Liked the diavlogue, but I'm a little taken aback by a point Frum made; that all halted nuclear programs were the results of democratization. Isn't CW on the right that the build up to the Iraq war (including Frum's own Axis of Evil Bad Hatred speech) led dictators to believe that Bush might invade them at any time with only the slimmest justification, pressuring them to become better citizens and leading to the end of Libya's nuclear program and the temporary halting of Iran's? Even if he doesn't believe that thesis, I still don't remember any democratization prior to the end of Libya's program, so what's the deal?

Quoting pampl: Liked the diavlogue, but I'm a little taken aback by a point Frum made; that all halted nuclear programs were the results of democratization. Isn't CW on the right that the build up to the Iraq war (including Frum's own Axis of Evil Bad Hatred speech) led dictators to believe that Bush might invade them at any time with only the slimmest justification, pressuring them to become better citizens and leading to the end of Libya's nuclear program and the temporary halting of Iran's? Even if he doesn't believe that thesis, I still don't remember any democratization prior to the end of Libya's program, so what's the deal?

Well, let's see. South Africa didn't want the ANC to get the bomb, Brazil probably just figured out it was expensive and pointless, Ukraine and the 'stans were in no position to fight Russia for the then, hmmm, I think that's it. Then there's India (democracy) and Pakistan (troubled democracy). I think the bottom line is whether that country thinks it's in their interest. It's in Iran's interest. Of course, if we offered them a security guarantee (no more regime change talk) and dropped the sanctions, that might be in

Quoting rcocean: Dan & Dave - aka "Dumb and Dumber"

Would you care to share your analysis with the rest of us? Or is "dumb" just jargon for "doesn't agree with me?"

Sic David's dog on the Taliban, problem solved, clearly.

Props to Drez for trying to start a fight between Frum and Bolton! Frum didn't take the bait, but keep tryin'!

Quoting AemJeff: Would you care to share your analysis with the rest of us? Or is "dumb" just jargon for "doesn't agree with me?"

Well, first "AemJeff", what does your question mean? That you disagree, and are willing to support your position with opposing "analysis"- or just just curious? Anyway, I'll answer the question. Dave is 'free trade" ideologue who knows nothing of foreign Policy, while Frum is a foreign policy ignoramus whose only claim to fame is attacking famous conservatives while pretending to be one. As I said, Dumb and dumber.

Looks like it's time to re-calibrate the tin-foil hat!!

Quoting rcocean: Well, first "AemJeff", what does your question mean? That you disagree, and are willing to support your position with opposing "analysis"- or just just curious?

Anyway, I'll answer the question. Dave is 'free trade" ideologue who knows nothing of foreign Policy, while Frum is a foreign policy ignoramus whose only claim to fame is attacking famous conservatives while pretending to be one.

As I said, Dumb and dumber.

You can call me Jeff. The scare quotes around my handle are just jarring. Actually, what the question was meant to imply is that simply tossing adjectives like "dumb" in the direction of a pair of experts, particularly when the person using those adjectives has shown no particular distinguishing knowledge on the topic under discussion, is a silly, hollow thing to be doing. And your answer, I think, pretty much confirms for me that initial impression.

Quoting AemJeff: You can call me Jeff. The scare quotes around my handle are just jarring.

Actually, what the question was meant to imply is that simply tossing adjectives like "dumb" in the direction of a pair of experts, particularly when the person using those adjectives has shown no particular distinguishing knowledge on the topic under discussion, is a silly, hollow thing to be doing. And your answer, I think, pretty much confirms for me that initial impression.

Sorry, but I don't have time to engage in a detailed analysis as to why Dan and Dave are worthless in Foreign policy discussions. I've more or less followed both for years and neither seems to know more about Foreign policy than you or me. Its like listening to Dowd about Politics or Glenn Beck about Economics - they be right once in while - but so's Aunt Tilly. If you like them - God bless.

Quoting rcocean: Frum is a foreign policy ignoramus whose only claim to fame is attacking famous conservatives while pretending to be one.

Isn't (one of) his claim to fame being Bush's speechwriter and coining "Axis of Hatred"? I'm not interested in defending his intelligence but I don't think he was a particularly obscure figure before he attacked Rush and whomever else.

That was "Axis of Evil" that Frum coined, which - like his co-authorship of a book bizarrely entitled "The End of Evil" with Richard Perle - is evidence for the notion that Frum isn't credible when it comes to foreign policy. IMHO, his problem isn't ignorance so much as the neo-con tendency to see the world through a Likudnik lens. Proposed US "strategy" is deliberately bent to conform to this remote and narrow - even within an Israeli context - imperative. This is the only explanation I can wrap my head around for bizarre stuff that routinely emanates from that corner regarding alleged "existential threats" from petty states (most notably the Saddam-"WMD" swindle or the crackpot notion of bombing Iran.) Strange but true that dangerous and disingenuous as Frum may be in certain respects, he's one of the "sane ones" compared to the Rush Limbaugh-Sarah Palin-Michelle Bachman-Glenn Beck freak show that generates much of the noise on the right these days. Personally, I'm rooting for Rush and Sarah to infect the GOP message with their peculiar brand of opportunism/insanity and for Frum to fail in his more earnest efforts - but that's because

Quoting rcocean: Frum is a foreign policy ignoramus whose only claim to fame is attacking famous conservatives while pretending to be one.

Was George W. Bush a famous conservative? Because another of Frum's claims to fame was this gem: Maybe you should reconsider your premise.

Oh, right, I forgot. George W. Bush isn't a real conservative. He lost that status when his approval rating dropped below 25%.

That was a great companion volume to Fred Barnes' "Rebel in Chief."

I agree with David (son of Barbara) Frum that in order to put put pressure on Iran, the US, like a conductor of an orchestra, must mobilize democracies to treat Iran and its politicians like pariahs. Ivo Daalder, one of the proponents of the The Concert of Democracies is now US Ambassador to NATO ... which is a sort of "An Ensemble of Democracies" So far "Nato/EU/Euro-Trash Politicians" have not agreed to play in this "Concert For Iran". What is the future of "Concert for Democracies" and Iranian sanctions ... discuss!

Dear Bob Wright I realize that there are legal reason why you cannot delete posts, such as this one from RCOCEAN that are an online equivalent to the Town Hall Screamers. My suggestion is to designate each post as a thumbs up/thumbs down selection so that I do not have to read comments that subtract from the debate rather than add to it. RCOCEAN ... talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.

Noisy barking, except when the dog interrupted.

If John Bolton is the Glenn Beck of Foreign Policy, does this make Hillary the Keith Olbermann?

Dear Bob Wright

I realize that there are legal reason why you cannot delete posts, such as this one from RCOCEAN that are an online equivalent to the Town Hall Screamers.

My suggestion is to designate each post as a thumbs up/thumbs down selection so that I do not have to read comments that subtract from the debate rather than add to it.

One more way for the clique to play the marginalize game? Hint to Dave E: each comment is preceded by the commenter's user name. If you can't figure that out, how will a thumb help? Also notice no mention of the town hall union thugs who used the N-word as they beat a black man. Wonder when Obama will say the SEIU acted 'stupidly'. I guess this makes D Edenden the Nancy Pelosi of Bloggingheads Pelosi on people disrupting town halls to protest ObamaCare: "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American." Pelosi on anti-war demonstrators who held signs in front of her face and continually interrupted her at a SF town hall: “It’s always

Quoting David Edenden: I agree with David (son of Barbara) Frum that in order to put put pressure on Iran, the US, like a conductor of an orchestra, must mobilize democracies to treat Iran and its politicians like pariahs.

