because they know they could die if some drunk birther redneck Tbones their rental car and they end up in the hospital without their seven valid forms of ID.
And yes it is racist to single out them durn dirty furinerz for subhuman treatment. Talk about fucking nazi.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:29 am
That is all well and good, but we are talking about whether the President lied or not, (making Joe Wilson correct) not the merits of giving illegals health care. It seems you are saying that illegal immigrants are indeed going to get health care under this bill, fine, then the president should have said “you betcha we’re going to treat anyone that is in this country just like they were a citizen because that is the right thing to do and I’m proud to be compassionate enough to demand any bill that hits my desk will give anyone in Mexico (or Canada) that can manage to sneak into our country the best care your tax dollars can buy” but he didn’t, he said no one here illegally will get care, and yet you are now saying they will.
Also, the anchor baby section; it says that if one member of the family is a citizen then the whole family gets coverage, so of course they wouldn’t be getting illegal care because the bill allows them to be here illegally and still get care. So Obama didn’t lie, he just didn’t tell the truth, but please, trot out section 246 one more time. And excuse me, but I’m not the one re-re-reciting the same passage of the bill. So I’m not sure where the “Funny how wwnj…” right after the blockquote part came from.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:36 am
I’m originally from the South. I can’t say that I miss it.
There is something funny to me about someone complaining about being called a “racist” and using the term “anchor babies” in the same paragraph. Make of that what you will.
September 14th, 2009 at 10:08 am
shcb – YOU lie.
Obama did not say in his speach that “…no one here illegally will get care.”
Clearly, and as you have argued elsewhere, people without ID and others in acute need of medical attention currently receive care in the USA. You don’t leave people to die at the roadside. That is not going to change.
Now back to “YOU lie.” This is what Obama said:
“There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This too is false. The reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
Seems to me that the reforms to health care funding do not extend to illegal aliens. Hence you and Congress Wilson are fully deserving of Oberman’s vitriol, and then some.
September 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Smith,
The term Anchor babies could apply equally to someone here illegally from Russia, it just happens to usually apply to those from Mexico due to the proximity but someone living in Mexico of Asian decent could be equally guilty.
Knarly,
No one is denying the law as written would make it illegal for illegal aliens to government dollars, the point is there is no mechanism to find out if they are here legally or illegally, and this isn’t an oversight, twice Republicans have offered amendments and twice Democrats have voted those amendments down in committee and have not offered anything of their own to replace them. It’s a law with no teeth making it irrelevant without change.
Enky,
You say half the illegals here have insurance, great, if a private employer wants to insure someone from outside of this country, no problem, it’s their money, if a private insurance company wants to insure that illegal, great, it’s their money, but we are talking about public funds here, there is a big difference.
September 14th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Smith,
I would be happy if they would just get rid of the whole you are an American citizen if you are born here, one or both of you parents should have to be citizens before automatic citizenship is awarded. I think we are one of only 7 or 8 nations that still practices this policy.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I think there is a pretty strong connection between xenophobia and racism. The fact that you immediately thought of Mexicans suggests that you have already made that connection and have applied it to yourself.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:35 am
shcb, good try but you are still not being truthful. First you said:
“That is all well and good, but we are talking about whether the President lied or not, (making Joe Wilson correct) ”
Now you contradict yourself, i.e. lie yet again, by saying that: “… the point is there is no mechanism to find out if they are here legally or illegally,”
Let me remind you: the point was whether Obama’s statement is true and thus whether the Republican Congressman Wilson lied.
Obama’s statement was a factually accurate rebuttal to calculated false claims “that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants.” You have failed to demonstrate how illegal immigrants would be receiving new health insurance as a result of Obama’s proposed health insurance reform measures.
Congressman Wilson was not only rude and disrespectful to the Office of President of the United Stated in an utterly hypocritical and inapppropriate way, but was also quite wrong.
If you want to argue whether the reform measures should contain provisions to find out whether a person is in the USA legally or not before providing health care, or whether that problem is already addressed in other Acts or should be addressed by other means, feel free to debate that with someone else. But please, just stop lying.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
No doubt Obama chose his words carefully, you can do that with a teleprompter. But the fact is that illegals will be covered if no proof is required, it is the same as when Republicans propose documentation before being allowed to vote and Democrats block it, sure it is illegal but they vote because there is nothing to stop them. And Obama knows this, just add a measure to check for citizenship before a government insurance card is issued and this all goes away. But Democrats have actively blocked this simple measure, and Obama knows it. So he lied, it’s no big deal, I expect it, he just needs to be called on it, and people need to know what they are buying. If you guys are proud of helping illegals, fine, own up to and shout it from the rooftops.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
knarls – wwnjs just prefer a comforting lie to a inconvenient truth.
The bill specifically prohibits “Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that, but wwnj questions whether this is in the bill… don’t you have it on your computer? I am sure you read sec. 246 since you keep braying about how you’ve read the bill. Reading evidently doesn’t mean comprehending for wrong wing nut jobs.
Current law and current state of affairs is we treat catastrophic healthcare issues for compassionate reasons. I doubt this makes up more than 1% of current healthcare expenditures. I am not sure if other governments reimburse us for that, but I would rather treat someone and not get paid then let some poor sap die because he may be here illegally or just doesn’t have his papers in order after lil ricki mowed him down in his pickup truck (drunk again lil ricki?)
Illegals know that if you show up in the hospital and can’t speak a word of english and your bogus papers don’t check out, you are getting a one way ticket south of the border once they can shovel you onto a bus.
Addison Graves Wilson was wrong, is a liar and a racist douchebag (racist?!? yes, see his participation in Sons of Confederate Veterans bullshit and his fight to keep the CSA battle flag flying in SC – nope no southern fried racism here folks! ;-).
Just keep talking all purty about bipartisanship and when the Rs vote in lockstep against it, remove their crap then ram it thru with 51 votes in the Senate. Sunset the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% and you would have money left over. A public option would save money. But why talk about facts and figures when the other side of the aisle has clearly hijacked the short bus to crazytown.
September 14th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
shcb: “No doubt Obama chose his words carefully, …” Yes.
Whereas Congressman Wrong Way Wilson chose a single word that was spectacularly inappropriate for the circumstances and was 100% verifiably WRONG.
shcb: It sounds like you also have a problem with teleprompters. Perhaps Wrong Way Wilson should have had one in front of him flashing this in a Neon strobe for the duration of Obama’s speach: “Pretend to be a civil human being and do not speak.”
you can do that with a teleprompter.”
September 14th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“you can do that with a teleprompter” too.
September 14th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Sometimes I’m not sure what Enky is talking about, I don’t think he does either. I am not questioning that section 246 is in the bill, where in the hell did you get that idea? I have said repeatedly that it is in the bill, it just doesn’t have any enforcement or even any mechanism to check and see if there is eligibility. And this straw man that someone without “papers” will be denied care is preposterous. They will get the care, then the question is, are they charged for it if they are not eligible. However, that isn’t even the situation we are talking about. We are talking about a person that goes to the doctor for a routine visit or the hospital for a planned procedure, say having a baby. They get to the reception desk and the office worker asks for their insurance card. They have one, but what did they have to do to get that insurance card? Did they have to show a utility bill showing they live in the US or did they have to show a passport showing they were a US citizen.
This is on page 133, this is the anchor baby clause.
So only one member of the family has to be a US citizen that could be a baby born here with non citizen parents or it could be a son or daughter, father or mother that has legally become a citizen, of any race. In either case those family members can be illegal and receive care under this bill. So there we have it, one way they can get care is for the system to ignore their eligibility and the other is to very plainly allow it. With the above situation on page 133 they would also have to be under 400% of the poverty level. But illegals can and will get taxpayer subsidized insurance under this bill.
September 14th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Here is another analysis
why have Democrats twice blocked such a provision?
September 14th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
last I heard they may implement the SAVE program for verification
and really, how many illegals would sign up for this? knowing they would be catapulted back to wherever they came from when they are found out…
Stats I’ve read say illegals don’t go to the hospital very often, they go to walk-in cash-for-care doc-in-a-box type places or free clinics. These are often run by churches or hospitals seeking to unburden their emergency rooms – see? preventative care is cheaper than emergency care, so much so that hospitals would rather provide a free clinic for day to day healthcare than have these folks clog the emergency room.
I could dig up the URLs but nothing would satisfy wwnj
when you say crap like: “Now you found that section of 3200 somewhere, probably not from the bill” then wonder why folks laugh at you when you can’t read and comprehend basic english, I have to question whether you are an American (since it seems to be a second language for you… what do you speak over in the Wingnutoverse? Merkin?) Lets see YOUR birth certificate. Make sure it’s the long form.
Why have Dems blocked this twice? I have no idea, but I bet there was other Rethuggle crap attached to it.
I am for verifying citizenship before we give out any money. From all I’ve heard it sounds like the administration is too.
btw who signed that damn EMTALA bill into law that made us Merkins pay fer furiner healthcare? What? Oh, it was Saint Ronnie? Facts is so damn liberal!
sucks being a wrong wing nut job these days
September 14th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Well then there shouldn’t be a problem making it illegal (with consequences) for them to avail themselves of taxpayer money, if they are spending cash for their doctor’s visits or going to private hospitals then there would be no harm in an amendment as the Republicans have offered, if Republicans have loaded up the amendment then the Democrats should show us the pork and give us a pork free bill (would that be the other white meat)
Well, their words say they are in one spot, say they aren’t in another and their actions say they have no intention of verifying citizenship because the Hispanic Caucus won’t let them.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
We have a black caucus and a Hispanic caucus, I’ve always wondered what would happen if we even considered forming a white caucus
September 14th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
The ‘white caucus’ is your local militia or kkk chapter (I am sure you and Sgt Slaughter are in both). Or your local Rethug party (actually, the venn diagram for these three groups is a single circle, drawn in crayon, flecked with spittle).
How was the Million Moran March? 60,000 angry doughy rednecks… lol
I hear the wwnj media is declaring it 2.2 bazillion teabaggers
no wait, this just in from hate radio, it was 3.7125 kajillion nutjobs
(of course NO ONE is using terms like fascist, nazi or worse, nope)
September 14th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Hoooboy, this “debate” is going nowhere.
Back to the issue: it’s obvious Wilson was lying, just listen to him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxKIcrDsJAs&feature=player_embedded
The “reform” is going nowhere, just like “debate”. Here’s the view from the cynical (pragmatic?) Left’s side: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong
September 14th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Here are some people who seem to share shcb’s view on health care reform, note the similarity in talking points (as Smith says, “make of that what you will”) : http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=443
September 14th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
OT – Star Wars conspiracy:
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1920944
And a compelling look at NIST’s malfeasances:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20090914&articleId=15201
September 15th, 2009 at 4:50 am
Why are you guys even wasting your time. It’s obvious that there are republicans that just want to oppose Obama for the sake of opposing, others because he is black. You can tell by their factually incorrect arguments that they haven’t got nothing intelligent to add to this debate and indeed should be brought before the Stupid Panel. Just a bunch of hopped up rednecks kicking and screaming like a five year old child.
Just watch this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y
Reporter: “Can you tell me about the healthcare bill your opposing?”
Dumbfucktard Republican: “Uh, um, uh, oh…no.”
And that’s just the begining.
Enjoy.
September 15th, 2009 at 6:37 am
“I’ve always wondered what would happen if we even considered forming a white caucus”
I think the Republican Caucus is only around 5-10 members away from this.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:02 am
There is no Republican caucus, just a Republican party made up of many caucuses (cauci?) you know what I mean anyway. It is ok for select groups to be exclusionary, but not ok for other groups PC run amok. A friend that was going to Kansas State in the early ‘90s said they had a black student union, it was sanctioned by the university, whites need not enter. That is just wrong. We have no problem with black people in our party but when 90% of the black population votes for the other party there aren’t a lot to choose from, but that is their choice not our exclusion.
There is a good debate going, you guys don’t like it because you happen to be losing at the moment and you have a birthright to be right and all those that oppose you should get out of the way. Fine, liberals have always been that way (and the religious right who tend to use the same tactics as liberals) do you see Republicans trying to restore the fairness doctrine? You have given your arguments, we have given ours and many Americans don’t like yours, they do want something however. This is how the process is supposed to work, now we compromise, we figure a way to address most of the legitimate concerns without resorting to all out socialism, or we do nothing and put Republicans back in power. If we do the debate will re ignite and Republicans will have to do something or they will get voted out again. Some things won’t be addressed, tort reform for instance. The Democrats are in power and one of their major contributors are trial lawyers, so nothing will be done there, we probably won’t win the illegal alien issue either, at least not completely, that coalition is too strong in the Democratic party, but some compromise will be made so both sides can take something they can sell in Peoria.
