Friday, 1/15/10, Public Square

121 Comments

Filed under The Public Square

121 responses to “Friday, 1/15/10, Public Square

  1. BadAxe

    The American juggernaut is moving into Hati. Here’s a situation that will demand “nation building” on our part, since there’s no “nation” left to speak of. Obama has promised $100 million, multiples more than all other donors combined.

    There are some great challenges/opportunities here. Hopefully this is a chance to show the world what Americans are really made of.

    • Unfortunately, it is also another situation where we are expected to come in and save the day. Meanwhile we are going broke and in hock to an authoritarian government that may find itself the number 1 superpower within the next decade if we can’t stop the economic slide that we are in.

      I know that now is not the time to complain about money, but with money sorely needed to rebuild our economystill flowing to Iraq and Afghanistan, this disaster could not have come at a worse time for this country.

  2. I hope there is enough help fast enough, for the sake of the people of Haiti.

  3. lillacluvr

    I am concerned about our own people, as well Paula.

    And, you’re right, this disaster could not have come at a worse time.

    But I do think this is a good time to show the world that our military is for more than just death, destruction and invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9-11.

    • lillacluvr

      BTW – an added benefit of this response to Haiti’s need is the most insensitive moron-speak of Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh.

      Now, I realize that these two have loyal supporters who will never betray their golden leaders, but the rest of the country is now getting a good look at these two and what they really stand for. Just let these two keep talking and maybe – one day – they will be brushed aside by public opinion like last year’s reality t.v. winner.

      • Perhaps so, lilac; let us hope both Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh continue to spout logorrhea and the public wises up. I’ll not hold my breath.

      • tosmarttobegop

        I keep thinking the day will come when they say something that will offend even their supporters.
        Something that is so over the line the supporter just can not dismiss or over look and will cause them to stop supporting.

        Considering what has been said makes me wonder what ever that might be that is considered too offensive?
        Most of the time the supporter over looks it as what was said is simply to cause the other side to be in a uproar. And not taken as either one being serious.

  4. On a different note. It appears that Wall Street investment bankers just don’t get it, according to Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/opinion/15krugman.html?ref=todayspaper

    I would argue that these folks just don’t want to get it. They have, as a group, grown to enjoy the way the system has operated over the past 30 or so years, and don’t want it to change.

    • lillacluvr

      Money talks and B.S. walks.

      And, yes, you’re right – they do not want to get it and no one is making them ‘get it’.

  5. Is the relatively mild regulation suggested by Obama going to be enough to turn the crisis around?

  6. lillacluvr

    We could have the strongest regulation possible but if it is not enforced, what good does it do?

    Perhaps we have the foxes guarding the hen houses?

  7. tosmarttobegop

    Some times I thought of something but do not post it waiting for an opportunity to use it to counter a argument. To everyone’s credit here that does not happen much here.

    But here it goes, as it often goes in someone personal life things happen when you can not afford for it to.
    Haiti happened when the United States could ill afford to help, with our own dire needs and concerns.

    We are printing money and borrowing money from China just to try to get back to some kind of normal.
    But do have systems and create others to get back to normal, Haiti has not had any systems.

    Now we Borrowed money from China to fund the War in Iraq, a War against people who had not done anything to us. There would be objections to borrowing money to help Haiti, a country who had not done anything to us.

    It would be a torturing of logic and reason to have not objected to the borrowing of money to have “war” against people who had not harmed us.

    But to object to the borrowing to “help” people who had not harmed us!

  8. tosmarttobegop

    (chuckle) I could go on for some time about what I believe went wrong with the economy and those who caused the problems. But it would become tedious to say the least!

  9. lillacluvr

    Perhaps the politicians in Washington DC could forego some of their millions to put towards that $100 million Obama pledged to Haiti.

    Just think – we only need 100 of the old codgers who have been milking the taxpayers for years to cough up a million each.

    In fact, if you got Jabba the Rush to cough up from his millions – he could cover quite a few of the old codgers – couldn’t he?

    But, alas, Jabba is too busy selling those gold coins on his website to worry about helping out in a disaster.

    IMHO – Americans have no idea what it would be like to live in Haiti. Would the average American even survive one day in that country? I know I probably would not.

    Our nation is filled with greedy, arrogant and ignorant people. But we do have alot of generous, giving and loving people. The problem is – the ones with all the money are in the first category.

  10. Monkeyhawk

    I’m just relieved Shrub isn’t still in the Oval Office.

    He’d probably bomb Porte au Prince.

  11. itolduso

    More likely, a good think John Holdren, the current adminstration science czar, isn’t in charge.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-science-advisor-called-for-planetary-regime-to-enforce-totalitarian-population-control-measures.html

    • Uh huh.

      I haven’t read the book so don’t know what it says. I’m not at all familiar with the source so have no idea whether it is or isn’t trustworthy. Looked like the source was saying the book was written by a committee in the 70s…

      On the off chance there is anything valid to the link, who here is the same person, holds the same opinions as they did in the 70s?

      How many of us remember the 70s? 🙂 Clearly?

      • tosmarttobegop

        I remember I thought the seventies were fun. Don’t remember a lot about it but thought it was fun!