Ivo Daalder, one of the proponents of the The Concert of Democracies is now US Ambassador to NATO ... which is a sort of "An Ensemble of Democracies"

So far "Nato/EU/Euro-Trash Politicians" have not agreed to play in this "Concert For Iran".

What is the future of "Concert for Democracies" and Iranian sanctions ... discuss!

No foreign policy expert,I, but I think I know that whatever fool-proof strategy thought up around whatever round table will, by the time it gets initiated and by the time it hits the real world, not work as planned. I think I understand the neo-con strategy behind the Iraq invasion, but it didn't work as planned (mission accomplished?) and so therefore has forever sullied the name of neo-con philosophy, no matter how sincere the effort was.And it wasn't as if they didn't know what was in store for them. What do you think of just minding our own business?

Quoting harkin: Also notice no mention of the town hall union thugs who used the N-word as they beat a black man.

Are you talking about Kenneth Gladney? Please say you're not.

Quoting harkin: Wonder when Obama will say the SEIU acted 'stupidly'.

Well, it looks like you're repeating talking points, so I guess you are.

On Fox News this morning, Gladney's attorney announced that he is planning on bringing suit against the SEIU employees, while Gladney thinks President Obama should call out the Brute Squad for "acting stupidly".

More on the alleged "N-word." More on the supposed "attack."

The board is for commenters to share their opinions and add information to the discussion. As long as it's civil, I don't see why everyone (Obama supporter or not) shouldn't be allowed to share their political views. I think that the majority of liberal opinions on this site is a product of the fact that more of them are involved in seriously considering and following the nuances of policy decisions. The level of the debate coming from conservatives on the health care issue is one telling sign of the level of the sophistication of the conservative base. That is not to say that there are not many conservatives out there with compelling ideas and involved in critical thinking about policy (like today's guests), I just think they are more on the margin when it comes to the community at large. I agree that people should not have their views silenced based on ideology, but I am not convinced that is the case on bhtv. Being roundly criticized is very different from "moderation". If there is another site that has similar in-depth conversations and a similar quality

David Frum explains the collapse of the Republican Party.

Quoting kidneystones: The general in charge of US policy in Afghanistan wants more troops because the US is losing the ground war to the Taliban, not that the folks who put this moron in power seem to care very much. Europeans love Obama because they're convinced (wrongly) that he hates America as much as they do..

The last statement is too absurd to warrant refutation. Europeans, like Americans, are a diverse lot and have diverse opinions about the US and its president. As for the first statement, it is true that the US is losing the war in Afghanistan and can only go on losing. Anyone with a smithereen of knowledge of the country and its history could have predicted as much. The "folks" who put Obama in power probably care more about the issue than the "folks" who blame him for the errors of his predecessor.

Quoting kidneystones: The dream that Nato was magically going to support US military operations in Afghanistan crashed and burned before the new President set foot in Europe un-noticed while an adoring US press fawned over their new toy. Iraq may yet come apart along ethnic lines and with

Quoting messwithtexas: The board is for commenters to share their opinions and add information to the discussion. As long as it's civil, I don't see why everyone (Obama supporter or not) shouldn't be allowed to share their political views.

I think that the majority of liberal opinions on this site is a product of the fact that more of them are involved in seriously considering and following the nuances of policy decisions. The level of the debate coming from conservatives on the health care issue is one telling sign of the level of the sophistication of the conservative base. That is not to say that there are not many conservatives out there with compelling ideas and involved in critical thinking about policy (like today's guests), I just think they are more on the margin when it comes to the community at large.

I agree that people should not have their views silenced based on ideology, but I am not convinced that is the case on bhtv. Being roundly criticized is very different from "moderation".

If there is another site that has similar in-depth conversations and a similar quality

Quoting stephanie: I generally agree with your post, but I'm especially puzzled by why this thread in particular attracted the complaints about Obama-supporting commenters.

There is no reason, but there is an explanation: kidneystones has been complaining about "agents of Obama" "dominating" this site for more than a year now. His hatred for Obama -- in evidence since very early in the 2008 campaign -- has so thoroughly warped him that he has trouble keeping it from oozing out into every comment he posts, no matter how irrelevant it may seem to the sane people viewing the thread. Ditto his hysteria about TEH EVUL MODURAYTURZ!!!1! -- this is a card he plays almost as often as he says "folks."

I have been accused, in the past as being ant-American. I am really ant-Imperialist. Julian Fifer founded an orchestra that tours without a conductor. In the "Concert of Democracies" the US must be a player and stop trying to be the "conductor for life". Here is what I have written in the past. See here.

wow looks like the cops are STUPID again. "hey - you're wearing a Union T-shirt - Arrest him now!" how incredibly pathetic.

Quoting bjkeefe: Are you talking about Kenneth Gladney?

Notice from the Department of Strategy Discussion, Meme Promotion Division, Bot Talking Points Section (cf.): Per Roger Ailes, we will now be referring to Kenneth Gladney as "Fraudney King."

Quoting bjkeefe: Notice from the Department of Strategy Discussion, Meme Promotion Division, Bot Talking Points Section (cf.):

Per Roger Ailes, we will now be referring to Kenneth Gladney as "Fraudney King."

Or maybe not. Maybe Fraudney's fifteen minutes are already up. I'm sure William Kostric will be the next Defiant Hero of Wingnuttia. Here's a video of the Man With The Small Penis at Obama Townhall. Notice his sign. Remember what the "refreshing" fluid is, in the original saying. Arguably, this is a death threat, or at least, an incitement.

Quoting kidneystones: Dan Drezner does take himself too seriously. Frum always has. Both thought invading Iraq a wise and prudent move. Now both seem to think a long-term US presence in Afghanistan makes sense. You can see how this goes.

The farcical notion that a coalition of democracies will constrain Iran might make sense if China and Russia were, you know, functioning democracies. They're not. The US gambled big by invading Iraq and now the US is doubling down with Afghanistan. The general in charge of US policy in Afghanistan wants more troops because the US is losing the ground war to the Taliban.

The dream that Nato was magically going to support US military operations in Afghanistan crashed and burned before the new President set foot in Europe. Iraq may yet come apart along ethnic lines and with US troops scheduled to be redeployed in Afghanistan (forget Coming Home), the US stands an excellent chance of losing not just one, but two wars. Ackerman and Lake have rightly noted that despite the bombs and US deaths in both nations, Americans have more urgent cares closer to home: jobs and bills, for example.

I'm an immense fan of the US and

Quoting popcorn_karate: the above is a reasonable post that would probably get some responses that might actually end up being a useful conversation.

see how i took out all the unnecessary hostility that you included in the original? that is how you could have a conversation, if that is what you really wanted.

I find your ideas to be interesting when they aren't shrouded in craziness. Do you really think Israel/iran conflict is inevitable? and how do you think it would go down? and any ideas of how to head-off that possibility?

Hey, cool trick.

Quoting kidneystones: Dan Drezner does take himself too seriously. Frum always has. Both thought invading Iraq a wise and prudent move. Now both seem to think a long-term US presence in Afghanistan makes sense. You can see how this goes.

This board is dominated, in terms of comment volume, by volunteers for the Obama campaign. These individuals, who in some cases also function as site moderators, openly discuss strategy, promote memes, and raise funds for their candidate. Repeat bot talking points is pretty much what they do. All are capable of independent thought. But their principal goal, judging by the evidence, is to drown out dissent and promulgate the Democratic party line. You might as well talk to a billboard. They're not listening.

The farcical notion that a coalition of democracies will constrain Iran might make sense if China and Russia were, you know, functioning democracies. They're not. The US gambled big by invading Iraq and now the US is doubling down with Afghanistan. The general in charge of US policy in Afghanistan wants more troops because the US is losing the ground war to the Taliban, not that the folks who put this moron in power seem to care very much. Europeans love

CENSORSHIP!!!1!

