Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:17 AM ET, 01/30/2011

Sunday Open Thread

By Greg Sargent

That was quite a dust-up you guys had yesterday! Got any more?

By Greg Sargent  | January 30, 2011; 9:17 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Open Thread
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

(pop)

Arrived alive.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Top of the mornin to ya's.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 30, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

@Cao...

Left you a post on the last thread.

@Mike Hope you've dug out of the snow.

Now in an effort to gently p!ss you off.:-)
If you read any of my posts to Cao you'd see that my wife and I attended a terrific concert last night here in St. Pete. As we walked along the waterfront...we a wonderful Arts complex on our waterfront...Theatre..Dali Museum..Art Museum..History Museum...

Anyway as we walked to the concert there were dozens of folks enjoying their dinners out on the many sidewalk cafes that populate our city. On freaking January 29th. I was thinking..life is great. Then I thought of all you poor folks stuck in the snow...and well...don't hate us Mike.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca:

To the Radical Right even acknowledging class conflict is Communism. We are supposed to pretend that the SuperRich are just like us and have the same love for the country when, if we believe our Right WIngers, the SuperRich will just abandon the United States and move if their marginal tax rates go up. Great American Patriots, one and all.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 30, 2011 9:34 AM | Report abuse

ANd let's all agree right now that if Ms. Piven gets shot that it is NOT the fault of Beck The Rodeo Clown and the Rabid Right. Doesn't matter if the shooter is wearing a Glenn Beck cap and a Live Free Or Die T-shirt and listening to Beck podcast while he pulls the trigger. Going further, Ms. Piven and the Left should APOLOGIZE right now to Beck for even raising the question whether promoting hate attacks might actually result in hate attacks. Because we all know that could never happen.

That these ignorant and vile people have a place of power and prestige in the country is our national disgrace.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 30, 2011 9:41 AM | Report abuse

And this is how we handle a blizzard in the Hub of the Universe:

"Cabbie, allegedly drunk, driving through storm, says Lenny Clark will Rescue Me

Conneely’s report notes Bryan cursed the entire ride to the Brighton State Police Barracks, and once inside became more belligerent. Told again that he was under arrest, he said he was not and was going home, the report notes. He then said several times that he had been driving a snowmobile and that he had crashed into a snowmobile.

Bryan refused to cooperate with the booking process, the report notes. He insisted that he was not under arrest, and then said repeatedly that Lenny Clark and Denis Leary were going to get him out of trouble and take care of him. Bryan, it is noted, also slurred the word “LLLLEEEEENNNNNYYYYY” – taking about 15 seconds to drag the name out each time – over and over. Clark and Leary are the stars of Rescue Me, featuring police officers and firefighters, but not cab drivers.

Troopers had to hold Bryan up at points during the booking process, Conneely’s report noted, as he insisted, all the while, that he was not under arrest. At one point, Bryan put his fingers in his ears and stated, in a sing-song voice, that he could not hear the trooper who was booking him."

http://www.wickedlocal.com/allston/features/x1868077897/Cabbie-allegedly-drunk-driving-through-storm-says-Lenny-Clark-will-Rescue-Me

Posted by: wbgonne | January 30, 2011 9:45 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne

Yes, I thought the discussion yesterday was a real distraction away from the "facts on the ground" in our great country today. Class struggle is alive and well around the world and it has absolutely nothing to do with neo-marxism, communism, or any other ism. People can only survive poverty, unemployment and scarcity of basic services for so long before they erupt. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Good luck w/that, wbgonne, when there are allegedly educated "attorneys" such as qb who are more than willing to make complete jackasses of themselves by insisting that observations = calls to violence, and that people who have never even heard of Ms. Piven are all following her lead.

The problem with conservatives isn't that they are all dumb; it's that the ones who aren't are all dishonest to the point that you can put their own words in front of them and they will continue to insist that they didn't say what they said. These aren't people with whom you can reason or compromise, because they'd rather live in a dysfunctional world built upon their fantasies than one in which they have to admit that, like all human beings, they are sometimes wrong. Except in this case, "sometimes" is closer to "almost all the time" (I would say never, but a stopped clock and all that).

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 9:49 AM | Report abuse

"People can only survive poverty, unemployment and scarcity of basic services for so long before they erupt."

That's only because they don't understand that it is their own fault they don't have those things. In our great nation, we know that every man and woman has exactly what he deserves because he or she has earned it all through the honest sweat of his and her brow. They probably don't understand that in Egypt. The Egyptian People are probably laboring under the illusion that the Mubaraks and the other Egyptian oligarchs stole what they have. Just like here in the U.S. on Wall Street and in DC.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 30, 2011 9:55 AM | Report abuse

""Just like here in the U.S. on Wall Street and in DC.""

They're slightly more discreet about it though.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Fingers crossed re: Egypt.

O&O.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 30, 2011 10:02 AM | Report abuse

I really do think it's overdue to start arresting some of these people for criminal incitement. That Tides guy? No question that he took his cue from Beck. Maybe .. MAYBE .. not enough to convict but than enough to arraign.

I wouldn't say all "conservatives" are stupid but their inability to debate even inside their own beliefs really is quite the totally consistent phenomenon. So all they can do is sarcasm, snark, and assertion. That's why any of them who can originate text ends up doing so for pay.

@ruk: the Milstein recording was paired with the Mendelssohn concerto IIRC on vinyl, a terrific violin piece. I'm not as much a classical listener as I used to be but the 20th century is my era, much more than the Romanrtic. And if you want a real experience, track down Zvi Zeitlin doing the Schoenberg. Pizzicatos and snaps and click diddly pops.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Power vacuum in a Muslim country means people turn ton the mosques. There aren't any moderate or democratic traditions to fall back on. That takes generations. The neocons were as wrong on this score as Trotsky on his.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 10:08 AM | Report abuse

The Cairo bureau of Al Jazeera has been shut down.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/201113085252994161.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 30, 2011 10:15 AM | Report abuse

At the first sign of insurrection or instability in the USA it's not going to be leftist populism it's going to be the right wing militias and they're not going to be well-regulated, they're going to be shooting anyone wearing glasses. They're just waitng for chaos.

Then they turn on each other.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Jenny:

""The problem with conservatives isn't that they are all dumb; it's that the ones who aren't are all dishonest to the point that you can put their own words in front of them and they will continue to insist that they didn't say what they said.""

So, in your estimation all conservatives are either dumb or dishonest. If you truly believe that, you are dumb. If you don't then isn't it you who is being dishonest here?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 10:16 AM | Report abuse

So, in your estimation all conservatives are either dumb or dishonest

==

How can you believe that junk you do without being both?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Obama has to resign - IF OBAMA HAS ACTED AGAINST US NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS, OBAMA MUST BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.


This represents a BETRAYAL OF US NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS - it is the nightmare scenario that Obama's Muslim heritage is more important to him than our US National Security interests.


We need the democrats in the US Senate to STAND UP FOR THE US NATIONAL SECURITY NOW.

We need 20 democrats in the Senate to put COUNTRY AHEAD OF PARTISANSHIP and agree to remove Obama from office based on Obama's divided loyalties here, which should not be subject to question.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 10:24 AM | Report abuse

lms:

""They're slightly more discreet about ""

lms, could you please name some of these Wall Street "oligarchs" by name and detail how it is that they have "stolen" what they have?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Scott; I should have said "all conservatives who post at Plum Line are dumb or dishonest."

I'm sure it's possible that there is at least one conservative out there somewhere who is neither.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Simon Johnson reporting from Davos. All the biggies are "happy, happy".

"""In terms of public policy, the big players in the financial sector have prevailed – no responsible European, for example, can imagine a major bank being allowed to fail (in the sense of defaulting on any debt). And this government support for banks has translated into easier credit conditions for the major global corporations represented at Davos.

The public policy issue of the day, from the point of view of such CEOs, is simple. There needs to be sufficient fiscal austerity to strengthen public balance sheets – so that states can more effectively stand behind their banks in the future, and to keep currencies from moving too much. Leading bankers, in particular, insisted on the paramount importance of providing unlimited government support to their sector during 2008-09; now they insist with equal or greater vigor that support to all other parts of society be curtailed.

This is where cognitive dissonance creeps in. Most CEOs feel that the provision of general public goods is not their responsibility, although they are very happy to help guide (or capture) the provision of public goods specific to their firm."""

http://baselinescenario.com/2011/01/29/davos-two-worlds-ready-or-not/#more-8584

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 10:37 AM | Report abuse

"I really do think it's overdue to start arresting some of these people for criminal incitement."

I've wondered if perhaps Piven doesn't have grounds for a civil suit for defamation and incitement to harass. These goobers who are making the death threats didn't just suddenly get all riled up because they just happened to pick up a 1960s sociology text and flip through it. There's a very clear correlation there. Though I suppose it would make a better case if they would first track down some of the goobers making the threats and get it on the record that everything they think they know about Piven came out of Glen Beck's mouth.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Okay, I've bought my patch of dirt in the rural area where I **hope** the next big government project will be built. Can't wait to build my Spudnuts!
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 30, 2011 10:41 AM | Report abuse

lms, could you please name some of these Wall Street "oligarchs" by name and detail how it is that they have "stolen" what they have?

==

Having observed your senseless bobbing and weaving and endless distractions why would anyone take this bait? Besides, you regard raw embezzlement as nothing more than proper incentive. You probably demanded the Bush bailouts and you lose sleep worrying about the wealthy paying too much tax.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure it's possible that there is at least one conservative out there somewhere who is neither.

==

Put conservative in quotes and you have an oxymoron. Good luck finding one without the quotes. They get purged, like Frum, or repudiated, like Brooks.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 10:46 AM | Report abuse

rukidding


You brought up the CVs

OK - compare Bidens CV to Obama's


WHO DESERVED THE VOTES????


Is the ONLY reason people voted for Obama was his race???


Both Biden and Dodd had better CVs and much more experience.


The ONLY EXPLANATION IS RACISM

Seriously, the left really has to come to terms with this CLEAR RACISM.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Scott

You can look to the foreclosure fraudsters for your thieves.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's funny how Beck resorts back to claiming he's "just a comedian" when the heat rises. Really, no one should take him seriously. He's just a rodeo clown, remember.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Anyone truly interested in Wall Street thievery should start with Matt Taibbi's archived articles at Rolling Stone, or just get his book Griftopia (though I haven't read it I've read the reviews). Bottom line: all the wealth average Americans lost over the past few years has been found ... surprise surprise ... in the pockets of Wall Street Banksters. And anyone who doubts whether Washington DC is a co-conspirator with Wall Street doesn't understand how plutocracies operate.

So corporations are making record profits and sitting on mountains of cash while the real unemployment rate is near 20%. Why no new hiring? Because the SuperRich know that they have working people trapped. Big Money can just work its current employees to death and then replace them with another body when they drop dead. How did that happen? Simple. The destruction of unions and collective bargaining and the failure of the U.S. government to work for the people instead of the SuperRich. All culminating in the Rabid Right's insistence that working people are lazy shiftless slugs who get nothing because they deserve nothing.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 30, 2011 11:00 AM | Report abuse

@Scott

"lms, could you please name some of these Wall Street "oligarchs" by name and detail how it is that they have "stolen" what they have?"

Given your self identification as a "derivatives" trader, and the substance and tone of your posts one would be severely tempted to name YOU as one of the oligarchs. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Wbgonne writes to imsinca

To the Radical Right even acknowledging class conflict is Communism.

_______________________

Well, intellectually this is 100% correct. The root of communism is Marxism - which IS the study of class struggle.

Marxism is basically an economic doctrine


To attempt to define socialism and communism gets difficult, because the definitions have changed through the decades.

Originally - to Marx and Lenin - socialism was the first stage - and communism was a later stage of communism, the ultimate goal.

So Marx saw an evolution of economic systems from socialism to communism. And remember Marx believed the most advanced economies would become socialist and communist first, along an evolutionary tract.

Russia becoming socialist first, being the least advanced economy in Europe, was not the way it was supposed to happen.


It was only later that the authoritarian aspects - which were political - began to distinquish between socialism and communism, meaning that communism was defined as socialism with an authoritarian government.

However, Russia was always traditionally more athoritarian, so their brand of socialism would always be expected to be more authoritarian.


It was only after WWII that those distinctions were made - to apply to Western Europe.

The Nazis considered themselves Socialist, National Socialists. The "Z" is really an "S" and stands for socialism.

____________________


So to call Obama a communist is not really that far off, in fact precisely by the definitions, it is probably 100% correct.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Mike from Arlington


And the rest of the day to you....


What is all this Hibernian stuff....


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Scott

Yes, I would like some more detail on your thinking along those lines.

However, I agree with you that the Wall Street banks have veered off into stealing.

I think the Wall Street firms have been "skimming" the profits off of companies for decades - and the actual owners of the stocks have been hurt by the process.


At some point, trading is a good to the economy, however our economy is well past that point.

The actual owners of stock deserve the proceeds of their ownership, and that is not happening.


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 11:16 AM | Report abuse

BTW Tossing out specious challenges to "name" the oligarchs is a wonderful misdirection. I don't believe many on this blog believe there are a half dozen to a dozen people literally running the country.

But it doesn't require that "extreme" to validate an assertion that America is becoming (indeed if it already hasn't) an oligarchy.

1% of our current population is 3,000,000 people...is a country controlled by 3 million an oligarchy?

How about 1/10 of 1%..that's just 300,000 folks. Would we call our nation an oligarchy if 300,000 people wielded undue influence?

How about 30,000? Would .0001 of our nation wielding incredible influence in determining our tax laws...regulatory policy..foreign policy(as in the MIC keeping us in a perpetual state of war) be properly called an oligarchy?

So any question requiring names of the oligarchy is simply irrelevant. Is anybody prepared to list 30,000 names.
We could take the bait and start with the Koch Brothers and George Soros...despised equally by the opposite political groups. We could name "beneficent" oligarchs like Bill and Melissa Gates and Warren Buffet...but what's the point of names.

The actual question for debate is..do we believe that wealth=power is concentrated in a very small number of people and are these people making good decisions for our nation or good decisions for their own narrow personal interests? If you are indeed one of the oligarchs Scott that answer is pretty clear from your prior posts.

Given the irrefutable evidence of our growing deficit, shrinking middle class, off shoring of jobs, and incredible wealth REDISTRIBUTION of the past three decades this is a very valid question!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Bill Black in a December article. He's one of those equal opportunity critics who likes to tell the truth as he sees it, no matter who controls the levers of power.

""The role of the criminal justice system with regard to financial fraud by elite bankers in 2011 is likely to reprise its role last decade -- de facto decriminalization. The Galleon investigation of insider trading at hedge funds will take much of the FBI's and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) focus.

The state attorneys general investigations of foreclosure fraud do focus on the major players such as the Bank of America (BoA), but they are unlikely to lead to criminal liability for any senior bank officials. It is most likely that they will lead to financial settlements that include new funding for loan modifications.

The FBI and the DOJ remain unlikely to prosecute the elite bank officers that ran the enormous "accounting control frauds" that drove the financial crisis. While over 1000 elites were convicted of felonies arising from the savings and loan (S&L) debacle, there are no convictions of controlling officers of the large nonprime lenders. The only indictment of controlling officers of a far smaller nonprime lender arose not from an investigation of the nonprime loans but rather from the lender's alleged efforts to defraud the federal government's TARP bailout program.

What has gone so catastrophically wrong with DOJ, and why has it continued so long? The fundamental flaw is that DOJ's senior leadership cannot conceive of elite bankers as criminals.""

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 11:20 AM | Report abuse

@STRF

Re your 10:50 Post...

The Dry Cleaner has just called and your white sheets are ready. They did mention some problem with the hood however and getting the creases just right so the point will fit...hopefully the eye holes will lineup OK on your pointy head.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 11:24 AM | Report abuse

rukidding

Obviously I was calling you the racist - and since the dry cleaner had your number, I supposed those sheets are yours.

_____________________


The point is: Martin Luther King said "It is not the color of one's skin, but the content of one's character"

AND I am challenging the democrats: Did you vote for Obama based on the color of his skin.


Because if they DID, they were DISCRIMINATING against more qualified, but WHITE candidates.

Pretty simple.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 11:28 AM | Report abuse

"So, in your estimation all conservatives are either dumb or dishonest. If you truly believe that, you are dumb. If you don't then isn't it you who is being dishonest here?"

I know plenty of smart Conservatives. I was working with a great cancer surgeon who has people fly in from all over the country to see him. But he's also a hard core Conservative. (well, maybe not since he partakes in end-of-life discussion) When I was in grad school, I knew some very good students who were also Bush fans. So being Conservative doesn't mean dumb.

But when it comes to policy, yeah, they are retarded. In their defense, however, they aren't really politically involved. I have never met a smart person who pays close attention to policy who believes the stuff people on here believe. No one I know thinks that the tax rates play no role in the deficit. The way you people simply choose to ignore evidence that you see is astounding. And I see it here on a day to day basis. Even your assertion that Democrats are more responsible for deficits than Republicans. If you get your information from Jay Leno, fine, it's ok to think that. But for someone who pays attention (especially for someone who is so attuned to "studies" like Scott) it's absolutely inexcusable.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2011 11:29 AM | Report abuse

ALL,


A person writes:

How about 1/10 of 1%..that's just 300,000 folks. Would we call our nation an oligarchy if 300,000 people wielded undue influence?

_____________________________

I challenge anyone to name a period of US history when this has NOT been the case.

We have ALWAYS had a political system in which the few giving money to fund campaigns have had undue influence.


When in the history of the US has it NOT been the situation when 1/10 of 1% controlled everything - economically as well as politically ???


_____


AND if this REALLY IS YOUR BEEF, the Campaign Finance Reform is really where you should be directing your efforts.


Meaning, a truly bipartisan effort to pass a Constitutional Amendment which would address the problems AND create a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.


Honestly, folks, your dude Obama has SET BACK Campaign finance reform dramatically, by PULLING OUT of the program in 2008.


IF YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, then I hate to tell you....


I really hate to tell you..........

I really hate this...


NO I LOVE IT


If you care about Campaign Finance Reform and really fixing the system.....

MCCAIN IS YOUR MAN.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 11:33 AM | Report abuse

"It's funny how Beck resorts back to claiming he's "just a comedian" when the heat rises. Really, no one should take him seriously. He's just a rodeo clown, remember."

John Stewart, call your agent.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Yeah Jon Stewart is always saying stuff like, "You're going to have to shoot them in the head."
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 30, 2011 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Oops, try that again.

Jon Stewart, call your agent.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Ddawd writes:

The way you people simply choose to ignore evidence that you see is astounding. And I see it here on a day to day basis

_______________

WHAT is "you people" supposed to mean


I suppose you mean WHITE PEOPLE


You are being RACIST AGAIN, sterotyping WHITE PEOPLE


I am sick of how the Washington Post allows this CLEAR RACIST to continue on this blog.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 11:41 AM | Report abuse

"lms, could you please name some of these Wall Street "oligarchs" by name and detail how it is that they have "stolen" what they have?"

I'll play. How about Franklin Raines and Jamie Garolick?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"John Stewart, call your agent."

Troll you can do a lot better than that. You have a huge responsibility on this blog as one of the sane righties...to those who are given a lot..a lot is expected..if I might paraphrase a very famous Book.

Has anybody ever received death threats from John Stewart's "entertainment"? From Glen Beck's? Stewart is practicing the time honored art of satire/parody and he does gore both sides...admittedly more Faux News than anybody else...but heh Faux provides so much incredible material...like the time they were riffing on the "Ground Zero Mosque" and pointed out a shady Arab Sheik. Steve Deushbag went on and on with nefarious looking pics etc asking the sinister question...where is the money coming from? Well let's trace it...Ohhh the Arab sheik was a large stockholder in Rupert Murdoch's holdings including a hefty interest in Faux News...and so Steve Deushbag where is the money coming from...freaking Faux News!
This stuff is just amazing...you can't make it up (unlike glen beck who fabricates large portions of his rants)you can't fault Stewart for making fun of the obvious.

Having said that Troll I like you and so I hope you won't tell beck and have me placed on a list for one of the government internment camps he announced coming to a neighborhood near you.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 11:49 AM | Report abuse

ruk: ""Having said that Troll I like you and so I hope you won't tell beck and have me placed on a list for one of the government internment camps he announced coming to a neighborhood near you.""

Can you let me know where that internment camp is going to be built? I need to get my real estate people in there to scout for my next Spudnuts location.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 30, 2011 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I'll play. How about Franklin Raines and Jamie Garolick?

Troll perhaps you are correct here. But you still have hundreds if not thousands of names to provide.

Again righties I know you don't do nuance well but we are not talking about 500 people meeting and planning...ohhh wait perhaps we are...:-)

http://www.mydesert.com/article/20110122/NEWS0301/101220316/Secretive-billionaire-caucus-Rancho-Mirage-drawing-scrutiny

"Secretive 'billionaire caucus' in Rancho Mirage drawing scrutiny"

The four-day gathering that starts Jan. 29 is organized by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, who are known to back conservative causes.

It marks the eighth time they've held an event in the Coachella Valley, but the first time their efforts are being widely publicized.

Common Cause, a national government watchdog group, this week also asked the U.S. Justice Department to look at whether two Supreme Court justices had a conflict of interest in a legal case involving corporate campaign donations. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas had attended previous Koch events that were held in Indian Wells."

Of course Troll you probably view our worries about conflict of interest when two Supremes attend these conferences and then "voila" reverse years of precedent with a ruling in CU that...just COINCIDENTALLY favors those same special interests as groundless. Perhaps then Troll you can give us your concept of "conflict of interest". Does it ever exist?

And I'm sure Troll I could gain equal access to the Supremes if I host a big shindig here in St. Pete...even if the attendees earned less than six figures.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"Can you let me know where that internment camp is going to be built? I need to get my real estate people in there to scout for my next Spudnuts location."

Badda Boom! Rimshot for you jprestonian. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas make Heidi Fleiss look like an honest woman.

Talk about wh*res!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 12:07 PM | Report abuse

""Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas had attended previous Koch events that were held in Indian Wells."""

I wonder if they invited the comedian Glenn Beck this year? Oh and someone at the "Blaze" needs to let his crowd of commenters know he's a comedian. Some of them seem pretty convinced to me that they're fighting this century's "communist scourge".

Out to play catch up on some work, have a great "no football" Sunday.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 12:08 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca

Glad to have you back. You'll be happy to know that 12Bar upheld your high standards in your absence and indeed you are now relieved of that heavy mantle of "blog saint" :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't Glen Beck talk a lot about divine inspiration and stuff like that? I know the Conservative version of Christianity is pretty hilarious, but still, doesn't seem like he should be belittling the word of god in that way.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2011 12:11 PM | Report abuse

@ RainForestRising, 10:24 AM

Sir, what would you have us do (other than impeaching President Obama)? Are we to invade a sovereign country to quell a populist uprising against a repressive regime? I beg your pardon, but I believe that has not worked very well for us in the past.

What is your preferred plan of action?

Posted by: wiccan | January 30, 2011 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Hi Ruk,

I'm pretty sure Beck actually denounced the "camps" fear, and there has been some significant reduction in rhetoric surrounding that particular left/right wing nut bugaboo.  Pity though, I'm a bit of a "scrounger" and would really thrive in that environment.  Think James Garner in The Great Escape, and substitute Nazi's for local governments that imprison single parents for lying about their place of residence so her kids can go to a better school.

 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513024,00.html

 http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=12763654

For a secret meeting, you sure seem to know alot about the Kock brothers get together.  Someone needs to talk to security.  I wonder who Justice SotoMayor and Justice Kagen will speak to this year?  Justice Ginsburg perhaps?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse

ruk

Good news re 12Bar, now the real me can materialize and I can tell everyone here what I really think of them. HaaaaaHaaaaa

JK

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse

It is clear the liberals do not know what they are talking about

They talk about 1/10 of 1% controlling the country, however, they FAIL to realize that McCain is the one with the PROVEN TRACK RECORD ON THE ISSUE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, which is the way out of what they are complaining about.


Obama pulled OUT of the Campaign Finance system - and is just BUYING INTO THE OLIGARCHY as much as he can. When Obama got to Washington, the FIRST thing he did was make a deal with the pharmaceutical companies to protect them. What a joke, and ALL the democrats know it.


The DNC takes MORE MONEY from Corporate America than you believe.


If you want to CLEAN UP WASHINGTON, why don't you START at the DNC, have them swear OFF corporate money - make the MONEY OF THE DNC CLEAN.

THEN, and only then, will you have anything to stand on.


However, when Obama is collecting MORE money than the Republicans, and probably more corporate and Wall Street money, the democrats have ZERO to stand on.


AND the Clintons SCREWED the democrats more than anyone on this issue - they were the one who SOLD OUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND SOLD OUT THE NATION to these interests - so Hillary could pay for 3 campaigns in 10 years.

WAKE up you idiot liberals.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 12:19 PM | Report abuse

The real hero of "The Great Escape" was Steve McQueen, a great distraction, in more ways than one. See y'all, really.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 12:20 PM | Report abuse

wiccan

First of all, there are reports that Obama has been encouraging the revolt in Egypt - over the past 2 years.


I would like to make clear that if Obama has been doing this, it is INCREDIBLY NAIVE AND STUPID. The Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over - there is little dobut about that.


Yes, the United States is going to have to make a decision fast about whether to go to war with the Muslim Brotherhood.


The alternative to this is clear: Hamas will have an OPEN BORDER for weapons into Gaza.

Furthermore, a TERRORIST GOVERNMENT in Egypt will be seeking to overthrown the Saudis really quickly. This is something the US can not stand for. After that, there is no telling how many other oil-producing nations will fall.


You should be HAPPY our troops are in Iraq.


The US should immediately CEASE the pull-out of troops from Iraq - those may be the ONLY OIL FIELDS WE CAN HOLD ONTO.


We are in a serious, serious situation in which Al Queda and their allies are in a position to take over several countries.


The terrorism which is bound to happen in US Cities will be dramatic. Im telling you we are in a serious situation.


So, yes, I say go to war against the Muslim Brotherhood RIGHT NOW - and hold our positions now - before a revolutionary government takes hold in Egypt.


This is on the level of the Iranian Revolution, probably worse.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Kevin Willis and Tao are honest intelligent conservatives. I believe that they are as honest as the day is long, and no one can deny that they are both very intelligent chaps.

Tao; I have the DVD of Van live At Montreaux. Great stuff.

I also have the DVD of Shane MacGowan's appearance there. I love that rascal. He composed some brilliant songs.

His appearance was in a hall named for Miles Davis. Shane sneaked in a line, saying this number is dedicated to Miles Davis; and then muttered: "an arrogant prick".

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 12:30 PM | Report abuse

All,

There is little difference between the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt and Al Queda taking over Egypt - they are close allies, or even one-in-the-same.

Seriously.


Think of it as Al Queda taking over Egypt and what that means for state-sponsored terrorism and the effects on the other oil-producing countries.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

The real hero of "The Great Escape" was Steve McQueen, a great distraction, in more ways than one. See y'all, really.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 12:20 PM
..........................

You couldn't keep your eyes of his baseball?

When Steve got cast in the Magnificent Seven, he kept trying to upstage the other top members of the cast, by doing physical motion tricks behind them. Yul Brynner caught on to what the young upstart was up to, and turned around and barked at McQueen; "all I have to do, in any scene, is just remove my hat, and you will disappear from the scene". McQueen stopped all his scene grabbing antics.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"I wonder who Justice SotoMayor and Justice Kagen will speak to this year? Justice Ginsburg perhaps?

Troll here is a report on Sotomayor

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/10/AR2010071002968.html

“She worked constantly, turned down interview requests and most speaking engagements,”

Kagan…pretty much the same…Ginsburg not terribly active either but then she is in her late 70’s and probably would have not wished to take on the extra travel etc.

But another interesting link for you Troll..

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=39461

“There is currently a debate in Congress over whether federal judges (including Supreme Court Justices) should be allowed to receive honoraria (i.e., fees) for speaking engagements.

The practice was formerly permitted, but was banned in 1989. Prior to the ban, Justice SCALIA MADE A FAIR AMOUNT OF MONEY GIVING SPEECHES. He has been agitating for some time to lift the ban.

This issue has been brought to the fore because Republican Senators Judd Gregg (of New Hampshire) and Mitch McConnell (of Kentucky) SURREPTITIOUSLY tried to lift the ban by slipping a provision to that effect in an appropriations bill.”

This was from back in 2000. I’m not sure where the law stands today. And so we know that Scalia “was” a wh*re but now may be simply a sl&t. Although IMHO the laws is weak anyway…there are plenty of ways to grease the skids besides direct “honoraria”.
But that’s the R/Liberterian way right? What right have we to prevent Scalia from earning a good living..even if it means selling out one of the highest positions in the land.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Well guys - do you want Al Queda taking over Egypt???


This is the situation today -


Yea, if Obama is encouraging this, Obama should be IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY.


The story is coming out.


Obama should resign anyway - he has completely bungled Middle East policy. That is his JOB. Obama is all concerned with his liberal agenda - and he ignores the Economy and the Middle East. NOW we all have to live the consequences of this UNQUALIFIED URBAN RUBE running the White House.