    • Did you have a point or even an opinion, or just dropped by to link to some criticism that allowed you to use the word ‘czar’? You surely are well-informed enough to have read all about czars, aren’t you? Who uses the term, who made the term up…

    • tosmarttobegop

      Oddly I do remember such talk in the late seventies, with the advancement of medicine and the proliferation of the human species. There was a foreseeable collapse of the human race due to lack of being able to feed the masses.

      It came more from the unemotional and rational conclusion.
      By the sheer numbers the human race would exhaust the resources of the planet and it would be in the best interests of all involved to limit the number of humans.

      And sense it would be easier to teach humans to fly then it would be to teach them to stop having sex. It called for the issue to be solved after the fact. LOL I hung with some pretty “heady” people…..

  12. Enjoyed this video:
    Can’t seem to get the video there, so here is a link:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

    And from the above, go to “Sarah Palin Debuts as Fox News Analyst” – it was interesting…

    • I watched a tiny bit, it was hard to do and I don’t have the stomach to see it all.

      I had wondered if they would call her governor, and the answer is yes, they do.

      Now I don’t have any further questions.

  13. In the interest of background, here is a Wikipedia report on the owner of the website, “PrisonPlanet”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)

    Hopefully, those of you not drinking the koolaide, will recognize this “source” for what it is…

    • I should have scrolled down to see that you had addressed this ‘source,’ but stopped when I saw the word ‘czar’ used. The use of the term is telling.

    • lillacluvr

      Interesting reading in wikipedia regarding Mr. Jones. I especially took note of the fact that Mr. Jones briefly attending a community college.

      So, am I assume Mr. Jones’ education went no farther than a brief walk through the community college scene?

      Seems I remember another conservative radio talk show host that did not avail himself of a college education but yet seems to think they are the only ones with all the knowledge.

      Other than that enlightening fact, I have to say the man sounds like he is just another angry white guy.

  14. I think calling Alex Jones a “serious nut job” would, in fact, be pretty restrained.

  15. itolduso

    Maybe prison planet is or isn’t a good source. Okay. Are you disagreeing with what they show Mr. Holdren saying in his book, or just disagreeing with the source? Are they lying about what is in his book? Seriously.

    • lillacluvr

      Seriously – don’t you think it is over the top – even for the most conspiracy theorists level?

    • Who knows, they could be lying. I haven’t read the book — as I explained carefully above.

      You can find whatever you choose to find on “the internets,” but that doesn’t make everything you find a fact, or true, or trustworthy.

  16. itolduso

    That really wasn’t my point. My point was that saying that Bush would bomb Haiti is just as “relevant” and “true” as saying that Eric Holdren might have had an interesting response given his penchant for population control as defined in the book he coauthored. Sorry that it was so obtuse everyone missed it.

    • No, the fact is the person who said bush would bomb Haiti was obviously stating an opinion — and everyone knew it! If the person had been trying to make any point other than sharing their opinion of bush the lesser they would have brought sources to support it — like you did.

    • Maybe if you use your words and your own opinions everyone will be easily able to understand what they are. We certainly understand the opinion expressed by the source you linked to.

  17. lillacluvr

    Seriously, don’t you think presenting yourself as a possible ‘nutjob’ turns most people off?

    So what is the purpose of the messenger? A smart messenger would know how to pull in the craziness and possibly do some good – if they are indeed so worried about our country’s future.

  18. itolduso

    Again, so was it the source, or the information within the source?

    • lillacluvr

      Do you do alot of fishing?

      Just asking….

    • I don’t know how to make this clear to you.

      I don’t know whether the source is or isn’t trustworthy.

      I don’t know what the book says because I haven’t read it.

      I don’t have any idea why YOU would post a link. In a later post you tell us the link was posted to illustrate, “My point was that saying that Bush would bomb Haiti is just as “relevant” and “true” as saying that Eric Holdren might have had an interesting response given his penchant for population control as defined in the book he coauthored.”

      So now we know why you posted that link. We didn’t when you posted it.

  19. lillacluvr

    Obtuse or not – you presented your link and I responded to it. I looked at it, read it and then formed an opinion that the guy was a nutjob – IMHO.

    And that is my right as an American and my freedom of speech would be trampled on if I did not have the right to form an opinion on a link that was provided on a public blog.

    Would it not?

  20. itolduso

    Sure, you have a right to state and publish what you wish. That is Freedom of Speech. Forming an opinion has nothing to do with Freedom of speech (although that is your right). I have no problem with that, in fact, I promote it, in every way, even if it’s something hateful, people have a right to say it. What they don’t have is a right to attempt to silence dissenting opinions.

    • lillacluvr

      Expressing an opinion that I have formed has everything to do with Freedom of Speech – does it not?

      And that was my point – but perhaps it was too obtuse?

      If a link furnished by you is on a public blog for all to see and read, then how is any dissenting opinions being silenced?

      Just asking…I’m curious to hear.

  21. No one here has attempted to silence dissenting opinions.

  22. itolduso

    No I don’t fish at all. I don’t eat fish, why kill something that I won’t eat, is my opinion.