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: CENSORSHIP!!!1!

ROFL!

This board is dominated, in terms of comment volume, by volunteers for the Obama campaign. These individuals, who in some cases also function as site moderators, openly discuss strategy, promote memes, and raise funds for their candidate. Repeat bot talking points is pretty much what they do. All are capable of independent thought. But their principal goal, judging by the evidence, is to drown out dissent and promulgate the Democratic party line. You might as well talk to a billboard. They're not listening.

As far as I know the only Obama volunteers are me and Wonderment, and we disagree all the time. We're not moderators. I'm pretty sure I don't repeat talking points. And we're not drowning out dissent, but if anybody thinks I'm capable of that maybe I'll give it a shot. I can't think of a delicate way to put this, but if I was a conservative I wouldn't much enjoy this board. The conservatives here are mostly interested in flaming Keefe. It's boring. I'd probably post on The American Scene instead. The vocal (again, can't think of a nicer way to put that) conservatives here should consider that maybe you're the reason there aren't more conservatives on this board.

Quoting kidneystones: A limited war between Israel and Iran is now virtually certain.

KS, last year you wrongly predicted an attack before Christmas. It's not clear to me that it will happen. But I stand forewarned.

Quoting David Edenden: Dear Bob Wright

I realize that there are legal reason why you cannot delete posts, such as this one from RCOCEAN that are an online equivalent to the Town Hall Screamers.

My suggestion is to designate each post as a thumbs up/thumbs down selection so that I do not have to read comments that subtract from the debate rather than add to it.

RCOCEAN ... talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.

Dave, No reason to feel bad, just put me on "ignore" - then you won't have to read me. It don't cost nothing.

Quoting messwithtexas: The board is for commenters to share their opinions and add information to the discussion. As long as it's civil, I don't see why everyone (Obama supporter or not) shouldn't be allowed to share their political views.

I think that the majority of liberal opinions on this site is a product of the fact that more of them are involved in seriously considering and following the nuances of policy decisions. The level of the debate coming from conservatives on the health care issue is one telling sign of the level of the sophistication of the conservative base.....

I would appreciate you pointing to one serious point or fact made by a liberal commenter here concerning the healthcare debate.

This board is dominated, in terms of comment volume, by volunteers for the Obama campaign. These individuals, who in some cases also function as site moderators, openly discuss strategy, promote memes, and raise funds for their candidate.

This is just idiocy, KS.

Invading Iraq will turn out to have been in a good move in the long run. Iraq will stumble along, but not go back to what it was, a malevolent dictatorship. And the fact that Iran's government is slowly dying of its authoritarianism, coupled with a benevolent, democratic Iraq, can only be good news for the region in the long term. I predict there will be no Israel - Iran war, or U.S. - Iran war.

Quoting kidneystones: The board is open for all to express their opinions. However, only a fraction of those who watch bother to post comments. That may speak to the 'high quality' of the discourse here or it may not.

"90-9-1" Rule for Participation Inequality: Lurkers vs. Contributors in Internet Communities.

Quoting messwithtexas: The level of the debate coming from conservatives on the health care issue is one telling sign of the level of the sophistication of the conservative base. .

Seriously, I have entered most every healthcare "debate" that has transpired here over the last couple of months, I have seldom if ever seen where any liberal here has come to the table with anything of relevance. You slide in and make the statement like the above and I am honestly looking for you to back it up...because I don't think you can. In reality most of the valid issues have been brought up and carried by conservatives here and if there has been one side on BH that has tried to do the "drowning out" it has been YOUR side. The reason Obama is losing this healthcare debate is that the facts belie its problems so he and his followers here are relegated to ad hominem and irrelevant deflection. Prove me wrong Tex. I'll be waiting.

Quoting David Edenden: I have been accused, in the past as being ant-American. I am really ant-Imperialist.

Julian Fifer founded an orchestra that tours without a conductor. In the "Concert of Democracies" the US must be a player and stop trying to be the "conductor for life".

Here is what I have written in the past. See here.

Good stuff with which I can agree. Now...where to start?

Quoting Whatfur: I would appreciate you pointing to one serious point or fact made by a liberal commenter here concerning the healthcare debate.

People who oppose national health care are racists. How's that?

Quoting Whatfur: I would appreciate you pointing to one serious point or fact made by a liberal commenter here concerning the healthcare debate.

OK, that last post was too flip. I think this is a serious issue and deserves some serious thought. The health care debate is centered around two distinct visions. There are those who view the problem as so immense that only government can adequately address it. They would say that the free market has had all these years to address the issues and has only concentrated on profits and not solutions. Therefore, the government must take over because nothing will change for the better unless it does. And there are those who do not think the government is ever the solution. In fact those people would say that it is because of government unfunded mandates (read emergency room care for undocumented workers), regulations about what must be covered in policies, inability of insurance companies to compete across state lines, the mounting cost of malpractice insurance, due to the inaction of Congress on tort reform, to name just a few things, that insurance and medical costs are so

Quoting Lyle: I predict there will be no Israel - Iran war, or U.S. - Iran war.

What's the minimum for something to be a war? I mean rumors of a Mossad action obviously isn't enough, but would you count a bombing run as war? Or only full blown occupation? Not trying to set up trap questions here, I'm honestly curious. I'm too cautious (or wussy, if you prefer) to commit to predictions about something so seemingly random, so I like reading other people doing so.

Quoting Whatfur: I would appreciate you pointing to one serious point or fact made by a liberal commenter here concerning the healthcare debate.

Well, liberals are not in the habit of "making facts," but otherwise ... Looking over just the past few weeks -- e.g., ignoring when this was a big topic during the campaign and during the primaries ... Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. And begging the pardon of anyone whose post I list who would not like to be labeled as a liberal ... Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. Here's one. &c.

Israel can't fight a land war, so that would mean a bombing campaign/raid, I'd imagine. The same goes for the U.S. although the U.S. is much more capable of putting boots on the ground inside of Iran than Israel is (excluding special forces). Basically, I'm talking about air campaigns against Iran's nuclear arsenal. I don't seem them happening at the moment. Things of course could change, never say never... but the chances of attacks on Iran are low at this time.

Quoting bjkeefe: Or maybe not. Maybe Fraudney's fifteen minutes are already up. I'm sure William Kostric will be the next Defiant Hero of Wingnuttia. Here's a video of the Man With The Small Penis at Obama Townhall.

Notice his sign. Remember what the "refreshing" fluid is, in the original saying. Arguably, this is a death threat, or at least, an incitement.

Some background on William Kostric here. Video of interviewed by Chris Matthews here (second story down).

Quoting bjkeefe: Well, liberals are not in the habit of "making facts," but otherwise ...

Looking over just the past few weeks -- e.g., ignoring when this was a big topic during the campaign and during the primaries ...

Here's one.

&c.

Thanks for doing Tex's homework. I appreciate the effort while knowing my name being associated with the challenge added to your zeal. I don't have the time to address these right now (but will)...however (short of a couple), they do represent exactly what was expected. Maybe it is my fault for not providing more clarity to my conjecture. Assumed Tex would realize that I was looking for those posts that show or tell us how Obamacare (The House or the Senate Bills or anything in between) were going to be an improvement over the status quo. So, scrounging google for "death panel" links that call Palin an idiot for quoting of Ezekial does not really fit the "bill".

If your goal is to oppose a national health care plan, then why refer to a term like "Obamacare"? From my understanding, Obama is still fairly popular, I would imagine juxtaposing Obama and healthcare reform hurts your side.

