Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat"

Good catch Perdition! Damn, I forgot all about the writers strike. You figure I'd remember since one of the scripts I and a few other writers were pitching got rejected once that strike hit and banks stopped lending studios money.You're right that it won't reflect the actual numbers. Good point as well. Yea I concede on the TV ratings; both you and Jazzns have made good points on that.- Oni

A big difference? I usually find that they're one and the same. Well that's the point is it not? It's human nature for the more intelligent group to manipulate and control the less intelligent group.The point is to educate the masses that are constantly fed garbage. Cool, I'll check it out. Thanks! Maybe. But I think the better solution is the removal of all rhetoric that doesn't add something to the solution for the problems (from both the left and right wing media). Agreed!- Oni

Isn't this the same as pro-choice republicans, Republicans who support gay marriage, Republicans who believe in evolution and don't want God in schools?If we break it down individual by individual, I think we'll find that on both sides of the camps people differ with specific issues.But overall, Dem's support Dem issues and Rep's side with Rep issues. Example* you're thread on Frankens amendment. 10 Rep Senators supported the Bill, 30 didn't. Some differed in their opinion concerning the amendment, but overall, Rep's side with Rep.(I don't want to drag the details of that thread over here, just using it as an example) Wait, the tea-baggers march wasn't the gay rights march? - Sorry, I couldn't let that punchline slide.But I think your comparison is proving what I'm saying. Tea-baggers on Fox, gay rights march on CNN. Right down the line for both sides. What I mean is that Liberals did the same thing as far as "causing a ruckus and not adding anything to the debate," not that they specifically did the exact same kind of ruckus causing. But this doesn't follow your previous position that Republicans walk lock-step...?If they feel left out of the party, but still consider themselves Republicans, then they, like the Dems, differ in all types of issues. We seem to be arguing 2 different things here.We were speaking about calling to arms liberals, which means, the general public. We are not talking about politicians and what they do. They're driven by many different factors from that of the general public, so the media is not targeting politicians.Our debate is about the media calling to arms citizens of the 2 parties and how easy it is to ralley either side.Politically, sure, Dem's and Rep's operate differently, to some extent. Not the point of our discussion though.Dem's and Rep's citizens do NOT act differently, they act according to whatever their party supports, it's the same for both sides. The media targets these groups and provides fuel to the fire. Each side follows media propaganda.That's what I meant by, "it's easy to call to arms liberals and conservatives."- Oni