    My opinion on the opinion that Bush would bomb Haiti is that it is bullshit, plain and simple. It is meanspirited, and attempts to make humor by use of someone that is not in office, nor attempted to stay in the public eye. How’s that? And, not based in reality, just as the claims about Eric Holdren’s viewpoints, even thought the claimers seem to have at least some basis for their remarks.

    • Now we all know your opinion.

      Some of us — me included — think bush the lesser and his actions while he was in office are basis enough to think he could have bombed Haiti. Just like you think there is basis for what was on the link you posted.

      In my opinion there is no defense of bush the lesser. He is a bad man who did bad things. I don’t forget that just because he is no longer in office. Those who forget the past are more likely to repeat it. Nothing about that bozo should be forgotten!

    • tosmarttobegop

      LOL “Solyent green is human beings!”

  23. itolduso

    So, do you think prisonplanet made up the screenshots? Serious question.

  24. itolduso

    For me, whatever a guy said in the 1970’s is probably irrevelant to his thought today. At least I would hope so. I wouldn’t hold it against him, unless he continued to espouse such beliefs.

  25. “My opinion on the opinion that Bush would bomb Haiti is that it is bullshit, plain and simple.”

    This is obviously true. It was said, I believe, in the spirit of H U M O R, and the fact that you missed that, just says a lot.

    Personally, I think you seized on this statement for no other reason than to be disruptive. I will confer with my colleagues on this. Thank you.

    • I didn’t make the statement, but if it had been me it wouldn’t have been intended as humor. I do think you’re correct that Monkeyhawk meant it ‘tongue in cheek.’ Well, except for the part about being relieved bush is no longer in office.

  26. itolduso

    “Personally, I think you seized on this statement for no other reason than to be disruptive”

    Personally, I think you are wrong

  27. itolduso

    “This is obviously true. It was said, I believe, in the spirit of H U M O R”

    If so, it was an attempt at humor about a catastrophe of great porportions. For me, that is even worse.

    • lillacluvr

      If you don’t like the one comment made here that you took as an attempt at humor about a catastrophe, I cannot wait to hear what you think about Mr. Limbaugh and his reponse to this catastrophe.

      After all, if you like Jones’ website; am I to assume you like Limbaugh’s, as well?

  28. lillacluvr

    All this about a comment about George W. Bush?

    And isn’t it quite a leap going from a comment about George W. Bush to a link about all the conspiracies in the looney bin to prove the point that someone might have been mean spirited in their comment on GWB.

    Really, I have better things to do than this…

  29. itolduso

    S9rry to make your assumption incorrect. I don’t listen to Limbaugh, I don’t read his website, and I could really care less about PrisonPlanet. It was in fact, my first visit to their site. I have seen other entries other places about Holdren’s viewpoints espoused in the book. I did a google search, and used the first link that employed screenshots.

    I think Limbaugh’s remarks toward Haiti are mean, are distasteful, and he deserves whatever flack he gets from them. As goes Limbuagh, so goes MonkeyHawk. The messenger makes no difference in my book.
    .

    • Limit your opinions — especially the criticisms — to public people. If you would like to disagree with what anyone here says, voice your differing opinion. If you have a personal criticism of a fellow blogger, keep it to yourself, please.

      The messengers here on this blog will speak for themselves by what they post.

    • lillacluvr

      Seriously, the first web link when you did a Google search was Prison Planet?

      I must try that for myself – what subject did you Google? Holdren?

      I want to see if I can repeat the scenario that you said brought you to a website that you did not know about previously.

      • itolduso

        Sorry, that is not what I said. I said that it was the first link I came to that had screen shots. And no I won’t. This isn’t about me.

    • tosmarttobegop

      LOL it occurred to me this morning.
      Another difference between how we treat animals and how we treat humans.

      If Rush had been a dog, the humane society would have put him down years ago!

      There is not training or redemption for him.

  30. tosmarttobegop

    As I said in a post above, yes there were such thoughts being bounced around in the 70‘s.
    And I agree with itolduso that often thoughts and conclusions had at one point in time with the situation at that time.

    Bare little relevance to those of today, Often I point to the current solutions being given by the Conservatives as being dated to those of in the 70’s and 80’s. a different time and situation.

    As to motivation, it could go several ways, it is true that often lacking any real objections the pass endeavor of some one current is brought up.
    To discredit and mock not so much them but those associated with them.

    Rather then arguing the motivation of itolduso better to discuss the topic it brings up.
    Besides, Bush would not have bombed Haiti since that is where the problem is.
    He would have bombed Florida since there is no problem with them!

  31. tosmarttobegop

    A call for civility does go both ways and Lord knows how I could go on and on about Bush. But the reality is far worse then the snap and off hand remark.

    itolduso is giving a glow and differing prospective to the discussion.
    Whether the intent is to bedevil or simply give a different prospective.
    We are above discussion and debate and what use it is if everyone principally has the same opinion or POV?

    As the resident, soul-less and amoral Republican here I generally do not disagree or lack the ability to not see what everyone else is seeing.

    So someone coming in that I can not understand their opinion is a refreshing thing.
    Someone that will bring to the discussion a geometrically opposed view is an opportunity.
    To at least state my opinion and argue the point at hand.

    • I beg to differ. I am a registered card-carrying Republican!

