I haven't watched this one closely but I believe Jon Stewart the other night showed clips of it happening in three offices.

So when Michael Moore's movie comes out next week (no less a partisan filmmaker than those who stung ACORN), and he catches and illustrates all sorts of unethical and loathsome shenanigans at Wall Street investment banks, what will you recommend Congress do, sceagles?

Well, hopefully they aren't funding those banks. Right now all that is happening is removing the funding from ACORN, which I think is appropriate.

Also, Congress is already in process of throwing more regulations at the industry. The problem is, that for the unscrupulous (of which there are many on Wall Street), there is always some creative way around regulations. OI've heard wise financial advisors say the biggest problem with regulation is they are always regulating the last problem, with not real way to anticipate the next one.

Depressing but I bet you're on to something here.

I can't speak to anyone except those I know. I do know exactly two racists, one of which is a union member, so I'm really not sure which way they vote. I'm pretty sure the non union member is a republican, and one of the most offensive people I know (a relative by marriage....he hates watching basketball because there are too many black people on the court).

So regarding myself and the people I know, I can say that no, I do not believe the right is afraid of more minorities voting (as long as those minorities are here legally and voting legally). I have no doubt there are some.

Hmm, then it may indeed be a problem. Yeesh. Pretty appalling even once.

But still, neither Obama's fault, nor relevant to his performance as pres.

Again, you frame it in terms of racism. It is not racism to recognize that most minorities vote democratic; and that increase in minority voters decreases republican candidates' chances.

One or three, still doesn't make the whole orginization corrupt. Again, should we close down an entire company for the mistakes made in a few offices?

Not funding those banks?!?!? How would you define handing them $750 billion dollars such that they have gone from brim-of-bankruptcy to healthily-profitable? Is that not "funding?" It's not grants, yeah. But it was voted by Congress just the same.

Congratulations! You've successfully refuted something unsaid by me. You even knocked senseless an argument I didn't even attempt to slyly imply. And in the process you assume that which is (though not by me) being argued--which is just an empty rhetorical trick.

Let me see how this works.

Surely you'd agree that raping young girls is not nearly so fun as it sounds! And should we allow a thoroughly corrupt organization continue unpunished and unblemished access to the government teat?

Nah, I just don't have the knack for it.

Well, crap, yeah. I'm with you on that one. Brain fart. I think once a corporation accepts that kind of help from the government then they need to submit to whatever as the price they pay.

well, in terms of fewer people voting the democrat party line, I'm all in favor of that! But I don't care what color of skin they have.

Can anyone figure out what Alex's last post was supposed to mean?

I can!

WTF????

Exactly.

Well, then, um, continuing in my previous line of thought ...

Yesterday, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld a trial court judgment against Fortis Insurance for Ten Million Dollars. Fortis rescinded the insurance policy of 18-year-old Jerome Mitchell when they discovered he had contracted HIV/AIDS in the year since he started coverage with them.

The Supreme Court stated Fortis' acts were "reprehensible" and "demonstrated an indifference to Mitchell's life and a reckless disregard of his health and safety."


For the sake of a hypothetical, Mr. scaeagles, let's assume this sort of thing was done, oh say 5 times by Fortis. Do those represent the policies of Fortis or the acts of 5 bad apples within Fortis?

Since Fortis supported and defended those acts in court, then yes, it would appear to be their policy.

If ACORN had defended the actions of its employees, then I would agree that it is a bad orginization.

Unrelated to the Fortis example. Listened to an hour of Michael Moore on local NPR this morning and while I'm sure Capitalism: A Love Story will present many very valid criticisms of capitalism (capitalism--though this is true, in my opinion, of any of the alternatives as well--is very much the definition of evil) in general and example of corporate malfeasance (people frequently get to suck and it scales up quickly when people have money and power) specifically I must say I found his professed view of a utopian economic structure mostly bat**** insane in that he seemed less than willing to admit that it was unobtainable without complete central control of the economy (though even if that were accomplished I don't agree with him it would work the way he thinks).

But hopefully the movie makes his case better than he did on the radio.

I don't think his movies, going by past examples, make a case for something so much as against something.

Even on the good guys' side, it's always been easier to destroy than to create.

That may be, though as presented by him today he seems to think (though of course what the creator of something thinks s/he's doing and what s/he's really doing are frequently divergent) it is making a case for his vision of how things could be. His closing remarks were that he hopes at the end of the movie everybody is so fired up that they go out and get involved and make it happen.

I wouldn't mind if audiences were fired up enough to light fire to torches and grab some pitchforks. What happens afterwards will likely be the same (meet the new boss) ... but I've always wondered what kind of society would result if greedy and corrupt fvckwads were annually tarred and feathered and run out of town on a razor wire. Would the new boss continually be same as the old boss ... or would a niche eventually develop for ungreedy and noncorrupt people in positions of power?

Well, the first problem is that it generally isn't the ungreedy upset by the greedy--I'm sure someone will say "not true" but I don't think "greed" and "self interest first" can be separated--and the losers are upset at the winners and simply want the tables turned.

I come from poor people. They aren't sitting around saying "oh how terrible it is that there are poor people and we aren't all socioeconomically equal." Generally it is "how do I get myself a bigger piece of the pie." I'd say that's why people are so often amazed at the poor and powerless seeming to vote against their interests. It isn't that they want the separation between the powerful and the powerless removed, they just want to change categories.

The unusual thing about America is the general belief (right or more often wrong) that they will do just that.

Breifly (as I have not much time right now), if those are the policies of Fortis, then I would regard them as a "bad" organization. And fortunately, they are paying the price. Sadly, legal actions take a long time and the loss of life could occur, which is reprehensible. Which is why I wish the judgement had been 100 million rather than 10 million. If it is certainly not worth their financial interest to violate their agreements perhaps they will stop doing so.

I just found out that my Representative (a Democrat) voted to defund ACORN. I'm going to send her a very strongly worded email. I'm pissed.

press the Bill of Attainder argument.

My friend Andrew was in a band called Acorn. I think they were big in Italy for awhile. I don't think they had anything to do with child prostitutes or denying insurance claims.

How about squirrels?

That was another band

Dumping Bush's border fence would buy a whole lot of public option insurance.

So, um, what's all this about Cloves prohibition??? Huh?

It's a law that was signed in June giving the FDA authority to ban "flavored cigarettes" ostensibly because they are attractive to children. It's been in the works in Congress for years. One of the reasons it's taken so long is that Indonesia has cried foul since as written it covered cloves but not American-made mint/menthol cigarettes, so Congress has been trying to figure out if they can pass it without completely pissing Indonesia off. Apparently they decided so.

I have not yet found any source that says exactly when cloves will be off the shelves, if they will. Though I have read that the importer of Djarum, Kretek, has started making a filtered cigar that apparently looks and tastes a whole lot like a clove cigarette to get around it since the bill doesn't cover cigars.

ETA: Apparently Sept 22 is the date source

It wouldn't even pay for the illegals that would pour in.

Oh, scaeagles, you kidder! You know that fence is going to work every bit as well as Reagan's Star Wars project.

Regardless of whether it will work the, the fence is expected to cost about $400 million per year. While that could certainly go other things it wouldn't buy a whole lot of health care (let alone a "public option" which as is currently being pursued would be self-funded).

And your point is? Okay, you're right about the self-funding.

Oh yes. There is a reason why I love this man in so many ways.

Source

Props to Gemini Cricket's boyfriend, er, um, hero.

No such luck according to the guy at the cig store I was just at, that got nixed. I bought his last carton of specials. At the rate I smoke 'em, combined with the handful of partial packs I have in random places at home, that should last me a while.

What a crock. There are racists, certainly. To claim that opposition to his agenda is largely racially motivated is ignorant.

Even Obama has said he does not believe the opposition is racially motivated. Good for him.

Correct. It's opposition to him that's racially motivated. These yahoos at the health care townhalls are practically brandishing torches and pitchforks. Who the hell carries a gun strapped to their leg to a townhall meeting? Crazy racists, that's who.

Our first Gay president will get the same treatment, tenfold.

As somebody said during the campaign, Obama is forced to be the least aggrieved black man in America. Thus, regardless of what he might think, he can't call a spade-caller a spade-caller.

Gn2 - Aren't those being equated, though? Opposition to the agenda is opposition to Obama himself. That's how I read many of the portrayals of the current political climate.

So it's OK for him to lie about it because of political perception?

I'm not naive and I know that this is what politics is. It just seems as if you are admitting Obama is a liar because he can't tell the truth about it because of political perception.

I honestly don't know if I believe Obama. I think it is likely he recognizes what I said earlier in that regardless of how much racism is involved in the vocal protest, except for instances where it can quite explicitly be exposed as racist it is politically inapt to say so.

For example, most of those people opposing Obama's policy proposals would have even if they'd been proposed by a boring middle-aged white guy. But maybe it is latent racism that takes many people's opposition and bumps it up to anger that gets them out to rallies and town halls, etc.

It is not false to say racism is contributing significantly to the atmosphere. However, it does no good to say so since the individual acts of racism generally can't be identified and it is a measurement of the group average and nobody believes it applies to them (and it won't apply to a lot of people). So, to use a phrase of trade, everybody has plausible deniability ("I'm sure some people are racist but surely not me!").

And, from one perspective it is a sign of improvement that, in general, we've advanced to passive racism of a nature that I suspect is unrecognized in even the people altered by it. Moving to intangible is good, and I'd say it is intangible because they (also subconsciously) recognize that overt is not at all acceptable. And intangible is a lot harder to pass on to the children.

He's rising above it and trying to not add fuel to the conflagration. He knew the level of racism out there- he's lived his life dealing with it. I also think he knew that many of us did not realize how pervasive it is. I'd like to see any President handle the crap he's had to handle, not to mention handle it with the grace that he has, but I think the last time the vitriol was this bad was probably when Lincoln was in office.

Yes. It is a lie (if my suspicion is correct, just because I think he is motivated by X doesn't mean I'm right; though I always am). But it is both a politic and a political lie.

In the same category as how you answer "do these pants make me look fat?".

Oh crap. I better go pick up a pack or two.. if I can get lucky enough to find them. :(

I don't know, WB.....it seemed pretty vitriolic when Bush was accused of being behind the 9/11 attacks as justification for war. It seemed pretty vitriolic when Gore said the Bush betrayed our country. It seemed pretty vitriolic when Reagan was accused of wanting to starve poor people. There's all sorts of vitriol out there and it always seems worse when it it pointed at the person you find yourself supporting.

I want to hear Emily Litella do a rant on "What's all this about banning clothes?!"

To which I will add only ... how do we know the opposition to Obama and/or the policies he represents is not due to racism? I can't answer that, and neither can scaeagles.



But from the interviews I've seen of the teabaggers who protested in D.C. on 9/12, racism seems the only logical reason outside of stupidity. Take your pick. Most of them said they were freaked out about runaway spending. Where were they during the Bush years when a zero deficit when to a $500 trillion deficit?

Granted, they weren't losing their jobs and their homes at alarming rates back then, and so they weren't motivated so much by terror. But these people who equate Obama with Stalin and The H. Word because "suddenly" spending is out of control while there was nary a teabag in sight during Dubbya Days, racism is just as likely a supposition as any for the overblown animus.


Alex is correct in that racism has gone undercover, and that's a good thing. But undercover does not mean gone. Not by a long, long, long, long shot. And yes, like it or not, you're going to have to go Out Of Your Way to make arguments that are reasonable and logical if you don't want it generally ASSUMED that your beef with the black president is the color of his N.word skin.

You can't prove racism or a lack there of in the opposition. Agreed.

It is true that there were not the huge protests over spending in the Bush years, though there damn well should have been. And while 500 billion is no small deficit in the Bush years, this year's projection of 1.6 trillion is significantly larger. And the perspective of the economy adds a lot to it, as you point out ISM. However, to protest spending now in the lack of protests earlier does not mean those that are protesting now are stupid.

They are, and I think Alex's point of normal opposition being bumped up into frenzied opposition is why. I naively hoped that people would be so afraid of being labeled racist that they would choose to cooperate with the president more. Now they just rely on being defended by their supporters, and act offended when any of their detractors call them on it.

"No, your fat ass makes you look fat." < Why I never ask that question.

So you endorse using cries of racism as a political tool?

To me it might mean they are hypocritical. But I rather think they are just acting out of fear, now that the recovery from the economic collapse seems not to be including any non-rich Americans.

But yeah, I think they're also mostly stupid. Not a peep of mass protest or guns wielded at presidential events while tax cuts to the wealthy and a war of imperialism sold by pure lie ballooned the deficit in the first place. And yet now that someone wants to use it to bring jobs, energy independence, health care and environmental sustainability, folks are up-in-arms.

I don't think these bozos who couldn't articulate a decent idea are really objecting the finer points of the policy proposals aimed at restoring economic and moral vitality to America. I think they're angry sheep.

