Open forum, June 25 - July 1

Published:

 

The forums are moderated by Columbian staff and our community guidelines and terms of service still apply. To participate, login with your Columbian.com ID or register for an account at Columbian.com.

Columbian staff members create new forum threads. Don't see a forum topic here that fits your comments? Email Web Edtor John Hill -- john.hill@columbian.com -- or Social Media Coordinator Matt Wastradowski -- matt.wastradowski@columbian.com.


314 comments

Comments

".. join liberals in raping you out of more of your money.."

Lew Waters · Top Commenter

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/jun/23/letter-boldt-has-shown-independence/#comments

mr_basil_seal — June 25, 2012 at 8:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Hunter Buchanan · Indiana State University
Ron Paul CAN win.... I think that the GOP convention is going to have a big surprise. And its going to be televised. Let the people see the TRUTH. RonPaulForever
Reply · · June 20 at 10:55am

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/jun/20/longview-gop-delegate-says-hell-back-ron-paul/#comments

Guess I should have read the paper yesterday; then this would have made the Sunday funnies.....

mr_basil_seal — June 25, 2012 at 8:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The latino enthusiasm gap was filled today! Barring unemployment reaching 10%, Obama should get another four years. The rhetoric from baggers running for Congress should be interesting. SCOTUS Justices need term limits. They shot down campaign finance reform as well. Interesting how much power they lend to the states.....except when their decisions affect donors checkbooks. Why is Thomas still on the court??? Zero checks and balances when it comes to suspected ethics violations. We as a people can do better than this. We elect (twice!!!!!!) mentally challenged Presidents such as Bush and allow them to appoint lifelong judges to arguably the most powerful position in our land. It has to stop. The ignorant shadows of the Bush Administration will haunt us for decades. It's not right. It's not "American".

Supreme Court Arizona immigration ruling: Justices clear key part

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77789.html#ixzz1ypC5OWOU

nailingit — June 25, 2012 at 10:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Do we need a businessman in the White House?**

Making a fortune running a widget company does not make you an expert on quantitative easing, or nontariff barriers used by Asian mercantilist countries, or the impact of productivity growth and population estimates on the future of Social Security. Unless you have been spending your nights and weekends studying these arcane subjects while selling widgets by day, your opinion on these subjects is of no more value than that of any random bystander in the street.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/25/gop_moneymen_meet_for_romney/

nailingit — June 25, 2012 at 10:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


the US Senile Court at least left the door open for challenges based on how the law is interpreted and applied. Don't think this one's over, so it's a little early for the fat lady to sing.

“The nature and timing of this case counsel caution in evaluating the validity of” the mandatory-check provision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court’s majority opinion. “The Federal Government has brought suit against a sovereign State to challenge the provisions even before the law has gone into effect. There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts it would be inappropriate to assume [that provision] will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law.”

“This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect,” Kennedy wrote.

mrd — June 25, 2012 at 11:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd- Seems like they left the door open just enough to energize the Latino base. I listened to Brewer's statement and it seemed delusional at best. The "heart" of the law was trashed.

nailingit — June 25, 2012 at 11:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


How Romney will make up 10-15% points by November seems impossible. Old White rich guys and the poorer classed Fox News faithful who follow them can only go so far.

Dear God, please keep America's President safe. These last few months are going to be wild...

**USA TODAY/Gallup Poll: Latinos strongly back Obama**

The president leads Romney 66%-25% among more than 1,000 Latino registered voters surveyed April 16 to May 31...

Meanwhile, the Republican share of the Latino vote continues to erode, from 44% for George W. Bush in 2004 to 31% for John McCain in 2008 to 25% in the survey for Romney. "We've seen a sharp drop-off … between 2004 and 2008," acknowledges Ed Gillespie, a senior Romney adviser and former Republican Party national chairman. "It was a factor, obviously, in the margin of President Obama's win. We do need to do better with Hispanic voters, and I think we can."

GOP strategist Leslie Sanchez estimates Romney needs the votes of 35% of Latinos to be competitive in November.

A senior Obama campaign official who was willing to speak about strategy only on condition of anonymity puts the bar higher in some key states. He calculates Romney needs to get a bit more than 40% of the Hispanic vote to win the battlegrounds of Florida and Nevada, where Latinos make up a significant share of the electorate.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120625/NEWS15/120625025/USA-TODAY-Gallup-Poll-Latinos-strongly-back-Obama?odyssey=nav%7Chead

nailingit — June 25, 2012 at 12:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Some astute analysis @ the World Nut Diary....

REAL AMERICA
WHY LIBERALS ARE WINNING, PART 1
Exclusive: Patrice Lewis explains '2 steps forward, 1 step back' progressive strategy

"Unlike conservatives (who are too busy making a living and raising their families to spend their lives in political activism), liberal stooges are often supported by government largesse, which allows them the leisure to work tirelessly toward advancing every progressive notion into law, every accusation of intolerance into an agenda, and creating new “rights” out of thin air."

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/why-liberals-are-winning-part-1/

I'm sure there is at least one poster here who will tell us why the author is right (in two senses of the word...) and why they agree.

In fact, I sorta remember one who posted just about every point in this laundry list as 'proof'.

mr_basil_seal — June 25, 2012 at 12:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nail-

is Brewer a tea-bagger? sounds like one.

mrd — June 25, 2012 at 1:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qqlHb...

mrd- Brewer appeals to baggers and mainstream GOP alike. She seems to embrace what is politically expedient at the time, (like most politicians :) with a hard right focus on immigration.

She's Sheriff Joe with a bigger stick! :)

I suppose it depends on one's definition of a bagger, which brings up a great talking point for the forum. What is the definition of a teabagger?

Personally from the interviews that I have seen and some of the laws she endorses...she registers a 79 on the BAG-O-METER.

nailingit — June 25, 2012 at 2:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Milken Mitt!!! This story is HUGE!!!

The third, and perhaps most damning article, came from Sunday’s Boston Globe, depicting Romney’s work with disgraced junk-bond king Michael Milken. In 1988, Romney was searching for money to finance a heavily-leveraged buyout of two small department store chains. “At the time of the deal, it was widely known that Milken and his company were under federal investigation” for insider trading and stock manipulation. **Despite this, Romney and his partners, after personally meeting with Milken, went ahead with the deal. With financing from Milken’s shady business, Romney and Bain were able to make a $10 billion investment, not long before Milken was sentenced to 22 months in prison.** Bain eventually profited to the tune of $175 million (although the merged department stores later went bankrupt, shortly after dumping its Bain-appointed chief executive). Sure, an important chunk of the financing may have come from questionable sources, but Bain made its profit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/mitt-romney-bain-capital-and-a-profit-first-presidency/2012/06/25/gJQAlQNn1V_blog.html

nailingit — June 25, 2012 at 2:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

**Teabaggot** , teabaggot meaning , definition of teabaggot , what is teabaggot - A fanatical participant of the Tea Party movement in the United States of America, often a bigot. Usually quicker to say than Tea Party Patriot.
Some examples : Citizen 1: Did you go to the Tea Party rally last night?Citizen 2: No, I heard it was just going to be a bunch of teabaggots being irrationally angry about how ## they are.

**Teabaggistan** , teabaggistan meaning , definition of teabaggistan , what is teabaggistan - Mythical place where down is up, black is white, and reality never intrudes.The president cut taxes again and we now have the lowest middle class tax rates in 40 years, but Teabaggistan is up in arms about the president raising taxes, confiscating our guns, and readying re-education camps to imprison us!
Some examples : The president increased the Pentagon's budget again this year, but he's being attacked from Teabaggistan for cutting the Pentagon's budget.

http://www.definition-of.net/teabaggot

http://www.definition-of.net/teabaggistan

nailingit — June 25, 2012 at 2:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Citizen Forum night at City Council now on CVTV.

I see many of the usual suspects are gathered.

langenthal — June 25, 2012 at 6:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


A Cruel and Unusual Record
by Jimmy Carter
The United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.

Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended. This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public. As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues.

While the country has made mistakes in the past, the widespread abuse of human rights over the last decade has been a dramatic change from the past. With leadership from the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 as “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” This was a bold and clear commitment that power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people, and it established equal rights of all people to life, liberty, security of person, equal protection of the law and freedom from torture, arbitrary detention or forced exile.

The declaration has been invoked by human rights activists and the international community to replace most of the world’s dictatorships with democracies and to promote the rule of law in domestic and global affairs. It is disturbing that, instead of strengthening these principles, our government’s counterterrorism policies are now clearly violating at least 10 of the declaration’s 30 articles, including the prohibition against “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Originally published in NYT

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/25-9

mr_basil_seal — June 25, 2012 at 7:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


***In the world of the wacky ***

Orbitz Worldwide Inc has found that people who use Apple Inc's Mac computers spend as much as 30 percent more per night on hotels, so the online travel agency is starting to show them different, and sometimes costlier, travel options than Windows visitors see, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

Orbitz executives said the online travel agency is experimenting with showing different hotel offers to Mac and PC visitors, but said the company isn't showing the same room to different users at different prices, the Journal reported. They also pointed out that users can opt to rank results by price.

Mac users are 40 percent more likely to book a four or five-star hotel than PC users and when Mac and PC users book the same hotel, Mac users tend to stay in more expensive rooms, the Journal reported.
Hotels go high-tech for tomorrow’s guestrooms

In addition to the Orbitz website, the company owns other travel sites, including CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub and RatesToGo.

Apple and Orbitz officials could not be reached for comment outside of regular business hours.

hawkeye — June 25, 2012 at 8:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Star struck Baggers & slave amenities. (good times?) Some things either don't change or get worse with time. It's the old yet new definition of conservatism.

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

A reminder why some laws need to be made at the Federal level.

nailingit — June 25, 2012 at 9:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


OK. Let me begin something that will generate a lot of flak.
Many a group in this country have pursued equality. African Americans, Latinos, Women...
The list goes on.
The story is they just want to be equal. Not special treatment, just equality. And so policies are adopted, laws are passed, and equality becomes reality (more or less, some would argue that there is some more to do).
As a result, we now have time set aside every year to remember the contributions of particular groups of people. Black History, Womens History, Asian-Pacific Heritage... You get the picture.
(Remember, not special treatment, just equality)
And now we have the latest victim on the march toward equality. We have the LGBT community. Their fight goes on, though they have won some major victories as of late.
In recognition of these recent victories, on 15 Jun, the Secretary of Defense announced that the US military will observe June as Gay Pride Month (Not joking, check Google). And today, the Pentagon is hosting the first US military Gay Pride Celebration.
(Not special treatment, just equality)
To begin, I would just like to get some input from everyone. What are your thoughts on these observances/celebrations?

danabwoodley — June 26, 2012 at 6:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


and the R's in the House gave these guys more than they requested??!!!

After eight years and a reported $5 billion in development, the U.S. Army is ditching its pixelated-looking uniform in favor of something that doesn't look like it was borrowed from the "Contra" Nintendo game. The design, known as the Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP), has failed at doing what camo should do: Hide our soldiers. "If we can see our own guys across a distance because of it, then so can our enemy," one Army specialist said. According to insiders, the design was selected after the Marines had switched to an eye-catching pixel-driven pattern. "That's what this really comes down to," the editor of Soldier Systems Daily said. "'We can't allow the Marine Corps to look more cool than the Army.'"

mrd — June 26, 2012 at 6:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley@ 6:30 am: You asked a question that brought me out of my self-imposed hiatus on here.

Alternative lifestyle pride observances, in my view, serve an important function: recognition and celebration of diversity within the context of our free speech protection.

These celebrations and observances are usually very inclusive and welcoming. You don't have to be gay, for example, to show up at the annual Gay Pride Parade to support the cause and participate fully in the celebration. Come one. Come all.

These special observations serve as a reminder that our country supports and is composed of many faces, lifestyles, cultures, religions, etc. And we are a great country because we give folks the freedom to celebrate those differences openly.

Even if I do not agree with a group's particular beliefs (White Supremacy, for example), if they want to celebrate in public nonviolently, I am grateful to live in a country that supports their right to toot their own horn.

When I see these celebrations and public awareness campaigns, they remind me to be grateful for the gift of freedom.

That's about as patriotic as you will ever get from my typing here. Better than fireworks and more meaningful. :)

manthou — June 26, 2012 at 7:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


And now we have the latest victim on the march toward equality. We have the LGBT community.

danabwoodley — June 26, 2012 at 6:30 a.m

Maybe you could tell us what you were trying to say.....

mr_basil_seal — June 26, 2012 at 8:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


crazy-

I'm not griping about what's spent to keep troops safe-just wasted money. And as Cheney so stupidly said, "you've got to go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like to have". This when troops were getting slaughtered by IED's in vehicles with inadequate armor. Where was the concern for safety then?

from your link-did you read the entire article?

"President Bush launched a recruitment campaign, which pushed average participation up by 63% during his eight years in office. The USDA began airing paid radio spots in 2004."

Imagine that, in 2004 the R's had the Congress and the White House, and THEY initiated the program to recruit folks for food stamps, yet today have labelled, successfully I might add, Obama as the "food stamp president", and are dead set against such measures today. Their hypocrisy seems limitless.

mrd — June 26, 2012 at 8:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — June 26, 2012 at 7:54 a.m.

1- Nutrition is a long term issue, esp for infants and youth. We'd be spending more than the food stamps and advert. on medical care later

2- Good nutrition is positively correlated with school achievement

3- Maybe you could ask why the 1-in- 7 isn't the real issue.

mr_basil_seal — June 26, 2012 at 8:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


These celebration are like a luncheon, only blue eyes gets lobster, brown eyes get fish, green eyes gets shrimp. But if you give a little to each, they are all equal.

crazytrain — June 26, 2012 at 8:09 a.m.

Maybe you could tell us what you were trying to say.....

mr_basil_seal — June 26, 2012 at 8:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — June 26, 2012 at 6:30 a.m.

I guess I understand what you are trying to say and I somewhat agree.

When is MY day (average white guy not trying to impress anybody- day)? Oh, it's everyday? Well, that's should be the same for everyone else as well.

hawkeye — June 26, 2012 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Just as an aside here, I do qualify for one celebration, Father's Day, and I was a little pissed off that it (all of a sudden) was "gay pride day" as well. I'm not saying they shouldn't have their day but can't they pick one not previously occupied?

hawkeye — June 26, 2012 at 9 a.m. ( | suggest removal


As far as "days" go, a question I just asked myself is what effect does "whatever day" have on me?

Diddly. Squat. Nada.

With that in mind, I suppose I've no opinion on the matter.

Just (not?) sayin'. ;^)

Drift — June 26, 2012 at 9:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — June 26, 2012 at 9 a.m.

The various 'days' you are taking umbrage with are societal acknowledgments that there are inequities in how we perceive and react to differences that, for the most part, aren't in control of the individual.

mr_basil_seal — June 26, 2012 at 9:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*pick one way and stay with it.*

Couldn't agree more.

**Food Stamp Cuts Could Hit Military Members, Veterans**

Proposed cuts to food stamp programs would hurt military families and retirees who depend on the assistance to get food on the table, according to statistics on food stamp purchases at military commissaries.

An investigation by Huffington Post found $100 million worth of federal food aid has been used by both active-duty and retired members of the military on military bases:

HuffPost looked at data provided by the Defense Commissary Agency -- which serves a wide range of military members, including retirees -- and concluded that commissary customers have redeemed $101 million worth of food stamps since June 2011.

The Stars and Stripes recently found a spike in food stamp usage at military commissaries. Based on Defense Commissary Agency figures, food stamp purchases at commissaries have almost tripled since 2008.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/jun/19/food-stamps-cuts-military-families-farm-bill/

*What are your thoughts on these observances/celebrations?*

Party down! Pass the guns coffins and brewski's. Imperialism should be all inclusive!

But let's not forget the fallen...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-struggle-to-stop-military-suicides/2012/06/22/gJQAdebjvV_video.html

nailingit — June 26, 2012 at 9:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail,
Thought I would spread some of this southern humor... Gotta listen .......Keep that keen ear close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-tsgM...

vanwadreamer — June 26, 2012 at 10:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal


vanwa- It's like Jimmy B on ludes! Informative, rythmic, yet lacking in depth with a nagging voice. Reminds me of a girlfriend I had long ago!

nailingit — June 26, 2012 at 10:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Meanwhile...back at the ranch of conservative accepted heterosexuality...

**Lackland Air Force Base Rocked By Sex Scandal**

Allegations that male instructors had sex with, and in one case raped, female trainees have led to criminal charges against four men. Charges against others are possible.

The most serious accusations surround an Air Force staff sergeant scheduled to face a court-martial in July on charges that include rape and multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault. The other three defendants were charged with lesser crimes ranging from sexual misconduct to adultery. All of the defendants were assigned to turn raw recruits into airmen in eight weeks of basic training.

