Jon Leaves It There

Oops; I almost forgot my pledge to make consist of nothing but reposted videos. Here you go: The Daily Show fact-checks CNN’s fact-checking operation:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
CNN Leaves It There
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

263 Responses to “Jon Leaves It There”

  1. shcb Says:

    That is good comedy there, I don’t care who you are, I like the part where he asks can’t someone behind you look it up? all those people with computers, can’t they look it up? And the one woman asking circular and totally illogical questions. Her counterpart, gives her that scrunched up face like she wants to say what the #$%? Then in a heartbeat she realizes that one day she may be the one that got distracted in mid sentence and bails her friend out with a good question! Type remark. All casualties of a 24 hour news cycle.

  2. shcb Says:

    So now the Obama administration has decided Fox News isn’t a news organization, even though they regularly win awards for, you guessed it, news reporting, one would think these awards are given by people that know what news is, you sort of have to know news to give awards for news don’t you? Now CNN is real news organization, they don’t have any opinion there, it’s all news, all the time. What an arrogant prick. When you can’t beat your opponents, just outlaw them, you gotta love big government liberals.

  3. Smith Says:

    “one would think these awards are given by people that know what news is”

    Perhaps Fox’s news awards are like Obama’s Nobel.

  4. knarlyknight Says:


  5. shcb Says:

    maybe so

  6. enkidu Says:

    What an arrogant prick. When you can’t beat your opponents, just outlaw them, you gotta love big government liberals.

    Because civility, rationality and reasonable discourse are what is all about.

    Fact check: the arrogant prick might be the person who has their facts wrong

    Fact check: ‘we’ beat ‘you’ soundly in Nov

    Fact check: fauxnews is not a news organization

    Fact check: fauxnews is outlawed? Forgive me, but this is what is wrong with wingnuts: they are just plain nuts. Being rational and reasonable with insanity isn’t a winning strategy imho. Mock. Deride. Laugh and dismiss. faux is in no way outlawed. Their viewership is the largest (because wingnuts only watch faux… every other source of infermashun iz jes so ding liberal!)

    Last facts: did you know the federal deficit under Reagan/Bush more than tripled? Fact. That it went down under Clinton? That the total deficit doubled again under bush? Facts is so ding liberal! yes, big gunmint is all bout teh liberals tax n spend (which is much better overall then rethugs spend and spend (with extra tax breaks for the wealthiest and maybe a war or two [bungled])

    Grab a mop or please just stfu and get out of the way (the latter would probably be best for everyone – go Galt! please).

  7. shcb Says:

    Fairness Doctrine

  8. Smith Says:

    “Fairness Doctrine”

    If Fox News is truly fair and balanced, then it should already be in line with the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine bogeyman.

  9. shcb Says:

    That depends on who is setting those requirements. My broader point was that this group of Democrats has shown it has no problem outlawing free speech. This is just the first step. The funny part is that this administration has enjoyed the most sycophant press of any president in memory and yet they just can’t stand having one little outlet that won’t toe the line. Republican presidents know going in they are going to get hammered in the press, they just shrug it off and move on.

  10. enkidu Says:

    I just wish they would introduce a Factual Doctrine for wwnj ‘news’ (for all the news really – google could sponsor it, it would be instantaneous and verifiable [ha!])

    wwnj is worried about a FCC policy from 1949 that hasn’t been in use since 1987

    the weather must be really different over in the wingnutoverse

  11. Smith Says:

    “My broader point was that this group of Democrats has shown it has no problem outlawing free speech.”

    Not talking to Fox is somehow a limitation on free speech? Aren’t they free not to speak to Fox?

  12. enkidu Says:

    plus in what way is free speech outlawed?
    no fauxnews links, please
    we need facts, not fiction

  13. shcb Says:

    I started out complaining that they don’t think Fox is a news network, and it has degenerated to this already. I never said free speech had been infringed on, just that this group of Democrats has no problem infringing on free speech by even proposing the reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine.

    Do you think Fox News is a news organization?

    This from an old friend in Utah

    “People must stop comparing Obama to Hitler. Hitler got the Olympics to come to Berlin.”

  14. Smith Says:

    “Do you think Fox News is a news organization?”

    Having lived overseas for a while, I really don’t feel that any of the “News” channels in the US should really be called “news organizations”. CNN International is good, I wish regular CNN was more like its international version. CNN International and BBC World News are, in my experience, about news, not personality. I’m back in the States for now, and I am frustrated by coverage here. I want facts, not opinions masquerading as “analysis”.

    “it has degenerated to this already.”

    It looks like you were the one to start making claims about “limiting free speech”. If you didn’t want this to “degenerate” into a discussion about “free speech”, why did you bring it up?

  15. shcb Says:

    None of them may live up to your expectations, they don’t live up to mine either, but they are what they are and we call them news organizations. My question still stands, is Fox News a news organization.

  16. Smith Says:

    My answer still stands too. “I really don’t feel that any of the “News” channels in the US should really be called “news organizations”. “

  17. shcb Says:

    fair enough

  18. enkidu Says:

    When did the Obama administration outlaw free speech?
    You would think the Roberts court would have made mention of this Change.

  19. shcb Says:


    The Obama administration has blackballed Fox because Chris Wallace fact checked his guest from the week before. Isn’t that what you want real news networks to do?

  20. Smith Says:

    I was under the impression that Fox was blackballed well before that. I’m pretty sure he came out against the network during the election.

  21. shcb Says:

    I don’t keep up on the media gossip any more than celebrity gossip, but that is what I’ve read in the last day or so. I’m sure he didn’t like them, I’m sure he wished they weren’t there but I think that was the deciding moment the point in time it became official.

    Sort of like Bush didn’t like Tom Tancredo criticizing him for his lack of border control but he was still invited to the White House until that ONE time when Rove met him in the foyer and told him to never let his shadow grace the steps of the White House again, or words to that effect. Tom said he was surprised it took them that long.

  22. Smith Says:

    When did the Chris Wallace event occur?

  23. shcb Says:

    the interview was August 23 and the fact check section August 30 this year

  24. NorthernLite Says:

    George W. Bush attacked the New York Times; John McCain attacked MSNBC; George HW Bush attacked MSNBC.

    Why all of a sudden the “outrage” over Obama attacking Fox?

  25. Smith Says:

    I’d guess that events like this: are as likely a cause of Obama’s snubbing of Fox as the fact check.

    He also began snubbing Fox during the primaries:

  26. shcb Says:

    It isn’t that the White House is criticizing Fox, it is that they are dismissing them, it is the arrogance that they feel they can just say they aren’t a news agency and no one should listen to them. I don’t recall an administration singling out a legitimate news agency and saying that before. Not an American news agency at least. Smith has hit it on the head, Fox is complaining that this administration can’t differentiate between news programming and opinion programming on Fox (evidently neither can Smith) but it can on MSNBC, they see a huge bias on Fox, but not on CNN, ABC, NBC… The delicious part is that they are boycotting Fox because they fact checked something; therefore they are not a news agency? Even if Bush wouldn’t go into the lion’s den on occasion other administration members were allowed to. There is nothing Fox can do but raise holy hell, and they are preaching to the choir for the most part. But they can and should do at least that, this is what freedom of speech is all about.

    This will be short lived, Obama’s peeps will be back defending themselves on Fox before long and then we will have the perfunctory Wallace interview with Obama, both of them smiling and patting each other on the back.

  27. enkidu Says:

    I am still waiting to hear from wrong wing nut job when Obama outlawed free speech, but in the mean time (which will be a very long time indeed, based on – you know – the facts):

    First they came for Van Jones, then they started in on Cass Sunstein, then it was that gay guy, now the smear machine of the right wing propagandists are aimed at another advisor (call em czar only if you can acknowledge that lil bushie had more czars than Obama – fact)

    See why the Obama administration isn’t interested in talking to fauxnewtz? Fairly Unbalanced and a Pack of Lies should be their tagline (if we were being – you know – factual)

  28. NorthernLite Says:

    So you agree that people have a right to say that Fox is not a news organization, right? That’s what freedom of speech is all about.

    Also, they’ve been snubbing Fox well before Fox discovered the fine art of fact-checking.

    There’s a reason why Fox was the only network Cheney would appear on whenever he felt safe enough to leave his cave. Because they didn’t fact-check or press him on anything he said.

    Face it, Obama is doing exactly what the previous administration did only now you don’t like it because the tables have been turned.

  29. shcb Says:

    Enky, I haven’t answered your question recently because I already have on this thread, before you asked it.

    NL, they have the right to say what they want, then we have the right, maybe even a responsibility, to criticize them for using their prerogative to exercise that right, it is more a question of decorum and an insight into their thought process.

  30. enkidu Says:

    wait, you answered my question before I asked it?
    so… time runs backwards in the wingnutoverse? cool!

    I just reread all your posts and I can’t say that I see your explanation of Obama outlawing free speech. Please do enlighten us.

    yes, nothing says decorum more than calling someone a prick and comparing them to H!tler. So glad we’ve cleared that up.

    Actually NL, I wouldn’t say this administration is behaving exactly like shrubie’s (point acknowledged on indefinite detention and spy powers). This administration has the biggest clean up operation in gear since FDR. We may not like how it is going in some respects, but either pick up a mop or stfu would seem to be a pretty concise distillation of the current state of affairs. I worry that they aren’t fixing the banking industry fast enough/sufficiently, but the DOW is above 10k and business is finally picking up a bit. maybe. well kinda. Hopefully (as in hopefully not a double dip depression, errr recession).

    Fun fact: unemployment in the USA is nearing 10% (ugh) but did you know it was 10.8% under Saint Reagan? Well, at least I read it on wikipedia ;-)

  31. NorthernLite Says:

    Exactly, I agree with you. That’s why you didn’t hear people whine when the NYT or MSNBC was attacked by the Right, people have the right to say whatever they want.

    For pete’s sake, the previous administration destroyed people’s careers for publicly disagreeing with them! Now you can’t take a little bit of criticism? You guys are in for a long seven more years.

    To Fox and their supporters all I can say is: Suck it up buttercup.

  32. shcb Says:

    NL, I don’t really understand your last post, this complaint of Fox is very narrowly defined, you seem to be expanding it way out there. Did the Bush administration say a news network wasn’t a news network during the Plame ordeal? They defended themselves, but I don’t think they said that a news network wasn’t a news network and that people shouldn’t listen to them. did they pull all their people from the Sunday shows? I don’t think so, seems there were plenty of video clips from those shows of administration officials explaining the Plame affair on shows on networks other than Fox. No, this is unique.

    Enky, start off with Oct 19 8:24, then the 9:37, you asked your question and I expounded on my two previous posts at 10:37 answering your question that should not have been asked if you had read and understood the first two posts. I can’t help you much more than that.

  33. Smith Says:

    I think his point was that this administration’s response to criticism (saying Fox is not news) is much less severe than the previous administration’s (Plame scandal).

  34. enkidu Says:

    The Obministration isn’t saying “a news network isn’t a news network”. Faux isn’t a news network, they are a outlet for right wing propaganda and hate speech, er I mean opinion.

    If you can’t get a fair shake then screw em. Like faux will ever say anything good about any Dem or progressive much less Obama. faux gives Glen Bonkers a platform to say absolutely crazy sh!t. Screw em. How many advertisers have dropped Bonkers? I’ve stopped watching because I don’t want to give them the Nielsen ratings and i can glean enough from the intertubes in fact checking and commentary.

    Gee I just reread your comments (yet again) wwnj and you keep repeating that Obama’s opponents are “outlawed” and that the administration is “outlawing free speech”. Another place you say they aren’t infringing on and then they are by even proposing a Fairness Doctrine? Where is that written into FCC policy please? It isn’t. Faux is just cryin like a baby because someone is finally calling them out.

    I can see why you would like a racial bigot like Tancredo.

  35. NorthernLite Says:

    Thanks Smith, that’s exactly what I was saying.

    Next thing you know shcb will be dabbing a little bit of Vick’s Vapour Rub under his eyes to induce tears. You know, just like that crazy guy from that “news” network does.

    When a member from a news organization has to rub Vick’s on his eyes to make himself cry, it should raise red flags inside your head as to whether or not your watching news, or simply an entertainment network

  36. shcb Says:

    I don’t think the Plame affair is really analogous in this discussion, Wilson worked for the administration, as I recall he went outside channels etc. There may well have been deserved criticism for the administration’s actions, I think that criticism was overblown but be that as it may be, this is completely different. If this administration were to fire Duckworth because she botched the interview, something like that, it would be a closer comparison to Plame and Wilson. I can’t think of another story in the Bush years that would have distinction of destroying careers although it happens in every administration, it is just kept quiet by both parties for obvious reasons.

  37. shcb Says:

    Enky, you really don’t read very well.

  38. enkidu Says:

    I read perfectly well. You just can’t explain how free speech is outlawed or any of the other ridiculous claims you’ve made. Fairness Doctrine? That is so 1949. I would support a Factual Doctrine (it would put fauxnewtz out of business for sure).

    Show me the FCC policy where they are outlawing the opposition or whatever. You’ve stated it several times, but can’t back it up. All you ever read is far right wing hate speech, which makes you spout ridiculous nonsense like “this group of Democrats have shown they have no problem outlawing free speech” This is not factually correct. Your statement is not based in reality. No laws have been passed abridging your right to spew right wing nonsense.

    NL only faux is ‘outraged’, everyone else is pretty much in agreement: they aren’t a news network, they are a propaganda outlet.

  39. enkidu Says:

    This is like ‘debating’ the dining room table (perhaps the table would make more sense than wwnj).

  40. shcb Says:

    READ THE FUCKING WORDS!!!!! I said they have no problem outlawing free speech, I didn’t say they had been successful, I then went on to say they hadn’t been successful. You don’t read what people say, you read what you want them to say to make your argument easier. Then you beat it to death. What a pain in the ass.