You missed my point. I was responding to kidney's odd complaint that this comment board is populated by mostly liberal posts and moderated by Obama supporters. I linked that to my opinion that more liberals tend to follow the nuances and complexities of policy closely. I don't mean just at BhTV, but in general. I also don't mean (and I tried to go out of my way to point this out) that there are not reasoned ideas coming from conservatives. This point is just an opinion I have which I thought was evidenced by the level of discourse coming from national Republicans on health care. Like most recently former R Gov Palin's "death panel" nonsense and then former R speaker Gingrich's defense of it on Sunday saying "the bill is a 1000 pages long!" implying that there is no real way to know what's in a document that long. I don't know about Palin, but I think Gingrich is legitimately intelligent and he can't believe the blatantly false logic of his argument. I would assert that he thinks he is scoring points with some uniformed, uninterested segment of the party which I would argue constitute the base of

Quoting Starwatcher162536: If your goal is to oppose a national health care plan, then why refer to a term like "Obamacare"? From my understanding, Obama is still fairly popular, I would imagine juxtaposing Obama and healthcare reform hurts your side.

If "my goal is to oppose" the healthcare plan currently being put forth by the House, the Senate, and our President. I have reached my goal, have I not? I am not against the A national plan that would improve what we have instead of replacing it with an experiment that nobody seem to be able to prove to me how or why it would be better than what we have. As far as the name, as I have already said, Obama is the front man and it IS already being referred to by this name commonly everywhere. If it adds credence to "your side" well good for "your side". If it bothers you personally well don't use it. When I use it feel free to hear instead what I put in parenthesis above. If my using it bothers you so much that you would choose to shut down discussion due to some moral principal, you will have to put up

The old white guys in the Republican party are still living in the past and think everyone will immediately link "Obamacare" to "Clintoncare" and this will inevitably lead to another Republican Revolution like nearly two decades ago under Gingrich. I think the Boss said it best.

I said quality guests.

Quoting messwithtexas: * Requires all Americans to have health insurance.

I understand why that would be included, but boy would it suck for me. The last two companies I worked for* gave me the option of health insurance or $65 of pier diem a day. Being young and in shape, I naturally took the latter. I hope the above would not stipulate the an employer be forced to provide insurance to all employees, as I would hate for companies like that to have any incentives to stop paying pier diem. *(May be different from their normal policy, as I worked for them only in the summers)

Quoting Whatfur: Thanks for doing Tex's homework. I appreciate the effort while knowing my name being associated with the challenge added to your zeal. I don't have the time to address these right now (but will)...however (short of a couple), they do represent exactly what was expected. Maybe it is my fault for not providing more clarity to my conjecture. Assumed Tex would realize that I was looking for those posts that show or tell us how Obamacare (The House or the Senate Bills or anything in between) were going to be an improvement over the status quo. So, scrounging google for "death panel" links that call Palin an idiot for quoting of Ezekial does not really fit the "bill".

As usual, you've misunderstood pretty much everything. There was no zeal involved on my part, nor was there any Googling, and I would bet the last dollar I have that no one -- but no one -- would ever dignify your foot-stamping squeals as "homework." All I had to do was think of people whom I've lately seen make substantive points on health care reform and use the site's tools to show their posts. Then, a little

I agree that in your situation it was probably better for you to take the per diem, but required coverage is part of what makes the system affordable. Young and healthy people, like you and me, are a burden on the system if they reason that they are healthy and therefore don't need insurance, but then end up needing emergency care or have some unforeseen serious health issue that they can't afford. People without insurance are 4x more likely to go to the emergency room than a doctor. In the current system this pushes up costs for taxpayers and the insured through subsidies and premiums, respectively.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: If your goal is to oppose a national health care plan, then why refer to a term like "Obamacare"? From my understanding, Obama is still fairly popular, I would imagine juxtaposing Obama and healthcare reform hurts your side.

It's a good question. I think the answer is because for some the goal is just to oppose health care reform, but for many others the goal is to use resistence to specific Dem policy efforts to defeat the president and diminish his popularity (rather like '92-'94 of the Clinton admin). The first group may like the term "Obamacare" because it is reminiscent of the term Hillarycare and successful defeat of that. On the other hand, they may like it because they know the notion of reform is more popular than any one reform ever will be, so it's easier to attack it by pretending it's something it's really not, yet. (On the other hand, a lot of people think it would be easier to support a policy that was clear, defined, and which Obama was more forcefully behind the details of.) The second group mostly care about defeating health care reform if

Quoting bjkeefe: As usual, you've misunderstood pretty much everything.

I did, did I?

Quoting bjkeefe: There was no zeal involved on my part, nor was there any Googling, and I would bet the last dollar I have that no one -- but no one -- would ever dignify your foot-stamping squeals as "homework."

Talk about not understanding. Of course the Googling referred to your coming up with "Death Panel" links...or do you frequent "newmax"? And how was I suppose to know that your quantity-full, quality-less, response was not due to my name but from a picture in your imagination of me squealing and stamping my feet? And I was hoping your heat-cycle was over and didn't realize you were still following me around and feeling you had to jump into any and every coversation I attempt to have here. Bottom line, I specifically addressed Tex, NOT you.

Quoting bjkeefe: All I had to do was think of people whom I've lately seen make substantive points on health care reform and use the site's tools to show their posts. Then, a little bit of eyeball grepping, a little bit of keyboard shortcutting ... no big deal, and a fun five minutes. (Should not have seemed like a lot of work to

Quoting badhatharry: The health care debate is centered around two distinct visions.

There are those who view the problem as so immense that only government can adequately address it. They would say that the free market has had all these years to address the issues and has only concentrated on profits and not solutions. Therefore, the government must take over because nothing will change for the better unless it does.

I'd put this differently. I'd say that this group sees that a problem that appears immense in the US has been handled well in a number of different ways by other first world countries, so we could better handle it by trying something different than we have been doing, more like what they do. The other group believes, for various reasons, that what is done in other first world countries is either much worse than we realize (an argument that I find pretty unconvincing so far) or will not work in the US due to cultural or political differences (which might be so, but I'm not sure why it need be). As an alternative to the latter argument, they suggest

I think you make a good point and it got me to think about this a bit more. As I listen to Rush, I would add that there is probably a smaller group looking to capitalize on the people who are uneasy about the change to Obama to begin with (e.g. birthers) and frame this as a further change in that negative direction. It also allows opposition to frame the debate as if it were about a single plan being proposed and then attack the unpopular portions of all the different versions being considered as if it were part of the same "Obamacare" plan.

Quoting messwithtexas: I think you make a good point and it got me to think about this a bit more.

As I listen to Rush, I would add that there is probably a smaller group looking to capitalize on the people who are uneasy about the change to Obama to begin with (e.g. birthers) and frame this as a further change in that negative direction.

It also allows opposition to frame the debate as if it were about a single plan being proposed and then attack the unpopular portions of all the different versions being considered as if it were part of the same "Obamacare" plan.

What did Frum call it? The conservative entertainment industrial complex? He's right, it's killing them.

Quoting Whatfur: I did, did I?

Yes. And this latest response of yours shows you still just don't get it.

Quoting Whatfur: Talk about not understanding. Of course the Googling referred to your coming up with "Death Panel" links

I was referring to how easy it was to come up with a number of substantive posts on health care reform posted by liberal commenters. If you would like to go the obtuseness route because you don't even have enough self-confidence to acknowledge that point ... well, hey. You wouldn't be the first wingnut commenter on this board to try that lameness.

Quoting Whatfur: ...or do you frequent "newmax"?