Now you guys aren’t going to get all you want, get over it. This is how politics works, how it is supposed to work, how debate is supposed to work. The first and last response of liberals to a debate they are losing is to silence the opponent. Some things never change.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Hey, you ARE that guy from the video I posted…I knew it!
September 15th, 2009 at 8:31 am
It’s hard to say who’s more pathetic really – the people who are fighting needed Health Care Reform so viciously or the people on the other side who think anything even remotely like the single-payer model they would prefer is even going to happen. Sorry folks, but I think the rest of the world has moved way down the road on this one.
Did any of you hear about that nutjob that bit some guy’s finger off at a “We Can’t Afford to Wait Vigil” in Thousand Oaks? Enkidu is right – the kooks are getting violent…
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/health-care-activist-bites-off-the-finger-of-a-counter-demonstrator.html
September 15th, 2009 at 8:58 am
It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I64Ed5iLu4M&feature=related
September 15th, 2009 at 9:05 am
I imagine it is, but I’ll have to take your word for it
September 15th, 2009 at 9:16 am
…David Gergin’s word for it…
September 15th, 2009 at 9:28 am
“We’re still trying to figure out who was the aggressor,” Buschow said.
Sounds like both of them.
September 15th, 2009 at 10:38 am
And now we have Hank Johnson D-Ga, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus race baiting, lovely.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:15 am
So you’re just now realizing that this debate has gone down the toilet? Pretty much taking your country down with it.
Did you watch that clip I posted? Did you hear the absurd things people are saying? And the jaw-dropping cluelessness of so-called ‘protestors’ (aka teabaggers).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y
At least when progressives protest something they know exactly what it is that they’re protesting.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Did everyone see the slogan that the Wilson backers have adopted?
“I’m with Joe Wilson!”
As Jon Stewart so awesomely pointed out last night, taking a slogan like “I’m With Stupid!” and replacing it with someone’s name is just, well, too gawd damn funny!!
September 15th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
NL
a sadly typical video of the tea baggers
the 60,000 (or fewer) wingnuts on parade are kinda pathetic, but sadly these dipshits are allowed to vote (isn’t there an intelligence test we could implement? are we sure these ‘folks’ are actually citizens? sentient?)
a confederacy of dunces
if you can’t watch or even listen to the whole 9:31, just listen to the last 2 minutes: teabagger ‘folks’ are ignorant of these things called basic facts. If you want a good cross section of the wingnutoverse (angry southern rednecks with single digit IQs – tho there is hope for that one lady at 8:12 to 8:30) just watch this video in its entirety.
forget compromising with these ‘folks’ – you aren’t ever going to make these ‘folks’ happy
And that whole finger biting thing? maybe if the bitee hadn’t sucker punched the biter and then jammed his fingers in the guy’s face, he wouldn’t have had to have Medicare put the tip of his finger back on? Once you start with the violence, bad things happen. The bitee is lucky that the biter wasn’t an off duty cop with a gun: he’d a shot his ass dead.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“…he wouldn’t have had to have Medicare put the tip of his finger back on?”
Nice one.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I didn’t watch the video, I’m not much of one to protest things and don’t really care about people who do one way or the other, but if gives them a sense of fulfillment good for them. I don’t go to church for the same reason, if people feel the need to thump their chests so they can get into heaven that’s fine.
I certainly wouldn’t try and limit their free speech or wish for them to lose their right to vote no matter how much I disagreed with their viewpoints.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
but let me guess it is a bunch of disjointed clips of every idiot there, most of them multiple times.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“So you’re just now realizing that this debate has gone down the toilet? Pretty much taking your country down with it.”
I don’t see that this debate has gone down the toilet. If we let the far left socialize our country then the country would go down the toilet, it seems this debate is keeping that from happening.
September 15th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
The ‘debate’ is a bunch of microcephalic morans who believe a heaping crock of bullshit that glenn (bonkers) beck vomits up and then cries about every damn show. Just allow me and my family to buy into Medicare and I’d be happy (our HMO monthly payments are $840 – and that is down from the plan we used to have which was over $1000 each and every month). Screaming “nazi” over and over isn’t debate. Screaming “fascist” or “socialist” or 7/8s of the other crap the wingnuts are incensed about isn’t debate. It’s bullshit.
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/10-lessons-for-tea-baggers
10 Lessons for Tea Baggers:
President Obama Cut Your Taxes
The Stimulus is Working
First Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt…
…Then George W. Bush Doubled It Again
Republican States Have the Worst Health Care
Medicare is a Government Program
Barack Obama is Not a Muslim
Barack Obama was Born in the United States
70,000 Does Not Equal 2,000,000
The Economy Almost Always Does Better Under Democrats
Funny how wwnj can’t bear to actually watch these nutters. Better to avoid reality so he can keep pretending the right wing ideology is anything other than a sham. I just watched a clip where the organizer of these teaparty things was defending being bigoted (hey what else does he have as his base? rational people? pshaw!)
September 16th, 2009 at 5:02 am
There are very disturbing racial tones coming from the right and it’s going to reach a boiling point soon. President Obama has been called “uppity”; “that boy shouldn’t have his finger on the button!”; first president to ever be heckled on the House floor is black and the heckler is a southern republican who a BRUTAL racist background – and these are by elected officials! America is on a teetering point.
shcb, what’s the matter? Afraid to watch the video to you see just how ridiculous your side sounds? It’s ok, everybody else is seeing you guys for what you are: A bunch of sore losers – some extremely racist – that have no clue what they’re talking about. Idtiots. Those town halls were all scripted by far right extremists funded by the insurance industry. You will lose because you’re wrong, plain and simple.
Now go kick and scream some more about something you’re not even sure you’re kicking and screaming about, Teabagger.
September 16th, 2009 at 7:21 am
wwnj and closet cracker lefty are constantly pounding the drum of “it’s you libs what is racist!” But then you watch that birther, teabagger ‘protest’ and one has to wonder what percentage of these folks are racially motivated… more than half? less than half?
http://www.ajc.com/news/clayton/army-reservist-beaten-in-138917.html
This woman was savagely beaten (in front of her daughter) while the assailant screamed racial epithets. Why? Because the woman had the temerity to ask burly racist dude not to slam the door on her daughter. “Sir, you almost hit my daughter with the door, could you please be careful” wwnj started screaming racist slurs and punching and kicking her in the head. She kept saying, ‘Sir, I’m a United States soldier, don’t do this” Wow, thats some respectin the troops there…
The FBI is investigating it as a hate crime. Gee, ya think so? I’d bet this guy has a confederate flag bumpersticker on his pickup truck. mb wwnjs will start calling this guy Joe the Thumper and having him rant at rallies.
That pic looks like nearly every Y chromosome dirt ball teabagger in NL’s link.
September 16th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Enkidu – or this that Mike Tyson? The guy who got his finger bitten off was 65 years old. You don’t think you could handle a 65 year-old man without biting his finger off? And the finger that was bitten off was his pinky. if he was sticking a finger in someone’s face, I doubt it would be his pinky, unless he was doing that Illuminati-Motley-Crue thing with his hand, like that chick on the Starbucks cup. And didn’t the Code Pink guy walk across the street to scream at the old guy in the first place, and isn’t that what started the fight? Whatever his politics, anyone who would walk across the street to pick a fight, then bite someone’s finger off in an argument about a healthcare overhaul that isn’t even going to happen is a nut, and hardly deserves to be defended, even by you. At least you have sense enough not to rail like that at people in real life – you do it on your computer where it’s safe and you’re not bothering anybody which, considering the alternative, is cool.
September 16th, 2009 at 7:34 am
So lets see, if you are over 65, you can now sucker punch people in the face? and then smash your hand into their face (gouging the punchee in the eye) and when the puncher actually sustains some damage it is all the punchee’s fault?
only in the wingnutoverse can you read my statement that “once you start the violence, bad things happen” and twist that around to me being Mike Tyson. The anti-reform puncher started the violence: he is lucky that the punchee didn’t have a gun or the puncher would be dead.
grade: fail on facts, I’ll give you a C- for wingnuttery
September 16th, 2009 at 7:37 am
and now for something we can all agree on:
http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/15/obama-calls-kanye-a-jackass/
the actual audio is pretty funny, Obama makes a joke about the whole “he killed a fly!” media firestorm (extra points for PETA joke and ninja reference)
September 16th, 2009 at 7:53 am
So the Code Pink guy should have shot the old man? And I’m a wingnut?
September 16th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Is it just me, or does politics even begin to cover a situation when somebody gets their finger bitten off? Does politics even matter, at that point?
September 16th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Is it just me, or does politics even begin to cover a situation when somebody sucker punches someone in the face and then tries to gouge out their eyes? Does politics even matter, at that point?
The puncher had the tip of his finger accidentally bitten off (and then reattached courtesy of Medicare, ironic, eh?) because he was assaulting the punchee. No assault, no finger bitten.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:30 am
How do you accidently bite someone’s finger off? That’s just stupid. Do you realize how hard you’d have to bite someone to bite their finger off? And how could the older guy have assaulted the Code Pink guy in the first place, if he’d stayed across the street from him, seeing as how the older man had retreated all the way across the street after the first verbal altercation between the two. The old man was standing across the street from the Code Pink guy when the Code Pink guy marched all the way across the street to pursue another, this time violent, confrontation. If the old man was as intent on starting a fight as you portray him as being, why did he retreat all the way across the street before being pursued?
September 16th, 2009 at 8:39 am
And where do you get the idea that anyone was trying to gouge anyone’s eyes out? None of the news reports I’ve read have suggested that to be the case.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Sorry to to butt in, but do you guys think the people calling themselves Teabaggers (and all the media using the term) know what a teabagger is? Or what it means to teabag someone? This is just too hillarious, I can’t stop laughing everytime I hear or read it. I know that Anderson Cooper knows what it means by the smirk on his face when he uses the term… but to hear people on the tv saying “I’m a proud teabagger!” is just too much. My gut is starting to hurt from laughing so gawd damn hard!
September 16th, 2009 at 8:47 am
At least we can have a little laughter amongst all the lies, confusion and racism.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:53 am
It’s kind of like the “Malaysian Islamic Liberation Front,” who wear shirts emblazoned with the word “MILF.” Who wouldn’t want to be ambushed by MILF’s in a tropical paradise?
September 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
LOL!
September 16th, 2009 at 10:28 am
You’ve definitely consumed just the right wing version of what happened. I wasn’t there, and I doubt you were either. The reports I read went something like this: pro-reform guy is leaving rally w friends, walks thru anti-reform group, tells 65yr old man he’s an idiot, old man sucker punches pro-reform guy and then shoves him in the face, clawing at his eyes and jamming a finger or fingers into his mouth. Sucker punching 65 yr old guy gets tip of finger bitten off (duh, don’t go shoving your fingers into the maw of a guy that you just punched in the face!) and then goes to have tip reattached courtesy of Medicare.
So now you are saying the right wing can start any sort of violence they want if we libruls so much as say anything that you wingnuts don’t like? wow.
Was the punchee really with Code Pinky? He didn’t have on a pink tshirt.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Where did you read this account, which has no resemblance to the account reported by any other news agency, including the Los Angeles Times?
Here’s how Los Angeles station KTLA described the incident, quoting the Police Report:
“The finger-biting incident occurred after a member of the group protesting health care reform, William Rice, 65, of Newbury Park, became involved in a heated discussion with a member of Code Pink, sheriffs Capt. Ross Bonfiglio said.
After the argument, Rice returned to where his own group was standing.
A man from Moveon.orgs area then walked over to the opponents and verbally confronted Rice, allegedly calling him names and acting aggressively, Bonfiglio said.
Rice later told investigators he felt threatened by the man and punched him in the nose, Bonfiglio said.
The punch set off a fist fight between the two men, during which the tip of Rices left pinky finger was bitten off, Bonfiglio said.”
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-finger-bitten-rally,0,7135717.story
September 16th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Now that I read this again, I feel I must apologize to Code Pink. It seems that there was a verbal confrontation between Rice and a Code Pink member, after which Rice retreated across the street. It appears upon a second reading that the nut who followed Rice across the street and bit his finger off was not even involved in the first argument.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:08 am
You’re not thinking this through. You’re approaching it from the prospective of “where is Lefty wrong for bringing this up,” rather than analyzing the actual event.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:31 am
so… if nutbar 1 says something nutbar 2 doesn’t like, nutbar 2 is fully justified in sucker punching and physically assaulting nutbar 1?
That sure seems to be what you are defending.