    Sorry to the rest of you, but not to this prick.

  41. enkidu Says:

    So… repeating what you wrote is now off limits? Using your exact words is somehow offensive (putting aside the swearing and name calling)?

    You are a joke.

  42. knarlyknight Says:

    there is a lesson in here somewhere but I’d hate to spoil the chuckle by analysing it.

    shcb, you realize that your first statement: “this group of Democrats have shown they have no problem outlawing free speech” is not congruent with your latter statement: “I didn’t say they had been successful.” If they were “not successful” that means they had “a problem outlawing free speech” See, if they had no problem with outlawing it, then they would have done it successfully. Besides, isn’t it anti-American to try to outlaw free speech? And if so are you calling Obama’s team anti-American?

  43. Smith Says:

    “See, if they had no problem with outlawing it, then they would have done it successfully.”

    You’re equivocating here. Shcb’s use of “have no problem” was intended as a claim that they personally have no moral objection to outlawing free speech. He did not mean that they would not encounter problems if they actually tried to ban speech.

    While we are on this topic, I’d like to know who shcb is referring to as “this group of Democrats”. Congress? The Obama administration? All Dems? Also, how have they shown that they “have no problem outlawing free speech”? That claim was just kind of thrown out there with no real support or proof provided.

  44. shcb Says:

    Thank you Smith, thank you, thank you, thank you. The Democrats I am talking about are primarily the congressional leadership, Obama hasn’t really shown any interest in resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine although it isn’t clear he would veto it either. I think he would weigh the risks vs rewards at the time. No problem there, he is a smart politician and that is what they do. I’m mainly talking about people like Reid and Pelosi and folks like them, the farther to the left than normal Democrats, that type has always been in the Democratic party but they have risen to the top of the class now. They have the means to twist arms now that they haven’t in the past. I’m guessing that in numbers they are still the minority. There is also a group that wants to keep power so much they could be convinced to go along with infringing on free speech if it meant they would keep the reigns of power for the next 30 years, Obama is probably in this group. Put those two groups together and you have enough to at least come close to having the votes to pass this. Does that answer your question?

    Of course talk radio would just switch to satellite or internet radio, so those that are opposed to this infringement in the Democratic party on moral grounds and those in the second group above have to make the decision of is it worth the negatives if it is only going to be minimally successful. I suspect the first group would say yes.

  45. shcb Says:

    BTW there are equivilant factions in the Republican party, so we don’t get into another pissing match.

  46. Smith Says:

    “that wants to keep power so much they could be convinced to go along with infringing on free speech if it meant they would keep the reigns of power for the next 30 years”

    This sort of assumes that those groups believe right-wing talk radio is actually a threat to their political power. I’m guessing most Democrats are not so foolish as to believe that Limbaugh’s listeners would vote for the Dems if Limbaugh were taken off the air. There is also an assumption that Limbaugh would actually be removed as opposed to just being counter-balanced ala Hannity and Colmes.

    If I had to guess, I’d say those who are pushing (if such people actually exist outside the minds of radio hosts) the Fairness Doctrine are probably just being putative. It is not about keeping power, it is about getting back at those who attack them on a daily basis.

    Having said that, I rarely ever hear Dems actually bring up the Fairness Doctrine. Most of the comments I found from Dems were a result of Conservatives questioning them about it. I honestly think it is little more than a Right-Wing bogeyman that people like Rush harp on in order to fabricate outrage over something that will never come to pass.

  47. NorthernLite Says:

    I think the Dems would be foolish to try it anyways. Since the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party has taken over the Democrats have won control of both Houses, the White House and only 20% of Americans identify themselves as R’s.

    Rush, Glen, Palin, etc. are the gifts that keep on giving.

  48. shcb Says:

    There is some gamesmanship going on to be sure, always is, and I think you are right that most of the people in the first group I mentioned would do it to punish the Limbaughs even if it had little strategic effect I think there is enough hatred there they would cut off their noses to spite their faces. Forcing balance on talk radio would probably kill it since liberal talk radio has never shown to be commercially successful for what ever reason. If a true balance were forced I think the marked would just move to a listener paid media like satellite where there would be even fewer limits on how the shows are conducted.

    There is some legislation that has been passed or is closer to being passed than the Fairness Doctrine, kind of a back door way to the same objective. It’s been a while since I heard about it. I’m quite busy right now so it may be next week before I can look into it. If the subject matter here has changed, I’ll keep it until this inevitably resurfaces.

    NL, I think you are underestimating the fickleness of the American voter. Republicans made the same mistake you are after winning in ’94 and we are still paying for it. Many Democrats in congress remember those days or this health care reform would have sailed through congress. Just be happy there are still cooler Democrat heads in congress than Peloci.

  49. Smith Says:

    “Forcing balance on talk radio would probably kill it since liberal talk radio has never shown to be commercially successful for what ever reason.”

    I think most stations/programs would get around this by going to Hannity and Colmes style programming. I believe that show received good ratings. I’m sure the broadcasters would find some solution.

  50. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb, I think you’re underestimating the intelligence of the American voter if you think people like Rush and Palin are going to bring your party back to power.

  51. shcb Says:

    Smith, maybe, I’m not sure how much of a market there is for that type of show, there always seems to be a market for one or two of those shows, but the bulk of political shows seems to revolve around one central figure, even liberal talk radio seems to follow that model.

    NL, you have to realize there probably isn’t one person that will ‘save the party’ I think Rush did save the party in ’94 but that was then, he was new and fresh, he can fire up his loyal listeners now and that will pull a few in by his loyal’s enthusiasm but he won’t make a big difference, but he can still solidify the base. Palin is a wild card. She is the current breath of fresh air and could turn things around, but I’m not sure if it is as a candidate. First, is there a position where she could bring her enthusiasm and appeal to the party without being the candidate? Then would her ego accept that position? I think both of them could play a big part in a resurgent Republican party but there will also probably have to be a moderating figure in there as well. I think one thing is sure, you can’t moderate either of them and be successful, you have to use both of them to what ever extent you can and not over play them, but you can’t change them the way Gore changed Lieberman. Joe could have been a big asset to Gore but having him change temporarily to Gorelite just alienated his appeal to both sides.

  52. knarlyknight Says:

    Smith, You accused me of equivocating with “See, if they had no problem with doing it then they would have done it successfully.”

    That is precisely what I was doing, and perhaps with mischievious intent too. I’m impressed by the manner you quickly identified that and moved on.

    Gentlemen, take note: Smith has raised the bar. (The rest of us are merely raising pints. Thus, Smith is an alcoholic.)

    & with that, I cease intentional equivocating forevermore. Cheers.

  53. shcb Says:

    Something else to consider Smith is most radio stations tend to be of one genre or another, country stations don’t play a lot of pop. It seems talk radio is the same, here in Denver we have KOA that is mostly conservative talk and sports and 760, can’t remember their sign that is liberal talk radio. They are both owned by the same people. If they felt there was a market for both on one station they would have one. God knows Clear Channel has enough stations. Unfortunately I just don’t think there are enough people that want to debate issues or want to listen to issues debated. And that is sad.

  54. NorthernLite Says:

    The thing I don’t understand about talk radio / opinion shows is why would I want to listen to someone else’s opinion for hours? I don’t need anyone to tell me what or how to think. I can think for myself.

    I guess maybe it’s because the listeners share those opinions, but I still don’t get why people listen other than to feel some sort of validation of their own opinions. I dunno, I just don’t get it.

    The only time I listen to someone’s opinion for hours is when I hang out with my girlfriend.

  55. shcb Says:

    And you have one thing on your mind while you listen to her for hours don’t you :)

    The validation aspect is probably the biggest thing for a show like Limbaugh’s. I listen to Rosen because he gives good information. It is like reading the paper or reading news or editorials on the web, we all have and jobs don’t have the time to research these issues, that is their job so we get our info there. You also get to hear a lot of experts pro and con. During election cycles he has formal debates lasting an hour each between the candidates. Once a month the governor has a show and once a month the mayor has a show, no matter what party is in power, it is good to hear them speak in something other than a sound bite. So many of these issues require hours of discussions to fully explore them. Look at how many hours we spend here discussing them. Talk radio whether it is left or right typically has 15 hours a week to delve into an issue, not 300 or 700 words or 2 or 3 minutes of a 20 minute news cast. Plus with his show being on line I can pick and choose which hour I want to listen to, fast forward , rewind etc…. and there is still the validation factor to Rosen’s show as well.

  56. NorthernLite Says:

    Yeah, you got me there. At least I’m getting something substaincial out of listening to it ;)

    I’ve heard that name (Rosen) mentioned here a few times but I honestly don’t know who he is. Does he have a radio talk show?

  57. shcb Says:

    he has the prime time talk show here in Denver, he has filled in for Rush a couple times and quite frankly didn’t do too well, his show, style, and audience is just too different from Rush’s. At one point Knarly tried to listen to his show online but it was blocked by Canadian/US copyright laws or something, If you would like to try again and get a taste of it go to, shows, Mike Rosen Show and that will give you the last two days, to the side is a past shows link where they have the last two or three years archived.

  58. Smith Says:

    “Canadian/US copyright laws or something”

    If Knarly or whoever really wants to get around that, you can use a US based proxy or VPN connection to circumvent IP location blocks. I’ve heard some people mention using this program to watch Hulu outside of the US. It is intended to give you a secure connection when you are using public wireless, but it has the side effect of also giving you a US-based IP. I’ve never tried it, so your mileage may vary.

  59. enkidu Says:

    this one is for you shcb (since you enjoyed that motorized bar stool story so much, I’ll see your bar stool and raise you a La-Z-Boy)

  60. shcb Says:

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and say this isn’t his first DUI.

  61. shcb Says:

    I don’t know Enky, I found the same story on Fox so it probably isn’t true :),2933,569204,00.html?test=latestnews

  62. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, interesting fox link.

    From the Fox link, this appears not to be an important story, but let’s see what it says about Fox. Fox gives nothing to add perspective (e.g. photo’s), no links to make it easier to go back to the original report (references to AP sure, but that obligates the reader take the extra 3 or 4 steps, and they’d be lucky to find the Deluth News Tribune before it is archived (after 7 days) and costs $2.95 to retrieve).

    In contrast, the NPR has pics and with one or two clicks you get the real story:

    …he was driving the chair fine until a woman jumped on it and knocked the chair off course.

    Now that’s the kind of detailed insight one just can’t get from Fox.
    Plus you learn he has had ONE prior DIU in his 62 years.

    Moving on, holy crap. I mean, well, Holy Crap:

    No need to comment on the pay cuts shcb, I know what you think about it and you are wrong this time. But, alas, I’ll bet ya the guys hit with this cap on pay are not going to suffer for it one itsy bit, they’ll get what they feel is due plus interest in years to come.

    Signing off to finish off the Cabernet. Cheers.

  63. shcb Says:

    You are probably right Knarly, a story as important to the human experiment as this one deserves more citations, perhaps the educational history of the arresting officer would be helpful to fully understand this most pressing issue. But you see, the whole story is just wrong, it is a lie, it must be dismissed out of hand if it is on Fox News when you live in Enky and the President’s world.

    But moving on. So what do you think will happen here with these pay cuts? You’re a smart feller. You touched on half the answer already. (A) they will find a way around these pay cuts to get their compensation back to what the market will bear with or without a wink, wink, nudge, nudge from congress, and oh what a scandal it will be, or (B) they will find employment elsewhere and leave the reigns to less qualified individuals. These individuals will be more than happy to take the pay raise and yes they will have plenty of money to live on. The problem is they won’t be very good at their jobs so they will be replaced a few times until congress just decides to run the damn thing, then we will have the last worst executives in those positions as yes men and a bunch of congressmen that know little of the industry running it from Washington. Ta Da! Mission accomplished, the socialization of those companies is complete, luckily in our system the currently hapless Republicans will get back in power at some point, deregulate and the whole cycle will start anew.

  64. Smith Says:

    “they will find employment elsewhere and leave the reigns to less qualified individuals.”

    You seem to be under the impression that those who are/were in charge of those businesses that were bailed out when the economy collapsed are clearly the most qualified. I’m not entirely convinced that is the case.

    “luckily in our system the currently hapless Republicans will get back in power at some point, deregulate and the whole cycle will start anew.”

    I’m not sure what is so lucky about having another deregulation fueled recession.

  65. NorthernLite Says:

    This is a horrible fight for the Republicans to pick. They’re basically saying who cares if these guys received hundreds of billions from the taxpayers, let them give themselves billion dollar bonuses. It’s not flying to well the public. Just last night on the Jay Leno Show when he mentioned that the Obama admin is cracking down on excessive pay for companies that received a taxpayer funded bailout, the crown roared with approval.

    Another consequence of the pay restrictions is that it will most likely induce the companies to pay the money back – all of it – faster so that they don’t have to comply with pay restrictions. Regulating pay for executives who required a taxpayer funded bailout to survive is not socialism, its common sense and quite frankly a dumb thing to argue against.

  66. shcb Says:

    Politically, you are probably right NL, and the crowd’s reaction shows the shallowness of understanding of most people of the dynamics of this situation, I don’t have an answer for that, we’ll just have to live through it I guess. I do agree with you to a point that it will give incentive to get the money paid back sooner, although I would rather use a carrot instead of stick to accomplish that goal.

    If the government will let them pay it back, there has been some resistance to allow some companies to pay the money back ahead of time, that may have been justified so I really haven’t criticized the Obama people for that because I don’t know the particulars.

    Yes it makes sense for the owners of the company to decide what its employees make, which is why the government shouldn’t own these companies, they are doing this more out of public opinion than for rational reasons, that is rarely good for business, but almost always good for reelection. If these individuals aren’t the best as Smith says, fire their asses and hire the best, if they aren’t the best, driving them out and hiring the 5th string backups isn’t going to fix the problem, unless your problem is reelection. One last thing, the government didn’t bail them out, it bailed out the stockholders, you need to put the players in their proper places.