A two-star general is now investigating alongside a separate criminal probe, which military prosecutors say could sweep up more airmen. Advocates for female service members and members of Congress have started taking notice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/lackland-air-force-base-sex-scandal_n_1626206.html

nailingit — June 26, 2012 at 10:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail,
That was a great response..I thought the Voice was a little "Raggie" as well..I was thinking more like a band on LSD....The girlfriend , I think we all had one of those...and vice versa, not to pivk on women.. here..

vanwadreamer — June 26, 2012 at 11:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Real patriotism** BY ROBERT REICH

Recently I publicly debated a regressive Republican who said Arizona and every other state should use whatever means necessary to keep out illegal immigrants. He also wants English to be spoken in every classroom in the nation, and the pledge of allegiance recited every morning. “We have to preserve and protect America,” he said. “That’s the meaning of patriotism.”

To my debating partner and other regressives, patriotism is about securing the nation from outsiders eager to overrun us. That’s why they also want to restore every dollar of the $500 billion in defense cuts scheduled to start in January.

Yet many of these same regressives have no interest in preserving or protecting our system of government. To the contrary, they show every sign of wanting to be rid of it.

In fact, regressives in Congress have substituted partisanship for patriotism, placing party loyalty above loyalty to America.

The GOP’s highest-ranking member of Congress has said his “number one aim” is to unseat President Obama. For more than three years congressional Republicans have marched in lockstep, determined to do just that. They have brooked no compromise.

They couldn’t care less if they mangle our government in pursuit of their partisan aims. Senate Republicans have used the filibuster more frequently in this Congress than in any congress in history.

House Republicans have been willing to shut down the government and even risk the full faith and credit of the United States in order to get their way.

Regressives on the Supreme Court have opened the floodgates to unlimited money from billionaires and corporations overwhelming our democracy, on the bizarre theory that money is speech under the First Amendment and corporations are people.

Regressive Republicans in Congress won’t even support legislation requiring the sources of this money-gusher be disclosed.

They’ve even signed a pledge – not of allegiance to the United States, but of allegiance to Grover Norquist, who has never been elected by anyone. Norquist’s “no-tax” pledge is interpreted only by Norquist, who says closing a tax loophole is tantamount to raising taxes and therefore violates the pledge.

True patriots don’t hate the government of the United States. They’re proud of it. Generations of Americans have risked their lives to preserve it. They may not like everything it does, and they justifiably worry when special interests gain too much power over it. But true patriots work to improve the U.S. government, not destroy it.

But regressive Republicans loathe the government – and are doing everything they can to paralyze it, starve it, and make the public so cynical about it that it’s no longer capable of doing much of anything. Tea Partiers are out to gut it entirely. Norquist says he wants to shrink it down to a size it can be “drowned in a bathtub.”

continued...

nailingit — June 26, 2012 at 12:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


...

When arguing against paying their fair share of taxes, wealthy regressives claim “it’s my money.” But it’s their nation, too. And unless they pay their share America can’t meet the basic needs of our people. True patriotism means paying for America.

So when regressives talk about “preserving and protecting” the nation, be warned: They mean securing our borders, not securing our society. Within those borders, each of us is on our own. They don’t want a government that actively works for all our citizens.

Their patriotism is not about coming together for the common good. It is about excluding outsiders who they see as our common adversaries.

nailingit — June 26, 2012 at 12:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail,

Your satement is just what the left leaning Liberals want the average joe to think..They spew it every chance they get on the air waves eliciting the 99% to "over throw" the country and spread the wealth. Well I would be for spreading my work ethic before I spread any of my money to those with no work ethic or ethics at all.. You know the ones that cause vandelism while marching for "peace"... Or the current administration who wants to take my future earnings before I have even had achance to earn it...

In your statement you could insert Left wing of Democratic party where you have regressive typed. I think it would be a little more apropos.. The top 5% pay almost 60% of all taxes collected.Don't look at ones capital gains tax rate.. That is what the president would like everyone to look at... Romney has money overseas investing.. So do all Labor unions mininions with their 401K and retirement funds. These managers invest this money where it will make more money. Every mom and pop with and retirement fund is invested overseas to some extent. I also don't want to be taxed at 30% on my gains when I want to retire because that would extend that magical date by years as the government steals more of my money... Geez I wish average joe would get some education on this matter as well as those 99% ers... it's called work ethic not spreading the wealth

vanwadreamer — June 26, 2012 at 3:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


So people, for some unknown reason I just received a survey in the mail. Courtesy of Romney. Called 2012 Presidential Issue survey. Naturally, a big plea for lotsa money to support Mitt. I have no idea why I have been selected for the honor, but somewhere along the way these people think I am a Republican. Jamie used to send them also until I said I am not a supporter.
Here a question on the survey: How important is it to you that president Obama be defeated in the November election?

Yep, let's get to it boys. Most important is not issues, but to defeat old Obama.
The other few questions ask directly about Obama's support of gay marriage - opposed or support. And another question about issues and their importance in voting. OH finally. Naturally this involves things like Iran's nuclear weapons program (right, it is a fact it is weapons and Mitty already said he wants to fight em). Of course, important personal freedoms like gun control and defending the constitution and limiting government.

In other words, the usual. Nothing new, nothing original, biggest point, social issues like same-sex marriage and
abortion. Yep, these are important issues we all face, that economy thingy is so minor compared to those topics and defeat O.

Disappointing? Not really. As expected. Now how do I get off their darn mailing lists?

Honestly, this made me cranky.

luvithere — June 26, 2012 at 4:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


vanwa- Please tell me what policy initiatives/ideas Romney has put forth to better our economy. Of course the upper 5% pay more taxes. Hell, the upper 1% own 40% of the countries wealth! Look up some graphs measuring income disparity over the last 30 years.

What economic/job growth policies has Romney proposed that differs from George Bush?

I don't blame you for not wanting to be taxed at 30% when you retire, you're going to need every penny to pay for your medical care after your Ryan voucher runs out.

*Geez I wish average joe would get some education on this matter as well as those 99% ers... it's called work ethic not spreading the wealth*

vanwa, the average Joe is the 99%...

nailingit — June 26, 2012 at 5:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Ron Paul Rand Paul...the nut doesn't fall far from the tree. Or in this case the nut the nut produced is out of his tree. Holding flood isurance hostage for a zygote.

OBAMA 2012

**Rand Paul Fetal Personhood Amendment Stalls Flood Insurance Bill (UPDATE)**

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) moved this week to hold a noncontroversial flood insurance bill hostage until the Senate agrees that life begins at fertilization.

The bill, which would financially boost the National Flood Insurance Program on the cusp of hurricane season, had been expected to pass easily in the Senate. But since Paul on Monday offered an unrelated "fetal personhood" amendment, which would give legal protections to fetuses from the moment of fertilization, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is threatening to halt progress on the legislation.

"I'm told last night that one of our Republican senators wants to offer an amendment -- listen to this one -- wants to offer an amendment on when life begins," Reid said on the Senate floor Tuesday. "I am not going to put up with that on flood insurance. I can be condemned by outside sources; my friends can say, 'Let them have a vote on it.' There will not be a vote on that on flood insurance. We'll either do flood insurance with the amendments that deal with flood insurance, or we won't do it. We'll have an extension."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/rand-paul-fetal-personhood-flood-insurance_n_1628128.html?ref=topbar

nailingit — June 26, 2012 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal



Pardon my persistance, but I must continue on the thread I created.
Hawkeye-
I feel your pain, and I will take it one step further. I am in a position where I find events centered around these observances and celebrations to be mandatory for me to attend.
Now I can see where these events can be an educational experience for the narrow minded, I think there is a hypocracy when they become events sanctioned by a govt agency. We claim to be an open minded, tolerant, color-blind society. These events, however serve to emphasize the differences that we allow to divide us. Govt involvement only strengthens these divisions.
Basil-
I see what you mean that they are not in the control of the individual. However, if said individual believes the observance isn't necessary, then most likely there are more that feel the same way. Couldn't these people come together and urge against these things which do not necessarily help the cause?
Have groups of people suffered inequities in the past? Yes.
Do some still suffer inequities today? Yes.
So I say again, if people truly want equal treatment, then why conduct these events which bring them forward on the basis of what makes them different?
Embrace your culture.
Be proud of your heritage.
But if you truly want to be equal, then remember that you are first human, just like the rest of us.
I do not want an observance or celebration for the white heterosexual christian male. I just want to see an end to the emphasis on what serves to divide us.

Feel free to bomb me into nonexistance if you so choose.

danabwoodley — June 27, 2012 at 1:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Basil- I see what you mean that they are not in the control of the individual. However, if said individual believes the observance isn't necessary, then most likely there are more that feel the same way. Couldn't these people come together and urge against these things which do not necessarily help the cause?*

danabwoodley — June 27, 2012 at 1:29 a.m

*And now we have the latest victim on the march toward equality. We have the LGBT community.*

danabwoodley — June 26, 2012 at 6:30 a.m

Maybe you could tell us what you were trying to say.....

*Feel free to bomb me into nonexistance if you so choose.*

danabwoodley — June 27, 2012 at 1:29 a.m

It is a bit early in a discussion to attempt to play a pity card. Maybe you could tell us what you were trying to say.....

But, at this point it seems your point is something on the order of ' I'll claim that a person's being gay isn't an issue to me as long as I don't have to be reminded of the prejudice both societal and legal that they have suffered.'

You know, that ' It bugs me to see gays holding hands in public. They shouldn't be doing that.'

mr_basil_seal — June 27, 2012 at 6:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Oreo shows gay pride with rainbow filled cookie**

Tens of thousands of Facebook users expressed their views after Oreo posted a photo on Facebook in support of gay rights.
The photo of an Oreo cookie with layers of rainbow-colored filling was posted Monday night on the Oreo Facebook page along with the status update, “Proudly support love!” The caption under the photo reads “June 25 | PRIDE.”

The company also tweeted the picture with the statement “Celebrate your pride for love!”

http://myfox8.com/2012/06/27/oreo-shows-its-gay-pride-with-rainbow-filling/

mr_basil_seal — June 27, 2012 at 6:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Loved the rainbow filling of that Oreo cookie, basil! Nearly a quarter million "likes" so far on its FB page.

So glad to live in a state that legislated marriage equality. Now on to the public vote. Will WA buck the trend and maintain and protect this law? Hope so:

http://washingtonunitedformarriage.org/

manthou — June 27, 2012 at 7:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Sowell is at it again. Demonstrating that he has the rapid wit necessary to spew rw talking points.....

President Obama's latest political ploy — granting new "rights" out of thin air, by executive order, to illegal immigrants who claim that they were brought into the country when they were children

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/ju...

mr_basil_seal — June 27, 2012 at 7:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal


luvithere — June 26, 2012 at 4:58 p.m

Yes it's funny, I got the same one but I think it's because I get Jamie's mail as well. I really wanted to fill it out and send it back with MY answers but I figured I would put it to better use..... And YES! it IS recyclable.

hawkeye — June 27, 2012 at 9:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou — June 27, 2012 at 7:47 a.m.

Oreos are getting some interesting press coverage:

"Freak out in aisle seven as Oreo comes out with its gay pride image, complete with proclaiming, "We proudly support love." Let the boycott begin."

Along with some discussion on the 'if you decide to boycott, don't forget we're owned by Kraft so you need to boycott these also' post:

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/06/27-0

Also:

"Not all the nearly 20,000 comments, however, were quite as supportive.

“Bye Bye OREO!,” wrote user Jeni Friedersdorf. “Why can’t companies stay neutral on such things?” A few quoted the Bible; several swore to boycott the snack."

And the article goes on to discuss possible profit motives to the stance:
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-gay-pride-oreo-20120626,0,1004912.story

mr_basil_seal — June 27, 2012 at 9:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Single-Payer Health Care Favored By House Progressives If Court Strikes Down Obamacare**

Ellison said all 75 members of the caucus have already signed onto a bill by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) to create a single-payer, publicly financed, privately delivered universal health care program. The proposal would essentially build on and expand Medicare, under which all Americans would be guaranteed access to health care regardless of an ability to pay or pre-existing health conditions.

House progressives pushed hard for a single-payer option, such as the "Medicare for all" approach, during the health care reform debate in 2009. But House Democratic leaders couldn't come up with the votes to pass the proposal, and progressives ultimately caved on the idea in order to pass the president's plan, on the reasoning that some reform was better than none at all.

Asked why progressives think a single-payer option could advance this time around, Ellison said if the Supreme Court strikes down some or all of the existing health care law, it shows that the individual mandate at the heart of the law -- a concept originally backed by conservatives -- was a failed approach.

"We've tried it the right-wing way. Let's try it the right way," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/house-progressives-single-payer-health-care_n_1630777.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 9:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


basil: You can better believe that there is some marketing savy behind the rainbow-adorned Oreo:

“The LGBT community has long been known not just for trend-spotting but also trend-setting,” said Wes Combs, President of Witeck-Combs Communications. “They are very savvy consumers and often motivated to spend a little extra on new products and upgrades.”

Washington is the happy recipient of new LGBT residents from the southbank of the Columbia. I have met three new couples in my neighborhood alone, hoping to make their partnership equal and legal in a state that gets it. They all are refurbishing older homes and making the neighborhood sparkle in more ways than one.

manthou — June 27, 2012 at 10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit: My spouse predicted the single payer interest renewal last week, if the mandated portion is struck down by SCOTUS. Sometimes the meddling produces results the naysayers had hoped to kill. :)

By the way, have you been watching VEEP on HBO? Hilarious! The best comedy I have seen since Seinfeld.

manthou — June 27, 2012 at 10:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou @ 10:03- It's always the "House Progressives" who support laws and policies which benefit the majority. I hope the Dems who are beholden to the health care industry do what's right. Even if the votes aren't there, Dems need to be on the same page and show solidarity with this.

The insurance companies won't be thrilled if the 1990's Republican idea involving a personal mandate is struck down so maybe there is hope.

I used to have a measure of faith in our Supreme Court. The Robert's court has all but taken that away. Once Citizens United is reversed in a few years, (hopefully) we should take a hard long look at term limits and setting enforceable ethical standards for SCOTUS. As it exists these judges have zero accountability for their actions. How many back door meetings do Scalia & Thomas have to have before we say enough is enough.

I think we are going to see 2010 in reverse this year, in spite of voter suppression and oodles of C.U. Republican money thrown about.

btw-Good to see you post. I hope your hiatus is in the rear view mirror. I always appreciate your voice of reason as well as your point of view.

nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 10:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


basil, manthou, danabwoodley, hawkeye...

I think a good reason to celebrate diversity is to combat those that celebrate bigotry. Counter measures imo are always needed in a free society to ensure free thought. Conservative thinking such as Norris displays is pervasive in our culture, and needs to be called out for what it is. The unabashed hate and intolerance from the right knows no boundaries. Remember, Chuck is a spokesperson for the Huckabee camp, and trumped as a hero in the conservative movement. It sounds as though he has become a "constitutional expert" in his waning days as a star...

The Walker, Texas Ranger star published an article on AmmoLand.com condemning President Barack Obama for "creating a pro-gay Boy Scouts of America."
In addition to Obama, Norris also targets BSA national board member James Turley, who recently announced his plan to overturn the ban on gay Scouts and leaders.
Norris accuses the White House of manipulating the system, claiming they "prodded [Turley] with perks and favors."

The actor even goes so far to reproach Obama for defending the children of illegal immigrants, but not defending the BSA's **"First Amendment rights to stand against atheists, agnostics and homosexuals."**

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/ae/tv/tvguide/article/Chuck-Norris-Accuses-Obama-of-Creating-Pro-Gay-3666737.php#ixzz1z15KaCEW

nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 10:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 10:26 a.m.

The Robert's court like all courts has made what I consider mistakes, however NO court has ever erred by upholding the first amendment. Citizens United was a good ruling, and should have been and would have been unanimous if it were not for a few activists justices. Believe it or not the purpose of the supreme court is to uphold the Constitution which clearly states in the first amendment"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

frobert — June 27, 2012 at 11:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Perhaps those "activists justices", believe Exxon Oil should not be granted as much influence with America's election process as the common person.

Sometimes we discard the spirit of law and muddle the letter of the law to score partisan "victory's", and it's the American people who are the worse for it. President Barack Obama, our Constitutional Law Professor in Chief had the foresight to see this coming.

It's a sad day when the common man sides with corporate interests to push an ill informed "constitutional" agenda.

You are 100% wrong on this fro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mTCt0...

nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou — June 27, 2012 at 7:47 a.m

I'm totally with you on the "Oreo" thing, however, I think it might be too much cookie for me, probably put me into a sugar high for hours. LOL

As for the single payer option, I still think it's the best way to go. I'm all for expanding Medicare to include everyone but you know there are going to be a lot of people screaming "socialism" out there.

hawkeye — June 27, 2012 at 12:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 11:54 a.m.

Our "Constitutional Law Professor in Chief " also feels that He has the authority to wage war without constitutionally required approval and to suspend due process if he wants someone assassinated. As a constitutional law professor, doesn't it seem he should have read said document?

frobert — June 27, 2012 at 12:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Russ Feingold, Citizens United Foe, Blasts Supreme Court As 'Arm Of Corporate America'**

Feingold, whose name is synonymous with campaign finance reform as co-author of the McCain-Feingold law, said he laughed bitterly when he heard the Supreme Court had slapped aside a Montana state court decision at odds with Citizens United. One of the most unpopular decisions in recent years, Citizens United opened the door for corporations and unions to spend freely in elections. The expansive language of the decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, led a lower court to allow individuals to pool unlimited money through groups now known as super PACs. The two rulings have led to an explosion of independent spending in the 2010 and 2012 elections, with many of the donors hidden from public view.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to reverse the Montana Supreme Court's ruling in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, which had held the state's history of corporate corruption should exempt it from Citizens United, leads Feingold to his strongest attack on the Roberts Court to date.

