text:
Alan Colmes and Cal Thomas Spar Over Media's Love For Obama
Alan Colmes and Cal Thomas had a humorous exchange about the media's love for Obama on Saturday's "Fox News Watch."
After Thomas asked when the press will come to their senses and admit they were wrong about the messiah-like powers of the former junior Senator from Illinois, Colmes replied, "You keep presuming the media is supporting this guy and they're not" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CAL THOMAS: You know what the press is really reluctant to do, and I think they're going to have to do it at some point? We've said on this show before they were cheerleaders leading up to 2008 election. This was the guy who was going to part the waters. He was going to smooth out the crooked places, do all of these things, cure tooth decay, falling hair, everything else, and now they're realizing he's mortal just like every other president. When are they coming to their senses and say, "You know, we were wrong about this guy?"
ALAN COLMES: You keep presuming the media is supporting this guy and they're not.
THOMAS: Well, they certainly did in 2008.
COLMES: They're not.
THOMAS: Well, then they were wrong.
COLMES: You know what, whenever some liberal gets elected, and he's not even that liberal…
THOMAS: [Laughs]
COLMES: …it's the media that did it. Whenever a conservative does, it's the people have spoken.
So Colmes doesn't only believe the media haven't been supporting Obama, he also thinks the current White House resident isn't that liberal.
Do you need to know anything more about the value of his opinions?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
In the dictionary beside the
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 11:41am.
In the dictionary beside the word dumbass is a picture of Colmes. This guy is as bad as DemocRAT hack as there is. Everytime I see this fool on Fox I turn it. Do you ever see him on any other network?
- Login to post comments
the people that they claim to want to help
Submitted by russedav on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 8:33am.
Liberals seem to assume that, if you don't believe in their particular political solutions, then you don't really care about the people that they claim to want to help. Dr. Thomas Sowell
True indeed. They're only narcissists who use others for their lust for power, as with their alleged "minority" slaves (who will soon be the majority if current "majority" abortion continues unchecked) they despise (and who sadly too often have been so programmed as to want to be despised), never dignifying them by recognizing their God-given abilities and aspirations in meaningful independent advancement (e.g. Godfather-CEO & Presidential candidate Cain) versus being merely a valueless part of their vile fascist machines. I almost wrote "to fulfill their lust for power" except that it, typical for lust vs love, can never be fulfilled, another of many reasons why the insane "homosex-" of the "gay marriage" delusion is not just an oxymoron (homo=same+sex=opposite?!) but a fasciswt fraud that must silence and oppress those it opposes in its derangement (including six millennia of civilization), e.g. http://exodus.to for those who have been freed from the deathstyle, a threat that might expose them as the few evil fascist liar ringleaders and their majority fools/tools.
See "The gay invention" exposed at http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f
With deranged fascist sodomite Kinsey exposed at www.drjudithreisman.org.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 1:34pm.
Wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the face.That might be why he lies all the time.Obama not a liberal..give me a break.
- Login to post comments
",,, value of his opinions?" shrug my shoulders.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 11:42am.
Comedic relief? Wonder what his mother and father think about what he has become?
Wonder what his job title is, Jester?
- Login to post comments
One bad word
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 11:44am.
One negative word will cancel 100 praising stories. Just ask any Dim.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by iveseenitall on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 11:49am.
No better example of a modern "liberal" than Alan Colmes. And these pathetic people walk among us. Stay alert, protect your children.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (progressive)
- Login to post comments
How the HELL did Hannity work with this yutz,,
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 11:52am.
for TEN years, without BELTING his ass, even ONCE? That shows great strength, from Sean, and I would have cleaned his clock, WEEKLY, and probably TWICE on Sundays, even if they didnt broadcast on that day!
- Login to post comments
amen to that, it is time to
Submitted by jkwtrading on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 1:09pm.
amen to that, it is time to belt some of these libs..
they are not rational..
- Login to post comments
You know, thats what we have to do,,
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 5:10pm.
As my father said and did, when all else fails, the only solution is a quick but efficient ass-kicking, whether its a kid who takes your ball on the playground, a bully making your life miserable, or a lib giving you so much sh*t that they wont understand anything else. Also, its good policy for these little rogue countries starting trouble with the US, and what we should do with them! But, Fish-Faced Colmes has had it coming to him!
- Login to post comments
The thing is...
Submitted by HelenS on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 6:22pm.
Even though a well deserved, beautifully delivered, azz kicking would be satisfying and entertaining, it would still not be understood by the liberal on the receiving end. They'd probably whimper and cry but not because of the trouncing. Their feelings would be hurt because they wouldn't understand why you could possibly think they deserved such inconsiderate treatment.
I swear, they're so deluded they don't even see how pathetic and foolish they are!
A classic case of "too bad stupidity isn't painful" needing to be tested.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
- Login to post comments
Colmes is a textbook leftie:
Submitted by robert108 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 12:18pm.
Colmes is a textbook leftie: deny everything, admit nothing, and mindlessly repeat the latest Dem talking points.
- Login to post comments
The Alien still proves
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 12:20pm.
The Alien still proves himself - every time he opens his mouth - that he is a delusional and out of touch as the rest of the MSM that he denies having supported Boy O'Blunder...............hell, we ALL know that!!! I'd like to say that he, and they, are in 'denial' mode............but I don't think that they are self-aware enough to actually recognize it, so they are just following their deluded mindset to the edge of the cliff. Unfortunatly, they are trying to drag us with them................
- Login to post comments
Not that Liberal? Who would Colmes define to be a Liberal?
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 12:22pm.
How far left do you have to be to be a Liberal according to Colmes? Would Hugo Chavez qualify as a liberal? Not left enough? How about Castro? Or maybe Lenin? Stalin was a big government guy, surely he would make it into the Liberal Hall of Fame.
- Login to post comments
On his best day, Colmes the
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 1:36pm.
On his best day, Colmes the Squirrel is a pretty useless commentator (which is why he's hired to play a liberal on Fox; so they never have to hear from a real one), but he's correct about Obama. Policywise, Obama's administration would, only a few years ago, have been uncontroversially characterized by pretty much everyone as standard-issue conservative Republican. He's well to the right of both his party and of the public (and has, in fact, repeatedly trashed the liberals). Even calling him a "liberal" is being generous, and any suggestion that he is of the far left speaks only to the complete ignorance, the profound imbecility, and/or the outright lunacy of those offering the characterization.
- Login to post comments
And you're serious about what
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 1:40pm.
And you're serious about what you just wrote???
- Login to post comments
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 1:40pm.
Step away from the computer.Get up and walk outside.Hopefully reality will come back to you.Obama is liberal and your DNC talking points won't change that.
- Login to post comments
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 2:18pm.
Even a self-described liberal doesn't want to claim him.
Liberals are all alike.
Methinks thee doth protest too much, cl!
- Login to post comments
You lie.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 3:23pm.
Obama -- forced homosexuality into the military. Bush's policy was a continuation of Clinton's "Don't ask / don't tell."
Obama -- refuses to support DOMA. Bush's policy was to uphold the law.
Obama -- appointed people to the NLRB to punish non-union shops. Bush didn't.
Obama -- instituted operation Gunrunner, or appointed people that did, to push anti-gun positions. Bush didn't do any such thing.
Obama -- rescinded the Mexico City no abortion funding policy. Bush kept it.
Note that Bush wasn't even a conservative in several areas; he ran as a conservative and governed as one for about 2 years, and after that, it was downhill. So you are not only ignorant of Bush, you are completely ignorant as to what constitutes a conservative position. For instance, Bush's position on the borders was not conservative.
Your characterization of Obama as a "standard-issue conservative republican" is a lie. Your ignorance as to what is conservative and what Bush supported is a lie. This is not an accident; you are a liar. Please seek help.
Visions and Principles blog
- Login to post comments
You make my case for me...
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 9:26pm.
...when you make your own case rest on a list of mostly minor, mostly uber-oscure issues, while completely ignoring most of what the Obama administration has actually done.
A few comments on your little list:
"Obama -- forced homosexuality into the military. Bush's policy was a continuation of Clinton's 'Don't ask / don't tell.'"
Obama's, on the other hand, was in line with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the public. The CNN/Opinion Research poll from November found that 72% of respondents favored "permitting people who are openly gay or lesbian to serve in the military" (23% opposed). A CBS News poll from December found that 69% favor "allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military"; 53% "strongly" favored it (23% were opposed). In the ABC News/Washington Post poll from December, 77% said homosexuals who "publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military" (21% opposed). That particular poll has asked the same question repeatedly over 18 years, and allowing gays to serve has been a supermajority position since 2001. Obama, far from being some wild-eyed "liberal" on this, is, in fact, a Johnny-come-lately--the public came around on this issue many years ago. Even at that, Obama certainly hasn't shown ANY enthusiasm for terminating the Clinton policy--he chose to appeal the court ruling that did away with it, and his administration is, to this day, still severing gay people from the military. Obama hasn't "forced homosexuality into the military"--it is already there, and always has been. Your characterization just demonstrates your own lack of understanding of the issue.
"Obama -- refuses to support DOMA. Bush's policy was to uphold the law."
It's true that Obama "refuses to support DOMA"; it's also true it has repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional. Obama agrees with this judgment. It's impossible to make this an example of Obama's extreme "liberalism," because, again, the public overwhelmingly supports legal recognition of homosexual unions, and has for years. A CBS News poll from last August found that 70% of respondents support either full marriage rights (40%) or the more watered-down "civil unions" (30%). Only 25% opposed any legal recognition. Support for legal recognition in some form was a majority position that cut across all political lines--73% of Democrats, 73% of independents, and 59% of Republicans supported it. This same poll has been conducted 14 times since 2004--some form of legal recognition has been the majority position of the public from the first to the most recent. Most recently, full marriage rights have garnered majority support from the public, reflected in the ABC News/Washington Post poll, the CNN/Opinion Research poll, and the Gallup poll. Obama isn't just a Johnny-come-lately on this one; he's actually to the right of the public, because he favors only legal civil unions, rather than full marriage rights.