  67. shcb Says:

    The headline on the web site read “Free press 1- White House 0

    The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

  68. NorthernLite Says:

    Some of those companies would’ve went belly up if they hadn’t been bailed out, therefore the company was bailed out, therefore their jobs were saved. They were bailed out.

    And you seem to easily forget how the previous admin handled the media. They invited conservative commentators only on numerous occaisions to the WH, attacked media outlets when they were critical of them, staged fake news conferences, paid journalists to write good things about them and on and on and on. At least Obama invites conservative and liberal media. They just have a problem with Fox calling themselves a news organization, which many people agree with.

    My, what short memories we have.

  69. NorthernLite Says:

    Do you remember this?

  70. enkidu Says:

    who wants to bet that there is more to the story than the fox link?

    typical for wwnj: if npr says a guy was arrested for driving a motorized LaZBoy it can’t be true, so he has to check fox… to get less of the story… I stopped reading after a while, did they eventually blame it all on Obama?

    will you ever link to an info source that isn’t wwnj (ie extremist right wing)

    still waiting for a single fact-based post from you wwnj

  71. shcb Says:

    Yes some of those companies would have gone belly up, and people would have lost their jobs, many did anyway. That is the constructive destruction of capitalism. That would have been bad for those that would have lost their jobs. This is the predictable next step when liberals are marching to socialism. I think bailing some of these companies was a necessary evil, and this move to regulate wages is not only an unnecessary evil but harmful to the recovery, but it satisfies a bloodlust some harbor, and will probably get some votes.

  72. Smith Says:

    The executives should be happy, the 10% they get after the bailout is better than the 0% they’d have gotten otherwise.

  73. shcb Says:

    Politics of envy. They aren’t going to take a 90% cut (wages are 90% but overall package is 50%), I’m sure they are under contract so unless the administration is going to be in breach of contract they well have to wait until their contracts are up or release them from those contracts. In either case these execs will be down the road at the first better offer, and with a 90% cut in pay that won’t be hard to find in a competitive market, unless the pay czar decides to regulate all wages, hmmm. All the new owners of the company (Obama Inc.) can do is say this is what this position now pays, 10% of what it did, bring on the 5th string replacements.

  74. Smith Says:

    If the company wasn’t bailed out and went under, I doubt they’d be getting their full contract out of the deal. You still haven’t shown that the execs of the companies that went under are actually the best qualified to do their job. Do you think a captain who who goes full speed a head and sinks his ship on an iceberg is the best qualified person for that position? I don’t think the “5th string replacements” could have done any worse.

  75. shcb Says:

    Maybe not, so fire the bastards. Put it in terms of your own company since it is, if you have an employee that isn’t doing a good job you don’t cut the pay for that position 90%, you can his ass. I don’t like the job Bob is doing, he is stealing money from me, he is producing poor quality work and he inflates his expense account. I cut his pay 90%, that will teach him. NO, a thousand time no! you fire him and find a better employee and you pay that employee the market rate, maybe a little more to get him from his current job. If over the years Bob has gotten raises that have made his wages a bit over the average you can maybe get his replacement for a bit less money, but not 90%. You guys can trumpet that this is the right thing to do all you want, and you will probably have a large following, but reality is reality.

  76. Smith Says:

    “so fire the bastards”

    Is that permitted under the terms of the bailout?

  77. shcb Says:

    I don’t know, is cutting their wages ?

  78. Smith Says:

    If it passes through, then I guess it was within the terms of the agreement.

  79. shcb Says:

    I don’t think this is passing anything is it? I think this is an edict from the Czar, so maybe congress gave the Administration carte blanche in the stimulus bill? If they can cut their pay under the terms of the stimulus package then I guess the execs either fight it out in the courts or take their lumps until their contracts run out, and then the market and my scenario take effect. In which case there is very negative effect for some feel good revenge by liberals.

  80. enkidu Says:

    fact: did you know that the first ‘czar’ was a Nixon advisor?

    fact: gwb had more ‘czars’ than Obama

    fact: the stimulus package and the bailout are not the same thing

    facts is so liberal

  81. shcb Says:


  82. Smith Says:

    “fact: did you know that the first ‘czar’ was a Nixon advisor?”

    It’s kind of funny how much things shifted after Reagan. Looking over Nixons policies, he seems to have been more liberal than Obama has been so far. This has nothing to do with Czars, just Nixon.

  83. shcb Says:

    yup, we get a chuckle every now and then when liberals villify him. I saw Ben Stein blow a gasket on his game show once when Jimmy Kemmel made a crack about Nixon being a conservative “we created the EPA for Christ’s sake” he actually took a couple steps toward Kemmel the poor contestant just stood there shocked. Kemmel was gone shortly after that

  84. shcb Says:

    But if you notice all I did was ask if this was passing through congress and Enky’s off on a Republican using the term czar for the first time, what , four decades ago? Was it because I capitalized it? I thought that was appropriate since I was referring to a particular person in this case, not the use of the word czar in general. Oh well, as usual Enky surpassed himsein adding substance to the conversation.

  85. NorthernLite Says:

    What do you guys think of this?

    All new organizations have opinions… but how many “news” organizations actively promote and organize protests against the government?

  86. knarlyknight Says:

    Hey that was good, it even used sesame Street terms so that Fox followers might understand (“one of these things is not like the others”)

  87. NorthernLite Says:

    I’ve actually been watching her a lot lately; she’s very thoughtful and articulate. If I’m going to listen to an opinion for an hour, I’ll take her any day.

  88. shcb Says:

    She is articulate, except for a couple seconds toward the end, she is criticizing the right people from your point of view and if you don’t listen too close or don’t think about it too long she makes sense. But she too seems to be confused with opinion and news, seems to be something going around, I wonder if they will come up with a vaccine for it sometime.

  89. Smith Says:

    That post is just begging for a tu quoque response.

  90. shcb Says:

    God damn it, speak English, who speaks Latin anymore, people in Latin America don’t speak Latin. Just kidding, I always enjoy learning new things.

    This is one of those where do you start posts. It’s ok for Uncle Walt and Shep to have an opinion in the news because they were standing up for the “correct” side of the issue, well a lot of people who are against socialized health care think they are on the “correct” side of that issue. Her poster child, and the president’s, and everyone on left for Fox not being a news agency is Beck. HE HOSTS AN OPINION SHOW. How many times did she show clips of Beck? Cavuto is a slightly different story in that he does both, now the guy on one of the liberal networks that also does both, don’t remember who he was, had “commentary” under his name, ala Huntley and Brinkley but she fails to mention where the Cavuto clip came from, opinion or news, wonder why? I don’t want to watch it again but it seems even Beck said to send in the location of your tea party and they might COVER it. Isn’t that what news organizations are for? You know if all the liberal organizations were covering this Fox wouldn’t be promoting their coverage. But somehow covering a story is now promoting it. Of course you have to look at it from the liberal point of view, don’t debate, squelch debate, makes it easier to win that way.

    I think the most interestingly disturbing aspect was the distain in her voice for someone disagreeing with socialized healthcare, “anti government” she said several times, and not just said it, she sneered it, her nose wrinkled a little when she said it, you don’t get that from a transcript. I wonder if she sneered and called the people (she being one I’m sure) who were against the war in Iraq in that way, wasn’t the Bush administration the government then. I would think if you were against his policies you should have been considered anti government, she seems fair, she probably sneered at the anti war types then too, I’m probably being too hard on her. .

  91. NorthernLite Says:

    How many other news organizations can you list that organize, promote and sponsor protests against the government?

  92. shcb Says:

    They organized it or just covered it? She said organized, but Beck said cover, did I miss something? And even if Beck organized, promoted and sponsored, HE IS OPINION.

  93. NorthernLite Says:

    Watch Rachel’s clip again. Perhaps even a few more times.

  94. shcb Says:

    I watched it again, my assertions still stand. There was one very brief shot, maybe a second or two where they show a map with four reporters and the caption above the map says something like “FNC tax day tea parties” but it’s not clear where that is from, but she might have a point on that one little clip. But then the question is so what? If the Today Show promotes Earth Day does that mean NBC is no longer a news organization because they are promoting a political agenda? The two can co-exist and as Rach says several times, they always have. What the president said was stupid and indefensible, now his apologists are jumping through hoops trying to defend the indefensible.

    Joe Klein had a piece that said Fox News engaged in untruths (lies) so O’Reilly asked him to come on his show and give some examples, ole Joe said no.

  95. NorthernLite Says:

    I didn’t realize that caring about the Earth belonged to a particular political ideology. Did NBC create, fund and promote Earth Day?

    Dana Perino said the other day that during the last part of the Bush years they didn’t do stuff with MSNBC, during an interview expressing outrage that the WH won’t treat Fox as a news outlet. Bush wouldn’t take part in a debate because Keith Olberman was on the panel.

    That’s what I like to call deliciously ironic.

  96. NorthernLite Says:

    But I agree with you that picking a fight with someone who has a barrel of ink is not very smart.

    But a lot of us have been saying FNC is just a mouthpiece for the RNC for years, way before the the WH said it.

  97. shcb Says:

    And we have been saying the liberally dominated mass media has been the mouthpiece for the Democrats since Clinton. So there we are, that doesn’t mean NBC, Time magazine and all their friends can’t report news accurately, just as Fox can report it accurately, they just report it accurately with a bias. And that is all they can do because the bias is in the eye of the consumer of that news. And let’s face it, most of them are just putting their spin on AP pieces.

  98. NorthernLite Says:

    But you don’t have proof of that, that’s the differnce.

    Can you point to where NBC, CNN or somebody else was funding and promoting protesting against the government?

  99. shcb Says:

    Fox provided funding for these protests?

  100. Smith Says:

    The liberal media is my favorite right-wing myth.

  101. shcb Says:

    The media not being liberal is my favorite left-wing myth

  102. enkidu Says:

    First smart thing I’ve seen Ahnold do:

    Because politics and governance is all about the civility ;-)

    fox is a propaganda outlet for right wing neocon whackdoodles
    one of their VPs was quoted as saying “we are the opposition”

    and I love that court case where the fox defense was ‘well we don’t have to tell the truth’ and they won. It isn’t news. It is opinion and wwnj viewpoints dressed up as a news network. Fox Skews – Fairly Imbalanced

    At least Fox Broadcasting has the Simpsons

  103. Smith Says:

    Sometimes I wish I lived in the right-wing fantasy land where liberals control everything and the Democrats are pushing a left-wing agenda. Instead, I’m stuck in reality where Republicans control the national dialogue, news outlets dig up partisan idiots to inject their opinions into the news, and the Democratic Party is filled with spineless, center-right “moderates” who couldn’t push policy to save their lives.

  104. NorthernLite Says:

    Example of FNC promoting protests:

    Example of FNC rasing money for protests:

    Look, Glen works for FNC. I don’t care if his show is the most whacked out opinion show in the world, he still gets paid by FNC for promoting protests against the government.

    Balanced news organizations don’t do that. Period.

  105. knarlyknight Says:

    Smith, that was a perfect description of a reality. Careful what you wish for as those living in the right wing fantasy land tend to suffer from episodes of severe cognitive dissonance and often manifest their underlying fears and impotence with silly foaming at the mouth rants, tend to hunt small defenseless animals with big guns, advance the use of torture, and act out their mis-placed sense of power through pedophilia abuse of young boys.

  106. enkidu Says:

    plus they like to type in all caps

  107. shcb Says:

    I guess that makes my point.

  108. shcb Says:

    So let’s see,

    Mother Jones is proud to announce a fundraising event featuring MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, the new star of cable news. Maddow’s hipster vibe, wicked smarts, and genuine good cheer have made her show an instant hit.

    Rachel is opinion, and she did a benefit for a political group, so I guess her network isn’t a news network and yet she had it on her list of “one of these is different” hmmm.

  109. shcb Says:

    “it” being MSNBC, sorry, I knew what I meant

  110. NorthernLite Says:

    I missing something here.

    Was MSNBC promoting the fundraiser on their network?

  111. NorthernLite Says:

    Nice try though.

  112. NorthernLite Says:

  113. shcb Says:

    A quick Google of MSNBC returns “Oct 29, 2009 … is a leader in breaking news, video and original journalism. Stay current with daily news updates in health, entertainment, business, science, …” so evidentially they consider themselves a news organization and yet one of their employees, Maddow did a fundraiser, donated the money to a political group, and probably reported on it on her show, probably promoted it on her show. Add to that this Wiki entry, a separate company, is the news website for the NBC News family, featuring interactivity and multimedia plus original stories and video which augment the content from NBC News and partners.

    So, Maddow did the fundraiser, she works for MSNBC, who is partners with NBC, she donated the money from the fundraiser to a political group, money that came from MSNBC/NBC so those networks sponsored it and it was promoted on the network’s show and probably covered by one of their people, I mean we know Rach was there right, she was the one talking. So now we can knock two of those news networks off her graphic.

  114. NorthernLite Says:

    LOL, is your arm starting to hurt from all that stretching and reaching you’re doing? “Probably”? Come on, you can do better than that. Have you proff os NBC promoting, encouraging people to attend this fundraiser on their morning show?

    The graphic I showed you was from FNC’s daily “news” program not from Beck, Hannity, or any other opinion show.

    Besides, I already told you before that MSNBC is a mouthpeice for the left, so I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Their whole purpose of existence is to counter Fox.

  115. NorthernLite Says:

    Sorry, that should say “proof of” NBC promoting…

  116. shcb Says:

    My point is that my points are as silly as yours, yes what I am saying is ludicrous. What Rach does in her spare time is her business, what she dose with her money likewise. The fact she raised money for a left wing group is no different than Beck raising money for a right wing group. Her raising that money, promoting that event on her show (if she did) and reporting on it later (if she did) has absolutely no bearing on NBC’s ability to report news, they are just a kissing cousin to Rach. Uncle Walt taking a stand on Vietnam didn’t hinder CBS’s ability to report news, they were still a news organizations. It may have affected the quality of those reports, but they were still news organizations, were they/are they the news organizations those of us that value accuracy like? Probably not, they are what we have however.