      No one here minds differing opinions! We learn from hearing ‘the other side.’ It at least gives us the opportunity to examine our opinion to be sure we haven’t ignored something valid in the forming of it.

      NO ONE here needs to hear another blogger criticized and it won’t be tolerated!

    • lillacluvr

      I’m a RINO and I have no problem with anyone bringing in a link to any website.

      But with every poster’s right to link a website, is my right to make a comment/form an opinion about said website.

      And I have done just that. As has others on this blog.

      But I think the discussion about Haiti has descended into a battle of whose source is more credible. And that does not help anyone in this situation. It certainly does not help Haiti. And it certainly does not help when we have all stated our views and we are continuing to rehash this thing.

  32. Directly expressing the point you are wishing to make would seem to make the job easier. It doesn’t seem like to me that such advice should be necessary, and therefore my unwillingness to believe that you are as obtuse as you are portraying yourself to be. But, I have been wrong before.

    I am honoring the majority vote. Carry on.

  33. lillacluvr

    itolduso – I agree with you – this is not about you or me or anyone else on this blog.

    So, exactly what was your point – again?

    It was lost in all that descent into who is more credible crap that I lost the topic we were trying to discuss.

    BTW – I don’t consider National Enquirer one of MY sources either – but my comment was in response to your question if someone thought the screenshots on Prison Planet were made up?

    Anyone can Photo Shop any screenshots they want nowadays – that is why we have to do research – and into more places than just one – to find out where the truth lies.

    • tosmarttobegop

      LOL Heeee mom is still mentioning.
      “Did you know that George and Lara Bush are getting a divorce?”.

      It appears mom does take the National enquirer as a creditable source.

  34. tosmarttobegop

    As the King of all RINOs I welcome all to my court!

    • I’m beginning to understand that it doesn’t make much sense to be anything but a registered Republican if you live in Kansas. By the time you get to the general election you vote for the person you’ve decided most qualified, at the primary level where registration matters there aren’t two from the Democratic Party on the ticket. We’re lucky if there is ONE.

  35. itolduso

    My point, stated at 2:28 pm was

    “My opinion on the opinion that Bush would bomb Haiti is that it is bullshit, plain and simple. It is meanspirited, and attempts to make humor by use of someone that is not in office, nor attempted to stay in the public eye. How’s that? And, not based in reality, just as the claims about Eric Holdren’s viewpoints, even thought the claimers seem to have at least some basis for their remarks.

  36. tosmarttobegop

    You know I will admit something I miss here that I get at TBTSNBN.?
    A battle of wits, but there is too easy, they come for a battle of wits and show up with a shortage of ammunition.

    It is too easy to shoot down their arguments, without name calling or seeming blindly wanting to just argue. As simply to dispel as them saying the sun is not shining and all you have to do is point to a window to dispel.

  37. itolduso

    Thank. you. I may or may not be a RINO these days. I deplore much of what is going on in the Republican party. The Democrats have not done any better, in my book. I am fiscally conservative, and, for lack of any betterm term, socially moderate. I don’t give a crap one way or the other about gay/lesbian marriages. They could pass a law legalizing it today and it wouldn’t bother me a bit. They could also legalize prostitution for all I care. I would have to vote no on legalizing drugs, for several reasons. I don’t care if people gamble, live together homo or hetero, and they can have “relations” with whomever they want as long as it is another consenting adult. I don’t care if someone is black, brown, white or whatever. Male or Female. Their character is what I care about. We can disagree and be agreeable, or you can be an ass 🙂 about it. I disagree profoundly with the current Administration and it’s move to centralized government. I don’t listen to any talk radio people, they say the same shit over and over again. I make my own cds and that is what I listen to in the car. I take my information from all over the internet and once in awhile, the written word. I mostly disbelieve politicians of all stripes, and don’t support the party financially or any other way. If I find a candidate I support, I will support him, but not the party. I don’t take talking points from anybody, I am perfectly capable of forming my own ideas.

    • lillacluvr

      I agree with most of the things you have alluded to but I have to disagree about the Obama Administration and its move to centralized government.

      Obama has followed most of what the Bush Administration did and the only thing the man is pushing for is health care to be affordable and accessible to every American – and for that – the man is crucified. BTW – every presidential candidate for many, many years has run on the same campaign promise – but none ever got this far!

      Do I like what the Senate and House has done to health care reform – NO. But do I think Obama is the evil incarnate and wants the destruction of American – NO.

      And that is the difference between Obama and the Republicans currently.

      Now Republicans say they are for smaller government and for less government interference in our lives – but I see where Bush (with the help of his Party of YES then – lockstepping us into a big bloated government program of Medicare Drug program and the Homeland Security Department, which became necessary because we plunged into a so-called war on terrorism.

      I would like to see someone with the cajones to take the bull by the horns and tell the bull to sit down and shut up.

      But there are too many people who claim they hate socialism but are all too happy to take the freebies from that evil government that they can get.

      I am a RINO because I intend to vote for Moran over Tiarht in the primary. Does that mean I like Moran? No – it doesn’t – but he is better than the alternative – IMHO.