Yes I said UNQUALIFIED URBAN RUBE.


And that is clearly the situation


an UNQUALIFIED URBAN RUBE.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Scalia went on hunting trips with Dick Cheney, and never recused himself on any cases, that involved the Bush/Cheney White House.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 12:47 PM | Report abuse

STRF.

You are in fine form this morning . Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Come on folks. Show a little love for STRF.

Tell him you agree with everything he writes, and encourage him to keep up the good work.

STRF. I want you to know that your toil has not gone unnoticed, and I consider you to be a national treasure, so well done mate, and keep up the good work.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 12:54 PM | Report abuse

@liam

Agree with your observations about tao, and Kevin being bright honest posters from the right. I would add Troll and Scott...and perhaps when the subject is not Palin..Q.B.

And perhaps that is the actual genesis of what is driving we on the left crazy. The right HAS plenty of intellectual people...people with gravitas..skill..ethics..whatever...but those folks seem to be getting pushed to the side by the extremists. All we are saying is defend your good people..but please stop insulting us with the likes of Palin/Bachmann/Gohmert/King/Tancredo/Demented and the rest of that cast of morons who "some" of you seem to need to defend.

And again "seriously" Q.B. W.F. Buckley would be appalled by the Palin/Bachmann/Gohmert phenemenon. I used to watch Firing Line regularly...not because I agree with everything W.F.B. said...he had his own foibles re race and other subjects...but the man had a brilliant mind, and he respected intelligence and "gravitas" in others. Just he almost singlehandedly consigned the John Birchers to the dust bins of the fringe back in the '50's...he most certainly would be embarrassed by many of the current R's like Palin/Bachmann/Gohmert as intellectual embarrassments for the Conservative movement. In short W.F.B. did not dismiss well educated thoughtful people as pointy headed elitists....perhaps because he was one himself. :-) Along with John K Galbraith and others who USED to be trusted to debate the thorny issues of the day.

But then again in fairness to Buckley and Galbraith they didn't have the wisdom of Joe "The Fake Plumber" to enlighten them.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Well time for me to leave. I'd rather read a dozen Brigade posts than what lies in front of me this afternoon...a Memorial service for an acquaintance who died far too young.

The only positive thought I can retain is that the man "died a good death" Remember that Brad Pitt movie where the Indian elder described Pitt as having a good death in a losing fight with a huge bear?

This man played football at Alabama for Bear Bryant. He remained an active athlete his entire life and then a couple of weeks ago dropped dead of a massive heart attack right in the middle of a ski run.
If I could choose a way to go...that is it...right in the middle of skiing down the slopes.

Catch you later this evening...play nice now...don't make me sic 12Bar on y'all.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"Agree with your observations about tao, and Kevin being bright honest posters from the right. I would add Troll and Scott...and perhaps when the subject is not Palin..Q.B."

Better add me to the "epitome of evil" list because, unlike the rest of the RINO's listed, I'm a full throated supporter of The 'Cuda, donated to her PAC and will actively work for her campaign should she decide to run.  With the exception of Senator Demint, None of the Republican potentials will have, in my opinion, the courage to sign a repeal of the universally acknowledged disastrous Obamacare.  Nor will any havethe courage to actively campaign on it or on entitlement reform, as in means testing for SS and a Ryan type voucher system for Medicare.  Now, unfortunately for the Country, she probably won't win, but she will drive the Republican field to the right, along with Barry.  Tell me you disagree with that last sentence, Wbgonne?

And I rather enjoy being a member of a group that instills fear into Bernie.  If being a Palin supporter is wrong, in Bernie's world (and the world of mainstream PL'ers), I Don't Wanna Be Right!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 1:10 PM | Report abuse

lms quoted from Davos:

The bankers say:

There needs to be sufficient fiscal austerity to strengthen public balance sheets – so that states can more effectively stand behind their banks in the future, and to keep currencies from moving too much.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don't ever call these guys self serving. That's right--cut government deficits so that governments can bail out banks, when needed.

And that's yet another reason to cut Medicaid, from Davos Switzerland.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

[rukidding7 muttered: "intellectual embarrassments for the Conservative movement."]

I see ruk is still gnawing the carpet and muttering to itself over academia's latest (embarrassing!) findings.

U-Minn: Obama LEAST Smart Since FDR
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/01/keeping_it_simple_obama_record.php

"President Obama now has the LOWEST average Flesch-Kincaid score for State of the Union addresses of any modern president — with his 8.5 grade level falling just below the 8.6 score recorded by George H.W. Bush during his presidency."

*wicked smaht*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 30, 2011 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Rukidding,

And no matter how they try to spin it, Palin using a decades old donut shop as a example of how America will win the future, is down right stupid. Also; no matter where any Donut shop is located, it still has to depend on government to provide the roads for customers to drive on to get to the Donut shop.

Only Sarah and Homer Simpson believe that Donuts are the answer to all our problems.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Troll - just curious, but when you need someone to fix your car, do you go looking for someone who's never looked under a hood before? When you need a plumber, do you call a guy you know from work who agrees with the same things you think and has never handled a wrench, or do you call someone who's licensed and has experience?

Either situation is analogous to supporting someone for the presidency who has shown neither the knowledge nor the inclination to learn what's needed to run this country, and that's not even getting to the sticking-with-it part.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I love Quitter Of The Frozen North.

I am going to work to have her nominated. I am convinced that after four years out of government, she will be recharged and rested enough to give us a solid half term as President of the USA. You betcha!

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 1:24 PM | Report abuse

First of all, there are reports that Obama has been encouraging the revolt in Egypt - over the past 2 years.


I would like to make clear that if Obama has been doing this, it is INCREDIBLY NAIVE AND STUPID. The Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over - there is little dobut about that.


Yes, the United States is going to have to make a decision fast about whether to go to war with the Muslim Brotherhood.


The alternative to this is clear: Hamas will have an OPEN BORDER for weapons into Gaza.

Furthermore, a TERRORIST GOVERNMENT in Egypt will be seeking to overthrown the Saudis really quickly. This is something the US can not stand for. After that, there is no telling how many other oil-producing nations will fall.


You should be HAPPY our troops are in Iraq.


The US should immediately CEASE the pull-out of troops from Iraq - those may be the ONLY OIL FIELDS WE CAN HOLD ONTO.


We are in a serious, serious situation in which Al Queda and their allies are in a position to take over several countries.


The terrorism which is bound to happen in US Cities will be dramatic. Im telling you we are in a serious situation.


So, yes, I say go to war against the Muslim Brotherhood RIGHT NOW - and hold our positions now - before a revolutionary government takes hold in Egypt.


This is on the level of the Iranian Revolution, probably worse.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Do male Leftists insult Mrs. Palin as a way to score cheap points with the feminists in their lives? Or do these shrill castratii only attacking her (and her kids) as an outlet for more-general misogynistic impulses that would otherwise be socially unacceptable to express?

*animus*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 30, 2011 1:24 PM | Report abuse

If being a Palin supporter is wrong, in Bernie's world (and the world of mainstream PL'ers), I Don't Wanna Be Right!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your great line above. I think that a great many of Mrs. Palin's supporters are motivated for the same reason.

I think everyone here on this blog should really stop and think of what it means to support someone because it makes Bernie (or Jenn or whatever liberal) mad.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Liam

Thanks for the sarcasm. It is appreciated.


Well - by the way, we do not need a Congressional Resolution to go into Egypt - it falls under the Terrorism Resolution passed after 9/11.


One has to realize that the Muslim Brotherhood is NOT a democracy movement - they are an ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST TERRORIST ORGANIZATION with close ties to Al Queda.

Seriously folks.


The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt - where do you think they came from? They came from the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.


The liberals simply have no idea what we are up against. I know you had your little marches and carried your little signs against Iraq.

However, the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD is a serious NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT TO THE US and they must be stopped immediately.


If Obama will not do that, he MUST BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED and we have to get someone in there WHO WILL DO THE JOB.


It is that simple.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 1:29 PM | Report abuse

STRF. You go from strenght to strength. How do you keep coming up with all those original gems? Do you have a Facebook page, where we can find more of your writings?

It would be great if you could read your comments into a webcam, and post them on Youtube. Have you considered doing so?

Keep up the good work mate.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Users of Troll Hunter,

Yesterday when the comment count got up in the hundreds, I started getting script problems. The script wouldn't load and asked whether I wanted to stop the script or continue. Anyone else having those problems? Anyone know how to fix it?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 1:34 PM | Report abuse

@Troll LMAO Ok I'll consign you to the hybrid group of posters with Q.B. who suffer from what you guys call P.D.S.

Just curious Troll. Are you for or against the concept of universal health care for our citizens. And please spare me the lunacy of free market solutions...if they worked why are we in this present pickle...I personally know they don't work...there is no rational consumerism when it comes to one's health, no ability for the "free market" to work because of incentives for the consumer...there is only ONE incentive for a health care consumer at the end of the day...I want to live! Aside from that the system is so cumbersome..full of special interests from Big Pharma, to Providers to of course the Big Insurance companies.

But then perhaps we are in agreement and you're just against the ACA specifically...which by the way is the NAME of the bill...I'm not sure where Obamacare comes from...ohh yeah when you don't have rational alternatives to a program or policy you try to misdirect and obfuscate with bogeyman names like "obamacare".

But I digress...perhaps like me you were in favor of Medicare for all, a single payer solution "augmented" by our private insurance companies just as existing Medicare...then again perhaps you are not for universal coverage and do not believe our citizens deserve what every other nation in the world provides...yeah I know personally I'm comforted by the fact that we shoulder the policeman of the world burden while I personally have to work two more years before my wife and I reach Medicare age and can afford to retire.
Ahhh but those free market solutions have worked so well for us historically...me personally...over $20,000 in premiums for wifey and I and another $4,000 bill for a kidney stone a couple of years ago. Nothing like the free market...without it I might not be forced into bankruptcy because of health care!

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH

60% of all of our bankruptcies forced because of health care! Yeah how's that free markety thingy workin' fer ya?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

12 Bar

Ha ha hhaaaa hhaaaaaaaa


We know how to defeat the Troll Hunter now


But we really don't want to


We want to continue to take "free shoots" at all the people using Troll Hunter


They look like fools not responding to all the charges against them.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I am impressed the PlumLine peanut gallery made it nearly 3-hours without reflexively sucking their Palin-hater binkies.

*good job*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 30, 2011 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Good for you, ruk, going to the higher level question:

Does Troll support healthcare for all?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, Palin-derangement has become the all-purpose binky for Leftist angst in these turbulent times.

The Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) economics of oil/commodity price inflation has completely enflamed The Middle East in food riots-- while The Obamateur fiddles.

But when all else fails, Leftists can always wallow in the crap-and-urine of their hate for Mrs. Palin.

[Liam sneered: "Only Sarah and Homer Simpson believe that Donuts are the answer"]

*tragi-comic*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 30, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

BTW One final thought before the Memorial.

My wife and I...both successful professionals who between us have been earning at a six figure level, saving, investing, doing what we were supposed to do in the U.S.

We have literally had conversations about divorcing if one of us contracts a really serious expensive illness. I would never wish to force my wife into bankruptcy because of some disease..I would divorce her first and die a "pauper" on the public dime...yeah get ready Scott..if I get a major disease...you and the taxpayers are going to pay for it because that is the system you've left and the choices we have.

Kind of pathetic in an "exceptional" nation that two "upper middle class" folks have to discuss divorce because of our country's horrible health care system...

Again...do not come with a bunch of free market malarky until you can address REALITY...60% of all bankruptcies are due to health care. My what a compassionate nation!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I love Palin. I am going to work the primaries for her.

She was the Republican VP candidate. She has a plaform on Fox, where she keeps making political statements. I do not understand why Conservatives do not want the opinions of one of their top political leaders being discussed.

Stop acting ashamed of her, by complaining when ever non-republicans respond to her political comments, tweets, telecasts, and palm readings.

She is not afraid to enter the arena, so why are you right wingers afraid to have her political speech examined, challenged, and lampooned.

If you can't handle robust free speech, then you are not Great Americans, and Sean Hannity will be very disappointed by you.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar

"Good for you, ruk, going to the higher level question:"

Thanks 12Bar. As I mentioned I'm trying to learn from you and lmsinca. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 1:49 PM | Report abuse

If I were a person who opposed healthcare for all, I would oppose the Emergency Health care law (the one that required hospitals to treat all in the ER) and I would oppose public money going toward the indigent. Otherwise, the public is still funding healthcare for all, just by another means. I would also oppose bankruptcy for healthcare bills, because that is just another means for the patient to duck out while the cost of his treatment is paid for by others.

Therefore, ruk, getting a divorce and bankrupting yourself would not get you healthcare.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 1:53 PM | Report abuse

[Liam wants "robust free speech"]

Well then, why isn't billionaire progressive George Soros financing any unhinged Leftist rent-a-mob rallies against ObaMao's sniper executions of (un-Mirandized!) Somali teens at sea?

Afterall, Obama's sniper tactics were clearly more "violent" than Mrs. Palin's target maps-- or even Mubarak's secret police beatings.

The anniversary of Obama's firing spree on (un-Mirandized!) Somali teens at sea is this April. Get busy, Leftists.

Rev. Wright should burn a Koran every day until Obama either releases his birth certificate or resigns in disgrace.

Rage against the machine, progressives!

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 30, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

12Bar: ""Yesterday when the comment count got up in the hundreds, I started getting script problems. The script wouldn't load and asked whether I wanted to stop the script or continue. Anyone else having those problems? Anyone know how to fix it?""

No fix -- Troll Hunter is a client-side script. What this is pointing out to you is a limitation in your computer -- either processor speed or insufficient memory.

I don't get those errors, but I do lose a lot of the formatting, as if the CSS for the page has become unavailable.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 30, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

" Are you for or against the concept of universal health care for our citizens. "

I do not believe healthcare is a right, enumerated or even implied by the Constitution. States can do what they want, even (looks furitively left and right) to claim that healthcare is a State Right.

Does that clarify things?

When did healthcare become a right? When was the moment?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I am backing Palin for The GOP nomination, and unlike most of her right wing conservative backers, I am not trying to keep her hidden in the basement.

Free Granny Grizzly.

Free Granny Grizzly.

Free Granny Grizzly.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

And 12bar, I gave a couple of reasons why I support Palin. Scaring you guys is just a side benefit,;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

@troll,

Do you support healthcare for all in your state?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

To the Radical Right even acknowledging class conflict is Communism. We are supposed to pretend that the SuperRich are just like us and have the same love for the country when, if we believe our Right WIngers, the SuperRich will just abandon the United States and move if their marginal tax rates go up. Great American Patriots, one and all.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 30, 2011 9:34 AM
=========================================

Abandon the United States? Rather than demonstrate the same love of country as the rest of us? Now, of whom does that remind me?

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 2:05 PM | Report abuse

I am not going to base my opinion on if people living in the twenty first century should be able to receive proper health care, without going broke, on the musing of a small band of eighteenth century slave owning white male oligarchs.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

@jprestonian,
Thanks. I guess I'll just turn off TH when the RAM gets overwhelmed. I have only 2 gb of ram, which is maxed out for my motherboard. My processor is fairly fast, so I'm guessing it's the ram.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

ANd let's all agree right now that if Ms. Piven gets shot that it is NOT the fault of Beck The Rodeo Clown and the Rabid Right. Doesn't matter if the shooter is wearing a Glenn Beck cap and a Live Free Or Die T-shirt and listening to Beck podcast while he pulls the trigger. Going further, Ms. Piven and the Left should APOLOGIZE right now to Beck for even raising the question whether promoting hate attacks might actually result in hate attacks. Because we all know that could never happen.

That these ignorant and vile people have a place of power and prestige in the country is our national disgrace.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 30, 2011 9:41 AM
=======================================

Ignorant? Vile? Ms. Piven? She may be old, but it seems she spent the better part of her life agitating just like Beck, only for a different philosophy. This was pointed out yesterday by Quarterback in his effective smackdown of JennOfArk. Some might say Ms. Piven's chickens are coming home to roost.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Is Soros all out of punch and pie, Laim?

Why isn't billionaire progressive George Soros financing any unhinged Leftist rent-a-mob rallies against ObaMao's summary execution of (un-Mirandized!) civilians by Reaper drone airstrikes in Pakistan?

Afterall, Obama's targeting tactics are clearly more "violent" than Mubarak's secret police beatings.

Obama's policy to use Reaper drones to target (un-Mirandized!) civilians has increased markedly without a peep. Get busy, Leftists.

Rev. Wright should burn a Koran every day until Obama either releases his birth certificate or ends his Reaper drone madness.

Rage against the machine, Laim!

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 30, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

If not cutting taxes for billionaires is "class warfare", then what is cutting social security benefits on the elderly, denying health care to the poor, destroying their pension plans, and eliminating a minimum wage standard?

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

So, in your estimation all conservatives are either dumb or dishonest
==
How can you believe that junk you do without being both?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 10:19 AM
=========================================

He's already left his country to his betters. Isn't it about time he simply put himself out of his considerable misery altogether?

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

And 12bar, I gave a couple of reasons why I support Palin. Scaring you guys is just a side benefit,;-)
----------------------------------------------------
Uh huh. Well, you are going to have a lot of enjoyment for the next two years. Glad to contribute something to your life.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Scott; I should have said "all conservatives who post at Plum Line are dumb or dishonest."

I'm sure it's possible that there is at least one conservative out there somewhere who is neither.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 10:28 AM
=========================================

I'll take that as a compliment. Are we cool again?

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Ok, brigade, let me talk to you--

Important question: do you support healthcare for all?

If like troll, the answer is no because of states' rights, the next question: do you support healthcare for all in your state?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

These goobers who are making the death threats didn't just suddenly get all riled up because they just happened to pick up a 1960s sociology text and flip through it.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 10:37 AM
=======================================

You're probably right. Anyone who wanted to cap Piven's sorry arse is about 40 years too late.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I've bought my patch of dirt in the rural area where I **hope** the next big government project will be built. Can't wait to build my Spudnuts!

Posted by: jprestonian | January 30, 2011 10:41 AM
===========================================

They don't develop in cemetaries, but your patch of dirt is likely the only one you'll ever need.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I've bought my patch of dirt in the rural area where I **hope** the next big government project will be built. Can't wait to build my Spudnuts!

Posted by: jprestonian | January 30, 2011 10:41 AM
===========================================

They don't develop in cemetaries, but your patch of dirt is likely the only one you'll ever need.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Brigade is not much different than the nut job who shot Congresswoman Giffords.

Brigade lauded the benefits of having those unarmed Kent State Students slaughtered, and his default position is always toward the use of violence to suppress any free speech that he does not agree with.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The destruction of unions and collective bargaining and the failure of the U.S. government to work for the people instead of the SuperRich. All culminating in the Rabid Right's insistence that working people are lazy shiftless slugs who get nothing because they deserve nothing.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 30, 2011 11:00 AM
=========================================

This is the sort of idiotic caricature we usually get from the Vietnamese troll. If lefties were really worried about the working class, their leaders would spend more time dealing with illegal immigration and less time agitating for higher wages and benefits for government employees, some of whom are indeed lazy, shiftless slugs.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't think any of us ought to be too complacent about what we might presume about ourselves and our sovereign political leanings. To a very high level of predictability, we take on the notions of our families and our communities. Had I been raised in Texas or Iran, I'd hold different ideas. And that's a certainty.

And the most beauiful woman I've seen all week just walked in to my store...

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar

"Therefore, ruk, getting a divorce and bankrupting yourself would not get you healthcare."

Of course you prefaced the with IF and I don't believe you're against Universal Healthcare. You also laid out cogent, rational arguments for somebody TRULY against universal healthcare such as turning people away at the E.R's. Yes by all means let them go back out onto the street to die...of course we'd have the expense of sending trucks and personnel around to pick up the corpses but I readily confess letting them die would be cheaper than actually treating them.

@Troll You limit yourself so much with your choice of words and straw men.

"When did healthcare become a right? When was the moment?"

Actually the direct answer to your question is when Obama signed the ACA into law.

But your question comes from such a negative perspective that is common to most conservatives. There is no real debate about this...something doesn't have to be enumerated in the Constitution to make it the "right" thing to do. If our nation within the confines of democracy and our social covenant believes that in the 21st Century we feel letting people die from lack of treatment or forcing them into bankruptcy is not compassionate but rather coarse and heartless...if our nation decides...not about a "right" but that having a healthy population is better for our country than our current 37th world ranking...then we have the "right" to construct a law addressing such a problem.

Are you a pure libertarian as Scott "appears" to be from his posts. In that case I'd have to ask you what "right" do farmers have to get subsidies. What "right" did Sister Sarah the ultimate welfare queen have in taking two dollars from the Feds for every one she sent in?

Conservatives seem to be easily confused by "rights" and the right thing to do. And yes we can argue all day about the "right thing to do" but if our nation supports with a consensus...Obama did kick butt in 2008 with HCR a huge plank in his platform...the R's demonized any attempts at reform..your side was not honest brokers so quite frankly Troll because of all the lying and deceit..."Obama's Waterloo" before the bill was even formed...you all get what you deserve. The kids in the room do not get to dictate to the adults.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

Hate to interrupt your ritual, but I posed good faith questions for you above.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 2:34 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie

"And the most beauiful woman I've seen all week just walked in to my store..."

Hopefully your wife just entered the store...or that she doesn't read PL. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Digby quotes a piece from Jane Mayer on Suleiman...

"One of the “new” names being mentioned as a possible alternative to President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Omar Suleiman, is actually not so new to anyone who has followed the American policy of renditions for terror suspects. After dissolving his cabinet yesterday, Mubarak appointed Suleiman vice-president, and according to many commentators he is poised to be a potential successor, and an alternative to Mubarak’s son and intended heir until now, Gamal Mubarak. Suleiman is a well-known quantity in Washington. Suave, sophisticated, and fluent in English, he has served for years as the main conduit between the United States and Mubarak. While he has a reputation for loyalty and effectiveness, he also carries some controversial baggage from the standpoint of those looking for a clean slate on human rights. As I described in my book “The Dark Side,” since 1993 Suleiman has headed the feared Egyptian general intelligence service. In that capacity, he was the C.I.A.’s point man in Egypt for renditions—the covert program in which the C.I.A. snatched terror suspects from around the world and returned them to Egypt and elsewhere for interrogation, often under brutal circumstances."

Here's the link to Mayer...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/01/who-is-omar-suleiman.html#ixzz1CXaDhQyM

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Yes by all means let them go back out onto the street to die...of course we'd have the expense of sending trucks and personnel around to pick up the corpses but I readily confess letting them die would be cheaper than actually treating them.
--------------------------------------------------------------
If I were truly against healthcare being a right, I would have to find the Emergency Care bill objectionable in the extreme. It dictates that ER's have to treat one and all and all that does is pass along very expensive ER treatments to the rest of us. It's a double insult--high costs and the socialist result of it. Actually, it's a triple insult since it was the federal government who dictated to the hospitals that had to do this.

Has this bill been tested at the Supreme Court for constitutionality? That would be my position if I were truly against healthcare being a right.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 2:41 PM | Report abuse

@ru - it wasn't and she doesn't

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

12Bar - good luck.

Brigade doesn't do "good faith".

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"When did healthcare become a right? When was the moment?"

Actually the direct answer to your question is when Obama signed the ACA into law.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I would disagree. When Medicare passed, that was an important step toward healthcare for all over 65. If it is constitutional to provide healthcare for all over 65, what's the magic with 65? I'm sure there's nothing in the constitution about age 65.

Has the Medicare bill been tested at the Supreme Court for constitutionality?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Ok, brigade, let me talk to you--

Important question: do you support healthcare for all?

If like troll, the answer is no because of states' rights, the next question: do you support healthcare for all in your state?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 2:19 PM
=========================================

My state does pretty well with healthcare. What you're really asking me is whether I support healthcare for people who can't afford insurance or were too stupid to give it a second thought until they needed it. That is definitely a problem that needed to be addressed, but we didn't need that monstrosity of a bill the Dems rammed through. What we had in this country was a health "insurance" problem, not a healthcare problem. And I think it could probably have been addressed better on a state by state basis---50 separate laboratories each seeking a solution and all that.

Once the question becomes: do I support health insurance for everyone, then we're faced with the question of whether people who choose not to buy health insurance should be forced by their government to buy it anyway. If they decide to pay a fine instead, then what happens when they need healthcare? As shrink2 has so eloquently pointed out, the exploding costs of healthcare are what created the "crisis", not the profits of insurance companies, which have never been outrageous by any rational standard. And I'm skeptical that HCR as passed is going to contain costs. And getting the government involved too deeply has never been a recipe for holding costs down---on anything. Insurance companies are much more difficult to defraud than Uncle Sam, even though the penalties when caught may not be quite as harsh.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar

"Has this bill been tested at the Supreme Court for constitutionality? That would be my position if I were truly against healthcare being a right."

Yes indeed 12Bar a great point! But you see that is where the rubber meets the road and wrapped up in your observation is the fact that many of those hitting the ER's are...ohhhh no Illegal Aliens. But to be true to the cause...or have the courage of your convictions...IF as you have laid it out you were against the Emergency Care bill you would have to literally go on the record as being willing to allow a person with an arm hanging by a thread to be sent out into the street to die a slow painful death...and of course that is just one example of how gruesome it would get. I doubt anybody but Brigade is really that heartless.

And so what you are describing is an incredibly inefficient and wasteful system. I see where you are leading this...good luck.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I hate to use the inaccurate term Emergency Room law, so here it is:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.
-----------------------------------------------------------

I didn't remember that this was during Mr. Reagan's administration. Hm.

I understand that half of ER costs are uncompensated. Hm.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor make Heidi Fleiss look like an honest woman.

Talk about wh*res!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 12:07 PM
=======================================

Fixed it for you.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade...

Congrats on actually submitting a post with some thought and not just insults...however..

"And getting the government involved too deeply has never been a recipe for holding costs down---on anything.'

You are simply mistaken. You've read to much St. Ronnie and not enough about reality. The reality is that the "socialized system" of health care in our country is blowing away the private sector...one big factor being...the group it covers...Vets have Universal coverage and so the VA is not swamped with 12Bars ER patients.

But some facts Brigade..hopefully you'll learn something about the ability of Gov't.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_29/b3993061.htm

LOWER COSTS, HIGHER QUALITY
Roemer seems to have stepped through the looking glass into an alternative universe, one where a nationwide health system that is run and financed by the federal government provides the best medical care in America. But it's true -- if you want to be sure of top-notch care, join the military. The 154 hospitals and 875 clinics run by the Veterans Affairs Dept. have been ranked best-in-class by a number of independent groups on a broad range of measures, from chronic care to heart disease treatment to percentage of members who receive flu shots. It offers all the same services, and sometimes more, than private sector providers.

According to a Rand Corp. study, the VA system provides two-thirds of the care recommended by such standards bodies as the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality. Far from perfect, granted -- but the nation's private-sector hospitals provide only 50%. And while studies show that 3% to 8% of the nation's prescriptions are filled erroneously, the VA's prescription accuracy rate is greater than 99.997%, a level most hospitals only dream about. That's largely because the VA has by far the most advanced computerized medical-records system in the U.S. And for the past six years the VA has outranked private-sector hospitals on patient satisfaction in an annual consumer survey conducted by the National Quality Research Center at the University of Michigan. This keeps happening despite the fact that the VA spends an average of $5,000 per patient, vs. the national average of $6,300.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 2:53 PM | Report abuse

What you're really asking me is whether I support healthcare for people who can't afford insurance or were too stupid to give it a second thought until they needed it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
What's the point of arguing about how to do something or other, without setting out where we agree? So, I'm asking you to answer your own question. I don't care whether you involve insurance in your answer. Let's just make it simple:

Should people who can't afford healthcare or were too stupid to buy insurance, get healthcare at public expense?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

When you need a plumber, do you call a guy you know from work who agrees with the same things you think and has never handled a wrench, or do you call someone who's licensed and has experience?

Either situation is analogous to supporting someone for the presidency who has shown neither the knowledge nor the inclination to learn what's needed to run this country, and that's not even getting to the sticking-with-it part.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 1:19 PM
=====================================

That's what some of us were wondering when people like you chose a community organizer over John McCain.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"And getting the government involved too deeply has never been a recipe for holding costs down---on anything."

The government has been rather deeply involved in the Postal Service since the nation was founded - these days it's only quasi-involved, since the Post Office pays its own way - and it costs a good deal less to mail a package through the PO than with UPS, FedEx, or others. With the advantage that it's a lot more likely to reach its destination, on time, than if you pay more to send it FedEx.

As for holding costs down, it costs the same amount to mail a first-class letter today, in inflation-adjusted dollars, as it did in the 1920s.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade

You are not very mature are you? Really dude...changing someone's posts now...you are SOOO incredibly thoughtless...so unable to pull and ORIGINAL thought from your backside that your resort in childishly changing someone else's post. Very impressive intellectual achievement. Some real deep thought there my friend. You shame your side which such childish, sophomoric attempts.