"Obama -- instituted operation Gunrunner, or appointed people that did, to push anti-gun positions. Bush didn't do any such thing."
Obama did NOT institute Project Gunrunner, nor did appoint the people who did, nor is it a program to "push anti-gun positions." It's an effort to check the flow of arms to Mexican drug cartels, and, contrary to your false assertion, was, in fact, established by Bush in 2005, and had carried out over 1,400 prosecutions before Obama was ever even president.
I could continue, but the point--that you lack one--is made.
What the Obama has actually done is exactly what I said he's done--governed as a conservative Republican.
When it came time to tackle health care, for example, the liberals favored a single-payer approach. The Obama didn't even give that idea a glance, and, instead, adopted, as his own, a national version of the plan established in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, the conservative Republican who was then the governor and is now the front-runner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Romney had adopted, as his plan, one created by congressional Republicans in the 1990s as an alternative to Clinton's health care plan. Republicans had, at various times, advocated that same plan for 15 years before the Obama claimed it as "his." The Obama threw in one bone to the liberals in the public option, and it was favored by the public by a wide margin, and by majorities in both houses of congress, but Obama never pressed for it, and it was later revealed he had cut a back-room deal with the industry before the health care debate had even started--he negotiated it away right up front. It was, in effect, never even on the table, and the administration publicly bashed the liberals who opposed his plan.
(Passing nothing at all would have been FAR better than the Romney welfare bill for the insurance industry that was passed.)
Throughout the Obama administration jobs have been the big concern of the liberals and of the public, but the Obama has done little for them. He pressed for that stimulus bill, early on, but it was too small, poorly directed for a proper stimulus, and larded up with less stimulative tax cuts in a vain and stupid effort to get Republicans on board, when they made it very plain they were going to oppose anything he suggested merely because he suggested it. But while all but three Repubs voted against it, over half of the Republicans caucus in congress then returned home to take credit for all the money it was pouring into their states and districts. As endorsements go, that's good enough for me. Obama gave lip-service support for the Democratic anti-offshoring bill, designed to remove incentives for American companies offshoring jobs and offer generous incentives for them to move already offshored jobs back to the U.S. It had majority support, but, as usual, Obama didn't do a thing to help it--barely even mentioned it, in fact--and Senate Republicans were allowed to filibuster it to death. At a time of such high unemployment, this should have been a major scandal; instead, it was barely even mentioned by anyone--most of the public was never even told it existed. In Obama's latest "jobs" initiative, he apparently decided unemployment was still too low, and negotiated nearly $39 billion in budget cuts with House Republicans, cuts that will wipe out nearly 400,000 jobs.
Given no less than two opportunities to appoint justices to the Supreme Court--one of the most important things presidents do--he has chosen to move the court--already reactionary to the point of illness--even further to the right. Only days before the BP disaster vividly illustrated the "wisdom" of deep-water oil drilling, he was pushing for further deep-water drilling. Likewise, he pimped for more nuclear plants just before Japan demonstrated the "wisdom" of that. He signed an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the well-off. He has involved the U.S. in yet another stupid and unnecessary war, and has continued Bush's wars. The "last combat troops" allegedly left Iraq last year, yet 50,000 servicemen are still there, the war continues, and the casualties and expense continue to mount with no clearer aim than the operation ever had. The Obama's alleged drawdown in Afghanistan, which has been the subject of so much hype the last few days, is merely a planned withdrawal of the "surge" forces he, himself, sent there. Obama has refused to prosecute or even significantly investigate the criminal wrongdoing of the previous regime. He has maintained and even defended, against every significant challenge, Bush's assertions of fascistic powers.
And so on. As I said before, this administration would, only a few years ago, have been regarded, uncontroversially, as conservative Republican. You haven't offered anything resembling a case for your own point of view, but you did inadvertently help demonstrate that mine was correct.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 10:17pm.
You are totally full of poo-poo caca.
For our Rio readers, that's unadulterated bullsh*t. (h/t jon t.)
Actually, you spout incredibly unbelievable lies.
Obama moved the Supreme Court "even further" to the right by appointing Sotomayor and Kagan?
Jeez, if you ain't certifiable, no one is.
Evidently, Admin keeps you around for the comedic effect.
- Login to post comments
"Actually, you spout
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 10:47pm.
"Actually, you spout incredibly unbelievable lies."
And to back this up, you offer a single example:
"Obama moved the Supreme Court 'even further' to the right by appointing Sotomayor and Kagan?"
Correct, and it's not even a seriously disputable point. When moderate conservative David Souter retired, Obama appointed Sotomayor, a former corporate lawyer who had been appointed to the federal bench by George Bush Sr., and, when hearing cases alongside Republican-appointed judges, had voted with those judges 95% of the time. In criminal cases--she'd heard more than 800 of them over the years--she'd voted with her Republican-appointed colleagues 97% of the time. The single best measure of a liberal justice is strong support for the 1st Amendment, but of the 19 1st Amendment cases Sotomayor had personally authored, she'd sided with the individual only 5 times. Later, when it came time to replace John Paul Stevens, the most liberal member of the court (and one of the only two liberals on it), he went with Kagan, who was strong on corporate "free speech," but didn't seem to have much regard for actual free speech (that being of actual humans), and who had enthusiastically endorsed the nonsensical legal framework of Bush's War On Terror [tm], including the assumption, by the president, of illegal, unconstitutional, and fascistic kidnapping "powers." This was his replacement for the most liberal justice on the court; he moved it to the right.
- Login to post comments
Actually, most of your posts are---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 10:55pm.
full of either lies, crap, or a mixture of both.
You are not only a liar, you are a stupid one.
Unbelievably stupid if you think anyone is buying your bullshit.
- Login to post comments
"Duhhh, you lie!" Haha. So
Submitted by JasonC on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 11:31pm.
"Duhhh, you lie!"
Haha. So refute something he said. With maybe a fraction of the detail and precision with which he just shattered the conservative fantasy that Obama is some hybrid of V.I. Lenin and Bobby Seals.
Well done, CL. I'm surprised none of the right-wingers on this site swooped in to remind us all that Obama often reads from a teleprompter (like every other major politician of the modern era). Because, you know, then they could call him the Teleprompter-in-Chief. Cause that's clever. And because the average NBers greatest rhetorical gift is to combine any left-of-Limbaugh politician's name with an unsavory descriptor. Hitlery Clinton! Nancy Smellosi! Oh, the trenchant commentary they provide!
Especially enjoyed your reminder that Obama's dreaded (and somehow simultaneously fascist and communist, depending on which ill-informed tea party sign you're reading) health care reform is based quite closely on that of my home state's. No death panels here in MA just yet. Who'd have thought Sarah P. would blow something out of proportion?
- Login to post comments
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 11:54pm.
I don't know about MA but I do know about Oregon.
"And because the average NBers greatest rhetorical gift is to combine any left-of-Limbaugh politician's name with an unsavory descriptor. Hitlery Clinton! Nancy Smellosi! Oh, the trenchant commentary they provide!"
Did you want to back this up or are you just talking out your ass.Shoot shouldn't take you more than a few minutes to find a couple hundred of those since the average NBers use it.
CL lies so why bother with him/her.Opinions are not facts.He/she has the right to there opinion not their own facts.H/T DM
- Login to post comments
You'd get better (and far
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 4:45am.
You'd get better (and far more accurate) news from Saturday morning cartoons than from WorldNutDaily. The Oregon situation has, to be clear, absolutely nothing to do with this thread, but since it's been raised, I'll point out the parts WND left out. The woman in question was a lifelong smoker in final-stage terminal lung cancer. No hope. No chance of recovery. Walking dead. And she was in hardcore denial about it. The drug her doctor suggested was extremely expensive, and was ineffective in 92% of patients at that stage. It was no cure--when effective, it extended life by only a few months. The drug company agreed to provide her with the drug for free for at least a year, but it was completely ineffective, and she died shortly after starting it, proving the state had made the right call. Situations like that are hard, and they're tragic, but they're no argument against a proper health care system. If one wants to examine the mountains of genuinely grisly stories of people denied proper care in the U.S. over money, it requires looking at the real-life death panels--the private insurance industry.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:02pm.
So your God and you know it for a fact that she only had several months left to live when she got the notice?Funny I know personally of someone who was terminal and lived 2 years longer than she was suppose to.By the way try reading the post.It was to JasonC and he brought up about Death Panels.I responded to him.I sure you brought up to JasonC that he was off topic.If you didn't your a hypocrite.
"A 2005 New England Journal of Medicine study found the drug erlotinib, marketed as Tarceva, does marginally improve survival for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who had completed standard chemotherapy.
The median survival among patients who took erlotinib was 6.7 months compared to 4.7 months for those on placebo. At one year, 31 percent of the patients taking erlotinib were still alive compared to 22 percent of those taking the placebo."
- Login to post comments
It has been rather easily
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:19am.
It has been rather easily backed up a few posts down. All examples are taken from a single page. I don't doubt that I could compile hundreds just from this past month if I was willing to devote the time to it. Which I am not. But suffice to say, the fruit yielded below was the result of perusing the message board of one NB article, selected at random. Which isn't to say that conservative thought as a whole can be dismissed because of the childlike behavior of a larger-than-expected demographic of posters; it's just sad, is all.
