8/10/2009 6:22:06 PM

correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you used to fellate dubya and company, jwb?

8/10/2009 6:57:39 PM

Quote :

"correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you used to fellate dubya and company, burro?"

8/10/2009 7:59:38 PM

no, not really.

8/10/2009 8:23:30 PM

8/10/2009 8:55:56 PM

no, not really.

8/10/2009 8:59:28 PM

8/10/2009 9:06:52 PM

8/10/2009 9:19:17 PM

I've always wondered, who is that guy? ^

8/10/2009 10:42:36 PM

^ there's a thread about it. name and all. dunno where.
haha i like the quite really pic.

8/10/2009 11:03:04 PM

a small sampling of the FIRST PAGE of google image hits for "bush hitler"

8/10/2009 11:11:11 PM

Quote :

"In the debates on health care, many claim that the relatively low life expectancy in the U.S. compared to Canada and Europe and elsewhere is evidence of an inferior, second-rate American health care system. See some examples below: Example 1: Canada's life expectancy average is 82.1 years. The life expectancy for citizens of France is 80.9 years and the average life expectancy of those living in the U.K. is 78.9 years. In the United States, the average life expectancy rate is 78.1. But more importantly than life expectancy averages is the fact that in each of those nations, every single citizen has access to health care. The United States is the only developed country in the world that does not offer health care to all of its citizens. Example 2: Out of 30 developed nations, life expectancy in the United States ranks 21st: Life expectancy in the United States is 4.6 years less than Japan, 2.1 years less than France and 2.6 years less than Canada. The United States has fewer physicians, nurses and hospital beds than most developed nations. In terms of continuity of care (i.e., five-plus years with the same doctor), the United States is the worst of all developed nations. By every objective measure, the United States has a second-rate health care system. The chart above (click to enlarge) displays data for the U.S. (data here for 2004) and the U.K. (data here for 2004-06) showing: a) life expectancy at birth for males and females in both countries, and b) the additional life expectancy once a person reaches a certain age in each country. (Note: I'm looking for comparable data for Canada or France, etc.) It's true that life expectancy is higher at birth in the U.K., by 1.7 years for males and .90 years for females, but life expectancy at older ages is greater in the U.S. than in the U.K. For men, life expectancy is greater at birth and up until age 60 in the U.K., but then the pattern reverses and men can expect to live longer in the U.S. at ages 65, 70, 75, 80 and 85. By age 75, male life expectancy is greater than in the U.K. by at least six months. Likewise, U.K. women have higher life expectancy at birth and up until age 55; at ages 60 and above, American women have greater life expectancy than their U.K. counterparts, and by age 75 women live longer in the U.S. than in the U.K. by 8-9 months. Since quality health care (surgery, treatment, critical care, advanced testing, expensive prescription drugs) is most important during the last years of our lives, couldn't we say that the U.S. has a first-rate health care system, especially at the time when quality care is most important, and it extends the lives of older people in U.S. by at least 1/2 year? "

From economist, Mark Perry
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/life-expectancy-higher-in-us-than-uk-at.html

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 7:01 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2009 7:01:10 AM

Obama wants to tell you how to raise your kids...in your home

http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/08/11/dirty_secret_no_1_in_obamacare

Quote :

" Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development. It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills. The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development." "

8/11/2009 9:22:54 AM

lol

IF BUSH WASN'T HITLER

THEN OBAMA'S GOTTA BE HITLER

AND IF HE'S NOT

THE NEXT GUY SURELY WILL BE HITLER

BUT WHAT IF IT'S A WOMAN?

8/11/2009 9:43:29 AM

^^

1. Is Chuck Norris aware of a thing called "social work" that's been around for quite a while?

2. Does Chuck Norris realize what a good idea this is? There are some wretchedly awful parents out there, and much of them are simply ignorant.