      Life is not black and white – there are alot of gray areas in there and if we cannot learn to know when to pick the major battles and let some of the little battles work themselves out – our country will be the one that pays the price.

      Frankly, I’m tired of all the corporatism in our country – but rather than worrying about – we have different factions of labeled politicians doing their best to keep the infighting going while our country’s soul is being sold to the highest bidder.

  38. “We can disagree and be agreeable, or you can be an ass 🙂 about it.”

    I’ll bet on this blog we will disagree agreeably. And, “we” won’t think anyone isn’t part of “we,” if they’re blogging here.

  39. tosmarttobegop

    Well itolduso, I do find it some what curious the claim of centralized government?
    I mean like the claim that they want to take over health care, in many respect what the Democratic is proposing it mild considering what could be done.

    It not actually even a good way to get a foot in the door.
    What has been pointed to as example of the attempt is nothing more then benign programs that are more common sense then a take over.

    They have been so twisted into something diabolical like they want to kill grandma.

    There is little that really points to any intent to form a centralized Government.
    If there is they really are doing a crappy job of it!

    The Constitution though limiting the power of the federal government is still a powerful tool that could be used to install a federal control of the states.

    Literally the Federal government could impose control over the wind.
    Not that they could do much with such a control but still is empowered to do so.

    But I wonder what can you point to that is an actual attempt that is not disputable as spin or can only be seen by hopping on one foot and squinting one eye?

  40. I would like to hear some examples of what you term “the current Administration and it’s move to centralized government” too.

  41. itolduso

    Well, their are huge areas of central planning configured in what has been released about the Healthcare bill for one. F0r one very simple example, the requirement that everyone purchase insurance. For another, the proposals that the federal governement will decide what is an acceptable treatment and what is not. For anothe, though not yet confirmed, that the unions got a special exemption for the so called cadillac plans tax. The fact that the government is going to spend one trillion dollars tells you who is in control. After all, he who has the gold makes the rules. The fact that the government now “owns” several businesses, and contrary to what the President said, does get involved in the day to day decisions, such as being involved in the pay of managers.
    Whether or not it is a far cry from what could be done, it is still a move in that direction. Some people desire that, I do not.
    And the Constitution? Under the current “living Constitution” understanding, it means whatever we say it means, at the time. Unfortunately, this country abandoned a good portion of the Contitution and it’s idea of limited federal powers, a long time ago.

    • WOW! You’ve seen the final bill. Good job! Not many have. I’m not about to comment on anything someone who has read the final bill says, as I haven’t had that opportunity!

      • itolduso

        The final Senate Bill, and the Final House bill, I believe, are open for your perusal. The compromise bill has yet to be published, being kept behind closed doors until at least it is finished. Nice snark though

      • Watch it — you’ve been warned overandover. It wasn’t snark, it was amazement and disbelief. You said what was in THE BILL — “huge areas of central planning configured in what has been released about the Healthcare bill for one…”

        If you would like to bring support for the opinions you state, feel free. Remember we don’t take what you type as anything but your opinion. We look at any support you may give to your opinion and that gives us a place to begin discussing.

        When all we post are our opinions the only place we have to go is to agree or disagree.

        So, I disagree with what you’ve posted.

    • lillacluvr

      I beg to differ with you – the government does not ‘own’ several businesses.

      The taxpayers bought stock in the auto company so that it would not go belly up because the Republicans were all too happy to bail out the big boys on Wall Street but no help for an AMERICAN company. I believe the deal is when the auto company is in better shape, they will buy all that stock back, with interest.

      And I don’t believe that Obama is sitting in his desk managing the day-to-day operations of that company. You say that you know that he does – exactly how do you know that? And the only pay he is involved in is that of companies that TAXPAYERS bailed out. But I see where these companies are still giving out those huge bonuses – so I would not worry so much about those poor executives you think Obama has a stranglehold on.

      As for the federal government determining what acceptable treatment is or not – my PRIVATE health insurance company does that NOW. So, exactly how is it better when a for-profit company to tell me I don’t need a CT scan for my cancer treatment than the federal government?

      In fact, my health insurance company changed through my husband’s employer as of January 1st and we still do not have ID cards.

      Did you know that I was turned down to get some of my testing due to the fact I do not have a billing number to process?

      So, currently, I am waiting foir some faceless for-profit health insurance company to give me an ID card so that I can get my cancer treatment testing. You know, some cancer patients don’t have time to wait for their testing. Fortunately, I am in remission and I am being monitored. But if my cancer comes back during the time I had the misfortune of not having my ID card with the billing number, then I guess I just have to live with that.

      Are you saying that is okay because it is a for-profit health insurance company and not some government plan?

  42. itolduso

    I am not a proponent of Hamilton and his governmental philosophy. I prefer Madison

  43. lillacluvr

    If the compromise health bill is not finished, then why should it be published?

    And aren’t most conference meetings done behind closed doors?

    Or, at least, that is what I remember from the Bush years.

  44. lillacluvr

    Which would I prefer – the compromise health care bill or the 4 page outline the Republicans proposed?

    The Party of NO had every chance for their input but they decided to fill their diapers while jumping up and down screaming their little 2-yr olds’ hissy fits.