I'm still waiting for a substantive rebuttal to CL's arguments. Indeed, opinions are not facts. But if the issue of Obama's liberalness is a matter of opinion, then CL's or mine is as good as yours. CL, however, has provided compelling evidence that the right's fevered condemnation of Obama's political leanings is exaggerated. I am a little dubious about the high percentages (i.e. Supermajority) of Americans who allegedly support openly gay servicemen and women, and who are opposed to the disgusting DOMA, but otherwise I wonder what the counter-attack to CL's post would be, exactly.
Thus far, the opposition on this forum has been vehement but utterly substanceless.
Obama doesn't become more liberal just because conservatives say he is and because it helps them make sense of the world.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:13pm.
Show me where the Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional.Post the link.As far as Obama not being a liberal well keep up with the DNC talking points.CLs are bogus.So are yours.Oh gee Obama didn't ask for enough stimulus he can't be a lib.Gee Obamacare didn't have single payer so it isn't left wing.Romney is a conservative?Lie all you want but it don't wash.Save it for Kos or DU.
- Login to post comments
Oh Obama is certainly
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:44pm.
Oh Obama is certainly liberal. What he is not is a card-carrying "anti-American" radical.
Did he say the Supreme Court ruled this?
No, he did not say that. He said that "it has repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional." And yes, that is some slippery phrasing. But you're not going to trick me into contradicting words that you've put into someone else's mouth.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:20pm.
CL is the one that said Obama wasn't a liberal.Why don't you copy and paste where I said he was a anti American radical..Ohh just because I know this would be to tough for you to find.Here.
"well99 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 1:40pm.
"Step away from the computer.Get up and walk outside.Hopefully reality will come back to you.Obama is liberal and your DNC talking points won't change that."
Go ahead and add to that since you manage to do that with almost everything else.I know me saying Obama is liberal is code talk for Obama wants to steal all the Easter eggs in the world so he can sell them for Reese Bars.World Domination follows.
"Show me where the Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional.Post the link."
My point was they haven't made the ruling.Lower courts don't matter in the end.You can have several courts for and against.It is moot till the SC takes it up.As far as tricking you...get real.
So who is putting words in whose mouth?I didn't say he said the SC.Keep up your creative writing
- Login to post comments
"He said that 'it has
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:50pm.
"He said that 'it has repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional.' And yes, that is some slippery phrasing."
That's not slippery phrasing--just a factual statement. Last year, DOMA was twice ruled unconstitutional, and it just happened again only a few weeks ago. Well99's assertion that "lower courts don't matter" would come as a complete shock to those lower courts, which, in fact, issue nearly every ruling on constitutional questions (only a tiny percentage of such cases ever make it to the U.S. Supreme Court).
- Login to post comments
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:57pm.
Can't you even quote someone.
"Lower courts don't matter in the end."
Can't link and can't quote but you sure can lie.
- Login to post comments
I quoted you accurately, and
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 2:20pm.
I quoted you accurately, and my characterization of what you wrote was accurate, as well.
- Login to post comments
cl your a liar.
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 2:35pm.
Lower courts don't matter in the end.That was the sentence.You didn't quote the whole sentence because it didn't fit your characterization.It wasn't accurate so save your lies for someone else.
- Login to post comments
The "whole sentence" DOES fit
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 2:43pm.
The "whole sentence" DOES fit my characterization, though--that's a deliberate lie on your part. That "...in the end" doesn't change a damn thing. The federal judiciary--those "lower courts"--are the ones who issue nearly every ruling on constitutional matters. VERY few such cases ever make it to the Supreme Court. I didn't misquote you, and I didn't mischaracterize you.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 2:47pm.
Yes you did.You don't know if it will or won't go to the SC.
- Login to post comments
Whether it would or not has
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 3:07pm.
Whether it would or not has absolutely NOTHING to do with your deliberately false assertion that I've mischaracterized you--turning to jello won't save you. It just makes you look like an intellectually dishonest dick, in the same way your libel against me--that I've lied about this--makes you look like a plain dishonest dick.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by well99 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 3:16pm.
You did and do lie.Save your crying for someone else.Your pouting won't change anything.Go dry your tears and whine to someone else.It not my day to burp the babies.
- Login to post comments
And the usual steps manifesting liberal troll---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 3:23pm.
meltdown are starting to echo on the threads.
The pathological liar classicliberal2 is calling someone else an intellectually dishonest dick for calling him out for his lies.
I detect the smell of flameout.
Or is that just a lying troll's ass on fire?
M-mm-mmm; the sweet smell of success, regardless.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 3:42pm.
Yeah, that's definitely NOT an afterburner.
- Login to post comments
Really Jason
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 3:54pm.
"it has repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional."
So has his Oil drilling moritorioum. But yet, he still weilds its power by not reinstating the drilling contracts that were being implimented before the spill. He is breaking the law, pure and simple, and the law has informed him as such!
- Login to post comments
An avowed liberal, swooping to support ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 11:58pm.
a classic liberal.
On a conservative site.
Who would have thought it possible?
Yeah, JasonC, as you own the franchise when it comes to utilizing 'trenchant comentary' to impress, I can't believe any conservative would trespass in that area.
You congratulate someone who is a proven liar, for continuing to lie.
The more Obama and his administration screw up, the more 'trenchant' you liberals become with your verbal observations.
I use the term as meaning "caustic" rather than "sharply perceptive".
classicliberal lies, and you celebrate him doing so.
You libs are messed up.
Kinda like Obama's administration.
'Sotomayor and Kagan move the Supreme Court more to the right'.
What a hoot.
- Login to post comments
Hey there boys and
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:04am.
Hey there boys and girls..............I've just come home from working a loooooooooong day over here on a Sunday in Hawaii. Hey, it's Obamaville,and I've got to do whatever work I can find, whenever I can find it!!!
Anyway, I commented on CL's initial post early this morning, and then was off to the salt mines. It looks like the thread went a little haywire here, which is what I like to see!!! CL seems to be very good at writing long and drawn out posts with all sorts of gobbeldy-gook posing as factual information. I've read his posts, and I find them to be really weak responses wrapped up in warped reasoning and self-serving opinions..............which doesn't surprise me at all, coming from a lib. His guy, Boy Barry, is VERY deft at it..............but, oh, Barry ISN'T a 'liberal'!!! I might agree, actually............to me he's more of a totalatarian wanna-be dictator (and be careful that he doesn't get there!!!) with some VERY evident communist, socialist, Marxist, racist,
re-distributionist, and Mooooooooooooooooooslem sympathizing leanings. And if CL can refute any of these statements, I'm all ears. And my ears are only normal sized........
And this other guy who weighed in to 'get CL's back' sounds like your typical smarmy, snotty, I-know-more-than-you queebie dweebie lib.........................and his post was barely coherent, in my own reading of it............and I DO have an IQ higher than ALGORE or Joe Biden (remember when he was talking about how high his IQ was???)...............although I wouldn't want to write that on a resume!!!
- Login to post comments
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 3:17am.
The "other" guy is JasonC, who I think is a school teacher.
While my overall impression of him matches your description, I'm not going to tell him I agree with you, because I dropped a letter in a word in my reply post above; maybe he will spot it and take the time to give me some spelling lessons.
- Login to post comments
What exactly made my post so
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:53am.
What exactly made my post so incoherent?
As for this request that I provide examples of said portmanteaux (ooh, are words like that part of what makes me queebie-dweebie, or whatever the slur was?):
One discussion board page alone yields "Owebomba" (?), "Obamasiah," Norah O'Bimbo," and "MessNBC."
Granted, Hitlery probably hasn't been used much recently.
- Login to post comments
I've read all of your posts
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:18pm.
I've read all of your posts here, and I'm sticking to my original statement - they are very hard to decipher and at times incoherent - if that means hard to understand or not making sense in a simple and coherent way. You write, and probably talk, like a government contract writer or lawmaker, as does the other liberal posting here. But at least you're honest about your liberalism.
I don't see any refutation of my own statements about Boy Blunder (yeah, that's what I call him, amoung other names), which is what I said originally. I know a lot of libs here- hell, this is Hawaii, and they are throwing in the towel on Obama - and NOT because he isn't a 'liberal', but because he IS what I have said in another post. They voted for him because he was 'one of them'..........
And by the way, I am satisfied with my own health insurance, even though it costs me a nice chunk of change every month..............but the government costs me a lot more money, and I can't say that I'm particularly satisfied with the results of that 'investment' (political word for spending MY money on useless endeavors). I'm a self admitted blue collar simpleton - but I believe the Constition spells out the role of government in very basic and easy to understand terms, and it could still be applied today if it were followed in a common sense manner.
- Login to post comments
If you say so. My posts are
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:52pm.
If you say so. My posts are grammatically correct, but I do have a tendency toward overly complex sentence structures. Not sure how that makes me...queebie, was it? - but I'll try to be more coherent in the future.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:29am.
CL2 has been proven to have lied on several threads. He then promptly abandons the thread. So it is appropriate to call him a liar. There is no point even debating someone who cuts and runs as soon as he has thrown out his lies and been proven wrong.
Since Obamacare hasn't begun yet, why should the death panels have started? There is no one to whom they can deny treatment yet. But under this system SOMEONE will be making these budget decisions, and there is in place that government entity. They will decide who lives and dies. Simple as that.
And I don't think I'd hold up RomneyCare as something golden. It doesn't seem to be working very well.
- Login to post comments
I'm not familiar with CL's
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:51am.
I'm not familiar with CL's work. What exactly is he lying about here? It seems spurious to dismiss his argument here without so much as a "for instance..."