So lets see, Mr Rice crossed the road and said something that I bet Code Pink didn’t like. I don’t think it is OK for Code Pink to haul off and assault him. But that isn’t what happened. Mr Rice went back to his counter protest group and then the victim (not from Code Pink iirc – we’ll call him Mr Doe) was exiting the rally, and he detoured to walk thru the counter protesters. The victim confronted Mr Rice and called him an idiot (that is the quote I read – I’ll try to dig up the links). Mr Rice then struck Mr Doe and started hitting and shoving him in the face. Mr Rice attacked someone for his words. There was a scuffle and Mr Rice shoved his hand in the victim’s face (lets clear this up: Mr Rice is the assailant not the victim) and the tip of his finger was bitten off. I don’t condone biting as reasonable debate (duh). But once you attack someone, and start shoving them around, you might think that the victim just might defend himself. Luckily, the victim did not have a gun, or he might have used it and Mr Rice could have been much more seriously injured or even killed.
You start a fight, you are a criminal. Not saying biting is legitimate discourse, but in a fight, especially when the victim was sucker punched, gouged and surrounded by the puncher’s angry mob? I suppose you do what you gotta do to defend yourself when attacked and surrounded.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Scary scenerio, but it’s not the truth. There was no “mob,” nor was anyone involved in any sort of violence besides Rice and his assailant.
From an eye witness, who was one of the pro-healthcare reform advocates leaving the rally along with Hannibal Lecter that evening:
“There were no liberals gone wild, nor were there hordes of conservatives behaving badly. There were 9 or 10 people on one corner, 150-200 on the other, and two men who, regardless of their politics, behaved quite badly.”
http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/09/03/health-care-vigil-in-thousand-oaks-provocation-to-violent-response/
September 16th, 2009 at 11:42 am
LB – (it’s perspective not prospective) and if you get things so wrong on first reading then please, for everyone’s sake, please read things at least twice before commenting.
And by the way, no part of the arm below the elbow is displayed on the Starbuck’s cup lady … you mentioned she was making some sort of secret hand sign… – do we get a censored version of the cup in Canada or are you wrong on that point too?
Enk’s right, at least in Canada you have the right to defend yourself with as much force as necessary to repel the atttack. I’m sure US law goes at least that far.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:51 am
But really, this sums it all up:
“…two men who, regardless of their politics, behaved quite badly.”
September 16th, 2009 at 11:52 am
The crowd of Health Care Reform supporters were already through the group of health-Care Reform opponents – there were only nine or ten of them next to over 150 pro-reform activists, according to the eye-witness account cited above. Whoever bit Rice was already well away from them and all the way across the street from rice and his compatriots when the man turned around and went back across the street to confront Rice, possibly regarding Rice’s earlier shitty treatment of a young woman who was handing out health care reform pamphlets on the side of the street where Rice was. This woman had already left the area safely several minutes before Vlad Tepes went back across the street and entered into an altercation with Rice – so even if that’s what he was mad about, he was hardly defending her, nor was defending himself against any sort of mob. It’s doubtful there would have been any violence that night had he not walked all the way back across the street to help start it.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Knarly – you’re not holding the cup at a forty-five degree angle while looking at it through the back of a mirror while reciting the I Ching backwards, flying in a plane that is about to hit a large object traveling at a constant speed of.. oh, you read enough Alex jones to know how these things are done, come on…
Seriously though, I can’t believe that I actually fished you in with the Starbucks crack. That’s pathetic.
NL – a simple enough concept really, but I’ll bet you and I are the only two here who actually get it.
September 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
LB – What’s pathetic is that even your most pathetic side-comments about a stupid picture on a stupid cup are wrong. Your medication is wearing off again.
September 16th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
“NL – a simple enough concept really, but I’ll bet you and I are the only two here who actually get it.” = Delusional.
September 16th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Amazing that lefty can’t actually bring himself to admit Mr Rice is the assailant and Mr Doe the victim. So you ARE saying that right wingers now have open season on anyone that says anything right wingers don’t like?
You can call him Hannibal Lector or Vlad or Hitler or whatever, but it doesn’t change the plain and simple fact that Mr Doe was assaulted by Mr Rice. Sorry about your finger Mr Rice, but you shouldn’t be jamming your fingers into other people’s faces (after sucker punching them). Glad Medicare was there for you.
“…two men who, regardless of their politics, behaved quite badly.”
September 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
this is pretty good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtqtfXdR-c
September 16th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
shcb, Yes, not bad. Note to LB: that guy makes your Alex Jones look like an amateur symbologist.
September 16th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I’m always amazed at the level people will go to sell a product, even a president. I’m not being partsan here, both sides do it. My daughter is studying psyhchology, not sure yet in what capacity yet, I am so excited about discussing things like this after she learns more. I could have done without the Nazi reference in the middle, it really wasn’t needed to make the point he was making.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Enky,
“but sadly these dipshits are allowed to vote (isn’t there an intelligence test we could implement?”
While I assume this is being said in jest, you might want to be careful with such rhetoric, considering its historical connotations. Literacy tests were a popular method used to disenfranchise African Americans following the 15th Amendment. In light of the discussion of racism that came up in this thread, it would be advisable to avoid making positive references to programs that have historically been used to prevent minorities from voting.
shcb,
“There is no Republican caucus, just a Republican party made up of many caucuses (cauci?)”
I assumed the discussion was about Congressional caucuses since those are the groups that most people refer to when speaking of “caucuses”. To clarify, I was referring to these two groups: “Republican Conference of the United States House of Representatives” and “Republican Conference of the United States Senate”, which combined contain something like 5-10 nonwhites. They use the term “conference” instead of “caucus”, but they serve the same function. A rose by any other name…
September 16th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
shcb, well true he didn’t have to mention the 150 million dead people (but at least he didn’t describe each of their injuries.)
The key is that the Nazi’s took ideas (bad ideas) and made a science of advancing those ideas using a full spectrum of related techniques (including symbolism/logos) to effect radical social engineering changes in their society within the span of a handful of years. The Germans’ making a science of manipulating society with full spectrum propaganda was as revolutionary to our understanding of social science as the steam engine was to the industrial revolution. In a way, one can’t cover the subject properly without a nazi or two creeping into the discussion.
And yes, both sides, donkeys & elephants, go to extremes to sell a product. The trick is to match the symbolism/underlying messages not just to the mood of the people, so as to capture their imagination and motivate them to your side, but more importantly to make it be such a dynamic message that they are all teleported to the same place & time with the same agenda (your agenda.) Over the decades it seems that the party who did it most successfully was the party that (usually won but also) got the brunt of criticisms for being so obviously manipulative – e.g., the democrats in your video link. Being the Grande Olde Party (GOP) in earlier days (pre-Nazi) and in other years being inextricably linked to the flag were (are?) highly successful sales “slogans” too.
If you are really as interested in these aspects of psychology as you say you are, then this article is for you (except for the two paragraphs about uncharred paper because that part is a glaring mistake). It would be ironic if you dismissed the ICH article out of hand or on the basis of that single mistake alone because that would be consistent with the results of researchers as reported in the academic journal, Sociological Inquiry (Vol. 79, No. 2, May 2009, 142-162) upon which this comments:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23498.htm
September 16th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Smith- I appreciate the info you provide, especially your last post.
shcb, re: your psychology post – your daughter has at least 6 years of future case study to utilize in future projects with you alone as the subject. ;-) Also, I have a comment “awaiting moderation” so I’ll repost without the likely problematic link now:
shcb, well true he didn’t have to mention the 150 million dead people (but at least he didn’t describe each of their injuries.)
The key is that the Nazi’s took ideas (bad ideas) and made a science of advancing those ideas using a full spectrum of related techniques (including symbolism/logos) to effect radical social engineering changes in their society within the span of a handful of years. The Germans’ making a science of manipulating society with full spectrum propaganda was as revolutionary to our understanding of social science as the steam engine was to the industrial revolution. In a way, one can’t cover the subject properly without a nazi or two creeping into the discussion.
And yes, both sides, donkeys & elephants, go to extremes to sell a product. The trick is to match the symbolism/underlying messages not just to the mood of the people, so as to capture their imagination and motivate them to your side, but more importantly to make it be such a dynamic message that they are all teleported to the same place & time with the same agenda (your agenda.) Over the decades it seems that the party who did it most successfully was the party that (usually won but also) got the brunt of criticisms for being so obviously manipulative – e.g., the democrats in your video link. Being the Grande Olde Party (GOP) in earlier days (pre-Nazi) and in other years being inextricably linked to the flag were (are?) highly successful sales “slogans” too.
If you are really as interested in these aspects of psychology as you say you are, then this article is for you (except for the two paragraphs about uncharred paper because that part is a glaring mistake). It would be ironic if you dismissed the ICH article out of hand or on the basis of that single mistake alone because that would be consistent with the results of researchers as reported in the academic journal, Sociological Inquiry (Vol. 79, No. 2, May 2009, 142-162) upon which this comments:
September 16th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
here is the link (just copy and delete the two spaces on each side of the first dot and delete the two spaces on each side of the last dot) :
www . informationclearinghouse.info/article23498 . htm
September 16th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Excerpt:
September 17th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Knarly,
There is an article from 2006 in Harper’s that is related to the symbolism and salesmanship used in political messages. It looks at “dolchstoss” and “the fifth column” and their development and use from post WWI Germany to the Iraq War. The article is very biased and critical of the American right-wing, but it is still an interesting look at attitudes of those in power towards those who oppose military action. Some of the criticisms could probably apply just as well to left-wing war hawks. If you recognize its biases and take it with a rain of salt, it is still an interesting look at two pervasive symbols/attitudes.
harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080
It is also rather long.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:37 am
No Smith, I wouldn’t want to read anything critical of the US right wing, but if you insist…
September 17th, 2009 at 12:38 am
How come that went through the queue but www .
September 17th, 2009 at 12:38 am
informationclearinghouse .
September 17th, 2009 at 12:39 am
info / article23498
September 17th, 2009 at 12:40 am
. htm
does not get through the queue?
September 17th, 2009 at 12:47 am
No “www.” I think. Try it without the “www”.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Here, let’s see if it works:
informationclearinghouse.info/article23498.htm
September 17th, 2009 at 12:49 am
If I sound paranoid it’s cuz I just watched this. I was expecting it to be crap and was looking forward to being able to find fault & dismiss it but it just gets more and more compelling. The end is chilling. The police witnesses were extremely compelling… etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
By the way, we’re doing the right thing here trying to make sense of things: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/09/16/reading-kafka-improv.html
September 17th, 2009 at 12:50 am
I just tried, it got flagged without the “www” also. Oh well. Sorry for the clutter, jbc. Just testing the admin queue.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:54 am
I have a collection of Kafka’s short stories, and I recently picked up a collection of his novels. I plan to start reading “The Trial” after I finish Hugo’s “Les Miserables”.
September 17th, 2009 at 4:24 am
Enky – If Rice had been the one to chase Mr. Tepes across the street to start an argument, rather than the other way around, I’d be a lot more ready to call him out as the “assailant.” There is nothing to suggest that Tepes was pursued or even confronted by Rice until he himself marched all the way back through the crowd, back across the street, over to where Rice was standing and proceeded to start an argument. Seriously – why did Tepes go all the way back across the street to confront Rice if he wasn’t looking for a fight? Was it to ask for Grey Poupon? Or perhaps he needed an extra copy of “An Inconvenient Truth” and thought Rice looked like somebody who might have one?
Knarly – it’s good to hear you’re over Alex Jones. The boys down at Prison Planet will sure miss you, but it was time to move on…
September 17th, 2009 at 5:04 am
Smith,
This is a little old now but you guys will have to excuse me, I went to bed last night :-)
On the caucus issue. Your point is well made but I think we are discussing this from different perspectives. I don’t really oppose there being a Black Caucus or Hispanic Caucus any more that I would oppose say a Jewish Caucus or an Engineer’s Caucus (what a boring group that would be) The black and Hispanic communities have issues that are unique to them and should be able to form alliances to address them, I mean really, if you made them illegal the people will still form into groups. My point was more that it would be unacceptable to have anything called a White Caucus even if it were a group to promote the abolition of striped bed sheets.
This is review for the other guys but since part of this thread is about human nature I thought I would torture you all just a little. While the kids were growing up we had chickens for one of their 4-H projects. Every year a couple would perish at the hand of a coyote or fox and we would replace them, usually with a different breed. It was interesting to watch how they would live in harmony with each other but at the same time would split up into groups of the same color or breed if they we out in the prairie or the back yard where they had room to split up. It was also interesting to see how one would always emerge as the leader. In the last year or two we got some of the small chickens with the fluffy feet, the larger chickens banded together and mercilessly terrorized the small chickens to the point that I had to separate them. Sometimes it doesn’t seem that we are much different from the lowest life form in a barnyard.
September 17th, 2009 at 7:03 am
“My point was more that it would be unacceptable to have anything called a White Caucus even if it were a group to promote the abolition of striped bed sheets.”