"This is one of the great turning points, not only in campaign finance but also in our country's history," Feingold said. "I believe we're in a constitutional crisis."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/russ-feingold-citizens-united-supreme-court-montana_n_1630948.html?ref=topbar

nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 2 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Our Supreme Court has lost its honor**

The greatest power the justices have is carved into the marble of the Supreme Court Building and gilded in gold: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”
These are the words of John Marshall, the fourth U.S. chief justice, written in 1803. His decision established forever that the Supreme Court had the right to uphold or strike down laws passed by Congress.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given this power. The Supreme Court took it in a 4-0 decision. (There were only six members on the court at the time and two were sick.)

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77907.html#ixzz1z1vQKPHm

nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 2:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 2:07 p.m.

"Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given this power"

United States Constitution Article III section 2

"1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to "

frobert — June 27, 2012 at 2:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal



Our current congress is nothing short of embarrassing. They are making a mockery of our political institutions. Just plain sad. They're fueled by Fox News lemmings who will buy into anything to oust this President. They are about to make U.S. History with their "contempt" for our Government. A complete disgrace.

**The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal**

A Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 5:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**CRAZY**

then we should fulfill Dr. King's dream and judge them, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

DeeLittle — June 27, 2012 at 6:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


anybody else hear that the colorado fires are being investigated by the FBI for arson possibly linked to terrorism?

DeeLittle — June 27, 2012 at 6:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Anyone care to predict tomorrow's health care decision? Not to sound too cynical, but it could go...

-The personal mandate stays in place. ('insuring' big insurance providers a larger guaranteed clientele).

-Strip provisions requiring Insurance companies to provide care for those with pre-existing conditions.

-Strip provisions allowing young adults to receive benefits up to age 26 predicated on their parents policies.

-Strip anything that does not directly benefit Insurance companies and their bottom line.

I haven't heard this take/option before. Just strip it all or leave the provisions in place and destroy the Republican idea of a personal mandate. But it seems feasible whatever this Robert's conservative court decides, it will benefit the corporate bottom line rather than us.

Whatever happens it will shine a light on the RyanCare voucher system. A plan endorsed by Romney, and middle class white Republicans over 55.

Also in the world of whatever happens, a DOJ investigation into Clarence Thomas's purported ethics/criminality violations should ensue, as well as Scalia. This duck hunter (Scalia) and Bagger in Chief Thomas need their wings clipped. The Dems need to grow some and go after these guys before their long reaching corporatist activist tentacles destroy the American way of life.

amen

nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 8:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 8:02 p.m.

"Also in the world of whatever happens, a DOJ investigation into Clarence Thomas's purported ethics/criminality violations should ensue, as well as Scalia. "

There is no criminal investigation and no allegation of criminal charges against these two justices. There was a civil allegation against Thomas for not filling out internal court paperwork properly, but the civil statute requires proof that he knowingly filled it out improperly, and extreme doubt to that exists because it involves his wife's tax returns and she does not work for the court.

Sad pathetic liberals, have nothing good to say about their own party, so they have to grasp at straws trying to tear down the opposition.

frobert — June 27, 2012 at 10:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*There is no criminal investigation*

Hence my post.

*Sad pathetic liberals, have nothing good to say about their own party,*

I'm sorry to see you resort to name calling fro. If you are referring to me as a "sad pathetic liberal" then so be it. I prefer to dialog with those who bring substance to the table, not juvenile cheap shots.

nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 11:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 27, 2012 at 11:11 p.m.
"m sorry to see you resort to name calling fro"

Can you point out any posts you have made recently that you are not insulting those that disagree with you? Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black isn't it?

frobert — June 27, 2012 at 11:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


OK, I will attempt to clarify the point I am trying to make. There are two-

1. I believe these observances serve to perpetuate the prejudice. Since all the various groups have there time, the group that is seen as the historic perpetrators of the injustices see an injustice toward them. Though legally they could speak out, they would be crucified in the media, and the court of public opinion.

2. If we are supposed to be a tolerant, open-minded, color-blind, non judgmental society, then these observances endorsed by the government are hypocritical. They merely emphasize the differences that are not supposed to matter. We, as a society, allow ourselves to be divided. So long as we are reminded regularly of these divisions, then there will be animosity between the groups.

Before anyone attempts to place lables, though not publicly, but within your own minds, I will say it. I am not racist, sexist,homophobic.......(fill in appropriate adjective). If a lable must be put to it, I am a humanist. I believe we, as humanity, are but one single race. There are difference between individuals, which I revel in. I think I would get rather bored if everyone on this planet were 100% identical to me. I just do not believe we should allow these differences to divide us.

danabwoodley — June 27, 2012 at 11:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*Can you point out any posts you have made recently that you are not insulting those that disagree with you?*

My most recent @ 11:11...come to think of it, the entire week...come to think of it.....

fro..just suggesting you think things through a bit. How's Gen?

nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 1:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal


This sounds too good to be true! Maybe this do nothing congress will get this done but I'll believe it when I see it. Sounds like a good deal!

**Highway deal: Keystone out; compromise clears path**

Congressional negotiators are on the brink of a deal to extend federal highway funding for two years, ending a four-month push by both chambers and likely wrapping up major legislative business before the July Fourth recess.
The agreement will extend highway spending authority and the gas tax for roughly two years, sources said. But it comes at a price: Republicans had to drop their insistence that President Barack Obama approve the Keystone XL pipeline, and Democrats had to settle for allowing states to opt out of spending some funds on nonroad projects like bike and pedestrian paths. The GOP also rolled back its insistence on curtailing the EPA’s ability to regulate coal ash.

Boxer, in her own predictive statement Wednesday, cited faster project delivery without violating environmental laws and increased biking and pedestrian funding flexibility as victories and said the legislation will preserve or create up to **3 million jobs**, a “critical focus of Democrats.”
“Our country needs the kind of economic boost that this bill offers, and I am looking forward to getting it to the president’s desk,” the transportation conference committee chairwoman said in an afternoon statement.
Democrats fought off controversial riders to expedite the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline and block regulation of coal ash — both important environmental issues to Boxer, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77914.html#ixzz1z4rX6P2b

nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 2:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal



Closer to home: Yakima Bears are moving, not to Vancouver, but to Hillsboro. New stadium. Unanimous YES votes by elected officials.

http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/index.ssf/2012/06/hillsboro_approves_contract_wi.html

I am envious. I would have loved walking to the games and supporting this team (and the entertainment tax needed to pay for it). Won't be as accessible and convenient and Hillsboro gets all the development benefits and a new stadium.

manthou — June 28, 2012 at 7:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


WOW, They passed the whole thing with the exception that they can't force people to BUY the healthcare but that the government can tax you to pay for it.

Obama/Biden 2012

hawkeye — June 28, 2012 at 7:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawk,
I am really surprised it passed. I am happy it passed but I am shocked. With this court I figured they could not wait to strike it down.

luvithere — June 28, 2012 at 8:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Amazing SCOTUS decision this morning. I am thrilled.

manthou — June 28, 2012 at 8:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*..equality becomes reality (more or less, some would argue that there is some more to do)
....*

danabwoodley — June 26, 2012 at 6:30 a.m.

Perhaps you could show us where a drive toward equality has resulted in there not being "..some more to do".

'bout the only one I can think of is women's suffrage and that was a fairly narrow or focused movement.

mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 8:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal


:))))) :))))) :))))) :))))) :)))))

nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 9:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Isn't it cool? OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 9:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Sanders, Nurses on Ruling: A "Good Day," But We Still Need "Medicare for All"**
John Nichols on June 28, 2012 - 12:18 PM ET

There has been few steadier congressional hands throughout he debate over health-care reform than that of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Principled in his support for the real reform of "Medicare for All," yet pragmatic in his advocacy for Affordable Care Act provisions that expand public health programs and allow states to experiment with single-payer options, Sanders has been in the thick of every fight over President Obama's signature reform. And the ensuring legislative and legal battles over its implementation.

What Sanders says about Thursday's Supreme Court decision upholding the ACA provides important insights for progressives as they respond to a complex decision that, in the words of the National Nurses United union, "should not be seen as the end of the efforts by health care activists for a permanent fix of our broken healthcare system."

So what does Sanders say?

On the ruling, his line is upbeat: "Today is a good day for millions of Americans who have pre-existing conditions who can no longer be rejected by insurance companies. It is a good day for families with children under 26 who can keep their children on their health insurance policies. It is a good day for women who can no longer be charged far higher premiums than men.

"It is a good day for 30 million uninsured Americans who will have access to healthcare. It is a good day for seniors who will continue to see their prescription drug costs go down as the so-called doughnut hole goes away. It is a good day for small businesses who simply cannot continue to afford the escalating costs of providing insurance for their employees. It is a good day for 20 million Americans who will soon be able to find access to community health centers.

But that does not mean that Sanders is satisfied.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/168649/sanders-nurses-ruling-good-day-we-still-need-medicare-all

mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


This might be worth staying up for the Jon & Stephen shows:

Republican Congressman Suggests ‘Impeachment’ For Justice Kagan Over Obamacare Ruling
By Scott Keyes posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Jun 28, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A leading Republican congressmen in the fight to repeal Obamacare said today’s Supreme Court ruling is “illegitimate” and has called for one of the Supreme Court Justices to be impeached.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/28/508137/louie-gohmert-impeach-kagan/

mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 9:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal


AMAZING!!!

**Supreme Court Health Care Ruling: CNN, Fox News Wrong On Individual Mandate (VIDEO)**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/cnn-supreme-court-health-care-individual-mandate_n_1633950.html?utm_hp_ref=media

nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 9:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.

ThinkProgress also notes that Huff did the same.....

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/06/28/508072/in-a-rush-to-be-first-cnn-fox-huffington-post-and-time-get-supreme-court-story-exactly-wrong/

mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 9:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal


basil- Quality seems to take a backseat to breaking news. Maybe MSNBC will pick up a few that care about politics. I slept in, but as far as I know they got it right.

Imagine the fist pumping from the Fox News crowd, only to be smitten minutes later.

nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Just another step closer to another "COSTLY" socialistic plan put forth by this administration. Forcing people to buy something they don't want isn't the way to go, in addition those who pay taxes will be burdened with the job of paying for everyone that can't afford or "DON"T want" to pay for health insurance. 20% of drivers in Washington don't have auto insurance, do you think they really care if they have it or not. same with healthcare, some rich people don't even carry health insurance... Forcing this on the American public is just plain wrong...What do we think the tax will be in 5,10 or even 20years... Pretty soon we'll be paying over 50% of our wages in taxes for these Government programs. It's just more government... I will wait to see really how many more people sign up for this program in 2014.. Forcing businesses with 50 or more employees to offer healthcare will hurt many a small companies bottom line... Wait till you see what your paying in additional taxes even though you have your own program..

vanwadreamer — June 28, 2012 at 10:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Raymond Mongrain · Works at Nautilus
This is a black day in america. In the 1960"s Herbert H Humphrey ran for President and he was a founder of an group that advocated total Government control of Business, Education and Medicine. Today the Court gave the sodialists 2/3 of the goal advocated by HHH. Now the Government has total control fo Education and Medicine. and they keep trying to take control of business (look at GM and Chrystler). Our socialist Pres and Socialist Demo party have victory....

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/jun/28/supreme-court-health-care-ruling/#comments

mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 12:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


> mr_basil_seal — June 25, 2012 at 8:22 a.m.
>
> mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 12:15 p.m.

Just what is your point basil?

kn_dalai — June 28, 2012 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


You missed:

mr_basil_seal — June 25, 2012 at 8:31 a.m.

mr_basil_seal — June 25, 2012 at 12:38 p.m

mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 9:36 a.m.

mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 2:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


So what's your point basil?

kn_dalai — June 28, 2012 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal


vanwa @ 10:39- Relax dude. This will shed some light and address your fears.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/average-health-care-tax-_n_1635119.html?ref=topbar

nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 3:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well, I guess a certain someone isn’t going to respond. Not unexpected.

Question.

I see that single payer/Medicare for all, has been raised on facebook. No doubt, that issue will surface again eventually. Medicare pays service providers according to its own payment schedule, which seems to be around 50% of the service provider’s bill. This is true of hospital, clinic or other providers, such as lab services. By law, the service provider cannot come back to the patient for the difference.

It would seem that the difference is being picked up by the private sector paying more. So: if there was such a thing as government Medicare for all, just what would happen if everyone was covered, and the resulting payments to service providers were slashed?

kn_dalai — June 28, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


For the general reading public, but also addressing:

kn_dalai — June 28, 2012 at 2:45 p.m.

Also from the ACA being ruled constitutional thread

Robert L. Gaskin · Top Commenter · San Francisco State University
Gloat now Loren. Freedom was lost today, but it will be retaken, by force if need be.
Reply · · 33 minutes ago

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/jun/28/supreme-court-health-care-ruling/#comments

mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 3:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*So: if there was such a thing as government Medicare for all, just what would happen if everyone was covered, and the resulting payments to service providers were slashed?*
kn_dalai — June 28, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.

Do the math, but mostly it would wind up with our health care per capita being more in line to the costs in the rest of the industrialized world.

As opposed to its current 2x

"Figures published on Thursday by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a 34-nation grouping of advanced economies, showed that less than half of health spending in the U.S. was publicly financed compared with an O.E.C.D. average of 72.2 percent.

“However, the overall level of health spending in the United States is so high that public (i.e. government) spending on health per capita is still greater than in all other OECD countries, except Norway and the Netherlands,” according to the Paris-based organization’s Health Data 2012 report.

Combined public and private spending on health care in the U.S. came to $8,233 per person in 2010, more than twice as much as relatively rich European countries such as France, Sweden and Britain that provide universal health care."

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/u-s-health-care-costs-more-than-socialized-european-medicine/

Also see:
Here's a Map of the Countries That Provide Universal Health Care (America's Still Not on It)
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/

mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 3:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.

So just what is your point basil?

kn_dalai — June 28, 2012 at 3:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 3:37 p.m.

Well,I’m sure that’s all very interesting, but it doesn’t really address the question I posed.

kn_dalai — June 28, 2012 at 4:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


On a lighter note, 17 democrats joined with republicans to hold Holder in contempt of congress.

frobert — June 28, 2012 at 4:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — June 28, 2012 at 4:32 p.m.

from your source:
“Once the bankruptcy liquidation is complete, the Department expects the **total loss to the taxpayer to be between 10 and 15 percent of the original loan amount**.”

Pertinent portion bolded to point out how just posting the headline is a bit disingenuous.

And http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/10/423270/doe-loan-guarantee-program-will-cost-2-billion-less-than-expected/?mobile=nc

provides a discussion on the level of success, actual costs to we the taxpayers, the benefits to the economy, jobs, and environment.

mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 4:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*I see that single payer/Medicare for all, has been raised on facebook.*
kn_dalai — June 28, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.

Actually, that discussion started in the '60s. President Johnson. Part E for Everybody. With some support from the GOP.

mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 5:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Let's see. Republican leaders have already disenfranchised Blacks, Latino's, Women, Young people, Gays....(I'm sure I've left out a few) Now they will disenfranchise the sick of all ages and needs. God bless em!

**Health Care Reform Battles Taking Shape At State Level**

"The Brownback Administration continues to oppose ObamaCare and will not take any action to implement it," Sherriene Jones-Sontag, a Brownback spokeswoman, wrote in an email on Thursday. "This is now a political issue that will be resolved by the American people in the November elections."

Kansas state Rep. Mike Slattery (D-Mission) attacked Brownback's stance. "It's ridiculous, the Brownback administration is showing that ideology is above following federal law," Slattery said. "As a Kansan I'm furious. He is breaking federal law and that is politics at its utter worst. It is embarassing and utter nonsense. I say grow up. You are governor of one of the 50 states and you're acting like a child."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/health-care-reform-battle-states_n_1635545.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

---

**Terrible arguments prevail!**

It is likely that many of these 26 states – Alabama is one of them – will now accept Roberts’ invitation to refuse the additional Medicaid funds. The people in those states who do all the menial jobs on which everyone else depends won’t get the medical care they need after all, because the temptation to trash Obamacare will be irresistible. The big open question now is whether the Republicans suffer any political consequences for this. In my ideal world, working poor people with serious medical conditions will start sitting in on the front steps of Republican governors’ mansions, making clear to the press how these politicians are hurting innocent people. It probably won’t happen, but it should. (In fairness, they should also be sitting outside Roberts’ office as well, but it’s too late for him to undo the damage.)

