Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Expectations For The New Obama Democrat Government
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 4 of 341 (487852)
11-06-2008 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
11-05-2008 9:07 AM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
IN SHORT, THE END OF THE AMERICAN DREAM AND THE AMERICAN WAY.
And when it doesn't happen, Buzsaw, will you come back here and admit that you were wrong?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2008 9:07 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 11-06-2008 8:16 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 61 of 341 (488142)
11-08-2008 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw
11-06-2008 8:16 AM


Buzsaw responds to me:
quote:
You mean like all of those apologies I get from counterparts when they are shown to be wrong?
When? You're going to need to be specific. For example, I was the one saying that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and I was right.
quote:
How many apologies have you made over the years? I don't recall of any.
If you can give me an example of a political statement I made that turned out to be wrong, then I'll apologize. Could you give a specific example?
Iraq has been a disaster, just like I said it would. Same-sex marriage did not destroy society, just like I said it would (in fact, marriage is stronger in Massachussets than most everywhere else in the country.) The tax cuts for the wealthy destroyed our economy as I predicted.
Please give me something specific.
quote:
They're all on the record somewhere in the EvC archives.
Then it should be easy for you to find one.
Let me know when you do.
I'm interested in how you justify the Fairness Doctrine leading to First Amendment violations. Could you give us examples of such violations from the period when we did have it? Do you even know what the Fairness Doctrine says? No, you don't get to look it up. Off the top of your head: What is the Fairness Doctrine?
Hint: "Equal time" is not the correct answer. The Fairness Doctrine never said anything about "equal time" or anything remotely similar.
I'm especially interested in how you are going to justify claiming a regulation on the press will actually regulate religion.
I'm even more interested in why you think Obama supports the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine since he specifically campaigned against it:
"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.
"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
-- Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine, John Eggerton, Broadcasting & Cable, 6/25/2008

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 11-06-2008 8:16 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 65 of 341 (488149)
11-08-2008 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Buzsaw
11-06-2008 7:24 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Speaking of empty suits, even Tom Brokaw who helped him along to victory has him pegged as some kind of a mysterious creature.
Tom Brokaw's a conservative tool. Of course he's going to say that Obama is mysterious. It's the Republican talking point. "Nobody knows anything about him!" even though he's written multiple books on his past and his policies.
During the second presidential debate, Brokaw routinely let McCain go over his allotted time and yet kept cutting Obama off.
From Brokaw's Meet the Press episode from 9/28:
In fairness to everybody here, I’m just going to end on one note. And that is that we continue to poll on who’s best equipped to be Commander in Chief, and John McCain continues to lead in that category despite the criticism from Barack Obama by a factor of 53 to 42 percent in our latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
It turns out that that was a complete fabrication. There was no such poll. Instead, Brokaw was referring to a poll taken right after the Republican convention.
Again, on Meet the Press, when McCain said, ""[S]mall-business people who have employees without health insurance, that he is going to fine them if they don't have, have the insurance policy that they want, that Senator Obama wants them to have," Brokaw didn't correct the error. As Obama said during the debate nearly two weeks before:
I exempt small businesses from having to pay into a kitty. But large businesses that can afford it, we've got a choice. Either they provide health insurance to their employees or somebody has to.
Right now, what happens is those employees get dumped into either the Medicaid system, which taxpayers pick up, or they're going to the emergency room for uncompensated care, which everybody picks up in their premiums.
The average family is paying an additional $900 a year in higher premiums because of the uninsured.
So here's what we do. We exempt small businesses. In fact, what, Joe, if you want to do the right thing with your employees and you want to provide them health insurance, we'll give you a 50-percent credit so that you will actually be able to afford it.
If you don't have health insurance or you want to buy into a group plan, you will be able to buy into the plan that I just described.
The idea that Brokaw is a liberal is indicative of someone who has fallen for the spin from Fox.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 11-06-2008 7:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 66 of 341 (488151)
11-08-2008 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Buzsaw
11-07-2008 11:39 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
I will have to go with that but the question of the blacking out and later somehow being fixed still leaves a question mark in my mind.
In other words, "I know that I don't have any evidence to support my claim and that in direct contradiction to my claim, Obama's birth certificate has been produced, is authentic, and all the conspiracy theories are a bunch of bullshit...but I still won't admit I was wrong."
What does it take? What do you need to see in order for you to say you were wrong?
Are you seriously claiming that the federal investigation into Obama that happened when he announced his candidacy was incapable of determining his eligibility? The same investigation that was able to determine that McCain, who actually was born in a foreign country, was a natural-born US citizen was somehow hoodwinked when it came to Obama?
That's what you're trying to say?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 11-07-2008 11:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 68 of 341 (488158)
11-08-2008 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
11-08-2008 9:12 AM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Obama and his buddy Odinga
Huh? Obama has no connection to Odinga. Indeed, Odinga has claimed to be Obama's cousing (as did Rajula a few months earlier), but it isn't true.
E-mail from misisonary describes Barack Obama's connection to political events in Kenya: False
So let's assume everything you say about Odinga is true. What does this have to do with Obama? He made a public appearance with him once in order to denounce Kenyan corruption and spoke to him over the phone once for about five minutes. This means they're bestest friends forever? Sheesh...what does that make Bush and Putin, given that Bush has said he looked into "Pooty-poot's" (Bush's term) eyes and could tell he was a good man.
So Bush is the antichrist, right?
The source of the claim is Celeste and Loren Davis, who claim that the five-sided stars on the American flag are satanic. We believe them why?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 11-08-2008 9:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 114 of 341 (488333)
11-10-2008 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Buzsaw
11-09-2008 9:05 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
All Obama would've needed to do if he wanted to quell these allegations is to be as open as the McCain campaign was regarding donor lists.
Right. Let's just violate our ethical standards because a group of people who have a long history of screaming in fake outrage over non-existent problems are whining.
quote:
All of his oil rich Muslim nation supporters could have found ways to break up large blocks of support $$ into donations small enough to be legal.
No, they couldn't. There are plenty of checks in the system to prevent this sort of thing. Are you insinuating that the FEC is incapable of doing its job? You've already seemed to think they were incapable of determining Obama's place of birth, proving that he is a natural-born citizen of the US and thus qualified to be President. Now you're saying they are incapable of handling money trails?
quote:
but if he were not STEALTH, he could have been open with the folks and shown himself to be honest and trustworthy.
Or maybe he just has has a stronger grasp on morality than you do.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2008 9:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Rahvin, posted 11-10-2008 1:14 AM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 138 of 341 (488424)
11-11-2008 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Blue Jay
11-11-2008 1:20 AM