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 9:46 AM. Reason : ]

8/11/2009 9:45:45 AM

Quote :

"It's true that life expectancy is higher at birth in the U.K., by 1.7 years for males and .90 years for females, but life expectancy at older ages is greater in the U.S. than in the U.K. For men, life expectancy is greater at birth and up until age 60 in the U.K., but then the pattern reverses and men can expect to live longer in the U.S. at ages 65, 70, 75, 80 and 85. By age 75, male life expectancy is greater than in the U.K. by at least six months. Likewise, U.K. women have higher life expectancy at birth and up until age 55; at ages 60 and above, American women have greater life expectancy than their U.K. counterparts, and by age 75 women live longer in the U.S. than in the U.K. by 8-9 months. Since quality health care (surgery, treatment, critical care, advanced testing, expensive prescription drugs) is most important during the last years of our lives, couldn't we say that the U.S. has a first-rate health care system, especially at the time when quality care is most important, and it extends the lives of older people in U.S. by at least 1/2 year? ""

So basically, once people get off private insurance and get on Medicare, the quality of their health care improves? Sounds like an awesome endorsement for a US government run health care system!

8/11/2009 9:51:39 AM

I think our lower life expectancy has more to do with our nation of McFatties where people spend their free time watching American Idol 15 instead of exercising and opt for the triple baconator thickburger with supersize me coca colas instead of a healthy meal.

8/11/2009 9:59:14 AM

^Exactly.

^^Medicare is a funding mechanism, not a health-delivery mechanism. The point I gleaned from the above is that life expectancy is a poor and inconsistent proxy for the quality of health systems, yet it continues to be used by advocates of universal health-care schemes.

8/11/2009 10:13:51 AM

^^^^

1- Who cares what Chuck Norris thinks when he's not punching people in the face?
2- I don't know if he himself realizes that it's a good idea, but I bet that whoever told him to write that did... but they are intentionally trying to mislead people in to anger and hatred, rather than rational dissent.

8/11/2009 10:18:33 AM

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 10:19 AM. Reason : 2]

8/11/2009 10:18:33 AM

Quote :

""home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills. "

I think this is much overdue for some of the filth dysfunctional familes we have brooding in our country.

8/11/2009 10:28:58 AM

WOW.

8/11/2009 11:36:37 AM

PELOSI DOESNT HAVE THE GUTS

I'd like to see the rest of that. If that monologue was allowed to air unchallenged, then Fox is worse than I thought.



And oh snap, Specter's been warned of God's Wrath!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/town-hall-attendee-tells-specter-one-day-gods-gonna-stand-before-you.php?ref=fpa

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ]

8/11/2009 11:43:06 AM

Quote :

"I think our lower life expectancy has more to do with our nation of McFatties where people spend their free time watching American Idol 15 instead of exercising and opt for the triple baconator thickburger with supersize me coca colas instead of a healthy meal."

just get a bypass. you dont have to pay for it, so why change your lifestyle?

8/11/2009 11:57:32 AM

hence my problem with the current direction of health care reform. I still like the fat tax idea on soft drinks and fast food.

8/11/2009 12:02:25 PM

thats such a dumb idea since its not the sole cause of obesity. If you want to combat obesity, make people pay for their own healthcare. In the worse case a fat person has to pay to get a bypass and theres no drain on the system. It creates an incentive to get healthy. Taxing soda/tobacco/etc... wont stop consumption and will just cost poor people more money.

8/11/2009 12:13:52 PM

Speaking of the Chuck Norris Column... Just a couple things I came across:

The first subsection states:

Quote :

"‘(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children."

Norris responds to the 'voluntary' argument with the argument that obviously the govt types can't be trusted and will by no means follow the letter of the law... (If they're all crooks and won't follow the wording in the law, why are we wasting the time reading through it with a fine toothed comb... since they won't work within its bounds anyway)

He also selectively edited out the second half of this:

Quote :

"‘(A) in supporting home visitation programs using funds provided under this section, the State shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families or a high incidence of child maltreatment;"

So he outright ignores the "incidence of child maltreatment" line, harping on the low-income family line, as if it's some sort of discrimination.

In what alternate universe does attacking a problem where it most prevalent, constitute discrimination? And how much exactly does this wealthy, married, white actor know about living in a high-risk community, with a low income, or as a single parent?