  117. NorthernLite Says:

    I wish we were talking in person, that way I could say this really, really slow and maybe you’d get it:

    There’s a difference between reporting on something and promoting it on your regular “news” casts.

    “If she did”?

    Yeah, and if my aunt had a penis she’d be uncle.

  118. enkidu Says:

    I don’t think you will ever convince wwnj that fox ‘news’ isn’t news (it is push journalism). Beck and the FNC frothers whipped up the pathetic tea-bagger ‘protests’ and have been talking ceaselessly yapping about how the gubmint is evil, bad and Obama is a racist/fascist/commie/pinko/fag. Taking a stand on the facts is one thing. Skewing the facts to promote a pack of baldfaced lies is yet another. Just my opinion.

    If Rachel Maddow raised money for Mother Jones on her own time, that is her choice. Amazing how intellectually lazy wwnj is with is “if she did” bunkum – he states his ridiculous case based on his ridiculous prejudices and assumptions. When bush lied us into an illegal and immoral war, can you please show me even a single clip of any MSNBC news anchor trying to overthrow the government? I can answer that for you: there aren’t any. The overwhelmingly corporatist, right wing media helped the neocons stampede us to war with a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Funny how so many fixed newz viewers still think Saddam helped perp 9/11 (everyone on the left knows Cheney did it ;-) Funny how fox viewers think we found teh WMDz. That bush was competent. That Obama is a racist etc etc etc……..

    I heard that both RM and KO raised money on the air for veteran causes. Unlike the foxnewts slimeballs who just want to rip you off and wave the bloody shirt.

  119. shcb Says:

    But we were talking about them funding the protests

  120. NorthernLite Says:

    Yes enk, Olberman also just raised a shitload of money to bring Free Health Clinics to areas in the US that have the highest rate of uninsured. Some poeple use their forum to promote good things, some people choose to promote hate. It’s their choice I guess.

    This is what FNC does: They use their opinion shows to say crazy shit and then the use their “news” broadcasts to report on it. A five year old can see through this.

  121. enkidu Says:

    Thanks NL, you are right that KO did fund raising for the free healthcare clinics. That must have been what I was thinking about? Or did he also do something nice for our men n women in harm’s way?

    In a way I like the opt-out Public Option the best. Let the red states with bad healthcare choose not to join! That’ll be a winning R ticket “We promise to make healthcare more expensive and less available! huzzah!” And with the rates of obesity, smoking, chewin t’backy and mental instability in most red states, I think we would save a ton of money. Healthcare for everyone! (except the stupid)

    Fox Nuts isn’t news: it is partisan opinion with a thin shellac of ‘news’

  122. shcb Says:

    That depends on your definition of “good things”

  123. enkidu Says:

    yes, this bloated sack of protoplasm is all about promoting the good things:

    “So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway.”

    This is why anyone with a functioning neocortex sees this as typical wwnj hate radio nonsense. fox is not news, it is wwnj opinion. slander in a suit and tie.

    I can’t wait to see the faux outrage that Obama spent the early hours of this morning honoring our fallen.

  124. knarlyknight Says:

    Here’s a decent working definition to help you out shcb:

    good things means activities that a reasonable person would instantly recognize as being a helpful, life affirming action, eg. free health clinics. The less obvious that the helpful, life affirming qualities of an activity are to a casual observer, meaning the longer the rationale to make a case that something is a “good thing” the less likely that the thing is good and the more likely that thing is a “bad thing”.

  125. NorthernLite Says:

    And with that we’re going to have to leave in there…


  126. shcb Says:

    So knee jerk, emotional reactions are good, but well considered, well thought out, look at all the negative consequences while carefully weighing the positive consequences against them is bad. Free clinics are good until there is no medical industry to support them. We can socialized medicine if we want, it is an easy, quick decision, a chicken in every pot, but the longer, more well thought out, more reasoned discussion (bad in your eye according to your last post) weighs the loss of profit motive and hence the loss of innovation and invention and the loss of incentive to improve. Maybe that is ok with people, but we should discuss it.

  127. enkidu Says:

    Barcalounger with a nitrous injection system? lol

    Your last post is so full of wwnj WIN that there is little point in debating the dining room table on any issue of substance. You have no idea how the real world works, do you. (not a question)

  128. knarlyknight Says:

    I don’t see any good doctors losing their livelihood as a result of free clinics.

    See, that was simple, barely more than one line. It’s a good thing.

  129. shcb Says:

    I explain this shit in nice rational terms and you guys just don’t listen.

  130. shcb Says:

    In most cases, the pain has been meted out with an eye toward raising the money needed to finance President Barack Obama’s plan for reshaping the health system but also with careful regard for gaining the votes that will be needed to pass a final bill.

    But I thought we were going to pay for this with better efficiency, and no new taxes bla bla bla.

    Let’s see, who said the industry would be tailored to get votes instead of serving it’s customers? Hmmm, oh yeah, me!

    The measure is less kind to drug makers, an industry that did strike a deal with Obama and key senators to hold down its costs….lawmakers were being “unrealistic in their expectations of what our industry can contribute to health care reform without triggering catastrophic job losses and driving innovation and business overseas.”

    Only an American Indian can appreciate forked tongued devils like these.
    there, the AP piece from a “real” news agency, same thing is on Fox by the way.

    And then we have this

    Which was predicted in the WSJ clear back in August, that bad, bad publication of those nasty conservatives for thinking things through instead of doing what was immediately thought to be “good”. Of course they really weren’t going out on much of a limb with that one, that this plan would just push ahead future consumption was pretty obvious.

  131. shcb Says:

    Oh, the Edmunds link came from Fox as well

  132. NorthernLite Says:

    Man, Jon Stewart addressed the Fox thing last night like only he could.

    I wonder if JBC can post it?

    I would post the link but it airs on a different network up here. It was fabulous.

  133. enkidu Says:

    “the industry would be tailored to get votes instead of serving its customers” (I corrected the possessive its)

    so wwnj… in your view the healthcare industry is now being tailored to get votes? Perhaps if you actually read (and understood) the article you might see that they are tailoring the bill to get votes. So that it will, you know, pass?

    The eventual result is going to be millions of people who didn’t have healthcare now have it. It will be millions of folks like me and my family who will consider dumping our $1000 a month plans for Medicare+5 or whatever it will end up being (it’ll end up being cheaper). In your usual backwards way you may have actually hit upon something: millions of folks with healthcare may indeed translate to millions of new voters! I hope they recall who was the party of NO and who was the party of YES. As in Yes, We Can.

    The insurance ‘industry’ adds nothing to the equation of healthcare. We should have started with single payer and negotiated down from there. Instead we have a mixed up muddled up bill that is designed to get Olympia Snow’s vote (but won’t, and when did we elect her Queen?) A strong public option with an opt out for dumbsh!t states is perfect. Let the south have their obesity and meth problems. Secession? Good riddance.

  134. NorthernLite Says:

    Hey enk, that’s exactly why the R’s tried so hard to block any kind of reform… because they know that when millions of Americans see their insurance costs go down and also see coverage expanded to almost everyone, they’ll be relegated to the political wilderness for decades.

    I heard a pretty savvy politician make this point the other day. His name was Bill Clinton.

  135. shcb Says:

    you did start with single payer and have negotiated down from there even though you have the votes, why do you supo

  136. shcb Says:

    you did start with single payer and have negotiated down from there even though you have the votes, why do you suppose that is?

  137. shcb Says:

    is that the same Bill Clinton that lost congress for the first time in forty years the last time they tried socialized health care

  138. enkidu Says:

    Well I am in total agreement with Smith on this: the Ds are really just a angstrom away from being Rs. Both are great for banks, big pharma, military spending, corporatocracy and so on. The media is overwhelmingly right wing/corporatist, with faux newtz being so far to the right they are actually calling for the overthrow of the government. There are very few progressive or ‘left’ voices in America. Dennis Kucinich? Ralph Nader (are you aware of just how reviled this man is after the 2000 election? Thank Ralph for george)

    Like Jon S said: Obama isn’t a socialist, he isn’t even a liberal. But of course no one is saying Obama is like Hitler (except you wrong wing nut jobs – see above). Really, either pick up a mop and start helping or just get the heck out of the way already. Right wing nutters are like the guy who fell asleep while smoking and the house is on fire, Obama has rescued his lard ass, but now all the R can do is complain about the broken window and the water damage.

    That Daily Show clip is now on the dailyshow web site. If you can’t get that up in Canada, try one of those proxy servers thingees that Smith mentioned. Or it’ll be up on other sites/youtube soon – a classic.

  139. NorthernLite Says:

    No shcb, I’m talking about the Bill Clinton that is trusted by more Americans than the 20% who think the GOP knows how to do anything.

    This is the first step towards single-payer. Once Americans see the inevitable result of lower costs and better coverage from this current bill, they’ll trust the Dems to go all the way.

    Obama’s about to do something that’s been talked about for 50 years. I just read that your economy grew 3.5% last quarter. Your markets are soaring. This after only 8 months in.

    Your party is in serious trouble my friend.

    Better start formulating new policies and ideas fast. Saying NO every time someone tries to fix something doesn’t seem to be working out that well. And to make matters worse, your party seems to be splitting into extreme right-wing factions and really, really extreme rightwing factions. Splitting your 20% of votes isn’t very smart either.

  140. shcb Says:

    We’ll see how it turns out, the last time Democrats tried to push through socialized health care they lost big. In this last presidential race we lost by something like 4% and as you stated above we are still down that same amount when you compare people who claim to be Dems or Repubs so either we have to come up with ideas or personalities to gain that 4% or Dems have to lose it because other than Palen I don’t see anyone really energizing the party right now. We’ll just have to see if this loses enough support for Dems. Obviously they are worried about it in congress or they would have passed this months ago without any compromises.

  141. Smith Says:

    “passed this months ago without any compromises.”

    Filibuster. The Dems don’t actually have the 60 votes. Lieberman already said he would not support a cloture vote. I still don’t understand why Reid didn’t tell him to fuck off after the election.

  142. NorthernLite Says:

    Yeah, I think they were trying this idea called “compromise” and trying to be bipartisan. It really worked well.

    To use that famous quote, you just can’t compromise with a dining room chair. It is what it is.

  143. shcb Says:

    they could still pass it, if it is as popular as people here think it is and they have the mandate people here think they do then Republicans would look silly filibustering, my guess is they don’t have anywhere close to a majority of Democrat votes and they would look silly if they only got say 45 votes and it didn’t even make it to the filibuster stage.

  144. shcb Says:

    What compromise have they made? I don’t think a Republican proposal has made it out of committee yet has it?

  145. NorthernLite Says:

    What proposals?

    I’m pretty sure the “opt out” public option was an olive branch to R’s. They seem to be all about states rights and shit. But apparently they don’t want any kind of reform.

    They’ll pass it. If not, they deserve to lose their majorities. Either use it, or lose it.

  146. shcb Says:

    Good point, that seems to be something on the surface, it won’t amount to much, but it is something. The Democrats have already made it filibuster proof with the way it was re-written, but they don’t want to play that card unless they have to.

    But you see, you don’t understand politics past the first layer of the onion, the layer you throw down the garbage disposal because it is useless. They are trying to maintain their majority by not passing it because they know how little support there is for it, who are they going to lose if it doesn’t pass? They aren’t going to lose you, who else will you vote for? They simply haven’t convinced enough of the squishy people in the middle to make it safe thanks to the tea parties and Fox News. They can see the polls of the President, when the health care issue heats up his numbers go down. People instinctively know that this will be bad for the economy and they also know they don’t want that now.

  147. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, you mean “thanks to the tea parties organized by Fox Noooz” but other than that I thought your last post was good analysis.

  148. shcb Says:

    I think I said “and” not organized by. Look, for better or worse, without people showing discontent with this plan politicians would think like Enky, they would say “we have a mandate, no one is saying they don’t like what we are doing so we must be doing the right thing” why wouldn’t they? But if no one covers those initial protests, or the subsequent ones no one knows that there are like minded people out there and the politicians don’t know how big the movement is; no matter what the movement is. So by not covering the initial tea parties the liberally dominated mass media was promoting an agenda just as Fox was by over covering it later, Fox and the protesters both had a hand in slowing this down and now the White House wants them to pay and wants to marginalize them in the future. Ironically if health care reform doesn’t get passed it may strengthen Democrat’s chances at the voting booth in the next couple elections; politics, she’s a funny gal.

  149. NorthernLite Says:

    I don’t think a few thousand tea-baggers, who didn’t even really know what they were shouting about, really affected anyone’s decision.

    Hell, there were twice as many people there a few weeks later protesting for gay rights.

    And Fox didn’t even send their own crew to cover it. Hmm, how could they miss it!

    Too funny.

  150. knarlyknight Says:

    You’re kidding me, all those homophobes at Fox and they didn’t cover it with some snide remarks? Unbelievable.

  151. shcb Says:

    Why do you assume the people at the tea parties don’t know what they are protesting? And Fox covered the gay rights marches, I heard it myself. exactly which homophobes are you talking about, maybe you are stereotyping a little (or a lot)

  152. shcb Says:

    BTW It seems it affected a few congresmen’s decisions

  153. shcb Says:

    “…and I think the danger is if what Fox is propagating out there becomes embraced by media.”

    Now they are threatening the other networks that came to Fox’s defense.

  154. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb, I watched a bunch of videos (and posted some here) of reporters asking tea-baggers what they were protesting and why they were so angry and a whole lot of them had no clue. “We were just told to come here” – although it was obvious many were motivated simply out of racism.