But I understand why...you really bring nothing of value except childish pranks and insults..you did try one serious post and it was flawed with a HUGE mistake that simply shows you're not really very well read or informed and are only able to parrot right wing talking points. But again Brigade...I'm not hacked at you...I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"And getting the government involved too deeply has never been a recipe for holding costs down---on anything."

The government has been rather deeply involved in the Postal Service since the nation was founded - these days it's only quasi-involved, since the Post Office pays its own way - and it costs a good deal less to mail a package through the PO than with UPS, FedEx, or others. With the advantage that it's a lot more likely to reach its destination, on time, than if you pay more to send it FedEx.

As for holding costs down, it costs the same amount to mail a first-class letter today, in inflation-adjusted dollars, as it did in the 1920s.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Do male Leftists insult Mrs. Palin as a way to score cheap points with the feminists in their lives? Or do these shrill castratii only attacking her (and her kids) as an outlet for more-general misogynistic impulses that would otherwise be socially unacceptable to express?

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 30, 2011 1:24 PM
========================================

Liam has to do it as penance. Ruby caught him working out with his pants off and a picture of Palin in front of him.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

ruk - like I said, he doesn't DO "good faith."

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 3:05 PM | Report abuse

wrapped up in your observation is the fact that many of those hitting the ER's are...ohhhh no Illegal Aliens
----------------------------------------------------
The EMTALA law is written that way, but that doesn't seem a fundamental point. Even if illegals were not covered, the constitutionality of the feds mandating that hospitals provide ER care to all legal citizens regardless of ability to pay would be a constitutional question.

EMTALA is in violation of every provision of the constitutional argument--it is a federal law (not state) that mandates private enterprises to absorb costs that are then spread to all other users of the enterprise. If I had constitutional objections to healthcare for all, this would be extremely objectionable.

I would be surprised that EMTALA hasn't faced some constitutional challenges in the last 25 years. Anyone know?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't it flaming liberal Reagan who signed the bill requiring ERs to treat everyone?

One of the functions of the ACA is to get people without emergencies out of the ER and to cheaper forms of care. And in establishing universal health care, requires people to pay for it if they can.

And that's the conundrum that states like Texas and Arizona are facing in contemplating dropping Medicare. They are still stuck with Reagan's law requiring ERs to treat everyone. And if all these poor people are shifted from PCPs to the ER, the states will actually be spending more on health care.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

lms:

""You can look to the foreclosure fraudsters for your thieves.""

Surely if there are "oligarchs" equivalent to Mubarek in our midst, as you claimed, you can name at least a couple off the top of your head, no?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 3:09 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

""Given your self identification as a "derivatives" trader, and the substance and tone of your posts one would be severely tempted to name YOU as one of the oligarchs.""

Well, that would be par for the course for many of you guys. (Do you care at all about the meanings of the words you use?)

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 3:12 PM | Report abuse

You're all confused.

As Glenn Beck pointed out, what you REALLY need to be concerned about is the OLIGARHY.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Brigade is not much different than the nut job who shot Congresswoman Giffords.

Brigade lauded the benefits of having those unarmed Kent State Students slaughtered, and his default position is always toward the use of violence to suppress any free speech that he does not agree with.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 2:27 PM
========================================

While you may well have schemed with the fellow who shot Giffords, you don't know me at all. If we weren't that different, then you and I would probably be bosom buddies.

Violence to suppress free speech? You and Ruby had better keep the blinds pulled when that neon sign outside your window is flashing.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 3:12 PM | Report abuse

And the most beauiful woman I've seen all week just walked in to my store...

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 2:30 PM
========================================

Palin?

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Mcwing:

""I'll play. How about Franklin Raines and Jamie Garolick?""

That's a good one. But in all seriousness, no matter how much they mismanaged Fannie, and no matter how much fraud they may have engaged in, and no matter how much they got paid for their mismanagement, they are not "oligarchs", and certainly not anything like Mubarek, which was the original absurd claim re "Wall Street" and with which lms agreed.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 3:16 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade

You are not very mature are you? Really dude...changing someone's posts now...you are SOOO incredibly thoughtless...so unable to pull and ORIGINAL thought from your backside that your resort in childishly changing someone else's post. Very impressive intellectual achievement. Some real deep thought there my friend. You shame your side which such childish, sophomoric attempts.

But I understand why...you really bring nothing of value except childish pranks and insults..you did try one serious post and it was flawed with a HUGE mistake that simply shows you're not really very well read or informed and are only able to parrot right wing talking points. But again Brigade...I'm not hacked at you...I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 2:59 PM |

This is not something new. Brigade has changed many posts, and most of the time he has not even added that he "fixed" them. He once forged a comment, under my name, and then responded to it, as if it was something I had actually written.

He is vermin.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 3:18 PM | Report abuse

you would have to literally go on the record as being willing to allow a person with an arm hanging by a thread to be sent out into the street to die a slow painful death...and of course that is just one example of how gruesome it would get. I doubt anybody but Brigade is really that heartless.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 2:47 PM
==========================================

Why do you come up with a comment like that after insisting I play nice with you?

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Al Queda is about to take over Eqypt and who knows what will happen from there...

and the liberals could care less....


It is unbelievable.... the liberals SCREW the nation by putting Obama in... and when there is a crisis the liberals could hardly care if it goes well for the country or not.


This is the IRRESPONSIBLE nature of the liberals.


Pathetic, truly unqualified and worthless.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Who knows what you can dig up when you question legal challenges to EMTALA:

"On November 9, 1999, Shannon Preston arrived at Meriter Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. She was 23 and 2/7th weeks pregnant. She was admitted to the hospital's birthing center and gave birth the next morning. The baby, Bridon Michael Johnson, weighed just one and one-half pounds. Although he could not survive without resuscitation and the administration of oxygen and fluids, Meriter did not resuscitate or treat him, and Bridon died two and one-half hours later."

Preston sued Meriter for violating EMTALA, among other causes of action.5 The Wisconsin Circuit Court granted summary judgment for Meriter, reasoning that EMTALA's screening requirement applies only to patients who present themselves at a hospital's emergency department, and does not provide a cause of action under the Act for patients like Bridon, whose mother checked in at the hospital's birthing center.

More appeals.

Final outcome: Since he was an inpatient, EMTALA imposed no duty on Meriter with respect to Bridon.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Should people who can't afford healthcare or were too stupid to buy insurance, get healthcare at public expense?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 2:57 PM
=======================================

I answered your question as best I could. You might as well ask whether I think the sun should rise in the morning. Law dictates that people cannot be turned away from E.R. and the recently passed HCR will provide people the ability to opt out in exchange for paying a fine. Do you think they should then die in the street since they chose a fine over insurance? What about all these companies applying for (and receiving) waivers?

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 3:25 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

Reminder: my question to you above.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

Here is your take-away

1) Reagan deserves credit for Cobra

2) Half of ER services are COMPENSATED, so they charge double now

3) Note that the Republicans pushed through all sorts of benefits for illegal aliens


SO, few of the things the liberals say about the Republicans are true, isn't that right?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

I answered your question as best I could.
----------------------------
I'm simple. How about a yes or a no.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"I'm simple. How about a yes or a no."

(Cue "The Girl From Ipanema" as intermission music while we wait for him to get back to you on that.)

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 3:34 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

You posed the following in good faith:

""do you support healthcare for all?""

In equally good faith and in all seriousness, I ask you…what does this mean? Do you mean access to any and all products, services, and procedures that could conceivably relate to one's health, unhindered by anything like cost, time, and availability? And what do you mean by "support"? Does that mean I think it would be nice thing, or does it meant that I will advocate the use of the power of government in order to achieve it regardless of any contradictory values? Or something else?

I am not being facetious. The question you ask is not a straightforward question, and contains all manner of premises that might be understood differently by different people considering the question.

""If I were truly against healthcare being a right...""

Again, in all seriousness, what do you mean by a "right"? It seems to me that, before we can discuss whether our government should grant a legal "right" to health care (or anything for that matter), we must first determine if there exists a moral right to health care. I say that no such moral right can logically exist, since health care is dependent upon the labor of others, and I think we can agree that no one has the inherent right to the labor of others.

So if you think health care is a "right", what do you mean by right, and how can it be logically so given other "rights" that I assume you agree exist?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 3:39 PM | Report abuse

There are two interpretations or narratives emerging re Egypt.

The first (which we've seen voiced here) is that the country is at serious risk of being taken over by Muslim extremists. Along with this narrative is the recommendation that some version of the existing regime's authoritarianism must be continued to prevent a Muslim extremist take-over. The predictable voices are forwarding this narrative and recommendation.

The second interpretation is voiced, for example, here...

"Oppostion Leader ElBaradei: Threat of Muslim Brotherhood Is A ‘Myth’ Lacking ‘One Iota Of Reality’
Thousands of Egyptians continue to take to the streets in protest of President Hosani Mubarak’s 30-year-long authoritarian regime. But while the Obama Administration inches towards public support for the Egyptian people, many Republican hardliners are throwing up roadblocks to U.S. endorsement of democratic reform. Their delusion-du-jour? The threat of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Those who subscribe to Rep. Thaddeus McCotter’s (R-MI) and Amb. John Bolten’s fear-mongering warn that the inevitable result of this pro-democracy movement will be the enfranchisement of the Muslim Brotherhood and other anti-American “jihadist nutjobs.”

Today on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, former International Atomic Energy Agency director, Egyptian activist, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei blasted the delusion as a “myth” lacking “one iota of reality.” Intimately familiar with both Iranian and Egyptian politics, ElBaradei pointed out that the Muslim Brotherhood is not actually an extremist group and the idea that extremists would takeover the government is just a myth “perpetuated and sold” by the Mubarak regime:

ZAKARIA: One of the visions that haunts Americans is of the Iranian Revolution where a dictator was replaced by an even worse regime that was more anti-American and more threatening to the region. People worry about the Muslim Brotherhood. Are you confident that a post-Mubarak Egypt will not give rise to some kind of Islamic fundamentalist force that will undermine the democracy of Egypt?

ELBARADEI: I’m quite confident of that, Fareed. This is a myth that was sold by the Mabarak regime, that it’s either us — the ruthless dictators — or a Muslim al-Qaeda type. The Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian movement, has nothing to do with extremism as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places. The Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously conservative group. They are a minority in Egypt....

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/30/oppostion-leader-elbaradei-threat-of-muslim-brotherhood-is-a-myth-lacking-one-iota-of-reality/

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 3:39 PM | Report abuse

You might as well ask whether I think the sun should rise in the morning. Law dictates that people cannot be turned away from E.R. and the recently passed HCR will provide people the ability to opt out in exchange for paying a fine.
-----------------------------------------------
The reason to back up into the big picture question is to determine where we agree.

If you are saying that you accept the need for the stupid and the poor to get healthcare at public expense, then we could talk about how best to do that.

If you don't think the stupid or poor should get healthcare at public expense, then improving the current system would not be too appealing.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 3:39 PM | Report abuse

RUK
"@Brigade
You are not very mature are you? Really dude...changing someone's posts now...you are SOOO incredibly thoughtless...so unable to pull and ORIGINAL thought from your backside that your resort in childishly changing someone else's post. Very impressive intellectual achievement. Some real deep thought there my friend. You shame your side which such childish, sophomoric attempts"
======================================

Many of you libs are so full of yourselves, that you have no self awareness whatsoever. You post that Thomas and Scalia are wh*res and expect a thoughtful response? Most of the stuff you leave here is just the routine liberal blather---leftwing talking points. Most of it doesn't invite reasoned response. You insult others and call them names but get your panties in a bunch when it happens to you. Recall JennOfArse's comment "keep f***ing that chicken"? See, that stuff doesn't bother me. If you can't play with the big boys, then move to Vietnam. When you make a post that reads more like a straight line in a comedy routine, then don't be too surprised when only people of limited intelligence (are you there, Liam) take it seriously. You often get a one-line response to a four paragraph screed because one line is all that's needed. Like Joe Louis used to say, why throw a punch 20 inches when a 10 inch punch will do the job?

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Come on, Scott, you're not luring me into the land of semantics-ology.

Answer the question anyway you want. Put the conditions on it you want. I'm not up for guessing what's in your heart and mind.

Don't feel like you need to put the work into answering this question. It's totally up to you.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Brigade is a violence prone, comments forging sewer rat.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

He once forged a comment, under my name, and then responded to it, as if it was something I had actually written.

He is vermin.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 3:18 PM
=======================================

I do remember that. You called JakeD a Koch sucker. That was one of those reasoned and intelligent posts RUK is talking about. Sorry I didn't give you due credit for all the thought you put into it by giving an in-depth response. I probably interrupted you and Jenn in a deep discussion of Koch sucking and chicken f***ing. No?

"Brigade lauded the benefits of having those unarmed Kent State Students slaughtered"?

Do you suppose that might pass for a lie? Or is it really just one of those "misstatements"---you know, those things Jenn attributes to Rachel Maddow.

I don' think "vermin" means what you think it does. It's that thing you mount in the evening.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"@troll,

"Do you support healthcare for all in your state?"

Depends on the plan, doesn't it?

And rukidding, if healthcare became a Right when Barry signed the Obamacare disaster into law (shudder), how come, before the signing, the leftie justification for universal healthcare was that it was a right? Talk about being disingenuous, claiming a right existed when it didn't in fact, by your own definition, yet exist.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who are interested, it appears that the constitutionality of EMTALA has not been tested at the SCOTUS. If I were against healthcare as a right (or moral obligation, as Scott says), it seems that EMTALA started us down the path of everyone getting healthcare at ER prices. Why has there never been a campaign to repeal EMTALA?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Brigade said: "Palin?"

That was cute.

Re Scott's request to Ims to name some oligarchs, that's an irrelevant measure of anything. We'll trust that you, Scott, wouldn't protest the claim that there is an oligarchical arrangement in Russia (or Egypt or elsewhere) but no one would suggest you need to be able to name individual persons.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

The Utah Jazz, and The Memphis Grizzlies? What is wrong with this picture. I realize that the teams moved around, and just kept their original names, but for cripes sake NBA, how hard would it be for to just have those two teams swap names, not teams.

Memphis Jazz, and Utah Grizzlies make sense, not they way it is now.

Also, in Boston of all all places, and with shamrocks on their uniforms, why have they never learned to say Keltics?

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""Come on, Scott, you're not luring me into the land of semantics-ology.""

Asking you to define your terms is not semantics. It is necessary for a coherent discussion.

""I'm not up for guessing what's in your heart and mind. ""

Exactly. Neither am I. You asked the question, yet you want people to guess what you meant by it. That, then, is not a good faith question.

In any event, what about health care being a "right"? As I said, it cannot logically be considered a right because if it was, a person would necessarily have a right to the labor of others, namely those who must provide the care to them. Do you agree or not? If not, why?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Pure sophistry. No one is saying that health care workers should not get paid for their work.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Depends on the plan, doesn't it?
-----------------------------------------------
What do you mean--it depends on the cost? If it is cheap enough, you would support it? That would be a fair enough answer.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Re Scott and 12 Bar

Scott, your home is under assault by a group of thugs who are trying to break in and do whatever to you, you wife, your property.

Do you have any "right" to police protection - that is, to the labor of others?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 3:59 PM | Report abuse

If you are saying that you accept the need for the stupid and the poor to get healthcare at public expense, then we could talk about how best to do that.

If you don't think the stupid or poor should get healthcare at public expense, then improving the current system would not be too appealing.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 3:39 PM
========================================

If all or part of the current HCR bill should be repealed, we can then have the sort of bipartisan discussion we should have had a year or two ago. In the meantime, there's isn't much to discuss. The ship has sailed. As Scott says, if you're discussing hypotheticals, you need to establish some better parameters.

How about special health clinics for the poor and indigent? It would cost money, but they wouldn't get the comprehensive, topline care provided at other facilities for people with insurance. Sort of like when people at a soup kitchen don't get prime rib. I doubt liberals would go for anything like that. After all, if healthcare is a "right", then why should the poor and indigent not have access to any healthcare they want or need?

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 3:59 PM | Report abuse

First of all, there are reports that Obama has been encouraging the revolt in Egypt - over the past 2 years.


I would like to make clear that if Obama has been doing this, it is INCREDIBLY NAIVE AND STUPID. The Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over - there is little dobut about that.


Yes, the United States is going to have to make a decision fast about whether to go to war with the Muslim Brotherhood.


The alternative to this is clear: Hamas will have an OPEN BORDER for weapons into Gaza.

Furthermore, a TERRORIST GOVERNMENT in Egypt will be seeking to overthrown the Saudis really quickly. This is something the US can not stand for. After that, there is no telling how many other oil-producing nations will fall.


You should be HAPPY our troops are in Iraq.


The US should immediately CEASE the pull-out of troops from Iraq - those may be the ONLY OIL FIELDS WE CAN HOLD ONTO.


We are in a serious, serious situation in which Al Queda and their allies are in a position to take over several countries.


The terrorism which is bound to happen in US Cities will be dramatic. Im telling you we are in a serious situation.


So, yes, I say go to war against the Muslim Brotherhood RIGHT NOW - and hold our positions now - before a revolutionary government takes hold in Egypt.


This is on the level of the Iranian Revolution, probably worse.


.

_________________


You know, this WHOLE DISCUSSION about health means nothing if Al Queda takes over Egypt and Saudi Arabia


So, your fantasies are just that - fantasies.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 4:02 PM | Report abuse

In any event, what about health care being a "right"? As I said, it cannot logically be considered a right because if it was, a person would necessarily have a right to the labor of others, namely those who must provide the care to them. Do you agree or not? If not, why?
-----------------------------------------
Here's the difference between us, Scott. You want to dive into an argument. I don't. I want to find areas of agreement between us. I'm not going to find areas of agreement between us if we don't go up the ladder of ideas and find one, just one, itzy bittzy, little concept we agree on. And please do not ask me to define itzy bittzy.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""We'll trust that you, Scott, wouldn't protest the claim that there is an oligarchical arrangement in Russia (or Egypt or elsewhere) but no one would suggest you need to be able to name individual persons.""

I assure you that I would not pontificate on the oligarchical arrangements in either place if I could not defend the claim. Besides which, we generally tend have more specific knowledge about our own situations than those in far away lands. If you or lms think that the US is being ruled by oligarchs in a manner akin to Mubarek (or, actually, in any other manner) then I would think you ought to be able to name them and point out how it is they are oligarchs.

Otherwise your belief in an American oligarchy is little different to the beliefs of those religious folks you have such disdain for.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Brigade is a violence prone, comments forging sewer rat.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 3:47 PM
========================================

How long did it take you to come up with that? C'mon now, be honest.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

If all or part of the current HCR bill should be repealed, we can then have the sort of bipartisan discussion we should have had a year or two ago. In the meantime, there's isn't much to discuss. The ship has sailed.

___________________-


Exactly Brigade


The liberals have proven they really DONT want to have a discussion - they want to force their way on everyone else, and that's it.


Health care is going to be REPEALED, the discussion is over.

Obama and the Senate democrats are getting voted out -


NO more discussion.


Greg Sargent wrote some idiocy this week about how Obama was not "in control" of the conversation about the size of government.


There is NO conversaion.


The biggest part of the laugh is OBAMA NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION - he never talked to the Republicans.


Boehner has said that he STILL HAS NOT BEEN INVITED BY OBAMA TO START DISCUSSIONS


The dude is off in Wisconsin, and who knows where else - NEVER talking to the Republicans


OBAMA'S job performance is a JOKE - a part of the job is talking to the other side....


I guess if you have to say something like that, it's already a lost cause, right?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Scott

""Surely if there are "oligarchs" equivalent to Mubarek in our midst, as you claimed,""

Actually what I said was that our oligarchs are slightly more discreet. It was my understanding that in part at least, the revolts in both Tunisia and Egypt were spurred on by the outrageous opulence the leaders and their families were living under in the face of such poverty, high food prices and unemployment. I was just riffing off my earlier comment re there is a lesson here somewhere. I don't expect you to agree with me.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

I hate to deduce your answer, but you leave me no choice. You seem to support healthcare for the stupidly uninsured and poor, but at a reasonable cost. You do not make an objection that it is unconstitutional for the feds to mandate it, as Troll does. It is a cost issue for you, right?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, "


Hello, Hello. What do we have hear. A founding father declaring that all people are endowed with an unalienable right to life.

I think that would entitle all of them to receive equal health care, in order to stay alive, regardless of their financial status.

Put that in your Ould Original Intent Pipe, and smoke it.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 4:07 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

I hate to deduce your answer, but you leave me no choice. You seem to support healthcare for the stupidly uninsured and poor, but at a reasonable cost. You do not make an objection that it is unconstitutional for the feds to mandate it, as Troll does. It is a cost issue for you, right?
------------------------------------------
Excuse me. I didn't mean to use the inflammatory word "mandate". Unintentional.

I should have said that you do not make an objection that it is unconstitutional for the feds to be involved in healthcare for the uninsured and poor.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 4:12 PM | Report abuse

How about special health clinics for the poor and indigent? It would cost money, but they wouldn't get the comprehensive, topline care provided at other facilities for people with insurance. Sort of like when people at a soup kitchen don't get prime rib. I doubt liberals would go for anything like that. After all, if healthcare is a "right", then why should the poor and indigent not have access to any healthcare they want or need?

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 3:59 PM

So, if a person went to one of these clinics and it was determined that they needed a treatment that was relatively simple but very expensive ... let's start with HIV drugs for the rest of his/her life, should the government provide that treatment? Or, if under the circumstances of EMTALA, if an uninsured person went to the emergency room and was found to be HIV positive ... should the government provide them with the cocktail of drugs necessary to keep them alive? What if they got HIV because of tainted blood they received during a previous ER visit?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 30, 2011 4:14 PM | Report abuse

If Obama can not handle the situation in the Middle East, he should get out.

If the Muslim Brotherhood, whether encouraged by Obama or not, takes over Egypt, Obama should be impeached and removed from office immediately.


The National Security Interests of the country ARE NOT being taken care of properly.

Everyone knows Obama is not up for the task


Liberals should agree and join the rest of the country in making sure our NATIONAL SECURITY IS HANDLED PROPERLY.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 4:16 PM | Report abuse

It is all very simple.

Progressives fight for the underdogs.

Conservatives fight for the overdogs.


I believe in comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable. Conservatives believe in doing the exact opposite.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Liam

that is not the Constitution.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Liam

that is not the Constitution.


.First of all, there are reports that Obama has been encouraging the revolt in Egypt - over the past 2 years.


I would like to make clear that if Obama has been doing this, it is INCREDIBLY NAIVE AND STUPID. The Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over - there is little dobut about that.


Yes, the United States is going to have to make a decision fast about whether to go to war with the Muslim Brotherhood.


The alternative to this is clear: Hamas will have an OPEN BORDER for weapons into Gaza.

Furthermore, a TERRORIST GOVERNMENT in Egypt will be seeking to overthrown the Saudis really quickly. This is something the US can not stand for. After that, there is no telling how many other oil-producing nations will fall.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Before we argue about what kind of treatment would be ok for poor people, let's see if we're even in agreement that poor people should get any healthcare (paid for by us). Troll seems to think that's ok if it's confined to the state, and therefore paid for by state residents. Brigade seems to think its ok if the feds do it, and therefore paid for all of us. Scott, who knows. He wants to know what the words mean.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"I assure you that I would not pontificate on the oligarchical arrangements in either place if I could not defend the claim."

Defending the claim is a fair point. But requesting names isn't a necessary criterion. As I said, I doubt you'd argue that there isn't an oligarchical system in place in Russia. Hardly pontificating if you said so even if you'd have to lay out why you thought it so.

We are generally more knowledgeable about our own nation, yes. But often not much. I doubt you'd know much more, if any more, about the state of cancer research here as contrasted to such research in Sweden. And in many cases, information is hidden or difficult to obtain, thus you and I couldn't say much more about what the CIA is up to this week as compared to what the parallel body in Canada is doing.

But it would be fair to ask Ims to clarify what "oligarchy" looks like structurally and ask her to match that to existing structures in the US.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

lms said:

"Yes, I thought the discussion yesterday was a real distraction away from the "facts on the ground" in our great country today. Class struggle is alive and well around the world and it has absolutely nothing to do with neo-marxism, communism, or any other ism. People can only survive poverty, unemployment and scarcity of basic services for so long before they erupt. There's a lesson in there somewhere."

The discussion about Piven yesterday was simply a carryover due to JennOfArf's insistence on endlessly making a fool of herself by defending an absurd contention. It doesn't really matter whether you think there is class struggle apart from Marxists and Marxism. The issue was whether Piven has supported mass violence.

It isn't debatable that she has -- not just in this month's Natoin bur for decades. She has even argued that individual crimes like arson can be necessary and legitmate political actions. And her Marxism is part and parcel of her belief in the necessity and propriety of mass "disruption," "confrontation" and violence.

You liberals claim to be the only people who are serious about ideas. I've been told countless times here by woefully uninformed liberals that we conservatives don't know what socialism or Marxism are, etc. And yet now that a genuine, out and proud class-warfare Marxist who's been influential in universities for 30 years has been brought to public attention by Stanley Kurtz and Glenn Beck, you folks want to deny that even SHE is what she is.

You debate the extent of her influence. You can't honestly deny what she has been openly purveying for 30 years, which is an American brand of neo-Marxist class struggle that embraces mass violence as a tactic. Indeed, she has explicitly said the only reason not to engage in mass violence is to protect oneself.

Sorry you don't like the topic. But I seem to recall the left recently lecturing us about violent rhetoric. Well, Prof. Piven isn't one of ours, nor is the Nation.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

First of all, there are reports that Obama has been encouraging the revolt in Egypt - over the past 2 years.


I would like to make clear that if Obama has been doing this, it is INCREDIBLY NAIVE AND STUPID. The Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over - there is little dobut about that.


Yes, the United States is going to have to make a decision fast about whether to go to war with the Muslim Brotherhood.


The alternative to this is clear: Hamas will have an OPEN BORDER for weapons into Gaza.

Furthermore, a TERRORIST GOVERNMENT in Egypt will be seeking to overthrown the Saudis really quickly. This is something the US can not stand for. After that, there is no telling how many other oil-producing nations will fall.

-----------


First of all, there are reports that Obama has been encouraging the revolt in Egypt - over the past 2 years.


I would like to make clear that if Obama has been doing this, it is INCREDIBLY NAIVE AND STUPID. The Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over - there is little dobut about that.


Yes, the United States is going to have to make a decision fast about whether to go to war with the Muslim Brotherhood.


The alternative to this is clear: Hamas will have an OPEN BORDER for weapons into Gaza.

Furthermore, a TERRORIST GOVERNMENT in Egypt will be seeking to overthrown the Saudis really quickly. This is something the US can not stand for. After that, there is no telling how many other oil-producing nations will fall.


If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt, Obama's loyalty has to be called into question.


If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt - who is a close ally of Al Queda, Obama should be impeached and removed from office immediately.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""You want to dive into an argument.""

No. You raised the point about health care being a right. I am simply responding to it.

"I want to find areas of agreement between us.""

Me too! I thought we might be able to agree that, logically speaking, health care cannot possibly be a right. From there we could discuss why, then, we might find it attractive for the government to guarantee some measure of health care despite the fact that it is not a right. But if you are advocating from a position of believing it to be a right, we will never find agreement.

""I'm not going to find areas of agreement between us if we don't go up the ladder of ideas...""

Au contraire. If we have a disagreement about something as fundamental as what a right is or can be, or how various rights can coexist, it is going to be very difficult to find agreement at a higher conceptual level, especially regarding a government whose very existence is, ostensibly, to protect the rights of its citizens.

The more we disagree about first principles, the harder it will be to find agreement further down the chain of thought. It makes no sense whatsoever to ignore those first principles.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 4:25 PM | Report abuse

RUK can correct me if my memory is faulty. When I was in the Army, I recall that if anyone went on sick call, at least in basic training or AIT, he didn't see a doctor. He saw some flunky, probably a Spec4, who checked his throat, took his temperature, dispensed some pills or colored water and sent him back to duty.

One of the reasons I know God exists is because the morning I qualified with the M16, I was so sick I could hardly see---teary eyes, fever, and fluid running out of my nose in a torrent---yet I scored Expert, never missing a target. I was perfectly healthy when qualifying with the M14 and the 45 but had only managed Sharpshooter.

You had to be deathly ill to be referred to an infirmary and see an honest-to-goodness doctor. Wounded on the field of battle? Don't expect an MD to be injecting the morphine.

I'm betting the same is true today in peniteniaries. The sick are probably sent to see someone who's never even worked in the medical field---probably another inmate with a background in burglary. If you're not dead after a bottle of aspirin and another week on the job, then you may get to eventually see a doctor if you're still sick.

This is probably the wave of the future in government run healthcare. Instead of the nurse being someone you see before the doctor comes in, the nurse will be the ONLY one you see, unless you are deathly ill.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

" ZAKARIA: One of the visions that haunts Americans is of the Iranian Revolution where a dictator was replaced by an even worse regime that was more anti-American and more threatening to the region. People worry about the Muslim Brotherhood. Are you confident that a post-Mubarak Egypt will not give rise to some kind of Islamic fundamentalist force that will undermine the democracy of Egypt?