I'm not sure what "newmax" has to do with the list of posts I offered in response to your earlier foot-stamping demand. I am also not sure what "newmax" is. If you mean NewsMax.com, I do look in on that site from time to time, yes.

Quoting Whatfur: And how was I suppose to know that your quantity-full, quality-less, response was not due to my name but from a picture in your imagination of me squealing and stamping my feet? And I was hoping your heat-cycle was over and didn't realize you were still following me around and feeling you

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes. ...you still just don't get it.

Obamacare.

Quoting rcocean: Sorry, but I don't have time to engage in a detailed analysis as to why Dan and Dave are worthless in Foreign policy discussions. I've more or less followed both for years and neither seems to know more about Foreign policy than you or me.

If all of these things are true, then you ought to be able to point to a detailed critique that you've posted elsewhere, or you ought to be able to summarize, concisely and without having to expend much effort, what it is you think supports a description like this:

Quoting rcocean: Dan & Dave - aka "Dumb and Dumber"

Quoting claymisher: Props to Drez for trying to start a fight between Frum and Bolton! Frum didn't take the bait, but keep tryin'!

It was almost as entertaining watching Dan pin David in the corner, forcing to choose between defending Bolton or admitting that he's about as worth listening to as Glenn Beck. Talk about your Morton's Fork!

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Looks like it's time to re-calibrate the tin-foil hat!!

That was nearly as crazy as the Obama Hypnosis hysteria (via) from last fall. No, wait. What am I talking about? It was exactly the same thing. (Well, except for the part about the mesmerizing hand movements.) But still, big hit to the Reasonable Conservative™ rebranding effort!

Quoting kidneystones: A limited war between Israel and Iran is now virtually certain.

As usual, kidney "larryalwayswrongjohnson" stones's blind obsession with dreaming up scenarios where he can blame Obama for causing the end of the world has caused him to miss the real threat of looming war. Thanks a lot, right-wing. Way to blow it with our former ally. See also. See also. ========== [Special disclaimer for special needs commenter Whatfur: This is a post making a serious point related to health care reform, posted by a liberal commenter. Don't let the soupçon of snark cause you to miss what's really being said!] ========== [Added] See also.

Quoting Whatfur: Obamacare.

Same answer as the last two lines of my previous response to you.

Quoting bjkeefe: Some background on William Kostric here. Video of interviewed by Chris Matthews here (second story down).

Turns out William Kostric may not have been the teabagginest, Birtherest wingnut in attendance in New Hampshire yesterday. One contender for the crown here; many, many more here. (I think one of them is Carrie Prejean (and when did she have time to learn calligraphy???)) I think we should extend Me&'s proposal, and declare the indoctrinating of children with glibertarian and/or wingnuttian principles child abuse, also. Oh, there was another early contender, too, named Richard Terry Young, but apparently the SS (Seekrit SIEU-Muslins) sent him to the FEMA death camps before the game really got started. [Added] "I would appreciate you pointing to one serious point or fact made [sic] by a conservative commenter there concerning the healthcare debate." (cf.)

Quoting bjkeefe: Turns out William Kostric may not have been the teabagginest, Birtherest wingnut in attendance in New Hampshire yesterday. One contender for the crown here; many, many more here.

On a related note, there were apparently no conservatives "making serious points or facts [sic]" (cf.) in Missouri yesterday, either. Here is a nice video (via, via) of an angry old white teabagger taking away a poster, reportedly of Rosa Brooks, from a black woman. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the creep's name is James Winfrey and he is 67. (Probably feeding at the Socialist Medicare trough as we speak.) STRAIGHT TO THE FEMACORN DEATH CAMPS WITH HIM. HE IS TOO OLD AND SERVES NO PURPOSE.

Quoting Whatfur: Seriously, I have entered most every healthcare "debate" that has transpired here over the last couple of months, I have seldom if ever seen where any liberal here has come to the table with anything of relevance.

Yeah, "relevance." What a concept, huh?

Didn’t We Just Have a National Referendum on Obama’s Health Care Plan Last November?

Barack Obama, June 23, 2007:

I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year.

There's something rather surreal about this seemingly endless hysteria over President Obama fulfilling one of his campaign promises.

Americans had a clear choice when it came to the presidential candidate's platforms on health care. And they soundly rejected John McCain's tax credits and "letting the marketplace work" plan. Less than a year ago.

What did they vote for when they voted for Obama? Some very specific proposals, including:

* Affordable and high-quality universal coverage through mix of private and expanded public insurance.
* Prohibit insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing

While a begin to mess with Tex, I thought I would share this.

Quoting Lyle: Basically, I'm talking about air campaigns against Iran's nuclear arsenal.

I was unaware that Iran had a nuclear arsenal.

Quoting Lyle: Basically, I'm talking about air campaigns against Iran's nuclear arsenal. I don't seem them happening at the moment.

Probably not. It's hard to wage a campaign against that which does not exist.

I was truly perplexed today, before I went to work, reading the difference between the portion of GDP Canada pays for health care (10%) and the portion the US pays (18%) (approximately). So I spent the day trying to figure out why that would be. Do physicians get paid less in Canada?Does the Canadian government subsidize medical school tuition? Do Canadian hospitals have to treat illegals? Can Canadians sue their doctors? There must be a difference other than the current state of private insurance. So when I got home I tried to find the answers to these questions. I had very little luck with those issues but I found what I think is an interesting analysis of the role the US medical system plays in the world and how much all countries benefit from it. This is a corollary to the “Canada as parasite” parable above. The funny part is socialized medicine has never been truly tested. Those touting socialism’s success have never seen a world without a relatively (for now) free US to make or pay for their new drugs, surgical techniques, and other medical advancements for them. When (and I hope this doesn’t happen) the US joins in the insanity of socialized

Quoting messwithtexas: You missed my point.

Thats possible...I guess these two sentences strung together threw me off:
"I think that the majority of liberal opinions on this site is a product of the fact that more of them are involved in seriously considering and following the nuances of policy decisions. The level of the debate coming from conservatives on the health care issue is one telling sign of the level of the sophistication of the conservative base....."
but ok, if you say I was mixing up your meaning of where you were sourcing opinions, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't agree with either concepts and think you must be cherry picking to come to that conclusion, but that is pretty much expected. And speaking of "level of debate", I realize your little "nazi" comment was probably just a little theatric posturing and I will give you that ONE... with the warning that you WILL be defining the level and I WILL go anywhere you wish.

Quoting messwithtexas: I was responding to kidney's odd complaint that this comment board is populated by mostly liberal posts and moderated by Obama supporters.

We might be even! I missed your

In my enthusiam, i failed to post what this guy said about the GDP discrepency. Sorry for the lifted materials but this guy is so readable and you all do it too. Open minds please! [/i]The favorite statistic of fans of socialized medicine is that in the US we spend more as a percentage of GDP on health care than in many countries with “universal coverage.” I do not argue with their statistics, but their logic is, as usual, way off. Warning, this list of why these cost/GDP numbers are misleading is long, here goes... Measuring cost/GDP is inaccurate as it leaves out most of the cost, the cost of lower GDP growth. As one would expect, countries with larger government sectors (including socialized medicine) generally seem to experience slower GDP growth. People are great at measuring costs that they easily can look up, but those are not all the costs!
If I’m right about the US subsidizing the world of course their costs would be lower!
Many of the countries we are being compared with come from, frankly, healthier cultures than ours. I do not think the government should be allowed to make, for instance, your health vs. fast food trade-off for you. If free Americans

OK, just in case anyone's interested. Here's the link http://www.stumblingontruth.com./

Quoting badhatharry: I was truly perplexed today, before I went to work, reading the difference between the portion of GDP Canada pays for health care (10%) and the portion the US pays (18%) (approximately). So I spent the day trying to figure out why that would be. Do physicians get paid less in Canada?Does the Canadian government subsidize medical school tuition? Do Canadian hospitals have to treat illegals? Can Canadians sue their doctors? There must be a difference other than the current state of private insurance.