    Fox did not cover the gay rights protest, they only mentioned it briefly using footage from ABC – they didn’t even send their own camera crew/reporter!! It was one of those segments where that mention 10 stories in two minutes. It certainly didn’t garner the wall-to-wall coverage of the “FNC TEA PARTIES”.

    Apparently they were too busy sending their staff to that school that sang a song about their President, something about indoctrination or some crazy shit that nobody cared about.

    Btw, my mom is now 100% cancer free and feeling great! How’s the old man?

  155. shcb Says:

    Good to hear about your mom. Dad is doing well, we just got home last night from seeing him. He is bitching that they told him to not take 2000mg of vitamin c, he says they “took his medication” from him so if that is all he has to complain about he’s fine.

    Maybe Fox didn’t cover it as well as you think they needed but I don’t think that was because they were trying to hush it up, the protests were anti Obama protests, if Fox were as partisan as you think, why would they not cover an anti Obama movement in a core Democratic group.

  156. NorthernLite Says:

    Great to hear your dad is doing well!

    But the teab-baggers who did know why they were there claimed they weren’t anti-Obama, they said they were anti-government (foreign intervention, deficits, government intrusion) and Bush’s name came up quite often. Obviously the people holding racist signs were anti-Obama.

    As far as Fox not covering the gay rights protests – even though they were against Obama (the government) – I think we all know why they didn’t think it was important.

    The protest had all the things Fox usually loves to promote: people marching for freedom, rights, against government intrusion, etc. but the fact that it was gay people protesting seemed to make it not warrant the wall-to-wall coverage that was granted to the much smaller tea bag movement.

  157. shcb Says:

    This last post is hard to respond to because you have so many things mixed up. I don’t mean any disrespect in that statement, you’re just a little confused. For instance you seem to think that if a person is against this administration’s policies he is “anti government” the government isn’t Obama, he is just one cog in the machine. When someone was against Reagan’s policies that didn’t mean they were anti-government, to the contrary, they were probably pro government and pro big government to boot.

    Now many in these tea party protests are anti government, just as many in environmental protests are also anti government, meaning they are libertarian or anarchists, they attach themselves to these movements and there seems to be more of them than there are because they don’t have lives and a larger percentage of them show up at these protests than the population at large. I’m also guessing you are watching video that has been edited to show the tea parties in a negative light, not much I can do about that.

    When someone says they are or aren’t anti-Obama it seems a little more explanation is required, I’m not anti-Obama in as much as I dislike him as a person, he seems likable, he seems like a good family man, I take one look at his wife and can say with some confidence he has never cheated on her (he would never live to tell about it). But I don’t like his policies, not a single one that I can think of, so does that make me anti-Obama, in a political sense yes, absolutely, but not in a personal sense, so it would depend on how the question to these people was phrased and edited. I don’t give a shit that he is half white, I doubt any more than a handful at these rallies do, probably less than those that cared that Bush was all white at rallies to protest his policies.

    And then your last paragraph, it is just too simplistic, freedom, rights, against government intrusion. I don’t know where to go with that so I’ll just smile and leave it there.

  158. NorthernLite Says:

    That’s a long post, but doesn’t anwser the question of why Fox would provide wall-to-wall coverage of a much smaller tea bag protest and all but ignore a much larger, truly grasroots gay rights protest.

    It’s ok though, most of us know why: FNC is the communications arm of the GOP and the GOP is against rights for gays, so of course they wouldn’t cover it.

    But you’re right, let’s leave it there. We’re really not getting anywhere.

    So, thoughts about these elections last night?

  159. shcb Says:

    I’m still digesting it, I don’t know whether to sit back with that contented smile after a good meal or just burp. They were a boost to Republicans for sure, I think it is a message to Democrats they are moving too far to the left too quickly so now we see if they take the hint; but then what do they do. They are pretty invested in the current agenda, they really can’t abandon it, so how do they slow things down enough to get those independent voters back, take the wind out of the people attending the tea parties and not lose you guys. Flip side, what do Republicans do to capitalize on this little blip. They got this blip by opposing what is happening in Washington, you can get a blip that way but to win big you need something or someone positive, something people can rally behind, this tea party movement for example, but I don’t think it has the steam to keep going for another year, so something or someone has to bridge that gap. Never a dull moment in American politics.

  160. NorthernLite Says:

    Too true, always something going on! Of course I think the 24hr news networks make much bigger deals out some of this than is really warranted but hey, it’s better than reading Entertainment Tonight and crap like that.

    What are your thoughts on the purging of moderates from the Republican Party and what it means for the future of the party?

    I found it interesting that this Conservative guy, Hoffman, was endorsed by a bunch of far-right rejects (I mean that in a good way, in that Palin, Thompson, Sanford etc. were all recently rejected by voters in various elections) and they lost a seat they held for over 100 years. What do you make of that?

  161. shcb Says:

    To tell you the truth, I haven’t been keeping up on it much, been busy. I got a call from our guy down south last week saying they need a new feature on a product, oh and by the way this needs to be designed and prototyped by Tuesday (yesterday) (and we laid off our machinist so guess who gets to do it all) and we were going to Kansas to see my dad and my wife’s dad, a hundred miles apart, and we stayed an extra day since they added on to the church and dad wanted us to see it and I’m running for the HOA board and I’m infatuated with my new camera and….so catch me up. Purging of the moderates, help me out, I trust you, you don’t have to give me links if you don’t want, just your point of view with some more details. I’ll look into the 100 year loss unless you have a story I can read.

    I don’t know if I said but I’m really glad to hear your mom is doing well, I’ll keep her in my prayers, we take our parents so for granted and one day we are wishing we only had one more day with them, we’ve both been given that one more day, let’s not let it slip from our fingers.

  162. shcb Says:

    I found some stuff on Hoffman so I don’t need anything on that

  163. enkidu Says:

    So a couple governorships is all about what is happening in Washington? What is happening in Washington is we are cleaning up after 8 of the worst years of governance, ever. We are trying to avoid the Greater Depression brought on by the very policies the Rs continue to field. There is plenty of blame to lay at the door of the incompetent Ds, but by far this clusterfuck is brought to us by the letter R.

    I thought it an amazing example of just how right wing the media really is that the NY race is basically unheard of… so a district that hasn’t gone D in a hundred and sixty years (in some parts) just defeated Sarah’s Chosen (note, not Choosen ;-)

    The right wing is angry and motivated to show it. And show up at the polls. We shall see what 2010 and 2012 brings. Just don’t run that brilliant trashtalkin moosehuntin dynamo Sarah, y’betcha! We progressives and libs is super duper scart of her! (wink)

  164. NorthernLite Says:

    Well, as far as the purging of moderates, we’ve seen Alren Spector pushed out, Scozzafava in NY and the main spokespeople are now Palin, Limbaugh, Armey, Cheney… people identified with the far-right.

    Do you think this is a good thing (to split the vote on the right)?

  165. NorthernLite Says:

    Thanks shcb, our prayers worked and she’s feeling really great. You’re right about the realization you get when your faced with the threat of losing a parent. I don’t think I’ve ever been closer to my mom than I am now.

    We’re going to plan a trip to Miami for February since she wasn’t able to enjoy much of this past summer due to her treatments. Actually, I’m kind of looking for suggestions for a winter retreat in the southern US (we want to avoid going to a poor tropical country this year, just don’t really feel safe unless you confine yourself to the resort property – we like to explore more than that :)

    Any suggestions? Is New Orleans up and running again?

  166. shcb Says:

    I’ll get to you political post tonight when I get a minute, everything I have been working on the last several weeks just got tossed so I’m starting over, engineering can be frustrating when marketing gets involved. Can’t help you on the south, I’ve never been there, Smith said he grew up there maybe he can give you some suggestions. I have a navy friend that settled in Norfolk, he said they rent a house on some islands off the coast every year. My sister went to NO before the flood and loved it but I don’t know what is there now.

  167. knarlyknight Says:

    My wife went to Ft. Meyers Florida last year, it sounded nice but then again she had friends to stay with.

  168. Smith Says:

    I’m not sure how The Big Easy is doing. I haven’t been there since Katrina. To be honest, it is difficult for me to recommend a good winter resort for you in the South. I rarely traveled in the winter except to visit family. However, if I did take a winter vacation, I would usually go to the mountains in order to experience “real” winter weather (it never really snows in my home town). I’m not really sure if that is what you would be looking for. I’m sure you get plenty of cold weather and snow back at home. Gatlinburg, Tennessee usually has a lot going on around Christmas, but it is a mountain resort area, so you won’t be getting tropical weather.

    I liked to go to Savannah, Georgia in the spring, but I’ve never been there for the winter. It should be reasonably warm in February. It has an “Old South” kind of feel, if you are interested in historical sites. The New York Times did an article on Savannah in the winter, but it was written in 1873. You can read the article here: There is a link to the full article in PDF format below the abstract. I’m guessing it has changed a bit in the last 130 years or so.

  169. enkidu Says:

    My parents are just south of Ft Meyers (we fly in there in Feb) in Naples.

    Everyone recommends the Florida Keys. Take a boat tour, eat until you can’t fit into your clothing any more.

    I would also say that NO would be a change of pace (plus it would help their economy). Bourbon St is still fun or so I am told. Benyas, drinks on the street, spooky ghost tours, probably some good deals to be found. The food is fantastic as well.

  170. shcb Says:

    I looked into the situation in New York a little, it looks like it was more of a bipartisan party politics situation than a purging of moderates. John McCue was tapped for Secretary of the Army to open that seat up because McCue was a squishy Republican in a not so conservative district, now that district is Republican but not conservative, McCue fit the bill and he added to the head count of Republicans. Scozzafava was picked by party bosses because she was even more squishy, so the party wasn’t trying to split the vote, to the contrary it was moving as far to the left as possible in an effort to maintain that R on the tally sheet. From Obama’s perspective he got to claim bipartisanship by hiring a Republican but was able to get a D on his side, well played. Hoffman came in as a third party candidate, remember how you guys all like those third party candidates, as a conservative and messed it all up. So Bill Owens (not our Bill Owens) has the seat. But he only has it until next year, Hoffman will probably be back, that will be a better test of your theory.

    I don’t see the party as being split, it’s fragmented right now because we have no one to bring it together, but those people are hard to find, Obama and Reagan had what it takes, Newt and Tip O’Neil had it to a lesser degree, maybe Bob Dole in his heyday, even Ted Kennedy to a certain extent, but those bigger than life characters just don’t come around that often. Yesterday’s elections are probably a better reflection on 2010 than 2012, Obama isn’t in this or the next election, he drew a lot of people in that didn’t vote yesterday, mostly young voters. Things are likely to not be better next year as far as the economy and the war situation, but will probably be better in 2012, with or without help from Washington no matter who is running it.

    One last thought, the people you cite may be the spokesmen for the party now but with the exception of Palin they probably won’t be in 2012, they are just fillers for now. The 2010 elections will be local so no national figure is needed, if one is out there it is too early to bring them out now. as a matter of strategy it is best to keep them under wraps for now, if they exist, that they don’t exist is my worry.

  171. NorthernLite Says:

    Thanks shcb, that was a pretty thoughful answer and I think you’re probably right. Good analysis. I think the cable news channels just over-hype these things (I should stop watching but I… I… I can’t!)

    Thanks for the vacation suggestions guys! You’re right Smith, we’ll be looking to get away from snow and cold come February, we’ve already had some and they’re foracsting a lot more for the next few months.

    I think the Keys may be the front-runner, it’s kind of the best of everything; warmth, lots of blue water, safe and friendly people. NO could still be an option too, we’ll have to do a little research. It would be nice to help them recover (we’re pretty big spenders, on vacation anyways). But the final decision will of course be mom’s.

    Thanks again guys!

  172. shcb Says:

    Well if watching cable news is your worst vice I would say you are in pretty good shape :)

  173. NorthernLite Says:

    LOL, unfortunately… it’s not :b

  174. NorthernLite Says:

    A really good example of what happens to a fake grass roots movement (astoturf) over the course of a couple months happened today when Bachman’s and Boehner’s calls for tea-baggers to show up at capital hill to “protest” health reform resulted in maybe one busload.

    You can’t create and sustain a movement based on bullshit, sorry.

  175. enkidu Says:

    I just wonder how many of these teabaggers even realize that we are at the lowest level of taxation in decades? Obama didn’t run on rescuing the economy from disaster, but he and the current admin have been doing a good job so far. Not great – which is why his numbers are down amongst Ds and Is – but the economy is definitely picking up, the stock market is coming back, various reforms are moving (too slowly, but moving).

    Did you hear the AMA and the AARP endorsed the healthcare reform bill (which one? dunno? still being haggled).

    This will pass on reconciliation and he’ll have a couple major accomplishemnts going in to 2010: the economy is back and we have millions of people with adequate healthcare who had none before. Let the dumbshit states opt out: it’ll just make it cheaper for the majority of us (good riddance).

    You want to hear crazy? This woman makes Sarah Palin look competent/sane:

    I hope they run together for co-president in 2012! lol Wait, strike that, I is very scart of a Sarah Palin (Quitter-AK) and Michelle Batsh!tman (R-Wingnutoverse) ticket! If they make Joe (not his real name) the Plumber Sec State, we libs is doomed! Glenn Beck can be Minister of Bufoonery and Rush can run the FDA (he has lots of experience with drugs, and food evidently).

  176. shcb Says:

    “Let the dumbshit states opt out: it’ll just make it cheaper for the majority of us (good riddance).” Huh? You really don’t understand any of this do you?

  177. enkidu Says:

    Certainly better than you do.

    But please enlighten us what foxnewts and rush and hate radio say.
    We’re all ears!

  178. shcb Says:

    If the pool is smaller how is it possible to be cheaper? Oh, you are still going to tax the states that have opted out, they just aren’t going to get anything for their money, but then they really haven’t been allowed to opt out have they? Ahhh! Liberals! From the people that brought you public education.