(info on NC's existing program: http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/DMA/medicaid/babylove.htm)

(and, just for fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAfcPatBL3s)

8/11/2009 12:40:45 PM

So apparently the thing holding up the bill from the Senate Finance Committee is Republican's trying to force in legislation that makes it illegal for private insurers to pay for abortions. Honestly, if this is how they want to conduct "bi-partisan negotiations", I see no problem with excluding them completely and forcing this thing through unilaterally. This shit is just disgusting.

Let's see if proponents of small government on this forum take the opportunity to condemn the GOP on this one. They are basically saying "we want less government involvement in the private sector, except when it comes to forcing our idea of morality".

8/11/2009 1:24:42 PM

OMG....LOLZ at this Obama townhall meeting

8/11/2009 1:28:58 PM

the "convenient omission" of parts of the bill, and the outright lies being thrown out b/c some people haven't read the bill (see: Palin) have gotten so goddamned ridiculous.

8/11/2009 1:29:53 PM

Hahahahah...ok...2 questions he's taken so far:

1) from older gentlemen...."I have medicare and I like it.....why are the Republicans so set on not passing this bill, and will the democrats eventually just say 'we're gonna pass it with or without you'?"

2) from a youngish girl (probably in her early teens) "I saw a lot of signs outside saying mean things about reform, what are we supposed to believe?"

8/11/2009 1:35:14 PM

^^^^ I am pro choice, but agree with the GOP on this one. It is immoral to force someone who views abortion as murder to fund abortions (or, in their eyes, fund murder). I do not view it as such, but must respect those that do.

However, since the GOPs voucher system would effectively do the same thing, their opposition is inconsistent.

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 1:44 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2009 1:37:39 PM

^^^^I take it youve read the bill?

8/11/2009 1:41:26 PM

Quote :

"It is immoral to force someone who views war as murder to fund war (or, in their eyes, fund murder)."

i don't believe that either

but it's along similar slopes

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 1:49 PM. Reason : KILL EM ALL]

8/11/2009 1:41:56 PM

^^^So you're ok with the government telling private insurers that they are forbidden from paying for abortions? We're not talking about abortion through the public option here (that's actually already illegal due to a supreme court ruling), but private insurers being banned from funding abortions.

8/11/2009 1:45:29 PM

Quote :

" So apparently the thing holding up the bill from the Senate Finance Committee is Republican's trying to force in legislation that makes it illegal for private insurers to pay for abortions. Honestly, if this is how they want to conduct "bi-partisan negotiations", I see no problem with excluding them completely and forcing this thing through unilaterally. This shit is just disgusting. Let's see if proponents of small government on this forum take the opportunity to condemn the GOP on this one. They are basically saying "we want less government involvement in the private sector, except when it comes to forcing our idea of morality"."

Count me in on the condemnation. In addition to beleiving the abortion thing should be left up to the states, the government should not be in the business of telling people and businesses what they can or can't pay for.

Of course the government shouldn't be involved in forcing people to pay for things they don't want to pay for.

Quote :

"the "convenient omission" of parts of the bill, and the outright lies being thrown out b/c some people haven't read the bill (see: Palin) have gotten so goddamned ridiculous."

If our own representatives aren't going to read the laws they pass I see no reason why anyone else should be held to that standard. Of course I think it should be mandatory for congressmen to personally read each bill in its entirety.

8/11/2009 1:49:17 PM

^^I might be misunderstanding the GOPs argument. I understood they were trying to prevent the "public option" from covering abortions.

8/11/2009 1:51:16 PM

Quote :

"Of course the government shouldn't be involved in forcing people to pay for things they don't want to pay for."

The government cannot exist, period, without forcing people to pay for things they don't want to pay for.

8/11/2009 2:06:13 PM

Quote :

" Committee is Republican's trying to force in legislation that makes it illegal for private insurers to pay for abortions"

Republicans are for small government except for when it is comes to Drugs, Jesus, Abortion, the scary brown neighbors who may be turrists, wire tapping without
warrant for "national secuirty, bailing out your bank buddies, providing no bid gov't contracts for halliburton, making sure TV channels
do not say certain curse words that may ruin the fabric of family values, banning online gambling, and the list goes on.