I don't recall saying anything about "Obamacare" doing anything in particular yet. And you're right, Romneycare isn't exactly perfect; heck, I was livid when it went into effect. But as for the whole "death panel" argument, what exactly is so much better about private insurance, wherein poor people who don't get coverage from their own employers are basically just automatically f---ed? True, America has the best health care in the world. The problem is access. If I was working 2 jobs to make ends meet, both of which jobs kept my hours at just a hair under full-time in order to justify withholding coverage, and was stricken with some highly treatable disease that would cost me five figures just to get started on eradicating, the fact that the U.S. medical industry is tip-top A#1 wouldn't exactly come as a comfort. And I live 4 subway stops from the most advanced and innovative hospital in the country. It doesn't mean diddly if you're paying out of pocket for these unbelievably advanced procedures. The fear - so evocatively encapsulated by the dysphemistic "Death Panel" label - that treatment will be denied wouldn't even APPLY to anybody who has their own insurance. It would apply to those who had to go for the federally provided version. But being insured under the auspices of the government is surely better than being just plain uninsured. And seriously, do you really think that the private insurance industry is doing such a bang-up job?
The problem is how often the right, in their haste to freak out over "Obamacare," confuse Obama's plan with single-payer, which it simply is not. The only way it would affect the vast majority of us is via a small upswing in certain taxes. Big deal if you're super anti-tax. But not exactly a liberal revolution.
- Login to post comments
confuse Obama's plan with single-payer,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:59am.
Not yet, but once the insurance co quite offering health insurance because of unaffordable regulations, and Privet Hospitals are rendered bankrupt because of the new price fixing by the Fed. Single payer will be a reality. What is truly stunning, is you dont believe it.
I find it is not worthwhile arguing this and other subjects that require math, with libs.
- Login to post comments
OK...so provide me with some
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:06am.
OK...so provide me with some math that supports your otherwise out-of-thin-air assertion. I'll go get my solar-powered calculator and do my very best to keep up.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:20am.
It's not math, but it's a plan...
- Login to post comments
Make it stop!
Submitted by Rukus on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:57am.
The crickets! The crickets! They are SO loud! My ears are bleeding! \
Insert motherbelt's axiom here _______________. : )
- Login to post comments
Dude. It's been 40 minutes.
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:12pm.
Dude. It's been 40 minutes. Calm down.
Yes, of course this moves us "toward" single-payer. In that Obamacare is closer down the socialistic spectrum (yeah, I said it) than our current privatized "Pay out the nose for insurance or f--- off and die" system. The question is whether or not we will continue on that path. It's a slippery slope argument of the flimsiest variety. One politician with a D after her name, speaking to a hard-left audience, saying "we'll get there" (i.e. to single-payer)? This is PROOF?! Please.
Obama "wants" single-payer? OK, maybe. But that's not what this bill is. I'm sure the Bush administration neocons "wanted" to bring democracy to every arab nation-state in the Middle East. But that doesn't mean he was crazy or reckless enough to waste military resources or what public goodwill he had to do so. Seems to me we need to judge these things by what's actually being proposed, not by what it might lead to and what our current leader might privately think would be awesome.
- Login to post comments
Actually, both Jan Schakowsky
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:28pm.
Actually, both Jan Schakowsky (who isn't in the administration) and Jacob Hacker (who isn't even in government) were talking, in those remarks, about the public option leading to single payer. It's astonishing to see this particular hit-job on Obama regurgitated after all these years, given that we've known, for over a year, that Obama cut a back-room deal with the industry, right up front, to kill the public option. While Obama was publicly lying and saying he supported it, it was, in effect, never even on the table.
- Login to post comments
Wrong again CL*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:41pm.
Distorting the view of "public option" isn't going to work. The issue of single payer is still in the AHC act. It just isn't an immediate result of the law, it will be an eventual consequence of this law. Companies will be unable to afford private insurance for their employees. Private insurance costs will skyrocket. Individuals and families will have no choice but to take the government plan. This will lead to higher taxes and penalities which will escalate companies dumping workers and insurance. More and more people will be forced into government health care. Even the CBO has stated that the number of people on government health care will triple within the first 10 years.
The words "single payer", "government option" are in the bill just not an immediate first step. It is actually an eventual consequence of an intended socialistic agenda.
- Login to post comments
What is it about
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:56pm.
Not worthwhile, do you not understand? Look Jason, you dont believe it, fine. Some free advice, start learning Pakistan, and Arabic, if you wish to communicate with your Gov provided Dr.
- Login to post comments
Typical liberal*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:27am.
Your arguments are the same Dem talking points but none based on reality and obviously you have not read the AHC Act. Already changes are being put in place by this law.
There are posters here at NB that are in the medical field as well as others who have the knowledge and skills to understand the complexities of this law. They have spent months breaking it down for discussion. Before wasting webspace with your inaccurate spew, try catching up on this discussion.
Blonde set up this forum to discuss the details of this liberal fantasy of single payer health care. Posters have done a great job of breaking it down. Try to catch up.
Changes have already been initieated. The IRS and DHHS have been mandated to share financial information. So the IRS is in the process of hiring 65,000 new employees. Dont you find it interesting that this awesome health care program starts off with the IRS?
An example, I have contributed through my employement, to private insurance for 41 yrs. The day I turned 65, they were forced to drop my coverage and I have been MANDATED to apply for medicare. My insurance company nor I had a choice. This is the first of the many incremental changes facing us regarding health care. There will be continued changes until 2014 when the full act goes into affect.
Small businesses hire the most number of employees in this country. Most of them do provide private health care coverage. When this program goes into effect, those businesses will be penalized an average of $1500 a year for providing employee health care. If they choose to drop private health care they will pay a yearly penalty of $750 per employee. How difficult is it to figure out which avenue they will choose?
I have read the AHC act. And trust me when I tell you they have "death panels" in the bill. They also have other little goodies that will do a great deal more evil than kill off the elderly.
And spending? These Health Care Commissions will result in hiring 250,000 new federal employees.
To discuss this issue takes more than one post this is whoy Blonde set up a forum. I strongly suggest you go there, read, catch up, then try to argue your points with facts, data, and links. Forget your dem talking points. Won't work here at NB
- Login to post comments
It doesn't take "Dem talking
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:37am.
It doesn't take "Dem talking points" to figure out that the private insurance industry is highly malignant, and that one way or another, it must be reformed if we want to continue to be a civilized nation.
Yes, employer mandates are a huge hurdle. Granted. If I came off like I was lionizing Obama's plan, I apologize. Your arguments on this point are legitimate.
My points, however, as a continuation of CL's, is that a) what Obama has proposed is NOT on par with, say, Swedish healthcare, and b) heavily privatized insurance is by no means free of serious problems.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:27pm.
My post was for classicliberal but at least you did read my post. There is no question that we need health insurace reform in this country. La has the most corrupt relationship between insurance companies and our state legislature. But forcing americans to buy into a government run program is not the road we should travel. It makes the government have total control over life and death issues for every single american. That is called "tyranny". Not to mention the dreaded "bigger government" issue.
Cl's error was that AHC does not go into effect til 2014. That is incorrect. This program is being initiated in incremental steps. None of them in the best interest of private enterprise, small businesses. Rather than reform medical/insurance programs, they have decided to simply destroy private insurance. The current enormity of medicare/medicaid fraud properly dealt with could save the country billions of dollars. This administrations solution is simply make it bigger and add more people to the medicare/medicaid rolls.
There are other aspects of this bill that should frighten the very people it is supposed to be helping. When you read parts of the bill in conjunction with other policy issues, it becomes more evident of their "death panels". Government paid abortions for instance is extrememly important in its agenda in the AHC act. Most people have not heard about nor read the portion of the bill dealing with abortion. Health care commissions will have the power to decide medical care, including forced abortions, to those who have been targeted for review for "potential productivity assessments". As a social worker, I understand clearly what this portion of the bill's intentions are for the many in this country who are totally dependent on government entitlements.
There is much in this bill as well that has absolutely nothing to do with healh care but creates new agencies, boards, commissions with the intent of growing bigger government at the cost of billions to american taxpayers.
Read the bill.
- Login to post comments
My post was for
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:58pm.
My post was for classicliberal but at least you did read my post.
Oops, I misread the flow of the message board. My bad.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:59pm.
I wanted to respond to your statement about the problems in the private insurance industry. I absolutely despise insurance as it came to be in the 60's and 70's but the true problems that permeated the system were magnified ten fold once the government regulations took hold.
There used to be this balance of power between hospitals, doctors and the insurance companies. As the government got more and more involved the power switched to the insurance companies and government (the people with the most lawyers - what a shock). Prices have gone up and medical services have waned across the board ever since, IMHO. One of the results of Obama-Care could end up splitting the healthcare pie between a handful of private insurers who will cater to those who can afford such luxuries while the rest of us are stuck with 'the government plan'.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:43pm.
Not sure how many folks realize this, but when the HC Bill was passed about 75% of medical Dr's owned their own practice, that number is already reduced to 45%. With Dr retiring early or joining forces on a single practice (like my Dr has). I dont think a lot of the folks are ready for what this is going to be like. Instant shortage.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:58pm.
Add to that that many doctors, especially new ones, can't afford to be in private practice, and join hospital practices (overwhelmingly where I live). The doctor is saved some up front costs, but now he's on a schedule of how many minutes are allotted to each patient, and he can't give discounts for hard luck cases, military families, or families of clergy. Those things were quite common in the past. Now doctors don't have the freedom to practice the way they might want to, making medicine more of a business and less of a service to others.
- Login to post comments
Boudin and Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 2:16pm.
Interesting how you guys mentioned Doctors retiring. Because of my particular health issues, I have 3 doctors that are specialist. Two of them are retiring at the end of this year. Both of them told me OBAMACARE. They told me with overhead costs, staff, malpractice insurance, taxes and penalities as "small businesses, and the coming cuts in payments, they will be working for pennies.