I think part of this is a reaction to history. Previous groups formed to “promote white interests” had a tendency to wear their bedsheets. White groups may not necessarily form to promote “white power”, but they will be perceived in that manner anyway. I think “white caucus” is inextricably linked with “white power” partly due to the history of such groups, regardless of such a group’s true intentions. The bigger issue relates to the relationship between those in the majority and those in the minority. Efforts by the majority to exclude the minority are generally frowned upon.
On a related note, what issues do you think a “white caucus” would need to be formed to deal with?
September 17th, 2009 at 8:03 am
wwnj – pantloadmedia? again? do you ever read anything but far right wing sources of ‘information’? That nicely produced but factually challenged skit on why Obama is a nazi (cuz his “O” symbol is the same shape as the nazis! but we won’t actually show you that wink wink). When the president gives a press conference what seal is on the front of the podium? Reality check: facts is liberal. Please take a deep breath, realize that you lost an election, not your minds. You are confusing tyranny with losing.
And your last post about how racism is natural… priceless.
Racism? Sure! If you have all the intelligence of a chicken.
lefty – gosh I think it so funny how you keep pushing a particular viewpoint that just doesn’t match reality. Mr Doe watched Mr Rice verbally upbraid the Code Pinky girl (you seem to be saying it would have been OK for her to assault Mr Rice since he used words she didn’t like? 1st Amendment anyone?). Mr Rice returned to his group/mob/cohort ;-) of counter-protesters. Mr Doe left with a group but stopped for a moment to exchange views (not blows) with Mr Rice. Calling Mr Rice an idiot wasn’t nice – I think moran would have been more accurate. But it was Mr Rice’s decision to strike Mr Doe. It was Mr Rice’s decision to start hitting and shoving Mr Doe in the face. If you assault someone, you have broken the law and might expect your victim to defend himself (duh). This may include harming the assailant (shocking I know, but defending oneself from bodily harm would seem to be common sense, which you so obviously lack). I am sorry that Mr Rice chose to assault Mr Doe and was injured as a result of his actions. So if Mr Rice were successful in gouging out Mr Doe’s eye, would that be recompense for calling Mr Rice a name?
You are defending the idea that if someone says something you don’t like it is AOK to assault them. So Mr Doe was in the wrong for defending himself? Biting isn’t Marquis de Queensbury rules, but neither is sucker punching or eye gouging. Mr Rice broke the rules and is lucky Mr Doe didn’t respond (please note that word carefully) with deadly force.
Mr Rice should have kept his hands to himself. Mr Doe did not touch Mr Rice until after Mr Rice assaulted him. No assault, no injury. Sorry about your finger Mr Rice, I hope that horrible socialized medicine worked for you (I am sure it did). Words are not just cause to start hitting or murdering someone.
September 17th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Racism natural? Huh? Not up here bud.
It wasn’t even natural for us in the 1800s. As you probably know, in the war of 1812 we freed your slaves, captured your White House and then let the slaves burn that mother down.
Racism natural? No… well, maybe in the southern U.S. Is that what you meant?
September 17th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Enky – “you seem to be saying it would have been OK for her to assault Mr Rice since he used words she didn’t like?”
What are you talking about? No, I don’t think the girl should have assaulted Rice anymore than I think Tepes should have.
September 17th, 2009 at 8:36 am
There are some books relating to what shcb was saying about chickens, although I doubt they reach the same conclusion. One well known one, due in part to its unique name, is “”Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?”: A Psychologist Explains the Development of Racial Identity”. It looks at the development of racial identity and white privilege in the U.S. I haven’t read it, but I remember hearing about it when it came out.
amazon.com/Black-Kids-Sitting-Together-Cafeteria/dp/0465083617
September 17th, 2009 at 8:38 am
And why do you keep bringing up guns, deadly force and the notion Tepes could have, or should have killed Rice? Don’t you think biting his finger off was bad enough? Would you have shot him?
September 17th, 2009 at 9:08 am
I just think Mr Rice was lucky Mr Doe didn’t have a gun. Nowhere have I advocated violence (still waiting for you to man up and take me up on our ‘bet’). If you would actually read what I write instead of just repeating your Vlad or Tepes ‘jokes’ over and over, you would see the case is pretty cut and dried. Mr Doe said something Mr Rice didn’t like and Mr Rice broke the Law. Mr Doe defended himself. Mr Rice is a wwnj who lost his temper and assaulted Mr Doe for what he said. You are defending a pretty serious escalation of violence.
The 1st Amendment allows nutbar 1 and nutbar 2 to say pretty much whatever they like (idiot seems pretty mild, moran more accurate). The Law does not allow you to assault people or kill them for things they say. Poor Mr Rice should have kept his hands to himself. He didn’t and he got hurt in return. boo fuckin hoo.
Let this be a lesson to you wwnjs: ‘libs’ will defend themselves if attacked. You throw a punch or three, you better be willing to accept that your victim will fight back. Mr Rice is a criminal.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Inky – we settled that bet a long time ago and I lost – you ARE a bigger asshole than I am, and now that we’ve established that, I’d rather just move on, OK?
Mr. Rice was being an ass, and might well have been considered a criminal had Tepes not bitten his finger off. Had Tepes punched him back like a man, they both would have gone to jail and this would have been a minor incident at best. Had he wanted to be a real adult, he would have kept walking and let the newspeople and bloggers report Rice’s bad behavior towards the Code Pink girl, rather than have “Health Care Advocate Bites Old Man’s Finger Off” splashed across every newspaper and blog in the nation. By allowing stepping completely out of the bounds of rational behavior, Tepes, allowed Rice to assume the mantle of victim in the press, gave a black-eye to his movement and put himself in jail, maybe prison, over some stupid something he shouldn’t have been involved with in the first place. Even you must understand this on a certain level.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:39 am
“The 1st Amendment allows nutbar 1 and nutbar 2 to say pretty much whatever they like (idiot seems pretty mild, moran more accurate). The Law does not allow you to assault people or kill them for things they say.”
This is not entirely accurate. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the Supreme Court ruled that “fighting words” are not protected speech. Subsequent rulings have consistently narrowed the definition of “fighting words”, but the Court still asserts that there are certain limited cases in which provocative speech is not protected.
Furthermore, in many jurisdictions it is possible to use “provocation” as a defense against criminal charges. I don’t know the exact statistics, but I am guessing it is not a very successful defense. Nevertheless, it is still a possible extenuating circumstance that could mitigate criminal charges.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Note: My previous comment is not intended to be about the specific incident being debated between Enky and LB. It is a general comment about the nature of protected speech aimed at Enky’s claim about the 1st Amendment. I don’t personally find the specific incident particularly interesting. It was two adults acting like fools and their behavior is indefensible.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Legal clarification is never a bad thing, Smith – thanks.
September 17th, 2009 at 10:01 am
“On a related note, what issues do you think a “white caucus” would need to be formed to deal with?”
I got a chuckle from that, because for the life of me I can’t think of any. I suppose we could ask that minorities not have the right to have a voice in government, but that seems to have been done before, cost us a civil war and a few hundred thousand dead, we probably don’t want to go there again.
Seriously though, there is a need to protect the minority from the majority but there is also a need to protect the majority from the minority as well. For instance, it was wrong to discriminate against minorities in the letting of contracts so we not only made it an even playing field but gave preferential treatment to minority and woman owned businesses. This was probably prudent to let those entities get caught up but at some point an equilibrium is reached and exceeded and the majority is persecuted by the minority. I suppose a White Caucus could cry foul when that point is reached, or at least they feel it has been reached, but you’re right that they probably don’t need the moniker to have their voices heard and would just cause more harm than good.
As to the chickens, I have read articles relating to racial identity and I’m pretty sure I heard an interview with the author of “Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?”. You are right, my first reaction was “ah ha! See they segregate themselves” but after watching them for a few years you start to see all the dynamics of society without the, don’t know the word I’m looking for, fakeness? of humans. They would pair off in like groups without thinking and then mix back together without thinking as well. But if a danger approached, say a hawk flying overhead, they would regroup seemingly knowing the there was some strength in numbers.
In the book you are referring to (if it is the same book I am thinking about) there was a story of the filming of the original Planet of the Apes, they said that it took so long to put on all the costumes that they just left them on all day. After a while someone noticed that the apes and the orangutans (I don’t remember the movie much, is that right?) had segregated themselves at lunch and breaks. After it was noticed, one of the actresses that was close personal friends of one of the actors that was of a different “race” said she noticed she would sit with her own type rather than her friend. Interesting. I believe the point of the book was that just because we don’t naturally co mingle, we certainly can and should, but we should also be careful about forcing the issue just to make some arbitrary “perfect” mixture. That was the conclusion I came to in my chicken observations as well.
Trust me Knarly my daughter has already been studying me, I’m an easy target.
September 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Smith – I did say ‘pretty much’ which definitely alludes to speech that may be considered not protected. For example if someone threatens you with violence and displays a weapon and is preparing to use it, well then a preemptive, disarming strike may be considered just defense.
But calling someone an “idiot” is now provocation for violence? Forgive me for saying so, but Mr Doe offered no threat of violence and was assaulted for what cannot be considered provocative speech (Mr Rice had just finished saying far more ‘provocative’ things to the Code Pinky girl).
Mr Rice assaulted someone and got hurt when the victim defended himself (if someone jams their hand in your eyes and mouth, you would bite down to make them stop). Too bad Mr Doe didn’t hit him back, but it is hard to aim a blow when some old guy just sucker punched you and is trying to gouge your eyes out and/or fishhook you.
You sucker punch someone and then start pushing them in the face and gouging at their eyes, and you may not like the response.
This is ridiculous.
September 17th, 2009 at 10:18 am
What’s ridiculous is a grown man trying to make an argument for when it’s appropriate to bite someone’s finger off! No one’s saying you can’t defend yourself
And what is this “gouging his eyes out” shit? No one’s even suggesting that but you.
September 17th, 2009 at 10:28 am
TWO VERSIONS OF RECENT EVENTS (a lame satire in two parts)
Being the Story of Mr Rice’s Galant Protest Against Tyranny!
by lefty
(the scene is a pro healthcare reform rally – hundreds of scurrilous ruffians and nogoodnicks are unlawfully gathered to impose tyranny on all true patriots)
Mr Rice, assembled with a doughty band of True Patriots stands resolute and proud beneath his banner of “Obamacare = Nazicare”
Mr Rice: ho what noisesome foulness these varlets do bray! It is an assault on the ears I tell you!
Counter-protester 1: Forsooth Noble Sir! I am being afflicted by Contrary Thought and the febrile edifices of my mind are being washed away by Reason and tootling horns and cheers! nay! nay!
Mr Rice: I have a mind to upbraid these uncouth types more directly!
(crosses street to Code Pinky area, where evil lesbians and communists plot the downfall of all that is good and holy)
Mr Rice: You people are in the wrong! Healthcare will bring on the fourth Reich with that that that Kenyan as Supreme Leader! nay! nay and again nay!
Code Pinky Girl: what?
Mr Rice: Thou are socialist scum not fit for fertilizer!
Code Pinky Girl: excuse me?
Mr Rice: Get thee to Hell foul temptress!
Code Pinky Girl: are you dehydrated? You aren’t making any sense
Mr Rice: Frog blast the vent core!
(retreats in great haste)
Mr Rice: That went well my patriots! i am sure I have planted the seeds of Ultimate Doubt in their Evil™ minds! Victory shall be swift and sure! Hold fast! FREEDUM!
(as the pro-reform rally breaks up a group of evil Orcs makes a feint past the True Patriots. A solitary Orc approaches…)
Orc: I am going to bite your finger off! Death to America! Obama is Hitler and Karl Marx times 666! ha ha!
Mr Rice: Egads! The horror! To arms! Sounds the horn! Pound the tocsin of War for the enemy is at our gates! Naught save strength of arms may avail us!
(sucker punches orc in face)
Mr Rice: take that varlet!
(attempts to gouge Orc’s eye out)
Orc: Yes! Bring me sweet human flesh!
(CHOMP! devours tip of Mr Rice’s pinky, begins capering madly)
Orc: nom nom… ack taste like redneck! ptooi!
Mr Rice: I am wounded in defense of our Sacred Mores! oh help me Glen Beck! Quick to the Medicare-paid-for-socialist-healthcare delivery system!
(later)
Mr Rice on FoxNEWS: i gave my all in defense of our great nation!
Hannity: blubber blubber sob sob! Obama is Hitler!
(fade to black)
– – – – – – – – – – –
A Series of Unfortunate Events
by enkidu
(the scene is a pro healthcare reform rally – hundreds of moveon and other mainstream groups are gathered to support the President’s initiative to contain healthcare costs and provide healthcare to all Americans. A smaller group of counter-protesters are also gathered)
Pro-reform protester: single payer now!