ELBARADEI: I’m quite confident of that, Fareed. This is a myth that was sold by the Mabarak regime, that it’s either us — the ruthless dictators — or a Muslim al-Qaeda type. The Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian movement, has nothing to do with extremism as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places. The Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously conservative group. They are a minority in Egypt. They are not a majority of the Egyptian people, but they have a lot of credibility because of liberal parties have been a struggle for thirty years. They are in favor of a secular state. they are of –they are in favor of an institution that have bread lines, they are in favor that every Egyptian have the same rights, that the state is in no way a state based on religion. And I have been reaching out to them. We need to include them. They are as much a part of society as the markets that started here. I think this is a myth that has been perpetuated and sold by the regime and has no iota of reality. You know Fareed, I worked with Iranians, I’ve worked here. It’s 100 percent difference between the two societies."

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Some people say that they saw Ollie Gark lurking around at the gathering.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/30/langone-cain-koch/

"Wall Street Titan Ken Langone, GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain At Koch Brothers Meeting

This weekend, David and Charles Koch, co-owners of the Koch Industries conglomerate of chemical, timber, oil and manufacturing interests, are hosting their twice annual meeting to coordinate strategy and raise funds for the conservative movement. In October, ThinkProgress brought these meetings to light with a memo detailing the last Koch event, held in June, where corporate interests collaborated to help Republicans dominate the election last year. The memo we published showed that the last meeting included a number of wealthy business executives, along with leaders from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Glenn Beck. Previous meetings have featured top Republican politicians and conservative Supreme Court justices. ThinkProgress is reporting from the ground in Rancho Mirage for this meeting, and has learned new information about the attendees:

– Ken Langone, an investment banker and founder of Home Depot, is attending the Koch meeting this weekend. Langone helped found the new Karl Rove network of front groups known as American Action Network, American Action Forum, and American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS, which together delivered an unprecedented wave of attack ads against Democrats last year. Langone and his fundraiser, Fred Malek, attended previous Koch meetings.

– Karl Crow, a Koch-funded operative, will unveil a new voter-targeting system to help Republicans win back the White House in 2012. Last summer, Crow published a memo arguing that corporations should take advantage of the Citizens United decision to flood money into the midterm elections. His memo also claimed that the decision could give corporations unlimited power to coerce their employees into supporting particular pieces of legislation or candidates.

– The first “serious” GOP contender for the presidency, Herman Cain, is at the Koch meeting. Cain, a talk show host and former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, has been a frequent guest at events sponsored by Koch front groups like Americans for Prosperity.

On Thursday, ThinkProgress revealed other attendees of this year’s Koch meeting, like billionaires Richard DeVos and Diane Hendricks. Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) will be in attendance, according to National Review. Also, we learned that 40% of the donors this weekend will be new to the Koch meetings, and that Charles Koch has promised to match ever dollar raised with one of his own.
Update Ronald Erickson, "CEO of Holiday Companies, a Minnesota based petroleum retail and wholesale convenience business with operations in twelve states across the Upper Midwest and Alaska," is at the Koch meeting."


"

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"Depends on the plan, doesn't it?"

If your concerns are about death panels and the CBO not calculating for things not in the bill, then obviously the plan is irrelevant.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore, a TERRORIST GOVERNMENT in Egypt will be seeking to overthrow the Saudis really quickly. This is something the US can not stand for. After that, there is no telling how many other oil-producing nations will fall.


If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt, Obama's loyalty has to be called into question.


If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt - who is a close ally of Al Queda, Obama should be impeached and removed from office immediately.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Ok, Scott, you don't believe that poor and uninsured have a right to healthcare paid for by the rest of us. Fine. I've got that. I'll put you into that column. No right to healthcare for people who can't pay.

See, no argument. We don't have to argue about everything. I just wanted to know where you stand.

This thread has been interesting to me even if it has been like pulling teeth. I thought that all conservatives would have taken your argument, so I have been somewhat surprised that Troll and Brigade have differing views.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Why such a desire to confine the discussion as to whether or not health care is a "right" or not? Certainly there's no enumerated right to health care in the constitution, but there is that pesky passage about providing for the general welfare and it's pretty hard to argue that having a healthy populace isn't in the best interests of the general welfare of the nation.

But that aside, who cares if it's a "right" or not? The question is really is it just to deny it to some thanks to a private system with prohibitive costs and other barriers to access. I say it isn't; that it's not just to deny a person medical care just because they don't make a lot of money when we seem to have no problem coming up with money for a lot of things just to allow certain people more wealth and live in the wealthiest country in human history. And though I don't claim the Christian mantle of righteousness for whatever it is I believe, I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't be down with the idea of letting people suffer and die just because they're poor.

It's not about whether it's a "right" or not; it's about our moral character as a nation. Which is about 1/3 rotted out from the looks of things.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

From TPM

Michigan Cops: Army Vet Threatened Mosques At Bar, Found With Explosives Outside Islamic Center

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/michigan_cops_army_vet_threatened_mosques_at_bar_found_with_guns_outside_islamic_center.php?ref=fpa

"Stockham, a 63-year-old Army veteran from California who was reportedly angry at the U.S. government, was arrested by police in Michigan and charged for allegedly threatening to blow up a Mosque in Dearborn.

Dearborn police allegedly found Stockham inside his vehicle outside the Islamic Center of America with a load of M-80s in his trunk and other explosives, the Detroit News reported.

Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Counsel on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), told the newspaper that police told him the suspect was drinking in a Detroit bar on Monday and threatened to do harm to a mosque in Dearborn. An employee at the bar followed the man outside and wrote down his license plate which he reported to police, Walid told the newspaper.

The 63-year-old grandfather is charged with one count of a false report or threat of terrorism and one count of possession of bombs with unlawful intent, according to the newspaper.

"He's very dangerous," Dearborn Police Chief Ron Haddad told the Free Press. "We took his threat to be very serious."

Haddad said the Stockham, now in jail on $500,000 bond, was previously known to law enforcement officials in other parts of the country and drove from California because of the large Muslim population. Haddad said the explosives were high-end fireworks, and that the FBI had been notified.

"He's had a long history of being angry with the United States government," Haddad told the newspaper.

At the time he was found outside the Islamic Center, they were holding a funeral with up to 700 people inside, Haddad told the newspaper. The suspect doesn't appear to have known about the funeral, he added."

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

JennOfArf arfed:

"Good luck w/that, wbgonne, when there are allegedly educated "attorneys" such as qb who are more than willing to make complete jackasses of themselves by insisting that observations = calls to violence, and that people who have never even heard of Ms. Piven are all following her lead.

The problem with conservatives isn't that they are all dumb; it's that the ones who aren't are all dishonest to the point that you can put their own words in front of them and they will continue to insist that they didn't say what they said."

You really are a glutton for punishment. Piven's column says what it says, consistent with her many years of past advocacy of violence. All you have to do is watch the video I linked, and you'll see and hear her argue that violence is in fact a legitimate and appropriate tactic, and the only reason not to use it is "self defense."

Her column laments the lack of mass riots a la Greece in the US, and says we should "hope" for such a mass "movement" here and should join in it. And morons like you want to insist because of your giant egos and your investment in failed ideas that she isn't advocating any of this. Your dishonesty is patent.

I've suggested you go read up on her, and no doubt you haven't, for fear of what you'd find. You'd find that she has always said her "academic" pursuits are part and parcel of her activism and advocacy. Read Poor People's Movements. You'll see it in living color, including an entire section lamenting how the welfare rights movement went wrong by turning away from mass disruption and, yes, violence and "confrontation" to more conventional politics, which to her is purely for losers.

Show me one time when I've said, however, that people who've never heard of her are following her lead. You are probably the most dishonest poster I've ever seen in terms of fabricating statements. Yesterday you fabricated an entire litany by me. Funny how you never answered my challenge to "show" me where I'd said what you fabricated.

You are a hapless liar and miserable failure. And you are about 1/4 as smart as you think you are. If you were smarter, you'd realize that transparent lies are not a winning rhetorical strategy.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"Depends on the plan, doesn't it?"

If your concerns are about ... the CBO not calculating for things not in the bill, then obviously the plan is irrelevant.
-------------------------------
@ddawd,

Actually Troll supports healthcare at a state level for the indigent, assuming it is cheap enough (my deduction). Who scores healthcare costs at a state level? Does each state have its equivalent of the CBO?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Health care is a right???


The problem with that is CLEAR


ALL the other rights in the Bill of Rights do NOT require other people to PAY for that right.


Well, maybe right for a lawyer for criminals.


But the truth is that the word "right" has been used rhetorically - and now the liberals have used it to justify a massive transfer of wealth in our society - and to justify a massive government take-over.


AND the democrats want to use health care to tilt elections - to tell people that the Republicans want to "take away your health insurance"

So, first the democrats want to DUMP millions of people onto government-run health care programs and then THREATEN THOSE MILLIONS by telling them that the Republicans want to take those programs away...


About right?


SOUNDS LIKE RACKETEERING TO ME, sounds like a shake-down operation, sounds like a PROTECTION RACKET to me.....


your modern day liberals who claim they care about people.........


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

QB,

Go drink a full bottle of Prune Juice.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 4:41 PM | Report abuse

The US does not want a Terrorist Organization taking over Egypt


Why can't any of the liberals FOCUS on that danger?

Is it because you know perfectly well your dude Obama is not up to the task? That you know that Obama is failing? Is it because you know that OBAMA HAS BEEN SOFT ON TERRORISM, and you know Obama is about to mess this one up too?

Seriously.

The National Security of the nation is at stake, and we have this foolish dude who thinks he knows everything - and he is screwing up our National Interests in the Middle East.


GET OBAMA OUT SOONER, NOT LATER.


IMPEACH OBAMA BEFORE SOMETHING REALLY BAD HAPPENS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse

But that aside, who cares if it's a "right" or not?
--------------------------------------
@Jenn,

You've hit on one of the reasons I'm not going to be lured into semantics. It doesn't matter what reason one has as to whether the indigent should be provided taxpayer funded healthcare. Whether or not it's a right, whether or not it's moral, whether or not it's constitutional. It matters not. You come down on one side or the other, it seems. The rest is just the "reasons why".

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 4:45 PM | Report abuse

""But it would be fair to ask Ims to clarify what "oligarchy" looks like structurally and ask her to match that to existing structures in the US.""

Gee Bernie, thanks a lot, LOL. I guess there are still people in the US who don't believe or aren't uncomfortable or fearful of the way things are heading because they're so busy worrying about the neo-marxist/communist around the next corner. To deny that our economy and hence our social order is not steering toward Oligarchy, if not already there, seems a little naive to me and it actually doesn't seem like a right/left issue either IMO. Here's a pretty good simple analogy I came across awhile ago.

Harvard University economist Lawrence Katz put the situation Americans now find themselves in this way:

"""Think of the American economy as a large apartment block. A century ago—even 30 years ago—it was the object of envy. But in the last generation its character has changed. The penthouses at the top keep getting larger and larger. The apartments in the middle are feeling more and more squeezed and the basement has flooded. To round it off, the elevator is no longer working. That broken elevator is what gets people down the most."

Let's call those select few in the penthouse the New Oligarchy, an awesomely rich sliver of Americans raking in an outsized share of the nation's wealth. They're oil magnates and media tycoons, corporate executives and hedge-fund traders, philanthropists and entertainers. Depending on where you want to draw the line, they're the top 1%, or the top 0.1%, or even the top 0.01% of the population. And when the Supreme Court handed down its controversial Citizens United decision in January, it broke the floodgates so that a torrent of anonymous donations from this oligarchic class could flood back down from the heights and inundate the political lands below.""

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Nothing to see here peasant. Move along.

Some people say that they saw Ollie Gark lurking around at the gathering.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/30/langone-cain-koch/

"Wall Street Titan Ken Langone, GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain At Koch Brothers Meeting

This weekend, David and Charles Koch, co-owners of the Koch Industries conglomerate of chemical, timber, oil and manufacturing interests, are hosting their twice annual meeting to coordinate strategy and raise funds for the conservative movement. In October, ThinkProgress brought these meetings to light with a memo detailing the last Koch event, held in June, where corporate interests collaborated to help Republicans dominate the election last year. The memo we published showed that the last meeting included a number of wealthy business executives, along with leaders from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Glenn Beck. Previous meetings have featured top Republican politicians and conservative Supreme Court justices. ThinkProgress is reporting from the ground in Rancho Mirage for this meeting, and has learned new information about the attendees:

– Ken Langone, an investment banker and founder of Home Depot, is attending the Koch meeting this weekend. Langone helped found the new Karl Rove network of front groups known as American Action Network, American Action Forum, and American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS, which together delivered an unprecedented wave of attack ads against Democrats last year. Langone and his fundraiser, Fred Malek, attended previous Koch meetings.

– Karl Crow, a Koch-funded operative, will unveil a new voter-targeting system to help Republicans win back the White House in 2012. Last summer, Crow published a memo arguing that corporations should take advantage of the Citizens United decision to flood money into the midterm elections. His memo also claimed that the decision could give corporations unlimited power to coerce their employees into supporting particular pieces of legislation or candidates.

– The first “serious” GOP contender for the presidency, Herman Cain, is at the Koch meeting. Cain, a talk show host and former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, has been a frequent guest at events sponsored by Koch front groups like Americans for Prosperity.

On Thursday, ThinkProgress revealed other attendees of this year’s Koch meeting, like billionaires Richard DeVos and Diane Hendricks. Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) will be in attendance, according to National Review. Also, we learned that 40% of the donors this weekend will be new to the Koch meetings, and that Charles Koch has promised to match ever dollar raised with one of his own.
Update Ronald Erickson, "CEO of Holiday Companies, a Minnesota based petroleum retail and wholesale convenience business with operations in twelve states across the Upper Midwest and Alaska," is at the Koch meeting."

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"Otherwise your belief in an American oligarchy is little different to the beliefs of those religious folks you have such disdain for."

No. One is empirically ascertainable and the other is not.

Re disdain for religious folks... I had a Catholic theology professor in the store yesterday as it happens. We had a short but fun conversation regarding differences between Catholic theology and American Protestant theology and Brit Anglican theology. Absolutely fine gentleman and we could have talked much longer had circumstances permitted. He suggested that American Protestant theology doesn't compare favorably to Catholic theology in terms of rigor. I didn't argue.

I do have disdain, but it's targeted and sits in specifics. It's not generalized. One can be in awe of Augustine's curiosity, integrity and reasoning and yet acknowledge that his personal life circumstances re sexuality have been a source of vast pathology.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

From WSJ

Mr. ElBaradei won a huge endorsement on Sunday when the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest and best organized opposition force, said it would back him, a historic display of unity between the country's secular and Islamist opposition groups.


____________________


Sure, pretend you are MODERATE, and then pull the BAIT AND SWITCH


Sound familiar, Obama-heads???

Is this a joke? Is Obama really going to allow the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt?

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 5:00 PM | Report abuse

@Ims - "Gee Bernie, thanks a lot, LOL."

I'm bridge-building today. It's a hobby I take up one day a year.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

@Ims - "Gee Bernie, thanks a lot, LOL."

I'm bridge-building today. It's a hobby I take up one day a year.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 5:01 PM

...............

Alaska has some unspent federal funds on such projects. You might want to get in on that racket.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 5:04 PM | Report abuse

@Liam
I've already read Nagel's "The View from Nowhere" so wouldn't be eligible.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Do you have any "right" to police protection - that is, to the labor of others?""

The question you pose is, do we have a right to a service for which we have contracted. The answer is, of course, yes, and it doesn't matter whether it is police protection or dental service.

The government exists in order to protect the rights of its citizens. That is why I pay taxes. The fact that I pay taxes does indeed give me the right to the police protection I am paying for.

It is not a right to the labor of others in a vaccuum. It is a right to the labor of others with whom I have contracted and pay consideration to for precisely that service.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

12bb, if Troll actually cared about the plan, then he would address concerns about the plan. Death panels have as much relevance to the PPACA as they do to the MLK Memorial. The fact that he goes on about death panels indicates that the actual plan is irrelevant. It's a Conservative Thing to be against PPACA, so he will make up concerns.

If the plan were important, then he'd be talking about the plan.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2011 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"Whether or not it's a right, whether or not it's moral, whether or not it's constitutional. It matters not. You come down on one side or the other, it seems. The rest is just the "reasons why"."

Well, that's the crux of it, isn't it? Because for all the screeching about how it's not "in the constitution as a right" what gets lost is that there's also nothing in the constitution saying it can't or shouldn't be done. I generally have to assume that all intelligent persons who use the "not in the constitution" excuse do so to avoid having to defend the immorality of the underlying position - which is, IGMGFY. But most of the folks using the "it's not in the constitution" excuse are just parroting what they've heard someone else say and don't have the sense to know that just because it's not spelled out as a right it doesn't mean it's prohibited. That's stupid but more excusable.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 5:14 PM | Report abuse

12bb, if Troll actually cared about the plan, then he would address concerns about the plan.
------------------------------------------------
I don't disagree with you.

Today, I learned something interesting about Troll and brigade, though. They are NOT opposed to tax payer funded healthcare for uninsured. They care how it's provided and whether or not it is inexpensive enough. Up to today, I though that conservatives opposed this healthcare on grounds of principle (not a right, not constitutional, not moral--something like that). We are closer to troll & brigade in principle than Scott, for example.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 5:18 PM | Report abuse

ruk,

I left you a reply to various of your missiles at me, but it was swallowed for moderation, probably because I used a naughty word you used, without censoring it.

Ah well, just consider yourself well and truly refuted in all you've said. ; )

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"Because for all the screeching about how it's not "in the constitution as a right" what gets lost is that there's also nothing in the constitution saying it can't or shouldn't be done."

The more pertinent question is what in the Constitution says it can be done. You've got your Constitution backwards.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Jenn

How much is this going to COST???


You really don't know. NONE of the liberals talk about cost.

Because they don't care about the costs. They think someone else is going to pay for someone else's health insurance.


YOU feel like a better person because you think that someone should get something for free.


However, that is not how it really works. If YOU want to pay for someone else's health insurance GO AHEAD DO IT.

Do it - NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU


However, YOU want to feel like a good person by taking someone else's money and giving it away.


Give away your own money - and that settles it.


Thank you very much.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 5:25 PM | Report abuse

all intelligent persons who use the "not in the constitution" excuse do so to avoid having to defend the immorality of the underlying position
---------------------------------------------
@jenn,

I would revise your statement to say "all intelligent persons who use the "not in the constitution" excuse do so to avoid having to say out loud their real position--that people who can't pay should die. But, I think they do believe it. They just don't want to have to deal with the stunned looks they'd get.

I don't believe that supporters of this view think it is immoral. It's just that in the priority of values, the "immorality" of paying for someone else's healthcare is higher than the "immorality" of watching someone die of neglect. It's all a matter of priorities.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 5:26 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""...so I have been somewhat surprised that Troll and Brigade have differing views.""

They do not necessarily have differing views from me. I don't know what they think of the rights issue. I definitely do not think that health care is a right. That does not mean that I object to the government guaranteeing some minimal level of health care any more than I object to the government guaranteeing some minimal ability to buy food. It simply means that it is provided as a gift, not as a right.

And that makes a difference, particularly when one gets in to, as you have not yet done, how much and what kind of health care we are talking about.

""You've hit on one of the reasons I'm not going to be lured into semantics.""

That word does not mean what you apparently think it means. ;)

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Jenn:

""But that aside, who cares if it's a "right" or not?""

I do. Especially if, when I object to the government forcing me to pay to provide something to someone else, the act is defended by the claim that the someone else has a "right" to it.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""One is empirically ascertainable and the other is not.""

Perhaps, but if you cannot provide empirical evidence when asked for it, there is effectively no difference.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 5:33 PM | Report abuse

"You've hit on one of the reasons I'm not going to be lured into semantics.""

That word does not mean what you apparently think it means. ;)
-----------------------------------------------------
Probably poorly written by me. I should have said I will not be lured into arguing with you. I don't feel like arguing today, and actually, most days I don't feel like arguing. I want to know where I agree with people, not where we disagree. I'm willing to accept your point of view, no matter what it is. I simply do not know why it is so hard to get you to say it.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 5:33 PM | Report abuse

@scott,

I forgot to clarify your view. You would support minimal healthcare for the indigent as long as it is not defined as a right and that you aren't coerced into paying for it.

Is that right?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 5:37 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""I simply do not know why it is so hard to get you to say it.""

Now that is something that I have never been accused of. Usually it is quite the opposite.

I suspect that the thing you find frustrating is not that I won't provide my point of view, but rather that I want to be fully understood when I provide it. You seem to be very fond of ambiguity.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""You would support minimal healthcare for the indigent as long as it is not defined as a right and that you aren't coerced into paying for it.""

Well, I don't need to be coerced into paying for it. I am willing to pay for it. But essentially, yes.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 5:43 PM | Report abuse

The "Pro-Life" party needs to get their members on a daily irony supplement.

After all, they do not seem to see the irony in their position, that they should not keep people alive, if society has to kick in some money to treat their health problems.

Now if we could only get the "Pro-Life" party to adopt the same stance when it comes to forcing all women, regardless of what the costs might be, and if they can even afford them, to carry all pregnancies to term.

As I have said before: they are not the Pro-Life party, merely the Pro-Birth party. After that, you are on your own, all you coerce poor new mothers.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 5:44 PM | Report abuse

12bb, there's no way you'll convince me that the debate over ACA was in any ways substantial. I've never seen such a level of hyperbole in a debate or sheer cruelty towards fellow Americans. I don't know how much experience you've had with chronic illness and death, but the death panel discussion struck me to my core the way that little else does and I'll never be able to look at the Republican party the same way. I've been dealing with their racism all my life, so I'm accustomed to it. But this, is just something else to me.

The Conservatives on here probably have never given an ounce of thought into how they feel health care should be implemented or how far the government should reach and what the state's responsibility should be. All they know is what Glen Beck tells them.

If this weren't the case, the death panel talk would have NEVER come up. But look what happened. As soon as it did, every single Conservative on here jumped right on board. You want to tell me these people have actual concerns with actual plans?

Absolutely not.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2011 5:49 PM | Report abuse

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" Samuel Johnson

If he were around today, he would probably say The Constitution is the last refuge of a selfish fat cat.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Scott

It's difficult to discuss the emerging, or by some counts "already arrived" oligarchy that is the United States with someone who sees nothing wrong with the wealth inequality and top heavy concentration of money in both our society and the political arena. For you it's a matter of survival of the fittest, for me it's a matter of the game being rigged, which also encompasses my earlier comments of thievery without consequences which therefore leads to the reality I also commented on earlier that at some point the place erupts. I see no reason to try to convince you I'm correct since you seem to prefer the set of circumstances as they are. I remember when you told me people died because they got sick, not because they didn't have health insurance, that pretty much sums it up.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 5:52 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

""All they know is what Glen Beck tells them.""

Ii seems pretty close to a certainty that you know a whole lot more about what Glenn Beck is saying than I do. I rarely pay any attention to him at all.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Well, I don't need to be coerced into paying for it. I am willing to pay for it. But essentially, yes.
------------------------------------------------------
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying you are willing to be taxed for it? Yes?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 5:55 PM | Report abuse

It seems Emanuel is returning to Chicago to pave the way for the second coming of "THE ONE".

Establishing a Chicago-D.C. power base.

Pretty slick.

After B.H.O. does his Clinton imitation, he wants to do a JFK and parlay the Chicago machine to put him over the top in 2012, just like the Kennedy-Daley connection did for JFK in 1960.

Obama will have his Mayor "Dead Fish" Emanuel.

The guy's an operator, that's for sure.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 30, 2011 5:57 PM | Report abuse

As I have said before: they are not the Pro-Life party, merely the Pro-Birth party. After that, you are on your own, all you coerce poor new mothers.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 5:44 PM
======================================

That's how we'll win. You keep aborting, and we'll keep birthing, and eventually there won't be any more liberals. :)

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"Ii seems pretty close to a certainty that you know a whole lot more about what Glenn Beck is saying than I do. I rarely pay any attention to him at all."

Oh yeah, you're probably spending all your time availing yourself of "studies"

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2011 6:01 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying you are willing to be taxed for it?""

I don't need to be taxed. But I would tolerate taxation which included some minimum provision. But the tax should be at besta state tax, if not more local. In other words, it should be escapable if it becomes onerous to the individual.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 6:08 PM | Report abuse

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" Samuel Johnson

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 5:51 PM
=======================================

"A fly, Sir, may sting a stately horse and make him wince; but, one is but an insect, and the other is a horse still." Samuel Johnson

Reminds me of seeing liberal hacks take their shots at Sarah Palin. Especially caothien9.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 6:08 PM | Report abuse

How can a nation say that it will spent what ever it takes on the military industrial complex, to protect American lives, but then turn around and say, but we will not spend what ever it takes to keep those same Americans healthy?

The odds of dying from an untreated disease are far greater than dying from a terrorist attack.

It is strictly class warfare being waged by American Fat Cats against the poor.

Posted by: Liam-still | January 30, 2011 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

You would support minimal healthcare for the indigent as long as it is not defined as a right and that it is taxed at the state or lower level.

There. I think we have it.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 6:13 PM | Report abuse

"I've never seen such a level of hyperbole in a debate or sheer cruelty towards fellow Americans."

Before they had dragged the conversation so far to the right, back in the 80's, it was all about the lazy layabouts on welfare and "cadillac-driving welfare queens" with "10 kids all with different fathers" and "strapping young bucks using food stamps to buy steaks." That's who the politics of resentment was aimed at first - those folks who were mooching off you and keeping you from getting ahead.

As more and more people have fallen behind through no fault of their own, they've merely expanded the targets of resentment. Those who still have, in deathly fear of becoming have-nots, go along with it. And so we go from the 1960s where no one would have thought that a man working full time in a factory being able to own a home, support a family, buy a car, and send his kids to college was outrageous - people who worked hard had earned it. These days, not so much. Now the remaining haves - and probably a good portion of the used-to-haves - will come out like the flying monkeys to attack the notion that a guy working in an auto plant should be making $60K a year, which, these days, isn't all that much.

It's ugly, and sad, and completely the result of needing to keep people's resentment focused on those who have even less power than they do, rather than the guys who are looting the safe.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 6:15 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3: ""In other words, it should be escapable if it becomes onerous to the individual.""

But not to the point where one would have to escape to another country without hundreds of nuclear warheads, letting us all sleep peacefully.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 30, 2011 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Another quote from Johnson explains why we conservatives are exposed to such vitriol from leftists like Liam and Jenn, although they probably wouldn't admit it, and why they can't seem to let go of an argument even after it's been lost.

"Every man who attacks my belief, diminishes in some degree my confidence in it, and therefore makes me uneasy; and I am angry with him who makes me uneasy."

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Shorter DDAWD:
I could tolerate Republicans as long as they were merely racist scum, but when they started pointing out the very real possibility that government healthcare might eventually be rationed in some way (see Arizona organ transplants) to contain costs, well...that's a bridge too far.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 6:26 PM | Report abuse

""You would support minimal healthcare for the indigent as long as it is not defined as a right and that you aren't coerced into paying for it.""

Well, I don't need to be coerced into paying for it. I am willing to pay for it. But essentially, yes.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 5:43 PM

What is "minimal healthcare?" Does it include lifesaving treatment for a 10 year old child that is relatively simple but rather expensive ... say a daily pill that costs $10 each?

$100 each?

$1000 each?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 30, 2011 6:26 PM | Report abuse

What is "minimal healthcare?" Does it include lifesaving treatment for a 10 year old child that is relatively simple but rather expensive ... say a daily pill that costs $10 each?

$100 each?

$1000 each?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 30, 2011 6:26 PM
======================================

What about $1000000000000000 each? Why be a piker? You make the call.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 6:29 PM | Report abuse

12bar,

I never said cost was the deciding factor on whether or not I supported some sort of state level minimum healthcare. It is a factor, but not the only factor. What would be covered? Dental? Who would be covered? Illegal immigrants? (not an unrealistic question considering where I live.). How would it be paid for? For example, I might favor a state law imposing a yearly minimum healthcare insurance deductible of $5000, because, among other things, individuals should be responsibl for their own preventable care. Also, third party reimbursement has driven up the cost of healthcare by removing the immediate financial impact from the customer. Maybe a voucher might be best. Get the idea?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 6:40 PM | Report abuse

test

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 6:45 PM | Report abuse

OK brigade, I'll make the call. I don't think there is any such thing as "minimal healthcare." If a person goes to the doctor and the doctor says he's sick and there is a treatment for his illness, he should be entitled to get the treatment. How can it be otherwise?

Having said that, when my 91 year old mother was dying of lung cancer last year, I agreed with and honored her DNR wishes.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 30, 2011 6:45 PM | Report abuse

jp:

""But not to the point where one would have to escape to another country without hundreds of nuclear warheads, letting us all sleep peacefully.""

I'm not sure quite what this is supposed to mean, apart from perhaps another way of making your seemingly favorite point..."love it or leave it". If you meant something other than that, please clarify.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 6:45 PM | Report abuse

@Scott
"Bernie:

""Do you have any "right" to police protection - that is, to the labor of others?""