They said it wasnt worth it. The thing that was also of interest. The doctors will now all be forced to put all patients medical records on computer. They will then be readily accessible by "HEALTH CARE COMMISSIONS" and the IRS.
The media have not told the truth about AHC act. Let's spend another dozen reporters investigating Anthony Weiner, Michelle Bachmann. All that other stuff like unemployement, fraud, corruption, taxes, entitlements, the defecit, Libya,..... CRICKETS
- Login to post comments
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:16am.
Well, considering how often CL lies, I no longer see any reason to take his word about anything. If you lie 1,000 times and tell the truth 1 time, it's ridiculous to expect anyone to take you seriously that one time.
As far as death panels, you're mocking Palin about them, when I've said they haven't put into action yet because obamacare hasn't been fully installed yet. Once it's in place it will be very, very, difficult to remove, so Palin is warning us of what is coming, before it's to late.
The poor have access to health care. Medicaid. A small upswing in certain taxes? How many small upswings are we supposed to take? What happened to enjoying the fruit of our labor? It's not as if we aren't paying taxes out the nose now.
- Login to post comments
Again, I don't know Cl's
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:31am.
Again, I don't know Cl's previous work. His post here is well-thought-out and full of complexly developed, but ultimately straightforward claims, and I find them (mostly) convincing. But I'm quite liberal, so of course, I'm predisposed to believe them. But my point is that I can't simply take your word for it that "he lies" without an example of it in the past or, more persuasively, an example of him doing it in this post.
I'm mocking Palin for using such an emotionally manipulative and overblown term. If I referred to the pencil-pushers in private insurance companies who deny coverage to folks with "pre-existing conditions" as belonging to privatized "death panels," surely you would call me out on my excessive pathos as well. And no, nothing so hideous or reaper-like has materialized.
We can argue all day about the merits/differences between Medicaid and Obamacare. Suffice to say, as a true liberal, I believe in the spirit of taxation and do not find the paying of taxes to be either an ideological or personal affront.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:04pm.
Keep watching CL then. I'm not going to go through the past debates with him where he's suddenly vanished when faced with the truth. But my point was that Matthew Dean is justified in calling him a liar. You may not have seen it, others here have.
As far as death panels, I've had family experiences with medicair which lead me to believe those death panels are coming. They are starting with encouraging old people not to be treated for things like pneumonia, which are curable, because someone feels that person has no quality of life. That's not for government or even doctors to decide independently.
Taxes, within reason, are fine. However the current ideal of taxing everyone into equality is horrifying.
- Login to post comments
I will keep watching then.
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:16pm.
I will keep watching then. No offense to you or MD on this. CL's argument here and now seem to me quite valid, so it's easy for me to be skeptical about these accusations regarding his past conduct. I'm not trying to call anyone a liar, just going by what's in front of me.
i'm sorry to hear about the issues you've had with Medicaid. I'd be interested in the details, but obviously it's a private matter, so I'll leave that up to you. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Thanks also for the civilized discussion. Enjoy the rest of the day.
- Login to post comments
Horse friggin' poo.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 3:08pm.
It is the Binky Braveheart way. Come to the defense of a truly nasty vicious little troll and then say "oh, he was not talking the nasty vicious talk today. I so rarely come here to whine, I cannot know the nasties from the goodies. So I will just rub up against this nasty little turd and hope none of the stinkies wear off on me." Fortunately, Binky Braveheart is the kiss of death. Nearly every troll he has come to the defense of has been banned.
Oh Binky, might wanna look at the account page of bsny. The last troll you so lovingly pointed out.
- Login to post comments
Didn't I take your side with
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 4:03pm.
Didn't I take your side with regard to BSNY? I know there was something I agreed with you about last week. It was a shocking moment.
- Login to post comments
I read sarscasm.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 6:08pm.
And yet another Binky the bigot slam on conservatives.. Hardly taking a side.
- Login to post comments
On my work
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:53pm.
"I'm not familiar with CL's work. What exactly is he lying about here? It seems spurious to dismiss his argument here without so much as a 'for instance...'"
The notion that I'm a liar and a compulsive one is, itself, an example of the Big Lie technique in action. A few posters, here, who don't like my politics make it a point to make that claim (based on nothing at all) every time I post on a topic. They've been doing it ever since I first appeared, in the hope that readers will simply come to believe it and ignore whatever I write (ask for examples of my compulsive lies, though, and watch them scatter). It's a lot easier than dealing with the substance of whatever I post. You were talking about the name-calling--I, myself, get that in practically every thread. One accused me of plagiarism for quoting my own words, and he knew they were my own words when he made the claim, because the article in question was signed with my handle (he lied and said it was unattributed). And so on. That's the sort of thing I get in place of a thoughtful response to anything.
- Login to post comments
Reactions and replies to your posts, classicliberal---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 1:09pm.
that call you a liar, are based on very solid evidence; your posts.
Deny, dodge, dance and deflect all you want, you pluperfect moron, because doing so most definitely exponentially enhances your status as a damned fool in conjunction with being a pathological liar.
- Login to post comments
9 weeks.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 6:30pm.
9 weeks and someone is already turning into a butt hurt whining diapertroll.
Yes classicturd, that is how it works. You lie in one blog, get caught, and then run off to post somewhere else. We then call you a liar, and are now expected by you the liar to link back to your every lie or pretend to forget it just like you.
It don't work that way classicturd. I said you got one chance to be respected as an anonymous moniker. And that one chance is not to lie. Easy for most of us. Not for a propaganda spewing troll. You are a liar. Live with it.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:00am.
How was the food at the Netroots convention? Have you been assigned to NB or did you volunteer?
- Login to post comments
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 10:32pm.
Um, could you repeat that? And then maybe say it aloud while you type? See if that makes it sound any better, and maybe cut it down to a paragraph - I'd read it then, thanks.
Ronald Reagan
- Login to post comments
"Um, could you repeat
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 10:48pm.
"Um, could you repeat that?"
- Login to post comments
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:30am.
I guess it did sound that stupid the second time around huh?
- Login to post comments
Hey Binky Braveheart that respects no one here.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 6:24pm.
Look at your idiot troll you love so much. Not only will he refuse to fill in the subject line, but his first line is usually quoting the post directily above his. We have to read Binky's Stupid twice. We have to read half a sentence of some poor soul 3 times with this idiot.
Lovely company you got there Binky. You fancy yourself an intellectual elitist and yet you rub up with some of the stupidest souls on the planet.
- Login to post comments
Yea, ok
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 3:58pm.
Colmes the Squirrel is a pretty useless commentator (which is why he's hired to play a liberal on Fox; so they never have to hear from a real one)
So, what "real" lib, makes any more sense the Colmes, you dont.
- Login to post comments
Media - Michelle
Submitted by Curly on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 12:29pm.
Hey Al,
Read the news - catch up a little bit -
First Lady Michelle Obama: "You know, it's … we're ready, you know. Our children, you know, could care less about what we're doing. We work hard to do that. Fortunately, we have help from the media.
- Login to post comments
This is the meme they've
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 12:41pm.
This is the meme {not that liberal/moderate/etc.} they've {msm} have been *trying* to "make it so" for at least 2 weeks now - I've heard it all over.
Ronald Reagan
- Login to post comments
Submitted by Servo1969 on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 12:52pm.
I know it's terribly shallow of me, but I can't even watch Colmes. Besides his blatant leftism, which makes my brain sore, he actually looks like a snake to me. Or a lizard. Or maybe an insect of some sort. The point being he looks exactly like he sounds. I literally turn the channel when he comes on.
- Login to post comments
I feel the same way
Submitted by ohio granny on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 1:22pm.
I either change the channel or hit the mute button. The worse Obama polls the nastier his mouth peices in the media get.
DemocRATs/liberals = liars, cheats and crooks.
- Login to post comments
Me too! The best thing that ever happened to Hannity...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 4:00am.
was getting rid of Colmes. Hannity always has Liberals on his show, but for some reason, I don't think he has ever had Colmes on "Hannity". I wonder what the true story of Colmes leaving Hannity and Colmes was? I'd love to know the number of pro Hannity vs pro Colmes letters and e-mails that were sent to Fox. My guess, 10 to 1 in favor of Hannity. Do you think that ratio is too low?
- Login to post comments
the liberals are paranoid
Submitted by jkwtrading on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 1:07pm.
the liberals are paranoid delusional fools... Colmes is just one of millions of like him
- Login to post comments
lying lame stream media
Submitted by right of way on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 1:28pm.
the media admit that they were wrong about obama? what are you nuts? they still haven't admited they were wrong about jimmy carter! they still praise him.
- Login to post comments
Alan Colmes?
Submitted by Bourbeau on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 1:29pm.
Shallow liberal talking head personified; he rarely ever can admit to a liberal media infestation; he always provides some stupid analogy without dealing with the facts which are NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and the list goes on. Here's a fact to consider; what would the media be saying, giving the mess we are in, if a Republican President and Congress didn't pass a budger for 750 plus days? I dare to say, impeachment would be right at the top of the list.
- Login to post comments
→ Colmes
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 3:17pm.
Somebody ought to knock him cross-eyed.
Oh wait!
- Login to post comments
Obama is not a liberal!
Submitted by Don L on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 4:35pm.
Colmes wasn't lying -Obama passed the liberal stage on his way to a Marxist one-world domination a long time ago. No liberal ever stood for killing fully born babies -case closed!
- Login to post comments
Doug Schoen on Lou Dobbs
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 7:36pm.
Doug Schoen on Lou Dobbs Friday - his "palliative" line was perfect in response to the liberal meme of "Pres. Obama is a moderate"
Ronald Reagan
- Login to post comments
Colmes is on some serious drugs.