Such people have always acted against their self-interest. They don't want a better world for everyone, so they can enjoy a better world as part of it. Instead, they dream of being among the ultra-few who enjoy the better world through wealth and power, and so work to protect the privileges of that segment while they hope and pray (but do little else) to join their ranks.

Such people are deluded, plain and simple - - and act on that delusion against their own self interest. Definition of stupidity, if you ask me.

I read that as hoping that mildly racist people would bend over backwards to avoid getting outed.

Of course, that assumes that most mildly racist people are aware of it. Which I doubt.

That said, if you can identify the specific racism then of course you should cry it as a political tool.

I suppose you're claiming none of these people are lying when denying they are racist? Because, of course, racists never lie. :p


Yeah, this puts us in the difficult position of proving a negative. That's tough. But, like I said, you're gonna have to put a lot more effort into NOT seeming a racist when virulently opposing our first, ya know, colored president.

"Oh, honey, it's not the pants that makes you look fat. It's the fat that makes you look fat."*


*I can't take credit for this one. It's something an ex said. And now we know why he's an ex.
:D

Yes, there was vitriol directed at Bush. But, as I have pointed out before, they were mostly directed at what he had actually done. The vitriol directed at Obama is of a whole different order. Not only are they protesting over things that Obama hasn't done or has no intention of doing (Sending conservatives to concentration camps?! WTF?), but they are doing so in near violent paranoid delusional manner.

Most of the silly claims against Bush just caused me to roll my eyes. The things these birthers and teabaggers come up with truely frighten me.

Delude yourself that these are merely mild mannered conservatives protesting Obama's "spendthrift" policies all you want. Their signs and shouts tell a different story.

The people that act like there's no racism in our country tick me off. And if one has never experienced something it doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.
My 2 cents.

I do?

I thought I simply expressed a desire to see the political discourse in the country become a little better mannered. Racist me, keepin' down the white man.

Remember... If a Republican does something bad, it's a Democrat's fault.

I used to assume most Californians were not homophobes, because I never encountered any. A certain election proved me wrong.


Don't let your limited personal experience persuade you racism in America is dead. Pfft.

It was a genuine question.

You had said you hoped people were so afraid of being called racists they wouldn't oppose the President. The only reason they would have that fear is if a charge of racism was a used and accepted political tool when no racism exists.

And when a democrat does something wrong, it's right wing conspiracy.

Damn right! ;)

JW summed up my intended response perfectly. The Great Deciderer and his cronies pushed the war, deregulation, changed the rules on enemy combatants, denied due process to citizens of this country, and........bloody hell, the list goes on forever. Most of the people who are so angry right now are angry at the wrong person, but Obama knew when he took office this would happen. I don't remember too many elected officials disrespecting the President when he addressed the House, or inciting people to violence or talk of secession. They also manipulated terror warnings for political gain- That was the reason for the Goering statement by Byrd, and if you have a problem with that, then go talk to Tom Ridge. People are so pissed at what Obama might do, when they should be furious at what GW did do.

I'm angry at a 787 billion dollar stimulus. So yeah, there's anger at things he has done. And anger at things he says he wants to do.

I find it a bit scarier that people accused Bush of planning 9/11 than anything anyone has accused Obama of thus far. And last I checked....Bush didn't plan it.

In short, it's a white lie.

The difference is that the people who accuse Bush of planning 9/11 didn't interrupt town hall meetings to scream their delusion, or assemble in large numbers to march on Washington, or carry guns to a presidential events. Nor did they have their own "news" channel that gave legitimacy to their paranoia.

If you are angry at the stimulus bill, then you must also be really pissed about Bush's TARP bill.

While the last thing certainly is true, the truther movement was surprisingly large and established. And they most certainly did interrupt events with protests. Hell, one of them (Cynthia McKinney) was elected to congress after leading one of the major groups in the movement.

They may not have been as successful at doing so, but why pretend they were just an insignificant annoyance?

If you go back, I believe you'll find he was.

Indeed I was. If I am consistent on anything politically, it is fiscal conservatism. I have been a very vocal opponent of Bush and his spending.

No, it was baiting.

No I didn't. I said, "I naively hoped that people would be so afraid of being labeled racist that they would choose to cooperate with the president more."

Or if they were racist. But apparently, no one can be called racist because racism suddenly ceased to exist. No one's racist anymore, and all accusations of racism are politically motivated. Unlike, of course, accusations that Barack HUSSEIN (has to be in caps!) Obama wasn't born in this country and is a secret Muslim sleeper cell who is going to have his death panels drag grandma and Sarah Palin's ever-so-special-needs baby out to a field and shoot them dead. THAT'S not an accepted political tool (though Glenn Beck is), that's just flowers and light and the love of Jesus don'cha know.

Oh good lord. How is what I said that much different than your exact quote? Sheesh. Baiting? Absolutely not.

I guess this is where we vary (amongst many other things). It seems to me that you believe racism is prevalent. I don't. I do not deny it exists....speaking of baiting. I also don't believe I ever claimed that politicians don't play politics.

In the interests of full disclosure, it does appear as if one of the five ACORN vidoes is NOT quite as bad as it appears. Apparently one of the workers on the videos did contact police. Story

So where is the ourage over Halliburton, Blackwater, and that company that was hired to guard the embassy in Afganistan? Billions of dollars of government money paid to companies that do far more illegal things every day than what ACORN has been accused of. Where is the right-wing outrage over that?

Oh... that's right... they are Republican owned and supported companies. My bad.

The straight dope on prostitutes and filing taxes.

Interesting to learn that you can list your profession as Prostitute and the IRS wouldn't do anything about it since the IRS is not able to share tax returns with law enforcement on their own but rather only when it is requested as part of an existing law enforcement investigation.

Though the article should have mentioned what is put on the form by legal prostitutes in Nevada.

I touched on this earlier but I'm not sure what I was trying to say came out right.

Racism is alive in this country (if anything needs a "death panel" it's racism and bigotry in general). We're lucky we live in areas that it is not experienced to the blatant extent that it is elsewhere.

Do I think everyone who opposes Obama is a racist? Absolutely not.

Do I think some people are opposing Obama based solely upon his race? Yup.

Do I think they are in the majority? No.

Do I think the extremists who oppose him based upon fear mongering are in the majority? Sort of. They are the vocal majority but I don't think they are the true majority of opposition. I wish that the non-extremists who oppose Obama's plan would speak up in a rational manner and silence the vocal extremists.

Extremists hurt causes on both sides of the fence.

I really fear we are going to be a country divided, forever. Acting like children when our candidate doesn't win, throwing a vocal tantrum, counting down until the next election forever. Behavior like this doesn't help anyone, or the country. I completely believe that if a Republican wins the next election the "left" will be behaving just as bad as the "right" is now.

My oh my! I get lambasted here if I dare point out something done on the left (when the discussion is what is bad on the right) because I'm told that I'm saying "well, your guys do something worse!". Is that where you are taking this? Shocked.

Where's your outrage over the tax cheats in the administration? Or Charles Rangel? We can play this game all day.

Wow, if this doesn't sound like someone in serious closeted denial, I don't know what does.

All porn is gay porn and it makes you gay.

Lemme guess what "logic" was used here:

"I looked at porn, I liked seeing the penises in porn, I became gay. Therefore, porn made me gay!"

If you're getting penis with your Playboy you bought the wrong magazine.

I think the logic is that the raison d'etre of pornography is masturbation which, apparently, is a form of homosexuality or moves you down that road. Since onanism is frowned upon by many religious groups I wouldn't be surprised if such a connection has been made ("we think masturbation is bad and we think homosexuality is bad therefore there must be a connection between the two.")

For me as a youngish boy, though, pornography (I was in 6th grade when I traded a VHS copy of Wrestlemania for some Playboys) mostly made me realize that it might be a good idea to head to bed earlier than I otherwise might have.

Does this mean that masturbation means you're gay, or masturbation makes you gay? Or does porn make you gay? Because I really enjoyed "Flesh Gordon" and I'm wondering if I should continue to wait for the gay thing or if I can just carry on as usual?

They're obviously looking at the wrong porn then.

Or is lesbian porn still acceptable?

I would assume that the view is it is a step down the slippery slope towards homosexuality.

Though it is unclear from the full comments whether he would consider this true only of boys and not girls. The comments were specifically about how to take advantage of young boys not liking gay stuff (except the gay ones, presumably). I'm sure he considers women and porn to be a good thing, so long as it his mistress and not his wife or daughter.

I'm not denying that both Democrats and Republicans do immoral and illegal things; it's just that the Republicans seem to do a much better job of getting away with it.

Where's the - ;) -....surely you jest.

I don't see how lesbian porn can make one gay.

I will offer to be the test subject to see if watching lesbian porn can have such an effect.

No, I'm pretty sure he's not.

Go on and name me any of the large scale corruption matters on the Democratic side. I'm pulling a blank.

Of course, most large corporations are de facto Republican supported, so that's not a fair standard I suppose. The banking industry leans Democrat supported. Lots of bad business there, but pretty much all of the corruption cases were on individuals, not corporations.

The Telecom industry is heavily Democrat supported. I can't think of any corruption scandals there. I believe those are the two industries more supported by the Dem party than the Republican.


On the political side, sorry but again all the big corruption scandals seem to be on the Republican side. I've got to be missing something, because I'm sure the Dems are not averse to corruption. But examples??? I'm again drawing a blank.

Except that by getting caught they are no long in the category of being better at getting away with it.

The examples I read JWBear as using are the wiretapping, lying to get us into war, torture, disenfranchisement of minorities and the poor, etc.

But that runs into the issue I mentioned earlier of assuming that which is being debated. The problem is that for the opposition those things didn't happen or aren't bad in the way JWBear's side views it as bad.

I would agree with a statement that Republicans have been better at accomplishing their agenda on large issues than Democrats over the last 30 years. Whether those agendas is evil will be in the eye of the beholder.

ISM, do you want individuals or dems as a group? Individuals on both sides are a dime a dozen. Party wide....Keating 5 comes to mind, with 4 of the 5 senators involved being dems.

Or are you specifically interested in business corruption involving democrats?

Keating 5 goes a way back, don't ya think? Funny, tho, that if only 1 of the Senators was Republican, that's the only one that people remember as being involved, oh these many decades later.


Alex, I disagree with your contention that discovery equates to getting away with it. Shame among circles you hold contempt for anyway is not punishment. Criminal charges, civil judgments, where are these?

The only instance I can recall is Scooter Libby's conviction.



Scaeagles, yes - examples would have to be by individuals. I don't think it's either Republican or Democrat official policy to be corrupt.

To be fair, Dems haven't been in overwhelming power for a long time. So perhaps the big corruption scandals are yet to come. There were indeed, however, a dime a dozen during the Bush Years, and pretty serious during the Reagan years (um, Iran/Contra anyone?) and during the administration of that Nixon guy.

I don't recall any corruption scandals during the Carter presidency. The Clinton presidency had its sex scandal ... but, um, no one got hurt.



I'm not claiming innocence on behalf of anyone. I'm sure there's enough corruption to go around, at every level of government from dog catcher on up.

Elliot Spitzer was getting hookers.

Barney Frank admitted to paying a male prostitute.

Gov of Illinois....drawing a blank....selling Obama's senate seat.

Rostenkowski went to prison for misuse of public funds.

Torricelli was taking illegal gifts from lobbyists.

Sandy Berger was removing classified docs from the National archives.

Then there's John Edwards.

Governor of Arkansas Tucker was convicted of Fraud in the Whitewater deal.

That's just off the top of my head in about 30 seconds. With research I'm sure I could find a whole bunch more.

Please note I post these things only because of a direct inquiry from ISM. In no way am I saying that republicans do not have similar moral, legal, and/or ethical failings.

If you're going to bring sex-scandals into it (and really, unless it's sex with lobbyists or something direct like that I don't care if they are having an affair) How many Democrat officials and how many Republican officials in the last 2 years have been caught in sex scandals? For some reason, it seems that a lot more Republicans than Democrats have been caught with sex-scandals.

The only reason they stick out to me more is because of their "pro-family values" hypocrisy, so I'm truly curious.

The only real sex scandal there was Edwards. The others involve prostitution, which (though most here don't think it should be) is illegal.

And I just can't stand Edwards, so I'll throw him out there even if it was just sex. And a kid. The man makes me ill. But wait.....he's white. How can I dislike him so much?

Let's see, sex-related scandals from Clinton years onward (some were more criminal than others). Or at least until I get bored of looking things up.

This proves absolutely nothing about anything. Just got curious.