The question you pose is, do we have a right to a service for which we have contracted. The answer is, of course, yes, and it doesn't matter whether it is police protection or dental service.

The government exists in order to protect the rights of its citizens. That is why I pay taxes. The fact that I pay taxes does indeed give me the right to the police protection I am paying for.

It is not a right to the labor of others in a vaccuum. It is a right to the labor of others with whom I have contracted and pay consideration to for precisely that service."

Let's take this for a start... "The government exists in order to protect the rights of its citizens."

Obviously, a government exists not merely to protect your rights but to establish what rights you have deserving of protection. Thus a "bill of rights", imagined, negotiated, fought over and eventually gaining a consensus and written down. And thus, as circumstances and notions evolve, ammended to roughly match modern community desires (women with no right to vote --> women with the right to vote).

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

pragmatic:

""I'll make the call. I don't think there is any such thing as "minimal healthcare." If a person goes to the doctor and the doctor says he's sick and there is a treatment for his illness, he should be entitled to get the treatment.""

So the doctor should have to provide the treatment to him, full stop, even if the doctor is not going to get paid for his services? The doctor is a slave to sick people? Really?


How can it be otherwise?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Well ScottC3, let me ask you this: Where are taxes fairer in the world than in the U.S.?

And would you be willing to move there?
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 30, 2011 6:52 PM | Report abuse

site is weird behaving

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 6:53 PM | Report abuse

jp:

""Where are taxes fairer in the world than in the U.S.?""

Hong Kong.

""And would you be willing to move there?""

I did.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

But government also properly has the function of promoting the general welfare. In fact, it makes little sense to use the term "government" (as we understand the term) where consideration of general welfare is absent. Thus building dikes to prevent flooding of a community etc.

Now this... "The question you pose is, do we have a right to a service for which we have contracted."

Your use of "contracted" here cannot be a legal usage. You haven't signed a contract with anyone to combat forest fires. You haven't signed a contract with the police force to protect you and your home. All you've done is pay taxes. Your government may have contracted someone to do these things or your government may include those functions within its range of understood duties.

Unless you mean "socially contracted", which makes rather more sense. That is, as a consequence of the community you are born into with its existing social/governmental arrangements, you pretty much go along with what everyone else is doing until you reach the age or position where you can influence and alter that existing social contract through voting, arguing where tax monies ought to go, etc.

But you are always within a context which has ascertained, by some rough consensus, what are considered as "rights" - protection from assault, protection from fire, or even protection from chance illness or accident IF the community deems it desirable to do so.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"What is "minimal healthcare?" Does it include lifesaving treatment for a 10 year old child that is relatively simple but rather expensive ... say a daily pill that costs $10 each?

$100 each?

$1000 each?"

When I see all the liberals who like to play this game give away all they have and impoverish themselves to help all those impoverished children (and adults), I'll start to think maybe questions like these are sincere. The only thing standing between that child and your money is you.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 6:59 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3 -- Would you move back to Hong Kong, if they would have you?
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 30, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

If universal health care automatically = poverty, then how can we account for all those nations (France, Germany, England, Japan, etc etc etc) who have universal health care and lower poverty rates than we do? We can't. So the fact is, universal health care does not equate to impoverishing countries or their inhabitants. Longevity, infant mortality, and other measures of health also indicate that citizens in these countries are receiving on average better care than are our citizens, and at a much lower cost - which could be why no one is being "impoverished" by universal health care in these nations.

Also, we continue to hear from conservatives about how horrible the health care systems are in all these countries...but oddly, we don't see or hear anything about the citizens of those countries agitating to get rid of their systems in favor of privatized ones.

Posted by: JennOfArk | January 30, 2011 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I never said cost was the deciding factor on whether or not I supported some sort of state level minimum healthcare.
------------------------------------
You are right, you didn't say it was cost. I asked you the question above but I guess you didn't see it.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, as much as get a one sentence summary of your position.

So, would this work: You would support healthcare for indigents, but not including illegal immigrants, if it is at the state level and if it is cheap enough for the taxpayers. Are you willing to pay taxes at the state level to pay for this program?

I'm not including your comments about $5000 deductibles or vouchers or dental since that seems to go toward the inexpensiveness of the program.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Obviously, a government exists not merely to protect your rights but to establish what rights you have deserving of protection. ""

Yes, indeed.

""And thus, as circumstances and notions evolve, ammended to roughly match modern community desires (women with no right to vote --> women with the right to vote).""

Well, not so much desires, but rather modern community understanding of rights. Obviously, however, the community can get things wrong. Hence, for example, the community did not, at one time recognize the human rights of black people. Now it does. The community got that one wrong and finally corrected itself. (Unless you believe, bizarrely, that blacks did not in fact have a moral right to be free of slavery until the point at which the community "decided" it was so.)

So, if we agree it is possible that the community can get things wrong about what is and is not a right, then a discussion of whether or not access to health care is or can be a right cannot be effected by what the community "says" at any given time.

(Some of you may be unaware that this is well trodden ground between Bernie and me, going back over a year. With regard to what is moral or what is a right, he routinely makes appeals to what the community "says", right up until I posit a community that says things he does not particularly like. Then he calls me dishonest and stops talking to me for a time. Let's see if the pattern holds.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Well, this is a first. I agree at least as much with Bernie's response to Scott's 5:07 as with Scott (although Bernie makes some significant errors). I don't think protecting rights is probably the only purpose of government, but I also don't hold what appears to be Bernie's positivistic view of rights.

If I had some liquor around, I should probably go have a drink, but I'll just go do some work.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Now the remaining haves - and probably a good portion of the used-to-haves - will come out like the flying monkeys to attack the notion that a guy working in an auto plant should be making $60K a year, which, these days, isn't all that much.

==

Nothing like the rage that'll emerge at the idea that the poor sod might belong to organized labor.

This thread isn't a very good one. It's disappointing seeing good bright people allowing themselves to be distracted and misdirected. Troll's demand about healthcare as a right is pure deflection and has no relevance yet people took it up. The real question is morals, not rights, and what kind of society people want their nation to be.

Letting people suffer when we have the means to cure them is just wrong and questions about "a right to others' labor" are just libertarian trash. NOBODY who cares about right and wrong should dignify libertarianism by answering it. Libertarians are psychopaths.

Re: Brigade and the quote-editing .. he always does this. And in 20 years of forums this papers' are the only ones I've been on where verminous behavior like that isn't cause for an instant ban. The guy is sick. As if anyone needed any more evidence.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 7:15 PM | Report abuse

"Roger Stockham, a 63-year-old Army veteran from California who was reportedly angry at the U.S. government, was arrested by police in Michigan and charged with allegedly threatening to blow up a Mosque in Dearborn."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/michigan_cops_army_vet_threatened_mosques_at_bar_found_with_guns_outside_islamic_center.php?ref=fpblg

To people on the right here...

Come on guys. The cases are mounting every week. I know none of you individually can do much about this but at the very least you need to understand how the rhetoric emerging from this modern movement in its increasing extremism is becoming dangerous.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Well, cao, I am beginning to be dissuaded that even when people find areas of agreement, that much can come of it. It has been like pulling teeth to even get anyone to crisply say what their position is on the indigent getting taxpayer paid healthcare.

I still don't know why there isn't a huge campaign to repeal EMTALA which requires hospitals to provide healthcare to all in the ER. That's where this idea of the indigent having a legal right to healthcare began, as far as I can tell, and is the best example of the feds mandating private enterprises to provide it. Yet, no one ever talks about repealing it. Somehow EMTALA is ok, but nothing else that follows it is ok. That makes no sense to me.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 7:26 PM | Report abuse

jp:

""Would you move back to Hong Kong, if they would have you?""

Perhaps someday, but not at the moment.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 7:26 PM | Report abuse

If universal health care automatically = poverty, then how can we account for all those nations (France, Germany, England, Japan, etc etc etc) who have universal health care and lower poverty rates than we do? We can't. So the fact is, universal health care does not equate to impoverishing countries or their inhabitants. Longevity, infant mortality, and other measures of health also indicate that citizens in these countries are receiving on average better care than are our citizens, and at a much lower cost - which could be why no one is being "impoverished" by universal health care in these nations.

==

Funny how with all this garbage about rights to others' labor and the limits we should impose on cost, you're the only one bringing this up.

It's something more than instructive to compare the US' free market *failure* to the government-run *success* in so many other countries. Try Japan. Where Americans see a doctor on average once a year for a per-capital of $8000, Japanese get a dozen visits for less than half the per-cap. Despite smoking like chimneys they live longer, fewer of their infanta die, they have less heart disease and diabetes.

America could do that, probably better, but won't not with all that free market and libertarian junk getting in the way.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 7:30 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""It has been like pulling teeth to even get anyone to crisply say what their position is on the indigent getting taxpayer paid healthcare.""

Isn't that rich. Your originally asked if we support "health care for all"? Now that has transmogrified (I love that word) into providing some minimal care for the indigent. This is precisely why I asked you to clarify what you meant, which you refused to do, and now you complain that it is like pulling teeth to get an answer? Please.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Q.B.

"Ah well, just consider yourself well and truly refuted in all you've said. ; )"

Not just refuted my friend but completely defeated. You have dominated the debate and are indeed the champion. I hope that helps a little bit. :-)


@12Bar "Scott, who knows. He wants to know what the words mean."

Watch yourself, yesterday Scott was pointing out that it is me who is the blog literalist. LMAO

@DDAWD "If this weren't the case, the death panel talk would have NEVER come up."

Indeed DDAWD! 60 Minutes did a special segment on what REALLY happens at the end of life. The Docs interviewed who actually work with people at the end of the road were apoplectic that the Wasilla Ditz ever uttered those infamous words. They felt to a Doc that she completely ruined any chance at a real health care debate. Examples in that story included a very elderly woman who was given 16 additional procedures that had absolutely zero to do with her terminal condition including among the most egregious...a pap smear...yeah a pap smear on an 80 year old dying woman...another older gentleman who was terminal and told there was a procedure that was doubtful but if it worked could add perhaps another six months to his life. He was asked gently if he preferred to simply go to hospice or receive a very expensive procedure with questionable results to secure at most another six months of life...of course he opted for the expensive procedure and died anyway.

And so Brigade does ask the pertinent question about rationing except he is coming from the incorrect place...WE ALREADY HAVE RATIONING...it's done by economic status...it's done by insurance companies...and I for one am really comforted by the fact that a private corporation whose sole mission is to maximize profit is making a life and death decision for me...heaven forbid the NIH or some other evil Gov't entity take a "rational" look at rationing.

Meanwhile demagogues like the Wasilla twit are making genuine debate impossible! Death Panels? Just disgusting! And if anybody with a brain thinks about it seriously you'd realize another reason we don't want an incompetent b00b in the position of influencing important public policy...she is completely and totally unqualified as judged by her own party...by those folks who worked with her on the campaign trail...by dozens of thoughtful right wing pundits...by dozens in the R establishment like Rove and others.

Every civilized country in the world begins with the premise...here is our budget for healthcare...what can we buy with this amount...not pap smears for 80 year olds...not heroic doubtful procedures for 75 year olds with the promise of six more months as the best outcome. That's a start...and will there be plenty of arguing along the way about what to cover...absolutely...but let's try to remove the partisanship and demagoguery and put those decisions back into the hands of physicians at places like NIH.
with decisions based on science not emotion.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 7:33 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""Somehow EMTALA is ok, but nothing else that follows it is ok. That makes no sense to me. ""

I'm not sure why you think that anything that follows would be OK. The fact that I am willing to give the homeless guy on the corner a fiver to buy some food doesn't mean that I am willing to open a restaurant and give away free food to all comers.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Well, cao, I am beginning to be dissuaded that even when people find areas of agreement, that much can come of it. It has been like pulling teeth to even get anyone to crisply say what their position is on the indigent getting taxpayer paid healthcare.

==

12bar, you're suffering under a misapprehension here.

The positions you're begging out of people don't exist yet. They don't *have* positions on healthcare or much of anything else. You're trying to force them to think about issues and cornering them into dealing in details. So they come up with something to put in an appearance of having thought things through.

Ask them again tomorrow and you'll get completely different answers. These people don't do details. They don't do their own thinking. They aren't fueled by real considerations of public policy. They're fueled by base emotions like resentment and derision and hate and thei don't seek to win arguments, they can't, they live for gotcha.

Nice try, though. You do it better than anyone but, well, silk purses and sows' ears.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 7:41 PM | Report abuse

"Come on guys. The cases are mounting every week. I know none of you individually can do much about this but at the very least you need to understand how the rhetoric emerging from this modern movement in its increasing extremism is becoming dangerous."

That's a nice bundle of assumptions and logical leaps.

Let me know when a prominent GOP Senator gives a floor speech explicitly comparing Obama to the Nazis and follows up with a book called Losing America, trashing Obama further along those lines as a threat to the continuity of the country, and when Dick Cheney screams to a frenzied conservative crowd that Obama has betrayed the country.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 7:45 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD

As an older (63) white dude can I share my observations on racism. I was raised in Ky. right across the Ohio River. My sister says we were "trash" growing up...my mother and I claim to be "recovering trash" My cousins were all taught to be racist...it was pretty normal to be racist in 1956 KY. Hell it still is who am I kidding...but not nearly as bad as 1956. Being an 8 year old 3rd grader I was too young and dumb to realize that black people were off limits. My best friend was from the wrong side of our street...poor white trash (us) on one side...poor blacks running north to the Ohio River. I had my best friend Narvel to my house on many occasions. My father's friends chastised him for allowing me to bring an n into our home.
My father, a largely worthless man(wife beating alcoholic), did have a few good qualities. Perhaps he had Liam's Irish sensibility...he told me..don't pay attention to what people say..we don't judge people on their color.
The freaking "lace curtain" Irish have judged we "shanty" Irish for too long and we're not going to play that game.

Fast forward 10 years to your lovely state and Leesville La and Fort Polk 1967. 200 guys in a basic training company...some enlistees like me...more draftees...and plenty of Ala NG's and Enlisted Reserves.
They used their good connections to get out of going to Vietnam. 200 roughly half reservists....every single one of them white...100 regular Army guys...75 or so draftees...50 of them Black. Reservists able to dodge Vietnam..100% white...those draftees getting sent to do the fighting 60% black! Do we really wonder why? And so the righties rail at me here because of my special disgust with cowards like DICK Cheney who used 5 deferments to chicken out of Vietnam while so many of the "brothers' were considered less valuable than Cheney..he could afford college and so let the blacks and poor whites become cannon fodder.

As a white person I am ashamed of the incredible amounts of racism I have witnessed and continue to witness here in the heart of cracker land, my beloved Florida.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 7:48 PM | Report abuse

"This thread isn't a very good one."

I have certainly enjoyed 12BB's virtuoso performance: reasonable, patient, intelligent, logical and relentless. The simple question posed:

"Should people who can't afford healthcare or were too stupid to buy insurance, get healthcare at public expense?"

the hypothetical answer proposed:

""all intelligent persons who use the "not in the constitution" excuse do so to avoid having to say out loud their real position--that people who can't pay should die. But, I think they do believe it. They just don't want to have to deal with the stunned looks they'd get."

and the rationale:

"I don't believe that supporters of this view think it is immoral. It's just that in the priority of values, the "immorality" of paying for someone else's healthcare is higher than the "immorality" of watching someone die of neglect. It's all a matter of priorities."

All of which, I think, are precisely correct. And none of which was coherently responded to.

Which makes me think of blind horses. And why it isn't good to ride them. That's the conclusion I came to some time ago.

Anywho, thanks to the PL Regulars (the normal ones) for the excellent postings yesterday and today. Sometimes this board is remarkably good even with the chaff.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 30, 2011 7:48 PM | Report abuse

The death panels thing was truly sick and it worked far too well.

As soon as you concede that the government isn't going to mount a space program magnitude project to extend the life of a 99 year old gravely ill man one more month, then wham, you've admitted death panels.

Never mind that the profit maximizing free market denies treatment to children with treatable life-threatening diseases to keep the cash. That isn't rationing. That's free enterprise.

These people make me sick.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 7:49 PM | Report abuse

"Come on guys. The cases are mounting every week. I know none of you individually can do much about this but at the very least you need to understand how the rhetoric emerging from this modern movement in its increasing extremism is becoming dangerous."

That's a nice bundle of assumptions and logical leaps.

==

No, it's a matter of factual record, you lying twit.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Your originally asked if we support "health care for all"?
------------------------------------------------
Scott, if I changed the question mid stream, I apologize. That was not my intention. I'm not setting traps here, I'm simply and I emphasize the word simply, trying to establish where the areas of agreement are. I am somewhat discouraged by the results. How can we stop bickering if we don't stop bickering?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 7:57 PM | Report abuse

"Not just refuted my friend but completely defeated. You have dominated the debate and are indeed the champion. I hope that helps a little bit. :-)"

At last, I shall have a good night's sleep!

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne

"I have certainly enjoyed 12BB's virtuoso performance: reasonable, patient, intelligent, logical and relentless."

HEAR! HEAR! 12Bar's performance was as good as that terrific violinist I heard last night soloing with the Florida Orchestra...virtuoso indeed.

I also agree wbgonne that 12Bar forced us to look at HCR in a totally different light when she brought up the ER law signed by St. Ronnie. And like you wbgonne I have enjoyed these past two threads despite what you have accurately and IMHO gently described as "chaff".

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 8:04 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""I'm not setting traps here,""

I don't think you were setting a trap. I assumed all along that you were posing the question in good faith. It's just that I asked you in good faith for clarification before answering, and you basically (albeit politely) told me to f- off. Now you complain about how difficult it is to get answers? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

In any event, you have my answer now. So? Have we gained anything?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 30, 2011 8:05 PM | Report abuse

"I don't believe that supporters of this view think it is immoral. It's just that in the priority of values, the "immorality" of paying for someone else's healthcare is higher than the "immorality" of watching someone die of neglect. It's all a matter of priorities."

All of which, I think, are precisely correct. And none of which was coherently responded to.

==

And won't be, not by the "conservatives." Color to the blind.

They'll change the topic to rights and freedoms. Comparing moralities instantly gets them into areas where they have no bearings. Imposing taxes to pay for other peoples' healthcare? Anyone can see that's immoral, why, it's tyranny on the level of Stalin (you've read this as much as I have). Leaving the ill untreated? Not as immoral .. cue the punitivity. It's their fault for .. uh, for not working harder, or something. Hey, let's talk about illegal aliens now.

It's literally beyond most people to reason morally. Google Lawrence Kohlberg. Trying to make a moral point with such people is like trying to teach a dog to read a newspaper.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 8:05 PM | Report abuse

HEAR! HEAR!
--------------------------------------
Thanks for the kind words. I'm exhausted though. What a slog. It should **not** be this hard.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Q.B.

"At last, I shall have a good night's sleep!"

And no snark intended I'm happy for you. I wouldn't wish your children to have a tired father. I genuinely know how seriously you take that responsibility and it's an area where we can agree...hooray....:-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Have we gained anything?
-----------------------------------------------
Ask me again when my optimism in human nature has come back. I'm usually an optimist so I expect I'll bounce back in a few days.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm late to the party...
The Pope, you know who that is, recently said that every person has an inalienable right to health care and governments have the responsibility to see that it's given regardless of the cost. This barely made the news because the media were falling all over themselves about the Pope's remarks concerning condoms.

Posted by: LeftCoast5 | January 30, 2011 8:13 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar

I love to award nicknames to my progressive friends...if lmsinca was the blog saint...you are the blog's Job. :-)

We've worn you out today and so perhaps this is too much to lump on your plate right now.
But when you feel up to it I have a question for your thoughtful and analytical mind. Perhaps you can use your special technique to bring us to agreement.

Basic question. How many innocent Afghan lives are worth ONE innocent American life.

I'll even give some choices...10 innocent Afghan lives for one American? 20 innocent Afghans for one American...remember 12Bar we are special and exceptional.

How about conservative estimates of at least 5,000 innocent lives to well over 10,000 innocent Afghan lives for ZERO innocent American lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

This will be an especially tough "Gordian knot" for you to untangle...and especially tough for you since you are informed by your Catholic faith...and I say that very respectfully with no thought of diminishing the value of your faith. You have shown us all how well the "mackeral snappers" did raising you.

Again remember that NOBODY can prove a SINGLE American life has been saved by these two stupid wars...NOT ONE!!!
Again remember the man snapping his fingers to keep the elephant away...it worked well you never saw any elephants.
That would be the neo con defense of these wars...nothing real..not even intelligent speculation...just more fear mongering.

And so 12Bar good luck...basic question..perhaps two parts..theory and reality...how many innocent Afghan lives=1 exceptional American?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 8:19 PM | Report abuse

"To people on the right here...

Come on guys. The cases are mounting every week. I know none of you individually can do much about this but at the very least you need to understand how the rhetoric emerging from this modern movement in its increasing extremism is becoming dangerous."

It's completely anecdotal bernie. I showed you FBI statistics that show a demonstrable reduction in any sort of violence that can remotely be associated with "political" violence.  This trend has gone on for years.  What would you say to a AGW skeptic who pointed out that New York is only 20" short of the all-time snowfall record, and it's still January?  You'd rightly tell me that weather is not climate.  Anecdotes are not an equal substitute to statistical trends.  Hoping that so called "rightwing" violence is on the increase is not the same as proving that it is, no matter how inconvenient the truth is to your precious narrative.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 8:20 PM | Report abuse

And so 12Bar good luck...basic question..perhaps two parts..theory and reality...how many innocent Afghan lives=1 exceptional American?
-------------------------------------------------
What's the real question, because it can't be what you say. The real question has to be answerable by all parties to the decision. How about: Do we want to end this war?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 8:24 PM | Report abuse

"the hypothetical answer proposed:

""all intelligent persons who use the "not in the constitution" excuse do so to avoid having to say out loud their real position--that people who can't pay should die. But, I think they do believe it. They just don't want to have to deal with the stunned looks they'd get."

and the rationale:

"I don't believe that supporters of this view think it is immoral. It's just that in the priority of values, the "immorality" of paying for someone else's healthcare is higher than the "immorality" of watching someone die of neglect. It's all a matter of priorities."

All of which, I think, are precisely correct. And none of which was coherently responded to"

_____________________

What is unfortunate for you about this formulation is that you condemn yourselves more than anyone. If there are people dying for inability to afford health care -- and you are postulating that there are many (ruk always claims tens of thousands a year) -- and you are not emptying your own bank accounts and pockets to pay for it, you are without excuse.

You assert that opponents of government healthcare use the Constitution as an excuse. But look at yourselves. You are using lack of a government program as your excuse for doing what you contend is morally complusory.

Maybe it's not all as simple as you have concluded it is.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 8:30 PM | Report abuse

for "not" doing what you contend ....

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 8:32 PM | Report abuse

12Bar No it's actually a very simple question. How many innocent Afghan lives=1 American life? We are presently killing Afghans. I didn't mention anything about ending the war...perhaps the answer to the basic question might lead to the end of the war...but personally I think that is the most germane question...I'm not talking about strategy or foreign policy...just a basic fundamental. We have obviously determined through our actions that Afghan lives are not as valuable...I'm just trying to see what ratio of innocent civilians we're willing to kill...1-1...10-1..20-1?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 8:39 PM | Report abuse

@ruk,

The trouble with your question is that it is too loaded. The very basis of the question (how many Afghans equal an American) telegraphs the problem.
(I understand your point completely, that innocent Afghans are being killed by drone attacks so that no Americans die.)

Just giving you my honest opinion, that the question you ask has to be answerable by all parties to the dispute without anyone giving up any ground. Otherwise, no one will answer it.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Alleviatng medical suffering on a large scale is beyond the means of almost every American. It is trivially within the means of government.

Morality requires us to do what we can. It cannot require us to do what we can't. To throw ourselves on the sword of lost causes isn't dictated by any moral code.

QB has just taken time to demonstrate my point about "conservatives'" inability to reason morally.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

@ruk - The rate of Afghan's dying violently was higher preceding the US backed takeover in 2001. That's demonstrated fact. To pose the question as Afghan lives vs. American lives is therefore a false choice. Afghanistan is now a less violent place than it was.

Weird, huh?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 30, 2011 8:51 PM | Report abuse

So, would this work: You would support healthcare for indigents, but not including illegal immigrants, if it is at the state level and if it is cheap enough for the taxpayers. Are you willing to pay taxes at the state level to pay for this program?

I'm not including your comments about $5000 deductibles or vouchers or dental since that seems to go toward the inexpensiveness of the program.

Not necessarily.  Again, it all depends on what is and is not included.  I'd focus on indigent care, and I happen to think a voucher system, one in which the holder gets to keep a large chunk of the unspent total to incentivize "shopping" for example, does not fit neatly into your generalization.  I'm interested in something sustainable that, because I'm helping to pay for it, should be considered a privilege.  I don't want to have to pay for indigans who smoke, for example.  If they have money to spend on tobacco, then they're not being responsible, they're not living up to their end of the deal.  I'd spend money on testing for it, for example.  I know you have a desire for agreement, but clarity is much more important.  The devil is always in the details. How could it not be?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Alleviatng medical suffering on a large scale is beyond the means of almost every American. It is trivially within the means of government.
-----------------------------------------------
That is the crux of it, isn't it. Charity can't deliver healthcare to all those who need it, some 50 million so far, right?

Since every other government in the western world can deliver healthcare to all, under all sorts of systems, it's hard to see why it is only the U.S. who can't do it.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 8:54 PM | Report abuse

"So, if we agree it is possible that the community can get things wrong about what is and is not a right, then a discussion of whether or not access to health care is or can be a right cannot be effected by what the community "says" at any given time.""


To say a thing is "right" or "wrong" is to say you consider it so. For a community to establish (in some rough manner) that a thing is right or wrong is to say that community (roughly) considers it so. You wish a bright line which isn't available - other than in your or my or a community's considerations.

There's one sense or aspect here which seems to a variable of significance - the extension of a 'right' to include those previously denied it through class division, through racial/ethnic segregation or gender segregation, sexual orientation, etc. This variable accords equal community membership/participation to more members and it is a fundamental reason we see "rights' as progressing (or progressive) and hold that such progression is a "good". But even on this, of course, Phyllis Schlafly and Perkins wouldn't agree. Rough consensus, as I said. Change or progression here is almost always slow and marked by strife - old giving way to new. But the direction is increasing inclusion. And, of course, this is the compelling moral argument for "spreading freedom and equality" to places which have less of them.

But what we are talking about is something different - agreements as to what the role of government itself can be or ought to be. Yet again, this is established by consensus (as it was by your founders) in their conception of, for example, government responsibility for "the general welfare".

But now I have to close up shop and attend to domestic. More later.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 30, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

You assert that opponents of government healthcare use the Constitution as an excuse. But look at yourselves. You are using lack of a government program as your excuse for doing what you contend is morally complusory.

Maybe it's not all as simple as you have concluded it is.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 8:30 PM

WOW. You really should be embarrassed but I'm certain that you have no idea how ridiculous this is. I am not surprised but I am ashamed that there are people in this exceptional country with thoughts and beliefs as astonishingly stupid as this.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 30, 2011 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Troll for your thoughtful answer. Maybe it doesn't have to be like pulling teeth...

1. I understand your point about a voucher system. Would that include some kind of deductible (not sure how that would work)?

2. Your point about use of the voucher being a privilege--how does that manifest itself in the law?

3. You would test for smoking and for drugs, I assume? People who test positive lose their voucher. How about obesity?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 9:02 PM | Report abuse

@ruk - The rate of Afghan's dying violently was higher preceding the US backed takeover in 2001. That's demonstrated fact. To pose the question as Afghan lives vs. American lives is therefore a false choice. Afghanistan is now a less violent place than it was.

Weird, huh?

==

That's good to know, BB.

However it doesn't excuse the indiscriminate nature of the American effort there. We could do better.

Yesterday on another blog on here some sicko was saying that whenever America is in a military conflict and the other side abandons some civilzed convention of warfare then we are free to do that same, and in fact obligated to, since unmatched civilized decorum disadvantages American troops.

I doubt you agree with that .. frankly I find it despicable .. it is however pretty much par for the course when it comes to conservatives' (you can consider that sneer-quoted henceforth, I think I've made my point) inability to reason morally.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Troll, what would you do about the healthcare for the indigents who do smoke? We're going to have to deal with the EMTALA law.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 9:05 PM | Report abuse

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- If Sister Donna Wilhelm had her way the annual Homeless Stand Down -- a massive three-day event that provides winter clothes, medical screenings, haircuts and more -- would be canceled.

"We don't want to keep doing this for the rest of our lives," said Wilhelm, executive director of InterAct Cleveland, the nonprofit coalition that organized Sunday's event, which served more than 600 homeless people in its 20th year.

"We are trying to end this problem for good by using transitional and supportive housing. We shouldn't have any homeless here."

Wilhelm and the cadre of 1,100 volunteers set up shop at the Masonic Auditorium on Euclid Avenue where people lined up as early as 4:30 a.m., rolling up in wheelchairs and with strollers, toting oxygen tanks and shopping baskets.