So when I got home I tried to find the answers to these questions. I had very little luck with those issues but I found what I think is an interesting analysis of the role the US medical system plays in the world and how much all countries benefit from it.

This is a corollary to the “Canada as parasite” parable above. The funny part is socialized medicine has never been truly tested. Those touting socialism’s success have never seen a world without a relatively (for now) free US to make or pay for their new drugs, surgical techniques, and other medical advancements for them. When (and I hope this doesn’t happen) the US joins in the insanity of socialized

Twinswords, By nuclear arsenal I mean that they have nuclear facilities with which they are developing nuclear technology. The United Nations and the international community is well aware of Iran's nuclear program.

A) Biology is not really my thing, but I know in many other fields, most of the breakthroughs come from research that is primarily funded by public dollars. Show me something that shows this is not the case for medicine. B) Why should a homogeneous (ethnically) nation have an easier time with health-care then a heterogeneous nation? C) Show me something that shows anyone has proposed making it illegal for additional health-care above and beyond what would normally be subsidized by the gov't (If we were to take that route) to be bought with private money. Does this even happen in Canada? Or is it people that can't afford to buy medical treatment on their own have to wait..for their free healthcare?

Quoting Lyle: Twinswords,

By nuclear arsenal I mean that they have nuclear facilities with which they are developing nuclear technology. The United Nations and the international community is well aware of Iran's nuclear program.

You don't get to make up your own definitions of words, Lyle.

Quoting TwinSwords: You don't get to make up your own definitions of words, Lyle.

And you do not get to ignore parts of a definition just to suit your point or to expand upon your personal asshattery. (from dictionary.com)
ar⋅se⋅nal  /ˈɑrsənl, ˈɑrsnəl/ [ahr-suh-nl, ahrs-nuhl] –noun
1. a place of storage or a magazine containing arms and military equipment for land or naval service.
2. a government establishment where military equipment or munitions are manufactured.
3. a collection or supply of weapons or munitions.
4. a collection or supply of anything; store: He came to the meeting with an impressive arsenal of new research data.

Quoting Whatfur: And you do not get to ignore parts of a definition just to suit your point or to expand upon your personal asshattery.

(from dictionary.com)
ar⋅se⋅nal  /ˈɑrsənl, ˈɑrsnəl/ [ahr-suh-nl, ahrs-nuhl] –noun
1. a place of storage or a magazine containing arms and military equipment for land or naval service.
2. a government establishment where military equipment or munitions are manufactured.
3. a collection or supply of weapons or munitions.
4. a collection or supply of anything; store: He came to the meeting with an impressive arsenal of new research data.

Thanks Fur. Now that you have posted the definition, it should be even more clear to Lyle that Iran does not have a nuclear arsenal.

Quoting TwinSwords: Thanks Fur. Now that you have posted the definition, it should be even more clear to Lyle that Iran does not have a nuclear arsenal.

Actually, the only thing even more clear is the pronounced seam down the middle of your hat.

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened - Sir Winston Churchill Oh and...just in case Stephanie missed it... "As Milton Friedman (paraphrasing) said to a Swede bragging about how little poverty there was in his country "well, yes, I too have observed that among Swedes in America, there's also very little poverty." In any case there is some great stuff here. Thanks. ;o)

Quoting Starwatcher162536: A) Biology is not really my thing, but I know in many other fields, most of the breakthroughs come from research that is primarily funded by public dollars. Show me something that shows this is not the case for medicine.

B) Why should a homogeneous (ethnically) nation have an easier time with health-care then a heterogeneous nation?

C) Show me something that shows anyone has proposed making it illegal for additional health-care above and beyond what would normally be subsidized by the gov't (If we were to take that route) to be bought with private money. Does this even happen in Canada? Or is it people that can't afford to buy medical treatment on their own have to wait..for their free healthcare?

I will let BH respond if he cares to but the short answers: A) and B) Look in mirror, note bulbous protuberance in middle of face. And it may become clear. C) HR3200: Page 16 Sec. 102 provides a hint of of at least one hurdle. Small Excerpt: 10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15
fective date of coverage is on or after

This'll have to be rapid fire because I have work to do. I understand how you might be confused by that first post. I hope you understand it now. Do you disagree with my original post in its intended meaning? You are saying that by replying to Republicans baseless attacks on reform, that the Democrats are the one's who are not focusing on the issue? What about the Reps who bring this crazy shit up to begin with? What about the people shouting down their Democratic representatives so they can't discuss the issue? Many Democrats my be incoherent in trying to simplify a very complex piece of legislation, but to say they are the one's not focusing on the issue is to not be paying attention. Do you know how many times I have heard Reps say "The bill is a thousand pages long"? This is to scare dumb people who have never read anything that long and think it has to be to hide something. Who the hell cares how many pages the bill has? What does that have to do with anything? Most bills are long

Quoting Whatfur: Oh and...just in case Stephanie missed it...

"As Milton Friedman (paraphrasing) said to a Swede bragging about how little poverty there was in his country "well, yes, I too have observed that among Swedes in America, there's also very little poverty."

Okay, I'm sure I'll be sorry I asked, but what does this have to do with anything I've said?

When people talk about "homogenous nations" what they mean is we'd rather be a shitty country if that's what it takes to keep black people down. If you cut the old confederate states out of out Congress we'd basically have the same politics as Canada.

Quoting stephanie: Okay, I'm sure I'll be sorry I asked, but what does this have to do with anything I've said?

Just checking if you were paying attention. Actually, it has very little to do with anything you said but if one took the concept and applied it to something a bit different one might come up with a quote like: "As Dr. Koop (inventing) said to a Swede bragging about how low infant mortality and how high life expectancy was in his country "well, yes, I too have observed that among Swedes in America, there's also very low infant mortality and high life expectancy." Don't really wish to travel that road again but...you asked. Hope you are not sorry...just smile and flip me off.

wow. you consider that entertainment do you?

Quoting popcorn_karate: wow. you consider that entertainment do you?

Wow, you might need to take a midol. If it was about GW y'all would be ROFL. Yes I thought it funny.

midol? ah well, you know what you are. and no, if it was gwb, it would still be pretty pathetic. I'm fully capable of laughing at good comedy regardless of the target. John Stewart has actually nailed Obama on a few things really well and humorously - even if i think Stewart was basically wrong - it was still quite funny. what you linked to was more a study in the pathologies of home-bound, old, right wingers with out any real grasp on reality. it was mostly sad - but the dog was cute.

Quoting popcorn_karate: midol? ah well, you know what you are.

and no, if it was gwb, it would still be pretty pathetic. I'm fully capable of laughing at good comedy regardless of the target. John Stewart has actually nailed Obama on a few things really well and humorously - even if i think Stewart was basically wrong - it was still quite funny.

what you linked to was more a study in the pathologies of home-bound, old, right wingers with out any real grasp on reality. it was mostly sad - but the dog was cute.

It was what it was and you are what you are. Nobody asked you to comment. You bothering to, with what you did, is also both sad and pathetic. What audience were you looking for? Me? Those who would just snicker and move on.

Quoting claymisher: When people talk about "homogenous nations" what they mean is we'd rather be a shitty country if that's what it takes to keep black people down.