  179. shcb Says:

    I don’t listen to hate radio so I wouldn’t know what they are saying, I listened to Air America a couple times but it didn’t do much for me, I perfer more insightful discussions. Are they still in business?

  180. Smith Says:

    “I don’t listen to hate radio”

    Not a fan of Limbaugh? That question is at least half-honest.

  181. shcb Says:

    I used to listen to him every day, but he got old. He is more of a cheerleader, not a lot of substance. I’ve never heard him say anything I would classify as hate though.

  182. knarlyknight Says:

    I think what Enky meant was that the states that would opt out are likely to be the ones that would have been subsidized by the other states because the ones objecting vehemently are the ones with higher proportions of overweight drug addicts like Rush Limbaugh and folks who like to have a few beers and drive around the country side, with loaded rifles in their pickups “just in case”.

    He was alluding to earlier observations that red states tend to have more social ills than blue states. Don’t know if it’s true or not but it fits the stereotype I’ve been fed over the years from the media and my better travelled friends.

  183. shcb Says:

    Ha Ha, well, don’t believe everything you hear.

  184. shcb Says:

    Talking about the house bill that passed Saturday

    “It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it,” said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.

    96%, everyone, hmmm….

  185. NorthernLite Says:

    What, now you’re upset that it’s not 100%? At least they’re being honest and acknowledging that there’ll always being a few who cannot/will not get insurance.

    Congrats to your country for passing this bill. One step closer!

    For a while there, I was getting a little worried that the insurance companies were going to win.

  186. shcb Says:

    No, I’m not upset, I’m a realist, I figured you guys would be livid that they have been lying to you all this time, I thought everyone was going to be covered, 4% is what 10, 12 million? Kind of figured maybe JBC would open a thread about it since that is the purpose of this site, exposing lies by politicians. But evidently you don’t care, I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you! (that is the Claude Rains gambit)

  187. NorthernLite Says:

    I think as long as progressives see progress, we’re happy. You’re moving in the right direction. 10-12 million is waaaay better than 45-50 million.

    Think of it like when you were told that you’d be in Iraq, “for days, weeks, I doubt six months” and that the war would “finance itslef” and you ended up being there for six years, trillions later, you really didn’t seem to mind.

    I guess we all give our leaders a little slack now and again.

  188. shcb Says:

    I knew we would be there for 40 years, and we would fix not only what we broke but what the other guys broke too, we have done it in every other war we’ve been in why should this one be different.

    This health care system is going to be more expensive for less service once the government gets involved, it is always that way, in the end more people will have less care and we’ll still have the same number without coverage, I have no illusions. You all are the folks that can’t see that

  189. NorthernLite Says:

    Hmm, that’s weird. Look, just because Rush and Glen told you that doesn’t mean its true. I know, I know, its hard to believe.

    Just look at every other country on the planet that has a public hc plan and you’ll see that their costs are much, much less than yours. Also, your own CBO said that it will reduce the deficit.

    So, what else ya got?

  190. shcb Says:

    It is so interesting how you know who I listen to, I must be listening to Rush and Beck in my sleep, cause I’m sure not doing it in my waking hours. I’ve never listened to Beck more than 2 minutes at a time, and them maybe twice. I haven’t listened to a whole Rush show in probably five years.

    The CBO said it will reduce the deficit, really, this is the same CBO that said it will be more expensive, so I wonder how that got twisted around to reducing the deficit. I’m sure it was creative however it was done.

    You surely can make a system that costs less, it will just offer less, as other countries do. The question is what balance do you want, this public option will give us less for our money, it’s as simple as that. We will either pay more for what we have now, we will get less for what we now pay or we will get a lot less service for a little less money, there is simply no evidence that government involvement will react differently. But we will all be equal in our misery, and that seems to be the goal.

  191. NorthernLite Says:

    Well then that should ensure political suicide for the Dems so you win either way – by blocking reform or passing legislation. Actually, by passing reform sounds like you might make out for the better.

    I guess I think you listen to those guys because some of the things you say are verbatim to theirs. Although, I guess FNC and Rush pretty much use the same talking points so that probably explains it.

  192. knarlyknight Says:

    So shcb knew Bush’s government was lying to him when they announced, repeatedly, that Iraq would be over in a matter of weeks, then months, then about 6 months… Saying that you were smart enough to know they were lying (even if they had to do so to fool people into continuing to support a massive increases to government debt financing for the war) does not exxonerate them.

    Fixed everything you broke, huh? Vietnam and Cambodia suffered for decades, epic failures. Persian Gulf wars put much of the country bombed into oblivion slowly rebuilt on their own over ten years only to be bombed again back into the stone age again. I bet El Salvadoran are sooo thankful for all the US “help”. How is the fix-up coming along in Somalia?

    Let’s look at Panama, that was a small quick simple action, a “clean war” by American standards. Did you clean up the mess you made? Hell no:

    “About 20,000 people lost their homes and became refugees as a result of urban warfare. About 2,700 families that were displaced by the Chorrillo fire were each given $6,500 by the United States to build a new house or apartment in selected areas in or near the city. However, numerous problems were reported with the new constructions just two years after the invasion.”

  193. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb is so wrapped up in US propaganda. Look a little closer at Panama figures, did you clean up your mess? Hell no.

    20,000 people lost homes in the Chorillo fire alone. Of that, only 2,700 families got $6,500 in compensation for new housing.

    Do the math: each $6,500 home compensation doled out had to fund the construction of housingfor an average of 7.5 people.

    It is unlikely that even half of those left homeless by US bombs in that counttry had their housing situation “fixed.”

    That works out to $17.55 million compensation (and the military action probably cost a thousand times more.) The dollars tell the real story: America’s priorities are on blowing things up and killing people, rebuilding efforts are a mere pittance in comparison.

  194. shcb Says:

    “Well then that should ensure political suicide for the Dems so you win either way – by blocking reform or passing legislation. Actually, by passing reform sounds like you might make out for the better.”

    Of course the goal is to always put yourself in a win-win situation. I think the strategy now is to block legislation until as close to next year’s election as possible then letting it pass, it should be watered down enough by then. Make a bigger deal out of what got passed than what actually did and use that against the Democrats, you guys will be disillusioned by what actually got passed, those that don’t pay attention will think more damage was done than in fact was, and get a bunch of seats, they roll back the damage as much as possible. That would be the best possible outcome given the circumstances. So yes, you have it right.

  195. enkidu Says:

    My original post last Friday went into the bit bucket…
    too many links? wordpress doesn’t like simple html code in the comments?
    who knows
    I’ll post this in pieces if this one doesn’t go thru

    So wwnj’s questions seems to be how is it cheaper if the dumbsh!t states opt out?

    The South has the country’s worst rates of:

    – obesity

    – diabetes
    (scroll down)

    – lung cancer (mortality)

    – smoking

    – heart disease

    – dumbf!ckery

    – fox newts watching

    The first five fall under physical health. The last two are mental. So if the dumbsh!t states don’t want to participate, Federal money need not be spent to convince Joe Bob that smoking cigarettes, drinking lousy beer and watching NASCAR (+ gettin the palpitations from watching Glenn Beck) is not a healthy lifestyle. When Joe Bob falls ill, I am sure you will help him out, being a ‘compassionate conservative’ and all… good luck Joe Bob.

    Instead blue states (who shovel out more Fed money than they get back in – where does it go? red states) would use more of their money for their citizens. Red state economies would continue to pay more and more for healthcare ‘insurance’ while covering fewer and fewer people, with a concomitant drag on their economies. Blue states’ health goes up, health costs go down (longer term), our economies continue to improve while you guys wring the last nickel from the last drop of oil. Drill baby drill!

    I am sure there will be some arrangement where redneck states are not taxed for Medicare +5 (right right… money is fungible [rolls eyes] anyone remember how a few trillion of my tax dollars were wasted on a illegal war and tax cuts for rich people? I sure do)

    This letter is a bit too snarky and could use some links to back it up.
    But in general? Don’t let the door hit you on your rather ample behind! Buh bye!

    This could be a blue state vs red state comparison, but it is a ‘rest of the world’ vs North America+UK (then again my Canadian fox is more on the left of this pic, so ymmv)

  196. NorthernLite Says:

    It seems to me that this state opt out thing could be a very good thing. This way, you get to see all of it in action and see where costs drop and coverage expands the most.

    If it’s the status quo system, fine. If it’s the states that provide their citizens with a public option, fine. Then everyone knows.

    But just so you know, in Canada this was done with auto insurance. A few provinces provide a public option (gasp!) for auto insurance while others simply let the private companies have it at.

    The outcome? Lower average premiums in provinces with a public option, but it also lowers the costs for the other provinces. Why? Because if the companies get too greedy in the provinces that don’t have one, the government of the day begins to talk about the idea of introducing a public option and whoosh… premiums magically go down.

  197. shcb Says:

    … and taxes go up

  198. NorthernLite Says:

    My taxes haven’t went up in years, actually they’ve been cut several times since the 90s.

  199. shcb Says:

    I’ll bet your total taxation has gone up, maybe your payrol tax went down but your provence tax went up, or gasoline, property etc went up more than the payrol dropped, that type of thing. My wife and I were having this discussion this morning about the cost of medical, her only point of reference was the cost of the premiums the employee pays and that has gone up for those in her place of business, but my insurance where I work is lower, so my insurance is less. She’s a bright girl but I was having a hard time explaining that I pay all the cost as a cost of being employed, not just the portion of the premium that is taken from my check.

  200. shcb Says:

    But you are right that we should let each of the several states decide for themselves, if we could trust the federal government wouldn’t interfere, it’s called fair competition, maybe they could even be more efficient than the other states run a surplus and use that extra money to invest in other areas where they could help society progress. Oh wait, that is what we have now, it’s called free market capitalism.

  201. shcb Says:

    Do you understand all the dynamics that are going on with your auto insurance example?

  202. knarlyknight Says:

    Again, shcb makes no sense, this time saying that public auto insurance makes taxes go up.

    In British Columbia, auto insurance is provided on a completely different set of books than government books. By design there is no cross connect between government finances and the monopoly insurance Corporation at all. (Except where the insurer identifies and contributes to road safety upgrades in order to reap the benefits of fewer claims while the people benefit from fewer injuries and deaths.) The insurance Corporation operates in the black despite legislation requiring that it not discriminate its premiums based on age, sex or marital status but rather take on all risks based primarily on their driving record and region (e.g. rural or urban.) I am sure the current government would love to sell the Corporation to finance the government deficit for the next few years, but to do so would be political suicide because the people have come to enjoy the stable, low premiums they have enjoyed and do not want to go back to the crazy circus of double digit insurance premium fluctuations (virtually always up) that have occured in other provinces.

    Low insurance premiums with no link to government finances whatsoever. Plus the most aggressive private funding (by the Corporation) on road safety improvements on the continent. Go figure.

    Addendum: administration expenses for the Corporation are 18% of premium dollars vs. more than 30% for private insurance companies. Private companies have little incentive to contribute to raod safety becuase any benefits acheived are shared amoungst their competitors. With private insurance companies, road improvements are left to fairly unmotivated Ministry of Transportation bureaucrats. Where private auto insurance companies compete, they have heavy advertising overhead and spend most of their efforts stealing customers from each other. The Insurance Coproration in BC is not preoccupied with those relatively unproductive activities, and it has every incentive to make for safer roads, as fewer collisions directly contribute to its bottom line. Win Win Win. The losers are private auto insurance companies because they have demonstrated that, for auto insurance, theirs is a failed paradigm.

  203. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, that post was before your question.

    To be fair, one dynamic that I did not mention was that fear within the Corporation that the Government might introduce competitino into the auto insurance marketplace at some future time. That is surely a keen motivator in keeping the monopoly auto insurance corporation operating at peak efficiency. It knows that it has to if it is to survive in the long run. It knows that any complacency that creeps into its thinking due to its current monopoly position is the one thing that would in the end be capable of destroying it. And the Corporation, like any other, wants to survive.

  204. enkidu Says:

    So my taxes will go up if the obese, heart disease ridden, smoking numbskulls aren’t included in the public option? Where did you ‘learn’ that wwnj? fox? stormfront? your local militia billboard? KKK meeting? one of the many voices in your head?

    The Dow just hit a 52 week high (the street seems to think things are improving as well: sucks to be a wwnj)

    Hats off to Anh Cao.

  205. knarlyknight Says:

    For further info., here’s a nice set of graphs. The “non-insurance expense” component in the second graph represents former government Motor Vehicle Branch functions (Driver and Vehicle Licensing) that the Corporation took on during a restructuring in 1996, effectively removing driver and vehicle licensing and traffic fines collection costs from government (i.e. all taxpayers) and placing them into the hands of motorists where they belong. Even with these non-insurance expenses that competitive private company’s do not have, the Corporation’s expense ratio (non-claim costs / premiums earned) are much lower than other insurance companies, indicating a great economy of scale and a lean organization. Not bad for a government owned monopoly Corporation.

  206. shcb Says:

    There seems to be a disconnect here, if this entity is sooo efficient and they offer competitive service for less money without any government moneys being spent to prop them up, why are they afraid of competition? This reminds me of the movie Galaxy Quest, the cute guys think the illusions of Hollywood are so real, and yet the bad guy sees through the deception almost immediately. So this corporation, in addition to running such a tight ship that it is more efficient than anything capitalism can throw at it by double digits and yet can, out of the goodness of its heart, fix roads and take on a government bureaucracy for free hmmm wonder if there is any way government funds could be being funneled into the magnanimous entity through these portals, naaa. We play the same shell game with our post office.

  207. Smith Says:

    “From the people that brought you public education.”
    “We play the same shell game with our post office.”

    So, you dislike both public education and the post office? I guess that makes sense. When the literacy rate plummets after we get rid of public education, we won’t have any need for sending written communication to each other.

  208. shcb Says:

    It is ok to publicly fund education, it just doesn’t need to be delivered in government schools. The mail doesn’t have to be delivered by government either, seems we have some good private models to choose from. It was appropriate to have the mail delivered in a by gone era but not now.