AM I RITE?

Quote :

"I am pro choice, but agree with the GOP on this one. It is immoral to force someone who views abortion as murder to fund abortions "

Well since it is a Private Insurer then you should use your Right to find health insurance elsewhere. Not that i support the bill;
but now this will be easier than ever with Congress's healthcare plan!

Free Market Capitalism FTW! or does it only apply to companies with business practices you approve of? I guess little Shirley who
gets knocked up after getting raped should be SOL since her dad's health insurance is banned from covering this and she doesn't have the money
for the procedure!

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 2:25 PM. Reason : aa]

8/11/2009 2:24:43 PM

Did anyone else watch President Obama's town hall? I missed most of the initial speech, but caught all of the question & answer section. I thought it was a good thing that in addition to a random selection for people to ask questions, that he specifically ended with asking a few people to raise their hands only if they had serious concerns or were skeptical of health care form to make sure opposing questions were asked. I remember one of those questions involved something like "won't a government option amongst the private insurers drive them all out of business" and I thought the comparison to how well Fedex & UPS are doing was a decent analogy.

8/11/2009 2:31:56 PM

A better comparison would be to point to private insurance people have over the age of 65....oh wait. hahah. (and im not talking supplemental)

Look no further to what medicare did for private insurance of people over the eligiblity age. They were fighting to create a "public option" too.

8/11/2009 2:54:16 PM

^^

aha but it doesn't help that the government-created USPS is in financial turmoil

8/11/2009 3:00:47 PM

as is medicare, medicaid, and SS... but who is counting.

To their credit, the USPS is talking about closing down post offices and cancelling a day. I think they expect the public to give a shit.. but it doesnt appear that way. And just a fun fact the USPS has more workers than 2 branches of our military combined.

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 3:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2009 3:01:49 PM

^^^^^HUR, see my post above yours.

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2009 3:44:27 PM

^^^I wonder what the response would have been if he said something like the US Government has overwhelmingly the largest role in our defense, but companies like Blackwater still seem to pop up.

8/11/2009 4:19:06 PM

We spend a ton of money on our military. A TON. However we have the worlds best. But it is riddled with govt waste and inefficiency. But it is actually a responsiblity of our federal govt to provide an army. Paying for viagra is apparently up for debate. Blackwater comes up bc they can do MORE than our govt can bc they are not held to many of the rules that our national army is. (at least that is what my marine neighbor told me) Also its more a political game to say that we are reducing the number of US troops.. while increasing the number of private troops to reduce political liablity.

8/11/2009 5:08:19 PM

Quote :

"If our own representatives aren't going to read the laws they pass I see no reason why anyone else should be held to that standard. Of course I think it should be mandatory for congressmen to personally read each bill in its entirety."

I agree completely. and while I haven't read the bill myself, I know that some of the outlandish shit that's being said (old people being killed off, "death panels", etc...) is so over the top that it's only being said to get the crazy-ass right wingers* worked into a frothy lather.


*I'm fully aware that there are equally crazy left-wingers, but they aren't the vocally pissed off ones this time.

8/11/2009 5:13:13 PM

To beat the dead horse on international comparisons of health outcomes:

Quote :

"Life expectancy in the United States fares poorly in international comparisons, primarily because of high mortality rates above age 50. Its low ranking is often blamed on a poor performance by the health care system rather than on behavioral or social factors. This paper presents evidence on the relative performance of the US health care system using death avoidance as the sole criterion. We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system. "

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

8/11/2009 5:26:09 PM

did obama put his foot in his mouth again today?

promises no benefits cuts for medicare? (something that NEEDS to happen)

Tells people to not believe WILD MISREPRESENTATIONS.... then says this.

"As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan", Obama said.

Isnt this plan being funded by a tax surcharge on the rich? and yet still not fully funded yet?

8/11/2009 5:33:51 PM

Quote :

"aha but it doesn't help that the government-created USPS is in financial turmoil "

So let's let capitalism kill the gov. health insurance company?

8/11/2009 7:15:07 PM