Submitted by pbthinker on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 11:43pm.
Anyone who doesn't recognize what a free pass Obama got, in 2008, is on some serious drugs. I believe, and I could be wrong, that Alan Colmes has some really compromising pictures of Roger Ailes filed away some place, otherwise he'd be on a waiting list for a job at CNN. He's supposed to be there as a counter-balance but his counter is usually so off the wall, you have to ask yourself, "What is this guy smoking?"
- Login to post comments
there may be more coming up but...
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:07am.
My sister has been a rabid Democrat for over 50-yrs causing more than one family "debate" over the years but in the past few months she has grown completely disillusioned with Obama and the efforts to make this formerly great nation into a 3rd rate country.
I'd love to take credit for this turnaround due to my pithy retorts over the years but I have a feeling this Obama regret is growing -- we'll see.
- Login to post comments
I'd love to watch this program, but I refuse to...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 3:45am.
on account of, I can't stand Colmes. I don't mind a Liberal being wrong all the time, but he is so overbearing, and talks down to people as if only he knew the true answer, that he makes me sick and that is why I refuse to watch the show.
- Login to post comments
Alan and Reality
Submitted by Jake6 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:40am.
Alan's connection to Reality has always been tenuous. He drifts in from wherever he normally resides, offers his opinion based on living in Progressive land, and then returns to his world. Give his opinions the weight they deserve, none, and ignore him. Kind of like bird droppings.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by jessieH on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:25am.
Alan Colmes is either a fool or a liar. Even Michell O'dumbass admits the mrdia is helping them.
- Login to post comments
Binky Braveheart LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 6:20pm.
Binky Braveheart: ...our current privatized "Pay out the nose for insurance or f--- off and die".
Name one person that had to f--- off and die.
Name one. We already had one of the most generous set of health insurance programs on the planet prior to Obamacare. Half of this country already receives their health insurance from the government.
Name one Binky. Name one identifiable name. One we can look up on the internet and agree with you. Geez, that poor guy did f--- off and die.
Name one. You can't. It is a leftist meme and a lie. Your buddy Grayson lost his seat on insane prattle like that.
Name one. We will wait. We are patient. Give us a name we can look at. Surely will all the f--- offing and dying going on, some journalist somewhere with the heartstrings of a Binky will have written about it.
Name one. It is a sharp sword Binky. You ain't the first troll to make this over the top claim. You will be the first to actually come up with a name.
Name one. Now.
- Login to post comments
Ain't that spiffy. Binky Braveheart hates the poor.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 7:40am.
Let's see. There is some poor soul out there that has been told to f--- off and die by some heartless insurance company. And he is dying. JasonC knows he is dying. Why else would he say that? Here we are willing to help this poor poor poor dying soul out with our wondrous charitable sense of giving. And the heartless Binky Braveheart will not give out his name.
2 days Binky. 2 days we have waited for you to tell us the name of that guy that is dying because off the heartless insurance companies.
Come on Binky. Give us a name. He is dying and you don't care. How much more time does he have?
- Login to post comments
Long, disgusted sigh for the
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 9:39am.
Long, disgusted sigh for the antics of JWF/Sporty/"I spend every moment of my free time fucking policing someone else's message boards for free as if it matters"/Vet.
Not talking about literal dying, dude. It's an expression. Though obviously, without access to proper healthcare, not out of the realm of possibility.
But since you asked, here. It's from Reuters. It cites Harvard Medical School research. "Growing ranks of uninsured."
All very scary stuff. But also coming from liberal stalwart sources, so I'm sure you'll have all kinds of maniacally discrediting stuff to say about it. I can hardly wait for installment #1,056 of JWF saying something so batshit crazy that even Michelle Bachmann would think "whoa, that's a bit much."
Ever break a bone while uninsured and working a 20k/year job? You'll pay for it for about 10 years.
Unless, of course, you decided ahead of time to compensate for the non-insured state of your employment by diverting about 20% of your net income into the most comprehensive package offered by COBRA or what have you.
Either way, the present system is a middle finger to those who don't have insurance through work - and those who don't have insurance through work are most often the people who work for shit wages.
- Login to post comments
Phweet! Phweet! Teh binky
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 9:41am.
Phweet! Phweet! Teh binky used teh bad words! And hates conservative women! And that study is flawed cause the article says people say it might be!!11!!!
Yeah, so get me booted, keep that troll-hunting average at 100%, tough guy.
- Login to post comments
Submitted by well99 on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 10:15am.
I see you decided not to use actual facts.You do know that emergency rooms can't refuse a patient.Just a note:How many of those uninsured were illegals?How many could afford insurance yet didn't purchase it?Maybe they are like Jay Rockefeller son.At 52:44 on the youtube video.That study does not use facts it is speculation.
- Login to post comments
I didn't say, nor remotely
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 10:26am.
I didn't say, nor remotely imply, that an ER could refuse a patient. That has no bearing on the 5-figure bill said patient will likely receive for even the most garden-variety ailment (like a broken bone).
Is it not an "actual fact" that fairly basic procedures are tremendously, prohibitively expensive for those without insurance? Is it not an "actual fact" that people who work in the service industry and do not have the luxury of a company insurance plan, would look at the fees for COBRA and damn near faint? Or that adding a spouse to many company insurance plans means thousands and thousands of dollars extra?
How many uninsured were illegals? I don't know. What has that to do with anything we're discussing here?
How many can afford insurance but don't purchase it? How is that relevant? Because some people can afford something but choose not to avail themselves of it, uninsured people below the poverty line can rest easier? "Oh, well, a couple of middle-class guys didn't buy it, it must no be important for me either."
- Login to post comments
Submitted by well99 on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:03am.
"Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday."
Did you miss that?Really just a couple middle-class guys didn't buy it huh?So that article didn't bring up anything about people dying due to no heath insurance?See I actually read the article.It could be why I brought up about ER's.Also the illegals since the article mentions the number of uninsured.You should read the whole article.That way you will have a better understanding when people post about your post.
Yes I understand about insurance cost rising but I don't notice liberals bringing anything up about tort reform?Also maybe if illegals weren't abusing the ER's the expense wouldn't be pushing the cost up for those that do have heath insurance.Also why do libs never push for tort reform?Ok we all know why.We wouldn't want to stop that flow of campaign money to Dem coffers.
Just curious how is that Big Pharma deal working out for Obama.Also can I get a waiver ?You know just like all those Unions and the 38 eateries,nightclubs and hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's Northern California district.They are probably the only ones.Opps I am wrong.
- Login to post comments
Does it itch Binky? Do you try to scratch it?
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 9:51pm.
What is it like Binky to have Veet on the brain. So much you drop F-Bombs to try to impress people with your troll toughiness. I iz Binky. I iz tough troll. I drop F Bombs in a desperate attempt to puff up my chest in front of the trolljegeren.
Hey Binky. What is this? No names? Not one single name of a guy that had to F--- off and die? Not one name Binky? Oh and Binky? You pretend you are smart but you really ain't.
Your study? I recognized it right away. You the only troll here Binky? Hell, I have seen contributors mention your bogus study. You LIE Binky. You are so desperate you will grasp at anything.
Binky. I am gonna enjoy this. I have to get ready to go to work. But let me link this and then I will rip your study to shreds later. Oh this will be fun. Hey Binky, you gotta get a new couch if you are gonna have me parked in the little brain of yours.
You Lie! MSNBC Lets Dem's False 45,000 Annual 'Uninsurance Deaths' Go Unchallenged
No. Binky. I did not write that. Mr.Anthony Kang did.
Olbermann: ObamaCare Opponents 'Killing 45,000 People/Year,' 'Who Are the Terrorists?'
Oh, this is delicious. I cannot be happier.
ABC's Johnson Recites Canard Lack of Health Insurance Kills 45,000 Annually
I still ain't left NewsBusters yet.
What is it like Binky? Getting cold busted in a lie just like the troll you are. What is it like? And getting cold busted by that dang Veet. Oh it has to suck. Who knew you were a sucktroll Binky?
- Login to post comments
And you link 2 Newsbusters
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 9:54pm.
And you link 2 Newsbusters articles. In order to discredit the stubborn NB troll. Quite the unbiased source there, Herr Troll Gestapo. I'll leave you to your recursive vortex of right-wing citation.
- Login to post comments
Yes. Word Bully links to the truffies.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:33pm.
Bad word bully. Don't you know the troll already dismissed all criticism before it can even be thought about.
I'm sure you'll have all kinds of maniacally discrediting stuff to say about it. I can hardly wait for installment #1,056 of JWF saying something so batshit crazy ...
And that study is flawed cause the article says people say it might be!!11!!!
Yes Binky. You got the honesty on display because you care. Show us how much you care Binky. Dismiss all criticism before the argument can even start. That is the honest way of Binky Braveheart.
Now you double down Binky. You double down and tell us that study is not flawed. And how do we know it is not flawed? Other than Binky dismissing any counter arguments out of hand, it is not flawed because The Vet has to do the hard heavy lifting and prove beyond all doubt it is flawed. It ain't enough that it was showed to be flawed by good men and women here, the contributors of the blog entries I linked. No. That ain't enough. Because contrubutors occasionally talk about ethics and morals like Mr Bozell, that just makes them all big fat liars on every single thing not to be trusted.
And there is the difference between us Binky. You dismiss something that runs counter to your propaganda by attacking the man. Ad hominem. I will actually look.
You double down now Binky. That study was only dismissed by NewsBusters contributors. You act like that is the truffies, mmmmkay?
And don't forget to pop off with another F Bomb.
- Login to post comments
Drop another F Bomb Binky.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 9:54pm.