  45. itolduso

    “belly up because the Republicans were all too happy to bail out the big boys on Wall Street but no help for an AMERICAN company”

    What? Were not the big boys on Wall Street AMERICAN companies. And I objected to that as well. In fact,they do “own” the company thru their stock ownership. What are you talking about?

    “so I would not worry so much about those poor executives you think Obama has a stranglehold on.

    I am not worried at all about those poor executives. The fact is, they should have all been fired for running their company into the ground. That does not detract from the fact that the governement is controlling the company (at the very least in that regard)

    The rest, well I am sorry you are in that position. However, having been part of “socialized” medicine in the past while in the military, and the “socialized” medicine that I have seen given at the VA, I don’t want any part of it. Whether or not you think that is better can be debated. I don’t see any Consitutional authority for it, and it IS centralized planning, by your own admission.

    • lillacluvr

      Centralized planning is also okay the for-profit health insurance company – but that is okay, I guess- by your own admission.

      Those Wall Street big boys were bailed out by Bush and all they had to do was to phone in their request, over a weekend, and they got their money. The american auto company had to come to Washington DC and beg for theirs and was still turned down.

      And many of those Wall Street companies are not exactly AMERICAN companies, my dear friend. They are GLOBAL companies – big difference!

      My point about the taxpayers owning the stock in the auto company was just that – it is the taxpayers. You made it sound like Obama was some evil dictator sitting on his throne buying up companies – and that is just not true.

      BTW – you never answered how you KNOW that Obama manages the day-to-day operations of the auto company. Just where do you get your information? Got a link?

      And, like I stated in my response to your posting – the plan is for the auto company to pay the taxpayers back with interest. That is hardly Obama buying a company to hold on to it and control it.

      So, let’s just get the record straight on your beliefs:

      As for the health care field.

      I have worked in health care for 30+ years – have you?

      Medicare, VA and the military health care are some of the best health plans there are. Without Medicare – many of these doctors would not have a cash flow to keep their practices running.

      Ironic though, no comment from you that Obama is just following the same pattern that Bush and Republicans started?

      Oh, I forgot – we are not allowed to talk about Bush because he is no longer in office – nor attempts to be in public life.

      Well, sorry, Bush and Republicans created alot of the mess you are now complaining about – but I don’t see the evil incarnate label being put on any of them.

  46. “F0r one very simple example, the requirement that everyone purchase insurance. For another, the proposals that the federal governement will decide what is an acceptable treatment and what is not. For anothe, though not yet confirmed, that the unions got a special exemption for the so called cadillac plans tax.”

    If everyone buys insurance we have the biggest pool possible — people of every age, health…, and that helps bring down the costs.

    I haven’t seen where “governement [sic] will decide what is an acceptable treatment and what is not.” Insurance companies get that decision and I sure don’t like that!

    I have heard a bunch of differing things about taxes, tax exemptions, cadillac plans, and as yet there isn’t anything concrete to tell us facts on that one.

  47. itolduso

    I never called for the compromise bill to be published before it is finished, nor did I complain about the negotiations going on behind closed doors, now did I? I made a simple statement, that was absolutely true. Yeah, Democrat or Republican, they make their little deals in secret behind closed doors.

    And I didn’t say the Republicans did any better. Sorry, partisan politics is not part of my gig. I could care less. One reason I abhor term limits, it gives the parties even more power.

    • lillacluvr

      From the inference of your mentioning the compromise health bill was behind closed doors does, in fact, make one think you are complaining about that fact.

      But you go ahead and have a nice day.

    • lillacluvr

      Term limits give the parties even more power?

      How?

      • Assuming the seniority rules as to committee chairs, etc., would continue to apply, I suppose the parties would have more power than now exercised, although I don’t see how.

        Outside the congressional setting, the parties’ control seems to be no less nor no greater than now, to me. Now, each party controls how the respective candidates are selected through control of the process; I fail to see how term limits increases the same.

        One group, the power of which would be increased, benefits; the career bureaucracy in D.C. Staffers (career types) would be passed between outgoing and incoming senators and representatives. Both groups, along with others I am sure, would be the ones who “know the ropes” and how to get things done. To the extent they are party functionaries, then the parties’ power would increase.

  48. itolduso

    Well, you all have a great weekend. I am gone

  49. So many questions, so little time…

  50. I have read that there are some who believe there is no Constitutional authority for the health care compromise bill. The Tenth Amendment is often cited in support of this position.

    I recall similar arguments being made about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Ollie’s Barbeque case rejected that notion, holding the Act was Constitutional, citing the Commerce Clause as the reason therefor.

    I also understand that there are many who do not agree with the holding of SCOTUS in that case. However, from my memory of said case after 30-plus years since Constitutional Law in law school, the following points come to mind with reference to the instant controversy:

    1) Not all insurance companies selling medical insurance to Kansans have their corporate domicile in Kansas. The transaction, whereby an insured purchases insurance from such a foreign corporation, would be interstate commerce.

    2) Given the growth of use of the Commerce Clause by the courts, the fact that insurance companies use interstate commerce to market their wares (I just received a flyer from Mutual of Omaha for health insurance in the mail, as an example) would be enough, I believe, to support federal regulation.