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/terrible_arguments_prevail/

nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 5:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


4 Reasons Why Republicans Won’t Be Able To Repeal Obamacare
By Igor Volsky on Jun 28, 2012 at 4:30 pm

Responding to Thursday’s Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, **Congressional Republicans have scheduled a vote in the House to repeal the law** and Mitt Romney pledged to undo the measure if he’s elected president in November. But unless the GOP wins a super majority in the Senate — a scenario no one thinks is plausible — it can do little more than weaken Obamacare’s regulations and defund some of its provisions. Here is why:http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/28/508503/4-reasons-why-republicans-wont-be-able-to-repeal-obamacare/

Bolded section = Can you say grandstanding?

mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 5:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


A universal system, a la Medicare, would be cheaper on everyone.

This system throws the cost on businesses, the health care industry, and the well to do. Or so says the CS Monitor - I'm just cynical enough to believe the cost will actually end up being borne by the so-called middle class, just like almost everything else.

A very large portion of this country will be eligible for some degree of subsidized health care - a sliding scale tied to the poverty level. A single person making less than $44K per year is at the cutoff - the less you make, the higher the subsidy. The goal is 10% of your income down to 2-3% for the very poor.

And a zillion other qualifications that make this nearly impossible to understand.

How will this affect businesses and the employment rate? Many claimed to be waiting for this decision to decide whether to hire. My guess is more companies will opt for temporary workers, so they don't have to pay benefits.

I'm mostly confounded by the decision, though. The Court ruled that the mandate to buy insurance is an unconstitutional exercise of the Interstate Commerce clause, and then turned right around and ruled it does fall under the purview of Congress to levy taxes. So, if I follow the law and buy insurance from a private company, I'm now paying a tax to them. I have to break the law and be fined when filing taxes to pay to the government.

This November is shaping up to be the most interesting election of our lifetime.

roger — June 28, 2012 at 5:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Sir Basil,

So, let's just say the Repubs win the Senate and keep the House. It would be within the scope of their power to suspend - indefinitely - the cost share to be borne by businesses - correct?

And if the Repubs can use this to win the Presidency - no veto and no supermajority needed to override it.

Granted - a couple of major "what ifs" - but not entirely implausible. And a few modifications of this sort, and the act will become worse than useless.

roger — June 28, 2012 at 5:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


We really don't know how the Health Care Act will play out because we don't know enough about what's in it. Nancy Pelosi said this when passing it, and I don't see that this has changed much.

What I find more interesting is the criminal and civil contempt charges against Eric Holder. Does he relent and turn over the documents Congress wants? If so, do we see redacted portions that will lead to suspicions Pres Obama knew? Or does Holder suck it up and spend a year in prison? Will the Repubs jump all over this to try to turn the vote against Pres Obama?

Almost reminds me of Iran Contra.

But I'm still conflicted - how can someone be held in contempt of Congress, when the great majority of the country shares this feeling?

roger — June 28, 2012 at 5:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Columbian FB comments are a hoot! From wading in Communist Waters to a joe named Snookie quoting the Donald! Ya gotta ... love it! Fire up those Death Panels!!!

But this one takes the cake! Leave it to the GOP "powerful"... Perhaps something LE should address. We haven't heard from the great Republican Sharon Angle yet, but this'll do!

**Matt Davis, Former GOP Spokesman, Suggests 'Armed Rebellion' After Supreme Court Ruling**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/matt-davis-is-armed-rebellion-now-justified_n_1635721.html?ref=topbar

nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 5:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*Sir Basil,*

Just Mr. (or technically mr_)

*So, let's just say the Repubs win the Senate and keep the House. It would be within the scope of their power to suspend - indefinitely - the cost share to be borne by businesses - correct?*

Possibly, but that is a big 'IF'. I think Ron Paul winning the convention is more plausible. Probably a better case could be made for the Dems regaining the house - Nate Silver at http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com

*And if the Repubs can use this to win the Presidency - no veto and no supermajority needed to override it.*

The thinkprogress article linked above walks through some of the details on how that could shake out.

*Granted - a couple of major "what ifs" - but not entirely implausible. And a few modifications of this sort, and the act will become worse than useless.*

The thinkprogress article linked above walks through some of the details on how that could shake out.

roger — June 28, 2012 at 5:42 p.m.

And somewhere in that analysis we'd need to look at how the general public views the various aspects of the ACA.

mr_basil_seal — June 28, 2012 at 6:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY9o1i8VXAY&feature;=related

Bill Maher for Prez!

A great discussion to include S.E. Cupp. My favorite Libertarian!

nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 6:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Michael Savage Links Justice John Roberts' Epilepsy Medication To Obamacare Ruling**

"Let's talk about Roberts," Savage said. "I'm going to tell you something that you're not gonna hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It's well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts' writings you can see the cognitive disassociation (sic) in what he is saying..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/michael-savage-john-roberts-epilepsy-medication_n_1636092.html

nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 9:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Mitt Romney and the New Gilded Age**
Robert B. Reich

But Romney is the only casino capitalist who is running for president, at the very time in our nation’s history when these views and practices are a clear and present danger to the well-being of the rest of us—just as they were more than a century ago. Romney says he’s a job-creating businessman, but in truth he’s just another financial dealmaker in the age of the financial deal, a fat cat in an era of excessively corpulent felines, a plutocrat in this new epoch of plutocrats. That the GOP has made him its standard-bearer at this point in American history is astonishing.

So why don’t Democrats connect these dots? It’s not as if Americans harbor great admiration for financial dealmakers. According to the newly released twenty-fifth annual Pew Research Center poll on core values, nearly three-quarters of Americans believe “Wall Street only cares about making money for itself.” That’s not surprising, given that many are still bearing the scars of 2008. Nor are they pleased with the concentration of income and wealth at the top. Polls show a majority of Americans want taxes raised on the very rich, and a majority are opposed to the bailouts, subsidies and special tax breaks with which the wealthy have padded their nests.

Part of the answer, surely, is that elected Democrats are still almost as beholden to the wealthy for campaign funds as the Republicans, and don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them. Wall Street can give most of its largesse to Romney this year and still have enough left over to tame many influential Democrats (look at the outcry from some of them when the White House took on Bain Capital). But I suspect a deeper reason for their reticence is that if they connect the dots and reveal Romney for what he is—the epitome of what’s fundamentally wrong with our economy—they’ll be admitting how serious our economic problems really are. They would have to acknowledge that the economic catastrophe that continues to cause us so much suffering is, at its root, a product of the gross inequality of income, wealth and political power in America’s new Gilded Age, as well as the perverse incentives of casino capitalism.

Yet this admission would require that they propose ways of reversing these trends—proposals large and bold enough to do the job. Time will tell whether today’s Democratic Party and this White House have the courage and imagination to do it. If they do not, that in itself poses almost as great a challenge to the future of the nation as does Mitt Romney and all he represents.

read more @

http://www.thenation.com/article/168623/mitt-romney-and-new-gilded-age

nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 9:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 9:03 p.m.

What kind of low life bigoted scum would write such a thing, let alone re-post it. This just proves that the democrats in general have not progressed passed the prejudiced dixicrats of the 1960's. Attacking the man's ideology is reasonable attacking his medical afflictions is just sick.

frobert — June 28, 2012 at 10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Crazy, I hate to tell you this, but krauthammer is an idiot, Bush v Gore was not a 5 4 ruling it was a 7 2 ruling. The 5 4 was only on the remedy not the constitutionality of the recount. The only partisanship was on the part of the liberal wing, they admitted that the recount was unconstitutional but refused to support the only recourse the court had because it would result in a democrat loss.

The healthcare ruling has given us the real possibility that Romney could win this election. In addition, based on public opinion concerning the individual mandate ending up with a majority of both houses has also become a real possibility.

The threat that the house, senate and presidency could be in the hands of the neocons is scary, but I fear this ruling may have made that inevitable. What we need is true limited government conservatives, not neocons, who are no more then cockeyed liberals pushing for larger more intrusive government, just with a different agenda.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 1:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*What kind of low life bigoted scum would write such a thing*

A highly popular conservative/Libertarian right wing newsletter/blogger named Savage.

*let alone re-post it*

Now you are are getting more than personal. As usual your language brings insults and vitriol. I'm sure you don't deliver these type of pointed attacks face to face with anyone. You take care frobert...no need to ever address me again unless you would like to...get together sometime. ;) If so, flip me an e-mail....;)

*This just proves that the democrats in general have not progressed passed the prejudiced dixicrats of the 1960's.*

You are absolutely clueless concerning this. I have never seen a Democrat write such drivel. Do you ever research anything about anyone before you comment? Again, Savage is a Libertarian leaning Republican. Sometimes your ineptitude at comprehending the basics are absolutely amazing!! Personal short comings are not an adequate excuse your trash talk, let alone your ineptness at understanding the very basics of our Constitution.

---

The reason I posted what Republican/Libertarian Michael Savage offered up in his highly popular Republican newsletter, is that even I was taken back at how quickly the Republicans eat their own, as well as the zero ethical boundaries they display when things don't go their way.

One thing about this forum, it's not boring! :))

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 1:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 1:05 a.m.

"I'm sure you don't deliver these type of pointed attacks face to face with anyone....no need to ever address me again unless you would like to...get together sometime. ;) If so, flip me an e-mail....;)"
Anything I post I would gladly discuss face to face, I am available most days after 10am if you want to meet for coffee.

As far as your "source" goes I stopped reading your Huffington links long ago, they are no better then Basil's thinkprogress or Allen's democraticunderground posts. In Basil's defense, at least not all of his links are from partisan sources.

Your vitriol and hatred towards anybody who disagrees with you lately is getting offensive and I have decided to return in kind, if you can't handle that I would suggest consulting a qualified therapist.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 1:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


To forum readers..

I apologize for letting this person/avatar get to me. Sometimes I have to remind myself of who I am. Even though it's anonymous, it's not easy to take this kind of crap sometimes. Again, I apologize to my fellow basement dwellers for reducing my standards and entertaining ideas that should not be.

amen

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 1:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Sometimes . . . some of the posters (and readers) take this forum waaaayyyy too seriously ...

Play nice now or Matt will pick all the marbles up and go home.

You post here you had better have thick skin to be able to take the slings and arrows of others. But in the end it doesn't matter. We just blow off steam and it should be that way. Since we are anonymous for the most part don't take it to seriously.

And please remember to read and follow the guidelines or you'll be sorry.

JohnCasey — June 29, 2012 at 4:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 28, 2012 at 9:03 p.m.

I read your post on Savage. His name says it all. I listened to him ONE time and I got so angry at him for the outrageous things he was saying, I'm sure my blood pressure was through the roof. Needless to say, I don't listen to him any longer.

crazytrain — June 28, 2012 at 10:43 p.m.

Are you kidding me? A BLOG about tweets? How could you even think about posting something like that and suggest it's legitimate? It is what it is, bottom of the barrel AFTER the shooting the fish.

hawkeye — June 29, 2012 at 6:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


On the news this morning, Romney said that if elected, on his first day in office he would do what congress didn't do on their last day in session. He said he would repeal "Obamacare".

My thoughts are, that should be really difficult for him since there isn't any such thing.

hawkeye — June 29, 2012 at 6:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*As far as your "source" goes I stopped reading your Huffington links long ago, they are no better then Basil's thinkprogress or Allen's democraticunderground posts. In Basil's defense, at least not all of his links are from partisan sources.*

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 1:22 a.m.

Sweetheart, any time you can bring data, facts, analysis, that actually refutes what is posted from any of those three sources, do so.

Until then, your claim of 'stop reading' sounds like what many close-minded, ill-informed, uninformed, posters here and throughout the political mediasphere do.

And might explain why you (and apparently kn_dalai ) don't understand why we post some of the 'writings' from the rw.

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 6:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*As far as your "source" goes I stopped reading your Huffington links long ago, they are no better then Basil's thinkprogress or Allen's democraticunderground posts. In Basil's defense, at least not all of his links are from partisan sources.*

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 1:22 a.m.

How about listing the sources you (or crazytrain, kn_, et al) use to inform your thinking?

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 6:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 6:56 a.m.

"How about listing the sources you (or crazytrain, kn_, et al) use to inform your thinking?"

You may have a hard time grasping this concept, but thinking people form their own opinion, they do not get them from some liberal or conservative blog.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 7:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for June 29, 2012 is:

quiddity • \KWID-uh-tee\ • noun
1 : whatever makes something the type that it is : essence 2 a : a trifling point : quibble b : an unusual personal opinion or habit : eccentricity

which seems to be exemplified in its multiple meanings today.

Already.....

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 7:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*You may have a hard time grasping this concept, but thinking people form their own opinion, they do not get them from some liberal or conservative blog.*
frobert — June 29, 2012 at 7:21 a.m.

Oh, sweetheart, you can't really believe we will swallow that....

You consistently use rw / libertarian talking points; virtually all of your unsupported claims can be found- often verbatim - on rw blogs and forums.

And, on rare occasions, when really pressed, you have quoted material from some pretty obscure sources. Not to mention Hobbs or Mill or a few others.

And there is that pesky 'no man is an island' not to mention the 'on the shoulders of giants' trope.

But you get a point for your attempt to not cite where you go to inform your thinking.

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 7:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


OK, let's talk SCOTUS-

ACA is perfectly acceptable to include the individual mandate. Does anyone remember how everyone in the administration and Congress insisted that it wasn't a tax? But when it comes time to bring to the Big 9 to decide whether or not it will fly, then it is a tax and covered by the constitutional duties authorized to the Congress.
But enough on that.
Another ruling by SCOTUS was issued the same day that deemed the Stolen Valor act is unconstitutional.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, you can lie about military service, and decorations you (sic) recieved, and you are covered by your right to free speech. So now we need an expanation-
If you are currently serving in the military, and you put on a decoration you did not earn, you can be punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But wait! Once you are discharged from the service, and have your DD 214 in your hand, then by all means, put them on.
Then start regailing everyone you meet with your "war stories" of how you single-handedly rescued 4 of your fellow soldiers from a hail of indirect fire, all in one trip, to recieve your Silver Star. (You were recommended for the Distinguished Service Cross, but some officer in the chain wouldn't let you have an award he hadn't earned yet.)
Laugh, but I have heard someone try to use this story.

danabwoodley — June 29, 2012 at 7:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — June 29, 2012 at 7:58 a.m.

Actually, the "recieved" is where someone quoting you would need to use " (sic)"

Or more accurately:

"When quoting text with a spelling or grammar error, you should transcribe the error exactly in your own text. However, also insert the term sic in italics directly after the mistake, and enclose it in brackets. Sic is from the Latin, and translates to "thus," "so," or "just as that." The word tells the reader that your quote is an exact reproduction of what you found, and the error is not your own.

Mr. Johnson says of the experience, "it's made me reconsider the existence of extraterestials [sic].""

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/577/

And I'm guessing that you have changed topics after not entering into any dialogue over your gay rights postings....

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 8:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


To serve and to protect. And probably some sort of play on 'stolen valor'.

The Pentagon’s only wildfire-fighting team has been dispatched to help fight the Colorado wildfires. Well, one Colorado wildfire. After all, it’s only a team of 18.

And since the Vandenberg Hot Shot squad belongs to the Air Force, it’s no surprise it’s expected to fight the Waldo Canyon fire that’s disrupting the arrival of new cadets at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/06/29/hot-shots/?iid=bl-article-latest#ixzz1zCFDoQWr

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 7:42 a.m.

"You consistently use rw / libertarian talking points; virtually all of your unsupported claims can be found- often verbatim - on rw blogs and forums."

If you are accusing me of plagiarism I believe some evidence is in order. My words and my opinions are my own, if that is a concept you can't understand, that is your problem not mine.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 8:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 8:06 a.m.

Giving grammar lectures? Really? If your IQ was half as high as you like to pretend it is, you wouldn't feel the need to try to prove it at other's expense.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 8:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal



crazytrain — June 29, 2012 at 8:35 a.m.

My sources are cited.

IF you can prove a source I have cited uses unsupported claims, or false claims, or misuses data, show us.

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 8:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — June 29, 2012 at 8:36 a.m.

Your umbrage has been noted; actually saved in a file.

Remember that next time you make claims about being a Constitutional scholar ....

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 8:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — June 29, 2012 at 8:46 a.m. (

It was the only thing substantive enough to discuss in that post and I'm still trying to get the poster to engage in a dialogue.

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 8:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*My words and my opinions are my own, if that is a concept you can't understand, that is your problem not mine.*

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 8:36 a.m.

So you sit around ( or jump around or hoe your garden or cook an apple pie or whatever) with no books, no newspapers, no magazines, no white papers, no C-Span, no internet and " form their own opinion"?

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 9:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Basil,

Not everyone sits around all day, channel surfing or surfing the web.

I seldom bother looking at whatever link you post, as they are nearly always some Leftist rag. The information contained therein, may or may not be correct. It is beside the point. With your callused keyboard fingers, you can punch up in a short time, multitudinous links which would take a very long time indeed, for one to corroborate. It is the point of having reputable and balanced journalism (in this regard, Manthou is absolutely correct.) To place one’s faith in such rags, is like walking into a courtroom, and then coming to a verdict after having listened to only the prosecution’s side.