Pro-reform protester: public option now!
Mr Rice: blah blah blah! socialism!
Counter-protester 1: That Code Pinky commie just winked at me! grrrrr!
Mr Rice: I’ll give them a piece of my tiny mind!
(crosses street to Code Pinky area)
Mr Rice: You people are in the wrong! Healthcare will bring on the fourth Reich with that that that Kenyan as Supreme Leader! blah blah!
Code Pinky Girl: what?
Mr Rice: socialist scum not fit for fertilizer!
Code Pinky Girl: excuse me? this guy is totally creeping me out
Mr Rice: Get thee to Hell foul temptress!
Code Pinky Girl: are you dehydrated? You aren’t making any sense…
Mr Rice: Frog blast the vent core!
Code Pinky Girl: whtvr
(Mr Rice retreats in great haste)
Mr Rice: That went well my patriots! i am sure I have planted the seeds of Ultimate Doubt in their Evil™ minds! Victory shall be swift and sure! Hold fast! FREEDUM!
(as the pro-reform rally breaks up a group of pro-reform folks walk past the counter-protesters. A solitary pro-reform short man of medium build approaches Mr Rice)
pro-reform man, who we shall call Mr Doe: You are an idiot.
Mr Rice: blah blah blah!
(Mr Rice sucker punches Mr Doe in face)
Mr Rice: blah!
(Mr Rice attempts to gouge Mr Doe’s eye out)
Mr Doe: wtf! mrflllm (can’t talk due to Mr Rice gouging his eye and jamming his hand in Mr Doe’s face after striking him)
(CHOMP! accidentally bites tip of Mr Rice’s pinky)
Mr Doe: ptooi! wtf man!
Mr Rice: help help! I am being repressed!
(later)
Mr Rice on FoxNEWS: i gave my all in defense of our great nation! (sobs)
Hannity: blubber blubber sob sob! Obama is Hitler!
(fade to black)
September 17th, 2009 at 10:30 am
“But calling someone an “idiot” is now provocation for violence?”
Good thing my comment never claimed that it was. Please read the comment I posted immediately after the one you are referring to.
September 17th, 2009 at 10:36 am
No one’s saying you can’t defend yourself, but don’t you think there’s a whole world full of ground between defending yourself and biting some guy’s finger off?
Or do you?
September 17th, 2009 at 10:39 am
And again, how does someone “accidently” bite somebody’s finger off?
September 17th, 2009 at 10:41 am
“They’ve bitten BOB’s finger off!”
September 17th, 2009 at 10:53 am
“And again, how does someone “accidently” bite somebody’s finger off?”
Theoretically, someone’s finger could be in your mouth (for whatever reason) and someone could punch you in the jaw, or you could fall, or some sort of involuntary muscle contraction.
I guess a more realistic possibility would be that he intended to bite with sufficient force to cause pain, but overshot the mark and bit through. In this case, the “bite” is deliberate, but the “off” is accidental.
This whole thing is much ado about nothing.
September 17th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Mr Doe called Mr Rice an “idiot” from eyewitness reports.
Then Mr Rice struck Mr Doe.
Mr Rice then shoved his hand (or hands?) into Mr Doe’s face/eyes/mouth (being all part of the same general area I don’t think it is surprising that a finger inadvertently ended up in Mr Doe’s mouth).
It was a fight, a brawl, a scuffle. Bad things happened because one guy lost his temper and assaulted another guy. Mr Doe should have called the cops, but recall that he is alone in a crowd of counter-protesters, one of whom just sucker punched him and is now gouging at his eyes, shoving his fingers in his face and perhaps making it hard to breath (this would definitely constitute ‘provocative’ action. Possibly life threatening action). If someone is choking you, would you not bite their hand? You would be bound by the Marquis de Queensbury rules while the other guy sucker punches, gouges your eyes out and fishhooks you? Bump that! you fight back as best ye may in the chaos of the melee. Don’t start a fight and you won’t get hurt. Mr Rice started it and he got hurt. As I have stated over and over again, I am sorry the whole damn incident happened because it is a worrying escalation of violence.
Answer the question: is being called an “idiot” now sufficient grounds for violence? All reasonable people know the answer… common sense and current law would seem to say no. I’m not a lawyer, so please enlighten me if I am incorrect on this.
September 17th, 2009 at 11:06 am
In the old days Barney would have brought them both in and Andy would have tossed them in cells next to each other and not let them have any of Aunt Bee’s cookn’ until they made nice.
September 17th, 2009 at 11:11 am
lol
September 17th, 2009 at 11:14 am
“is being called an “idiot” now sufficient grounds for violence?”
Depends on the jury.
If it were up to me, I’d require both of them to take anger management courses and give them a short probation and several hours of community service.
“In the old days Barney would have brought them both in and Andy would have tossed them in cells next to each other and not let them have any of Aunt Bee’s cookn’ until they made nice.”
I think this is the correct choice, though.
September 17th, 2009 at 11:22 am
As do I. We’ve got Rice, so we can haul him before Barney any time. As for Baby Bop, police say she’s still on the run…
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/sep/03/healthcare-reform-opponent-loses-part-of-finger/
September 17th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Yea, but then there’d be blood all over one of the cells.
The other option is to keep tazering them both until they stop squirming and become so fearful of that pain that they both avoid protests and confrontations forevermore. That works well in AK.
Enjoyed your first story Enk’s, & the extent of your patience with LB is surreal. (Especially since you know that LB has often stated that his motives on this site are to disrupt the discussions.)
Here’ my take from listening to Enk & LB:
Enk is mistaken about Rice wallking across the street initially, I believe it was the code Pink girl who did that first, in any event the point has no relevance.
What is relevant is that Rice’s belligerence and first strike has been established as fact.
There is no apparent basis to justify Rice’s physical actions as any sort of a justifiable defensive or pre-emptive measure, so it appears that Rice was the assailant.
The incident did not end there, e.g. LB’s blog witness describes Rice’s continued abusive physical actions: Mr. Doe repeatedly attempted to get off the vehicle thoroughfare (on which he fell because of Rice’s initial physical assault) apparently to return to the safety of the sidewalk. At this point it is fair to give Mr. Doe the benefit of the doubt that he may have feared for his life or was fearing grave personal harm from Mr. Rice’s continuing abusive physical actions.
LB seems to be suggesting that Mr. Doe had the capability of a pit-bull to launch an unprovoked attack and grab Rice’s fingers in his jaw (also overstating the fact that it was just the tip of the finger bitten off.).
However, there is no reason to believe that Mr. Rice’s hand was within reach of Mr. Doe’s teeth for any legitimate purpose (and there is every reason to believe it was in his face to continue the attack, e.g. gouging eyes or scratching face.) The benefit of any doubt on this issue must go to Mr. Doe.
If there were any good, clear evidence that Mr. Doe could have succeeded in defending himself by simply pushing Mr. Rice away then we might reach a different conclusion.
But there is no such evidence. The logical conclusion is that the assailant, Rice, only ceased his attack when he suffered an injury. Further, Mr. Doe exercised restraint because the scuffle ended at that point despite Mr. Doe gaining the upper hand and suddenly having the opportunity to inflict further damage upon Mr. Rice with a counter-attack.
September 17th, 2009 at 11:29 am
…or is that “on the walk.” Check out the video above. He doesn’t even run away, he just sort of saunters off.
“Wanted for questioning is 19 year-old Jason Voorhees of Crystal Lake California…”
September 17th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Has anyone figured out how the fight might have gone had Mr. Voorhees not crossed the steet and approached Rice? I’ll bet Knarly’s play-by-play would have been a lot less exciting.
September 17th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I just read that Dick Cheney is having $50,000 elective tax-payer funded back surgery. I guess carrying the devil on your shoulder for so many years finally caught up with him :P
Sorry, couldn’t resist…
September 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
The thing that makes me sad in this whole mess is that because of these idiots and the equally idiotic press that is perpetuating this story the police force in where ever this happened, don’t know, don’t care, is pulling resources to look for this idiot so the department doesn’t look bad and there is a little girl holding her teddy bear as she listens to her dad smack her mom again.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
knarls – pointless detail: Rice did indeed walk across the street to confront the Code Pinky people
from leftys link, the eyewitness report:
So just to recap my sequence of events was essentially correct. A lone man confront a group of counter protesters, asked two reasonable questions and then called Mr Rice an idiot and Mr Rice assaulted him. A defensive attack… gee where have I heard that before? Mr Rice lost the tip of his pinky. Maybe next time he’ll keep his anger in check? Probably not. Other eyewitnesses said Mr Rice started shoving Mr Doe in the face after sucker punching him. Don’t hit people and then start shoving them in the face. Teeth are sharp, water is wet, wwnj lost his temper.
A defensive move is to back away. A defensive move is to hold your hands up. An aggressive provocative move is to sucker punch someone and then start shoving, gouging and choking him. Am I happy Mr Doe bit Mr Rice’s finger? No. He should have run away (hard to do when Mr Rice just shoved you to the ground and is clawing at your face). Then he should have called the police and had Mr Rice arrested.
Smith – calling someone an idiot is not an excuse for violence. I look forward to your research on current case law in this regard.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Wow, shcb, that’s an incredibly sensitive comment you made… sort of liberal… almost fell off my chair ;)
September 17th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Enk – re: pointless detail: Pink lady had crossed the street at the corner to get to a parking lot, Rice was with his group some 25 to 100 feet away from the crosswalk then he separated from his group of 9 to verbally harangue Miss Pink at the street corner when she reached “his” side of the street, Pink lady returned to her side of the street (perhaps deciding to abort her walk to her car) and Mr. Rice returned to his group.
Note that there are no trespass issues here, and Mr. Rice’s side of the street did not acually belong to him. Now I am awaiting Smith’s correction about case law involving temporary ownership of public thoroughfares by recognized protest groups during organized vs. unorganized protests… :-)
September 17th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
NL.
we all have our days. even us nasty rethuglicans
September 17th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Of course, Moveon.org has been quick to distance themselves from the actions of this unknown assailant. In a public statement, a Moveon.org spokesperson claimed that his organization had unwittingly held its pro-health care reform rally next door to a similar rally held by the organization, Biteoff.org, and that perhaps those guys should be questioned regarding the incident.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
lefty – seriously lad, just let it go. You lost (again, as usual, whtvr) Mr Rice was acting aggressively towards others. He attacked someone for using the word “idiot”. He hit, clawed, gouged and pushed Mr Doe. I am sorry his pinky finger tip was bitten off, but the facts just do not line up with your ridiculous claims (as usual). Just drop it, you are looking like an even greater fool than usual (and that is saying something).
Since you admit I won our bet, will you please just go away? forever. thx
September 17th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
One guy has a sore finger and one guy has sore face. No one else was hurt, if they had it to over again, they probably would. I just can’t get into this your side is more stupid than mine when we are talking about a couple individuals.
September 17th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
“calling someone an idiot is not an excuse for violence. I look forward to your research on current case law in this regard.”
As I’ve already pointed out twice, I was not commenting on this particular case (this makes the third). At this point, I think I’ll just call you an idiot instead.
If you really think case law and the law as written are what actually determine the verdict in any specific case, you are being terribly naive. If you want commentary on specific cases from me, you are just going to get responses influenced by legal realism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_realism
My initial response dealt with the issues you presented in the abstract and briefly discussed case law. If you want a response to a particular case, go ask the judge/jury assigned to that case.
September 17th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Bullshit shcb. In our discussions you frequently put the spotlight on the biggest idiots or crackpots on the side of an issue you opposed and then ignore or try to discredit the logical arguments of the people who are clearly not crackpots simply by association.
E.g. You can’t ignore the police statements starting at the 26 minute mark of this video, or their independent corroborating witnesses at widespread locations. The implications of all those statements is partly described in a summary at the 49:50 mark , and the full implications – as described in the rest of the video – are most, well to paraphrase Mein Kampf, “uncomfortable” for people who have previously thought otherwise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
September 17th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Smith – it’s annoying in here isn’t it?
September 17th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
shcb – Help me out, I don’t want to believe those police officers etc. but after watching the whole video the best I can come up with to debunk it are pathetic quibbles. Reading the comments below the video only re-inforces the “big lie” concept as the people attempting to debunk it are clearly grasping at straws.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I am kind of curious as to what people hope to gain by treating this incident as some kind of proxy battle over health care reform. Does demonstrating that the guy on your side of the health care debate acted correctly somehow prove that your side of the larger debate is right?