Brock Adams (Sen. D-WA) - Retired rather than risk losing election after allegations of sexual assault were published in Seattle newspaper.
Sam Adams (Mayor - D-Portland, OR) - Sexual relationship with 18-year-old intern.
Bob Allen (Florida State Legislator, R) - Offered a blowjob to a policeman in a bathroom. Later claimed it was race panic.
Gary Becker (Maror, D-Racine) - Charged with child sexual assualt.
Ken Calvert (Rep. R-CA) - found by police naked in his car with a prostitute.
Henry Cisneros, Clinton HUD Secretary - Pled guilty to lying to FBI about payments he'd made to a former (pre-Clinton) mistress.
Bill Clinton, Governor/President - Jenifer Flower/Monica Lewinsky
Gary Condit (Rep. D-CA) - Affair with Chandra Levy revealed when she goes missing.
Larry Craig (Sen. R-ID) - Caught in police sting and accused of lewd conduct in an airport restroom.
Brian Doyle (Deputy Press Secreatary, Homeland Security) - Child pornography and child sexual assault.
Mike Duvall (CA State Assembly, R) - Caught on microphone bragging about affairs.
John Edwards (Sen, NC; presidential campaigner) - Had affair, likely fathered child.
John Ensign (Sen. R-NV) - Affair with campaign staffer.
Mark Foley (Rep. R-FL) - sent sexually explicit text messages to aides. Resigned.
Vito Fossella (Rep. R-NY) - Affair and child with mistress.
Newt Gingrich (Rep. R-GA) - Ongoing affair with aide and future wife
Samuel B. Kent (Federal District Court Judge) - Convicted for lying about sexually harrassing employees. Refused to resigned, impeached by Senate.
Kwame Kilpatrick (Mayor, D-Detroit) - Among many scandals, affair with his chief of staff.
Steve LaTourette (Rep. R-OH) - Wife accused him of having an affair with chief of staff. Denied. Later married his chief of staff.
Bob Livingston (Rep. R-LA) - Resigned in midst of Clinton impeachment when it was revealed he was having an affair.
Tim Mahoney (Rep. D-FL) - Replaced Mark Foley who is also on this list. Has admitted to affairs and buying off campaign staffer.
James McGreevey (Gov. D-NJ) - Affair with person he'd put on payroll.
Gavin Newsom (Mayor, D-SF) - Affair with wife of one of his staffers.
Bob Packwood (Sen. R-OR) - Sexaul harrassment, resigned when ethics committee voted to expel him.
Mel Reynolds (Rep. D-IL) - convicted of sexual assault, child pornography. Waited until he was sentenced to resign. Later pardoned by Bill Clinton.
Jack Ryan (Sen. candidate; R-IL) - Withdraw from campaign after claims of sexual proclivities from divorce records were released.
Mark Sanford (Gov. R-NC) - Affair with an Argentinian, abandoned office for a little while.
Don Sherwood (Rep. R-PA) - Admitted to sexual affair after police record from an abuse complaint were released by campaign opponent.
Eliot Spitzer (Gov. D-NY) - Involved with prostitutes.
Randall L. Tobias, Deputy Secretary of State (Bush) - DC Madam.
revealed during divorce with current wife.
Antonio Villaraigosa (Mayor, D-LA) - Affair with reporter.
David Vitter (Sen, R-LA) - Prostitution

Thanks for the list, Alex. The one thing that's missing from your list is a politician with a vagina.

And I don't equate sex scandals with corruption. Unless, as BTD points out, it's sex with lobbyists or some such.


So, nice lists and all, but not at all what I was asking about. CORRUPTION. Not moral failing or hypocrisy.

Thanks Alex!

13 Republicans
11 Democrats

Very few (from either side) with anyone campaign or directly political related. My brain is scrambled, I tried to count but the people being me keep yakking and I can't concentrate.

Ummmm....of my quick list:

Rostenkowski, corruption.
Blogojovich, corruption.
Tucker, corruption.
Torricelli, corruption.
With Berger, I suppose you can't claim corruption, but stuffing classified documents down ones pants and saying it was an accident? Um, no.
Spitzer and Frank, illegal activity, not just sexual.

So except Edwards, I listed nothing based totally on sex. 4 had nothing to do with sex. Do you want me to do some research and find others?

No, that's good. Thanks!

Ugh, corruption everywhere, all the time!!

Like I said my list was not intended to make any kind of point. Sex scandals were mentioned and I got curious so went looking.

The party count isn't relevant at all since I have no reason to think it is a complete list.

Mousepod. Only one woman politician was mentioned in anything I found and it was in the '80s. Though of course Hillary was having a lesbian affair with Vince Foster forcing Bill to have him killed.

Mike Espy (Clinton ag secretary) could also make the list. He may have been acquitted of taking inappropriate gifts but a lot of people were fined or convicted of giving them.

Henry Cisneros (Clinton HUD Secretary) was indicted on several counts of conspiracy, false statements, and obstruction of justice, but pleaded guilty to lesser misdeanor charges. That one came to mind after Alex listed a Clinton secretary.

Yes, but he was lying about a purely sexual affair (it was on my list above); in meeting with the FBI about for his background check to become HUD Secretary he lied about how much money he'd given to a mistress.

There were allegations that the Clinton administration abused power at the IRS and other agencies in a cover up but the 10-year Independent Council investigation (ending in 2005, 6 years after Cisneros's guilty plea) never resulted in any indictments beyond Cisnero's initial plea about lying and his $10,000 fine.

It wasn't one of the shining examples of the Independent Council law.

Oh, OK....I didn't remember the details....just the cabinet member reference reminded me that he had come under indictment for the above and had pleaded out.

Dullest sex thread ever.

and this is the GOP for just 9 months of 2007...

http://www.democrats.com/republican-scandals-2007

But the GOP Sex Scandals are the BEST!

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals

If you're going to go down to Republican county treasurers (as that first list does) I suspect that Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago, and most of New Jersey would be willing to go tit for tat with Democrats.

Got to thinking about the general nature of public corruption and found that the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section handles federal, state, and local corruption charges and reports to congress every year.

That link includes information on the departments porfolio in 2007. It really confirms just how boring and petty most of it is.

In 2007 838 federal, state, and local officials were charged with crimes with 739 convictions. Convictions (federal, state, local, and private citizens mixed up in one of them) by year below.

No breakdown by party affiliation. Though there was a law professor a couple years back who showed that the Bush DoJ was 7 times more likely to be investigating Democrat officials than Republican. They're study, though, did not include any information from before 2002 to show if that was a massive change from before (and of course we've all heard the accusations of a politicized DoJ).

1988 - 1067
1989 - 1149
1990 - 1084
1991 - 1194
1992 - 1081
1993 - 1362
1994 - 969
1995 - 878
1996 - 902
1997 - 853
1998 - 1014
1999 - 1065
2000 - 938
2001 - 920
2002 - 1011
2003 - 868
2004 - 1020
2005 - 1027
2006 - 1030
2007 - 1014

The Bush administration completely overused the state secrets privilege (it was misused to some extend before but I'm of the opinion that the Bush administration extended it to a ridiculous extent).

There seemed to be some expectation that Obama would decline to use it altogether, which is self-evidently (again in my opinion) ridiculous as well.

However, today a new policy on state secrets has been announced by the Attorney General and it seems like a very good position to me. The hurdle is significantly raised, many people have to sign off and judges will generally have the ability to review for themselves the evidence the government is attempting to exclude.

So far, most of the observers I've read from both ends of the spectrum seem to think it is a good change.

I really don't have a problem with the UN meeting with Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad. At least then when we blow them up... er I mean invade their countries we can say we did everything we could to communicate with them first.

I do find it amusing that Gaddafi won't stay in a hotel and brings a tent/homestead everywhere. He's currently trying to set up shop on some land that the Trump organization owns and "was leased on a short-term basis to Middle Eastern partners, who may or may not have a relationship to Mr Gaddafi"."

Going to have to bring something back to the forefront here....can't imagine why anyone would be afraid of political indoctriantion at school. Check this out.

I want it to be known I found this link on the Drudge report. I have no idea what school it happened at or how long ago.

If that was done as part of a public school exercise then I agree it probably isn't appropriate (I can't understand any of the lyrics beyond "Barack Hussein Obama" but I'll assume for arguments sake that they're some version of "we wish you were a religion so we could kill people in your name").

That said, this video and nothing I see in the comments identifies the context in which it is being done. For all I know those are all the children of the local Democrats for Pissing Off Republicans getting ready to perform at a $1,000/plate Obama fundraiser. Still annoying to see children put through that but of a different type.

So, any information out there on the actual specific context of what is going on?

ETA: Though whether this particular video is an example of indoctrination the fear I hear from you really reminds me of this (the Bush part is about 1:40 in).

I'll admit I fear what was in that video much more than the possibility of politically indoctrinating our children and producing a new Hitler (not that I'd like that to happen). At least Obama will eventually die.

That's creepy indeed. I would suppose the difference is that I am making the assumption that the one I posted was at a public school. It looks like a public school auditorium with an elementary school music teacher.

I have looked for the context of that video, but haven't as of yet been able to find any.

I haven't either. And I'll be happy to say up front that if it turns out to actually be a school music class at a public school that I'll agree with you it is almost certainly* inappropriate.

I agree it is obviously a school auditorium of some sort. There's just nothing in the video that confirms it is a public school and that what is happening is a school related activity.

* Need a little bit of wiggle room since i can't make out the lyrics and I can imagine extenuating circumstances that would ease my discomfort even if this is an official public school activity. Could aslo be that it was inappropriate and official action had already been taken by the school administration in response.

I have just been reading quietly but whoa, that video Alex linked is scary crap!

The one with the kids singing about Obama something or other does seem out of line for school but I get the feeling it was done by some overly happy to have Obama as President music teacher that didn't think the whole thing through. I could be totally wrong, just my reaction as I watched it. I didn't see it as so intently trying to convert/indoctrinate the little children.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that today in the public schools of America, more children were molested or had inappropriate advances made to them by teachers than were asked by teachers to sing a dangerous song about the president bringing the people together.

Unless Obama was going to be visiting that school, I think the school time could have been better spent. Still, it does pose the question about how much unanimity there has to be around a political viewpoint--or figure--before it is acceptable to "indoctrinate" our grade school children with the typically broad generalizations that are appropriate for that age? Would you like to see schools stop with nice lessons about Lincoln and Martin Luther King?

True, we did sing songs in elementary school about how wonder Andrew Jackson was (the Battle of 1812) and that was pretty much a lie.

I'm going to go with the post office policy. You want to be on a stamp or have schools make children sings song about you? Die first.

The molesting thing is sadly true. AZ seems to have those cases all the time.

However, the reason that I posted that video is that I was pretty much mocked by many here for even suggesting that there could be political indoctrination taking place in the public education system.

And here my cynical first thought was that the video was staged by some right wing group. The way the video pans in on the individual kids like, "look how this poor baby is being brainwashed!" looks totally staged to me.

I'd like to know the full story behind the song before we start taring and feathering.

How 'bout just feathering?

Umm, no, you were mocked for suggesting that political indoctrination would a likely and widespread result of watching Obama's spech and bieng asked questions about it, and that political indoctrination was the real underhanded goal of the exercise.

Can you be any more dramatic?

I believe it happened, but I can't find anything in the MSM on it. Got any links that are a bit more factual and less dramatic?

I seriously doubt it's a new generation of lynching. Just some very f'ed up people who did a very f'ed up thing.

Here you go

With the likes of Michelle Bachman stirring up fear of of the upcoming census, why is this surprising? With everything going on, and an important mid-term election coming up, I predict we will be seeing a surge of violence next year.

If you can't come up with any viable ideas to actually help the people you represent, then you do... Well... This.

Interesting... I find that I agree with him completely.

Perhaps by some. Others were certainly mocking for me for the very suggestion that it could happen. I was ripped on for doubting the professionalism of public school teachers. I certainly did imply it could be wide spread, but was mocked for much more than that.

Sorry, but one video with unitelligible lyrics that may or may not be a public school teacher does nothing to impugn the professionalism of public school teachers as a whole. It impugns the professionalism of THAT alleged public school teacher.

I will continue to mock you for suggesting that the viewing of one speech by the President of the United States and being asked some questions about it is evidence of a conspiracy toward liberal indoctrination in public schools.

I completely agree that it does not mean all teachers are looking to indoctrinate children. I think the disagreement comes from how widespread it is. I posted a link to a different video in this thread of a teacher berating a student for preferring McCain to Obama.

I think this, just like anything made public, is just an example. Kind of like **** roaches. For every one you see there are 100 more. Very little of what really happens comes to light. On the conservative side, I have no doubt that Dick Cheney has told more than one senator (it was a senator if I recall correctly) to f*** off, or whatever exactly it was. He just got caught on tape once.

ETA: How funny. That was supposed to say C0CK roaches, but apparently that word is filtered. Context is everything.

Oh, apparently the video was shot at B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ in June. That makes me wonder, though, if this was actually school or some form of summer program. If a state funded summer program, though, it's still a problem.