  209. knarlyknight Says:

    Deny reality all you like and prove your point with references to Hollywood, you’re just fooling yourself and making yourself look foolish (or excessively cynical.)
    1. They don’t fix roads out of the goodness of their heart (it’s a Corporation, remember they have no heart) They SAVE money by redesigning unsafe intersections so they are safer and installing lane dividers and lighting and reflectors and such because after 100 years of government being the sole decision maker in this it was found that, rather than the government’s approach of responding solely to squeakiest wheels or the most influential people to determine where road safety upgrades would go, a more scientific, results based approach would make more sense. Guess what, government spends no more money on safety upgrades (with the exception of a major upgrade the past two years for Olympic traffic to Whistler) than before, the Corporation kicks in some funds to the highways department’s accounts ensure the projects that they think will reduce auto insurance claims the most gets done. The Corporation has yet to embark on a road safety upgrade project with worse than a two year payback. That’s win win win.
    2. I was wrong about the “no connection” between government books and the corporation’s books. There are two of significance. The government gets annual payments based on the Corporation’s profitability, so the money flow is to the government, as in a dividend payment to shareholders. Government money has not flowed to ICBC in my memory (20 years or so.) The second is that the government reserves the right to order the Corporation to refund a dividend up to 20% of their insured’s premiums in any given year (that’s happened once in the past ten years when the Corporation’s profits were at a record high in an election year and the government ordered a $100 cheque to be issued to every policy-holder.)
    3. Why are they afraid of competition? They are not afraid of competition, they are so financially viable and well placed throughout the province that they would kick any competitors ass at this point even if a wwnj type of government were elected and created a playing field tilted against them and filled with giant players of different stripes. What the corporation “fears” is a hostile wwnj government that would break it into bits and sell it off to other insurance companies for short term gains. They fear that because it would be sad. Because the managers and employees see how the current system works (as in the one example provided of their road safety investments) and are proud of the good things the Corporation can accomplish by focusing on activities that keep claims costs down. To ensure no government ever could credibly say that premiums would be cheaper with more competition in the market place, and then chop the Corporation into little pieces to sell, the corporation also keeps premiums as low and stable as possible. Also, and I wasn’t going to mention this, but competition was introduced about ten years ago on some auto insurance products and guess what? All the other competitors put together have been unable to increase their market share to more than 15% of the market. The competition came in and lured the Corporation’s best risk customers by offering much lower premiums, then found that even with having only the best risks as their customers they could not afford to continue with the low premiums. Now their premiums are just slightly lower than the Corporation’s premiums, and the competitors have been gradually losing that 15% market share because it’s tough to beat the corporation’s customer satisfaction scores in the 98% range (refer back to the pretty graphs from my earlier post.)

    I’m not saying that competition isn’t a great system, I’m just saying that sometimes other systems can be constructed that do more for the public.

  210. knarlyknight Says:

    pt # 2, $100 is about 10% of annual premium, the cheques could have been higher.

  211. shcb Says:

    Well shoot, they should do that with every industry if it works that well. As I said, our post office is run by the same model. By law they are self funding but they get payments from congress for governmental mail that puts them in the black, without those payments they would be in the red. You have already cited two possible routes for money to flow into the “corporation” I’m guessing there are more. And sure they can then turn such a profit that money can flow out, but their competitors can’t because they don’t have a rich uncle. This is why we call it a shell game.

    So they showed enough of a profit one year, an election year, to give a rebate, sort of like the US government made enough profit one year under Bush to send everyone $600. I fear you are a little naïve here my friend.

    I wonder why the other provinces don’t do this, and would our magnanimous corporation be so responsive if there were no possible competition? Could it be that other provinces know the real cost of this endeavor?

  212. NorthernLite Says:

    I already told you why the other provinces don’t have to introduce a public option.

    Having a few provinces that do offer a public option keeps the private companies from gouging consumers in provinces that don’t because the threat of introducing one is a very powerful weapon against them.

    So basically what we’re proving here is that a public option lowers costs for everyone – those who use it and those who don’t.

    It’s as simplae as that.

  213. Smith Says:

    “they get payments from congress for governmental mail”

    The USPS gets paid for providing a service to the government? Truly, socialism is upon us. No other organization ever gets paid for providing services to the government. All those military contractors just do it out of the goodness of their heart. They certainly don’t make any money by providing services to the government.

  214. shcb Says:

    But NL if this socialism is as great and efficient as Knarly says why do you even mess with the private sector. But since you brought it back up the dynamics I was talking about was just this, there is now little to no competition in your auto insurance business, it is completely controlled by your government, sure there is an illusion of private ownership gut the government controls that with the threat of taking over those companies if they don’t do what the government says. There is name for that kind of government but I get in trouble when I mention the term of which we don’t speak. You see at this point there is probably little investment in your insurance industry and virtually no innovation. But hey, your bill is low and your taxes are higher than they would be without this term of which we don’t speak, and as long as the man behind the curtain stays there we’re all happy.

  215. Smith Says:

    “There is name for that kind of government”


    You get yelled at for the other word because it is completely inaccurate.

  216. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb, that stuff is getting old. This isn’t the 1940s and the 1980s. Those words you, Rush and Glen throw out don’t scare people anymore, only like 20% of you.

    The majority of people on this planet want the government to look after their interests and defend them against unbridled capitalism. Sorry, but its just the way it is these days. Times have changed.

  217. shcb Says:

    I’m afraid you are right

  218. enkidu Says:

    “The legitimate object of government, is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, by themselves.”

    some damn Socialist ;-)

  219. knarlyknight Says:


    I’d usually argue against corporate concentrations squeezing out competition, as having many players competing is often good (e.g. competition amoung telecoms in the USA provide cheaper services and the few big telecoms in Canada actively practice price gauging and the Cdn. regulators are clueless.)
    However, in BC a great auto insurance model has developed where everyone but the non-BC private auto insurers win.

    Books have been audited – private accountants audit the corporation and the Province’s Auditor General audits the government. It would be impossible to slip funds to the corporation through the back door – of ledger books or otherwise – that would be an epic scandal here and would re-open the long closed debate about the public insurance option. I’m not being naive, and if you weren’t ignorant about the subject you would soon realize you are not showing a healthy skepticism but rather you show signs of delusional paranoia.

    The other canard you’ve floated is to imply that innovation suffers under the current system in BC. Fact is that the Corporation is on the leading edge of innovations in insurance products, it continuously rolls out new insurance options and the competitors have been in a defensive reactive mode to this onslaught for years and years. (The only exception is that Canada Direct Insurance offered cut price over-the-phone only services which were scooped up initially but then most of their intial customers got fed up with the incredibly lousy service and went back to the Corporation for the optional components of their auto-insurance.)

    As for socialism or that other term you wisely refrained from using, the BC government acted about five years ago to remove the corporation’s control from government (i.e. political interference) by establishing that the Corporation would be controlled and its insurance premium rate changes approved (or denied) under the purview of the BC Utilities Commission, which holds public hearings and opens the Corporations books completely. There are critics of this (some say it is too costly, other say it puts the Corporation at a disadvantage to the private companies who do not have to show their books, etc.), but I’d say that the transparancy of this process works better than when the Corporation was under direct government control. When under direct government control, rates usually went down a few percent in an election year and up a few more in the years after. People got tired of the charade, changes were made and it seems to be working very very well, for the reasons I’ve described in prior posts, up until now at least.

  220. shcb Says:


    Go on down a little the page a bit

    “In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere”

    what you quoted was said by a community organizer by taking something completely out of context, no surprise there.


    Glad it is working so well

  221. shcb Says:

    Knarly, I’m not saying there is anything illegal going on, how could there be? The government makes the laws and owns the company, how can they do anything illegal. Just because the books stand an audit doesn’t mean what I suspect isn’t going on. If the corporation handles licensing, they get paid for that, the audit would show they are getting what the contract said, but of course the government is essentially negotiating with itself, they simply make that enough of a cash cow to tip the balance sheet a bit, toss in a few more of these enterprises that no one else can do by virtue of the Corporation’s uncle being the law of the land and bada bing the socialist model works. With enough force socialism can indeed change human nature.

  222. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, chuckle, thanks. I wouldn’t want to continue an argument with me about that either. Sorry for boring everyone, it’s just that my car insurance premiums has been the one thing besides income tax and mortgage payments that have not gone up at a rate faster than my salary over the past five years and I’ll fight to keep it that way!

  223. knarlyknight Says:

    My last response was prior to your last. I see from your last that paranoia still prevails in your mind.

    Vehicle related licensing fees increased between 4% and 5% in 1996, that was the last time government increased those fees. All licencsing fees colelcted go to government general revenues.

    The Corporation is not getting paid anythign to handle the licence fees for government, the Corporation took a $100 million / year hit approximately when the vehicle and driver licensing functions were transferred to it in 1996. The costs of adminstering and providing those former Motor Vehicle Branch functions of government are entirely covered by the Corporation from insurance premium revenues earned.

    The corporation has two sources of income of any significance. Insurance premium revenues and return on investments.

    So sorry shcb, but there is just no basis in fact for your arguments here.

    addendum – FYI –

  224. enkidu Says:

    “The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first that in relation to wrongs embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government.”

    Source: ABRAHAM LINCOLN, fragment on government The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler, vol. 2, pp. 22021

    You assumed I thought previous post was a Lincoln quote, instead I was quoting one great statesman from Illinois paraphrasing another great statesman from Illinois. So now wwnj ‘thinking’ is that Abraham Lincoln is also a Socialist? wow

    The idea is clear whether we are ‘quoting’ Obama or Lincoln: government has a legitimate roll in civilized nations.

    But you are the wwnj who wants to privatize the post office, the military, police forces, fire departments, coast guard etc etc etc. Brilliant.

    In what way is the government interfering with you individually exactly? Taxes? We paid em while shrubco lied us into an illegal and immoral war while cratering the US economy… So far Obama wants to fix the shrubco f!ckups and bring healthcare costs down while covering more people. For this he is Hitler? talk about ridiculously irrelevant. But the practical side of me wants you morans to keep it up, we’ll vote out Lieberman and extend our wins from 2006, 2008 and 2009.

  225. enkidu Says:

    knarls, can you point to a single post of wwnj’s that IS fact based?
    I’ve asked him repeatedly to hold up even a single post of his that was based in fact. Still waiting…

    Any assistance you could render would be much obliged! Cheers

  226. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb often takes facts to on ridiculous tangents, but his remarks on BC public auto insurance are simply elaborations of completely unjustified suspicions, ie. fears arising from prejudice, not arising from any fact.

  227. shcb Says:

    I sometimes feel bad about not answering all of Enky’s posts and then he writes one like that and I feel better.

    You are right Knarly, I know nothing of this socialized auto insurance other than what you just wrote, and notice I have been very civil in this discussion, well I did call you naive, but I did it with love in my heart and a smile on my face. You are right I am just basing this on my knowledge of how government works in general and not in this specific case, and again, I’m pleased you are happy with your insurance situation. One last question, and I’m not playing gottcha here, if a person isn’t content with a settlement can they sue this corporation or are the laws such that you get what you get in a certain situation and that is that.

  228. knarlyknight Says:


    In BC the people are free to sue the Corporation for whatever they like.

    We had the “no fault” debate in the press and at the legislature ten years ago and decisions were made to maintain the right of peopel to sue if they didn’t like the compensation amounts offered by the Corporation and not to legislate limits on compensation awards.

    Less than 10% of the Corporation’s settlement offers are rejected by the injured in favour of settlement in court. It’s a balancing act for the Corporation, because if they offer too little compensation too often then they end up paying big legal bills and pissing off their customers, but if they offer too much their claims costs also start to escalate.

    Judge’s awards to victims in these cases are higher in BC than other provinces, and often set new precedents. Although the differences between BC and other provinces are much smaller now than in years past.*

    Not sure why that is exactly. A peculiarity recently brought to the attention of the press is that the Corporation tries to get jury trials rather than by judge, as the members of a jury are less likely to award high levels of compensation because, the argument goes, as insurance premium payers themselves a high award puts upward pressures on their own premiums. As a result, something was done at the courts (not sure what) to ensure trials were by judge & not jury in most all auto insurance cases now.

    Anecdotal note *:
    I had my face utterly smashed in on a dark night in Alberta in 1985 by an un-lit large farm vehicle on a highway and had to deal with a private insurance company to get a settlement, they fought me for over two years with the kind of fact-less arguments I’d expect from you ;-) Get this, they originally claimed I should get nothing because alcohol was involved (it wasn’t) based on nothing more than an empty beer bottle in the ditch. A beer bottle in the ditch in rural Alberta, imagine the odds of that. They ended up settling just days before the trial date (I couldn’t fight any longer), by then I’d incurred almost $20,000 in legal bills, so my net compensation was about $10,000. Had it occured in BC at that time I would have been offered at least $50,000 and likely over $100,000 by the Corporation, based on similar cases that went to trial there. Bottom line: the Alberta private insurance company (the evil State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company) spent about $50,000 ($20k for their lawyers + $30k compensation to me) to earn my eternal loathing, and my lawyer got $20k of my $30k “compensation” for “helping” me fight for two years. They spent about $50k total: laywers got $40k, I got $10k. If the accident occured in BC, I would have been offered more money initially (about $50k minimum) and would have gratefully accepted, but I would still have had the option to reject the insurance Corporation’s offer and sue instead with no guarantee I would achieve anything except enrich laywers. But at least in BC I would have had the choice between choosing a relatively fair offer or suing. In Alberta the only choice I had was to fight for the compensation or give up.

  229. knarlyknight Says:

    i fought as long as i could and then gave up.

  230. shcb Says:

    “Vehicle related licensing fees increased between 4% and 5% in 1996, that was the last time government increased those fees. All licensing fees collected go to government general revenues.”