How can Republicans, with progressive views, be a "dying breed" if that's some completely new to the party? If anything, I'd say it's spreading slowly through the party, eventually, like with religion, Republicans will be more progressive than their past counter-parts.In 20 years, we won't think of Republicans as having the same opinions of Beck and Limbaugh. The party as a whole (and again, I'm refering to the American public NOT politicians) is becoming more progressive. Guys Like Beck and Limbaugh are on their way out. The Republican party is being hijacked by them? The Republican Party 50 years ago was them! Hell, 30 years ago the Republican Party was all of the same opinion as Beck and Limbaugh.My point is, Beck's and Limbaugh's views are nothing new to that party. Those two haven't hijacked anything. That's the type of PoV the party was founded on.What they represent is the old school PoV. A point of view that is fading away, and now the new, more progressive movement is spreading throughout the party. Even if it's rather forced right now to make them look more progressive. A lot of the new age Republicans don't share many of the old opinions. What do you mean by "influence?" You mean someone in the Dem side that influences public opinion like Beck and Limbaugh?Ah... John Stewart? Colbert? Maher? Are you saying these guys don't influence public opinion? And what time was that specifically? Can you point to an era, or generation of Republicans, that you respected?When has that party not been a party of warmongering? I can't find one single time when I respected that party, especially ethically. Are you saying that the "liberal" media doesn't use propaganda tactics to convince people?Are you saying the "liberal" media never tells lies?Stewart, Maher and Colbert can convince people to do whatever they want, they have that power. Just look at how many contests Colbert wins because he generates so many supporters. They've named a bunch of stuff after him because he tells people to vote for him, and they do!How is that power different from Limbaugh's power?The only difference is you happen to share Colbert/Stewart/Maher's opinion so you don't see the wrong in it. But they are sheep herders and their viewers are sheep who follow the same opinions. Again, you're only making a case for politicians. I'm talking about the American citizens. The citizens follow party lines on almost every issue, we're not talking about members of Congress or Senate, or any politician.The American public gets swayed by the media, both on the left and on the right.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Fair enough, I'll give you that. But, would you also agree that Limbaugh has become a lot more radical in his veiws as the time has progressed?Obviously Beck has become more radical, he was a morning DJ for Christ sake.So would it be safe to say that if they become a minority within their own party, they'll either have to change their style (like Tucker Carlson did after Stewart ripped him a new asshole on Tucker's show), or they'll be gone to make room for new conservative voices? All you are telling me, is that people who create controversy are getting TV time.Who do you think made Howard Stern famous? People who supported him? Maybe a little, but it was people who hated him, that critisized him on TV, who made his name known to the public, who gave him ammo to continue to be the shock-jock that he was.Same goes for the retarded trio you mention above. They sell advertising space on the networks they work for (ignoring Beck's recent issues), they sell books, they sell air time, they bring in ratings. Who do you think the station is gonna put, some regular dude boring the crap out of the audience with normal PoV's.You say it best when you say Stewart, Maher and Colbert are comedians. Yes, exactly the point. And while you don't veiw comedy as a gimmick used to attract viewers, it most certainly is.Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter (while they look funny) are not funny people. They have absolutely nothing to offer an audience other than a shock factor. They say what they say to make money and generate an audience of supporters that will buy their books and make advertisers want to spend money on the station.I know many Republicans (being that I'm Cuban and most of my friends and family are Republican). But that doesn't mean I consider them conservatives (especially not equal to Beck, Limbaugh or Coulter). Many of my Republican friends smoke pot, are pro-choice and don't give a shit if gay people get married. But they are stead-fast Republicans. However, my dad and my friends parents are old school Republicans. They, like Beck, Limbaugh and Coulter, are pro-life, anti-gay marriage and hate drugs.There is a shift though and eventually that generation will be gone and a new generation becomes the majority. I personally think we'll see Republicans in the future with opinions like my friends. Dude, how is this any different from the power Colbert's audience gives him? He gets shit named after him! He controls people!Please explain how he is different as far as control over the people goes? So did Howard Stern... So did Stewart... So does anyone in the entertainment industry (which Beck and Limbaugh are a part of, you must remember that).How do you think comics get people to come pay for tickets to their shows? They generate a fan base through websites, youtube, myspace, facebook, etc. Comics, actors and anyone who entertains, get their fame ONLY when people listen. That's 'cause Buckley was arrogant and believed anything he said was 100% right. Have you ever watch the youtube video of Kenneth Miller and other scientist debating Michael Behe and other Intelligent Design supporters?Guess who one of the ID supporters was... Buckley!And why was he there? Simple, because Buckley always thought he was right about anything he said. There's even a point during the debate when Ken Miller asks Buckley what the hell he's doing on the ID side.Part 1 of 8:Please dude. Buckley was pro-intelligent design, at least Limbaugh and Beck have never claimed that ridiculous shit. You're spliting hairs as to what is considered media hype. The fact that these guys are comics gives them an edge over the other guys. So, the other guys need to do other, crazier stuff to beat the comics.And that's where I differ with Jazzns in that I don't think ridicule helps, because all it does is makes the far right act even further to the right to generate attention from the audience. So they have different agendas, who cares? The point is that they can both influence the public. And it's just as easy to motivate liberals, just tell them someone refused a woman the right to choose to abort and there will be picketers outside with signs spouting stupid slogans that rhyme.The point is that neither side adds to the debate, they just cause a ruckus.- Oni

Media driven people who add nothing to the debate. They are on TV protesting (which does nothing to help the issue) to help drive up TV ratings.They are a marketing tool used by the media (both sides). No one cares about the protesters, other than to show them on TV and gain veiwers.- Oni