September 18th, 2009 at 4:09 am
Smith – I think that’s the angle Enky and Knarly are coming from clearly, Me – I’m rattling their chains for the hell of it as much as anything else. It’s a pretty good day when you can goad two more-or-less stereotypical liberals into gyrating their way into defending somebody’s decision to pick a fight in the street then bite a guy’s finger off. That’s funny as shit. I think it’s hilarious how Enkidu is always going on and on about how violent Republicans are and how there’s going to be all this conservative violence in the street, but when blood is actually shed (in the weirdest way, too) the guy with the blood in his mouth is a liberal, and he’s the jackass trying to smooth it over. Ha. Ha. Ha. In the real world though, the incident means next to nothing unless you watch a lot of Fox News or go to (some) blogs a lot. It’s bearing on the larger debate is nil, other than as an abject lesson on how some people can convince themselves to rationalize the shittiest behavior if they think the politics behind it are “cool.” Another reason political activists of practically any sort sicken me to the bone, and I vow never to belong to any political party, group or movement ever again in my life.
What is interesting to me about the incident is how it seems a strange sort of real-world manifestation of the political blogosphere. The internet has helped create, or at least foster, a political climate in which people are not only able to anonymously use the thinnest of political pretense to curse at and insult one another for hours on end, but are encouraged to do so. In real life, those who don’t agree with us are people who don’t agree with us, but we still feel compelled to deal with them politely and fairly. On the net, people who don’t agree with us are idiots, or Communist wackos or their views on health care reform are based on racism and their hunger for human skin. It’s nothing for somebody on a blog to call someone else an idiot; Voorhees tried the same approach in public with predictable results. Intimidation and rudeness of the sort Rice was pulling on that Code Pink girl is similarly blog-like behavior, and we can certainly see where that ended up.
September 18th, 2009 at 5:11 am
Smith and LB, I agree.
Knarly,
You would have to give me an example, you’ve been trying to get someone to take the bait to your 911 theories for a few days, sorry but I’m not going to bite. I’m only human so you’re probably right, I’m sure I’ve engaged in this sort of thing but I think if you look at my record you will see I don’t do it much, and when I do I mention the idiot as an example and then move or at least attempt to move back to the subject at hand, that is sometimes hard to do with Enky around. He tends to grasp on the smallest item and just beat it to death, one or two people in a crowd of Republicans is enough fodder for a couple weeks for him. I don’t remember ever trashing any one person in your 911 conspiracies, I probably have but I don’t recall. I think I have usually referred to their ideas as being stupid, or whatever term I used, but not dwelled on any one person.
You can search back if you like but don’t waste too much time on it because I’m sure you can find an example or two, I’ll admit that right now to save you some time, but by and large I really try and not get too involved in individual idiots on either side.
September 18th, 2009 at 5:16 am
I’m with Smith’s last post on this, it is fun to discuss something like this as a shake your head subject or to study the human condition but rairly does it have anything to do with the subject they are protesting or advocating. Sometimes it becomes the subject of the protest but that is different.
September 18th, 2009 at 5:20 am
What was I supposed to see at the 26 minute mark?
September 18th, 2009 at 6:34 am
Smith – you do recognize satire? evidently not
You seem to consider yourself an expert, no need to get all snippy ;-) I was simply asking you (and to a lesser extent lefty) a question: is being called an “idiot” now sufficient grounds for violence?
My answer is no. Your answer is to call me an idiot. Oh irony, or satire (you forgot the wink?) Good thing I am not Mr Rice. His answer to my question is yes. Lefty keeps arguing for yes and you won’t answer. whtv
“…two men who, regardless of their politics, behaved quite badly.”
I’ll try to be more diligent about adding the little winky face for you. ;-)
I am not saying Mr Doe is better than Mr Rice and therefor reform is better than teabagging. What I am saying is wwnjs presents Mr Rice as the victim: he was the aggressor, he struck first, repeatedly and the victim defended himself until he could run away. Sorry about that finger Mr Rice, but next time someone calls you an idiot, perhaps you should just call them an idiot back?
To repeat a homily from childhood: “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”
September 18th, 2009 at 6:45 am
I think Enky and LB deserve each other. Troll v Troll.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:00 am
kind of like the guy with the sore face and sore pinky deserve each other
September 18th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Something like that.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:45 am
“the guy with the sore face and sore pinky deserve each other” – indeed; let’s all mark the time as a historic moment in this blog as this is shcb’s most cogent comment ever. ;-) (A nod to Smith’s “troll vs troll” observation too.)
shcb – The 26 minute mark is the start of an interview with a cop, and following that with another cop, and following that with other witnesses. Honestly, I don’t want a debate about 911 and do not want to into any prolonged (or even medium length) discussion here ever again. I now recognize that I cannot change you(r) minds, at least on that subject, no matter how right I think I am or how wrong I think they may be. (LB’s idiocy about Rice being the poor widdle victim notwithstanding.) I believe I have the willpower to let obvious mistakes or distortions of fact that others might post here to go unchallenged, other than to state I’ll agree to disagree.
The thing is that I had stopped assessing the Pentagon thing after deciding there was insufficient data to reach a conclusion; had changed my mind about the incident to believe that the likely scenario was similar to what the government reported. Case closed for me unless the FBI released one of the 90(?) or so webcams and if that showed an authentic recording of the commercial jet impacting the Pentagon. Whatever. The point is that I reviewed the witness statements from the event out of an idle curiousity (mere curiousity because I fully understand how witness’ recollections and memory are fluid and therefore did not expect anything solid) but I was “sucker punched” by how convincing it was and, more to the point of remarks arising from our symbology/psychology remarks before: I became “uncomfortable” trying to reconcile it with the government version (as per “Mein Kampf” excerpt, do word search on the above.) It may have the same effect on you, and if not I’d like to hear your explanation for why it is not convincing ot you.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:12 am
i’ll have to watch more of it, I just watched the firrst part of the first cop, I will do so tonight and reread your comment and address it. I owe you that much for being reasonable here. Thanks.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Inky and I were made for each other. I am the cheese to his macaroni.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:57 am
If, I said if, you watch the intro. it provides a good summary introduction to the content of the rest of video. there is no reason to review the next part about what made these investigators intrigued* enough to expend the effort to interview all these witnesses (who repeat their statments that were formerly provided to a government Military History department.)
* The “what made them” is mainly analysis by pilots for truth, which we’ve discussed a 1000 times before (except there is new stuff, but whatever) and a look at the impact area; it’s safe to say we both agree to disagree about those things.
Take your time, and don’t feel obliged to respond. I asked for your review only because I don’t have the guts to discuss this with anyone in the “real” world, people DO NOT want to talk about it.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:58 am
LOL “cheese to macaroni”
I was thinking it was more like you are the mud to his windshield, but whatever…
September 18th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Kind of like you’re the tongue to his asshole, huh?
September 18th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Perhaps we can just agree to disagree on that.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:35 am
You say tomato…
September 18th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Oh I’ll respond, you’ve never seen me short on words before have you? :-)
September 18th, 2009 at 10:36 am
by the way LB, that statement was vicious, even if I had to laugh at it. Ouch. :-)
September 18th, 2009 at 10:40 am
sorry shcb, “Perhaps we can just agree to disagree on that” was directed at LB this time.
shcb – oen final thing, even if you disagree with the video, it is kinda cool solely from the human interest perspective of the people being interviewed. For example, the Pentagon heliport air traffic controller did not talk at all like I would have expected a person in such a job to talk like…
September 18th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Tell you what Knarly, instead of subjecting these guys to this discussion, since we know no one wants to talk about it, I’ll look at it and post something on shcb.blogspot.com tonight, check in there tomorrow and we can discuss it there, if someone wants to follow that is fine too. I don’t use that site often but this may be a good use for it. Not that this thread is going anywhere but we should make an attempt to be courtious.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:52 am
BTW, I’ll watch it just for the animation, they really did a good job from the little I’ve seen
September 18th, 2009 at 10:54 am
That would be fine.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:58 am
there’s a little snippet from the Purdue University animation too (it did not include the engines, if it did they would have been burrowing into the gound or destroying the foundation neither of which show such damage in pictures taken after the debris was cleared.)
September 18th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Moving past all that however, I have a 911-truth question, Knarly, and it’s a legitimate question. Your stance, from the beginning of your tenure here has been that there is a high likelyhood that the 9-11 attacks were some sort of false flag operation perpetrated by the US government, or part of the US government or agents of the US government, or at least people working under the authority of the unseen power brokers who pull the strings of the US government behind the scenes. Yet you have also presented yourself as an advocate for government-run health care in the United States. If my government, or any part of my government was involved in the murder of three thousand Americans in one day, why exactly do you think it’s a good idea that I depend on them for my heath care? If the U.S. government did, in fact, destroy the World Trade Centers, why do you want them involved in my health care any more than they already are, and why should I? Given such a scenerio, why do you think I should I trust them with my health care?
September 18th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Fair questions lb, but I just want to correct something about the term “government-run”.
The correct term that should be used is “government-funded” or “publicly-funded”. The government doesn’t actually run shit; they provide the funds to healthcare providers to deliver services. As I’ve mentioned before, when me or my family needs healthcare we don’t deal with anyone in the government, we deal with doctors and nurses just like you do.
I think the term “government-run” implies that some bureaucrat is deciding what kind of treatment one might receive. This is not true.
Sorry for butting in again.
September 18th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
LB – good point, maybe you shouldn’t.
Are you trying to bait or are you seriously asking that question? Think about it yourself for a bit (before reading my reply paragraph). I am sure you can figure out the non-sequitor buried within your question.
The main difference is that with Health Care (HC) we are talking about changing laws that establish how the HC industry is funded / regulated, and that is a relatively transparent process. The opposite would be true if 911 contained CIA &/or Mossad &/or FBI &/or administration involvement, as most of the black ops would utilize classified funds (e.g. CIA black ops accounts), and the standard operating procedure for black ops where the various agents and players patriotically perform their assigned roles without understanding the full picture, and any question their role after the fact are disciplined and threatened with demotion or dishonorable discharge, coerced into silence (e.g. gag orders etc.), subjected to character assassinations, ridiculed, and any combination of those and other techniques. (Vee haff vays uv maykink yew naaacht tahk.” There has been ample anecdotal reports of those happening (e.g. both cops at the 26 minute mark of the video have been ordered by superiors to cease and desist from any further public statements and are complying.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o In contrast, I can’t envision how a reform of HC laws & funding as is being discussed could possibly jeapardize the specific treatments you would receive from your psychiatrist.
September 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
LB – I forgot to answer your first question: “why do you want them [i.e. government] involved in my health care any more than they already are, and why should I?”
The answer is because I believe that a HC system administered by the people you elect to represent you is a far better model in both theory and practice in terms of promoting the greater good of you and your fellow citizens.
Your current model sucks because the wellbeing of those being covered by your various plans are only realized after the bonuses for HC insurance executives and stockholder dividends are paid out, and even then it is only a by-product.
The central aim of the Canadian system, for all its faults, seems to be to continuously improve itself within realistic budgetary constraints for the benefit of Canadians. All the participants know that their mission is to work towards that goal, regardless of competing priorities.
September 18th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
That was a reasonable response to the question, I don’t agree with it but it was reasonable. Just my humble opinion.
September 18th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
You have this reversed to a certain degree. If a company of any industry has a monopoly it would be true but insurance companies don’t operate in that climate.
Sorry, I shouldn’t cut in like that.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
shcb – that’s fine, and I don’t have a problem with your monopoly statement except that you go too far when you say “it would be true but…”. That’s the wrong conclusion. Sure it’s not a monopoly but it is far from an entirely free market either. I haven’t studied it but I get the distinct impression it is some extent some form of an oligopoly (there seems to be about 27 HC insurance companies and cooperatives, of which I only recognize 4 names, I’d bet a half dozen of them have about 80% or more of the total market share and that some are simply subsidiaries of others). Oligopolies, if properly regulated, can be much better than monopolies. If not properly regulated then there are significant troubling similarities to monopolies except that an oligopoly is far more complicated and much more difficult to identify “problems” with how the market is functioning (i.e in what ways it is not functioning as a free market) than in a monopoly market.
Even if US HC insurers operated in a fully competitive industry, which I seriously doubt, the fact remains that their primary interest is to maximize benefits for their shareholders (if not their execs); and usually the maximization is focused on the next few quarters rather than on the companies’ long term best interests. The patients only benefit as a by-product of efforts to benefit shareholders. I suspect we’ll have to agree to disagree on which system would serve patient interests the best, but if we were to try to properly analyse that we’d need to take a long time determining the parameters about what we mean by serving patients the best, and I even doubt we could agree on that.
September 19th, 2009 at 12:49 am
shcb,
Thanks for your opinion. We disagree: it’s not just a “few degrees” of difference in trajectory, it is more like ten. Even if it were just a few degrees difference, that makes a huge difference in the pattern of damage to the building and which highway light poles got knocked down.