Bluejay writes:
quote:
you don't know what Obama and Ayers talked about
Considering that their only association was both being on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a charitable group working on education, chances are they were talking about schools and where they could spend the Annenberg's money (the Annenbergs being big Reaganites). But even then, there wouldn't have been much discussion because Obama was the chair and Ayers was in a separate committee for dealing with disbursal. Since some of the groups receiving funds were projects created by Ayers, there was a separation in order to prevent conflicts of interest. They attended half a dozen board meetings.
They were also on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty charity, so they probably discussed the poor and where they could spend the money.
And point of order: Ayers was never convicted of anything, though admittedly on a technicality: The evidence the feds had gathered was through the results of illegal wiretaps (which is why it is important to maintain such standards...you don't want your suspects getting away because you screwed up the case.) The two bombs he set off neither killed nor injured anybody as he warned the people in the buildings (the Capitol building and the Pentagon) to evacuate. I also point out that Ayers turned himself in.
Compare this to McCain's association to G. Gordon Liddy, convicted traitor. Among the plans Liddy developed as part of the Committee to Re-elect the President were the firebombing of the Brookings Institution, the kidnapping of antiwar protesters to Mexico, and the entrapment of Democratic officials by inviting them to a party and having secret pictures taken of them with prostitutes who would be there.
While none of these were carried out, Liddy was the one who masterminded the break-in at the Watergate hotel, for which he did not turn himself in nor did he apologize for. During the Branch Davidian raid in Waco, Liddy told people to shoot the members of the BATF, saying, "Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."
Liddy has been a direct financial supporter of McCain, hosting a fundraiser in his own home where people could get their picture taken with Liddy and McCain. McCain's statement regarding his relationship with Liddy? "I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt. He went to prison and paid his debt, as people do. I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy."
So McCain likes to pal around with convicted traitors who to this day still advocate violence.
How does Obama's association with Ayers compare?
(Note: I am not stating anything about your opinions. Just pointing out that Buzsaw's reaction with regard to Obama and Ayers is hypocritical given his non-reaction to McCain and Liddy.)