To which I again ask, if it's such a danger, if it's so widespread as to actually be likely to happen under your nose in such a cunning way that you wouldn't be able to notice it, report it, and stop it, how can you possibly allow your children near these people unsupervised ever? You brushed the question off before as ridiculous, but you're painting a picture here of a system brimming with people looking for just the right opportune moment to start brianwashing your children.

I do not think teachers look for opportunities on a broad scale basis. To reiterate, I had two problems originally. One, the speech itself, which after I read it, I said in this thread I had no problem with it. The other problem was the lesson plans provided by the dept of education.. That provided an opportunity for bias (either way, but I make no secret that I think the education system and teachers lean left) to come through in the discussion. I don't think that teachers on a broad scale look for chances to input their political leanings while putting together their lesson plans. However, as with all of us, our biases can and do come through depending in the subject matter, just as with supposedly objective journalists.

So the information coming out about the video is this:

Filmed at B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington New York on June 19, 2009.

Part of a father's day tribute to Barack Obama by children's author and literacy advocate Charisse Carney-Nunes in association with her "interactive digibook" I Am Barack Obama (here, click "books" then "i am barack obama" in left column). So it was not a teacher leading the children in this song. Of course that does not mean it wasn't a school activity.

I have not yet found anything about the specific context of this song but looking at her appearance calendar she frequently speaks at school related events but not as part of the curriculum. Can't find a 2008-09 school calendar but in 2010 the last day of school is June 18, so it is quite possible that Friday, June 19, was still a school day (though quite possibly the last day of school).

Hey Alex, if you're bored can you do some research on the history of fear mongering and violence around census time?

I would, but frankly you're way better at that than I am.

Here's what I found on the lyrics when it was to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic -

Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all [do? doth??] say "hooray!"
Hooray Mr. President! You're number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans [in?] the great Red White and Blue!
So something Mr. President we all just something-some,
So here's a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)

Census takers have long been viewed with suspicion by certain segments.

That said, there is historically a completely separate reason for people in back country Kentucky to be less than accommodating to any representatives of the federal government so I'm not particularly willing to jump to the conclusion that the killing was prompted by fear of the census.

Here is a non-dramatic "so it begins..." article from the Washington Post on it.

That's what I was thinking, but I couldn't find info (didn't look that hard last night) on the dominant race of the area.

In case I was too oblique, the historic reason the back country of Kentucky wasn't necessarily safe for federal representatives was because of territorial moonshine makers.

Not quite the source of violence it was in the past but still real.

Not saying that was the reason, it just strikes me as equally likely (and there are many other possibilities) on the currently available information as it being someone inspired by Michele Bachman's comments on the census itself.

Ultimately, unless there is direct evidence found one way or another, it may not be possible to assign one murder to one cause. And jumping to conclusions isn't particularly useful except as a rhetorical club. It is something to watch and investigate, of course.

Then it wouldn't have said "fed," it would have said "revenooer."

At any rate, the guy was obviously murdered by Obama's people. You can tell because a real lynching would have had a black victim.

Heard my first "Meg Whitman for governor in 2010" ad yesterday. It's very exciting.

I wonder if she'll allow you to leave negative/positive feedback on her eBay profile.


A+++++++ WOULD VOTE FOR AGAIN!!!!!!



(Note: That comment does not necessarily reflect the views of the typist.)

VAM!

Brilliant! :snap:

If she loses the election, can she relist as a buy-it-now?

VAM

School children sang in praise of Bush in 2006

Where was the right-wing outrage then?

How absolutely hysterical that you equate the lyrics in the above with the lyrics from what was sang. Also, I don't give a rats ass if children want to gather at the white house lawn and do whatever the hell they want. The video of discussion here was done in...um....school. Public school. Draw whatever equivalencies you want to try to.

Don't your kids go to private school, Scaeagles? Why all the concern for public school kiddies? Believe me, they have bigger problems than this stupid, paranoid nonesense Beck and Rush are pushing. They need all the role models they can get. Those guys are just pissed that they haven't been able to bust Obama being anything other than his skin color. Sorry for the anger, but I'm getting sick of all this crap. With all the problems we face in this world, all anyone gets pissed about is a bunch of manufactured innuendo and outright racist, slanderous, delusional lies. The past eight years have been the ruin of our country, with some of the very worst behavior by our elected officials and business leaders in probably a century, and you're all up in arms about a stupid school sing-a-long. Do you get as upset when all the kids stand up, place one hand over their hearts, and recite the pledge allegience to our flag?

Several dozen pages ago, there seemed to be a fairly broad consensus that "but look what YOUR party did" is a tiresome and pointless game. I'd love it if y'all could get back to debating and defending actual policy. I'll check back later.

Right... Because it was about a Republican president, it was ok.

(I posted it just to see Leo sputter. It worked. :evil: )

What???? No, no, no! I'm not letting you get away with that! You NEVER let me get away with pointing at anything, no matter how related, that happened in the past with different administrations hen people would rag on Bush (and as a reminder, I agreed with some of the ragging). And the absolutely hysterical thing is that this has NOTHING to do with Obama. It has to do with a stupid teacher and administration at the school in question. Talk about manufactured outrage. You don't talk about the point of the criticism, you talk about how people don't like Obama. Please tell me where I criticized Obama in any post about that song at that school.

I have not even bgeun to criticize Obama.

Kids are allowed to opt out of the pledge.

Yes. My kids go to private school, but isn't that kind of like me suggesting to you that you don't live in poverty so why are you concerned about those that do?

Hmmm..isn't that admitting to being a troll?

I said this before the details of the video were known:

Now that the details are pretty much known I am of the opinion that it wasn't really appropriate. Is it the most inappropriate thing ever done on school grounds? Not at all. Should heads roll? Not at all.

Was it inappropriate? Yes. Should it not be done again? Yes.

Can you find hypocrisy in people being upset now that weren't when roughly correlating things happened in the past to people of the opposite party? Yes. Can you find hypocrisy in people not being upset now that were (or would have been had they known of it) when roughly correlating things happened in the past to people of the opposite? Does that type of hypocrisy pretty much define political discourse for most people? I'd say the long history of this thread says yes. Everybody thinks their farts smell like flowers, as I say frequently.

Interesting conversational gambit.

But if you listen closely, you can hear the children singing:

"Bush sent soldiers to their tomb.
Obama farts, and flowers bloom.
Kill the white man.
Kill the white man."

Oh, I thought they were being indoctrinated. But so long as they were simply singing the truth...

Oh, excuse me- my bad. I sincerely thought all this outrage had to do with Obama's Master Plan to indoctrinate the children into the cult of liberalism. I read about how angry you are, wonder at the intensity of the anger, then after a few clicks on the comp I find out that Rush and Drudge and Hannity, blah, blah, blah, are just as darned mad as you, and in fact much of what they are saying matches up with your statements. Maybe I'm not as angry because I don't listen to that crap- I'm a bit irritated by the poor choices a school made, but it largely because it gave fodder to the agitators who want so desperatly to make Obama out to be evil personified. Again, with all the truly horrible things happening in our country (and the world), why waste so much time on this? It shows me that there is little else to fixate on as far as tabloid mud slinging, which assures me (thus far) that we have a pretty damned decent man in office. I'm glad you care about the public schools, but I guess I just didn't realize how very much you do.

Please show me where I was angry when I pointed this video out. The reason I pointed it out, as I did with another video I posted a while back, was to show that it perhaps wasn't so paranoid as many here accuse me of being in saying that educators, when given the chance, often time project their own political leanings onto students.

And WB, you sure sound a lot angrier than I do.

An individual educator projecting his or her political leanings does not mean there is a plot by Obama to create a brainwashed army of American school children. I reserve the right to still refer to that bit of delusion as "paranoia".

Damned right I am. When the President is insulted by a member of Congress in an entirely disrespectful, embarrassing and defamatory manner, I get pissed. I get pissed when children sing 'Assassinate Obama' on a school bus, and politicians start talking about seceding from the Union. (Which is treason, btw). I get pissed when people say "there's just something about him I don't like/trust/respect, without having any examples to back their stance up. (It's NOT racism, though- just.........something, something so apparantly intangible they can't put it to words, but the vehemence with which they proclaim their dislike is telling enough). As far the educators leaning left- I know plenty who don't. However, many realize that any funding they're going to get to relieve the drain on their own pocket books (and every teacher pays for stuff out of pocket, because the parents and districts can't or won't, but the kids still need the supplies, etc) is going to be more of a priority for the liberal lawmakers. Most of all, I get pissed at all the lies. If the truth doesn't work, spread lies. Throw enough mud, and it will stick. Guess what, Scaeagles? The Right aren't the only ones capable of getting angry. They've ruined this country, and all they can do is bitch about things that either haven't happened, are blown out of proportion, or are flat-out misrepresentations.

I'm also pissed off at a lot of religious groups, but that's for another vent.

Don't worry, WB. It's a dying party, and won't be around much longer. We just need to make sure they don't do any more damage until that happens.

Be angry then, WB. But get the hell off the back of others that are angry about the health care plan, 787 billion dollar spending bills, 1.6 trillion dollar deficits, and whatever else, and being called racist because of it.

And JW, I'd be willing to guess that the republicans pick up a whole lot fo seats in 2010. It is the norm, and even the dems are sweating how many they'll lose.

Scaeagles, you pull something off of Drudge you know is going to be inflammatory, then act all 'who said I was angry?' about it. You're being disingenuous, and you know it. That is what sets me off- you put something out there designed to help prove your idea that America's schoolchildren are being brainwashed into a Maoist cult (which is ridiculous, IMHO) and then out comes the righteous indignation.........sigh. I give up- we should rename this thread 'Groundhog Day', because it's the same runaround time and time again.

I'm with Flippy- wake me up when intelligent discourse makes an appearance around here.

How dare I post something to support a position I had.

I agree, WB. It is the same thing over and over in here sometimes.

I find it amusing that the same people who were all in favor of shoveling $1 billion a week into Halliburton to wage Geo. W. Bush's Great Big War To Avenge Daddy's Honor suddenly are born-again deficit opponents when the money is used to help people in the United States who need healthcare.

I am somewhat less amused by people who can take President Carter's statement

and deliberately misinterpret it into "opposition to Obama is racist" -- and then take offense at what was never said in the first place.

This is almost as transparently fraudulent as claiming that the signs presenting President Obama as an African witch doctor and claiming he is not a U.S. citizen at Sept. 12 rally (brought to you by Fox "News") were based on policy differences.

--t

Thank you, Tod. You do realize, though, that to be a "good patriot" one must always remember that everything Republicans do is good, and everything Democrats do is bad. And always listen to Fox News, 'cause they know whats best for you. See how easy that makes everything? You don't have to do any thinking for yourself anymore!

Paybacks are a bitch
:evil: :)

Love the tired old arguments. Like I said above, some things never change around here.

Neither do the liberals who drink the liberal kool-aid. They just go along thinking "Republicans are bad, evil, trying to destroy the country, insight riots and lynchings".


JW, Wendy, Sca, aren't you guys tired of going round and round and round poking at each other yet? You're never going to see eye to eye. This thread is now little more than JW poking at Sca who is poking at Wendy who is poking at Leo who is poking at JW. And frankly, it's tiresome of this same damn beating taking over every single conversation.

If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

BTD,

I am not a liberal. One does not need to be one, nor does one need to "drink the liberal kool-aid" to recognize hypocrisy and point it out.

I have a healthy distrust of both political parties. It's just that the last (almost) nine years have taught me to distrust the Republicans a hell of a lot more than the Democrats.

The point I am trying to make still stands. The three of you just go round and round and round. It has to be tiresome to keep poking at each other. It is tiresome that nearly every page of this thread has derailed into it.

Simple solution: Stop making them. Don't lie about what people say, then pretend to be outraged by what wasn't said.

I'll take your word for that right now.

--t

Tod,

With all due respect, unless you have read all 104 pages in this thread, you really don't know what is actually going on.

Are you talking to JW and WB? Nothing like jumping in, having no idea what's going on, and hopping on a self righteous pedestal.

Anyway, you know BTD, you're mostly right. I'm done in here. It is ridiculous, tiresome, old, and has really caused this board to head in the direction of others that I stopped posting at long ago.

Excellent point. I took "the old tired argments" to mean the old tired right-wing arguments.

Please excuse my ignorance of the 100+ pages that preceded this one.

--t

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Your assumption as to what I am referring to is completely wrong. The fact that you are hardly around is enough for me to say you shouldn't form opinions about things you don't understand.

I used to think LoT was awesome because we could have political discussions without people trolling or name calling. But it seems that it was all an illusion.

I'm taking my own advice. When an actual political discussion can be had without the same people beating the same dead horse I'll come back and play.

Please quote where I have called anyone names in this discussion.

Some of us are simply tired of our right leaning friends here defending the Republican party at all costs - especially with what is going on right now. It seems to me that most Republicans (include most of my family) seem incapable of criticizing their party and fellow Republicans, or even recognizing that there is something to criticize. This attitude of "party first, before country" is something I am just unable to fathom. It boggles my mind.