    I almost sort of promise this is my last point on this subject (I’m running for office so I have to get in practice) you see we are coming at this from different directions, I am not concerned with what you pay for registration fees, that’s in the noise, I am concerned with how much the government pays the corporation to administer this function. You will say they only get the money from the registration fee, and you may be right, my guess is they also get some “administration fee” from the government as a different line item. Then they pay the government a portion of the registration fees so those in power can say they are collecting a portion of those fees and the rest go to the corporation as overhead costs, and that is all true, but there is that other line item that they fail to mention. Absolutely no evidence, not even a reference from a radical anti whatever blog, nothing noda, zip, haven’t looked for evidence, don’t intend on doing so, just a gut feeling and an educated guess from watching government in action for as many decades as you’ve probably been alive.

  231. shcb Says:

    ok thanks, I had a similar accident and got $50k without a fight, my insurance company now has a lifelong customer…. who knows what makes these things tick.

  232. knarlyknight Says:

    Sorry shcb, but I already disputed that allegation. You weren’t paying attention. There is no such “line item” in print nor by way of secret handshakes either.

    Cash flows from the Corporation to government for licensing fees and fines collected, to the tune of about $520 milllion a year, end of story.
    The Corporation gets no favours from government and government can collect a dividend from the Corporation for an amount up to an amount in lieu of corporate taxes that would be owing if the government didn’t already own the whole Corporation.

    Exception: Government may direct the corporation to make computer systems changes in support of new government programs (non-insurance related) if they pay the Corporation’s costs for making the system changes, this budgetary line item is in the order of $100 to 200 k per year but only in years in which there are such changes to make, that’s barely enough to pay one senior executive salary.

    Thanks for promising this is you last point on this subject, if it’s weary for me the others are surely knocked out cold from boredom.

    “who know what makes these things tick” – in my case it was that this was the way insurance companies dealt with claims in Alberta in 1985, there was no incentive for them to pay a claim promptly or without a fight. It might be the same there now, I don’t know.

  233. shcb Says:

    they handle traffic fines too?

  234. knarlyknight Says:

    A driver or vehicle license won’t be renewed unless any overdue traffic fines for motor vehicle act violations (e.g. speeding, but not municipal fines like illegal parking) are paid first, the Corporation will accept payment and transmit the funds to government. That has been expanded in recent years to include ALL overdue provincial government fines, e.g. illegal hunting. Further, a person in arrears in child support payments or family maintenance payments might find they cannot renew a driver or vehicle licence due to a court order requiring that the payments be made (to the other party) before the Corporation is allowed to renew the licence. Also, if a person needs to return empty bottles they can do so when renewing their vehicle license and insurance and the bottle deposits will be deducted from the fees owing.

    The last one I made up, but you get the drift. One can be forgiven for wondering where it all might end.

  235. shcb Says:

    Oh…My…God, thanks for clearing the bottle deposit up, I was blowing a gasket as I was reading that, you deserve stand up comedian of the day award, here is your little statue, the Corporation will be sending your prize money in the form of a check forthwith.

    Yeah, you guys are moving into dangerous territory. It is funny how this ties into Enky’s mis quote by Obama of Lincoln, this is what Liincoln was talking about, collecting these fines is government’s job, now that you have crossed that line either you have a private company that has governmentao powers or that company is now a branch of government, neither is good.

  236. shcb Says:

    This same dynamic is what makes HOAs so dangerous, more on that later.

  237. NorthernLite Says:

    Anyone catch the Daily Show last night?

    shcb, I think you said you watch Hannity’s show on FNC. So here’s what your “fair and balanced” network did:

    A couple hundred tea-baggers showed up last week to the capital. Hannity gave it a lot of coverage. Only problem was he mixed footage of that day with footage from the much larger 9/12 Glen Beck day. Apparently thinking nobody would notice the same signs, the green leaves still on the trees and so on. So here’s Hannity saying things like “wow look at all those people on a Thursday!” even though it was actually a Saturday two months earlier.

    So that’s your “news” channel eh?

    Stewart clip here:

  238. shcb Says:

    I don’t think I said I watch Hannity, in fact I think I have said repeatedly I haven’t watched it since Combs has been gone for more than maybe 5 minutes at a time. And I believe I have said repeatedly I don’t particularly care for Hannity’s style especially since Combs has been gone, but thanks for paying attention.
    You see you, guys talk about conservatives being prejudiced, and everyone is to certain degree, some more than others, but you guys are worse than us. Ole Rick criticizes the president when he says Fox News isn’t a news organization when clearly it is therefore he is a fan of Beck, he hangs on every word of Hannity and agrees with everything these opinion people say because, well you know those conservatives, they are all the same, gun loving idiots that consider it a good day when they get their shoes on the right feet, so sad we have to take care of them as we do.

    Now Enky is by far and away the worst but the rest of you do it to certain extent.

    Glad you caught Hannity, he needs to be knocked down a notch or two.

    but he doesn’t do news anymore than Stewart does.

  239. shcb Says:

    btw, I din’t watch the clip, I trust you

  240. NorthernLite Says:

    But again, this is not something a credible news organization partakes in, right?

    Sorry, I though I remembered you referencing Hannity before.

  241. NorthernLite Says:

    So if a show on on CNN, opinion or otherwise, pulled the same stunt you wouldn’t think much less of them? You would still consider them a legitimate news corp?

  242. shcb Says:

    I would think less of the show, and less of the host, not the network. I think cnbc is a better example but I don’t watch much of either, isn’t cnn more all news and cnbc more a mixture of news and opinion like Fox? I’m asking, I just don’t watch them enough. If Maddow were to show out of sync video, that would reflect on her and her show not the ability of CNBC to report news accurately, not unbiased, but accurate. If their news is inaccurate consistently, we all make mistakes, then that would make them less of a “news organization”. This doesn’t surprise me about Hannity, he uses the same tactics as Enky and now to a lesser degree Smith are using to debate me, they pick some little thing, twist it around until it fits their argument and then hang on like a bull dog with a burr up his butt, I thank you and Knarly for not doing that. To step it up a notch and hope no one notices doesn’t surprise me.

    Hannity was better with Colmes next to him because he knew Colmes would call him on it so he didn’t do it as much and Colmes could redirect the conversation. But now there is no stopping him, then he tosses in these little sound effects… I watched as much as I could of one of his shows after Colmes left and just shut it off. He is trying to do what Stewart does with his little pauses and those facial expressions. Hannity is trying to do the same with his cute little sound effects and he just isn’t funny like Stewart is, John is a comedian, Hannity isn’t. oh well, that isn’t what you asked, I hope I answered your question at the top, of course I have rambled so you will have to go back and re read it.

  243. Smith Says:

    I think you meant MSNBC. CNBC is primarily a financial channel.

  244. shcb Says:

    I noticed the gal in the administration that was most outspoken against Fox has resigned. To spend more time with her family no doubt.

  245. shcb Says:

    you are correct, that didn’t look right to me writers block I guess

  246. Smith Says:

    I think it is funny that you whine when I call you out on nonsense that you throw out with absolutely nothing to back it up. And yet, at the same time, you complain about Hannity’s show because he does not have someone around to call him on his BS.

  247. NorthernLite Says:

    Well, I still think it reflects badly on the network and sure as hell doesn’t help their case to convince people that they’re not just a mouthpiece for the GOP. I’d be careful in comparing Stewart to Hannity. One operates on what you call a news channel and the other on the Comedy Network. I think Stewart follows South Park. ‘Nuff said there.

    You should try giving Stewart a chance though, he’s been pretty even with his satire lately, going after everybody. I don’t think there’s a show on TV that makes me laugh more than that one. Especially if you’re political junkies like us.

  248. shcb Says:

    Smith, if it is something substantial, that is fine, I’m more talking about a word or two I may have had out of context that didn’t change the jest of my point. At least you say your piece and let it go, Enky dwells on it for months, even if I admit my mistake.

    NL, I agree, same with MSNBC though. Now Fox has Hannity and Beck, they probably can’t have any more that radical before they cross the line, I think Maddow is somewhere between Hannity and O’Reiley I don’t know enough about Oberman. I like Stewart, and watch him if I happen to run across him. He’s on here about the time we are getting ready for bed I believe and my wife takes control of the remote about that time. John is one sided but he gets his digs into both sides pretty well, and he really is a funny, funny man.

  249. shcb Says:

    BTW Smith, throwing something out there with nothing to back it up is called an opinion, and if you notice if you ask I will tell you I have nothing to back it up with, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true, doesn’t even mean there isn’t something to back it up, usually I just don’t want to take the time to look it up.

  250. enkidu Says:

    wwnj, I am asking you very specific questions that you simply can’t answer with anything more than bullsh!t. I explain in detail with graphs and links (not to fox) why the South can opt out of the Public Option as far as I am concerned (it would lower costs). But you think Right wing means ‘correct’ instead of the fascist end of the political spectrum. wtvr

    It is hilarious how you think you are the smartest guy in the room with your sub-high school level of ‘edoomakashun’ and your head stuffed full of right wing nonsense. When you have a fact-based (you know reality-based) post, we’ll let you know.

    Smith is realizing that you got nothing, so why bother to ‘debate’ anything with you in a Very Serious way.

    So… will you scream expletives? call me a socialist? hitler? nitpicker? fascist? or will it be the belittling condescending long winded hand waving as usual? I bet the ‘ignore it’ option will be your gambit. Because to face the facts is simply beyond your rather limited mental capacity. Or to put it another way: you just don’t have the balls or the brains.

  251. shcb Says:


  252. shcb Says:

    Hey Smith, you’re such a stickler for accuracy why do you you let your mentor Enky get by with saying I have a sub high school education?

  253. enkidu Says:

    You went to a catholic school and ‘graduated’ with a C (D?) average from last report. And you spent how many hours memorizing saints? bwahahaha

    Will I be called a bigot? Stalin? An obscure swear word? Mao? a prick?

    Because wwnjs is ALL about the polite exchange of Very Serious Ideas!

    You should have kept it to “yup”

  254. shcb Says:

    until 6th grade, and yes I knew all the saints and the capitals of all the states and I lernt them number things well enough ta figre my truck is killn the planet just about rite

    actually I was a straight a student in grade school

  255. shcb Says:

    I am curious though, why would it matter if I had gotten my high school diploma from a Catholic school?

  256. shcb Says:

    No answer?

    Let’s look at this situation, now Enky has said I don’t have a high school education or at least that my education was less than what should be expected from a high school student, he says I said I got c’s and d’s he then extrapolates that to f’s. Now of course he doesn’t have access to the transcripts of my high school tenure or my two years of post high school education, all he, or you can go on is what I have said. But just using what I have said, everything above is a lie, pure and simple, but he doesn’t get called on it, why is that? Simple, because I can take it, and I am the token outsider here, beat up on the weird kid or ignore those that do, it’s ok, he’s weird. He is a conservative, he’s intrinsically wrong anyway so who cares.

    Flip side I have called Enky a bigot in the past. Smith says my opinions are baseless, well here you go. I kid that went to a Catholic school and studied religion is enough of reason to consider that person stupid four decades later, and hate him and ridicule him for it, I consider that bigoted. Statistics say that is not normally the case. Kids that are educated in Catholic schools generally test higher than kids in public schools. Now that is probably due to them being a self selected group with parents that are committed to their children’s education enough that they are willing to pay twice for that education, not because they are any smarter, but they aren’t less intelligent either. The outcome of boys in my class pretty much bears that out, one vice president of a bank with a law degree, one engineer, a musician, an owner of a couple successful small businesses, and a fellow that still works in the same grocery store he did in high school. Pretty much a cross section of America.

    And yet one guy gets pounded on these pages and one guy doesn’t, shame on you.

  257. shcb Says:

    To be fair no one has ever jumped on me for calling Enky a bigot, probably because they all know it is true.

  258. Smith Says:

    To be honest, I rarely read Enky’s posts.

  259. shcb Says:

    I try not to but since they are usually about me…

  260. Smith Says:


    I have, however, called Enky out in the past, specifically in the discussion of the finger biting incident. Incidentally, I think you and I were on the same page in that debate. I have also attempted to promote serious discussion of some of your more interesting points, such as your analogy about prescription drugs and splitting a dinner check. Furthermore, I have also argued with Knarly and with LB. I guess that doesn’t really fit in with the “woe is me” persecution angle you are going for, though.

    More to the point, I see little benefit in putting too much effort into finding information and debating with someone who, by his own admission, doesn’t want to take the time to support any of his claims with factual data. I am also not sure why you think anyone should engage in a serious debate with someone who is just going to call them a Fascist (economic policies alone are not sufficient for Fascism, the social restrictions and fierce nationalism are necessary components). You seem to really harp on the idea that opinion programs should not be considered news, and yet you frequently rely on “talk radio host said…” as the sole evidence for whatever claim you are trying to make.

  261. shcb Says:

    Well, you’re overstating everything in your last paragraph.

  262. enkidu Says:

    Golly wrong wing (should we just call you wrong? it would save electronic ink) please accept my apologies if you in any way felt I was disparaging to you or your fine education. I was just recalling a post where you said something to the effect that the nuns graduated you because they were tired of listening to you (I and iirc several other posters commiserated with those poor nuns). I never said you got Fs or much of the rest of your posts. You also claimed you went to one college course but never finished it (now you have gone to two years? whtvr)

    You just don’t like me because I don’t take your Very Serious Debate Seriously. Why should I? You can’t back up anything you say – opinion or purported fact – with anything except the most partisan sources imaginable. Smith is slowly realizing that you can’t debate with someone who can’t admit they are wrong on some very basic facts.

    If Smith and the CNDs want to ‘debate’ bullsh!t with Very Serious Thoughts and such like, well you boys go right ahead, I’ll stick to poking fun at your bullsh!t and laughing at you.

    Thanks for the laugh, and have a nice day!

  263. enkidu Says:


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.