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Blue Jay, posted 11-11-2008 1:20 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 247 of 341 (489467)
11-27-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Buzsaw
11-25-2008 7:53 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
It was not socialized medicine any more than a health benefit package in government or private package today.
Then why do you call it "socialized medicine" when we try to extend it to everyone?
Back in the 90s, when the VA system was fully funded, it was some of the best healthcare in the country.
Medicare has an overhead expenditure of about 2% compared to more than 20% for private insurance.
The examples of government-sponsored, single-payer, universal coverage insurance that we have in this country are the most efficient, best care systems that we have. Why on earth would we wish to deny that to the rest of the citizenry?
Oh, that's right..."SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!" Better to spend more and get worse care then dare have anything that might be considered "socialism."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Buzsaw, posted 11-25-2008 7:53 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Buzsaw, posted 11-27-2008 5:48 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 256 of 341 (489746)
11-29-2008 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Buzsaw
11-27-2008 5:48 PM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
Socialized medicine is government mandated and taxpayer financed restrctively dispensed on all citizens whether they want it or not. It eliminates alternative options and empowers government to dictate such things as imunizations, choice of practitioners and type of treatments etc.
Huh? We have required immunization now in the US. Are you saying we have socialized medicine?
Your insurance will only pay for doctors in the plan. Are you saying we have socialized medicine?
If your treatment is "experimental" or is otherwise deemed "unnecessary" by your HMO, it won't be paid for by your insurance. Are you saying we have socialized medicine?
"Restrictively dispensed"? You mean like the way it is now where if you don't have insurance, you don't get care unless you're willing to pay massive fees up front? How do you explain the fact that despite paying more for healthcare than any other nation, we are very far down on the outcome scale?
The British have much better healthcare than we do and only pay 40% of what we do. The French have the best healthcare in the world and pay a lot less for it than we do. And strangely, you get to choose your own doctor there. Why? Because the healthcare is paid for. That's the point behind single-payer: It doesn't matter which doctor you go to because all doctors get paid from the same source. Therefore, you have complete choice over your doctor with this "socializied medicine" you're so afraid of.
Everything you are hyperventilating over as symptoms of "socialized medicine" are things that already exist here in the US. Therefore, by your definition, we have "socialized medicine" here in the US.
I should think, then, that you'd much prefer a system that gives you choice of doctor (since all doctors are paid from the same source, there is no such thing as an "out of plan" doctor) and all treatments are on the table.
That's called "single-payer, universal coverage."
Why are you fighting against the very thing you claim to want?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Buzsaw, posted 11-27-2008 5:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 257 of 341 (489747)
11-29-2008 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Straggler
11-27-2008 6:31 PM


Straggler writes:
quote:
If me and my family had to pay for this we would be bankrupt.
The single most common cause of bankruptcy in the US, responsible for about half of all bankruptcies, is unpaid medical bills.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2008 6:31 PM Straggler has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 279 of 341 (490732)
12-07-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Granny Magda
12-01-2008 4:49 PM


Granny Magda writes:
quote:
The placebo effect can be a valuable tool in fighting such minor maladies.
Incorrect. There is no such thing as the placebo effect.
Pill Popping: Debunking the power of the placebo effect.
Meanwhile, in a stunning 2001 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, two Danish physicians debunked the mighty placebo effect. Although most clinical trials include only active treatment and placebo groups, the researchers systematically collected all the studies in the medical literature (130 at the time) that also included a critical third group: patients who received neither active nor placebo treatment”just passive observation. The patients in placebo groups did report slightly less pain than the no-treatment groups; the analogy of a parent kissing a skinned knee comes to mind. But on almost every other objective measure of illness, the placebo-treated patients improved the same amount as the ones who got nothing at all. In other words, just believing you were getting treatment”the power of positive thinking”didn't really fix anything. It just made the patients hurt a little less.
There is no excuse in refusing to subject "alternative" therapies to rigorous testing to see if they do any good and if they don't, dropping them.
quote:
If people are queuing up for CARM placebos, the NHS may as well provide them. It will provide real benefits, even if the drugs are bogus.
No, it won't. No benefit will be seen. All it does is waste money.
quote:
What's more, it keeps people who are not particularly ill from cluttering up the surgeries of real doctors!
Really sick people need real treatment, not fake treatment.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Granny Magda, posted 12-01-2008 4:49 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Granny Magda, posted 12-08-2008 12:35 PM Rrhain has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024