And yes, I know that there are some Democrats with that attitude, and I have just as much disdain for them. But it is far less prevalent on that side of the fence. Blind obedience to party seems to be a much more right-wing thing.

"Often"? Nope, still paranoid.

In my own defense
 

My apology was sincere. I stepped in the middle of an ongoing 100+ page discussion and misinterpreted what "old tired arguments" meant.

I apologized and retreated. That's all I can do.

Sorry about that. I'll tread more carefully in future.

--t

I have to say I find this petty and offensive. I am here, then I disappear for a while and then I'm back. Do you seriously mean that if someone hasn't been around much that their opinion and/or insight is any less valid and by implication, yours is superior? And if they are wrong they are attacked even if they apologize? Really? Because excuse me, you don't always know what the hell you're talking about either and I have never seen someone essentially say, "go away, we don't give a f**k what you think." I may not be around enough in your eyes to have a valid opinion but I'll give it to you anyway. This was incredibly rude (and before you say so, I don't give a s**t if he was mistaken, my statement stands). Wow.

I'd also point out that in this post you are perpetuating that which you claim to despise. You might want to think about that.

Take that back!

26 posts, vs over 1k. Huge difference. Jumping in to the middle of a board dynamic discussion vs. a political (or other) discussion. Huge difference. Reread what I said. I'm not saying what you think I'm saying and I stand by it. Be offended if you want. I'm tired of the same damn horse being beaten in this thread. It's nearly impossible to have a poltiical discussion because the poor horse is dragged out by someone sooner rather than later and we are back to where we started.

You are saying that if you don't have a high enough post count you have no right to form opinions/comment on board dynamics. In this thread, you don't have to be rocket scientist to figure the general dynamics out. But that's immaterial. My point is your statement was incredibly rude.

I stand by that.

Oh, and I agree with one thing; the same dead horse is dragged out time and time again...only for me that dead horse is the inevitable bitching about said dead horse.

For BTD: I actually said much the same earlier in the thread, but stupidly bit again. Still, I actually do not remember a time when we didn't all bicker and argue over politics here at the LoT. :D
Btw- when a person apologizes in a sincere manner, it's common courtesy to accept the apology, or ignore it. Tod, as a fellow member of the LoT, I welcome your input and I am not totally sure I understand why your original apology was apparantly not sufficient (especially when I'm not sure it was needed), but please continue to contribute to any conversations we have going. Lord knows I don't read everything around here, yet I jump in and out of conversations all the time.

We're all friends- believe it or not, as much as we argue, I like Scaeagles- mainly because I know it irritates him. ;):p

Oh, and I'm going to rename this the "JW, Wendybeth and Scaeagles Poking Thread'. Uhm, on second thought..... maybe not. Sounds kind of dirty.

1. I get what you're saying, BTD... I think. From my perspective, it depends on whether LoT is a local, Los Angeles area-based club for people in their 20's and 30's who socialize with each other IRL or whether it's a message board open to everyone. If it's a message board open to everyone, some nuances are going to slip through the cracks and that's going to have to be okay.

As long as I've been hanging around the fringes, my jury's still out on what the LoT is, you enigmatic darlings.

2. The Wall Street Journal is a damn fine newspaper but only if you ignore the editorials.

These guys are in their twenties and thirties? Wow, I feel old.

I could be 10 years out of date. It's happened once or twice before.

Tod must be a king.

I saw Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" yesterday. It was really depressing and not quite funny enough. I don't think it was his best film, but it's his best-timed one. (His last film about health care was a little too prescient, coming out a year or so before the current big brouhaha).


Anyway, lot's of food for thought, and perhaps a new wrinkle to the discussion. If scaeagles is still hanging around, I welcome any cites to inaccuracies. Moore is always accused of them, and there have indeed been a few. Most, though, turn out in his favor. I think the opposition would do better to cite the 4 things that are really incorrect than have only 4 out of 50 accusations prove inaccurate.

Moore seems to have a pretty good track record to me.



So, like democracy, is capitalism really the worst possible system .... except for all the others??

1st - I took his apology to be full of sarcasm - that one can jump right in and have an opinion about the dynamics in a 100+ page thread when they are hardly around. If it was not then I also apologize for my 2nd post.


2nd - I'm pretty sure Leo isn't coming back anytime soon.

BTD, please knock it off.

The length of a thread has NOTHING to do with whether one may be allowed to participate. YOU do not get to decide who says what around here.

I suppose you want Tod to read the entire SOoooo thread?




Also, please recall this omnibus political thread was created by default when it became impractical to create a new thread for every political thought. There's no such thing as a coherent dynamic among the 100 or so pages of this mammoth thread that someone has to review and adhere to in order to participate.


And in fact I think it's rather easy for someone to come in and cut right through the bullsh!t of the usual suspects around here and their typical banter.

Whether that's true or not, you are not the Post Police and it's really rude to make people feel unwelcome.

Oh, I don't know. I can see how allowing anyone to come in and post whatever they're inclined to post would interfere with good order and discipline.

What I quoted is what I am referring to. How can someone who just came in just jump on the bandwagon of so and so is just making up lies (even if he is).

Imagine if someone who is hardly around did that saying Wendy or JW is lying about what people say then pretend to be outraged by what wasn't said.

I could care less where he posts. I was calling out something I felt was not cool. Just like you guys think that it's cool that he randomly jumps in and starts attacking people, I don't.

Like I said, we used to be a board where we could discuss politics civilly. But not anymore, not if you disagree with the majority.

I'm done with this portion of the discussion. If a real political topic appears again perhaps I'll join.

tod is my friend. I hope he doesn't give up on this board.

Not only am I not going to re-read a hundred pages, I won't even read four. So please show me where things got "uncivil." I follow this thread pretty faithfully, and I just wasn't aware it went off the rails in the last 4 pages any more than it did in the previous 96. Feathers sometimes get a little ruffled and that's all it ever amounts to. Where's the big change where things got nasty? I haven't seen it.

Bwahaaaaaaaaaaa :snap:

I thought things were going along pretty much as they always do- which may or not be the point of whoever is cranky about whatever (and by that I mean the 'Always the same thing' crowd, the 'Read everything and then maybe you can post' crowd, and the 'Why is everyone always picking on me?' crowd), but I don't really care. We could go all the way back to MP and see the same rhythm- it's the nature of message boards, discussions in general, and absolutely not worth hurt feelings, rudeness, or potential loss of friendship. I like everyone on the LoT, and even if I don't agree with you or you with me, I don't see that as a barrier to continuing our friendships.

Scaeagles is still wrong, though. ;)

(Kidding!!!)

B. Clinton says the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is still present.

So there is a right-wing conspiracy to destroy Obama's administration and a left-wing conspiracy to indoctrinate children into the left-wing arena.

Everyone is out to get everyone.

I think the entire country needs anti-paranoia drugs.

Or, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Iran lies about their missiles and nuclear program (big surprise!).

I think we can all agree that Iran with these types of missiles is not a good thing. And it seems like most of the international world agrees.

I feel Iran is more of a danger to the world than Iraq ever was. We even sided with Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war- Rummy went on a 'goodwill' mission, had his picture taken with Saddam, and when asked later about WMD's in Iraq he said he knew they had them because the U.S.A. gave them some.

Iran should have every right to pursue nuclear weapons if they want. Of course, they should first withdraw from whatever agreements they've entered into saying they wouldn't.

But if they did so then I'd strongly argue for them being left alone do nuke up to their hearts consent. Same answer if it were Tonga, North Korea, Brazil, Canada, etc.

That said, while I have no doubt that Iran would like to see Israel be gone, I find the idea that they'd launch a missile attack directly on them. Or anybody else in the area. They'll get them and then they'll be a great big negotiating stick with which to say "**** off, we're going to do what we want and you're not going to do much more than huff and puff about it." Just like for everybody else who has them.

If Iran and North Korea had leaders who weren't batsh*t crazy I'd feel differently.

I'm also more concerned about them aiming them at oh you, know, us than Israel and the environmental fallout if they nuke anyone.

Oh, how I feel about them having nuclear weapons has absolutely nothing to do with how I think about their right to get them.

And I find the idea that Iran would launch an aggressive strike against us to be more laughable than them doing it against Israel. There's "insane" as in not caring a lick what the rest of the world thinks and then there's "insane" as in willing to risk your very existence. Kim Jong Il may be the latter (though there's not been any real evidence of that) but Ahmadinejad definitely isn't.

If they launch against Israel (which I think is more likely then launching against us, though I'm more worried about them launching against us) wouldn't they still be risking their very existence based upon our relationship with Israel?

Yes it would just be slightly less direct and conceivably (not at all likely, but conceivably) a situation could be engineered that would give us pause before joining in.

And also, to launch an attack on Israel would require either shooting the missiles over our army in Iraq or through the airspace of a NATO member.

All of which is to say that I have very little fear of Iran launching a missile attach on either the US or Israel (there are other things that Iran may do that are less remote, in my opinion).

If you mean them launching missiles against us as in the mainland United States then you can stop being worried. Iran is very far away from having a delivery mechanism that could do that.

[quote=BarTopDancer;300581]B. Clinton says the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is still present.

So there is a right-wing conspiracy to destroy Obama's administration.../QUOTE]

No conspiracy at all, imo. They're not trying to hide it; it's rather blatant.

Actually ya, this was a concern. Same thing with N.Korea being able to reach HI with their weapons.

I'm not sure that I agree with that statement but I suppose it depends on your definition of "delivery mechanism"

I'm talking about missile attacks since that is what is in the news. As I said there are other things that would be of more concern. That said I really have no fear of Iran making any kind of direct attack on the US. More like a fear of them giving or selling something to someone who would.

Unless you mean they'll launch a long range missile from a container ship. Which I also don't consider worth worrying about

I really need to turn off the news again. I end up worrying about stuff like this.

Humm, ya know... A medium range missile launched from a container ship could actually work. The cost guard does not check until the ships approach the US coast line...

Yeah, but the ship responsible can't possibly travel out of range of our bomber jets (post-firing of said missile)

If either country tried anything like firing a missile at us, they'd only do it once. After that, they'd be back to lobbing rocks. Radioactive ones.

Won't matter if it's full of martyrs (of any religion/country).

And I suspect delivering a package like that would be a huge draw to those drawn to anti-West/anti-America martyrdom.

Well, assuming you could somehow launch a missile of some value from a container it may not even be entirely necessarily for anybody on board the ship to know it is there.

But I'd say this particular category of attack is pretty much in James Bond territory. If you have martyrs and bomb stuff there are much simpler and likely more effective routes to take.

If it were anything other than a nuke I'd say that they would have a lot to fear from us. Israel is more than capable of responding in kind to a nuke attack and I think it is far more likely that we would let Israel suffer the world-wide consequences of using a nuke (even in defense) than to go anywhere near that particular tar baby.

There have been rumors around for quite some time (especially under Bush) that if there was "proof" of Iran making nuclear weapons, Israel would have our tacit (and very secret) approval to bomb the **** out of the production sites. The US has always denied this. Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that the Obama administration is on board with this since they seem to be much more amenable to the carrot over the stick approach.

On another note, I think that sheer tactical barriers (such as transporting a nuke past satellite surveillance to get it to a ship) bar the US from being a realistic target anytime in the foreseeable future.

For those who claim that extremist right-wing violence isn't a threat, and that Republican leaders aren't encouraging it, read here.

Chilling.

I didn't know where else to post this but I thought this art piece was done quite well. I like the placement of the shoe... :)

SFW.

Well, it certainly is big.

But shouldn't it be a bear and not a bull? It was a bear market that killed him and a bull market that allowed him to get away with it.

Wow - now THAT is a good fart joke.

I'd really like to read an article that isn't so left-wing extreme. I Googled and only got MediaMatters. Never heard of it but it seems to incite the "everybody panic they're out to get us" agenda of the anti-right-wing extremists.

Can you provide something that is more MSM?

Actually, I believe that's far more in line with the traditional marriage than some fantasy about men being "faithful" to their wives. I think the tradition for centuries of male-dominated society around the globe was for men to routinely have mistresses, and for women to be killed if they dare took a lover.

Newsmax has pulled the column. source

The whole thing sounds like something from the Onion.

Good to know I'm in a traditional marriage.


(Assuming that in a traditional marriage there is some question occasionally as to who actually gets the mistress.)

The problem is that the MSM never reports on these things when Republicans do it.

If only it were, but I'm afraid that it is far too true.

I give as much credit to the left-wing extremist omgeveryonepanic links as I do to the right.

And removed by the site... See what Greg posted.

You're point?

That was just one of several things listed in the article I linked to.

Son of a bitch. Obama better jump on this bullsh!t and not let "School sex clinics" become the new Death Panels.