If one understands their own political philosophy, then all else follows. You err in assuming that one need get their “talking points” from others. Considering the degree to which you have others do your talking for you, with an unending stream of quotes from links, it is a concept which you are surely incapable of comprehending.

kn_dalai — June 29, 2012 at 10:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


But what was and is really striking about the anti-reformers is their cruelty. It would be one thing if, at any point, they had offered any hint of an alternative proposal to help Americans with pre-existing conditions, Americans who simply can’t afford expensive individual insurance, Americans who lose coverage along with their jobs. But it has long been obvious that the opposition’s goal is simply to kill reform, never mind the human consequences. We should all be thankful that, for the moment at least, that effort has failed.

Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/opinion/the-real-winners.html?_r=1

langenthal — June 29, 2012 at 10:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


kn_dalai — June 29, 2012 at 10:01 a.m

Glad to see you think you know you are always right ...

Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants (Latin: nani gigantum humeris insidentes) is a Western metaphor meaning "One who develops future intellectual pursuits by understanding and building on the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past," a contemporary interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing...

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 10:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


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

langenthal @ 10:05, hawkeye @ 6:40

It used to be repeal & replace, now it's just repeal.

Mitt Romney has done an excellent job in the past explaining the benefits of a personal mandate/requirement to carry insurance.

As we know this republican idea of a mandate was predicated on assuming personal responsibility. [i.e. why should I pay for someone else's health care which in turn causes my expense else to go up?] I think many Republican voters aren't even aware. I'll try to remind them once in awhile. :)
Mitt does a better job promoting this type of health care than any Obama surrogate I've heard.

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail,

Not only do most "Americans" not want Obamacare in it's present form but it will cost more than the taxes colleceted to pay for it. Why does someone think the 40 million uninsured will buy insurance insurance now... Maybe 5%, just like auto insurance ..They don't think something will happen nor do they think some should require them to have it...Then to penalize you for not having it , really

vanwadreamer — June 29, 2012 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal



Sorry for the double post.....I meant for this one..

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

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-xMkM...

Dems need to trump this message everyday till election. So many are fooled by Fox News and other RW sources which allow Romney to reshape and disavow his previous messaging.

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 12:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 12:04 p.m.

In my opinion, the reason Romney was annotated by the press as the presumptive nominee from the beginning of this primary season, is because he was the only one sure to lose to Obama. Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling has changed all of that, and he has a good chance of not only winning the election but having a republican house and senate for his first two years.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


vanwadreamer — June 29, 2012 at 11:54 a.m

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcquaid/2012/03/27/ignore-the-obamacare-polls/

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 12:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**A lot of Republicans supported the individual mandate** Posted by Ezra Klein at 02:00 PM ET, 05/12/2011

Yesterday, David at the Blue Mass Group uncovered a 1994 New Republic article in which then-Senate candidate Mitt Romney told John Judis that if he were elected, he’d support John Chafee’s health-care reforms — which included a national individual mandate. Today, Huffington Post’s Sam Stein follows up with an article arguing that Newt Gingrich also has a long paper record attesting to his support for an individual mandate.
I’d suggest we shouldn’t act so surprised: The individual mandate was a Republican policy idea. It was developed as a defense against single-payer health care. It was endorsed by the Heritage Foundation. George H.W. Bush put together a plan with an individual mandate, but left it on the shelf because there was no way it’d pass in a Democratic Congress. It was present in the two main health-care proposals that Republicans released as alternatives to Bill Clinton’s health-care reforms. This wasn’t policy that a few Republican heretics were curious about. It was something that about half of the Republicans in the Senate affirmatively signed onto, policy that the most important Republican think tank backed, policy that a Republican president considered proposing. I won’t go so far as to say it was official Republican Party policy, but it was pretty close. Look at the co-sponsors from the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, the legislation that Romney spoke favorably of back in 1994. I’ve bolded the names of all the Republicans who were active in health-care reform during the last two years.

Robert Bennett [R-UT], Christopher Bond [R-MO], David Boren [D-OK], William Cohen [R-ME], John Danforth [R-MO], Robert Dole [R-KS], Pete Domenici [R-NM], David Durenberger [R-MN], Duncan Faircloth [R-NC], Slade Gorton [R-WA], Charles Grassley [R-IA], Orrin Hatch [R-UT], Mark Hatfield [R-OR], Nancy Kassebaum [R-KS], Robert Kerrey [D-NE], Richard Lugar [R-IN], Alan Simpson [R-WY], Arlen Specter [R-PA], Ted Stevens [R-AK], John Warner [R-VA].

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 12:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


And then there was the Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1994, which included signatures from:
Robert Bennett [R-UT], George Brown [R-CO], Conrad Burns [R-MT], Daniel Coats [R-IN], Thad Cochran [R-MS], Paul Coverdell [R-GA], Larry Craig [R-ID], Robert Dole [R-KS], Duncan Faircloth [R-NC], Charles Grassley [R-IA], Judd Gregg [R-NH], Orrin Hatch [R-UT], Jesse Helms [R-NC], Kay Hutchison [R-TX], Dirk Kempthorne [R-ID], Trent Lott [R-MS], Richard Lugar [R-IN], Connie Mack [R-FL], Frank Murkowski [R-AK], Alan Simpson [R-WY], Bob Smith [R-NH], Ted Stevens [R-AK], Strom Thurmond [R-SC], Malcolm Wallop [R-WY].
That’s a lot of Republicans who remain in perfectly good standing today. The idea that past support for the individual mandate is some weird quirk of Gingrich or Romney’s past just isn’t accurate. If you’re talking about Republicans who were in any way active during the 1990s, there’s a very good chance you’re talking about Republicans who either supported or said nice things about bills that included an individual mandate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-lot-of-republicans-supported-the-individual-mandate/2011/05/09/AFi26Z0G_blog.html

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 12:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


he has a good chance of not only winning the election but having a republican house and senate for his first two years.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 12:21 p.m.

Is that just your opinion, or do you have some evidence?

General Election: Romney vs. Obama
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample MoE Obama (D) Romney (R) Spread
RCP Average 6/4 - 6/28 -- -- 47.6 43.7 Obama +3.9
Democracy Corps (D) 6/23 - 6/27 1000 LV 3.1 49 46 Obama +3
Rasmussen Tracking 6/26 - 6/28 1500 LV 3.0 45 44 Obama +1
Gallup Tracking 6/22 - 6/28 3050 RV 2.0 48 43 Obama +5
FOX News 6/24 - 6/26 912 RV 3.0 45 40 Obama +5
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 6/20 - 6/24 819 RV 3.4 47 44 Obama +3
Bloomberg 6/15 - 6/18 734 LV 3.6 53 40 Obama +13
Associated Press/GfK 6/14 - 6/18 878 RV 4.2 47 44 Obama +3
Pew Research 6/7 - 6/17 1563 RV 2.9 50 46 Obama +4
Reuters/Ipsos 6/7 - 6/11 848 RV 3.4 45 44 Obama +1
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 6/4 - 6/6 1152 LV 2.9 47 46 Obama +1

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Joseph Stiglitz: Terrifying Future for America If We Don't Reverse Inequality**
Friday, 29 June 2012 12:46
By Lynn Parramore, AlterNet | Interview

In Joseph Stiglitz's new book, "The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future," the Nobel Prize-winning economist argues that there is a price to be paid for economic inequality. You can obtain a copy of Stiglitz's latest economic analysis directly from Truthout right now by clicking here.
What will life look like down the road if we don't reverse economic inequality? We must see through the myths of capitalism and build a mass movement if we are to save ourselves.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, one of America's most prescient voices, wrote an article for Vanity Fair several months before Occupy Wall Street was born. "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" called attention to the widening gap between rich and poor and its deadly impact on our society and its democratic institutions. In his newly released book, The Price of Inequality, Stiglitz returns to this theme of a divided society, delving into the origins and consequences of economic unfairness. I caught up with Professor Stiglitz and talked to him about how the persistent myths and beliefs associated with our capitalist system help to drive this trend, turning America from a land of opportunity to a land of broken dreams.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10067-joseph-stiglitz-terrifying-future-for-america-if-we-dont-reverse-inequality

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 1 p.m. ( | suggest removal


CBO estimates the cost of obamacare at $1 trillion .... that's recurring, not one-time. he's now imposed ever-increasing taxes on every man, woman and child in perpetuity.

so much for only raising taxes on incomes over $250,000.

as an added slap, he's increased co-pays and deductibes on medicare recepients.

oh, except for all those 'opt-outs' he gave his cronies.

DeeLittle — June 29, 2012 at 1:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


How soon we forget that before the era of The Affordable Health Care Act, the CBO projected health care costs were to take up 40% of our GDP.

When folks cite CBO projections, it's good to take it all in, not parse data to falsely establish a partisan "cronies" point.

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 1:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


btw-40% by the year 2018. Let's have a real conversation about this if we are to have one at all.....

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 1:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Sooooo.......I assume that most Republicans who post here are endorsing the Republican Mitt Romney endorsed Ryan Voucher Care Plan.

Then there's that.

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 1:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


if this is the case, if the doj just waited until guns were recovered at crime scenes, what purpose, other than 2nd amendment attacks, could that possibly have??

and to just LEAVE them there, not even arrest the buyers, what in the name of justice were they doing????

http://www.rollcall.com/news/darrell_issa_puts_details_of_secret_wiretap_applications_in_congressional-215828-1.html?pos=htmbtxt

> "The application included details such
> as how many guns specific suspects had
> purchased via straw purchasers and how
> many of those guns had been recovered
> in Mexico.
>
> It also described how ATF officials
> watched guns bought by suspected straw
> purchasers but then ended their
> surveillance without interdicting the
> guns.
>
> In at least one instance, the guns
> were recovered at a police stop at the
> U.S.-Mexico border the next day.
>
> The application included financial
> details for four suspected straw
> purchasers showing they had purchased
> $373,000 worth of guns in cash but
> reported almost no income for the
> previous year, the letter says.
>
> “Although ATF was aware of these
> facts, no one was arrested, and ATF
> failed to even approach the straw
> purchasers. Upon learning these
> details through its review of this
> wiretap affidavit, senior Justice
> Department officials had a duty to
> stop this operation. Further, failure
> to do so was a violation of Justice
> Department policy,” the letter says."

DeeLittle — June 29, 2012 at 1:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 12:30 p.m.

Real clear politics? Isn't that the publication that still shows Ron Paul as having only one delegate in Iowa, only 24 in Minnesota and none in Louisiana? That is what you call an unbiased source?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


This is front page news in one of the most revered right wing/conservative publications available. Think Bill Buckley. He must be turning in his grave on this one.

Ya gotta love those who glom onto conspiracy theories. They make most of us sound more than reasonable.

NATIONAL REVIEW FRONT PAGE NEWS

Fast and Furious is a horrific scandal. The public deserves answers as to who devised the operation and what they hoped to accomplish. But the theory that Fast and Furious was devised to promote gun control goes far beyond the evidence, as Issa basically admitted to ABC this weekend, and it does not withstand scrutiny. The chairman should be ashamed to have dabbled in it, and should fully retract his initial comment, unless he has a considerable amount of evidence he has not shared with the public.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304094/too-fast-too-furious-robert-verbruggen

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — June 29, 2012 at 2:08 p.m.

Any time soon that you will cite a source that you consider valid with different numbers?

Or is what you are claiming just part of the "my own thinking"?

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 2:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — June 29, 2012 at 2:08 p.m.

Or maybe you could show us some research that shows realclear to not have accurate methodology.

And by the way, you did notice they basically are compiling the results of several major polls. About the only thing that you could actually raise would be a concern how they weigh the various polls to come up with THEIR average of those polls.

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 2:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 2:20 p.m.

If you read their delegate counts, they obviously have an agenda, rendering any information they produce suspect.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 2:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 12:29 p.m.

Are you saying that the republicans tried to do it, therefore it must be the right thing to do? I am conservative and I find most bills put forth by republicans overstep reasonable standards.

I am truly surprised to see you put so much faith and credit in the republican party. You're not planning on changing parties are you?

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 2:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — June 29, 2012 at 2:32 p.m.

Show us the sources you consider valid, explain why they are more accurate.

Tell us about this unnamed "agenda"; what exactly is it?

Show us consistent evidence of this unnamed "agenda".

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 2:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


What would Jesus Cut?

In the Iowa launch of "Nuns on the Bus" on June 17, Campbell said that one central goal of the tour was to point out the absurdity of the claims by Ryan and others who justify harmful cuts by claiming that the cuts are in the interests of the poor and in conformity with Catholic teachings. In April, Ryan told the National Catholic Register that, "Catholic social teaching is indispensable for officeholders." He added that "more and more of society's most vulnerable remain mired in public-assistance programs whose outdated structures often act as a trap that hinders upward mobility." In turn, by supporting poverty programs, Americans enter a "vicious cycle" of support for the poor that "fuels our national debt."

How about the value of feeding the poor during the most devastating economic downturn since the Great Depression? According to the New York Times, Ryan's budget would cut $3.3 trillion from low-income programs over 10 years and "leave millions of struggling families desperate for food, shelter and health care." In all, more than 60 percent of the cuts would come from low-income programs.

"The part that really got us going was Ryan saying his Catholic faith informed his budget," Campbell told an Iowa newspaper's editorial board. "My astute political analysis was 'liar, liar pants on fire.'"

http://www.prwatch.org/node/11598

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 3:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Student anger boils over**

As Salon’s Andrew Leonard reported, Senate leaders reached a compromise Tuesday to ensure that government-backed student loan interest rates would not double come July. Owing to this compromise, he noted, “You can scratch student loan debt off the presidential campaign whiteboard.”

And indeed, he’s correct. The White House, Congress and the Romney campaign were all keen to keep the student loan rates capped at 3.4 percent for now (just 34 times higher than the rate at which banks can borrow from the Fed), rather than doubling them to 6.8 percent. But student debt – now a ticked box on 2012 campaign agendas — looms as a growing focus for political activism and organized dissent around the country. Congress may have managed to strike a deal, but students, activists and allies are starting to talk seriously about a debt strike.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/29/student_anger_boils_over/

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y0H3f...

Rush started packing yet? Be careful Rushbo...unlike us

Costa Rica cracks down on Oxy heads & slanderous bullies.

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 3:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The Texas GOP’s platform is explicitly opposed to critical thinking skills.

Here’s the relevant text:

*We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.*

To be fair, I guess Texas is willing to grandfather in people who already use critical thinking skills — as long as those skills don’t cause them to support things like marriage equality, voter enfranchisement, environmental responsibility, social justice of any kind, or not hitting children. They just don’t want this stuff to SPREAD.

http://grist.org/list/texas-gop-officially-comes-out-against-critical-thinking/

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 3:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal



mr_basil_seal- Most excellent video! Gracias. Rekindles a place and time.

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 5:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBQ2GHLHBs

Apparently the Grand Old Party did not properly vet their candidate!

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 5:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


People still watch this nut...??? :)

**Glenn Beck Sells T-Shirts Calling Justice Roberts 'Coward'**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/glenn-beck-sells-t-shirts_n_1638229.html

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 5:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.

Your leftist rag is putting a negative spin on a misprint. I am sure the Texas GOP, as well as the Texas democrats have said plenty of stupid things, but your "rag" has to make stuff up.

Do you see this as a reputable source?
Is this who tells you what to think?

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 6:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


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

It's not often a collective nails it and harmonizes beautifully at the same time!

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 6:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — June 29, 2012 at 6:13 p.m.

Is that more of your "form their own opinion"?

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 7:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — June 29, 2012 at 6:13 p.m

Funny, they don't say anything about the 'mistake' on their website http://www.texasgop.org/

These are mistakes also?

We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized.
On Homosexuality:
We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/texas_gops_2012_platform_accidentally_opposes_teaching_of_critical_thinking_skills.php

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 7:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 7:09 p.m.

If you read my post, I said that I was sure they said plenty of stupid things, and that your leftist rag should have concentrated on those.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 7:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 6:43 p.m.

I realize the left hates the Koch brothers but what's not to hate their heinous crimes include:

Giving $20,000,000 to the ACLU to fight the Patriot Act.
Supporting gay marriage.
Opposing the war.
Opposing the war on drugs.
Building cancer hospitals.
Preserving American living wage jobs.

I can see why the liberals hate them so much.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 8:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert- I thought my apology to the forum and the circumstances involved would cause some enlightenment on your part. Evidently not so. Please do not send me any more e-mails via the C or through any other means. I'll repeat my response to you in this forum. I find your persistence creepy at best...

SH
abbr.
specific heat
sh (sh)
interj.
Used to urge silence.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
sh1
interj
an exclamation to request silence or quiet

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

===

I can imagine the types of problems some folks have with FB.....

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 8:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


btw, 7,150 results in google on your ACLU talking point

in " "s

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 8:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — June 29, 2012 at 7:53 p.m

The rest is being well enough covered

http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2012/06/28/republican-platform-says-gays-tear-fabric-society

So, in the best of the "form their own opinion" tradition, why wasn't the document marked as a draft?

Why, in the best of the "form their own opinion" tradition, has nothing been noted on the home page?