Each person got a lanyard with their name and a number on it. Once inside, they could choose from an array of services.

Many decided to "shop" for winter boots, coats, socks and blankets.

Volunteer Sister Dian Majsterek, of Garfield Heights, acted as a personal shopper for David, a 50-year-old Air Force veteran who walked to the event from the men's homeless shelter at 2100 Lakeside.

David, who said he had been at the shelter for about two weeks since a relationship broke off, filled his backpack with military-issue socks along with a hat, gloves and boots.

He paused in front of a coat rack lined with army green. "Why don't you try one on David, see if it fits you," Majsterek said.

"Yes, Ma'am," he said as he slid the coat on.

Like many at the event, David, who asked that his last name not be used, said he was temporarily homeless while he saved a few checks.

Some of the more chronically homeless dropped in to get their blood sugar tested or feet checked by doctors from St. Vincent Charity Hospital.

The combination of diabetes, moisture from layering clothing and the frigid winter temperatures can cause severe thermal injuries to the hands and feet, Michael Canales, a podiatric surgeon, said. He and his team had to admit several people to the hospital Sunday because of infected feet or stumps. Others were set up with follow-up appointments in the next few days.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/01/volunteers_help_those_on_the_s.html

I was there ... what's your excuse?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 30, 2011 9:07 PM | Report abuse

I don't want to have to pay for indig[ents] who smoke, for example. If they have money to spend on tobacco, then they're not being responsible, they're not living up to their end of the deal.

==

I agree. And I would broaden this. Since medical care becomes a commons issue when it's removed (as it should be) from the caprice of the marketplace, people instantly acquire an obligation to not waste what in many cases will be others' money.

Tobacco should have been made illegal when the cancer link was established, if not sooner; that it remains legal is one of the biggest elephants in the living room. And don't give me any guff about rights or freedom here, nicotine is addicting, addicts don't have freedom, they don't have choices/ Quitting tobacco is harder than quitting heroin, ask anyone who's quit both.

When I'm working and I pay into a healthcare plan, I resent like hell sharing the plan with coworkers who smoke, who're overweight, who don't go to the gym. Damned right I do. A smoker costs such a plan many thousands more per year on average than a nonsmoker and the fact that the expenses are pooled in my mind obligates him to quit, or at least to pay a far higher premium commensurate with his self-destructive choices.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, ruk. That was really just an incredible low in GOP rhetoric. And as much as we want to say "the Conservatives on here are good people that we just disagree with," I think it says something about them that they would just adopt the death panel meme wholesale without a care as to how hurtful this is. It just really made me see them all differently.

As for the racism, I'm glad to have missed the worst of it and even the Reagan years are fading memories to me now. I've experienced incidents from time to time, but nothing too bad. But I do remember Willie Horton and how disgusted my parents were by it. And Republicans have pretty much kept up the same racist bent since then. And I guess I've just grown numb to it. It's just modus operandi for Republicans. Obviously it hurts me every time the GOP makes the argument that everything I've accomplished comes at the expense of white people. But I can't really go and tie up Megyn Kelly and lock her in a warehouse, so I just deal with it. But if the most racist people I encounter are politicians and FOX personalities, I'm quite lucky.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2011 9:13 PM | Report abuse

You assert that opponents of government healthcare use the Constitution as an excuse. But look at yourselves. You are using lack of a government program as your excuse for doing what you contend is morally complusory.

Maybe it's not all as simple as you have concluded it is.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 8:30 PM
==========================================

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. Nothing is quite as simple as liberals see it. A liberal will sit idly by or take a European vacation while one of the neighborhood's uninsured suffers and feel no guilt whatsoever. After the arrival of the Great Society, their consciences are clean after beating their gums about taxpayer funded universal healthcare. It's all the fault of those miserly conservatives---code for "let someone else pay for it."

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 9:17 PM | Report abuse

"That is the crux of it, isn't it. Charity can't deliver healthcare to all those who need it, some 50 million so far, right?"

You've entirely missed my point, and I happen to think it is the point habitually ignored by liberals, because it is one you cannot answer without admitting moral failure. My point was not that private charity can fully address the problem. It was that the moral imperative you are asserting has its claim on you, personally an individually, to the full extent of your own resources. It is no excuse that you or anyone else cannot meet all the needs. You can undoubtedly meet some needs. If you are holding on to assets and resources that could be used to pay for health care needed by others, you simply aren't living up to the absolute moral imperative you claim pertains.

You above asserted that opponents of government health care consider it more immoral to pay for others' health care than to let them die. Right? I didn't mischaracterize that, did I? And you claim that opponents only use the Constitution as an excuse to avoid shocked reactions to their (wicked) views.

I'm not misreading you, am I, to say that you are implicitly condemning the morality of people who prioritizing not paying for others' care above paying for it? That makes it rather simple, putting it that way, does it not? You are either using all your resources, to the full extent that you have any ability to pay, or you aren't. It's no moral excuse to say that, in your opinion, the government is needed to solve the whole problem.

And as to the claim that private charity could not meet the needs, that is a separate issue, but it's an obvious fallacy. If the resources exist, the exist.


These are claims of individual, personal morality. You

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 9:17 PM | Report abuse

""Since every other government in the western world can deliver healthcare to all, under all sorts of systems, it's hard to see why it is only the U.S. who can't do it.""

Oh and BTW, apparently the Bush Administration found it enough of a compelling concern to include the right to health care in the Iraqi Constitution, even after we destroyed their delivery system. I seem to remember Bush and followers being quite proud of the Constitution they drafted for the Iraqi people.

Check out Article 31

""Article 30:
First: The State shall guarantee to the individual and the family - especially
children and women – social and health security, the basic requirements for living
a free and decent life, and shall secure for them suitable income and appropriate
housing.
Second: The State shall guarantee social and health security to Iraqis in cases of
old age, sickness, employment disability, homelessness, orphanhood, or
unemployment, shall work to protect them from ignorance, fear and poverty, and
shall provide them housing and special programs of care and rehabilitation, and
this shall be regulated by law.
Article 31:
First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.
Second: Individuals and entities have the right to build hospitals, clinics, or
private health care centers under the supervision of the State, and this shall be
regulated by law.""

http://www.uniraq.org/documents/iraqi_constitution.pdf

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Well, cao and Troll, if we want to load on the issue of smoking, we'll have to deal with the issue of smokers who use healthcare. The present law provides healthcare to them. Would we repeal EMTALA?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Wow, all this bickering and discussion on whether HC is a right became downright tedious.

IMO the pragmatic (did I really say that?) issue is the ACA as eventually passed. It is a terribly flawed piece of legislation whose largely unknown authors produced something absurd to the point of being unconstitutional in some respects that was passed by a democratically controlled congress with no real understanding of, and for some no care about, its content or cost. "We have to pass it so we can see what's in it."

That was the real travesty and it would be really nice if congress would give us something realistic and affordable for the long run. Politicians think long term? Not a chance. That and partisan divide probably makes this wishful thinking on my part.

Posted by: actuator | January 30, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD: the WIllie Horton episode was the straw that led my father, a career Navy man, to abandon the Republican Party.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 9:22 PM | Report abuse

"You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. Nothing is quite as simple as liberals see it."

Indeed, and yet they delude themselves that "conservatives don't do nuance" and all that jazz.

You could almost go down a list of any issues you want and show that they are simplistic to a fault. This one never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 9:28 PM | Report abuse

And in 20 years of forums this papers' are the only ones I've been on where verminous behavior like that isn't cause for an instant ban. The guy is sick. As if anyone needed any more evidence.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 7:15 PM
==========================================

How many people think Chris Cillizza is a Republican? Or even a Conservative? And yet I was never at any time banned from the Fix. Caothien9 was shown the door more times than you can count, but he lacked the self-respect to stay away from a site that didn't want him.

I've no doubt the cretin is correct when he says he's been a blog troll for 20 years---he certainly doesn't have much else going in the way of a life---but if you're looking for behavior that results in bans, you probably should check him out before evaluating anyone else. Neither of us has changed much since our days at the Fix, but one of us---hint: it isn't me---has shown the good sense to use Troll Blocker to avoid the sort of meltdowns that frequently occurred when his ridiculous assertions were exposed with those troublesome things we call facts.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 9:29 PM | Report abuse

BTW RFR, there's a book out, Muslim Mafia, that details the participation of members of the Muslim Brotherhood and their connection with and influence at the highest levels on the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Posted by: actuator | January 30, 2011 9:29 PM | Report abuse

"let someone else pay for it."

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 9:17 PM

Do conservatives think they are the only Americans that pay taxes? Or volunteer? Or contribute to charity? Is that how they justify this absurdity?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 30, 2011 9:31 PM | Report abuse

With a crisis in the Middle East, the American People are correct to question the loyalty of Obama.


It is at this point, in a crisis, at which all the games Obama has been playing really come back to hurt him, and cause confusion in the nation.

FOR all we know, Obama is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a largely secret society.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 9:34 PM | Report abuse

@ruk - The rate of Afghan's dying violently was higher preceding the US backed takeover in 2001. That's demonstrated fact. To pose the question as Afghan lives vs. American lives is therefore a false choice. Afghanistan is now a less violent place than it was.

Weird, huh?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 30, 2011 8:51 PM
=====================================

Didn't you get the memo. You're not really dead unless an American kills you or you die without health insurance.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 9:34 PM | Report abuse

The State shall guarantee ... health security to Iraqis in cases of
old age, sickness, employment disability, homelessness, orphanhood, or
unemployment, ...and
this shall be regulated by law.
-------------------------------------
Are you serious? The Iraqi Constitution drafted by the U.S.?

We're not up to par with the Iraqis. That is pretty powerful.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday on another blog on here some sicko was saying that whenever America is in a military conflict and the other side abandons some civilzed convention of warfare then we are free to do that same, and in fact obligated to, since unmatched civilized decorum disadvantages American troops.

I doubt you agree with that .. frankly I find it despicable ...

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 9:05 PM
=======================================

I don't troll the other blogs like cao, but it sounds like something I might propose. Frankly, I'm not interested in the military theories of some unelected spineless grifter who's always let someone else do his fighting for him.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

"I've no doubt the cretin is correct when he says he's been a blog troll for 20 years---he certainly doesn't have much else going in the way of a life---but if you're looking for behavior that results in bans, you probably should check him out before evaluating anyone else."

Irony can't get much thicker than this lowlife's calling other people sick. If and when Greg's lackeys/overlords roll out an official troll blocker function, Colonel Kurtz will the first of two trolls I'll be blocking. In fact, they need to get on the stick, because patience wears thin for me.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 9:40 PM | Report abuse

@cao - I was quite surprised when I heard the stat. I don't think that the American military is acting indiscriminately. It's definitely not a case of killemall and let the respective deity sort it out. It also doesn't justify every action, but it is worth noting that

For those who think the response of the US government and the Fed has held back US growth, consider the alternative. The new UK government has done exactly what the Tea Party prescribed.

Q4 US Growth: 3.2% annualized
Q4 UK Growth: -0.5% annualized

Sadly, some fools will never learn from experience.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 30, 2011 9:41 PM | Report abuse

"You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. Nothing is quite as simple as liberals see it."

Indeed, and yet they delude themselves that "conservatives don't do nuance" and all that jazz.

You could almost go down a list of any issues you want and show that they are simplistic to a fault. This one never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 9:28 PM |

Nuance at its finest.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 30, 2011 9:43 PM | Report abuse

cao wrote,
"When I'm working and I pay into a healthcare plan, I resent like hell sharing the plan with coworkers who smoke, who're overweight, who don't go to the gym. Damned right I do."
==========================================

No more than I resent sharing a plan with some rump wrangler who's free lifestyle choices make him much more likely to need the HIV cocktails Prag (or whomever it was) was opining about.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 9:44 PM | Report abuse

""You are either using all your resources, to the full extent that you have any ability to pay, or you aren't. It's no moral excuse to say that, in your opinion, the government is needed to solve the whole problem.""

You're saying that because I believe in the morality of universal health care, that until we achieve that goal, I need to sacrifice every penny and asset I have to the health of others until I myself am destitute and become one of the needy? Wow, good plan. And then you go on to impugn our morality by asserting that unless we follow this foolish idea we have no claim to a moral standing on the issue of health care. That's a heavy burden.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 9:44 PM | Report abuse

"But I do remember Willie Horton and how disgusted my parents were by it."
======================================

Not disgusted by the fact he'd raped and murdered someone I'll wager.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 9:45 PM | Report abuse

"Thank you Troll for your thoughtful answer. Maybe it doesn't have to be like pulling teeth..."

I've read the thread, and we have different ideas about what constitutes pulling teeth.  Again, what you assume is not necessarily what I assume.  I agree with Scott that we have to agree about First Principles before going forward in a discussion, otherwise distortions grow.

"1. I understand your point about a voucher system. Would that include some kind of deductible (not sure how that would work)?"

Well, I certainly think an investigation into eligibility would be appropriate, as well as some sort of contribution to expenses, even if it's nominal, or perhaps a certain amount of donated labor for those that can.  The point is to make it something to be valued not expected. Habitat for Humanity, for example, requires a considerable amount of effort from their beneficiaries.

"2. Your point about use of the voucher being a privilege--how does that manifest itself in the law?"

I would have the legislature codify requirements the beneficiary must meet, to be 
scrapped and rewritten every 2 or 3 years, and then have the State contract with a third party to investigate the petitioners eligibility and to monitor they're compliance.  I might suggest WalMart, for example, but prohibit any third party currently engaged in medical care or insurance. Innovation is going to be key for efficiency and sustainability, among other things.  One thing we know, government involvement, even regulatory involvement, is almost always disastrous.  I've taken this quote from Milton Friedman to heart: "I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”. I thinknthat is much easier to do with for profit business.  Easier to incentivize compliance, if you will.

"3. You would test for smoking and for drugs, I assume? People who test positive lose their voucher. How about obesity?"

Yes, yes and yes.

"Oh, Troll, what would you do about the healthcare for the indigents who do smoke? We're going to have to deal with the EMTALA law."

Well, EMTALA requires emergency care and stabilization to all comers, regardless of their ability to pay, no?  That is different than regular healthcare.  I do not see how one effects the other.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 9:45 PM | Report abuse

As I said, astonishing, isn't it lms?

But in the meantime, the tea partiers will screech "keep the government out of my Medicare!"

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 30, 2011 9:51 PM | Report abuse

actuator | January 30, 2011 9:20 PM


I would have to agree with you

Actually astonishing that the Obama people decided to largely by-pass the committee process.

AND they decided to by-pass the Conference Committee as well.

The whole thing was dumped on the internet in the middle of the night.

Obama refused to negotiate it out.

As soon as they bought out the votes in Minnesota to get Al Franken in, the Obama people didn't care about anyone.


They even changed the law in Massachusetts after Ted Kennedy died in order to keep the 60th vote - I find that out of bounds, the law should have been as the law was when the vacancy was created.


Obama is unbelievable - he has NOT even met with Boehner yet - almost a month in as Speaker.


Obama simply refuses to do what he is supposed to do - he is just jerking everyone around.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 9:51 PM | Report abuse

You're saying that because I believe in the morality of universal health care, that until we achieve that goal, I need to sacrifice every penny and asset I have to the health of others until I myself am destitute and become one of the needy? Wow, good plan. And then you go on to impugn our morality by asserting that unless we follow this foolish idea we have no claim to a moral standing on the issue of health care. That's a heavy burden.
---------------------------------------------
I take qb's point as a variant on the old joke about the two guys sitting at the bar, taking turns holding the pistol to their own heads. Each guy is betting with his buddy whether or not the next chamber has the bullet in it. "You first."

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 9:52 PM | Report abuse

"let someone else pay for it."

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 9:17 PM

Do conservatives think they are the only Americans that pay taxes? Or volunteer? Or contribute to charity? Is that how they justify this absurdity?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 30, 2011 9:31 PM
==========================================

They rightly believe that they do it in greater numbers. As we determined yesterday, government will not coerce you beyond the "fair share" of taxes you owe, but that doesn't stop you, or anyone else, from giving as much as you want to hospitals, the government, or any other cause of choice. Instead of whining about what conservatives do or don't do, it would be much more efficacious if you'd just get out the old checkbook---not you in particular since, for all I know, you may be the most generous person in the world.

Posted by: Brigade | January 30, 2011 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Well, EMTALA requires emergency care and stabilization to all comers, regardless of their ability to pay, no? That is different than regular healthcare. I do not see how one effects the other.
-----------------------------------------
If you read the SCOTUS cases about EMTALA, you will see that how this works in practice is the the lung cancer patient shows up at ER and is treated in the hospital for months. It isn't just zip into ER, stay 2 hours and leave. Sick people take months to be stabilized.

So, the diseases from smoking are being covered under EMTALA whether we want to or not.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 9:59 PM | Report abuse

"""3. You would test for smoking and for drugs, I assume? People who test positive lose their voucher. How about obesity?"

Yes, yes and yes.""

Then you would have to also include alcohol, fat content in diet, sugar and soda and probably people who engage in "dangerous" sports such as what..........skiing, sky diving, cliff diving, or would football qualify as dangerous? Just curious where the line gets drawn. For someone to the right of Ayn Rand, you sure seem to want a homogeneous society. Do you think people drawing unemployment should be drug tested?

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 10:01 PM | Report abuse

"You're saying that . . . . That's a heavy burden."

That's the heavy burden assumed by 12bb and wbg. All I actually did was apply the very same moral principle they stated to their (and your) health care position.

They've claimed that anyone who doesn't support government health care morally prioritizes not paying for others' care over saving their lives. I've just cut out the middle man -- government -- to put the principle in simplest form: if you don't pay for the health care of those who can't afford it, you prioritize not paying over letting them die. Very simple. You have money and assets, more than you need. Other people are (you postulate) dying and need help. The principle stated above says you are acting immorally for letting them die.

If you can explain why it's more compicated than that, feel free. But you should be prepared to admit your friends are wrong as well.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 10:02 PM | Report abuse

legislature codify requirements the beneficiary must meet, to be
scrapped and rewritten every 2 or 3 years
---------------------------------------------------
The requirements would be scrapped and rewritten every 2-3 years? Such as drug and alcohol free and thin.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 10:05 PM | Report abuse

@BB

"That's demonstrated fact." 12Bar and I are proud you brought yet another consideration to my question. Remember I'm going with 12Bars rules here...I did not mention ending the war...I made no inference that there is anything wrong with killing innocent Afghans, I'm simply posing a question.

Now Blade you "assert" that more innocent Aghans were dying before 2001. First with all due respect I haven't seen that demonstrated as fact. I would like to see a link to that information. I'm not being snarky here...I'm genuinely curious. As you suggested that would seem weird...but perhaps there is an explanation...such as yes we are killing thousands of innocent Afghans but the Taliban actually killed more than we have. In which case my question would have to be placed in an entirely different context. Does killing fewer innocent Afghans than the Taliban, justify us killing innocent Afghans? Can we prove that if we didn't kill those innocent Afghans MORE innocent Afghans would die because we weren't dropping drones on the Taliban as well as the innocent Afghans.

Now I'm beginning to reach some 12Bar Nirvana. :-) If BB you can actually link credible evidence that shows more innocent Afghans would die if we actually stop killing innocent Afghans I personlly would feel a whole lot better...because then we could at least claim we are "saving" a net number of innocent Afghans. Although I would have to agree with Cao that we could be a little less indiscriminate thereby improving that ratio of U.S. innocent Afghans killed to the potential number of innocent Afghans killed if we stopped killing.

Again...I can see I'm making people a little uneasy...hopefully every Christian on this blog!!! I simply bring up the 5th Commandment for you 12Bar...Jewish folk and the rest of the Christians call itthe 6th Commandment "You shall not kill/murder"

Does our exceptional country really take that commandment seriously? But I poke fun at my Christian brethren because if we start honoring the 10 Commandments the next thing some wack job will expect is to honor the teachings of Jesus Christ...you know say for example...Matthew 5:38-40

"“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."

Can my Christian friends help me out here...does "bring it on" sound like turning the other cheek? Just asking my Christian brethren if you have the courage of your convictions? I realize we're talking about "genuine" courage, not the Faux I'll kick your butt bring it on fake courage.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 10:06 PM | Report abuse

"Credits to Tamer Shaaban who made this video Important message to youtube and people who flag this video: If it gets flagged or removed, it will be uploaded 10 more times.
Created by Tamer Shaaban. Another Egyptian who's had enough."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThvBJMzmSZI&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: tao9 | January 30, 2011 10:07 PM | Report abuse

legislature codify requirements the beneficiary must meet, to be
scrapped and rewritten every 2 or 3 years
---------------------------------------------------
The requirements would be scrapped and rewritten every 2-3 years? Such as drug and alcohol free and thin.
-----------------------------------
I should have written: Such as drug and nicotine free and thin. We haven't dealt with alcohol.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 10:08 PM | Report abuse

"I take qb's point as a variant on the old joke about the two guys sitting at the bar, taking turns holding the pistol to their own heads. Each guy is betting with his buddy whether or not the next chamber has the bullet in it. "You first.""

As usual, serious talk about moral imperatives and priorities stops as soon as someone points out the obvious implications of liberals' own supposed principles and they have to answer a hard question themselves.

So much for all that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 10:10 PM | Report abuse

"Credits to Tamer Shaaban who made this video Important message to youtube and people who flag this video: If it gets flagged or removed, it will be uploaded 10 more times.
Created by Tamer Shaaban. Another Egyptian who's had enough."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThvBJMzmSZI&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: tao9 | January 30, 2011 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Is this really how everyone on the right perceives the issue?

That's the heavy burden assumed by 12bb and wbg. All I actually did was apply the very same moral principle they stated to their (and your) health care position.

They've claimed that anyone who doesn't support government health care morally prioritizes not paying for others' care over saving their lives. I've just cut out the middle man -- government -- to put the principle in simplest form: if you don't pay for the health care of those who can't afford it, you prioritize not paying over letting them die. Very simple. You have money and assets, more than you need. Other people are (you postulate) dying and need help. The principle stated above says you are acting immorally for letting them die.

If you can explain why it's more compicated than that, feel free. But you should be prepared to admit your friends are wrong as well.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 30, 2011 10:02 PM

Does this accurately describe the position of the right? Are any of the other posters from the right prepared to agree with this?

Just wondering.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 30, 2011 10:17 PM | Report abuse

FINALLY

The put an Iranian HOSTAGE on TV

To draw the parallel between Egypt and the Iranian revolution


WAKE UP LIBERALS


The Muslim Brotherhood is trying to take control of Egypt

And that is serious

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I simply bring up the 5th Commandment for you 12Bar...Jewish folk and the rest of the Christians call itthe 6th Commandment "You shall not kill/murder"
------------------------------------------------
Here's one of my contradictions. I believe in the sanctity of life, but I also understand why we sometimes wage war. But war should be rare, very rare, and stopped as soon as our objectives are reached. And I don't mean the objectives that keep creeping to justify our forever involvement. I understand brigade's desire to be decisive in war because at least it shortens the war, as long as the tradeoff isn't to kill 1m people in an afternoon, rather than a million people over a year.

Maybe that's why I proposed the question I did. But it's your question.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 10:18 PM | Report abuse

""As usual, serious talk about moral imperatives and priorities stops as soon as someone points out the obvious implications of liberals' own supposed principles and they have to answer a hard question themselves.""

What is the question? Do I believe that we have a moral imperative as a nation to ensure all of our citizens receive health care? Yes. Do I also believe I have the moral imperative to help my fellow citizens when and where I can as an individual? Yes. Am I willing to sacrifice my own personal security and that of my family by foolishly giving everything I own to charity? No. Is anyone asking you to sacrifice everything you own in order to alleviate the suffering of others? Also No.

It's called the common, not to be confused with communism.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 10:20 PM | Report abuse

The liberals have a great talent at ignoring reality.


There was an election - the entire House was up for re-election - the result was a solid majority in favor of getting rid of the health care plan.


The country is looking at the liberals - who REFUSED to negotiate last year - and saying "NOW you want to negotiate?"


The country is not in the mood for these games in the middle of an economic crisis.


Clueless liberals - continue to be clueless.

_________________

There is a crisis in Egypt right now - and again the liberals want to ignore reality in favor of what.... a health care discussion.


Obama and the liberals have to go.


It has gotten way too ridiculous - look at you people.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 10:21 PM | Report abuse

ruk7, "bring it on" sounds like Romans 12 to me. You are confusing an individual Christian's obligation and the duty of government to carry out God's wrath.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 30, 2011 10:21 PM | Report abuse

"One thing we know, government involvement, even regulatory involvement, is almost always disastrous."

Troll...Troll...Troll...

Do you guys ever tire of repeating the same LIE over and over and over again.

Reagan was freaking being sarcastic when he said...""The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

If he meant all gov't=evil then he was retarded...but I don't believe he was that stupid...too bad I can't say the same for his acolytes.

How about this ONE THING WE KNOW about Gov't involvement in say...well let's say health care since that is what we're talking about. Honestly Troll how do you square that stupid statement with facts?


http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_29/b3993061.htm

LOWER COSTS, HIGHER QUALITY
Roemer seems to have stepped through the looking glass into an alternative universe, one where a nationwide health system that is run and financed by the federal government provides the best medical care in America. But it's true -- if you want to be sure of top-notch care, join the military. The 154 hospitals and 875 clinics run by the Veterans Affairs Dept. have been ranked best-in-class by a number of independent groups on a broad range of measures, from chronic care to heart disease treatment to percentage of members who receive flu shots. It offers all the same services, and sometimes more, than private sector providers.

According to a Rand Corp. study, the VA system provides two-thirds of the care recommended by such standards bodies as the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality. Far from perfect, granted -- but the nation's private-sector hospitals provide only 50%. And while studies show that 3% to 8% of the nation's prescriptions are filled erroneously, the VA's prescription accuracy rate is greater than 99.997%, a level most hospitals only dream about. That's largely because the VA has by far the most advanced computerized medical-records system in the U.S. And for the past six years the VA has outranked private-sector hospitals on patient satisfaction in an annual consumer survey conducted by the National Quality Research Center at the University of Michigan. This keeps happening despite the fact that the VA spends an average of $5,000 per patient, vs. the national average of $6,300.

Business week is hardly a lefty publication. Troll your statement is simply factually wrong...you have been brainwashed...switch the channel brother.

I chose that link because it fits health care tonight's topic du jour...however..did the Gov't screw up trying to land on the moon? How about winning WWII? Don't know about you but I enjoy driving on Ike's Interstate Highway system when I head north to Michigan..did Ike's Administration screw up the highway system? Well this is absurd now isn't Troll.
All Gov't is not evil. All Gov't is not good. All free enterprise is not evil. All free enterprise is not good!
Nuance..reality anyone?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 10:24 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

You sure drag down this blog.

The stupidest conversations in the history of blogs.


Unbelievable. Is there any way you can stop demanding that other people cater to your low intelligence?


Unbelievable.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

You are confusing an individual Christian's obligation and the duty of government to carry out God's wrath.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The duty of government to carry out God's wrath????? Bet that's not in the Constitution.

Bwahahaha!!!! Too good to pass up.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

"If you read the SCOTUS cases about EMTALA, you will see that how this works in practice is the the lung cancer patient shows up at ER and is treated in the hospital for months. It isn't just zip into ER, stay 2 hours and leave. Sick people take months to be stabilized.

So, the diseases from smoking are being covered under EMTALA whether we want to or not."

Again, what does EMTALA have to do with our discussion about indigent healthcare in the context of a proposed voucher system?  I realize that stabilization can take longer than 2 hours.  Again, under EMTALA, eligibility is universal and emergency care and stabilization come first. I have not proposed a change to that.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut, you will find that 12Bar doesn't answer questions. That's her "Job" quality, I guess.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 30, 2011 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Troll, my point is that indigent smokers and druggies are getting healthcare at our expense. Under EMTALA. You seemed to think it is important to exclude those two groups of people under healthcare for the indigent that you are willing to support at a state level.

I was just being helpful to point that out to you. If you don't care about EMTALA, then fine. Not a point of contention.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 10:31 PM | Report abuse

12Bar: ""Since every other government in the western world can deliver healthcare to all, under all sorts of systems, it's hard to see why it is only the U.S. who can't do it.""

Because we are exceptional. You believe in American Exceptionalism, no?

Exceptionally selfish and cold-hearted, in this case.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 30, 2011 10:35 PM | Report abuse

MORALITY

First of all, the liberals are attempting to legislate THEIR morality onto everyone else.


MORE IMPORTANTLY


Where is the morality of legislating health care as a DRAG on the economy - why should one group of people get thrown out of work to pay for other's health care?


AND where is the morality in taking funds from one group of people - when CLEARLY the health care can be paid for by others.

And where is the morality IN taking from one group to pay for another - take ALL the money from the rich liberals FIRST, then start to take from everyone else.


These moral questions are not that easy.


However, it is CLEAR that the liberal want to feel MORALLY SUPERIOR to others -


However, how is one morally superior when, in giving to another, YOU are using someone else's money - NOT YOUR OWN ???


Use your own money.