As your other statements are simply dismissive and not very pertinent to the evidence presented in the video, I’ll just ignore them.
I’m just going to leave this subject with the thought: maybe there are hundreds of other witnesses who would state that the approach was as reported the 911 commission.
Anyway, thanks for humouring me shcb.
September 19th, 2009 at 12:49 am
… as reported by the …
September 19th, 2009 at 7:18 am
Knarly,
911, my biggest problem is that even if there were a conspiracy to change the data to a different flight plan that was observed is still doesn’t answer the cast of thousands issue, coordinating the firing of a missile with the flyby of a commercial jet precisely. Military jets and some chick singing the National Anthem at a sporting event rarely get it right. then you are coordinating an attack by a terrorist group in another city… I think you and those like you are just grasping at straws. I did the same thing with the Vince Foster suicide but after a while you have to let it go.
Insurance companies:
You are probably right that most insurance is owned by a few companies, that is the normal progression of enterprise, the smaller companies probably have niche markets that the larger ones don’t want or can’t efficiently service. But your solution is to take even that level of competition away? Schumpeter said that even a monopoly can act as a competitive market if they feel they may be threatened at some point, but that can’t happen once government takes over because they have the ability to set the rules. Now it may look like they are in collusion to you especially given your propensity to conspiracies but in any industry equilibrium develops over time that makes most all the competitors more or less evenly priced, offering similar services. At that point the innovations and improvements happen at the margins but at least there is an incentive for them to happen.
A corporation’s first responsibility is to the shareholders, that is correct, but to fulfill that responsibility it has to please the customer, the employee, even the execs, come in a distant third, it can be no other way. But in a competitive market all those entities, well, compete. Companies try and hire the best people because they help themselves and hurt their competitors at the same time if they can steal a prize employee, but only at near market prices of wages. After equilibrium is reached they try and woo customers from competitors by giving a little here and there without hurting the bottom line, they have a first responsibility to shareholders remember. But it is always fluid, ever-changing, evolving at the speed of business, this doesn’t happen in government.
In elected government the first responsibility is re-election, and not just for selfish purposes. If you feel your cause is fighting the good fight over evil you have to get elected to continue that fight. Decisions are made more to influence voters than efficiency or quality. Now even here there is level of equilibrium that is reached much as it is in the private market. This is why NL has no problem with the Canadian system, it meets some minimum standard or the politicians would be asking “would you like fries with that sir?”
So the differences will be at the margins; will medical innovation stop? No, of course not it will just slow down. Will the elderly all be herded to death camps to die? No, of course not, their care will be rationed so some won’t receive the care they now enjoy. We won’t have hospitals with long wards with one overworked nurse tending beds of a couple dozen patients, but private rooms will probably be out of pocket. We will wait in line for tests, cancer patients will have lower survival rates because of this but after a while it will just be the way it is, we will all have NL’s attitude that we have good care because that is all we know. Oh well, those 5 million that need help getting insurance will have a card in their pocket just like the rest of us, it is probably worth it.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Ah, such melodrama. Obama needs to grow a mustache so he can twirl it while he denies care to elderly cancer patients.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Knarly – so you’re saying that the “people I’ve elected to represent me” – i.e. the government, are the best suited to administrate my health care , even if they are complicit in mass murder?
September 19th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Even if they are administrating the sort of police-state build-up you’ve suggested is talikg place in America? If the ultimate aim of the government, or of the people behind the scenes who control it, is the consolidation of their own power, as you have suggested from the start, would it not figure that the control of essential services, such as health care, would be manipulated to that end as well as anything else?
September 19th, 2009 at 10:02 am
In simpler terms: If I cannot trust my government not to murder me in the street, can I ultimately trust that same government to keep me healthy?
September 19th, 2009 at 10:11 am
If the government lets everyone die from disease, there will be no one left to murder in the streets. See, the gov has a vested interest in keeping citizens healthy in order to continue its “murder in the streets” program.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:55 am
That was actually a really good one, Smith…
September 20th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Smith – good one, fits right in with the sillyness of LB’s questions. LB seems to be implying that with a Canadian style HC reform you will have senators debating bills in the morning and prescribing arsenic / mercury concoctions to babies in the afternoon.
LB – The fallacy within your question was identified by NL http://www.lies.com/wp/2009/08/30/audiovisual-commentary-on-healthcare-in-the-us/#comment-164864 in describing the Cdn system: “The government doesn’t actually run shit; they provide the funds to healthcare providers to deliver services.”
The process we’re witnessing now in the USA (e.g. exclusion of single payer or public option proponents from providing input to Bauchaus’ committee) could feed the suspicions of people who suspect collusion between legislators and the private HC industry. (You know the people, e.g. your buddies at prison planet.)
I haven’t seen or heard anything about the proposed Bill (or is it a Bill yet?) other than Bauchaus’s committee has recommended something. Does their recommendation “cut” into those 31% overhead costs that weighs down the American HC system in order to “paste” those funds towards more/better patient care? Or does the proposal pretty much just grow the current system to cover more people by stretching existing HC premium/tax dollars (implying lower levels of service) or find more funding sources to pay for the added people covered (implying even more cash to the big HC corporations?) Or a combination of those three alternatives? Are there any polls to show the level of American citizen support for a single payer system? What I’m getting at is that your PP pals might be getting their tinfoil hats all sweaty about how the legislators seem to be puppets of the big established HC interests. E.g.,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoijjzjUFKs&feature=player_embedded
(Who owns HC industry corporations anyway, are there truly private ones or are they generally publically traded companies and if so who owns most of the stocks?) Maybe I should rent Sicko to get some answers? http://www.guernicamag.com/spotlight/1207/the_last_temptation_of_wendell/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Email marketing software&utm_content=357400770&utm_campaign=Guernica Magazine: August: Health Insurance Blues, White Canvas House _ ktduut&utm_term=The __ Last Temptation of Wendell Potter
September 20th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Smith – good one, fits right in with the sillyness of LB’s questions. LB seems to be implying that with a Canadian style HC reform you will have senators debating bills in the morning and prescribing arsenic / mercury concoctions to babies in the afternoon.
LB – The fallacy within your question was identified by NL http://www.lies.com/wp/2009/08/30/audiovisual-commentary-on-healthcare-in-the-us/#comment-164864 in describing the Cdn system: “The government doesn’t actually run shit; they provide the funds to healthcare providers to deliver services.”
September 20th, 2009 at 12:22 am
LB – The process we’re witnessing now in the USA (e.g. exclusion of single payer or public option proponents from providing input to Bauchaus’ committee) could feed the suspicions of people who suspect collusion between legislators and the private HC industry. (You know the people, e.g. your buddies at prison planet.)
I haven’t seen or heard anything about the proposed Bill (or is it a Bill yet?) other than Bauchaus’s committee has recommended something. Does their recommendation “cut” into those 31% overhead costs that weighs down the American HC system in order to “paste” those funds towards more/better patient care? Or does the proposal pretty much just grow the current system to cover more people by stretching existing HC premium/tax dollars (implying lower levels of service) or find more funding sources to pay for the added people covered (implying even more cash to the big HC corporations?) Or a combination of those three alternatives? Are there any polls to show the level of American citizen support for a single payer system? What I’m getting at is that your PP pals might be getting their tinfoil hats all sweaty about how the legislators seem to be puppets of the big established HC interests. E.g.,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoijjzjUFKs&feature=player_embedded
September 20th, 2009 at 12:22 am
LB – (Who owns HC industry corporations anyway, are there truly private ones or are they generally publically traded companies and if so who owns most of the stocks?) Maybe I should rent Sicko to get some answers? http://www.guernicamag.com/spotlight/1207/the_last_temptation_of_wendell/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Email marketing software&utm_content=357400770&utm_campaign=Guernica Magazine: August: Health Insurance Blues, White Canvas House _ ktduut&utm_term=The __ Last Temptation of Wendell Potter
September 20th, 2009 at 12:28 am
The correct link is everything in the quotes: “www.guernicamag.com/spotlight/1207/the_last_temptation_of_wendell/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Email marketing software&utm_content=357400770&utm_campaign=Guernica Magazine: August: Health Insurance Blues, White Canvas House _ ktduut&utm_term=The __ Last Temptation of Wendell Potter”
September 20th, 2009 at 1:50 am
“The government doesn’t actually run shit; they provide the funds to healthcare providers to deliver services.”
In the past, the government has used funding to leverage entities into following regulations that the fed could not otherwise enforce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law#Enactment
While I understand the point you are making, I think there is a fine line between “funding” and “running”. Obviously, the government is not going to be involved in day to day medical decisions, but it can use funding to shape overall policy. That being said, I don’t really feel that the current system, which allows business entities to use funds to control health care, is really any better. Businesses are just as capable of killing people in the streets as the government is (See Blackwater, now called Xe).
September 20th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Knarly,
It appears the Baucus bill is legislation that has been proposed in committee, so it is an official bill but it is in it’s infancy, it also appears to be a retread of a proposal he made last year, nothing wrong with that it just seems relevant. I haven’t read either this bill or the white paper he wrote last year, but I see some similarities in the table of contents, so take that for what it’s worth.
Here is a link to the bill
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11382446/Baucus-Health-Care-Bill—Full-Text
and one to the white paper
http://finance.senate.gov/healthreform2009/finalwhitepaper.pdf
I read an article from Paul Krugman, he doesn’t like it which by default should mean I do, but it seems in this case Paul and I may agree at least a little. Just judging from the Krugman piece it seems the Baucus bill is the Pelosi bill light with more finesse than HB3200. It seems to camouflage the socialism in coops and such. Krugman also thinks the bill doesn’t go far enough to help the poor pay for their insurance of course nothing short of zero is too much for Paul. At least Paul is honest enough to admit that 800 billion isn’t even close to enough money.
September 20th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Smith,
You said I was engaging in melodrama, maybe so, but that is what a salesman does, but that doesn’t mean the melodrama is unfounded.
Another quote from Emanuel, this is what I am talking about, we won’t have no care, just not what we are accustomed to, and that is fine with Obama and his supporters
And finally this, I think this is the most troubling
Now let me make this clear, I’m not partisan on this subject. In recent years is seems Democrats, when in power have systematically made laws to encroach on our freedoms, but I haven’t been impressed with Republican will to roll those policies back once they get in power. The best thing to do is not let either side do it.
September 20th, 2009 at 7:38 am
“Democrats, when in power have systematically made laws to encroach on our freedoms, but I haven’t been impressed with Republican will to roll those policies back once they get in power.”
Strange, I feel the exact opposite. The PATRIOT Act, among other freedom encroaching Bush era policies, does appear to be going away all that quickly. The Dems have a super majority, and they still can’t fix any damage the Repubs have done. I guess that makes me nonpartisan too, assuming we use the rather unique definition you seem to have for the word.
Also, your care is rationed now. Insurance company pencil pushers determine what care you get.
September 20th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Actually, I guess they don’t have 60 in the Senate anymore now that Kennedy is dead. The point still stands, though.
September 20th, 2009 at 8:06 am
I think you meant to say “doesn’t appear to be going away…” yup, that’s what I mean, maybe we both have a little libertarianism in us. That is why I was careful to include the phrase “on this subject” I’m certainly partisan. There is always rationing of goods to a degree, with the free market rationing it is controlled by supply and demand regulating price, as opposed to more arbitrary government imposed rationing, usually, as I explained above, there is a form of market pressure on government as well.
One difference is that in the market place an individual can change whenever they want, don’t like the flavor of that ice cream, buy a different brand. This from one of the articles I cited above
Now of course this could have happened with private insurers, and probably does, but at least in the private market place a customer (employer) could reject a company if they said a person needed to go partially blind before treatment would be paid for. This would also be a proper place for congress to pass a law making it illegal to deny treatment until blindness sets in. I’m not opposed to government involvement, just not ownership. While congress was taking the two years to pass that law a competitor would say “we don’t wait until a person is blind to approve treatment like Acme Insurance does” this of course will force Acme to change its policy. In the end the problem would probably be fixed before said legislation was passed, with congress proudly closing the barn door after someone else put all the horses away.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:54 am
You mentioned that you think your side hasn’t done a good enough job repealing the former administration’s policies, I think this is just human nature. The NASCAR press doesn’t give my driver enough press, but guess what, there are fans of 42 other drivers that say the same thing, couple that with the fact that we are passionate about our convictions, we want our side to be better than they are, or probably can be. You see this with parents that want their kids to do well, someone on the outside says “wow, your kid came in fourth” you can’t believe they did that bad because you want them to do better, and you have a rooting interest in it. The third party is looking at your kid more objectively, they didn’t think that kid would be in the top ten.