I think they think this is what class schedules look like:

Period 1 - Indoctrination
Period 2 - Science (aka trashing organized religion)
Period 3 - History (how organized religion is evil)
Period 4 - lunch
Period 5 - sex-ed (how to have the OMGbestsexever)
Period 6 - abortions for all (including boys and non-pregnant girls)
Period 7 - Math (which somehow trashes organized religion)

Bachman, of course. Gotta love her.

Her doctor needs to adjust her meds again.

Or she needs to have sex.

HAHAHAHAHA! So true!

Fox News once again exposes its bias with this ranting about health care reform.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMlQlOt_LI0

Jon Stewart Pummels Obama for Not Repealing DADT

I heard on Conan (of all places) that Obama is going to repeal DADT. But I can't find anything more on it.

Calling Sactown, Calling Sactown

The U.S. Justice Dept. just announced their new policy to stop pursuing criminal cases against people who obey state laws re medical marijuana possession and sale in those 14 states which have legalized medical marijuana.



W00t!

The "War Against Fox News". Pick your source link here.

I think it's stupid for the White House to take on a media outlet. CNN is biased to. They have Freedom of speech protection. If Fox is slandering r then take that up the proper channels. But to take on a media outlet for their biased reporting... well there's nothing illegal about being biased.

Huge waste of time, and money that should be focused elsewhere. If they want to take people on, take on Glen Beck and Rush.

I didn't read those links but in earlier releases, the WH said it considered FOX to be on par with Beck (whom, incidentally happens to be on FOX) and Rush. They consider FOX to be a political opponent, not a credible news source and intended to treat them as such. Personally, I agree with them. FOX probably sways more people against the Obama WH than any politician (or, arguably, pundit) out there today and if they are going to go up against politicians who are against them, why wouldn't they do the same with FOX?

As an aside, I'm not sure how much money or time the WH itself is wasting on this. What are they effectively doing other than bashing them in press conferences and interviews, which they would be doing anyway FOX or no FOX. It's not like they're holding a specific press conference to bash FOX and even if they did, what's the cost?

Freedom of speech is a non-issue since the WH isn't trying to legally force FOX to stop bashing them. In scanning one of the articles I see nothing that indicates the WH is taking any legal action against what they perceive to be FOX's bias.

It's about time someone stood up to Fox (and the media in general).

A lot of people up here breathing huge sighs of relief. The Dark Age featuring George Bush and John Ashcroft is ov-ah!


/sparks totally non-medicinal joint
//what? my day will come

I bet that's not all they'll be breathing.











I'm here through Thursday, folks.

Except in LA County the DA is still hell bent on busting MM sales.

There are more MM clinics in Los Angeles County than there are Starbucks. I'm thinking it's a tax thing.

Hmmmm.
Gavin Newsom is out of the CA Governor's Race

Jon Stewart Does Glenn Beck
Funny shtuff.
:D

Bummer!

Hilarious and depressing all at once.

Yep. I found it completely depressing once I watched one of Beck's infamous segments on YouTube. Jon Stewart nailed it but sadly, Beck's viewership is up. That being said, I think there is something really wrong with Beck. I mean, the man looks like he really needs some therapy and meds.

Have you looked at the pic you have for your avatar?

That's the result of therapy and meds.

ETA: sneaky cricket.

Oh yes. And if you dig up a couple of posts somewhere around here, you'll know that I'm already in therapy and on meds.
:D

ETA - Hee hee, Leo, I changed it moments before you posted. lol I attached the pic Leo's referring to.

SO what's with these "Tea Bag" Republicans and how did they get their name?

(I'd also like to know about the "Blue Dog" Democrats, but that name isn't nearly as provocative.

I think they are styling themselves as some modern American quasi-revolutionaries equating being really rude at Town Hall meetings with dumping tea in Boston Harbor.

It should get really interesting when some Republican Teabaggers get around to the di rigour culture wars of fighting gay marriage.

I think tea baggers came from a description from someone on MSNBC, but I can't be sure. The protesters called were going to what they called tea parties. As far as "blue dog", I think it comes from someone once saying he's ratehr vote for a value dog than a republican. It stuck for relatively conservative dems. not exactly sure about that one, though.

I'm not sure whether "teabagger" was first used as a term referring to the protesters by themselves or their mockers, but the protesters were the first to refer to what they were doing as "teabagging." It was those quotes from various protest supporters that first set Olbermann and Maddow off.

My memory of "blue dog Democrat" is that is a play on the very old "yellow dog Democrat" which was a term to post-Civil War southern Democrats who would never vote Republican (because it was the party of Lincoln) even though policy-wise it was actually the better party for them.

I believe that the "blue" in "blue dog" is a reference to Democrats who feel they've been left out in the cold by their party (meaning it is too liberal on some issues for them).

The term "tea bag" was photographed on a sign at a protest ("Tea Bag the Democrats before they Tea Bag you"). That sign seems to have been aware of the double-meaning. Fox News started using the term "teabagging" shortly after that, seemingly without really understanding the meaning. Salon.com was probably the first to publicly point out the double meaning explicitly, MSNBC followed shortly with the mockery.

re: blue dog, according to wikipedia, " "Blue Dog Democrat" is derived from the term "Yellow Dog Democrat." Former Texas Democrat Rep. Pete Geren is credited for coining the term, explaining that the members had been "choked blue" by "extreme" Democrats from the left"

Interesting

Most interesting thing I've read in weeks. And the sanest.

That's very true and more people should realize it. But that Nixon proposal is also a prime example of the continuing form of politics in which the opposition party in congress is resistant to ever giving the president a "win." Since of course it was Democrats who made sure it never went anywhere on the grounds that it wasn't the utopian ideal (Teddy Kennedy eventually came to view his opposition as a major misstep).

Also, though much despised for many good reasons, Nixon was also amazingly progressive by modern Republican standards on many issues. The party changed a lot between him and Reagan, it is an interesting game of alternate history to consider what would have happened to the party if he hadn't crippled his wing of it with his glorious downfall and opened the door to the ascendancy of the religious wing.

Great grains! 1990 pages! Gimme a sec to read it all... ;)

I'm not going to read it all.
:D


You know, just like the rest of the country, lawmakers included...

As demonstrated by Alex earlier, that's hardly 1990 pages of dense reading. It's 1990 pages of double-spaced, 14pt text w/2" margins
(actually, the left margin approaches 3" once you lop off the line numbering and add in the indentation from outline formatting). Still a lot of reading, but well under half of what "1990 pages" sounds like.

I assume you mean that the evergreening was granted to the pharm companies and not the insurance companies (which would really not make any sense).

That said, does that really deny the drugs to the poor? If there is a requirement to provide the coverage, and controls on how much the insurance can cost (or the gov. subsidizes cost for those who can't afford) and lifetime and annual caps are eliminated doesn't this just mean that almost immediately the insurance companies will immediately begin advocating with the government to change this?

If such drugs are excluded from the required coverage floor then it does seem a problem, though I don't really have a problem with an initial 8-12 year patent so long as evergreening is reasonably difficult.

All this said, I've been out of country and am not remotely up to date. But the specific text of the House version strikes me as so thoroughly irrelevant that I'm not sure I'll find the energy to read it like I did the initial Ways & Means version as a baseline. I'll probably wait until conference if it ever gets that far.

Yes, Alex, pharm companies. My mistake. I don't think it's yet known what drug coverage will be like under the new plan. But assuming it's even similar to, let's say, my fairly standard Blue Cross coverage .... having no generic drug option means paying a small fortune for prescription drugs. Right now, if I can't get a generic, my insurance will make me pay through the nose for a prescription. My assumptions for the insurance company / big pharma cave-in now underway in Congress are based solely on my self-anecdotal experience.


Gemini Cricket, I'm not going to be so politically correct that I pretend Mr. Obama is not our first, ya know, colored president. I think I made it quite clear that my potential suggestion for his hypothetical bill signing was insensitive. Absolutely it is. So what?

Was a certain thread in the parking actually removed from the LoT?

The thread title was changed

Ah. Got it. Thanks.

I didn't think CNN.com could get any lamer but their new format bugs. Huge ads up top that expand for no reason, smaller font, sometimes the stories that are videos are not labeled as videos (I don't like clicking on their videos, they load really slowly) etc. Oh well, I shouldn't be checking these websites so often anyway. It stresses me out.

Completely. I go there less and less

So Carrie Prejean was on Larry King last night and said Sarah Palin is her hero.

'nuff said.

lol!
:D




Hey, should we start a Random Political Thoughts Thread (Part Three)? We're over 5000 and this thread loads really slow for me.
:confused::confused::confused:

That made me laugh, BTD. And for some reason, reminded me of the sign I saw at a rally that called marijuana users "masturbaters". I'm all like, How do they know I like to get high and arm wrestle my dick? Thought that was a secret.

From the AP:
Were the waiters that slow?

:snap:

Awesomeness.

Holy hell. Y'all remember that hanged census worker in Kentucky? Seems he staged it all and hung himself!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34130128/ns/us_news-life/

In other Kentucky news, that black fella found wrapped in chains at the bottom of a lake...authorities have concluded that he stole more chain than he could swim with.

Great f*ck, that's funny!

I like when I end up looking smart, in this case for not jumping on the crucify Michelle Bachmann bandwagon (though she is, of course, thoroughly nuts).

And why is it that people who write on themselves to incite outrage in others can never seem to do it properly.

Google apologizes for results of "Michelle Obama" image searches

Yet they did nothing about the images that came up with Bush as a monkey. Or is it different because Mrs. Obama is the First Lady and not POTUS?

Glad you posted this. Read that yesterday, came to post it and got distracted. I've spent a good part of today trying to remember what I was going to post yesterday.

Google has a history of modifying search results when people are intentionally manipulating things to distort results. If the Obama photo reached the top through such means then the action wouldn't necessarily be out of character.

Otherwise, my preference is that Google not tweak search results because somebody is unhappy about the results given.

It is true, though, that calling a black person a monkey has a racial connotation that calling a white person a monkey does not. The Bush comparisons were pretty clearly intended to call him stupid. Since I don't think there is anybody who calls either Obama stupid, I think that further highlights the reason that particular comparison was taken. So it could be argued that the photo is offensive in a different way and therefore different responses are not necessarily hypocritical.

It should be pointed out that while the photo is not returned with a simple Michelle Obama search, it can still be retrieved by other Google image searches.

But still, if the image reached the top organically then it should be left there. Google's algorithms are designed to figure out what people searching actually want and apparently (if it was organic) people want a racist image of Michelle Obama. This is always a problem, though, with automated dot-connecting, remember a few years back when Wal-Marts automated DVD recommending system included "Planet on the Apes" with searches for (I think) Martin Luther King.

Google bombs only require a large group of people acting together. Take any image, give it a name that doesn't apply, have enough people link to it using that name, and it will rise to the top of the results.

It would require a greater number of people linking to a photo of her with the correct name to overcome that.

I doubt there is a group of people working to link to nice image her that is greater than those working to push the inappropriate photo.

I would usually agree to let Google stay out of the organic manipulation and just let things happen but in this case, I'm not so sure.

Good points Alex. As always.

This girl I work with just said "women should support Sarah Palin because we need more strong women like her in our government. She's smart and she's looking out for all women".

At the top of my list of things I look for when looking for solidarity is people who aren't bat fvcking insane.

I'm still disgusted by what she said. That wasn't all of it. She defended the stepping down from governor by saying "She did what was smart. No one liked what she was doing and she needed time to promote her book".

I had to leave the conversation. I walked away saying "so she's just going to quit being POTUS if people don't like her or she wants o do something else? She's bringing nothing but harm to the woman's movement and I will move to Canada if she is elected"

I seriously lost all respect for her today.

The problem with people saying they'll move to [wherever] if someone they don't like is POTUS is that you can't just up and move to another country. There are Visa's and jobs and places to live that have to be obtained.

I could move to Canada, I have citizenship, a place to live and family throughout.

That said, I seriously doubt Palin is going to get any sort of traction to actually make a legit go at being POTUS.

I'm still waiting for Barbara Streisand to move to wherever it was she promised to move.

While you are waiting you can check to see if Steven Baldwin has moved out of the country.

Barbra.

And she never said it so it will be a long wait (she said, while at the White House for Clinton something like "if Bush wins you won't seem me around here for the next 4 years." "Here" meant the White House. I suspect she was right on that one).

However, if you want commitment, see Robert Altman. He was quite blunt about it. And he had to balls to eventually follow through by dying...eventually.

Popular conservative blogger officially breaks from the right wing

I'd be a lonely man if I had your standards.


*looks around*


Oh, hello friends.

I stand corrected on Streisand. A snopes link provided some info on others such as Altman and Peral Jam Vedder and Alec Baldwin.