The liberals have a STRANGE WAY OF GIVING AWAY OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY - and they have the NERVE to claim that they are the ones who are morally superior, NOT the people whose money is actually going to the cause.


Again, the liberals want everyone else to PAY for their sense of morally superiority - however the liberals are not paying themselves.


There are ENOUGH LIBERALS IN THE COUNTRY - all liberals - go out and buy health insurance for ONE OTHER PERSON -


Do the job - pay for the uninsured - leave the rest of us out of it.


AND then, when you ACTUALLY PAY then you can feel morally superior.


Case closed.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

"bring it on" sounds like Romans 12 to me."

Really Clawrence. I went to Romans 12 and look what I found...

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

And so it is your contention Clawrence that Jesus taught this to us SIMPLY as individuals. He would be OK with nations violating these precepts? He would be OK with a Christian jeopardizing these concepts by voting for a war monger? (don't go nuckin futs Bushies...I mean that generically not picking on your boy)

It's not a theocracy in the U.S...at least not totally...and so our nation is certainly not bound by Christian principles. I simply find it hypocritical for people to run around saying Jesus..Jesus..Jesus and then act so cavalier while their nation..if not them individually completely operates in a manner that is in DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

"Then you would have to also include alcohol, fat content in diet, sugar and soda and probably people who engage in "dangerous" sports such as what..........skiing, sky diving, cliff diving, or would football qualify as dangerous? Just curious where the line gets drawn. For someone to the right of Ayn Rand, you sure seem to want a homogeneous society. Do you think people drawing unemployment should be drug tested?"

Doesn't whoever pays the piper call the tune?  They don't have to accept a voucher, do they, and subject themselves to such onerous conditions?  I don't understand how expecting certain behavior to be eligble to recieve a charity is somehow desirious of homogeneity.  And, as it usually functions, unemployment is a return on premiums paid, no?  Hence unemployment Insurance?  And since, under normal conditions it's administered by the State, wouldn't the citizens of the State decide, through their elected representatives? In accordance with their State Constitution?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 10:40 PM | Report abuse

The liberals have a STRANGE WAY OF GIVING AWAY OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY - and they have the NERVE to claim that they are the ones who are morally superior, NOT the people whose money is actually going to the cause.


Again, the liberals want everyone else to PAY for their sense of morally superiority - however the liberals are not paying themselves.


There are ENOUGH LIBERALS IN THE COUNTRY - all liberals - go out and buy health insurance for ONE OTHER PERSON -


Do the job - pay for the uninsured - leave the rest of us out of it.


AND then, when you ACTUALLY PAY then you can feel morally superior.


Case closed.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 10:40 PM | Report abuse

"One thing we know, government involvement, even regulatory involvement, is almost always disastrous."

haha

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2011 10:41 PM | Report abuse

"The duty of government to carry out God's wrath????? Bet that's not in the Constitution"

Thanks 12BAR...LMAO...getting time to go to bed and I'm glad I get to go with a smile on my face and the knowledge that as much as we've worn you out you haven't lost your sense of humor...your special 12Bar

And speaking of special...lmsinca..I didn't truly realize how much I missed you.
Your posts tonight have been excellent. You represent the progressive cause with distinction, cogent, pithy, posts that really capture the essence of what we are discussing here this evening. You rock lmsinca!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 10:42 PM | Report abuse

"The requirements would be scrapped and rewritten every 2-3 years? Such as drug and alcohol free and thin."

Well, I don't think I said those are the only requirements.  The point is, those requirements, for example, might need to be changed.  Suppose inflation (or deflation) changes the value of a dollar?  Wouldn't the income threshhold need to be adjusted?  And perhaps new restrictions might want to be added.  Maybe the use of caffeine, for example, might want to be included (or excluded) in eligibity requirement.  How does this not make sense?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Troll I see you still hide from your Gov't screws everything up nonsense.

Do you have any respect for facts?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 10:48 PM | Report abuse

How does this not make sense?
---------------------------------------------------
I'm not here to argue. I'm here to understand. Can you summarize what you would support into a sentence or two?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 10:50 PM | Report abuse

ruk7, to answer your questions: yes. The obligations of INDIVIDUAL Christians are very different than those of governments. If you would have kept reading Romans, you would have seen that yourself.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 30, 2011 10:51 PM | Report abuse

I know I'm going to regret this...

clawrence, how is Romans 12 involved in U.S. government obligations?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 10:58 PM | Report abuse

"One thing we know, government involvement, even regulatory involvement, is almost always disastrous."

haha

Posted by: DDAWD

DDAWD this is one of the most damaging of all right wing shibboleths. Probably originating with St. Ronnie. It's so moronic as to be difficult to discuss without using insulting descriptors like..well "moronic"!!!

The righties seem to be extremists by personality type. They are a fearful lot, somebody is always out to get them or their money. And so rather than explore where Gov't is not only necessary but actually quite efficient and quite good...they simply utter those mindless knee jerk absurdities. And if we ever counter with something like...yes we believe in Free Enterprise with a mixture of socialism...SS..Medicare..etc...they forget the entire part about us being in favor of free enterprise when it's properly regulated.

DDAWD When the argument was raging about extending middle class tax cuts for the wealthy and I provided literally a half dozen links showing that statistically the middle class is shrinking and the wealth of our country HAS BEEN REDISTRIBUTED like no time since the "Gilded Age"...they went nuckin futs. I suggested that a return to historic rates...you know the rates and regs in place when the middle class was actually growing...I was called a socialist. I debated this and of course couldn't convince one of the masterdebaters that by definition I'm not a socialist...this person is totally incapable of nuance and so I gave up. Again when I advocated a tax/reg policy to the RIGHT of Dwight D. Eisenhower I was referred to as a socialist.

But this is what really makes me want to puke...all this talk about "redistribution of income"..such a neo marxist..socialist thing to do...ohhh that's when it's redistributed to the middle class or needy...when it's redistributed to the wealthy thanks to a tax code the wealthy themselves rigged for their own selfish benefit...ohhh that REDISTRIBUTION is just fine..perfect capitalism. Again be clear...I'm not advocating socialism..but if the wealthy can so thoroughly redistribute the wealth through the tax code among other devices...then certainly the middle class is entitled to the same concept of redistribution.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 11:02 PM | Report abuse

""Doesn't whoever pays the piper call the tune? They don't have to accept a voucher, do they, and subject themselves to such onerous conditions?""

It's a slippery slope from vouchers for charity with conditions attached, to being able to afford or purchase any insurance without conditions attached, and as I said where do we draw the line? Do people who can't afford insurance deserve more rigorous conditions than the rest of us? If my employer pays my premiums can he set conditions arbitrarily other than drug testing? As long as drinking, eating, smoking, engaging in sports are legal, who gets to decide how much is too much? Isn't the better way to encourage and incentivize healthy lifestyles through education, peer pressure, access to medical care, etc?

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Night all!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 11:04 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca "rocks" especially the strawmen arguments. For instance, her strawman argument that Piven is not a neo-marxist based on the fact that she supports violence. She is a neo-marxist, however, because she is a neo-marxist. That isn't in dispute. Go read her works if you doubt it. Marxism is an ideology that deems violence necessary and appropriate. Some neos have tried to remove it, and that is debatable, but Imsinca tries to take the easy way out when she pretends that Piven gets labelled a Marxist simply because she supports social violence.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 30, 2011 11:06 PM | Report abuse

"As long as drinking, eating, smoking, engaging in sports are legal, who gets to decide how much is too much? Isn't the better way to encourage and incentivize healthy lifestyles through education, peer pressure, access to medical care, etc?"

Dammit lmsinca will you stop making so much sense? Their heads are liable to explode!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 11:08 PM | Report abuse

"I chose that link because it fits health care tonight's topic du jour...however..did the Gov't screw up trying to land on the moon? How about winning WWII? Don't know about you but I enjoy driving on Ike's Interstate Highway system when I head north to Michigan..did Ike's Administration screw up the highway system? Well this is absurd now isn't Troll.
All Gov't is not evil. All Gov't is not good. All free enterprise is not evil. All free enterprise is not good!
Nuance..reality anyone?"

I probably was being more flippant, though I don't think it's a bad rule to at least have the government avoid providing the actual product and or service.  If you recall all the equipment used in the Apollo program was designed and built by private contractors. Ditto for WWII and those roads you so love.  And those programs all involved tradeoffs.  Didn't Ike's roads encourage the ownership and use of the dreaded automobile?  And didn't those glorious roads encourage suburbanization?  Neither of which, we are told, is particularly green and have contributed too, if not completely created AGW.  

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Enjoined to be individually peaceful.
Not forbidden to soldier for their country, cause, etc..
{tao paraphrase}

St. Thomas Aquinas; The Summa Theologica Part II, Question 40
http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Books/Texts/Aquinas/JustWar.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"So it is also, of course, with the contradictory charges of the anti-Christians about submission and slaughter. It is true that the Church told some men to fight and others not to fight: and it is true that those who fought were like thunderbolts and those who did not were like statues."
Chesterton; Orthodoxy; Chap 6, "The Paradoxes of Christianity"

{{{Monk and knight: the tension within the heart of a man. The equilibrium that most imitates real life.}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 30, 2011 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Good night, ruk7.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 30, 2011 11:10 PM | Report abuse

but if the wealthy can so thoroughly redistribute the wealth through the tax code among other devices...then certainly the middle class is entitled to the same concept of redistribution.
----------------------------------------------------
We just went through one of the biggest redistributions of wealth in the history of the world. From late 1990's through 9/2008, the financial industry sucked gzillions of dollars of wealth out of investors and homeowners and then to add insult to injury sucked out another 800b from taxpayers in bailouts so they wouldn't all collapse.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 11:11 PM | Report abuse

"Troll, my point is that indigent smokers and druggies are getting healthcare at our expense. Under EMTALA. You seemed to think it is important to exclude those two groups of people under healthcare for the indigent that you are willing to support at a state level.

I was just being helpful to point that out to you. If you don't care about EMTALA, then fine. Not a point of contention."

My point is that EMTALA covers ER visits, and medical attention is required, by law, to be administered first.  That's Federal law, not the State level that we are discussing.

And, as has been obvious since it's inception, EMTALA is in fact a form of the "treasured" Universal Healthcare.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Uh yeah we all have a Higher Calling to carry out God's Wrath.

And, since God is silent, we're all obligated to determine for ourselves what that Wrath is too. Uh, yeah.

Nice to know that Jake is just an impotent loner on a blog, otherwise I'd say WaPo has a Higher Calling to sic the FBI on him.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 11:18 PM | Report abuse

@Troll

Thanks for your answer...

"If you recall all the equipment used in the Apollo program was designed and built by private contractors. Ditto for WWII and those roads you so love"

Absolutely and creating how many jobs in the process? Don't get me wrong I find many situations where free enterprise is definitely preferable to Gov't...but conversely sometimes Gov't can do it better than the private sector...Both Gov't and Private companies have their strengths and weaknesses IMHO.

Being flippant is fine...as long as you don't let it seep to deep into your consciousness. When we were having the HCR debate at the same time as the nation your guys were still at the fix. When I used that very same example...the VA does a better job than the private sector...the poster scoffed at me and said the VA...you're crazy. I posted that same link plus a couple of others to document my point. The poster was flabberghasted by the mere thought that socialized medicine in THIS country was outperforming the Private sector. In fairness the VA escapes the onerous ER law that 12Bar brought up which gives them a large cost advantage over the private sector...but then again if we had Universal coverage the private sector would be on the same footing as the Gov't...and perhaps be able to lower costs just as the Gov't did? Just a thought.

". Didn't Ike's roads encourage the ownership and use of the dreaded automobile? And didn't those glorious roads encourage suburbanization? Neither of which, we are told, is particularly green and have contributed too, if not completely created AGW."

Ahhh yesss Troll the dreaded law of unintended consequences. But in fairness after your point about how much "private business" was involved in those Gov't ventures wouldn't it be fair to say that is a societal, not a Gov't or Private Business mistake...an honest mistake but you are certainly correct...better Gov't leaders...I would hasten to add...and better Business leaders would have insisted on better mass transit...but hindsight is 20/20 when it comes to the law of unintended consequences.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 11:20 PM | Report abuse

And, as has been obvious since it's inception, EMTALA is in fact a form of the "treasured" Universal Healthcare.
------------------------------------
I totally agree. Perhaps you didn't see my comments above, when I remarked that I'm amazed that there isn't a campaign to repeal EMTALA since it seem to be an important step toward indigents getting taxpayer supported healthcare, and doing it at federal direction at private enterprise.

If I were against universal healthcare, I'd be against EMTALA.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 11:21 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not here to argue. I'm here to understand. Can you summarize what you would support into a sentence or two?"

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Clarity, remember?  It requires what it requires.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 11:22 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

I went back and read the thread and cannot conceivably imagine where you came up with that comment based on anything I said. I simply referred to the fact that all class struggle is not an "ism", sometimes it's actually the result of unemployment, poverty, lack of opportunity. Do you think the young people of Egypt have no reason to be protesting? If the unemployed in our own country took to the streets to bring awareness to their plight, would they be neo-marxists? FF Piven is a mere distraction to the larger issues IMO. Whether she is or isn't a marxist has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. You guys are the ones who have made her larger than life, with a little help from the rodeo clown.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 11:24 PM | Report abuse

ruk, the part I quoted is just plain stupid. No one believes that EVERY instance of government involvement results in DISASTER!

But redistribution is what taxation is. Every country redistributes wealth. If our tax code was simply "take one dollar from the richest person in the country," that would be redistribution. It's just a buzz word.

But is there any wonder that educated people have been leaving the Republican party in droves? Intelligent people simply have no use for "One thing we know, government involvement, even regulatory involvement, is almost always disastrous."

Posted by: DDAWD | January 30, 2011 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Tao.....sorry Thomas Aquinas doesn't cut it.

Why should I hew to his OPINION. Yes he's a respected Theologian (to some not all) but he is not Jesus Christ! You are talking about a time when Priests stood by as the most heinous torture was committed on people for offenses such as...being Jewish.

Again I was raised Catholic...a mackeral snapper for sure..and Irish Catholic just like 12Bar...well not 12Bar..she is a good person...me..not so much..the nuns tried, but my head was harder than their rulers.:-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 30, 2011 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Troll, what's most interesting in reading your posts is how hindered and obstructed you are in your reasoning by your consuming hatred of liberals. Before you even get started on a point the derision takes over and your point goes into the ditch.

Yeah government built highways. But liberals want cars to be more efficient so off you go on some snarky tangent.

Moms, don't let your kids grow up to be conservatives. It ruins their minds more than cocaine.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Just a quick note to say that ScottC3's comments on Hong Kong have led me to request some specific information from a friend of mine who currently lives there. I want to learn more about their tax code and their healthcare system, as I am intrigued by the notions he inferred.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 30, 2011 11:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm not here to argue. I'm here to understand. Can you summarize what you would support into a sentence or two?"

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Clarity, remember? It requires what it requires.
----------------------------------------------
So sorry. I should have said "Would you summarize..."

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 30, 2011 11:34 PM | Report abuse

"It's a slippery slope from vouchers for charity with conditions attached, to being able to afford or purchase any insurance without conditions attached, and as I said where do we draw the line?"

The line is drawn by whomever pays, isn't it?  Again, there is no requirement to accept charity.

"Do people who can't afford insurance deserve more rigorous conditions than the rest of us?"

If they are asking me to pay for their insurance, then yes.  Don't we already put conditions on those who can receive welfare, for example?

"If my employer pays my premiums can he set conditions arbitrarily other than drug testing?"

I'm not sure if currently that is legally allowed.  However, I think the answer is yes.  You don't have to work there, and the employer may be limiting himself to less than the best employees by putting such restrictions on them, no?

"As long as drinking, eating, smoking, engaging in sports are legal, who gets to decide how much is too much?"

Again, the piper payer generally gets to call the tune.

"Isn't the better way to encourage and incentivize healthy lifestyles through education, peer pressure, access to medical care, etc?"

Maybe.  My argument is that the States should be able to decide for themselves.  But because of Obamacare, that cannot be done, or even experimented with.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 11:38 PM | Report abuse

ruk: ""But this is what really makes me want to puke...all this talk about "redistribution of income"..such a neo marxist..socialist thing to do...ohhh that's when it's redistributed to the middle class or needy...when it's redistributed to the wealthy thanks to a tax code the wealthy themselves rigged for their own selfish benefit...ohhh that REDISTRIBUTION is just fine..perfect capitalism. Again be clear...I'm not advocating socialism..but if the wealthy can so thoroughly redistribute the wealth through the tax code among other devices...then certainly the middle class is entitled to the same concept of redistribution.""

I am fortunate in that I have some very reasonable conservative friends IRL -- yes, they DO exist! ;) One such runs a small business that very part-time employs me (avg. of 15 hrs./mo.) and also works himself part-time (~10 weeks/year, or 400 hours) as a well-paid, highly-respected video director for live music acts. I estimate his annual income to be between $60-100K.

Until he and I got into the specifics of U.S. tax code, he honestly didn't realize (or didn't think about) that a certain small amount of his income was taxed at 0%... nor did he realize that other segments of his income above that were taxed at rates lower than his marginal rate, overall.

See, he pays someone to do his taxes, and he doesn't look at the line that says "effective tax rate," etc. He signs the return every year and curses the government for taking too much of his money.

Once I explained it to him, and showed him how the progressive tax system works, he had the gall to say, "F*** those rich f***ers" for complaining about how much they paid in taxes.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 30, 2011 11:45 PM | Report abuse

"I totally agree. Perhaps you didn't see my comments above, when I remarked that I'm amazed that there isn't a campaign to repeal EMTALA since it seem to be an important step toward indigents getting taxpayer supported healthcare, and doing it at federal direction at private enterprise.

If I were against universal healthcare, I'd be against EMTALA."

I did read them. And Scott's response required no further elucidation.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 30, 2011 11:47 PM | Report abuse

@Cao: "Troll, what's most interesting in reading your posts is how hindered and obstructed you are in your reasoning by your consuming hatred of liberals."

This has to be ironic, because it's entirely too obvious to be a form of sublimated projection.

My, I miss a lot of commentary when I spend the day doing house projects and interacting with folks in the real world. Dang . . .

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 30, 2011 11:47 PM | Report abuse

I also want to note that I don't find too many of TrollMcWingnut's healthcare ideas out of the mainstream. I **do** think we start running into trouble once we start calling (as cao did) for making tobacco illegal, et al -- we see how well that has worked out for every other substance that people like to put in their bodies, and all it does is enable vast criminal enterprises designed to specifically supply the forbidden fruit, with no guarantees of quality, purity, etc.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 30, 2011 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Kevin

the hole - you get insulted by people using your own troll blocker against you -


so you leave


What a joke - I seem to recall one person actually trying to intimidate you into writing the way he wanted - on the penalty that he would put you in your own troll blocker


What a laugh

I find it curious that you have left the blog - you felt so important blocking people , then you leave


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 11:55 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what would happen if all you liberals were in a room together.


Would you start STEALING from each other - and giving away each other's money ???


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 30, 2011 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the answers McWing. I see now how you fit these restrictions into your libertarian framework.

Night all.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 30, 2011 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, there's only one thing more astonishing than the mileage you guys get out of the "I know you are but what am I" rejoinder.

And that would be that it's the only rhetorical device you know.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 30, 2011 11:58 PM | Report abuse


I wonder what would happen if all you liberals were in a room together.


Would you start STEALING from each other - and giving away each other's money ???


.

____________________-

And then would you all start telling each other how morally superior you were - for giving away other people's money???


Would you actually have an argument - arguing about who was better, based on who STOLE the most, and gave it away ???


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 12:00 AM | Report abuse

"Thanks for the answers McWing. I see now how you fit these restrictions into your libertarian framework."

I'm a giver.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 31, 2011 12:04 AM | Report abuse

jprest, I stand by it. Other prohibitions dealt with substances of mixed harm and benefit. Even alcohol has some incidental benefits in stress reduction and viricidity. Tobacco is unmitigatedly harmful and kills even when used as directed. One can use alcohol in moderation. One can even use cocaine in moderation (I wouldn't recommend the attempt). Ninety percent of those who smoke a second cigarette go on to become addicted.

The only point of smoking is to become addicted and then spend the rest of one's life satisfying the addiction, titrating the nicotine in one's blood like an automaton. Selling tobacco is enslavement, and I'm against slavery.

Don't want to go on and on with this. My point is that healthcare is a commons issue and just as nobody should help himself to a whole stack of free newspapers, nobody on a healthcare plan should by choice increase his costs needlessly.

Besides, smoking stinks.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 31, 2011 12:04 AM | Report abuse

cao -- I don't disagree that tobacco is bad. I disagree that making it illegal will mitigate its worst social aspects -- rather the opposite, if the other substances are any indication.
.

Posted by: jprestonian | January 31, 2011 12:07 AM | Report abuse

@cao,

I hate smoking too. It would not bother me if it was made illegal. In the case of healthcare provision for indigents, I'm not sure how practical it is to deny healthcare to smokers since they are the ones who will be sick. I don't think we want to go down the road of denying healthcare to those who are within the law, but don't live up to our ideals. There but for the grace of God, you know...

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 31, 2011 12:10 AM | Report abuse

@cao,

Actually ignore my prior post. In the world we constructed "if Plum Line was in charge of the world" smokers get healthcare through EMTALA anyway, just more expensively.

The last time I was in the ER, in the bay next to me was a homeless man getting his toenails clipped. That's not quite as frivolous as it sounds since his feet look pretty bad to me, like maybe he'd been frostbitten.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 31, 2011 12:15 AM | Report abuse

And a Happy Birthday to my Dark Lord, Vice President Dick Cheney (Chaos be Upon Him).

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 31, 2011 12:15 AM | Report abuse

12B, tobacco is the biggest problem I have living here. Most Vietnamese men over 30 or so are smokers (hardly any women, I've seen less than a dozen in six months) and they have no sense that some people don't like it. Every time we go out I'm watching hands, tabletops, and wind direction (I'm allegic).

I don't say this lightly nor out of the fact of my lifelong resentment of smokers. Addiction is a savage business and at least as irrational as the arguments we read here.

I think social pressure has gotten the USA as far as it's going to. Almost all smokers start young and by the time they have adult minds to reason with they're using them to rationalize their addiction ("it calms me down"). I only know one person who started smoking as an adult.

I repeat: it's enslavement. And it's deliberate. The executives who sell the stuff deserve to die.

And yes I know that the transition to a smoke-free society would be savagely painful to some junkies and some of them would go to their graves resenting the loss of their little pleasure. As many headaches as I've had in my life, cry me a river.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 31, 2011 12:21 AM | Report abuse

I would not mind if tobacco were made illegal. It has destroyed a lot more lives than it has helped. Don't think I disagree with your sentiment. I'm not against any societal pressure against smoking, because it all helps. If we had a great universal healthcare system that excluded smokers, I could live with that, even though I know we'd find some way to sneak in the back door and cover them too (EMTALA).

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 31, 2011 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Oh, I never said anything about denying healthcare to people, and if I agreed with Troll saying that then I read sloppily.

But I think the heightened social pressure on people with bad habits would be a benefit of universal national coverage.

"Hey buddy how 'bout you make that your last spudnut of the morning, I'm a little sick of paying for your sick habits."

Posted by: caothien9 | January 31, 2011 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Smoking kills, what, a half million people a year in the USA?

Used as directed? And that's legal?

Can you think of any more solid condemnation of the free market?

Posted by: caothien9 | January 31, 2011 12:42 AM | Report abuse

I don't know how many people it gets, but eventually it gets almost everyone who smokes. My dad smoked all his life, quit when he was about 85 and healthy, and died at 89 of lung cancer. He always defended tobacco and said it was just a plot to put the tobacco companies out of business. I could have said I told you so, but I didn't of course. It was too sad.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 31, 2011 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Not certain of this but I believe a third of smokers die of problems directly related to smoking.

I'm told by the likes of the trolls that this is good because it costs more to dieoif old age. Course it'd be cheaper still if we'd politely off ourselves once we were no longer creating shareholder value,

Sorry about your dad. Mine got it two weeks shy of 80 from the Navy cancer.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 31, 2011 1:03 AM | Report abuse

What in the world is the navy cancer?

I'm surprised that smoking only gets a third of smokers. I remember when everyone smoked, everywhere, in offices, on the street, everywhere. I remember seeing a doctor while he was smoking. We have to be thankful those days are behind us. But, we're down to the hard core smokers, so I've read.

I'm sure it's worse in VN and must be hard to stand. Do you take an allergy med?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 31, 2011 1:10 AM | Report abuse

Heh, reminds me of when the Conservatives attacked cigarette taxation for disproportionately affecting the lower class. Conservatives will fight tooth and nail against welfare, ACA, food stamps, but darn it, they will stand up for their right to smoke themselves to death.

Man, what a bunch of pathetic pr**ks

Posted by: DDAWD | January 31, 2011 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Mesothelioma. The Navy used asbestos insulation and replacing it was done without masks, the air floating with fibers.

Yeah I remember one summer job in a vault with a smoker. The snap of his fluid lighter, one after another. The pivot came in 1974 with the news about second hand smoke, which I'm sure most smokers still regard as a plot and the prohibitions an infringement on their freedm.

I cope here the same way I did in the USA walking down the sidewalk .. watching hands and holding my breath a lot. Problem is that as I get older it gets worse, and the headaches last longer.

Nobody here even knows that some people don't like the smell. They're nit an inconsiderate people, but it would never cross their minds. I'm very attentive to wind direction.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 31, 2011 1:22 AM | Report abuse

I used to smoke so I know it from both sides. When you're addicted, it's amazing what comes out of your mouth, besides smoke. I wouldn't be so sure that smokers believe every defense they talk up. But, addiction talks louder than good sense.

When I quit, I was super smoke sensitive for about five years. I remember going everywhere detecting smoke like crazy and waving my hands always, and the headaches. I took allergy meds for years and that helped somewhat, I guess. At least dust didn't bother me, and maybe it helped with smoke too. Then, amazingly, a doc told me that my allergies were gone (right! I thought) and I quit taking allergy meds and lo and behold, I haven't had any symptoms for at least ten years. Who would have thought?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 31, 2011 1:44 AM | Report abuse

I'm calling it a night. See you later and stay upwind from that smoke.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 31, 2011 2:04 AM | Report abuse

I just lost a friend a few weeks ago, a woman I've known over a dozen years, the first person I met by virtue of having parrots. Part of a couple, very poor people, the "husband" I pretty much supported for several years letting him park his tiny trailer in my driveway and sponge off my utilities in exchange for very little work.

She died of heart problems all related to years of smoking, so heavy that back before she had a triple bypass and had to quit, I couldn't even get into her car. She too developed an intense aversion to the smoke after she quit and would rag on the guy for continuing to smoke.

When I was a kid and hadn't learned the whole cause effect correlation thing yet I had headaches pretty much constantly from my mother's Newports and they colored everything about my outlook on life.

I had my own minor brush with addiction some years ago and it made me considerably more forgiving but I'm no more tolerant .. had I not been allergic and somehow become a smoker, my politics would have required me to quit rather than support a corporation in the chemical enslavement business.

My last two companies in Seattle had some puzzlingly smart people who smoked, simply bizarre to me to see it anymore in educated people. Anyway.

Good night to you, it's early afternoon here, I'm 15 hours ahead. Today is the first day of the Tết holiday, more pageantry than Christmas in the USA. The trolls would have fits at all the Socialist boosterism flying around here.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 31, 2011 2:35 AM | Report abuse

Since we get a lot of libertarian junk posted here I think it'd be a good time to reintroduce the Non-Libertarian FAQ:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html

Not only does he rebut all the arguments in detail but near the beginning he exposes the tactic. Does this sound familiar?

"Many libertarian arguments are like fundamentalist arguments: they depend upon restricting your attention to a very narrow field so that you will not notice that they fail outside of that field. For example, fundamentalists like to restrict the argument to the bible. Libertarians like to restrict the argument to their notions of economics, justice, history, and rights and their misrepresentations of government and contracts. Widen the scope, and their questionable assumptions leap into view. Why should I accept that "right" as a given? Is that a fact around the world, not just in the US? Are there counter examples for that idea? Are libertarians serving their own class interest only? Is that economic argument complete, or are there other critical factors or strategies which have been omitted? When they make a historical argument, can we find current real-world counterexamples? If we adopt this libertarian policy, there will be benefits: but what will the disadvantages be? Are libertarians reinventing what we already have, only without safeguards?"

Enjoy.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 31, 2011 2:50 AM | Report abuse

Conservatives will fight tooth and nail against welfare, ACA, food stamps, but darn it, they will stand up for their right to smoke themselves to death.

==

More accurately, for the right of a few huge corporations to use chemicals to create enslaved customers and kill them with a lethal product.

When one anti-tobacco measure was defeated in the Senate, Phil Gramm pronounced "The American people won today." Of course that's not even a whopper compared to what we've had the last two years but for back then it was pretty brazen.

No, the American people didn't win. Phillip-Morris won. And every day since another 1200 Americans have died from smoking.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 31, 2011 2:58 AM | Report abuse


I wonder what would happen if all you liberals were in a room together.