    3) The fact that the federal government has heretofore declined to assert its power in this area is not, to my mind, proof that no such power exists; rather, it merely proves that the federal government has declined to exercise such authority.

    Turning to what we don’t know about any bill that may be finally enacted, there are a few thoughts I have about that, too:

    1) If the bill would permit interstate effectiveness to insurance policies sold in State A to those who move to State B, that clearly, imho, pulls the matter within the Commerce Clause.

    2) To the extent the insurance is employer provided, it would, no doubt, be governed by ERISA. That, it seems to me, provides another basis for federal regulation.

    3) Many state that interstate marketing and sales of health insurance would reduce costs. I’ve not considered this as being so, as; a) such policies would most likely need to meet the requirements of the state where sold, given the emphasis on local (state) reserved power; b) if the companies marketing such coverage could, indeed, provide the required coverage at a lower cost, the question of why the company hasn’t registered to do business in the other state in the first place remains open; c) such a transaction would need, I believe, regulation by all states where such coverage is sold, and as regulations vary between the several states, federal regulation would be desirable, and perhaps welcomed by the company itself.

    I claim no particular expertise as a Constitutional scholar; the above represent my own thoughts as of now.

    • tosmarttobegop

      possibly has to do with the Federalist thought process as to why the Federal Government has not taken that tactic. Leaving it up to the States to regulate commerce within the state lines. i.e. the tenth.

  51. Whether you claim any particular expertise or not, you certainly made a good case.

    Much is the ‘business of the federal government’ simply due to interstate commerce.

  52. David B

    I just had to pass this along…
    From ROEDER Trial coverage…
    “The defense has said it planned to call Kline, who investigated Tiller throughout his tenure as AG, and Disney to relay facts about their investigations. The lawyers have indicated what Roeder learned through public reports about those cases helped him form the mindset that shooting Tiller would protect the unborn.”

    Read more: http://blogs.kansas.com/courts/#ixzz0cjigJzYY

    • tosmarttobegop

      In a sense that is all meaningless as hear-say. For all of Kline’s investigations there were not convictions.

      Someone being investigated is not evidence of wrong doing.

      Simply hearing that someone did something is not justification for killing them.

      I was kind of taken back by the judge’s decision, there are not the elements of either justifiable homicide or voluntary manslaughter. The crime was not done while Dr. Tiller was performing an abortion. Where the claim could be made that the shooting was done to save a life. There was no immediate danger and there was no knowing of a single inevitable danger to Roeder or another. He did not know of an appointment to perform a abortion. Simple know that Tiller performed abortion is not knowing he is going to.

      Since Roeder drove from the K.C. area and brought the gun with him. the death was not the result of the moment.

      • tstb, you probably didn’t read the explanation 6176 gave us for the judge’s decision. He can’t rule out the lesser charge with no evidence! No judge can move to the end of a trial — knowing what the evidence was and what charges might apply because of that evidence — until the evidence is given! 6176 also reminded us the prosecution can make the same motion at the end of the trial and because of the evidence get a different ruling! Voluntary manslaughter is a legal definition that MAY be given to the jury if the evidence warrants!

  53. tosmarttobegop

    “Well, their are huge areas of central planning configured in what has been released about the Healthcare bill for one. F0r one very simple example, the requirement that everyone purchase insurance“.

    On this I found the thought a thorn in my side, mandating the purchase of insurance just seems so wrong and the way I have heard it stated at first was just simply minded.
    “People don’t have insurance… Tell them they have to buy some!”
    The first time I heard that said was a Republican but later it also came out of a democrat.

    The thing that made it more acceptable was the public option as stated.
    An alternate to the big insurance and the amoral ways they display.

    But since that has been struck down by those owned by the insurance, Democrat and Conservative both. There is no need or warranting of it.

    “For another, the proposals that the federal government will decide what is an acceptable treatment and what is not“.

    That is no different then was we already have, private insurances does it everyday.
    But this is not basing it on costs, let me reminded you when it comes to Democrats cost is not a real concern. It does have to do with what is proper treatment.
    The reasonability of the treatment and whether it is what will do good and in turn what is covered. Yes in some case it may have to do with life and death, those situations where it is or is not needed for life. To think otherwise to be blunt is Conservative thinking not Liberal. If anything I have found the Democrats not concerned about the cost or judging the value of the individual life. That is what made the accusation of wanting to kill grandma off because of the cost of keeping her alive is ridicules!

    “For another, though not yet confirmed, that the unions got a special exemption for the so called Cadillac plans tax“.

    I am against the tax as it was opposite of the stated intent of the reform.
    Making health care cheaper, you don’t do that by taxing health care and the intended target of this idea will miss the target and hit many who are not the rich.

    As it stands if your insurance policy cost a thousand a month the first eight hundred and forty dollars is tax free. But the remainder is to be taxed at seventy five cents on the dollar.

    Most people do not truly know just how much is paid every month for their insurance.
    It turns out a thousand dollars a month insurance includes many otherwise people that can not afford it. It would touch the air craft plant workers and most of the middle class.

    “The fact that the government is going to spend one trillion dollars tells you who is in control. After all, he who has the gold makes the rules.”.