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 8:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


We are also still waiting for:

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 2:32 p.m.

Show us the sources you consider valid, explain why they are more accurate.

Tell us about this unnamed "agenda"; what exactly is it?

Show us consistent evidence of this unnamed "agenda".

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 8:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 8:16 p.m.

I sent you an email at **your** request in the early hours of this morning please see your post nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 1:05 a.m. in which you say ".no need to ever address me again unless you would like to...get together sometime. ;) If so, flip me an e-mail....;)"

You are a sad little person who only feels safe insulting women, and when confronted by a male you run away screaming like a little girl. Show some backbone man, you are the one handing out insults toward any person who disagrees with your weak arguments.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 8:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 8:24 p.m.

You can wait as long as you like, I will not waste my valuable time answering your non questions. I have already answered them, if you are not bright enough to figure out that people should form their own opinions, there is most likely no help for you.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 8:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*You are a sad little person who only feels safe insulting women, and when confronted by a male you run away screaming like a little girl. Show some backbone man, you are the one handing out insults toward any person who disagrees with your weak arguments.*

Like I said...creepy.

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 9:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


if you are not bright enough to figure out that people should form their own opinions, there is most likely no help for you.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 8:48 p.m.

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

And a consistent refusal to show what informs your thinking puts a certain light on your 'facts'.

mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 9:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — June 29, 2012 at 9:33 p.m.

The facts are clear the only difference is the conclusion we draw. You need to open your mind to the possibility that you do not have the only valid opinions.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 9:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 9:13 p.m.

Relax and breath, you are still the only cyber stalker on this forum.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 9:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal


One more time. Please stop trying to provoke and cause this situation to get much much worse. I've been polite. I've said please. Now I'm saying it again. Please go look somewhere else for your gratification. No shortage of breath or backbone. Just trying to keep it civil. But everyone, including me has limits.

cyberstalking def.

Cyberstalking is a crime in which the attacker harasses a victim using electronic communication, such as e-mail or instant messaging (IM), or messages posted to a Web site or a discussion group. A cyberstalker relies upon the anonymity afforded by the Internet to allow them to stalk their victim without being detected. Cyberstalking messages differ from ordinary spam in that a cyberstalker targets a specific victim with often threatening messages, while the spammer targets a multitude of recipients with simply annoying messages.

WHOA (Working to Halt Online Abuse), an online organization dedicated to the cyberstalking problem, reported that in 2001 58% of cyberstalkers were male and 32% female (presumably in some cases the perpetrator's gender is unknown). In a variation known as corporate cyberstalking, an organization stalks an individual. Corporate cyberstalking (which is not the same thing as corporate monitoring of e-mail) is usually initiated by a high-ranking company official with a grudge, but may be conducted by any number of employees within the organization. Less frequently, corporate cyberstalking involves an individual stalking a corporation.

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 10:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Health Care Reform Reshuffles The Race: The 2012 Speculatron Weekly Roundup For June 29, 2012**

Still, the simple fact of the matter is that Romney now faces the larger challenge. He's promised to "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care Act. If he's elected, he'll obviously have the assistance of his GOP congressional colleagues who, by then, may have majorities (but, critically, not super-majorities) in the House and Senate. But for the time being, he is "repeal and replace's" only hope. And now, he'll have to map out a plan for both sides of that equation. (Assuming, that is, that reporters will hold Romney responsible for the replacement.) Those are the sorts of policy specifics that Romney has long labored to keep out of sight, for the obvious reason that once he exposes them, Team Obama Reelect can go on the attack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/health-care-reform_n_1638505.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 10:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 10:14 p.m.

You post, directed at me, so you can play the victim when I respond. You solicit an email so you can claim you are being harassed. Do you really believe the other posters on here are stupid? They all know what you are up to.

If you truly don't want a response from me, don't post directed at me. If you don't want to be called out on your vitriol and insulting posts, don't make them. If you don't want your liberal rags called into question, don't reference them.

You have harassed most conservative posters off the forum with your hatred, and I for one am sick of it.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 11:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — June 29, 2012 at 10:26 p.m

" by then, may have majorities (but, critically, not super-majorities)"

With SCOTUS ruling that the mandate is a tax, it's repeal can't be filibustered therefore no super-majority is needed.

I am no Romney fan but he does, for the first time has a chance of beating Obama.

frobert — June 29, 2012 at 11:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Mr. Basil-

You surprise me. I notice that there is no commentary on my observations regarding the SCOTUS ruling on ACA. And your only remark over Stolen Valor was to correct my grammar.
Then you ask about my change of topic?
So this tells me that you cannot argue my ACA observation. You disagree with me on Stolen Valor, but are unable to come up with a valid argument, and refuse to lower yourself to the level of childish bashing (a trait I can appreciate).
And for the record, my concern wasn't LGBT rights specifically, that is merely the current hot topic I could use to highlight my point. My concern is over equality across the board, and whether or not these observance move this goal forward, or if it perpetuates the divisions.

I will also say, that in reading the various postings you leave (you are very prolific) that I have been able to develope a few ideas of the type of person you are. Posting my observations here, however, would do nothing to further the dialogue of this page, so I will not share them.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 12:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Wow! I was just checking out Columbian FB comments about SCOTUS ruling the Affordable Health Care Act is Constitutional. One guy is talking about armed rebellion! I suppose as elated as the Democrats are about this ruling, Republican Baggers are just as upset in the other direction. Some are foolish enough to believe this will help oust Obama! It could explain some of the vitriol. Displaced anxiety abounds with many. The hits just keep on coming! This could get the most FB hits the C has had. Although the usual are just spewing nonsense, there seems to be a few from the right that are coming around on this.

Obama's team has done a terrible job of messaging ObamneyCare, and it shows! Much much ignorance as to tax info, benefits, cost, etc. Hopefully with time and implementation more will grasp the benefits. Till then the vitriol will fly. It's already an uphill battle for many on the conservative front, [ref. link, one of multiple studies reaching similar conclusions] but much is to be said for repetition, redundancy, repetition, redundancy, repetition, redundancy..........

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract

...then again it could go the way of hating expansive government programs while embracing Social Security and Medicare, not understanding these are government programs. :))

nailingit — June 30, 2012 at 12:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*and refuse to lower yourself to the level of childish bashing* **(a trait I can appreciate).**

That's certainly isn't evident with the quote posted below!

*I will also say, that in reading the various postings you leave (you are very prolific) that I have been able to develope a few ideas of the type of person you are. Posting my observations here, however, would do nothing to further the dialogue of this page, so I will not share them.*

It's contagious mr_basil_seal! Me thinks this health care ruling has driven a few off the RW cliff!

Rodney K died a few days back, but can't we all just "get along?" :)))))

nailingit — June 30, 2012 at 1:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Jolted from a sound sleep by merry revelers who are lighting off mortars and M-80s at this ungodly hour within Vancouver city limits. Unreal. Houses packed like sardines and most of us in the Land of Nod. Bah. Humbug. Ban these Chinese money makers once and for all.

manthou — June 30, 2012 at 1:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou-Amen! Mutual respect seems to be a thing in the past for many!

I was just gonna post this link...there's a great metaphor here, but I'll leave each to make their own! :)

**Rats Laugh When Tickled, Scientists Say (VIDEO)**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/rats-study-animals-laugh-tickled-video_n_1627632.html?ref=topbar

nailingit — June 30, 2012 at 1:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Putting aside the snide remarks, I believe I will throw a few ideas out there for you all to chew on.

ACA.
I will admit that I do not understand the entirety of the law. But one thing I do understand is that we will be required to have a health plan or we will be penalized (or taxed) accordingly. And if someone cannot afford appropriate coverage, they are entitled to a subsidy from the government (read taxpayers) to cover it.
How is it different then people being entitled, by law, to recieve care even if they cannot pay? The government (read taxpayers) foot the bill.
During the entire process of this bill becoming law, a lot of people kept roaring that the penalty for not having coverage is not a tax. Representatives said so. Senators said so. The President said so. But now, it is a tax, and the reason why SCOTUS said it was perfectly acceptable. (We've been had)
But I believe the part that offends me the most about this to me seems like a no brainer. I went to the website www.healthcare.gov, where you can download the entire text of the bill in .pdf format.
2409 pages.
I would like to know which of the representatives in either house of Congress actually read every single word. I don't me a staffer put a summary in front of them, but personally read it.
If we cannot trust our elected officials to take the time to read the legislation on which they will vote to make into law that will affect the people they are going to represent, then they have no business in the job. I don't care what party you affiliate with.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 5:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — June 29, 2012 at 9:45 p.m.

What facts? You are claiming that realclear's list of published polls isn't valid because you think their delegate count is not accurate.

In the last three weeks you've been asked for a source you consider accurate, and you haven't been willing to do that.

The polls are published independently by a dozen or more companies.

Published results in virtually every newspaper and magazine in the country.

Yet, without a shred of evidence you have determined that realclear's list of polls is not a valid source.

Hence;

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

And a consistent refusal to show what informs your thinking puts a certain light on your 'facts'.

mr_basil_seal — June 30, 2012 at 6:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*And now we have the latest victim on the march toward equality. We have the LGBT community.*

danabwoodley — June 26, 2012 at 6:30 a.m

Maybe you could tell us what you were trying to say.....

mr_basil_seal — June 30, 2012 at 6:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*And for the record, my concern wasn't LGBT rights specifically, that is merely the current hot topic I could use to highlight my point.*

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 12:31 a.m.

We still don't know what your "point" is.

Or, since you decided to change topics without discussion, was.

mr_basil_seal — June 30, 2012 at 6:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Obamacare Brings U.S. Closer To Policies It Has Advocated Overseas**
By Eli Clifton Jun 30, 2012 at 8:30 am

The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marked a defining moment in the decades long battle to bring affordable healthcare to the U.S. But while healthcare continues to be a divisive issue domestically, the U.S. has funded and advocated for some of the best universal health systems around the world.

**The U.S. is ranked 37th** in the World Health Organization’s rankings of health systems. But the impact of U.S. health policy extends beyond U.S. borders. Laurie Garrett, a Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote that the U.S. is now in line domestically with policies it has been promoting internationally:

*Dating back to the Marshall Plan in post-WWII Europe, Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s 1945-49 occupation of Japan, and then the Korean War, it has been a matter of U.S. foreign policy to invest in the creation of universal health systems. More recently, the Marshall Plan was cited by AFRICOM in support of a Department of Defense engagement in health systems construction across Africa. **This year (FY2012), South Africa was the number one recipient of health aid from the United States, totaling nearly $470 million, much of which is supporting the country’s fourteen-year program to build universal health coverage.***

mr_basil_seal — June 30, 2012 at 6:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Obama Administration’s Plan For Arctic Offshore Drilling Safety: ‘I Believe There’s Not Going To Be An Oil Spill’
Think Progress'** Stephen Lacey writes:

With virtually no infrastructure available to clean up an oil spill in the sensitive Arctic, the Obama Administration is still pushing to get offshore drilling projects developed in the region.

What’s the messaging strategy from the Administration? Trust Shell.

Talking to reporters about exploration permits for Arctic waters yesterday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar summed up the Administration’s approach: “I believe there’s not going to be an oil spill.”

Really?

Shell has faced more legal prosecutions for safety and environmental transgressions than any other major oil company drilling offshore in the North Sea.

And let’s remember, the Arctic is a place where the Coast Guard has warned “if [a spill] were to happen … we’d have nothing. We’re starting from ground zero today.”

Heck, even one of the world’s largest insurance pools refuses to back offshore drilling operations in the Arctic, saying the environment is “highly sensitive to damage” and that the risk is “hard to manage.”

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/06/27-1

mr_basil_seal — June 30, 2012 at 6:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


A long piece well worth the reading.

**The Footlong Hot Dog of the Apocalypse:It's not dark yet, but I have glimpsed the future through fire, fascism and fast food**

by Phil Rockstroh

Why didn't you get out of my way…You saw me coming."

"Yes, but didn't you notice yourself proceeding," I reply.

At this… a blank stare… as if I had just posited some fragment of arcane law, adhered to by some alien race lost to time.

Indulge me in the following digression: In the (failed) attempt to create a republic, the early U.S. aristocracy deemed and codified into law that property rights were paramount to human rights…that self-interest would, as a rule, proceed before public good. Later, the age of advertising introduced the notion that instant gratification trumps self-awareness.

The combination of these two principles have engendered a series of generations of consumers (the practice of citizenship barely exists, at present) for whom the concept of civil engagement is so obscure that, for these sorts, sharing a city sidewalk seems a task too complicated to envisage.

"I was born here and I’ll die here against my will
I know it looks like I’m moving, but I’m standing still
Every nerve in my body is so vacant and numb
I can’t even remember what it was I came here to get away from
Don’t even hear a murmur of a prayer
It’s not dark yet, but it’s getting there."
--Bob Dylan, Not Dark Yet

Individually and en masse, U.S. citizens are checked-out, lost, possessed by inertia or manic jags of distraction, feelings of hopelessness and powerless rage, and are desperate for some kind of quick fix…as if that were even possible. For example, why else would so many be addicted to unhealthy corporate food, anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medications? Why are so many so desperate for relief from reality itself?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/29-9

mr_basil_seal — June 30, 2012 at 6:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*But now, it is a tax, and the reason why SCOTUS said it was perfectly acceptable. (We've been had) But I believe the part that offends me the most about this to me seems like a no brainer. I went to the website www.healthcare.gov, where you can download the entire text of the bill in .pdf format. 2409 pages.*

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 5:26 a.m.

Notice who came up with and wrote the decision.

mr_basil_seal — June 30, 2012 at 7:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I don't care who wrote the decision. I am saying that these elected official are playing both ends as it suits their agenda.
How can you, in all good conscience, vote on a bill, yay or nay, that you have not read?

Someone please tell me I am wrong with this opinion, give me a logical reason why I am wrong, and don't resort to any sidebars about my grasp of the english language.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 7:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Oh, and another part of the law is that you can now carry your children on your policy until age 26!
The same kids who, at age 14, can use the policy you provide to obtain contraception, and even an abortion, without you ever having to know.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 7:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*If we cannot trust our elected officials to take the time to read the legislation on which they will vote to make into law that will affect the people they are going to represent, then they have no business in the job. I don't care what party you affiliate with.*

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 5:26 a.m.

So, Johnson's idea of Universal Health Care back in the 60's was much shorter.

The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community. It is a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods.”
- Lyndon Baines Johnson

as cited by Thom Hartman in *Medicare “Part E”- for Everybody*
http://archive.truthout.org/medicare-part-e-everybody65901

mr_basil_seal — June 30, 2012 at 7:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 7:14 a.m.

Tell us why you think that is not a good policy.

mr_basil_seal — June 30, 2012 at 7:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I guess I should have said 'are not good policies' since you seem to be taking some umbrage about being able to keep your kids (or be on your parents' policy) until 26 AND have some concern about the age adolescents can visit the doctor without a parent.

I suppose in some way, which I hope you address, you have some way of connecting those separate points.

mr_basil_seal — June 30, 2012 at 7:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I see we are fighting the healthcare law all week. Can those opposed to it tell me what's so bad about it? That you cannot be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, including cancer? That they cannot stop coverage while you have cancer? Or that small businesses or single contractors such as lawyers (yes, lawyers in single practice, for example) can conceivably join a pool across state lines to buy coverage? It does not even fit the full definition of a tax as you will not be hounded, will not be penalized, if you do not have insurance or did not buy it. Indicate on tax if you have insurance or not, if not, pay a small penalty by getting return shortened. If it were a full tax, we would be forced to all pay it. I simplify here, of course.
Sorry, I cannot buy into all of the arguments against it. am in favor of this new law as it finally moves us toward joining the rest of the civilized world.
Having said all that, I agree that the least we can expect is our elected congress to actually read it in its entirety. But I am with Basil here, I cannot connect the dots between age of seeing a doctor without Mom and staying on Mom' insurance. If this is about birth control etc. again, then someone' personal morals or religion interjected themselves into the discussion. Or did I misunderstand?

luvithere — June 30, 2012 at 7:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"ACA. I will admit that I do not understand the entirety of the law." -- danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 5:26 a.m.

As you note later, I doubt too many people do. This bill is packed with plans and details that, if you try to follow them, all of a sudden lead you to a dead end. I presume they only planned so far.

As near as I can tell, everything is tied to the poverty level, and if you make below a certain amount you'll get a subsidy of some sort that is apparently paid directly to the insurance company. A family of 4 is bench marked at $88K per year for this subsidy. (Hmmm.... Gross income, or after other deductions have been applied? Do you add untaxed benefits, like with determining EIC eligibility? What about deferred income - if that's included here, doesn't it pretty much negate any reason to put money into an IRA or 401k? Lots more along this vein.)

As near as I can tell, each state sets up its own insurance exchange. But there are a zillion rules and reasons not to belong. (I'm in a federal plan, so I don't have to play.) Texas is pretty much saying they plan on going low dollar on everything related, while our own Washington state wants lots of coverage. It appears the option of crossing state lines to buy insurance was killed, but what if I move here from Texas - can I stay in that exchange, or must I buy a new plan here?