I keep asking people how this more homogeneous thing is supposed to matter, given that we aren't talking about deaths from a specific illness vs a specific country, so you'd think it would even out, even if it made any difference statistically on some level. You don't get a real answer, but lots of hinting about how certain people (not stated straight out usually) are naturally less healthy than others or have less healthy lifestyles or some such. Which I think is basically an argument that "black people and Mexicans are just naturally sicker or to blame for their sickness, so if you exclude them (as including them is unfair) we do too have the best health care system ever." Either than or it's the even more distressing subtext that if you consider white people, who are the only ones we should be worried about, our stats are fine. The arguments don't work in any case, but I find it weird and disturbing

Quoting stephanie: I keep asking people how this more homogeneous thing is supposed to matter, given that we aren't talking about deaths from a specific illness vs a specific country, so you'd think it would even out, even if it made any difference statistically on some level.

You don't get a real answer, but lots of hinting about how certain people (not stated straight out usually) are naturally less healthy than others or have less healthy lifestyles or some such.

Which I think is basically an argument that "black people and Mexicans are just naturally sicker or to blame for their sickness, so if you exclude them (as including them is unfair) we do too have the best health care system ever."

Either than or it's the even more distressing subtext that if you consider white people, who are the only ones we should be worried about, our stats are fine.

The arguments don't work in any case, but I find it weird and disturbing how this is turning into a racial thing. And come on, you can't go on about homogeneity, for heaven's sake, and not have people think you are talking

Quoting claymisher: I'm with you. And I wasn't kidding. The point is that government works a lot better when people choose egalitarianism over racism..

What is funny (not haha funny) to me is that although all the lefties here seem to be looking for and imagining they are finding racisim under every rock. I first saw the little dog video and race never entered my head. I hear of homogenous countries and I think of them only in the terms they were presented or in the terms I presented them in. I personally love America's diversity and I think the left is showing their true "colors" in trying to use it as a tool.

Quoting Whatfur: ...I first saw the little dog video and race never entered my head...

No pun intended: it's called a dog whistle - a message intended for people who are familiar with the symbolism involved, and deniable to everyone else. American politics (and I assume everybody else's) is chock full of this kind of stuff. Regardless of whether you recognized the code in this case, the semiotics involved here aren't that subtle, and there's just about zero chance that the people who made that piece of crap weren't fully aware of what they were implying.

Quoting AemJeff: No pun intended: it's called a dog whistle - a message intended for people who are familiar with the symbolism involved, and deniable to everyone else. American politics (and I assume everybody else's) is chock full of this kind of stuff. Regardless of whether you recognized the code in this case, the semiotics involved here aren't that subtle, and there's just about zero chance that the people who made that piece of crap weren't fully aware of what they were implying.

Again...seek and you shall find. Sometimes a cute little dog video is just a cute little dog video. The symbolism was a dog not wanting to take something from the government. That's how I saw it. I would counter that it is the bigots in the crowd with their hand cupped to their ear listening for something...that they imagine they can hear.

Quoting Whatfur: [...] Sometimes a cute little dog video is just a cute little dog video. [...]

And sometimes denial is just a river in Egypt. That dog video recalled a long history of a standard racist joke, down south. If you weren't aware of that, you are now. [Added] The normal behavior of someone who was not previously aware, and who did not intend to propagate a racist joke, but had just been informed of the subtext, would be to apologize.

Quoting messwithtexas: ...
I understand how you might be confused by that first post. I hope you understand it now.

Why, yes I hope you are now clear on how confusing your first post was and like I said I will give your explanation the benefit of the doubt.

Quoting messwithtexas: ...
Do you disagree with my original post in its intended meaning?

Yes I actually think you are pretty much all wet. I think there are actually just as many if not more reasoned objections to the healthcare bill being presented by conservatives.

Quoting messwithtexas: ...
You are saying that by replying to Republicans baseless attacks on reform, that the Democrats are the one's who are not focusing on the issue?

No, I was saying that the Democrat's are choosing to take things like valid questions about EOL counseling being associated with cost reduction in HR3200 and questions about a "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" that although headed by the Surgeon General the rest are appointed by whom? the Comptroller General...(again cost based not care based.) and turning it into soundbytes that the Republicans are accusing the program of pulling the plug on Granny.

Quoting messwithtexas: ...
Do you know how many times I have heard Reps

Ignorance.

(The following are comments quoted in their entirety.)

Quoting Lyle: Ignorance.

Quoting Lyle: Amen. Preach it! Crazy is crazy.

Hypothesis: The more terse a Lyle response, the more self-referential it is.

Quoting Wonderment: This is just idiocy, KS.

Not so fast, Wonderboy.

I believe I was just touching on this recently.

Quoting harkin: Also notice no mention of the town hall union thugs who used the N-word as they beat a black man.

Who wants an update on harkin's erstwhile (that was fast!) hero, Kenneth "Lil Stevie Blunder" Gladney? You know you want to click that link -- it's TBogg.

Nonsense.

Quoting Lyle: Nonsense.

That's actually funny. I will credit you with intent.

how does your link refute Wonder's point? it is certainly not immediately obvious...

Quoting popcorn_karate: how does your link refute Wonder's point? it is certainly not immediately obvious...

Is this not the second time now you have jumped in with an assumption about an assumption where "I" was concerned skipping past an even more obvious application of your question to one of your own? In other words, could you not have posted exactly what you wrote above as a retort to Wonderment...but chose to skip past him to get to me? i.e. "How does your post refute KidneyStones point? it is certainly not immediately obvious" In other words, its nice to show your loyalty, but don't feel bad when I point out that your loyalty is showing. But yes, my link ...if you reach the bottom (but read the whole thing and utilize the links in it as it is pretty funny IIDSSM ), it simply statistically validates the fact that 80% of the commentors here are liberals and 88% of the comments here come from liberals. Admittedly, Mr. Stones made a number of points in his post and my statistics only touch on part of it, but is far less a blanket statement than Wonder Boys. Wouldn't

Quoting Whatfur: **Let me apologize in advance for all insults implied, explicit, and imagined.

I'm sure I speak for many others when I say the following. Apology not accepted. You don't get to weasel out of responsibility for your words that easily.

Quoting BIH: weasel

Crap and Tax.

Quoting Whatfur: Is this not the second time now you have jumped

considering i almost never start threads, its a good bet that at least 90% of my posts are me "jumping in" to the discussion. So the whole "jumping in" thing just seems silly to me - thats what happens here and on every other discussion board i've seen. Your complaint is also amusing considering that you "jumped in" to Wonder and KS's conversation yourself.

Quoting Whatfur: ... assumption about an assumption where "I" was concerned skipping past an even more obvious application of your question to one of your own? In other words, could you not have posted exactly what you wrote above as a retort to Wonderment...but chose to skip past him to get to me?

in the linked comment, Clay said something about ruby ridge, you said if he knew his facts, he would see that his comparison was invalid. that is where i read to - and it naturally made me wonder what the facts are about Ruby ridge that made you make that claim. why? because i thought you might have done some research, maybe had an interest in the

Quoting popcorn_karate: [...]

Whatfur: If that response doesn't shame you into behaving with more civility*, I don't know what will. Very nice post, p_k. ========== * Towards others, I mean. I do not expect you to act like an adult when you respond to me.

Quoting popcorn_karate: considering i almost never start threads, its a good bet that at least 90% of my posts are me "jumping in" to the discussion. So the whole "jumping in" thing just seems silly to me - thats what happens here and on every other discussion board i've seen.
Your complaint is also amusing considering that you "jumped in" to Wonder and KS's conversation yourself.