Would you start STEALING from each other - and giving away each other's money ???


.

____________________-

And then would you all start telling each other how morally superior you were - for giving away other people's money???


Would you actually have an argument - arguing about who was better, based on who STOLE the most, and gave it away ???


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 31, 2011 6:14 AM | Report abuse

RUK:
'I simply bring up the 5th Commandment for you 12Bar...Jewish folk and the rest of the Christians call itthe 6th Commandment "You shall not kill/murder"'
==========================================

Good of you to bring it up. If you read your Bible instead of using it as a prop you'd know the commandment against murder has nothing whatsoever to do with war or capital punishment.

Posted by: Brigade | January 31, 2011 6:36 AM | Report abuse

Further to Scott: (I see others have been discussing some aspects of this but I'll finish up here with my argument)

Scott wants to suggest that because a majority can arrive at some consensus which a later consensus finds morally wrong, then majoritarian derived laws or opinions cannot, by themselves, establish a "right" (slavery is his example).

But he conflates two different but related meanings of "right". One is the strict moral sense - is a thing right or wrong (perhaps absolutely, as for example, in the eyes of God and outside of human community consensus). So, slavery is always "wrong". Yes, we think so. But for much of human history and throughout many cultures, such a notion would have been derisable. Slavery was considered a reflection of the natural order, thus inherently right. In such a context, freeing a slave would have been considered a violation of the owner's property "right" and you'd be in serious trouble.

And there's the other sense of "right" - entitlement to something based on agreements and laws arising from local consensus which establish things we can or cannot do or things which the community is duty-bound to protect us from.

So Scott said that he has a right to police protection because he has contracted (via taxes) to be so protected. But as I said earlier, this is a use of "contracted" that isn't like a business contract. It is a contract of a social nature or of a general community arrangement and agreement nature. Folks get together and decide that their local government will set up a fire department and everyone will chip in to fund it. Then, some mechanism will be put in place to ensure everyone does contribute because the general welfare is enhanced even while some (in stone houses) will be less at risk than others (in wood houses).

If the community decides in a similar fashion that the general welfare will be enhanced with guaranteed medical care for all and that all must therefore chip in to provide funding, this is in no important way different from a fire department. There will be no "right" prior to such a community agreement but once that agreement is reached, the right is immediately entailed.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 31, 2011 6:51 AM | Report abuse

My impression is that Scott is operating on an "everyone knows" basis, e.g. Subjectivity AKA "commonsense." it would be absurd to argue against fire departments and for individual responsibility in extinguishing home fires .. the necessity of fire departments having been established by centuries of precedent.

But healthcare as a right is emergent and at a time when we are engaged in great national conflict over the role of government and the morality of "confiscating" money for the collective good. So the ideologically guided aren't about to ponder the social good and are contemptuous of the collective benefit except (usually) where solidly established by precedent.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 31, 2011 7:09 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""You wish a bright line...""

No, I don't. I understand that there are many shades of gray, the line is blurred, whatever cliche you wish to use. My point (as ever) relies not on the notion that objective morality is easily discernable, only that it exists.

Again, I ask you...did the same rights inhere in a black man in Mississippi in 1850 as in a white man, despite the fact that the community "said" they did not? (Your longstanding refusal to address this question is telling.)

As for your notion of consensus, you ignore the fact that consensus derives from individual opinions. The only way for a consensus to ever change is for a person (or people) who holds non-consensus views to argue against the consensus, and to convince others that he is correct and the current consensus is wrong. In order to do that he must make an appeal to some reality independent of the consensus. If you do not believe that such an independent reality exists (as you have claimed in the past) then there is no basis on which one can ever argue against the current consensus. (Or, for that matter, no basis on which the current consensus could have been formed.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 31, 2011 7:10 AM | Report abuse

pragmatic:

""Are there any other posters from the right prepared to agree with this?""

I am.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 31, 2011 7:11 AM | Report abuse

jp:

re the Hong Kong tax code

HK has a flat tax of 16 percent. Or at least it did when I was there. They also have some form of government sponsored health care, although I don't know the details. I never used it, and always went to private care during my time there.

Which raises another question. Why is it that when I suggest that the tax code in the US is not what it ought to be, your response is to advise me to move someplace else where the tax code is more amenable to my views (love it or leave it!!!), but when others here suggest that, for example, the health care system is not what it ought to be, you do not advise them to move to someplace where the health care system is more amenable to their views? Indeed, this inconsistency of yours is particularly notable given the fact that their objections routinely are coupled with praise of other nations, while my objections are never linked to praise of other nations.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 31, 2011 7:17 AM | Report abuse

Does this accurately describe the position of the right? Are any of the other posters from the right prepared to agree with this?

Just wondering.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 30, 2011 10:17 PM | Report abuse
____________________________

You again entirely missed the point. This is not the view of the right but more accurately of the left. It was asserted above that anyone who resists paying, through the government, for health care for all, thinks it is more immoral to pay for others' health care than to let them die.

The principle being asserted, by 12bb and endorsed by others, is that an unwillingness to pay means morally valuing not paying above the lives of dying people. There is no reason, however, why this principle depends on government. You need not be taxed for others, and if you aren't being taxed for it that doesn't diminish your own moral responsibility in any way.

There is nothing to stop you from giving your money to help people who are dying. And the principle asserted is not qualified but absolute: whatever money and means you have that you do not give toward helping the dying is money you are valuing over their lives. You are simply using lack of a government program as an excuse for your own selfishness and letting others die.

It doesn't feel quite so right when that sort of principle is used to condemn your position, does it? But if 12bb has it right, that where is this wrong?

"What is the question? Do I believe that we have a moral imperative as a nation to ensure all of our citizens receive health care? Yes. Do I also believe I have the moral imperative to help my fellow citizens when and where I can as an individual? Yes. Am I willing to sacrifice my own personal security and that of my family by foolishly giving everything I own to charity? No. Is anyone asking you to sacrifice everything you own in order to alleviate the suffering of others? Also No.

It's called the common, not to be confused with communism."

If you mean by "the common" something that is necessarily a public good, that's clearly incorrect.

But, leaving that aside, I suppose the question is, if it is true, as has been asserted here, that a failure to pay through government for a dying person's health care is valuing your own money over his or her life, then why isn't the same thing true without the government? I'd say, there clearly isn't a difference. Indeed, the moral principle being asserted is clearly a personal one. What else could it be?

In my judgment, you are denying the principle that 12bb and others have tried to use as a moral cudgel against anyone who resists "government health care for all." How do we know this? Because by their principle so long as you have money to be given and someone else is dying you are valuing possession of your own money over their lives. We know that simply because you keep it.

(continued)

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Part II

One of the reasons you probably find this uncomfortable and an unacceptably heavy burden is that the "moral reasoning" of government health care tends to universalize the moral obligation: you are just as obligated to the well being of every person everywhere as you are to your next door neighbor or even your own family. And there's no question that you don't need the government to meet that universal obligation. If your neighbor is not dying, you can find the others who are, or simply donate to charities, hospitals, etc. Again, it is asserted that there are 10,000s dying annually in this country alone.

You can evaluate whether this moral template is one that is realistic. Perhaps it is. Perhaps God wants all of us to give everything we have to the poor and dying. I'm just pointing out that this is the obligation the reasoning of the left is using to denounce the right, while failing to live up to it itself.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""But he conflates two different but related meanings of "right".""

Oh no. That is quite the opposite of the case. It is you who is conflating the two.

I am very specific about the difference between moral rights and legal or "consensus" rights, and I am arguing that a moral right to health care cannot logically exist. Yes, a consensus can arise (as it has in places like the UK) that such a right exists, and legal arrangements can be put in place to protect this "right". But neither this consensus nor the legal arrangements tell us anything about whether the possible existence of such a moral right makes any logical sense. It does not.

Yet again you appeal to what the "consensus" is in order to rebut my argument that no such moral right can logically exist. Hence it is you who is conflating the two, not me.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 31, 2011 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Bernie,

The problem with which Scott has presented you is to say whether we are talking about a natural right or a positivistic right, at least those are the terms I would use. I don't know whether Scott would use the same ones. One might call the latter a conventional right, for example.

You've more or less correctly delineated these concepts. But which is it, this health care "right" that has been claimed for so long and so vigorously? It's been asserted on this blog innumerable times, with people going to far as even to say that "health care" isn't even an economic matter and doesn't consist of goods and services (so as to avoid the fact that someone has to provide them) but is instead simply a "human right."

Natural or positivistic?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Oh and BTW, apparently the Bush Administration found it enough of a compelling concern to include the right to health care in the Iraqi Constitution, even after we destroyed their delivery system. I seem to remember Bush and followers being quite proud of the Constitution they drafted for the Iraqi people.

Check out Article 31

""Article 30:
First: The State shall guarantee to the individual and the family - especially
children and women – social and health security, the basic requirements for living
a free and decent life, and shall secure for them suitable income and appropriate
housing.
Second: The State shall guarantee social and health security to Iraqis in cases of
old age, sickness, employment disability, homelessness, orphanhood, or
unemployment, shall work to protect them from ignorance, fear and poverty, and
shall provide them housing and special programs of care and rehabilitation, and
this shall be regulated by law.
Article 31:
First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.
Second: Individuals and entities have the right to build hospitals, clinics, or
private health care centers under the supervision of the State, and this shall be
regulated by law.""

http://www.uniraq.org/documents/iraqi_constitution.pdf

Brilliant, Imsinca! I hope Greg notes this find somehow.

Well, I'd have to conclude that it is in fact true: The Women Are Smarter. But then again there is that Palin lady. So who knows?

Posted by: wbgonne | January 31, 2011 7:57 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - There's no refusal to say that a slave has rights that transcend local custom. That's your bright line - the assertion that such transcendent morality is a feature of the universe outside of human minds and human consensus. It's an assertion that you need to prove sensible or based in reality.

So, lay it out. What would such a feature looks like and how it could have come into being? Arisen from some facts of the big bang? Inserted in by God? (And you don't want to take the short cut of claiming this is an established truth in moral theory because it is not but even if so, it would be an appeal to authority).

Posted by: bernielatham | January 31, 2011 8:01 AM | Report abuse

qb:

As you probably know, the fundamental difference between Bernie and I on this point is that I accept the existence of an objective, universal morality. Bernie rejects it. Or, at least, he explicitly rejects it. In fact, as I have argued to him extensively in the past, implicitly he routinely accepts it every time he argues that some current consensus arrangement is immoral. This is his fundamental contradiction.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 31, 2011 8:02 AM | Report abuse

This, from Netanyahu's government, isn't surprising...

"Israel urges world to curb criticism of Egypt's Mubarak"

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-urges-world-to-curb-criticism-of-egypt-s-mubarak-1.340238

I'll point out that the voices arguing this way are those who find comfort in authoritarian arrangements because they are seen to produce "stability". Well, yes, authoritarian regimes depend upon exactly that and commonly thwart opposition voices and any move that might diminish the power of an elite presently in power.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 31, 2011 8:06 AM | Report abuse

"I seem to remember Bush and followers being quite proud of the Constitution they drafted for the Iraqi people."

I'm not that up to speed on the Iraqi constitution. Do you have some support for the claim that it was drafted by the Bush Admin? Because I recall it being drafted by a committee of Iraqis.

In any event, it also, inter alia, makes Islam the official religion and provides that the citizens are all part of the greateer Arab and Islamic nation. Which should prove what, that we should adopt those provisions?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 8:12 AM | Report abuse

@Brigade

"Good of you to bring it up. If you read your Bible instead of using it as a prop you'd know the commandment against murder has nothing whatsoever to do with war or capital punishment."

I have read the Bible...and I routinely refer to it still...even though I would not be classified a "Christian". I use now primarily for reference because I think Christ was an incredible teacher...just as I believe Buddha was an incredible teacher...I do not let religious dogma limit my teachers or how I choose to learn from them.

But Brigade...again...this is not the Fix.
You don't simply get to make debatable statements without some proof.

I listed chapter and verse...when Clawrence came back with his own Chapter, which of course he conveniently got to quote or point out WHICH lines illustrated his point.

And so if I don't accept Thomas Aquinas' opinion without thinking about it...given that he was an incredible religious scholar...why would I simply accept your opinion...you are no more than an old Army Vet like me. :-)

Feel free however to go to your red letter version of the Bible and pull out whichever chapters and verses you feel illustrate Jesus Christ's opinions on war and the special dispensation for killing that Christians receive when they do as part of an Army?

I have not yet reached the status of conscientious objector. As I've stated I've gone to war...fortunately I didn't have to kill anyone...but I have little doubt I would have...and worse still..in some situations as some of my buddies who saw their friends mutilated I would have enjoyed it. Mea Culpa. I don't propose we would have stopped Hitler or Tojo with prayer...I get the awful necessity of war.

Given all that Christ and Buddha have taught...the two spiritual leaders who have most informed my own personal beliefs, I just don't see how we can be so incredibly callous about the killing we have unleashed on tens of thousands of innocent people. Those deaths have not made a single American one iota safer...and indeed there are strong arguments to be made that they actually worsened our situation in terms of terrorism.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 8:13 AM | Report abuse

" the fundamental difference between Bernie and I on this point is that I accept the existence of an objective, universal morality. Bernie rejects it. Or, at least, he explicitly rejects it. In fact, as I have argued to him extensively in the past, implicitly he routinely accepts it every time he argues that some current consensus arrangement is immoral. This is his fundamental contradiction."

There's no contradiction. I have preferences about how humans ought to behave and the language we use to prescribe or proscribe is moral language. That we might invent a word, (say the humors or ether or God) in our language in no way gives those things reality other than in our minds.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 31, 2011 8:13 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca, it wasn't this thread (as far as I know). Please see the PRIOR thread where quarterback1 was pointing out your strawman argument.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 31, 2011 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""There's no refusal to say that a slave has rights that transcend local custom.""

Well then give an explicit answer. Did/do slaves have rights that exist outside the community consensus that did/does not grant/protect those rights? Yes or no?

""That's your bright line - the assertion that such transcendent morality is a feature of the universe outside of human minds and human consensus.""

Yes, I do assert precisely that. You explicitly deny it, even as you routinely make an appeal to it.

""It's an assertion that you need to prove sensible or based in reality.""

No, I don't. I need only demonstrate that it is a premise that we both accept as fundamentally true, whether it is provable or not. Which is precisely what I intend to do by getting you to answer my question...Did/do slaves have rights that exist outside the community consensus that did/does not grant/protect those rights?

""So, lay it out.""

This is a problem that philosphers have been pondering over since the beginning of time. We will not solve it here on PL. For our purposes, we need only agree (or not) that such a thing exists, and proceed from there. Your arguments here routinely accept the existence of a universal morality by implication, even as you explicitly reject it. That is a seeming contradiction that you, not I, must explain.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 31, 2011 8:22 AM | Report abuse

@Cao: "Kevin, there's only one thing more astonishing than the mileage you guys get out of the 'I know you are but what am I' rejoinder."

Nobody has actually said that, so I think that just a dismissive recasting in order to avoid confronting the factual accuracy of the point. But, that's fairly predictable.

"And that would be that it's the only rhetorical device you know."

Well, at least that's one more than you.

See how fun this is?

Sheesh. The level at which some people wish to conduct their conversations.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 31, 2011 8:22 AM | Report abuse

There's a very interesting dynamic emerging from Rand Paul's suggestion that funding to Israel ought to be stopped along with foreign aid elsewhere.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-democrats-and-pro-israel-lobbies-slam-republican-senator-s-call-to-halt-israel-aid-1.339662

J Street and the neocons and AIPAC etc are in the same boat here. It would be fun to tease out how the various interest groups in the conservative coalition come down on this one.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 31, 2011 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Ruk7, I gave you the Chapter to START reading. Let me know when you get to Romans 13:4. As for Christ's own words, I would start with His comments to the (Roman) solider and where He said He did not come to abolish the Old Testament but rather to fulfil it.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 31, 2011 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Scott,

Agreed. Bernie's last response to you at 8:13 strikes me as a Nietzschean response to the problem, wherein personal preferences become the standard. Of course, it doesn't work.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 8:28 AM | Report abuse

You can evaluate whether this moral template is one that is realistic. Perhaps it is. Perhaps God wants all of us to give everything we have to the poor and dying. I'm just pointing out that this is the obligation the reasoning of the left is using to denounce the right, while failing to live up to it itself.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 7:35 AM

And I'm just pointing out that this is astonishingly absurd and not supported by any policy proposal or argument from reasonable people.

I suppose, however, that applying this ridiculous absolutist logic allows for the justification of the murder of doctors providing abortion services and for flying planes into IRS offices. Heck, I suppose it even the justifies suicide bombings of infidels.

Extremism takes many forms of conduct and most extremists are convinced that they are doing good. Because I think a just society should provide for the common good in the form of health services does not mean that failure of the government to provide those services requires me to live in poverty in absurd and hopeless attempts to make up for that failure.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 31, 2011 8:34 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/the_morning_plum_176.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 31, 2011 8:40 AM | Report abuse

"And I'm just pointing out that this is astonishingly absurd and not supported by any policy proposal or argument from reasonable people."

If that were the case, then you could probably supply some logical refutation of what I've said, showing that it does not follow at all from the claims made by 12bb et al. Yet you don't, and I'm not surprised at all.

"Extremism takes many forms of conduct and most extremists are convinced that they are doing good."

So is it extremism for 12bb to claim that the only reason to resist "government health care for all" is that one finds paying to save someone else's life immoral as compared to saving his/her life?

"Because I think a just society should provide for the common good in the form of health services does not mean that failure of the government to provide those services requires me to live in poverty in absurd and hopeless attempts to make up for that failure."

Well that's a convenient dodge. You think a "just society" should do that. But you don't think you personally have any obligation.

There's nothing absurd and hopeless about it. You undoubtedly have resources that could help someone who's dying. Your inability to save the whole world doesn't excuse that.

Again, if 12bb's moral premise does not constitute such an obligation, please explain why not. You've done nothing but assert your denial of it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 8:43 AM | Report abuse

To all who participated over the weekend...my gratitude...it was like the old days..great discussions..with a terrific moderator added in..12Bar was as wbgonne says "virtuoso".

When The Fix first collapsed the wave of new posters was overwhelming. At first I was...wahhhhh I want my PL back. But over the months the "fixers" have adapted and grown. This past weekend PL even sucked Brigade into adding some thoughtful posts and not just one line insults or sophomoric attempts at rewriting others' posts...congrats on the effort Brigade.

But it was like the old PL with the usual divisional and conference rivalries.
There was of course...Bernie and Scott..
Q.B. and Jenn(who has filled in admirably for Q.B.'s old nemisis Tena..I still miss Tena and wish she would return)

And then all the others who chimed in with thoughtful posts. Again special thanks to 12Bar for a great job of moderating our efforts...and special kudos to Troll who hung in there in this den of liberals and provided us some wonderful food for thought re HCR. I just wish the R's had bargained in the same good faith as Troll and come to the table like Troll with some real ideas. And so now if we could just replace Mitch McConnell with Troll and President Obama with 12Bar we'd get something done. :-)

Anyway special thanks to you "fixers" who have joined us in some lively discussions with minimal name calling and maximum exchange of thoughts.

I was proud to be on this blog this weekend...y'all are a really bright group of folks when you want to unleash your minds instead of hurling simple invective.

And Tao special thanks to you for working in St. Thomas Aquinas (I respect him greatly even if I do not agree with all he deduced) and Chesterton. I enjoy erudite people who can slip in some Aguinas and Chesterton..no snark intended.

You folks can really be impressive at times...now comes the Morning Plum...let the food fights begin. LOL Next weekend on the open thread perhaps we can engage honestly once again....whatever thanks for this weekend...I learned a few things...yes and some of them from the right. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 31, 2011 8:48 AM | Report abuse

"No, I don't. I need only demonstrate that it is a premise that we both accept as fundamentally true"

My last post on this should clarify what you have wrong here. We both use moral language. We both have preferences which, in order to convince others of, we wield that moral language because it is the only language we have for this purpose. My preferences or yours arise as a consequence of circumstance, culture and internal emotional states (eg, disgust at torture or suffering - sometimes). All of this is a social negotiation, always in flux over time and culture and circumstance. When you or I say a thing is bad, we are expressing our desire to not have it as part of our life experience. And that desire may be very strong. All that connects you or I here is such desires and such language, not some exterior or over-arching feature of the universe (unless you can demonstrate such a thing).

But, we don't have to look very far to see how claims that such a feature does exist has the facility for rejecting other competing claims as inferior and rejectable. God said it so that is that.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 31, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""I have preferences about how humans ought to behave and the language we use to prescribe or proscribe is moral language.""

No, that is incorrect. The language we use to describe personal "preferences" includes phrases like "I prefer", or "I'd like", or "it suits my taste". Moral language is quite different. This is precisely your contradiction. You want to enjoy the force of moral language and all of its implications when it suits you ("Bill Kristol is an immoral creature", "Killing innocent Iraqis is evil") yet you want to deny the very existence of the thing that gives it that force...ie a standard that exists outside of any individual's own "preferences".

Saying that one "prefers" that blacks not be enslaved is very, very different to asserting that enslaving blacks is immoral.

""That we might invent a word, (say the humors or ether or God) in our language in no way gives those things reality other than in our minds.""

I agree. I am not saying that our language gives reality to anything. I am saying that our language, or more precisely the concepts to which the language refers, assumes the reality of something.

Again, why will you not explicitly answer the question: Did blacks have a right not to be enslaved, despite the community consensus that said otherwise? Yes or no?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 31, 2011 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Bernie doesn't answer questions either.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 31, 2011 10:01 AM | Report abuse

qb

Sorry, I'm late to the thread this morning, you may be gone already.

I have read your posts over and over on this issue and the questions you've raised and it still doesn't make any sense to me. No one individual can be responsible for the health and welfare of all other individuals. Hence my use of the word common. I believe we have a common interest, whether it be moral or economic, as a nation to ensure our citizens have a basic right to health care. The only way this can be done on a national scale is via some influence of the Federal Government. What becomes debatable what form it takes, who pays for it, how it is delivered and what is included. I don't think the idea that this is a common interest is that debatable when you look at all the other nations that have been able to accomplish it.

I'm not going to go back and read the threads where someone may have suggested a lack of moral conviction on your part if you disagree with their position as I did not personally make that claim. I believe we can disagree without claiming moral superiority. To the extent that I have a moral conviction to aid and assist my fellow citizens, I do that, as do many other people I know.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 10:16 AM | Report abuse

qb

I forgot to mention the Iraqi Constitution. I should have said they "helped" draft, to be more clear, and touted as a great success. I just thought it was interesting that universal coverage was good enough for the Iraqi's but not for us. Maybe I was unclear. There was quite a bit of influence from Americans at the time including Peter Galbraith but also Brookings, several American Universities and law firms as well as International organizations etc. Perhaps because the actual draftees were I think over 200 Iraqis, one could claim it was an independent effort but I haven't actually seen anyone make that claim and don't have time to go back and look for it. Either way, I still find it interesting.

clawrence

If you find that quote from me I'd be happy to discuss it with you, I can't find it. I don't generally approve of strawman arguments so I would hope I haven't made one.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 10:30 AM | Report abuse

lms,

It's hard to see what remains unclear to you. It isn't a question of whether any one individual can be responsible for the whole world. It's a question of whether individuals who claim there is an absolute moral imperative that demands payment accept the responsibility themselves or only if "government" is going to be the intermdiary, in which case it isn't much of a moral principle but more of a conceit and convenience.

The taxes you personally pay or would pay into government health care don't cover the whole world or country either. That doesn't seem to stop liberals from claiming that it is every person's duty to pay taxes for it, and to support taxation for it.

You don't have to look for other threads for where 12bb and others denounced opposition to government health care for all as necessarily based on morally valuing refusal to pay one's own money over the lives of others. It's above in this same thread.

If resistance to government health care for all renders one morally culpable, then how does simple failure to give your own money to the dying not a fortiori render one equally or more culpable? That's the question your side can't seem to confront. It seems to feel good to denounce the conservative/libertarians for their immorality, but there's no willingness to deal with the log in the liberals' own eye.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 10:41 AM | Report abuse

"There was quite a bit of influence from Americans at the time including Peter Galbraith but also Brookings, several American Universities and law firms as well as International organizations etc. Perhaps because the actual draftees were I think over 200 Iraqis, one could claim ...."

Seems pretty hard to suggest it is the work of a Republican admin. Impossible, really. It doesn't prove anything, as far as I can see.

Scott's point ultimately always stands unrefuted. Something that consists of goods and servics that have to be provided by others can't in any coherent sense be called a right.

I'm flying today so probably out from here on.

PS to all as to Bernie's answer. I think he answered the question, just not squarely. When he talks about rights and uses moral language he just means his own preferences, not ideas rooted in any reality. Use of such language is a means to his ends.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 10:52 AM | Report abuse

qb

"That doesn't seem to stop liberals from claiming that it is every person's duty to pay taxes for it, and to support taxation for it."

Where is the moral claim in this? If we advocate a goal of universal health care, then the cost needs to be born by us as both individuals and as citizens in the larger community that has decided even those unable to pay should receive care. I think we can argue over the need or imperative for universal coverage without bringing individual morality into the debate.

I believe there is a difference between our personal moral imperative and our collective one. Perhaps they are arguing we have a collective moral responsibility and it's that which you are disagreeing with? If so, I think that's a reasonable debate which is a separate issue from our individual moral responsibility.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Have a safe flight, no need to respond, I'm sure it'll come up again.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 31, 2011 11:16 AM | Report abuse

@ruk - I honestly forget the source of the data. Given my habits, it was most likely a story on NPR or in the Washington Post.

The decade preceding 9/11 was exceedingly violent and the violence had not ended. The Northern Alliance was still fighting and the Taliban were far from peaceful rulers. Don't forget that the assassination of Gen. Massoud preceded 9/11 by only a few weeks.

I'd have to do some significant Googling to find a specific reference. I'm not sure that it would make a difference to anyone, so didn't invest the time.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 31, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

qb:

""PS to all as to Bernie's answer. I think he answered the question, just not squarely. When he talks about rights and uses moral language he just means his own preferences, not ideas rooted in any reality.""

Actually, qb, I think he is still trying to have it both ways. Yes, as you point out, he says explicitly that when he speaks of morals or rights, he means nothing more than his personal "preferences". However, he also says "There's no refusal to say that a slave has rights that transcend local custom." Leaving aside the odd formulation (there's no refusal? WTF?), this certainly sounds like an admission that rights exist independently of "preference" or consensus.

So which is it? Did slaves posess something called rights, thus rendering their enslavement objectively unjust? Or is a proclmation that slavery is unjust no more than a subjective expression of Bernie's tastes in human behavior, no different than a proclamation that broccoli tastes bad to his palate?

After all of his many posts, we are none the wiser, because Bernie utterly refuses to provide a direct answer. He wants to have it both ways, enjoying the force of moral arguments (Kristol is evil!) without the logical burden of accepting the very thing that gives them force.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 31, 2011 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

You make a good point. I hadn't noticed that statement. WTF indeed.

He clearly does want it both ways, in one sense or another. Either his use of moral language is dishonest manipulation, or it is in direct contradiction of his denial of belief in objective morality, in which case the latter is dishonest.

He is a shyster. That much we can conclude.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 31, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse

@Scott - Last post on this issue

First, your question has been answered from the beginning of this conversation but you don't accept the answer because you hold that there is only one answer and anything other doesn't qualify as one.

Is the Iriquois cemetery at 3rd and Vine sacred ground? Is it wrong to build a Walmart on it? What objective "truth" undergirds some presumed final answer to the questions? What is the meta-physical referent of "sacred"?

Bernie said: ""That we might invent a word, (say the humors or ether or God) in our language in no way gives those things reality other than in our minds.""

Scott said: I agree. I am not saying that our language gives reality to anything. I am saying that our language, or more precisely the concepts to which the language refers, assumes the reality of something.

Almost. But the more accurate account would be that it *insists* something is so - the "so" or the "real" being A is a "good" and B is not. That's the social function of moral language - to convince others to head towards A and away from B. We seek to be as convincing as we can be regarding our preferences of how humans ought to behave with other humans. As Russell said, "Ethics is the art of convincing others to do as you wish them to do." Even understanding the matter in this way, Russell made lots of moral statements. He wielded what tools were at his disposal, linguistic, logical, emotional, etc in order to achieve his desired view of social arrangements. What he didn't do is pretend that some "moral reality" gave his prescriptions extra (and absolute or objective) weight such that other moral visions were made false or invalid.

You try to convince. I try to convince. Everyone tries to convince. It's a con-game. The difference between us is that you might have even managed to con yourself.

Going forward, you will likely continue the suggestion that because I conceive of morals in a relativist manner that therefore my moral arguments or claims are un-grounded and thus invalid. Go ahead, it will be part of your tool-kit to convince others of your preferences. Just understand that I won't bother with such posts from you.

Finally, I must say it is a pity that the conservative ideology you've subsumed has travelled up your nervous system and attacked important parts of your neo-cortex. I expect that puppies, if chance puts them near your financier's pointed shoes, will possibly be safe. But still, a pity.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 31, 2011 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company