If I sign up for a plan, I have to pay something. Then the IRS is (apparently) going to put their new operation to work to determine what my subsidy should be, and pay the insurance company. Interesting. I haven't seen it, but I sure hope there's an option of showing I've paid and having that check sent to me instead. Anyhow, this all sounds way too crazy. But I can see one thing - lots of jobs will be created at IRS, DHS, and who knows what other agencies - and seeing as how federal workers who have their jobs eliminated under our current downsizing efforts attain priority placement status - guess who gets the new jobs?

(cont)

roger — June 30, 2012 at 8:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal


All the dollar figures we're seeing are geared to the so-called bronze plans, which pay 60% and (presumably) leave me a 40% cost share. Ouch. Who or what forces the payment of this? (Oh yeah - we already have this situation - doctors raise rates and over bill insurance companies to make up this loss - I'm not seeing how this will change.) Further, there's an annual "out of pocket" cap on expenses set at a few thousands (I forget the dollar amount). Sounds like TRICARE and the catastrophic cap; once that amount is exceeded, the insurance company no longer requires you to pay a cost share. So, with this in play - move back to the varying plan levels - why would anyone want to opt for a higher silver, gold, or whatever level plan? Maybe there's an increased level of coverage (cadillac plans) that some would find desirable, but for the great majority it would be nuts to pay for more than a bronze plan.

As has been publicized numerous times, there will still be tens of millions with no coverage.

Many doctors take only a limited number of MEDICARE, TRICARE, and other government plans due to the low payments. Is there anything in place to force them to accept these insurance exchange plans?

And, as was noted in the Columbian Wellness article the other day - this Act does absolutely nothing to control prices - not with the insurance companies and not with the medical industry (and yes - it is an industry - the professionals can subscribe to a Hippocratic oath, but the agencies they work for are all about profit.)

This ACA is a sop to the insurance and medical companies - some of the bigger donors in DC the past few years. It mandates coverage for some that insurance companies used to call uninsurable, and (allegedly) will stop the flow of people who willfully elect to not have coverage to the hospital emergency rooms.

In the long run, nothing substantive will be fixed by the ACA - we're just going to redirect costs. There are only two logical solutions - universal, state controlled health care - available to all and paid for by taxes, or nothing. I'll go with the first option. (Even though the second makes sense if looking at population control and survival of the fittest!)

roger — June 30, 2012 at 8:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal


It would be interesting to see a layout of who is invested in medical and medical insurance companies.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/stock-act-major-flaws-153307878.html

roger — June 30, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil, luvithere, et.al.,

Short version of my two posting "rant" against the ACA. "In the long run, nothing substantive will be fixed by the ACA - we're just going to redirect costs. There are only two logical solutions - universal, state controlled health care - available to all and paid for by taxes, or nothing."

Some claim the ACA is only a starting point - I'm not so optimistic. There's way too much money involved, and I'm of the opinion that when the single payer option was shelved the medical and medical insurance industries won. And that, as usual, the working "middle class" taxpayer will bear the cost.

roger — June 30, 2012 at 8:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger, sadly I have to agree with your take on " middle class bears cost" as that seems to be the usual. But I still maintain this is the right start. In Germany you have the mandated insurance ( and they complain about cost) and you can buy supplemental insurance. So much for socialism and free medical, eh? Not free either but universal. They don't go bankrupt due to medical bills, they don't lose their jobs over an illness, etc., so whatever gets us in the right direction, has my vote . A lot of work remains to be done, but we had to start somewhere.

luvithere — June 30, 2012 at 9:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — June 30, 2012 at 8:39 a.m.

prescription drug laws and drug scheduling has given the medical industry captive customers, we pay them or we die. This has lead to a corporate take over of what was once mainly non profit and those simply trying to make a living while helping their fellow humans. The individual mandate does nothing but give these corporations a blank check drawn on our accounts. If we return to the people the fundamental right to make their own medical decisions, we would take these grotesque profits away from corporations and return to mainly non profit medicine.

frobert — June 30, 2012 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Non profit medicine??? When did that happen?

luvithere — June 30, 2012 at 9:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


luvithere — June 30, 2012 at 9:41 a.m.

Prior to for profit corporations taking over our non profit hospitals and our non profit health insurance organizations.

frobert — June 30, 2012 at 9:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Ah I thought you were talking about regular doctors who seemed to rake it in in past years and are now whining about their low income. I don't feel sorry for them as I also hold them somewhat responsible for this mess. Being on the payroll of Pharma bites you every time.

luvithere — June 30, 2012 at 10:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Posting via iPad leaves a lot to be desired plus I got yard work to do. I leave you all for now with this somewhat snarky (I admit it) comment. For profit healthcare must be much beloved by those Republicans who love the free capitalistic market. Don't think they would make a difference between a regular business and healthcare. Money speaks and money counts. At least today' s party. They seemed to have a heart sometime in the past. Don' t remember when in the past thirty years but sometime before that.

luvithere — June 30, 2012 at 10:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Let em'! Put them all in Texas. A Perry/Paul/Palin ticket would serve them well.

**O’Malley: Some Republicans want to secede**
Maryland's governor tells Salon some GOP leaders "would like to get out of ... the Union" over Obamacare, Medicaid

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/29/o’malley_some_republicans_want_to_secede/

nailingit — June 30, 2012 at 10:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**This Is What a Businessman in the White House Looks Like**

The election of 2000 was the first time a Romney-esque figure, George W. Bush, a minor oilman and partial baseball team owner before serving as governor of Texas, became president. Bush, the first “MBA president” and his powerful Vice President Dick Cheney, who had been CEO of Halliburton, disproved the notion that businessmen are efficient managers or fiscally responsible in public office. The Bush-Cheney record—bungled occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the non-response to Hurricane Katrina, exploding national debt—and recent economic history should make Romney’s pitch a bad one for this election cycle.

And yet here is Romney, acting as if businessmen hawking deregulation and tax cuts are the solution to our economic and budgetary woes, not the cause of them. Romney treats the relevance of his business experience as so self-evident that he has not even bothered to come up with a real theory to justify it. When Time’s Mark Halperin recently asked Romney how exactly his business career would guide his actions as president, Romney offered only a restatement of his premise. He has even gone so far as to favorably mention a proposal to amend the Constitution to require three years of business experience to be president. “You see then he or she would understand that the policies they’re putting in place have to encourage small business, make it easier for business to grow,” he explained. This, of course, would have disqualified great wartime leaders such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/168520/what-businessman-white-house-looks

nailingit — June 30, 2012 at 10:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm not going to comment on the badly misconstrued words of Romney in this article. I am however going to comment on the misrepresentation that Lincoln had no business experience, he owned a grocery store for a short time and ran a private law practice for years. FDR, did work for a private law firm, and would probably count as business experience.

Just another garbage leftist rag.

frobert — June 30, 2012 at 1:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


You liberals keep posting about the Koch brothers, here are a couple you seem to have forgotten.

http://www.lasocialdiary.com/node/125921

http://www.facesofphilanthropy.com/david-h-koch/

frobert — June 30, 2012 at 3:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Frobert - you trying to rock the boat or what? From your social diary article about the Kochs --

"He and his brother Charles, along with George Soros, the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation each contributed $10 million to the ACLU to defeat parts of the USA Patriot Act."

We can't have the Dem's evil incarnate (Koch) consorting with the Repub's satan (Soros) and the ACLU. Tell me you made this up!!!

roger — June 30, 2012 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — June 30, 2012 at 4:20 p.m.

Although I can't find the original article I read, I am pretty sure Bloomberg was one of them also.

frobert — June 30, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK6RGV...

A small sampling/explanation of why many Americans believe these big bucks inheritors are bad for our country. I'm always taken back by some who need hero's to believe in.

Koch...it's the evil thing! :))

nailingit — June 30, 2012 at 4:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal



nailingit — June 30, 2012 at 4:53 p.m.

Wow three propaganda videos all from the same flawed source.

frobert — June 30, 2012 at 5:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


If we cannot trust our elected officials to take the time to read the legislation on which they will vote to make into law that will affect the people they are going to represent, then they have no business in the job. I don't care what party you affiliate with.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 5:26 a.m.

So, Johnson's idea of Universal Health Care back in the 60's was much shorter.

The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community. It is a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods.” - Lyndon Baines Johnson

as cited by Thom Hartman in Medicare “Part E”- for Everybody http://archive.truthout.org/medicare-part-e-everybody65901

mr_basil_seal — June 30, 2012 at 7:18 a.m

Not seeing the connection here.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 9:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I don't care who wrote the decision. I am saying that these elected official are playing both ends as it suits their agenda. How can you, in all good conscience, vote on a bill, yay or nay, that you have not read?

Someone please tell me I am wrong with this opinion, give me a logical reason why I am wrong, and don't resort to any sidebars about my grasp of the english language.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 7:11 a.m

I read not dissents, so I can only assume a consensus. Thank you.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 9:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


And I do not take exception to allowing the keep your child covered for an extended period. I am pointing out that, in an age where everyone wants to talk about a parents responsibility in raising their child, the powers that be are, by law, taking away our rights as parents.
I am not going to say that contraception is wrong. I will say that I do not want my child, who is still a dependent of mine, to have the contraception. If they are going to act like an adult and engage in sexual activity, they must be adult enough to acquire their own, at their own expense. Otherwise, be prepared to accept the responsibility for their actions.
Call me cruel, I don't care.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 9:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


luvithere-

It's either a tax, or it's not. And SCOTUS ruled it as a tax, and thus constitutional for Congress to impose.
And I will agree that some provisions of this law will be beneficial to many Americans. But by subsidizing policies for low income people, how is that different from what existed before?

Roger mentioned TRICARE. Being a TRICARE customer, I am fully aware of how an insurance policy managed by the government is operated. (Don't let anyone fool you, TRICARE was created and is managed by the DoD) There will be treatments and procedures that will not be covered.
But don't worry, I am sure our wonderful legislator ensured that you may still recieve elective care, such as birth control and abortions.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 9:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal



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

A touching new ad for the Catholic Church.

nailingit — July 1, 2012 at 1:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — June 30, 2012 at 5:38 p.m.

You can, of course, show us examples of the 'flaws' in that source. Right?

Show us how they have misconstrued facts, supplied misinformation , supplied fake data.

Something, anything.

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 5:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I read not dissents, so I can only assume a consensus. Thank you.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 9:30 p.m.

If you are talking about SCOTUS, it is a 5/4 decision. The "dissents" are well documented.

If you are talking about this forum, you might ask crazytrain for something substantive.

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 5:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*But by subsidizing policies for low income people, how is that different from what existed before?*

Could I posit that if you don't know, there is a fundamental issue about you coming on here (or any forum) and pontificate about why you don't like it?

Roger mentioned TRICARE. Being a TRICARE customer, I am fully aware of how an insurance policy managed by the government is operated. (Don't let anyone fool you, TRICARE was created and is managed by the DoD) There will be treatments and procedures that will not be covered. But don't worry, I am sure our wonderful legislator ensured that you may still recieve elective care, such as birth control and abortions.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 9:44 p.m.

Actually, Tricare does cover both. And there are legislative efforts (the Shaheen Amendment is one) to expand the coverage.

Now, the real question. Why do you feel that lying about basic facts is OK?

And why would you think that attempting to misinform people on this forum is going to work?

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 5:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*I am pointing out that, in an age where everyone wants to talk about a parents responsibility in raising their child, the powers that be are, by law, taking away our rights as parents.*

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 9:36 p.m.

That is a very broad claim; any chance you can show us the laws that are taking away your rights?

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 6:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — June 27, 2012 at 11:07 a.m.

The big issue with the CU decision is the expansion of personal human rights being given to corps. and other organizations.

If you are sincerely concerned about Constitutional law and SCOTUS decisions, I'd suggest some reading on the history of corporate personhood.

I'll let you pick the sources; but I'd further suggest that you find the sources being referred to in whatever you choose and read them in their entirety also. Dig up some annotated bibliographies and read those sources.

Of course, none of that works if you just decide to 'form your own opinion' out of whole cloth.

Step 1: study more of the scientific research than they refer to.

Step 2: study the data yourself.

Step 3: look at more than they show you,

extracted from: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/defense-against-the-dark-arts/

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 6:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.
"Show us how they have misconstrued facts, supplied misinformation , supplied fake data.

Something, anything."

What **is** accurate.

she maintains all of their wealth is inherited when they bring in almost as much every day as their original inheritances.

She maintains that they "do business with Iran even though it's illegal" This is already investigated, when they did do business with them, years ago it was perfectly legal.

She maintains that Koch's 1980 campaign coins were "like Caesar", Washington, Lincoln, Harrison, Eisenhower and Goldwater also minted campaign coins(I am sure many other campaigns have also)

She states "All that Americans for prosperity funding of the Tea party, that's Koch brothers" The Koch brothers are just two of over 90,000 donors to AFP, it is not **all** them.

On a side note, according to opensecrets.org, between their candidate and pac donations from 1989 to 2010 the Koch brothers political donations was about half what they donated to the ACLU.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 7:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 6:32 a.m.

If the first amendment was limited to people as many liberals are trying to claim, then freedom of religion would not apply to churches and freedom of the press would not apply to the press.

CU has nothing to do with corporate personhood, that was decided by the court in 1819.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 7:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 1, 2012 at 7:17 a.m.

para one - You've packed a lot of sweeping claims into that one sentence. Based on at least two illogical and unsupportable assumptions.

Try again. With something substantive in supporting them.

para two - IF you could have supported your first clause, then there would be something after the comma that would have.

And if you have done any reading on corporate personhood, then you know that you can't support your second claim.

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 7:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 7:28 a.m.

No sweeping claim at all, the first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law" and only limits assembly to people.

Give it up you have lost this one, not to mention the fact that it doesn't even help conservatives, liberal foundations donating to superpacs are much better funded then their conservative counterparts.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 7:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal



*Give it up you ...*

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 7:38 a.m.

Sounds like the bravado of Bob Larimar, Ray Menlo, Lew Waters.

Just before going off into more ranting and less and less logical discourse.

There are how many centuries, decades, years of legal discussion on the point you are trying to raise. Try keeping up on the information available on the topic you want to present yourself as an expert who 'forms their own opinion'.

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 7:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal



Btw, your attempts at supporting your claims about the Maddow vids:

No time stamps and your " " material oddly doesn't show up in the transcripts on at least one occasion and is quoted greatly out of context in another.

Typical non-sourcing, inaccurate claims,......

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 7:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 7:50 a.m.

You are making an **extraordinary** claim that the first amendment is limited to people, it is up to you to support it.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 7:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 7:51 a.m.

My quots from Maddow come from the link posted above, did you even watch the video?

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 7:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Sorry should have been "quotes"

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 7:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 7:50 a.m

"There are how many centuries, decades, years of legal discussion on the point you are trying to raise"

Can you come up with any precedent for first amendment being limited to "people"

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 8:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


That is a very broad claim; any chance you can show us the laws that are taking away your rights?

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 6:16 a.m

You apparently forgot the previous post-

The same kids who, at age 14, can use the policy you provide to obtain contraception, and even an abortion, without you ever having to know.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 7:14 a.m

And yes I know TRICARE covers these. And yes I know some are trying to expand coverage.
But if anyone has been paying attention, there has been puclic talk of the possibility of a veto of the Defense Authorization bill. The reason being that the total goes over the amount in the President's proposed budget.
There were various items that were discussed that the White House is taking exception to. One of the items specified was the fact that Congress did not include recommended increases in TRICARE cost and fees to be paid directly by the Service Members.
Now I will freely admit that our government as a whole needs to cut spending. I will even acknowledge that the DoD can certainly tighten its belt. But, from experience, I can identify many other areas in which DoD can cut it's cost that doesn't pass the burden to the pockets of the Service Members and their families.

danabwoodley — July 1, 2012 at 8:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — July 1, 2012 at 8:11 a.m.

You implied multiple cases:

the powers that be are, by law, taking away our rights as parents.

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 9:36 p.m.

Again, if you feel that allowing an adolescent to go the doctor unaccompanied by a parent or guardian is inherently a bad policy, please tell us.

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*And yes I know TRICARE covers these.
....
...pockets of the Service Members and their families.*

danabwoodley — July 1, 2012 at 8:11 a.m.

So, your argument about Tricare centers around funding? That birth control and abortions should be paid for by the insured in order to cut costs in our military budget?

How does that square with

*There will be treatments and procedures that will not be covered. But don't worry, I am sure our wonderful legislator ensured that you may still recieve elective care, such as birth control and abortions.*

danabwoodley — June 30, 2012 at 9:44 p.m.

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 8:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 1, 2012 at 7:58 a.m.

If they did, and at least one doesn't, then time stamping would be no problem.

Or links to the transcripts.

And, yes I did watch, that is why I can state that at least one of your claims is taken out of context.

Sorta like your interpretations of the Constitution and the centuries of legal discussion following it.

So, again we have yet more examples of unsourced 'form your own opinion' and misinformation in an effort to project an opinion.

Great rhetorical techniques.... Probably as good a reason as any that RP has been so effective as a legislator or driving any public discussion.