    Afraid that is more spin then factual, listen I often have accused the Democratic of certain traits. First they see many things as problems and there is not small or large problems they are equal being problems.

    Another thing it the tendency to want to fix all problems at once.
    It causes large bill with tons of word when a simply yes or no would have been enough.
    If the amendment had not been so long and wordy, instead simply saying:

    If you are on Medicare and once every five years you can go to discuss end of life issues with your Doctor and/or your Attorney at no cost to you. There was not mandate or command in it to do it. But because the length and wordiness of the amendment and knowing most would not actually even take the time to read the amendment.
    Those apposed could twist it into “kill granny”.

    The same has happen in this case, the simply way of saying it is miss and distorted
    into run and hide the Government is coming to get you.

    “ The fact that the government now “owns” several businesses, and contrary to what the President said, does get involved in the day to day decisions, such as being involved in the pay of managers“

    These companies had been mismanaged to the point they were dying.
    U.S. taxpayers came to the rescue, should these same people who so mismanage these companies also receive the wages they would decide they should get?

    Like the bonuses, they ran the company into the ground and cause the collapse of the U.S. economy. And they should receive a million dollar bonus for that?

    No let them get those companies back to being stable and profitable then think about being rewarded for it!

    Whether or not it is a far cry from what could be done, it is still a move in that direction. Some people desire that, I do not.

    Just what would you desire to happen? failure of the economy to the point of millions living in card board boxes? The economy had totally collapsed not overly dramatic but the facts our house of cards had fallen fiat! Every thing that the economy was build on suddenly turned to quick sand. If something had not been done to slow the fall and stop farther decomposition. By this time the country would have been a waste land.

    As it is there are far worse times ahead, the trickle down effect has not reached its bottom.
    We have years ahead of unemployment and trying to right the economy.

    “And the Constitution? Under the current “living Constitution” understanding, it means whatever we say it means, at the time“.

    Yes and no, the Constitution is a guild line for certain things.
    A base reading for all other laws and the actions of the Government.
    But can not be the only thing that control every action.

    The problem lies with every new concept it has to be judged as to how it fit within the Constitution.

    “ Unfortunately, this country abandoned a good portion of the Constitution and it’s idea of limited federal powers, a long time ago.”.

    LOL it has been one of my complains, for too long the federal Government has been going around Murphy’s barn to get it way.

    Using the interstate commerce article to extreme and to control thing that it never was meant to apply to.

    Often it has been like, the sky is blue and the sky crosses state lines so anything that is blue is under the authority of the federal Government!

    If the intent is to have total control over health care insurance then simply allow the interstate sells of insurance and take out of the hands of the State to regulate it.
    This would put insurance well within the powers of the federal Government.

  54. lillacluvr

    But I still say – the man shot and killed Tiller (by his own admission) while Tiller was in his own church – not in the clinic.

    So what threat was Tiller to the unborn at the time of his death?

    If this guy gets off on this defense, then I wonder if it would be justified murder to go into a Catholic Church and kill a priest that is suspected of child molestation? Is that considered a big enough threat to kill for?

    I’m not trying to be funny or sarcastic here – I am asking a real question.

    Just how much of a threat are we to be given the free pass to murder someone?

  55. David B

    That’s why such a defense has never been allowed in similar cases.

  56. tosmarttobegop

    Perhaps the judge i.e. the legal system has decided it was time to have a test bed.
    The day has to come when this issue is decided and the argument is set in the legal realm.

    The claim based on justifiable homicide to protect the unborn has not yet been settled.
    Of course nether has the question of whether the unborn is a human being also has not became settled law either.

    Basically the law does not recognize the preemptive doctrine.
    You can not kill someone because some time in the future it is believed they will kill you.
    But this is a horse of a different color and one that generates a lot of emotions on both sides.

    If done right and a jury comes back not accepting that killing the abortionist as protecting a life. It could go far in settling in the legal realm some of the questions.

    Of course when it comes to this issue for some there is no settling short of something they agree with. They will feel it justified no matter what the court rules.

  57. Thunderchild

    I’ve got a good idea who this “Itolduso” is.

    I thought this blog had standards.

    • We do! And there won’t be additional warnings.

      This blog doesn’t need to talk about any blogger — each of us tells the story of ourselves with our own words and no one needs to share their opinions of another person. It’s not a popularity contest, it’s a blog where we discuss what we’re thinking and wondering about, learn from and with each other, have fun, and kick around ideas.

  58. We do.

    Of course, one must remember that all Cons sound alike. They are not a well differentiated species. Animals that have individual differences are more advanced.

  59. My position on “special needs” bloggers is they require continuous monitoring, and have a generally negative impact on my blogging experience.

  60. Reminder: this is not a public park or a gas station bathroom – we don’t have to let in everyone.

  61. Among all this silly hullabaloo was today’s very best post, made by tstb. Paraphrasing here — you’re right, bush wouldn’t have bombed Haiti, that’s where the problem is; he would have bombed Florida.

    Gotta love that post!

  62. Defending the Bush Administration is fraught with obvious difficulties.

  63. We went to see, “It’s Complicated” tonight. Hilarious! I may have to go see it again because I missed some of the laughs since I was still laughing at the one before.