FoxNews... is that mainstream enough for you?Also, I'm not specifically talking about the DNC protesters. I'm talking about any protester.The ONLY point to what I'm saying is that they don't add anything to the debate. Who said anything about the DNC protesters specifically? Why are you hung up on that? And why must we continue to compare them to the tea-baggers?I actually supported (in spirit) the DNC protesters, BUT, the fact remain that they added nothing to the debate.And how do I know that, BECAUSE WE ARE STILL AT WAR. And we have a democrat in office no less. But we're still at war, they did nothing to help the debate. They just became a media tool, in this case, used by FoxNews.But you have grossly missed the point of what I'm saying. Follow this discussion back and you'll see how it originated.Protesters (anti-gun/pro-gun, anti-abortion/pro-life, anti-gay marriage/pro-gay marriage, etc.) add NOTHING to the debate. They are media motivated and used for publicity and TV ratings.- Oni

Fair enough, I can agree with that. Those two particular protests did make a shift, at least that's what it feels like it did. And some of the left-media has shown it to be this way. But how long will that last is the real question IMO. Only when it benefits them, like when those FoxNews reporters got roughed up by the protesters. Also, they showed a lot of protesters antagonizing the cops, teasing the cops, trying to get the cops to do something to them. That way they can spin the protesters as the ones at fault for the police brutality, which I'm sure there were a few cases of that. I'm not trying to show you that certain news station promote left wing or right wing protests, I'm trying to explain that protests in general (on either side - liberal or conservative) become tools for the media. Whether for FoxNews or otherwise.Take the DNC as an example. Fox showed it on their station to make their reporters look like the victims. I suspect that conservative protesters (example: protesting abortion) are genuinely outraged at abortion. We can sit here and split hairs as to who is genuine in their protests or not, but I would rather not. I really don't care enough.I will accept that you support liberal protesters and their causes more so than you do conservative causes. Perhaps that's where your loyalty lies? It used to. Civil rights movement, womens lib movement, even the anti-war protest during Vietnam - those were protests that meant something. IMO, the protests of today, while probably sincere to the individual, doesn't have the impact it did back then. I think the internet is a way better tool to express opinion than the media freak show that protests these days usually evolve into.But I'm OK if we disagree in this particular case. I'm a glass half empty kinda guy anyway.- Oni

No, no, I didn't. I will concede that the attention of the media to "who yells the loudest" may persuade politicians to look into the causes (example: gay marriage advocates), but overall, I think rational discussions work best.Like with gay marriage, what good did protesting do in Cali? It was over turned during an election, whether or not anyone dressed like Marylin Monroe screamed at the top of their lungs "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!"An open debate between the candidates (honest debate, not the loaded bullshit we usually get) may have helped matters more. Demand from our politicans that the issues be discussed in an intellectual manner. Write to them, express how we feel in an intelligent manner. Have protests, but civil MLK style protests (not the media circus that they become).Even the DNC protests became ridiculous.Violence and aggression solve NOTHING. Civility, even when faced with aggression, overcomes in the long run. And that's something that MLK applied to his movement, and one we should take notice of and apply to anything you feel strongly about.If you're just trying to be the protester with the biggest dick then you'll achieve nothing but ridicule, IMO.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Why? Half of them grow up to be conservatives, and the other half liberals. Fuck the children! LOL(just kidding )I wonder how many more of these cases will spring up, now that the media has seen the potential for ratings that "insurance-rejected children" are?First too fat, now too skinny. Who's working at these insurance places, the judges for Top Model...?- Oni

Hi Jazzns, hope you don't mind rehashing old arguments. I, like you, enjoy talking politics here on EvC.I found an article about Chomsky, dated Nov. 20th 09, concerning what we were talking about, and I rather liked Chomsky's advice on what to do with the right-winger community. Thought you might enjoy it. Here's the whole article, but I'll post the part relevant to what you and I were talking about.It was an interview, btw.

quote:

---

DK: On that note, I'm also looking to think ahead with what's in the future for the labor movement and the IWW. More generally, if you had one piece of advice to offer future generations of Wobbliesespecially in light of the tough financial times that we are facing and will probably continue to face for a long time in the Western worldwhat would it be?

​

NC: Well, I get a lot of letters from people. When I go home tonight I'll have 15 letters today from mostly young kids who don't like what's going on and want to do something about it, and [they ask me] if I can give them some advice as to what they should do, or can I tell them what to read or something. It doesn't work like that. I mean, everything depends very much on who you are, what your values are, what your commitments are, what circumstances you live in and what options you're willing to undertake, and that determines what you ought to be doing. There are some very general ideas that people can keep in mind; they're kind of truisms. It's only worth mentioning them because they're always denied.