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 1, 2012 at 7:55 a.m

Each section refers to limiting laws being passed to limit the actions of PEOPLE.

The separate issue is the evolution, currently culminating in CU, in law granting human rights to a legal construct, the corporation.

And as a libertarian, you should be loudly proclaiming how invalid a philosophical idea that is.

(maybe I should start a new avatar: crazybasil...Then I could just rant and rave and make out of context claims. It is a lot easier than actually supporting a position through logic and information.)

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 9:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle said, "CBO estimates the cost of obamacare at $1 trillion .."
on — June 29, 2012 at 1:09 p.m.

With nothing to support it.

How 'bout you telling us why Ezra Klein is wrong?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cbo-health-reform-to-cut-deficit-by-50-billion-more-than-we-thought/2011/08/25/gIQAXgPSES_blog.html

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 9:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — June 29, 2012 at 2:08 p.m.

You whinged on about realclearpolitics being biased due to their not having the same delegate count as you claim.

We haven't seen a reputable source supporting your count.

We also haven't seen your explanation of how realclearpolitics' list of polls that show Obama leading Romney is biased, or inaccurate.

Or is that just yet another example of your unsupported 'form your own opinion'?

And maybe that is why you are jumping on today's argument; to not have to answer questions about your earlier statements.

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 9:07 a.m.

So corporations are only people **if**they are formed for the purpose of religion or press? Your argument nonsensical at best.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 10:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.

What I said is their bias is evidenced by their refusal to show bound delegates for Paul, my prime example was Iowa, they are claiming that the delegates are split among Santorum and Romney. Just about every reputable news source reported that Paul won a large majority of the Iowa delegates.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 10:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 1, 2012 at 10:02 a.m.

Put your thinking cap on; even in 'form your own opinion', that makes no sense.

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 10:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.

Can you come up with any precedent that the first amendment only applies to people?

The legal precedent seems to agree with my view.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 10:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Basil

I assume you are on board with the democrats attempt to repeal the first amendment?

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 10:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 7:50 a.m.

"Sounds like the bravado of Bob Larimar, Ray Menlo, Lew Waters."

You are the one trying to defend MSNBC commentary as fact, that sounds an awful lot like Ray with Fox.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 10:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WJIUH...

There are only a handful of Rhodes Scholars in the world. According to Wiki 7,000 since it's inception in 1902 and about 4,000 living today. It's Wiki, so if anyone can source more accurately please do so. Rhodes scholarships are based not only on academic achievement, but on strength of character, a quality that falls by the wayside with many.

Rachel Maddow happens to be one of "the chosen".

One of Rachel strengths (which are many, to include teaching her viewers how to make a mean Gin Giblet), is to reduce talking points into facts, and demonstrating how policy making shapes the world in which we live.

A great look at "both sides" of conservatism.

Somehow, as with most policies that intrude on our individual liberties and freedoms, the Koch brothers manage to track in some dirt.

nailingit — July 1, 2012 at 11:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Wow, more garbage commentary, somehow I am not surprised.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 11:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Funny, I just tried to compare Maddow's good works with the Koch brothers on facesofphilanthropy.com and she doesn't have a listing. So she just spends her time tearing down those who do good works and doesn't do any herself?

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 11:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — July 1, 2012 at 11:24 a.m.

"Rhodes scholarships are based not only on academic achievement, but on strength of character, a quality that falls by the wayside with many."

They also include people like Richard Lugar and Bobby Jindal, but I don't see you supporting their opinions as fact.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 12:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


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

A powerful and compelling video that provides a look into what a Romney America would be like.

OBAMA 2012

nailingit — July 1, 2012 at 12:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"One of Rachel strengths... is to reduce talking points into facts, and demonstrating how policy making shapes the world in which we live." -- nailingit — July 1, 2012 at 11:24 a.m.

So, given the millions of people who called themselves dittoheads back in the '90s, and frequently called in to say they used his words to beat down the liberal elitists, I take it you also admit Rush Limbaugh is/was a valid commentator on political matters.

Though dear Rachel actually reminds me more of another equally irritating TV pontificator - Sean Hannity.

roger — July 1, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


And a scan of Wiki's list of Rhodes scholars shows we're overlooking one of the most stellar members - Bob Hawke of Australia, from 1953. His most impressive accomplishment? World record for the fastest consumption of a yard glass of beer. (As an afterthought, he was also Australia's PM later on.)

But my personal favorite will always remain Billy Bob Clinton - he redefined certain activities as not being sex, and actually got away with it - something no other husband in modern years could have gotten away with.

roger — July 1, 2012 at 1:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 1, 2012 at 10:10 a.m.

Let us know when you've got the data.

BTW, also still waiting for your sources that support your claims about:

Number of Paul delegates

Why Realclearpolitics is not a valid source

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 1:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger-*So, given the millions of people who called themselves dittoheads back in the '90s, and frequently called in to say they used his words to beat down the liberal elitists, I take it you also admit Rush Limbaugh is/was a valid commentator on political matters.*

I suppose the difference would fact based analogy with a brilliant mind to accompany it, and real time events to back it up. Feel free to dispute anything said in the video roger.

Still waiting for some of those solutions you propose to address your idea of global overpopulation, and how your ideas regarding sterilization comes into play. You brought it up once again a while back and never responded to your own messaging when asked about it.

*No one wants to consider that the world has a finite capacity to support life. I'm not claiming to know exactly what the limit is, but I figure 7 billion people are doing a good job of stretching it to the limit. (And yes, Nails, this is my way of interjecting that we need to take a serious look at human population control measures if we want to preserve all life on this planet.)*

June 23, 2012 at 8:16 a.m.

nailingit — July 1, 2012 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 1:57 p.m.

"frobert — July 1, 2012 at 10:10 a.m.

Let us know when you've got the data."

What data? Citizens united is the precedent.

"Number of Paul delegates"

My conclusion from counting awarded delegates, I don't need a liberal rag to do my counting for me.

"Why Realclearpolitics is not a valid source"

This, I have answered several times already, RCP has shown bias therefore calling into question **all** of it's conclusions.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 2:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal


My conclusion from counting awarded delegates, I don't need a liberal rag to do my counting for me.

"Why Realclearpolitics is not a valid source"

This, I have answered several times already, RCP has shown bias therefore calling into question all of it's conclusions.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 2:41 p.m.

Yet, oddly, you haven't been able to cite a source for your having "counting awarded delegates".

And two weeks ago you stated it was difficult to get a number .

You haven't been able to show how RCP's numbers are inaccurate. You've claimed that they are. And you have claimed you've proven it.

But you brought no sources forward as support. As evidence.

Simply claiming a source "has shown bias" is =/= to showing a source is systematically biased.

RCP compiles polls form a wide range of sources. Look at their list. Look at all the individual polls showing a preference for reelecting Obama.

Now, you claim that that long list is 'biased'.

Every single one?

All RCP did was compile the list and average the results.

So, I'd say that you following such thinking shows a lack of ability to reason, "..therefore calling into question all of (your) conclusions."

Still waiting for you to show us your historical and legal expertise in supporting your 1st Amendment claims.

Still waiting for your proof of your quotes from the RM vids

And I'd imagine I could lengthen this list by looking over the past few weeks.

(maybe I should start a new avatar: crazybasil...Then I could just rant and rave and make out of context claims. It is a lot easier than actually supporting a position through logic and information.)

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 2:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 2:54 p.m.

I have answered those questions over and over, you on the other hand have yet to provide any shred of proof or legal precedent that the first amendment applies only to people, or any other of your recent arguments. You continue to insist my information is flawed but you haven't refuted any of it, just denied it.

Your current avatar is doing a fine job of ranting and raving without regard for logic.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — July 1, 2012 at 12:59 p.m

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/lemon-picking-bain-capital-obama-style/

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 3:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I have answered those questions over and over,

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 3:11 p.m.

Really?

You could cite some timestamped responses.

Then we'd have an idea of what you consider the definition of "answered" is.

Nothing on this day:

Proof of a reliable site with Paul numbers that match your claims.

Proof that your RM quotes are accurate and in context

Proof of your claims about the First Amendment

Proof of your claim about RealclearPolitics being biased.

Proof that the poll data at RCP is inaccurate, misleading, biased.

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.

You still haven't come up with any precedent that the first amendment only applies to people.

You have provided not support for your claim that my statements concerning Maddows commentary was inaccurate.

You have provided no proof that RP did not in fact win Iowa.

I'm waiting.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 3:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


RP winning or not winning Iowa =/= proving bias in realclearpolitics' list of independent polls.

You can't bring evidence that supports your delegate count. That is what you hinge your claim that RCP is biased on. And you can't bring proof they are citing inaccurate numbers.

You can't bring basic links to the transcripts or timestamping of you claim are quotes by RM. IF you do that, then we can proceed.

But I do know why you won't.

Your First Amendment argument is unsupported; thus it is your job to support. Not my job to disprove.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 4:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 4:05 p.m.

I have already brought evidence that RCP is refusing to count bound delegates for RP, you could argue that that is not sufficient to discount all of their results, but that would just be opinion.

You have come up with no argument concerning my RM statements for me to rebut, just your opinion with no facts to refute mine.

My first amendment argument is supported by Citizens united, coupled with absolutely no precedent to counter it.

My argument is logical with supporting facts, your argument is incoherent and disjointed, you keep insisting I bring forth more facts to prove my argument, and you have yet to bring forth a single fact.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you have yet to providing any supporting argument, I suggest you read your own link.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*And a scan of Wiki's list of Rhodes scholars shows we're overlooking one of the most stellar members - Bob Hawke of Australia, from 1953. His most impressive accomplishment? World record for the fastest consumption of a yard glass of beer. (As an afterthought, he was also Australia's PM later on.)

But my personal favorite will always remain Billy Bob Clinton - he redefined certain activities as not being sex, and actually got away with it - something no other husband in modern years could have gotten away with.*

roger — July 1, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.

Just curious, your post seems intended to do nothing more than attempt to marginalize Rhodes Scholars. Why is that?

I would suggest you could cite a better example regarding marginalization, than to take note of a man who, in spite of his personal shortcomings became leader of the free world for eight years.

Perhaps I'm misreading your intent as he was your "personal favorite".

Again, concerning your advocacy of forced sterilization, how would you have the powers that be carry them out? Looking forward to your response.

nailingit — July 1, 2012 at 6:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*I have already brought evidence that RCP is refusing to count bound delegates for RP, ...*

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 4:37 p.m.

When did you do that? Pretty simple request.

If you can't do that, then most any discussion with you is going to focus on you just saying 'I did'.

So if you can't substantiate this claim you make that you already proved it, even to your own satisfaction, then there isn't much point in discussing much of anything with you.

Then, if you can post where you "..already brought evidence ..", we can talk about the quality of that evidence.

Then, after that, we can point out how:

You can't bring forward evidence that your RM quotes are accurate and in context.

You can't support your First Amendment argument

You haven't brought evidence - other than your claim of bias - about your claim of bias at RCP.

This last one really takes the cake, btw. You are arguing that RCP is biased in presenting a list of national polls. A long, comprehensive list.

mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 6:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal



Quiz time! How much do you know about healthcare reform?

From my new favorite print journalism source, the CS Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0326/How-much-do-you-know-about-health-care-reform-Take-our-quiz/Official-name

Post your scores. After I take it, you will hear from me. :)

manthou — July 1, 2012 at 6:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 1, 2012 at 6:23 p.m.

All you have proven today is that when faced with irrefutable evidence based on the standards you claim to support (eg citizens united decision and the first amendment) you will still not admit you are wrong. You have proved you are a waste of time to argue with.

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 6:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EZWrcoZ110&feature;=related

Happy to give Rachel more press!

Of nukes..grenade launchers..Ron Paul..nukes adn a guy named Bush.

Not to mention..common sense.

nailingit — July 1, 2012 at 6:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


...adn more nukes..adn..oops!

nailingit — July 1, 2012 at 6:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou- I reflect back to what I told my folks a few times growing up. I gotta D but I passed!

A couple of "all of the above" answers were a little suspect imo.

nailingit — July 1, 2012 at 7:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit: LOL! Me too! Pretty low scorer and some of the answers were so easy to eliminate. My brain is going soft.

But I did learn one thing that surprised me: there is an exempt group in the Affordable Care Act:

"The Amish and Mennonites are the only two established religious groups that qualify for the exemption. That’s because the narrowly written religious exemption applies only to those who refuse to participate in the Social Security system and are opposed to the idea of government assistance via insurance. Christian Scientists, who rely on prayer and spiritual healing for their health care rather than drugs and medical technology, are not exempt from the mandate or penalties because church members participate in the Social Security system. In addition, the Christian Science church itself does not discourage its members from purchasing health-care or other insurance policies if they so choose. There is a second form of religious exemption in the law. It allows a waiver from the mandate for anyone participating in a verified “health care sharing ministry,” in which participants pool resources to help other members pay all their medical costs. That exemption does not appear to be tied to Social Security."

manthou — July 1, 2012 at 8:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The above information I got from the CS Monitor quiz got me thinking about this:

Why don't the social program naysayers, the ones who cry so loud and long about government bail outs, simply put their money where their mouths are and opt themselves out of Social Security and Medicare?

If they don't like the programs, just don't participate. If they don't need the programs, donate your part to someone who does.

manthou — July 1, 2012 at 9:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Basil-

You are quite skilled at avoiding comment on a topic when you disagree, but cannot come up with a logical way to refute. Instead, you pick and choose portions of anothers words in an attempt to make it sound as though they are not clear in their thoughts.

My points were actually clear, through the use of sarcasm. TRICARE is federally funded, hence funded by taxpayers. I do not have an issue with this funding source, since the benefits are for federal employees. I do take exception to coverage of elective care, the most glaring examples being contraception and abortion. Yes there are occasions where there is a legitimate medical reason for using a birth control pill, and that can be allowed so longs as deemed necessary for a womans health, not because you want to have sex and not concieve.
The other point is that we will continue the funding for these procedures, but increase out of pocket costs to the Service Member.
As I stated, yes, the DoD can cut costs. I know many areas in which that can be done. But it should not be done at the expense of the Service Member and their families. It seems really ironic considering the celebration of the ACA making care cost less for so many Americans.

Now I would ask that if there is any disagreement, please give me clear counterpoints. Not begrudge my grasp of the English language, or muddle my words trying make me out to be an imbicile. Or another possiblity, as much as it may be unpleasant for some, state that you do agree, even if in part, and we can perhaps start a constructive dialogue about what we, as citizen, can do to generate a desired response from our elected representatives.

danabwoodley — July 1, 2012 at 9:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Off topic, but I have to share this:

Bought my pooch one of those "thunder shirts" that are supposed to calm them and reduce stress (as in nightly firework explosions inches from their home). It looks like a doggie straight jacket.

Honestly, I do not own stock in the company (but I wish I did now), but I have to say, she really, really likes it and is sound asleep beside me while the neighbors blow up the world around us.
Without it, she would be cowering in the depths of the closet.

manthou — July 1, 2012 at 9:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Good interview. You can only ask a question so many times and it gets absurd. Given the time allotted, I think Papa Mike would have been pleased.

Apologies for the source...:)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1715039029001/

nailingit — July 1, 2012 at 11:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — July 1, 2012 at 11:50 p.m.

Sure did a good job of sticking to talking points without actually answering the question. Almost like he took lessons from Sarah P.

mr_basil_seal — July 2, 2012 at 5:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — July 1, 2012 at 7:53 p.m.

Maybe you should try. Tell us how it went.

mr_basil_seal — July 2, 2012 at 6:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*faced with irrefutable evidence based .*

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 6:46 p.m

Did you ever show us your "..irrefutable evidence..."?

I do see where you rely on your legal expertise to deliver an opinion.

The Robert's court like all courts has made what I consider mistakes,...

frobert — June 27, 2012 at 11:07 a.m.

And where you claim to have brought evidence

I have already brought evidence that RCP is refusing to count bound delegates for RP, ...

frobert — July 1, 2012 at 4:37 p.m

But, actually citing?

When did you do that? Pretty simple request.

If you can't do that, then most any discussion with you is going to focus on you just saying 'I did'.

So if you can't substantiate this claim you make that you already proved it, even to your own satisfaction, then there isn't much point in discussing much of anything with you.

Then, if you can post where you "..already brought evidence ..", we can talk about the quality of that evidence.

Then, after that, we can point out how:

You can't bring forward evidence that your RM quotes are accurate and in context.

You can't support your First Amendment argument

You haven't brought evidence - other than your claim of bias - about your claim of bias at RCP.
This last one really takes the cake, btw. You are arguing that RCP is biased in presenting a list of national polls. A long, comprehensive list.

mr_basil_seal — July 2, 2012 at 6:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal



"..through the use of sarcasm..."
danabwoodley — July 1, 2012 at 9:10 p.m.

OK, I've re-read all your posts; Maybe you better repost them with bolding in the sarcastic parts.

Oh, wait, maybe this part---

"can be allowed so longs as deemed necessary for a womans health, not because you want to have sex and not concieve."

mr_basil_seal — July 2, 2012 at 6:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Forum Login