Wonderful. Irvine City Councilman Steven Choi joins in on the idiotic comparisons of health care reform supporters to Hitler and Stalin.

story

And then when people called him on it, he whines that the criticism of his actions is "partisanship". :rolleyes:

And Harry Reid has compared opposition to the current health care reform to opposition of civil rights, abolishing slavery, and giving women the right to vote.

From this link:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

He continued: "When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right.

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

a$$hole.

What historical parallels would you prefer where there was arguably a clear choice to upset the status quo by taking the bull by the horns and doing what was (believed to be) right in a broad strike or essentially not doing it at all by delaying, deferring and compromising? Firing the air traffic controllers?

Well, as ridiculous as this is and I DO NOT believe that health care supporters are Nazis, it is true that Nazi Germany moved toward government control of health care.

So I suppose it happens to be the intentional choice of those issues to draw specific moral comparison that is problematic and outrageous. I do not believe our medical system to be immoral, yet those things he mentioned clearly were.

Sorry. I happen to think that he is 100% correct.

I am not surprised.

I don't consider our medical system immoral, but I consider aspects of our health insurance system immoral. Logical, and prudent for business reasons, but inhumane.

I also don't think our current healthcare system is immoral (though I also don't think that of the proposed healthcare system or single-payer government run healthcare). But I'm also pretty sure that in a few decades my saying that will be viewed as woefully misguided and Reid's view will likely be accepted as basically correct by most people.

That said, my objection to Reid's statement is that it is one without meaningful content. Essentially he said "every controversial legislative change made in this country has had people saying 'let's not do this right now and not in this way.'"

Duh. If there weren't, it wouldn't be controversial.


All that said, I'd say it is a substantively different comment (even if devoid of any real content) form drawing connections between the current proposals and Nazi-ism. You can debate whether mandated health insurance for all will one day be seen widely as an obviously good and necessary change to have been made. You can not, however, say that government controlled healthcare (which in it's current incarnation none of the proposed bills currently create anyway) is a step towards Nazi-ism. It may be something in common but it is no more a causal link than is a government-funded highway system an inevitable step towards Hitler's Germany.

So drawing connections between it and Nazis is spurious on its face in a way I'd argue differs significantly from drawing connections between the future perception of this debate and other examples from American history.

All of that said (again), of course Reid is trying to lay a mental connection between opposing healthcare and opposing the Civil Rights Act. It's a dirty rhetorical trick. But it is on more solid ground (and orders of magnitude less hysterical) than Nazii comparisons.

As someone who has no healthcare - I disagree. You speak from a the point of view of someone who has a doctor for their kids when they are sick. We go to the CVS minute clinic - and I'm eternally gratefull for it. My husband - who had health care through his work - was laid off. It's not available through mine because not enough of our staff will participate. (factory workers don't seem to want to.)

So - what in the heck am I supposed to do if one of my kids breaks an arm? Or worse - what if something tragic happens and I end up in the hospital?

What then? I'm fvcked is what!

So - I'm all for not slowing down. Give me access to staying alive thank you very much.

This really pisses me off. You must be so much more deserving then we are or something - perhaps it would just be easier for all of you with health care if all of us without were to just die off then you wouldn't need to share your precious doctors and hospitals with us lowly people.

How sad is it then we have to tell our kids - we can't participate in that because if you get hurt we won't be able to pay for the doctor and the roof over our head/food to eat etc.

How about this - why don't you go without health care for awhile, wait for your kids to get sick or need surgery or something, and get back to me.

Oh good lord....where did I say any such thing? All I did is say it is offensive to compare opposition to this particular health care reform bill to opposition to the abolishment of slaery or denying women the vote. Geez. Get off it. NOWHERE did I say nor did I even suggest that I am more deserving than you.

Does your situation suck? Yeah, it does. Does that mean I have to think this particular way of going about health care reform is great or I am like someone who doesn't think slavery is that bad?

THAT, Betty, is what is offensive.

Don't pretend you know me or what I have been through in my life. I happened to have been one of those kids like yours when I was growing up.

We've been through this before and I believe you said something along the lines that there wouldn't be enough doctors for you if everyone gets health care... you would have to wait too long... etc...

And frankly - I think access to health care IS up there with voting and slavery. After all - you can't vote if you're dead.

I did say there would be a doctor shortage, but a doctor shortage for everyone, not just me.

Something that those who are still comfortably ensconced in their middle-class lives (and that includes me) need to realize is that, the way things are going, there will not be a comfortable middle-class much longer. This country is rapidly being polarized into a very very wealthy minority ruling over a vast population of the poor.

It is certainly a valid point of view to say "even if the current way sucks, it is my view that the alternatives would be worse in aggregate."

Also valid to say "the current system sucks and should be changed but this particular solution would be worse."

My problem with much of the opposition on the right is that they say the latter and behave the former.

And as it stands now - I have a pretty severe doctor shortage and you don't. So yeah - I'm jealous and mad about it. My point is that you have the luxury of time and don't seem to feel the same urgency that someone like myself does.

Catastrophic insurance is cheap. Look into it through Anthem Blue Cross.

It's what I had when I was out of work.

So...let's say the highest numbers out there are accurate and 48 million people are uninsured (i do not subscribe that figure). This means that 252 million Americans are insured.

You are saying that it is unfair that 252 million people have something that you do not. Because of that, you would impose a change on the 252 million people that have it.

Of course, I won't claim to say that all 252 million people are happy with it. I'm not always happy with mine (had to pay a lot for the knee surgery and rehab the daughter had). I also won't say that all of the uninsured really want insurance (if they have to pay) because some have other priorities for their money).

I understand there are problems with the current system. However, this does not mean I think the proposed fix is a good idea, and it does not follow that I think nothing should be done. It just means I don't think this shoudl be done.

Leo - what would you do if either you or your wife lost their job and insurance wasn't available. Or you both lost your jobs.

Now you have to use your savings and UI to live off of and pay for COBRA.

Now your savings are gone and you can no longer afford COBRA.

Now you have no insurance.

What would you do?

Don't say it won't happen, because it can. It is happening to thousands of people across the country.

What would you do?


What's your suggestion then? Come up with something better.

[quote=BarTopDancer;308551]Leo - what would you do if either you or your wife lost their job and insurance wasn't available. Or you both lost your jobs.

Now you have to use your savings and UI to live off of and pay for COBRA.

Now your savings are gone and you can no longer afford COBRA.

Now you have no insurance.

What would you do?

Don't say it won't happen, because it can. It is happening to thousands of people across the country.

What would you do?
[\QUOTE]


And COBRA is oh so affordable when you've lost your job... I used to feel the same way SCA. It was someone elses problem... I had insurance so sure, I could see the importance of it, but it wasn't urgent. Things sure do change when it's your family that's affected. My health insurance wasn't all that great - or so I thought until I had none. I didn't know how good I had it.

And letting go of COBRA had to be done. I got a bill for nearly $3,000 for one month. OMFG! Just can't afford it. Well I could - but we would just pay for that and be homeless.

Health care is out of control.

Of course, even if you have insurance, there is no guarantee that you would be covered when you get sick. If your illness is a very expensive one, the insurance company will find a way to not pay up. (Talk about "death panels"!)

It's not. I couldn't afford it, even with the subsidization.

Seriously Betty, look into a catastrophic policy through Anthem Blue Cross. At least for the kids. Or do the kids qualify for the MediCal for kids program?

Maybe. Sixteen percent strikes me as a high failure rate for something that's fairly basic. As an absolute number, 48 million people is huge. If there was a world without public education and sixteen percent of the country (48 million people) was not getting a basic education, I would hope we would impose a change on everybody else or come up with a public option.

We're looking into a few options actually - the school just sent home some info and a family friend is going to quote us on a catastrophic policy. Thanks!

No prob! My parents did mine through the internet and it was pretty affordable. Hope it works out for you.

Ah but that's when revolutions come and reset the balance - and the wealthy bourgeois intellectuals are put to death

And a select portion of the poor take on the trappings of the bourgeois and oppress those they can. And we start over.

But I won't be there. Unfortunately I'm in the bourgeoisie. Any chance of getting a guillotine out of a sense of style?

What would I do? While I certainly don't admire my dad in the least, I would do exactly what he did during my mom's lupus and his unemployment...I would take on the debt. Would I want to? No. Not for a moment. But you do what you have to. He declared bankruptcy a few years after her death. it happens. It sucks, but it happens.

So many think thast those who are opposed to this plan must not know what it's like. Here's news for you - I do.

I also will NOT be forced to offer a better plan simply because I don't like what's being offered. Not required. That being said, there are PLENTY of ideas out there I like better. While so many here do not like the site, the heritage Foundation site has had (I haven't been there in the last week or so, so I cannot guarantee that the things I read are still there) plenty of ideas I like, including medical savings accounts, opening insurance availability across state lines, etc.

Alas, revolutions are often won by violent power-hungry people who are likely to be as bad as or worse than the tyrants they displace. See the wonderful Sergio Leone film Duck, You Sucker! for a terrific musing on this.

All of which retain the key ingredient that who gets/deserves medical benefits comes down to a business decision, something I will always consider wrong.

Not that the plan as currently going through Congress changes that, but instant-socialization isn't going to happen, but if it's going to happen this will have to do as the awkward first step.

And therin lies the problem, the two sides disagree on the endpoint. I do not believe that any amount of tweaking to bolster free-market forces is going to solve the problem, simply because I believe the problem is an innevitable, even necessary, part of any free-market solution. In the free-market there are, by design, economic losers. That's just fine when it means someone goes without a big TV or a fancy car. It is not fine when it means someone goes without adequate health care.

I do not believe the free market necessarily means that there are winners and losers. What I choose to spend my money on does not make me a loser, and i have control (for the most part, anyway) of where I spend my money.

That aside, and completely understanding what you have said otherwise, GD, what I think what frustrates me in this whole national debate is the way the insurance industry is viewed. They came into existance to make a profit, so I don't know why they are slammed for trying to do so. Now, mind you, if they violate the terms of their agreements, they should face litigation or criminal investigation, but I do not fault them for trying to make a profit.

This is why I am against the public option. It is not fair competition for the government, which runs a deficit without blinking an eye and does not need to make a profit, to be in direct competition with the insurance companies.

Should doctors work without making much money? My bill for the second surgery for my achalasia I had was over 40K, and that only included two nights in the hospital. I really do not recall the percentage of that which went to the surgeon, but she was damn skilled and I think worth a whole lot. Is it immoral for her to profit on my illness? She sure does (or at least did) drive a nice car. What is the difference between her making a high salary and the insurance companies making a profit?

Would you support the elimination of Medicare and and the health services of the VA?

Both of those systems are much farther down the road to government healthcare than any of the current proposals.

The VA is limited in their scope by definition to veterens. This is part of the agreement made between those who serve(d) and the government, and in that way I don't really view that in the same light. Perhaps I should, but I don't.

Medicare.....there are numerous problems with the system, as I believe there are with Social Security, but it is now an "entitlement" that people have paid into and should therefore get the benefits promised. I beleive the problems evident with medicare are a small foreshadowing of what would happen should a government option become available.

In short, because your surgeon doesn't stand to make more money by denying some people access to her services.

Heath care should not be a for profit industry for people other than doctors and the people who work in the offices/hospitals. Their profit should be their salary. I have no problem with doctors making a lot of money. I have a huge issue with the CEOs of insurance companies making a ton of money in bonuses based upon how much money they didn't spend in denial of care.

I sometimes wish Canada would annex us. <sigh>

Did she really need to earn 10-12K (or whatever it was) for a 5 hour procedure? That's pretty steep.

What about the scientists/chemists who come up with some miracle medication? How should they be compensated? If the medication is too expensive for people to afford because of their salaries, maybe they shouldn't make that much.

But should it ever have been created in the first place? What if there were a proposal to expand the VA to cover not just current and former members of the military but current and former employees of the federal government (it would, after all just be part of an agreement made between those who serve the government.

If government run healthcare is odious would it not be far better to just put those veterans on private insurance and private provision?

As a fellow conservative how does it make you feel to watch the contortions necessary for many opposing the current bill to simultaneously stand as staunch defenders of Medicare from the ravaging visigoths of national healthcare while also considering Medicare doomed to failure and a well established incremental step towards socialism?

Makes me ill, really, and it is a sad political reality that once people get something they expect it to be there and should you dare mess with it in any fashion, they vote you out of office. Social Security, medicare, whatever.

If the government employees union negotiates some form of group health care plan with their employer I view that as no different than any employer doing the same with their employees. The employees can opt out should they wish. Frankly, Id have no problem with that. Something tells me it wouldn't be quite the same as the congressional and senatorial plans.

What she earns and who has access are two different questions. Whether I support changes to compensation for medical professionals (single-provider being the flip side of the coin, but not the only option) is irrelevant in regards to the question of access to health care. While some of the same questions are raised, I have no trouble drawing a clear and distinct line between people providing actual medical services being compensated for the work they do vs. insurance companies maximizing profits by selecting who and who does not get access to those services. Both sides present similar challenges and issues, however the latter side is responsible only for maximizing their and their stockholders wealth, while the former is responsible for actually maintaining healthy people. So I will give them some benefit of the doubt that I will not afford the insurers.