​

First of all, don't believe anything you hear from power systems. So if Obama or the boss or the newspapers or anyone else tells you they're doing this, that, or the other thing, dismiss it or assume the opposite is true, which it often is. You have to rely on yourself and your associatesgifts don't come from above; you're going to win them, or you won't have them, and you win by struggle, and that requires understanding and serious analysis of the options and the circumstances, and then you can do a lot. So take right now, for example, there is a right-wing populist uprising. It's very common, even on the left, to just ridicule them, but that's not the right reaction. If you look at those people and listen to them on talk radio, these are people with real grievances. I listen to talk radio a lot and it's kind of interesting. If you can sort of suspend your knowledge of the world and just enter into the world of the people who are calling in, you can understand them. I've never seen a study, but my sense is that these are people who feel really aggrieved. These people think, "I've done everything right all my life, I'm a god-fearing Christian, I'm white, I'm male, I've worked hard, and I carry a gun. I do everything I'm supposed to do. And I'm getting shafted." And in fact they are getting shafted. For 30 years their wages have stagnated or declined, the social conditions have worsened, the children are going crazy, there are no schools, there's nothing, so somebody must be doing something to them, and they want to know who it is. Well Rush Limbaugh has answered - it's the rich liberals who own the banks and run the government, and of course run the media, and they don't care about youthey just want to give everything away to illegal immigrants and gays and communists and so on.

​

Well, you know, the reaction we should be having to them is not ridicule, but rather self-criticism. Why aren't we organizing them? I mean, we are the ones that ought to be organizing them, not Rush Limbaugh. There are historical analogs, which are not exact, of course, but are close enough to be worrisome. This is a whiff of early Nazi Germany. Hitler was appealing to groups with similar grievances, and giving them crazy answers, but at least they were answers; these groups weren't getting them anywhere else. It was the Jews and the Bolsheviks [that were the problem].

​

I mean, the liberal democrats aren't going to tell the average American, "Yeah, you're being shafted because of the policies that we've established over the years that we're maintaining now." That's not going to be an answer. And they're not getting answers from the left. So, there's an internal coherence and logic to what they get from Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the rest of these guys. And they sound very convincing, they're very self-confident, and they have an answer to everythinga crazy answer, but it's an answer. And it's our fault if that goes on. So one thing to be done is don't ridicule these people, join them, and talk about their real grievances and give them a sensible answer, like, "Take over your factories."

---

Do you think Chomsky provides a good answer to your question?- Oni

Here's Chomsky verbaly explaining it a bit better, in my opinion.He's basically talking about the general concern of the republican/right-wing. Remember, its Chomsky, so you might need to consider what he considers the "right-wing".Basically, he's refering to republicans. So lets say there isn't an up-rising, which he doesn't mention that in this explanation, lets just say republican, right-wing views. I'd say the country is about 50-50 right-wing vs left-wing, so he's refering to the opinons of those on the right.Now, he says these people on the right are seeking answers, and they go to guys like Beck, Limbaugh, etc., for the answers. But they seek answers to real questions that all of us are asking, so its important to consider the effect of these "crazies" since people are listening. I think you gotta fight them with truth, and that's the one thing that neither side is willing to do.Case in point, Obama and his surge of 30,000 more troops. The other side, what you may consider the correct side, is not being truthful to the people. It is plain to see that lies are coming from both sides. Therefore to call the others "crazies" and ridcule them, while not doing anything to answer the questions, is just going to lead people back to the crazies for answers.Or, they can spend less time ridiculing the crazies, so it doesn't look like a pissing match between John Stewart and Glenn Beck, and more time telling the truth to the American public. But this is the game our American politics plays, and the media is at the helm. Agreed. I'd like to see a swing toward making it an actual long term plan though, instead of it just being a "vision" for the future right now.- Oni

It is sickening to actually see someone trying to defend the Imperialist nation of China, you should be ashamed. The human rights issues in China (not that they are as disgraceful as Israel) are atrocious.How are the Tibets eating these days?Consider alone, the efforts of the Chinese government to flood Tibet with mass migrations of Han Chinese in order to dilute the percentage of ethnic Tibetans. Its a form of ethnic cleansing!How can you stand by that?- Oni