I state my point with 2 sentences and over 60 words. With the second sentence added specifically to add clarity to the meaning of the first. You then decide to take the first 10 words out of context and argue against them as if the point was about "jumping in" and not the obvious actual point of the conditions you jumped into. And I'm silly? But cool, now that you have suggested that I was silly, according to the rules set down recently by FrancoAmerican, I can now be insulting.

Quoting popcorn_karate: in the linked comment, Clay said something about ruby ridge, you said if he knew his facts, he would see that his comparison was invalid. that is where i read to - and it naturally made me wonder what the facts are about Ruby ridge

Allow me to handle some of your light work, p_k.

Quoting Whatfur: But cool, now that you have suggested that I was silly, according to the rules set down recently by FrancoAmerican, I can now be insulting.

The desperate search for rationalization continues.

Quoting Whatfur: Did I insult you there?

Ditto, forgiveness.

Quoting Whatfur: ... I assume you then did Google it and now can inform us all about it. Care to share with us why my point ...

Ditto the hope that others will make his argument for him.

Quoting Whatfur: Excuse me for taking the statement "This board is dominated, in terms of comment volume, by volunteers for the Obama campaign" to equal liberals. Do you really find that to be much of a stretch?

Sadly, however, what also continues is the tendency to erect (<-- out of context blockquote bait, for 'fur!) false equivalences. Ditto the utter lack of a clue about anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Quoting Whatfur: I'm a mysoginist because I told you to take a midol?

It was, at minimum, a misogynist's remark. (Note spelling, btw.)

Quoting Whatfur: Now that IS a stretch. Are you a woman?

Whoops. There we go again.

Quoting Whatfur: ... Mr. Hilton ...

This truly weak attempt to dignify a loooooong history of homophobic remarks has to win a prize of some sort. Has to.

Quoting Whatfur: ... the BIH here ...

The

Quoting bitchinheat: desperate

You see my point, I think, P_K. [added] Oh and P_K, I did happen to catch your temporary post there on the Mark and Brink thread...thanks for the temporary support.

it was a good catch - and on the money. respect where its due (now that i'm less annoyed than yesterday)

By simply googling that bankruptcy stat this is the first result. Also, I don't have time to read a bunch of old diavlog comment threads. I waste enough time here as it is. I'm concerned with our discussion, not every discussion you've ever had. Who cares what Emmanual has written if it's not in the bill? He has the courage to address a serious issue facing any healthcare system of how do you ethically distribute care with limited resources. Reps just attack this idea, which again is not being considered in any legislation, without adding anything to the discussion of the real underlying problem. I think that is because conservatives prefer the system we have in which the rich get care and those who can't afford it die or bankrupt their families in their dying years. It's hard to defend that ethically, unless you value free markets over the nation's health (which I honestly think many conservatives do). Anything arguing against ideas that are not in the bill without offering solutions is a distraction and Reps are creating and furthering distractions any chance they get. The EOL counseling was proposed

Quoting messwithtexas: By simply googling that bankruptcy stat this is the first result.
Also, I don't have time to read a bunch of old diavlog comment threads. I waste enough time here as it is. I'm concerned with our discussion, not every discussion you've ever had.

WTF are you talking about. For one thing this whole thread started with an insinuation by you that conservatives were not offering effective arguments. I have been providing links to show you that we have. If you don't want to read them, don't. Just knock off the unsubstantiated statements. And another thing "spend too much time here"? You are responding now to a post I made 6 days ago!! If anything it is I who shoud tell you that your statute of limitations are up an any further response. Sheeit, I almost put out an APB on you to make sure they had not shoved you into a hospice somewhere.

Quoting messwithtexas: Who cares what Emmanual has written if it's not in the bill? He has the courage to address a serious issue facing any healthcare system of how do you ethically distribute care with limited resources. Reps just attack this idea, which again is not being

Quoting Whatfur:

Quoting messwithtexas: Finally, I just want to double check, you think that it is the employer-based coverage and the economy, not irresponsibility, that causes people not to have health insurance? I totally agree. Let's solve that problem and not argue about minuscule corrections like tort reform, buying across state lines, and whether end of life counseling amounts to convincing old people to kill themselves.

You just continue to phone it in today Tex. This whole paragraph is your own invention and not even worth responding to. A great example of intellectual dishonesty...oops make that just dishonesty.

In other words, 'fur has no answer to this very reasonable question.

Quoting messwithtexas: Even if there was no legal compensation for people who are hurt by negligent doctors health care would still be a serious problem and health insurers would still be denying coverage and reimbursements. Although I agree that it is an area of law that could be improved, tort reform is not the root of the problems with health care in this country.

Getting to universal coverage would actually help the medical lawsuit problem. As it is now, if you're horribly injured by medical error, and unable to work and under 65, you can't get insurance. So you've got to sue somebody to get enough cash to be taken care of. That means armies of lawyers on all sides. If we just had universal insurance that battle wouldn't take place. Society would have decided in advance who's going to take care of you when you're fucked -- everybody. Btw, tech writer Robert Cringley had an interesting idea for malpractice.

I think you have run out of ideas and are clearly turning to cowardly personal attacks on someone you don't even know under the cover of distance and anonymity. I feel sorry for you. Get a life. Believe it or not I was busy for 6 days. I have a life. I'm done with this.

Quoting messwithtexas: I think you have run out of ideas and are clearly turning to cowardly personal attacks on someone you don't even know under the cover of distance and anonymity. I feel sorry for you. Get a life. Believe it or not I was busy for 6 days. I have a life. I'm done with this.

OMG, Tex...you need to move to Rhode Island or something...you can't fit in very well down there. You were done a couple post ago. Troofff hurts. But yes...run along now tough guy. [added] Had to go back and read my post to see these "cowardly personal attacks". OMG the horror...

Quoting Whatfur: Nor did I or anyone say the lack of tort reform was the "root" of problems. Its just one of many that can be addressed without blowing up the current system.

"Addressed by whom?" one wonders. My emphasis added:

Oh? What is that, Karen Tumulty of TIME in an article from May?

When Barack Obama informed congressional Republicans last month that he would support a controversial parliamentary move to protect health-care reform from a filibuster in the Senate, they were furious. That meant the bill could pass with a simple majority of 51 votes, eliminating the need for any GOP support. Where, they demanded, was the bipartisanship the President had promised? So, right there in the Cabinet Room, the President put a proposal on the table, according to two people who were present. Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by Republicans that is certain to bring strong opposition from the trial lawyers who fund the Democratic Party.

What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return?

Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make.

The whole post is about Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Obvs.) and his

Quoting Whatfur: OMG, Tex...you need to move to Rhode Island or something...you can't fit in very well down there. You were done a couple post ago. Troofff hurts. But yes...run along now tough guy.

Your gratuitous insults of someone who tried hard to engage you with respect has made you sink even lower in everyone's eyes, 'fur. As hard as that may be to imagine. This is the truth:

Quoting messwithtexas: I think you have run out of ideas and are clearly turning to cowardly personal attacks on someone you don't even know under the cover of distance and anonymity.

Quoting BIH: "whom?"

Obamacare?

Quoting BIH: imagine...the truth:

jeffpeterson?

Quoting Whatfur: jeffpeterson?

I can well imagine you'd like to try to make this about someone else, 'fur. Even you aren't stupid enough not to realize you have no ground left to stand on to defend yourself. But sorry. I'm not going to indulge you.

Quoting BIH: stupid enough

You do realize that you just responded to BIH, cookie cutter quotes, and a fortune cookie comment? u funny

if you keep it up Im going to hound you relentlessly and make sure Bob Wright is aware of your lack of integrity and immaturity.
rn
rnThe conversation you had with the academic bh.tv participant like he was invited by bh.tv to make a diavlog and had the courtesy to post in his own thread is on record, you know?rn