September 20th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Your last comment applies equally well to your comment about the Repubs not doing anything with their power. That’s basically the point I was making by saying it was reversible. To be honest, I don’t think the Dems or Repubs belong in the top 10. Bring on that third party. And fourth, and fifth, and…
September 20th, 2009 at 10:38 am
well, it’s up to the 4th, 5th and 6th party to sell themselves.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:51 am
Since we’ve often compared and debated our systems on this post, I’d thought I’d share this article from Yes Magazine that did a comparison between our respective hc systems:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/health-care-for-all/1503
“Publicly funded health care has its problems, as any Canadian or Briton knows. But like democracy, it’s the best answer we’ve come up with so far.”
October 5th, 2009 at 3:56 am
this thread is probably dead but I have to add, it depends on what your objectives are whether it is the best system or not
October 5th, 2009 at 9:51 am
The objectives are to provide high quality health care for all citizens, keep costs low, live longer, healthier lives and let doctors make health decisions – not profit-driven insurance companies.
Now, if your objective is simply to block a president from “the other side” from getting anything accomplished then you might have a different view.
Meanwhile, thousands of your fellow citizens die needlessly, thousands more are sent rocketing into the poor house due to medical bills, 9/11 heroes are denied coverage and people are dumped into the streets in places called “skid row” where they are left to die.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:59 am
there you go. now you have to prioritize that list and come up with a solution to all those problems, lowest on my list is “not profit-driven insurance companies”. In fact it wouldn’t be on the list. the rest are ok and we have all them already with the exception of keeping costs low. If you want to tackle that one you have to limit use to make any significant difference, and I’m not ready to do that.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:02 am
we don’t have a health care problem, we have a minor health insurance problem, and yes that needs to be addressed
October 5th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Well whatever you think your problem is it’s very odd to see this happening in the wealthiest nation on earth. The only western country that doesn’t have coverage for all their citizens.
If that was my country I would be furious. Hell, you’re just my neighbour and it still makes me furious lol.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
everyone gets health care here, running them through the e room is inefficent so we need to change that, but we have always been a country that prides itself on self reliance and self responsability, so if someone doesn’t have coverage and they go bankrupt, that is a personal choice they made. Kind of a tough love type of thing. Those two traits are what have made us the wealthiest nation on earth.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:54 am
I always here this e room argument and it makes no sense.
So you’re saying that if I have cancer I can just walk into an emergency room every week and get chemotherapy?
What if people can’t get coverage because of a pre-existing condition?
What if they did have coverage but because the insurance companies employ people to dig through your past for reasons to canel your coverage, it gets cancelled.
What if you had insurance through your employer but lost your job?
And keep spending what you do on hc and we’ll see how much longer you’re the richest country on earth.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:56 am
Let’s make it to 300 :)
October 6th, 2009 at 9:43 am
The things you mentioned do need some attention, no problem there, the bulk of the 40 or 50 million always cited that don’t have insurance can afford it, if memory serves that is in the 25 million or so range, the people you are talking about, the pre-existing condition types and those that have reached lifetime maximums etc are in the 5 to 15 million range depending on who you include in that number. That is a problem that needs to be fixed and there probably isn’t a solution other than the government paying for their treatment after they have been deemed uninsurable. So let’s fix that.
I heard the other day that our costs aren’t that far out of line with the rest of the world, especially if you consider the care we get, it is a utilization issue, we use medical resources and expensive resources more than others. I don’t have anything to back that up just something I heard. So yeah we can cut back on useage and the cost would drop. I guess that is a decision we will have to make.
Did you read that the Obama administration is toying with limiting upper pay in the corporations they loaned money to? This is why we don’t want government in our private sector.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Well every official government study or UN or whoever else does the research consistently points to much larger per capita spending by the US on healthcare, so until you can back that claim up that’s what I’ll believe.
One thing you surely won’t find in Canada, Britain, Cuba and any other country that has universal health care is a doctor refusing to treat women who are victims of domestic violence.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/06/democrats-vow-to-ban-domestic-violence-as-pre-existing-condition/
Disgusting.
Over 70% of doctors in the US want a public option. Listen to them, not insurance lobbyists. I promise you it will lower everyone’s costs. Every country on the planet that has one has much lower costs than the US.
I understand your concern with executive compensation, but don’t you agree that if you come running to the taxpayers for a bail out that you should have to accept some conditions for getting saved? I think if he didn’t speak out about this he would take a beating over it. I don’t think taxpayers like seeing their money being given away to people who then turn around and give themselves huge paychecks and bonuses.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
They were saying that usage is the biggest reason for our costs, meaning we pay a reasonable price for an individual procedure compared to other countries, we just have more of them and we do more of the more expensive procedures. So it could certainly be true that we have the highest per capita cost and the highest total cost but not be overpaying for an individual procedure. If that is true the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies aren’t ripping us off, we are just using more expensive treatments. For instance, last week my dad had a slight heart attack, I don’t know what number they were referring to but they said a massive heart attack would register a 25 and an imperceptible one would be a .2, his reading was .4. the nearest trauma center is 2 hours away, they didn’t hesitate to airlift him to the hospital, he said he was in the air about 20 minutes. Someone we were talking to said that flight costs about $14,000. Then twice into his heart, scopeing his stomach and colon, 5 days in ICU, private room etc, etc. The man is 80 years old, none of his veins work anymore. If you would do a return on investment on him he isn’t a good bet, now he wants a motorized chair so he can get around, they cost $6000 of which Medicare pays for all but $750, we spend a lot.
Yes I agree that when government sticks their noses in it they will start shoving their weight around, making decisions they shouldn’t be making. In the long run I think we will wish we would have let some of those companies go under. My point is that the same thing will happen with the government take over of health care, they will say, we’re paying for it therefore… take your pick, fatty foods, smoking, drinking, doctor’s pay, motorized scooters and airplane rides for 80 year old men with little circulation….
October 6th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
261 and counting, so do you have a dog?
October 7th, 2009 at 5:16 am
Yes, a Golden Retriever named Brett. Do you have one?
“we just have more of them and we do more of the more expensive procedures.”
But why are they more expensive? They’re not making Americans live any longer.
One thing I do agree with you on is the need to look at medical lawsuits. I think it’s very likely that doctors are ordering procedures just to cover their ass, even though they may not be medically necessary. There’s probably some substantial savings there.
Your concern about doctor pay doesn’t add up. Most doctors want a public option, they’re not in it just for the money. They took an oath to help people and save lives… not turn them away because they have no insurance.
CEO’s of insurance companies are making about 10x what doctors make in America. That ain’t right man. And either is that $14000 20 minute air lift. There’s some gouging going on there for sure.
I hear Wellpoint is suing the State of Maine because they want to raise insurance rates 18% and the state won’t let them. 18%… during a recession.
Glad your dad is okay. My mom’s operation is next Thursday and I’ll be gone for a few days so you’ll have a little break from my bitching :)
October 7th, 2009 at 11:28 am
We have 4 German Shepherds, Ibo, Kiesha, Illa, and Zieki. I was just making idle chit chat to try and get he count up but if there is more important things to talk about by all means.
The point is the procedures aren’t more expensive, we just do more of them to people that wouldn’t be able to have the procedure done in a place like Britain because of rationing.
Check the wording of wherever you got that information, I don’t think most doctors are for it as much as most doctor’s associations. But even if they are I don’t care, I am their customer, they work for me. If we have rationing they won’t be allowed to treat a number of people either. And finally on this point, I don’t have a problem fixing the issue of the uninsurable with a government financed plan, so those doctors can treat those people that they can’t treat now, and finally finally, those people can and do get treatment now.
As far as CEO’s making whatever they make, that is just the free market, If one of those doctors, or a ditch digger wants that money they can apply for the job.
Good luck with your mom, we’ll keep you and her in our thoughts and prayers.
October 8th, 2009 at 3:54 am
I really like Gernman Sheperds, they’re good dogs.
October 8th, 2009 at 3:58 am
But from my examination of our two health systems, I would say that there is more rationing taking place in your system than there is in ours. I mean, our government doesn’t employ people whose sole purpose is to find ways to deny people care. Our government doesn’t deny people because of some pre-existing condition.
Indeed, I would definitley say there is more rationing taking place in a profit-based health system.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:07 am
But like I said earlier, I think you’re right in that there are probably many procedures being done that don’t need to be in order for doctors to protect theselves from being sued, which would drive up costs a lot.
Sounds like the public option is gaining some momentum again.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:18 am
Canadians Make Breakthrough in How Cancer Spreads
http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/article/707300–canadians-make-breakthrough-in-how-cancer-spreads
Not bad for a bunch of socialists working at a publicy-funded institute.
October 8th, 2009 at 5:07 am
“ I would say that there is more rationing taking place…” I don’t know, you would have to lay out the rules of the game and determine what is rationing before you compared the two systems I suppose. But we’re not comparing the Canadian system in a vacuum either, we have some specific legislation that has been proposed, we have quotes from the major players, we are also comparing it to other systems. When you start talking about rationing, opponents of socialized care are usually using Britain’s system as an example since they do have an institutionalized system of rationing. Betsy McCaughey has talked and written at length on this subject, you can find many of her articles on her website http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us . I have heard her speak, she is very articulate, she was the lieutenant governor of New York I believe so she’s no right wing nutcase. That said I don’t like the way she takes just a few words from speeches and articles and says definitively this is what they meant, I’m always a little suspicious of people that do that. So take what she says through a filter. The most disturbing thing to me was her comment that Ezekiel Emanuel said that doctors were taking the Hippocratic Oath to literal. She also talks about the part of HR 3200 that discusses computerized records, the computer will eventually give a suggested treatment, one of Obama’s advisors, probably Emanuel, said that they feared an uprising of doctors, and that eventually the doctors may just pay the fine for not doing what the computer told them to do. If that is all true we have rationing of the worst kind built in this thing.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:16 am
A computer recommending treatment sounds pretty creepy, I know computers are pretty sophisticated these days and all but…
Reminds me of this guy I heard on Sirius radio the other day coming home from work. Some guy was talking about this robot that was invented and all the wonderful things it could do, like walk and pick things up and stuff.
The radio host was losing it on this guy (in a funny way) yelling things like, “So what if your fucking robot can walk in a circle, my fucking 6 year old can run circles around your stupid robot, ride a bike, play baseball and do al kinds of shit! You think you have this grand creation and this piece of shit can’t even do have the things my little boy can do?!”
It was really funny, but at the same time it made me realize that yeah, you know what, we’re a pretty amazing species and I don’t know if they’ll ever be able to duplicate the thoughts and feelings of a human being. I wouldn’t blame the doctors at all if they didn’t listen to a computer. I’ll see if I can find a clip from that show, it was so funny.
And why use Britain as an example to follow, why not use France since its ranked number 1? Of course you wouldn’t want to duplicate Britain’s system if isn’t much better or is worse than the one you presently have.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I suppose we use Canada and England because our countries are more similar than France. The whole French mentality is so much more attuned to socialism than Canada or Britain and certainly the US they are in a different world, also the ranking was so skewed toward everyone having equal care, not just basic care or quality of care that I don’t think France deserves to be number one. But that is just a guess.
You wouldn’t believe haw many times I have been asked to automate something and I ask the customer to show me how they assemble part A and B. They say we do this, this and put the three screws here and here. I then have to explain all the multi axis motions their hands made putting those two simple parts together, all the intricate mathematical calculations the operator with a ninth grade education made in the course of a quarter second. You see people hold one part, move the other a little, wiggle the first to the left, push the part in their right hand a little, wiggle the left again, then twist and push the right and bingo the two parts are in place. Invariably the guy will look at you and tell you how simple that is. I then have to explain that it will cost a half million dollars to replicate what they just did and there is only a 50-50 chance it will work as well as the guy that just wants us to leave him alone so he can get back to work. The human machine is a magnificent piece of equipment, it has the ability to fix itself for Christ’s sake.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Well holy crap, I agree with that whole post!
Heading home tonight for Thanksgiving so we’ll chat next week. This seems like a good spot to pause (on a note of agreement) while I give thanks this weekend with my family and friends.
Have a nice weekend and hope your dad is recovering nicely.Talk to you later.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
take care my friend
October 13th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Sucks about the Rockies, I was rooting for them in the NL. Plus, it’s always “cool” to see ball being played in the snow. Good young team though… you’ll be back in the race next year.
You a Rockies fan?
October 18th, 2009 at 10:14 am
sorry I missed this, haven’t been looking down here, I’m a fair weather fan, I watch a few games a year but not many, when they are in the playoffs I watch more, the excitement in the town makes it hard to not get interested. I’m pretty much just a NASCAR fan anymore, I don’t even watch football anymore.