You are a real man. Real men drop F Bombs to show their real manliness.
- Login to post comments
And here I thought real men
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 10:03pm.
And here I thought real men stalked other men on NB and used the word "binky" a lot. Enjoy your long night of troll-stalking. I know it's fulfilling.
ETA: Ha, I didn't even notice what that link was. Thank you for that. Your various posts on that 4-year-old forum topic will nicely demonstrate to anyone who cares to look just how fucking creepy you are.
- Login to post comments
P.S. How's the
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 9:58pm.
P.S. How's the getting-Binky-banned process going? I'm shocked I can even still log in anymore, having clearly violated the Terms of Use; especially with someone whose track record of troll elimination stands at a robust 99% on the case.
- Login to post comments
Keep on with the F bombs, JasonC---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:28pm.
and you will get yourself banned.
- Login to post comments
First day facing a trolljegeren Binky?
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:36pm.
You is all the brighties ain't you? Yes Binky. You can now read minds. How did you know the first thing I would do is report you? Binky Braveheart - mind reader and ESP gifted troll.
Binky. Might wanna look. My track record on requesting trolls be banned is 100%. But yeah, you pop off and just throw anything out there to get that trolljegeren riding you off your back.
How is that working for you Binky?
- Login to post comments
That's two F Bombs.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:46pm.
Wow. That word bully sure is mean. He saw a troll say people had to f--- off and die. The trolljegeren word bully response - Name one. Oh my, well that is enough to call the trolljegeren bat poop crazy and start popping off with the F Bombs. You are certainly justified there Binky. The gall of someone asking you to give us one name after pulling an Allan Grayson on us.
Still waiting for that name Binky. Oh and nwahs dropped 4 F Bombs in one forum. You are gonna have to work harder than that.
That name Binky? Any time. We are very patient. Any time you are up to it.
- Login to post comments
Oh Binky. Binky Braveheart the F Bomb dropper. You LIE.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/30/2011 - 9:27pm.
Why is it you just dismiss contributors out of hand Binky?
Binky Braveheart: ...you link 2 Newsbusters articles. In order to discredit the stubborn NB troll. Quite the unbiased source there...
That is what makes you a troll Binky.You did not click or read the links before you just dismiss it out of hand.
1. It was 3 NewsBusters articles but whatever....
2. The contributors that wrote about the study. They quoted and linked out to others sources. Something the lying F Bomb dropping Binky won't do unless called upon and even then he links to thoroughly debunked studies.
You Lie! MSNBC Lets Dem's False 45,000 Annual 'Uninsurance Deaths' Go Unchallenged --- by Anthony Kang.
Sources for this article ----
1. Carolyn Plocher at MRC --- Biased doctor cites faulty study to assert lack of insurance 'does kill people.'
The study she cited was carried out by the Harvard Medical School and was funded by a federal research grant. It was also released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or "single-payer" health insurance. It's results have been disputed, notably by the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Washington think tank that supports a free-market approach to health care.
"The findings in this research are based on faulty methodology and the death risk is significantly overstated," NCPA President John C. Goodman said. "The subjects were interviewed only once and the study tries to link their insurance status at that time to mortality a decade later. Yet over the period, the authors have no idea whether subjects were insured or uninsured, what kind of medical care they received, or even cause of death."
Source for that article
National Center for Policy Analysis
A Harvard University study published in the American Journal of Public Health claimed that nearly 45,000 Americans die each year due to lack of health care coverage. It's an alarming figure, except that this study is seriously flawed, says U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, who represents Florida's 6th Congressional District.
The study reflects the bias of the authors and contains inaccurate characterizations. The authors of the study, Dr. David Himmelstein and Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, co-founded the Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates a single-payer health system, or socialized medicine. According to Stearns, the authors developed their conclusion before conducting the study.
Consider the questionable methodology behind the report. According to an analysis by John C. Goodman, President, CEO and the Kellye Wright Fellow of the National Center for Policy Analysis:
The authors of the Harvard study interviewed the uninsured only once -- and never saw them again; this alone undermines the integrity of the findings.
A decade later, the researchers assumed the participants were still uninsured and, if they died in the interim, lack of insurance was blamed as one of the causes.
It begins with a paper by Peter Franks et al. published in Journal of the American Medical Association in 1993, estimating that being uninsured increased the probability of death by 25%. Although the subjects were interviewed only once, for the study's inference to be meaningful, one is forced to make the unverified assumption that the uninsured stayed uninsured for a full 19 years!
Continuing the saga, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) uncritically used the Frank's result to claim that 18,000 deaths a year in the U.S. are attributable to a lack of health insurance. The Urban Institute updated the IOM report, and Families USA updated that report.
Not to be outdone, the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) repeated the exercise (with all its methodological sins) and boosted the tally to a 40% increase in the probability of dying for the uninsured. That produces a whopping 45,000 premature deaths every year — almost as bad as the Vietnam War. And, yes, we get a state-by-state breakdown. There will be 5,302 deaths attributed to uninsurance in California this year. There will be 75 in Wyoming, etc., etc. There is even a minute-by-minute tally: "The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance," says David Himmelstein, one of the authors. "Now one dies every 12 minutes."
As in the previous incarnations, the researchers interviewed the uninsured only once — and never saw them again. A decade later, the researchers assumed the participants were still uninsured and, if they died in the interim, lack of insurance is blamed as one of the causes.
Yet, like unemployment, uninsurance happens to many people for short periods of time. Most people who are uninsured regain insurance within one year. The authors of the study did not track what happened to the insurance status of the subjects over the decade examined, what medical care they received or even the causes of their deaths
- Login to post comments
Oh Binky. Binky Braveheart the F Bomb dropper. You LIE.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/30/2011 - 9:26pm.
While you continue to soak up every little glop of propaganda any leftist organisation doles out one spoonfull at a time. I read Binky. I go out there and make an effort to learn the truth.
Now why would so many people be uninusured at any given time only to pick it up again within a few months. It is called churn Binky. Look it up.
At any point in the business cycle, even during a recession, American firms still hire a huge number of workers. That's because most of the action in the labor market reflects "churn," the continual process of replacing workers, not net expansion or contraction of employment. The lowest number hired in any month of the current recession was 3.6 million workers. Even during the dismal year of 2009 there were more than 45 million hires.
Bear in mind that the U.S. labor force has more than 150 million workers or job seekers. In a typical year, about one-third or more of the work force turns over, leaving their old jobs to take new ones. When the labor market creates 200,000 jobs, it is because five million are hired and 4.8 million are separated, not because there were 200,000 hires and no job losses. When we're talking about numbers as large as five million, the net of 200,000 is small and may reflect minor, month-to-month variations in the number of hires or separations.
One third of the labor force is moving from one job to another normally. Losing and regaining employer based insurance. So using the counting methods of leftists and the leftiest gerber baby propagandists like Binky Braveheart, one third of the labor force has no insurance because it is the only time when leftists actually count them.
But yeah, Binky, you drop some F Bombs and call me Batpoop crazy. How is that working out for you? Getting lots of people to agree with you there?
- Login to post comments
Bad Luck Binky Braveheart strikes again.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/30/2011 - 4:24am.
Bad Luck Binky comes to the aid of a troll that promptly gets banned.
classicliberal2 Nice friends you got Binky. Or lack thereof more aptly put.
Naw. Nozza troll mizzer. Honext. Jus agree wit dem izzall.
The Vet 2 days ago: Fortunately, Binky Braveheart is the kiss of death. Nearly every troll he has come to the defense of has been banned.
Scratch nearly in the sentence above.
- Login to post comments
Binky Braveheart LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 7:20am.
Too bad Binky. I waited. The NB blog entries were from 2009 when the study first came out. Now let's move on into 2010 shall we?
You would expect in a study that looked at the deaths of uninsured versus insured that the deaths of the uninsured would be out of proportion to their representation of the population. Or at least you would expect to see that in a study that claimed it was the lack of insurance that killed them.
And indeed that was the outcome when Mr. Thompson of AT looked at the actual data. 3.1% of all participants died during the study. But 3.3% of the uninsured died. This came out to 4 addtional deaths out of the population. Or somewhere near 4. Apply that to the population at large and you come up with the 44,789. But can you? Can you say it was the lack of health insurance that killed those 4?
From the article (read the whole thing) ---
We may need to follow individual participants to determine the causes of their deaths and understand if health insurance could have made a difference. Full access to the NHANES III data on insurance status is not available to the public. However, the linked information for deaths and causes is available. From the data, we can obtain specific causes of death, such as participant #122, who died from an accidental fall (ICD-10 code 118, starting in column 25).
Insurance status has little to no impact on participants who die violently, as these persons would get emergency care, which is not dependent on heath insurance. If the four excess deaths we identified were from violent causes, there would be no underlying correlation between insurance status and early death.
We can identify forty persons who died from motor vehicle accidents (ICD-10 code 114) in the NHANES III study (participants #646, #1107, #1475, #2441, #2528, #3384, #3859, #3867, #4111, #5257, #9786, #10504, #12302, #12980, #13419, #13553, #16145, #16862, #18014, #18936, #19288, #19695, #19858, #33112, #33661, #36565, #39275, #40308, #42863, #43194, #43438, #46507, #46882, #47250, #47905, #49168, #49472, #51896, #52206 and #53476). The availability of insurance would have had little impact.
We can also identify eleven persons who died from suicide by firearm (ICD-10 code 125 -- participants #3947, #6138, #10655, #14336, #15860, #18222, #37902, #42061, #47057, #48163 and #48495). Health insurance would likely have had little impact on their deaths, either.