However, if her rates for her surgery were half of what they are, or one third of what they are, and that was the case with all surgeons/medical providers, insurance would be less expensive because they would not be paying the providers as much.

All federal employees, including representatives and senators have access to the exact same suite of medical plans.

Do they? My bad.

Yes they do. That said, just like anywhere that offers multiple plans where some are more expensive than others (and presumably better), the fact that senators and representatives make more money means they are more able to afford the better ones than the guy cleaning bathrooms at BFE National Park. But there is no plan that you gain access to with your Capitol Building office.

(Not to mention many of them are independently wealthy.)

Them too.

One of the other issues with the current state of medicine is the litigious society we live in. Malpractice insurance is through the roof because people sue for everything that goes wrong - and the papers they sign with the risks involve mean nothing in court. Those malpractice insurance costs are passed on to us.

The evidence that malpractice claims are a significant contributor to medical costs or inflation is spotty at best. And the evidence that capping malpractice awards reduces the rate of inflation ("tort reform" is the buzzword on that) is even spottier.

But there's definitely a perception that it is a problem and that affects how and where doctors practice.

Humm. I just know what my mom pays as an R.N. with no claims against her and over 35 years of experience. Insanity.

Oh, doctors and nurses certainly pay a lot for malpractice insurance. But that doesn't mean it is a major component of total cost or inflation.

It's kind of like most CEO's caught up in the outrage over bank failures. Sure they may be paid too much and that may be a moral outrage. But paying Dick Kevocovich $15 million to be chairman of Wells Fargo is not a significant drain on the bottom line.

Or the impact of earmarks on the federal budget. Most are outrageous but they don't do serious damage to the bottom line and eliminating them won't help at the macro level.

OK.....so it is OK for specialists and surgeons to make lots of money, but not for chemists who develop a new medicine. Why? What about the people that think that those surgeons make too much, as you say you think those pharmaceutical researchers make too much?

And what about the person who thinks the medical equipment used to diagnose something is too expensive? I have no idea how much an MRI machine costs, but i bet it's a pretty penny. I am certain the machine costs exponentially as much money as the parts that go into it. I bet the person who holds the patents (if any) makes a lot of money on those. If the government simply sets a price on those machines, then the tests are cheaper for the people that need it and insurance costs less.

I was agreeing with you! They should be compensated for their talents. The CEO of the insurance company should not be compensated for saving money because they denied care to people.

OK - my bad. I thought "them too" meant they were paid too much, not that you equated them with the doctors that you don't mind what they make.

What should the CEO of an insurance company be compensated for? This is where what GD brought up applies. They are a business. They were set up to make a profit. Some don't think that's OK. 252 million people currently insured would therefore not be insured if those companies did not exist.

Yes, Leo, that's exactly what I'm advocating. :rolleyes:

I do not have an issue with a CEO being compensated for running a business. I do have an issue with Executives receiving bonuses that are tied to the amount of money they save by denying coverage/care to people who are covered by their insurance.

I'm with you. I don't have insurance, either, in large part because it costs so dang much, and doesn't cover anything anyway. So I can spend a lot of money for useless "coverage."

I guess I don't mind if their profits were reasonable, but they're ENORMOUS, and based on how much they can keep down the claims costs. Which means denial of care. They deny things that seem perfectly logical, and needed, and the conversation is along the lines of "if they really care they'll resubmit it." This is really wrong.

Just for the record, I don't imagine that there are people at insurance companies wringing their hands thinking, "Muuahahaha, whom can I deny coverage to this week to earn my bonus?"

They are not evil people. The decisions they make are not evil. They are prudent. They are rational and reasonable business models. They are the right decisions to make to make the numbers come out right. It just happens that some of those numbers represent money saved by not allowing real human beings access to medical care that can save their lives. When they cut costs to appease their stockholders and maintain their profits, someone down the line is put at risk of death.

Yes, it works for the vast majority of people who are lucky enough to have it. I'm one of those people. But just because I happen to be in the majority for the system was designed to benefit doesn't change that fact that it's a system that does so by treating people's lives as a commodity to be invested in and traded for profit, and I find that appalling. People's lives should not be measured by how much money they can afford to spend, and it is my belief that a government should do what it can to ensure that its citizens are on equal footing when it comes to access to that which protects their lives.

Here's a good example of an insurance company wasting money:

When claritin, zyrtec and some other allergy drugs showed up on the market not all of them were covered equally. My doctor gave me samples of each and told me to let her know which one worked best and she'd write me a script for it.

I tried them and determined that zyrtec was the best. I went to fill my script and was told that my insurance would not cover it unless I first had a prescription and tried all the other allergy medication out there, including nasal spray which I cannot take at all. So instead of covering zyrtec, which I knew worked I they would pay for 4 or 5 other prescriptions that I knew wouldn't work or I wouldn't even take before just covering the one that did work.

My doc, who is awesome, went to the insurance company and got them to over-ride it. Thankfully.

I also think that there's a misconception about the cost of medical care with insurance. After my emergency visit to the hospital last week (that included one night's stay), my bill for the deductible + co-pay + my percentage of daily charge was close to $1000. That doesn't include lab fees, which I'm sure will be costly as well.

And I'm covered under what's considered to be a good insurance plan.

I believe as well that many of those who are currently happy with their health insurance will become less happy if cost increases are not controlled soon.

My premiums are about 2.5 times what they were 15 months ago (and I can't change providers due to a pre-existing condition). Right now, I can still afford to pay them, but I won't be able to if they continue in that direction, and I think a lot of people could see themselves similarly priced out of their current insurance in the not-too-far-off future.

Actually, they're trying to save money. That Zyrtec prescription could very well cost the insurance company 10, 15, 20 times as much as any of the other brands or generics. So even if they make you go through 4 or 5 other ones and you still end up with Zyrtec, the cost to make you go through that is a drop in the bucket compared to what they stand to save in the long run on the gamble that you'd be happy with one of the other ones. If even 5% of people choose the cheaper drug after that process, they'll have made their money back on those 4 or 5 trial prescriptions they gave to everyone by the time that 5% has come back for the 3rd refill of the cheaper drug.

And anyone can come in and claim they've tried all the others, so yes, it would take a call from the doctor to get around that.

But to me, the fact that this wasn't a waste of money is even worse. This isn't an example of an insurance company throwing money away. It's an example of a very smart business practice, a cost-saving measure that takes very little for them to implement and can save them millions in the long run. But it's at the expense of patient experience and adequate access to benefits.

It's a relatively minor inconvenience. And, in all honesty, probably something a socialized system (assuming medical providers remain privatized) would also engage in to some degree. But it's a good example of how profit-motive from an insurer puts their bottom line, not the health of patients, first.

Many of the people who wind up filing for bankruptcy due to medical bills have insurance. Even the best plans do not pay for everything, and oftentimes insurers will come back months later and decide they don't want to pay for a procedure or meds they previously approved.

You may remember I had a Tenodesis last year (the re-attachment of my Bicep muscle in my right arm). The Out-of pocket cost to me after my medical insurance and the Government medicare paid all their bits was still $1200 - because the Government sets the rebate levels and the AMA sets their "Standard scheduled Fees" and nary the twain shall meet.

At least they threw in that packet of pain-killers. They were fun.

While on conference calls today I've been bouncing around ideas in my head for how I'd re-do the election of the president if granted such power (I'm odd).

The idea I've been swirling around is this:

President is elected (whether using current electoral college model or not) to initial four year term.

After four years, rather than an all out election, the president is subjected to a national vote of confidence. Everybody just votes on "Should Bob continue to be president?"

If majority (though I've been thinking of supermajority requirements too) says yes then repeat every two years until majority no longer say yes. No term limit on office.

If majority says no then full blown presidential election is held 1 year later, current president is not eligible.

Cycle starts over.

Office of vice president is eliminated. In case of presidential death/incapacitation next in line holds office until full presidential election to be held at next scheduled vote of confidence (successor eligible for office).



Assuming all of this for the sake of argument, I'd be interested to know on anything thoughts on repercussions from such a system?

1) We have enough of a problem with sabotaging the president with an eye towards an election that's four years off. Making these votes of confidence every two years would probably worsen that. Unless . . .

2) There was a supermajority requirement for a "no" vote. This would overcome our cultural tendency to throw the bums out because it feels good to do it. Also, it might require members of Congress to find a way to work with the president because he's going to be there for a while.

Good thing I was sitting down when I read this. I am shocked! SHOCKED I say!

The majority could have kept Bush in office for much longer than he already was.

Or, if you go by opinion polls as an indicator he'd have been out of office after 7 years (by year 6 he was well under 50% in such polls).

Also note that I removed the electoral college for the Confidence votes, so the small state advantage is removed. Also, the vote is not do you want Bush or the Democrat but do you want Bush or a new election between a Democrat and a Republican. Saying no to Bush does not guarantee the office will change parties, I'm thinking this would weaken loyalty to the person.

I think he might well have been out after four years. I'm not sure he would have been able to muster 51% of the (popular or electoral) votes in 2004 without John Kerry to run against.

I don't think any Presidient would last longer than 4 years. With no opponent to focus on and only your own record to defend with multitudes of people looking to spin it as negatively as possible I don't see how you could possibly stay in office. So much of campaigning is how much your opponent sucks. Without the chance to do that and the negatives only coming at you, you would have no chance.

Even Reagan in 1984?

Well, by definition every president would last for at least 5 years (with the last year as a lame duck, but then currently any re-elected president spends 4 years as a lame duck).

Would it being very difficult to go longer than 5 years be a bad thing?

Reagan might very well be the exception. And no, I don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing.

Would an outgoing president ever be eligible to run again? If so, after how long? After the next 4 year term?

That's why you'd want a supermajority for a no vote.

By the way, if there's no vice president, who breaks ties in the Senate?

I don't necessarily like the supermajority to vote someone out. Seems to grant a lot of power to someone who can fool 40.1% of the people on a permanent basis. That may not be very hard.

Hmm....I could go either way. So I'll say that a former president can not run in the election immediately following his no confidence. But then he is eligible for any future full election (so five years minimum between terms).

Good question. I resolve that by giving Puerto Rico, Guam, and DC each a senator with a 1/3 vote. No more ties. Or, just give the vote to the president (which is essentially what it became once the 12th Amendment was passed).

Ross Perot got about twenty percent of the vote. Everybody who voted for him was an . . . well, let's just say they're a guaranteed no vote in any retention election. So, assuming as you do a 60 percent supermajority, it comes down to obtaining a majority among the remaining 80 percent.

Whether one sees the presidency as higly important or as an office that has grown well beyond its conception in the constitution, there's a good argument to be made for requiring a supermajority to remove him and not spending so much money on elections every four years. The office becomes not quite like a federal judgeship where you serve for life. It's more like a California appellate judgeship where you infrequently stand for retention and generally nobody cares.

[snide]

The Latest on Health Care Reform

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report, 12/17/09) - The United States Senate today unveiled details of its health care plan, tentatively called CompromiseCareTM:

Under CompromiseCareTM, people with no coverage will be allowed to keep their current plan.

Medicare will be extended to 55-year-olds as soon as they turn 65.

You will have access to cheap Canadian drugs if you live in Canada.

States whose names contain vowels will be allowed to opt out of the plan.

You get to choose which doctor you cannot afford to see.

You will not have to be pre-certified to qualify for cremation.

A patient will be considered "pre-existing" if he or she already exists.

You'll be free to choose between medications and heating fuel.

Patients can access quality health care if they can prove their name is "Lieberman."

You will have access to natural remedies, such as death.
[/snide]

All kidding aside about what is in the bill, I must say that I'm mostly on Nate Silver's side that it is better to take it and then start working on improving rather than any attempt to start over.

I am surprised by the number of people who seem to be surprised that "Democrat" does not 100% overlap with "Netroots Progressive".

Oh, I agree. And I never expected total reform to my liking to have come out of this first step. It's just that with the Democratic majority and general support of the public, it seemed like they were poised to take more than the absolute bare minimum step towards the end point of real, substantive reform. I expected things to slide back from the ambitious first drafts, but seeing them slide back this far is frustrating and does not bode well for the future pace of improvement.

General support of the public? Are you reading the same polls I'm reading?

56% oppose, 40% support

I think perhaps the issue is that many do not see this as a first step toward improvement.

Support has slipped as the process has dragged on and the bill has been compromised into nothingness. But yes, I maintain that when the process started it had the general support of the public.

ETA: That's also a poll that measures support for this specific plan, not support for reform in general. Different question.

Oh, I agree that in general people want reform. I want reform. But nothing even close to what is being offered.

What kind of reform do you want? What's your solution?