Statistical studies are onerous. The researchers of this study used the best available tools in very valid methods. Researchers must take into account that when looking at such small subsets of data (four additional deaths in nine years), claims of "mortal risk" become more difficult to ascertain regarding the population of the U.S. as a whole. Wilper, et al. should discount deaths from violent causes before making claims on the correlation of death and health insurance, especially when the net difference in deaths between the insured and uninsured groups is likely only four deaths during a nine-year study.
There is all kinds of ways to die with health insurance or the lack thereof having little factor. Car accidents, suicide, murder, drowning, fires, accidents in the home, fast acting cancers, sudden heart attacks outside a hospital when no one is around. To lay these 4 deaths at the door of having no insurance is a poor poor poor conclusion.
Let's not forget the LIE Binky brought here learly 2 years after the fact. He can't even bring a fresh lie.
Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care...
They took those 4 extra deaths out of 315 and laid it right at the door of lack of insurance. But yeah, Full access to the NHANES III data on insurance status is not available to the public.
Full access to the NHANES III data on insurance status is not available to the public.
Always a good sign in a study.
- Login to post comments
Binky Braveheart LIES right through his crooked green teeth
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 1:15am.
Binky Braveheart: ...uninsured and working a 20k/year job...you decided ahead of time to compensate for the non-insured state of your employment by diverting about 20% of your net income...
I did a quick quote for a single 20 year old non smoker making $20, 000 a year on osc.hscil.com/IL. He can get a plan with a $1000 deductable, $3000 out of pocket cap, 80% coverage, no lifetime cap, for $114 a month.
That is 6.8% of gross pay. But no, Binky said 20% of net. $20,000 would pay $1150 in federal taxes. I am assuming Mr. Hypothetical lives in Illinois so that is 5% of $10,500 after deductions. $525. We would subtract 6.5% for SS and 1.5% for medicare. That leaves $16725 net. That still comes out to 8.1% of net.
YOU LIE again Binky. Not only can you not give us a name of a REAL PERSON that has to f--- off and die, but your hypothetical ain't even close to reality.
Heaven forbid someone has to pay 8.1% of his net pay for health insurance. Let's trash our whole health care system so Binky's Mr. Hypothetical can get more money for bong water.
- Login to post comments
Damn you're good!
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 3:29pm.
- Login to post comments
12 days Binky.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:20pm.
45,000 a year dying from lack of health insurance equals 123 people dying every single day.
I asked you to name one Binky. Just one single identifiable name.
One Single Name Binky.
You brought forward the claim. You brought forward a long debunked study. You Binky. You brought it here. Then cut and ran like the little sissy you are when I showed it was bull up, down, sideways, no matter how you look at it. Bull. Complete and utter bull.
That is OK. I am used to trolls running when they get smacked in the head with facts. No probbies there Binky.
But, I really must insist you give us the name of that person out of the 123 people that die every single day from lack of insurance.
I requested it before you brought the bogus study.
I have waited 12 days. By your own link, 1475 people have died in those 12 days and you still can't give us One. Single. Name.
You lying Binky?
Or you just stupid?
- Login to post comments
Well adjunct. We learn where you get your figures.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 7:53am.
Binky Braveheart that misses his buddy classicliberal2: Ever break a bone while uninsured and working a 20k/year job?... ...diverting about 20% of your net income into the most comprehensive package offered by COBRA or what have you
$20,000 a year and 20% of it to pay for insurance? Who on the planet does this? Ahhhhh. Binky does or did. No wonder he is so bitter.
An adjunct instructor teaching six courses may earn less than $20,000 a year; an adjunct teaching only three credits short of a full-time position may have to pay more than 20% of his salary to join the university's least expensive health-care program. One administrator noted that "Wal-Mart is a more honest employer of part-time employees than are most colleges and universities" and admitted that adjunct teachers are a "highly educated working poor."
Get out into the world Binky. Only colleges and universities treat their people like that. Private employers like people to stick around, so they treat them with respect.
No wonder you are such a bitter loser Binky "adjunct" Braveheart.
- Login to post comments


text:
Masahiro Tanaka never received an offer from the Angels, says Jerry Dipoto. This time around, the team could not swoop in and get all the attention. But that doesn't mean it's over this offseason...
The Miami Marlins are apparently one of three frontrunners for free agent catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia. Would Saltalamacchia be a good fit in Miami?
The Miami Marlins are considering trading Logan Morrison, and you can count the Milwaukee Brewers among a handful of teams interested in the 26-year-old first baseman.
The final batch of rumors, as today's deadline rapidly approaches.
It's July 29th and nothing is happening. What are the Mariners thinking as the final 48 hours approach?
Ken Rosenthal is reporting that the Mariners are interested in Padres 1B/OF Kyle Blanks.
Jon Morosi reports that the Mariners are checking out Jake Peavy. Does this make sense for the Mariners? Wrong player, wrong time.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is reporting that the Rangers are eyeballing Kendrys Morales.
The Mariners are telling teams they're not selling. Can you blame them? I can certainly understand them.
Here's some trade rumors, some are flimsy and some are super flimsy.
As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior users will need to choose a permanent username, along with a new password.
Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.
Please login to your Vox Media account. This account will be linked to your previously existing Eater account.
As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior MT authors will need to choose a new username and password.
Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.
We'll email you a reset link.
If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.
You must be a member of Fish Stripes to participate.
We have our own Community Guidelines at Fish Stripes. You should read them.
You must be a member of Fish Stripes to participate.
We have our own Community Guidelines at Fish Stripes. You should read them.
Choose an available username to complete sign up.
In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Dominick Stanin
Aug 21, 2014
Andre S. Watson
Aug 14, 2014
Jose Alberto Miranda
Jul 24, 2014
Juan Sanchez-Rodriguez
Jul 16, 2014
Home » News » Crime
Standoff ends with $250,000 bail for officer
Gary McKeon, 47, of 23 Kenmar Drive, was arraigned Friday on four counts of reckless conduct and one count of criminal threatening. McKeon is a detective with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. The MBTA said he has been on leave since his December arrest on a charge of domestic assault involving his girlfriend, according to reports.
Family members asked police to check on McKeon, who reportedly made suicidal and threatening comments. He was reported to be intoxicated and carrying a gun, according to police.
More than 10 officers arrived at the hotel around 3:10 p.m., according to Lt. Michael Moushegian of the Nashua Police Department.
"We took the precaution of establishing a perimeter and initiating contact with Mr. McKeon," Moushegian said.
The floor was cleared of people and officers remained outside of the room for several hours. McKeon was arrested at 10:45 p.m.
"He came out, he was taken into custody, and nobody was hurt," Moushegian said.
Police found evidence that four rounds had been discharged in the room but there was no indication McKeon was attempting to shoot at police, Moushegian said. The evidence led to four reckless conduct charges. McKeon was also charged with criminal threatening for allegedly pointing a gun towards members of the Nashua Police Special Reaction Team.
McKeon was being held on $250,000 cash only bail. He is scheduled for a pre-trial hearing Feb. 25.
- Concord man charged in downtown stabbing - 0
- GPS leads police to truck; vehicle breaks lead to arrest - 1
- Traffic signal stop leads to drug arrest in Merrimack - 0
- City's Bronstein Park closed to public - 1
- Concord man charged in downtown stabbing - 0
- Traffic signal stop leads to drug arrest in Merrimack - 0
- Good Samaritans track downman accused of stealing purse - 0
- Derry police receive grant to conduct underage drinking buys - 0
- Jaffrey couple agrees to pay $600,000 to state and fraud victims - 1
Good Samaritans track down man accused of stealing purseREADER COMMENTS: 0
- Three teens sent to area hospitals after crash on Blackwater Road at Rochester-Dover border - 0
- Neighborhood group presents award to Manchester police - 0
- Brian's Ride Home benefits Afghanistan veteran - 0
- Red Sox held to one hit as Angels coast to win - 0
- Market Basket: Analysts point to debt - 3
- Goffstown CIP committee wraps up for year, sends work to planning board - 0
- Holloman's fotball career is over in Dallas due to injury - 0
- Tringale in contention at The Barclays - 0
- UNH Notebook: UNH offense outpaces defense in annual Blue/White contest - 0
Meredith man faces arson charge in Landmark Inn fire in LaconiaREADER COMMENTS: 0
Market Basket: Analysts point to debt
Poll: Brown makes gains on Sen. Shaheen
Market Basket: Analysts point to debt
NH business taxes among highest, study finds
- Mass. Supreme Judicial Court has found upskirt photos taken on a subway aren't illegal. Should such voyeurism be a crime?
- Yes
- 83%
- No
- 17%
- Total Votes: 917


text:
The Herald Bulletin
---- — Tom Hinkle (July 21) predicts dire effects of the Affordable Care Act on the economy, writing of "massive cuts in hours already taking place," and "Obamacare is going to ruin the economy." But facts prove otherwise.
Companies with over 50 employees must provide full-time employees with health care. Hinkle says this will drive companies out of business. But a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found more than 94 percent of such companies already provide health care that meets ACA standards.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research concluded, "If some numbers of firms actually are limiting or reducing employment to stay below the 50-worker cutoff, then the impact would be too small to be noticed in the economy as a whole."
As for "massive cuts in hours," the ACA provided that employment in 2013 would be the basis for penalties in 2014. So one would assume that the number of employees working just under 30 hours a week would increase. But when the CEPR examined the number of workers working 26-29 hours during the first four months of 2013, the number decreased. In any case, this makes up only 0.6 percent of the work force.
The Congressional Budget Office projects the ACA would enable 700,000 workers to retire early or work fewer hours because they can get affordable health care not tied to employment. This would open up jobs and possibly even reduce the unemployment rate.
Factcheck.org labeled the job-killing claim for Obamacare a "Whopper;" Politifact judged it false.
Norma AbbeyAnderson