It's often been given, as good advice, that you should never say anything in the presence of a microphone that you wouldn't want your mother to hear...
We should now apparently live by the caveat that you should never photocopy anything you wouldn't want distributed to identity thieves.
We don't have to be afraid ...but we do need to be careful.
1 2010-04-23 20:23:32
Re: Leased or used copy machines hold private information (2 replies, posted in Media Coverage)
2 2010-04-18 23:35:24
Re: Why Suspect Tea Partiers of Racism and Bigotry? (3 replies, posted in United States)
This is the new century's version of the southern strategy. Even going as far as to use the term "states rights". But this time the republicon party is taking it nationally. So now racists in every state can join in on the degradation of the Gee Oh Pee. Not one will denounce their racist signs, or talk about their inexplicable opposition to a president who has given them all tax cuts.
3 2010-04-06 07:38:26
Re: Unemployment in America (7 replies, posted in Business and Economics)
chovy wrote:
Remember that unemployment figures are completely unrealistic. They only include those who file for unemployment. Small businesses, contractors, self-employed -- and anyone who has had their unemployment insurance run out are no longer counted (despite not having found a job and being unemployed).
Although it is true that the Department of Labor statistics may not give a complete picture of the total of unemployment in America, their numbers are still an excellent indicator of trends as to whether or not the employment picture is improving or getting worse.
There is nothing "phony" about JPNs use of this graph showing a reverse in the trend of increasing unemployment.
It seems some people just can't bring themselves to accept good news.
4 2010-04-01 21:51:37
Re: The Census -- This Is Just Too Perfect (1 replies, posted in United States)
People in her district are listening to her crazy rants about how turning in your census will set you up for an internment camp.
Michelle Bachmann may lose her seat when it is eliminated.
5 2010-03-28 19:34:08
Re: Do We Need Religion to Answer Moral Questions? (2 replies, posted in Philosophy and Religion)
It seems obvious to me, and always has, that a well informed, honest empathy is many times more likely to result in a good moral decision than all the supernatural, dogmatic advice in the world.
6 2010-03-27 22:14:31
Re: 10 Groups of People not covered by Obamacare (25 replies, posted in Health and Education)
That's a nice euphemism for theft.
Theft? ...no... more like justified recompense for past theft.
7 2010-03-25 21:00:51
Re: 10 Groups of People not covered by Obamacare (25 replies, posted in Health and Education)
Also making it law w/ a penalty if you can't buy health insurance (for whatever reason) I don't like.
I think the problem you are having with this provision Chovy, is that you are thinking of it in the terms and language the republicans have recently chosen to describe it, that give it a negative connotation.
Take another perspective;
Everyone ends up sooner or later in the emergency room...The emergency rooms must, by law, treat everyone who needs emegency treatment. For those who can't get and won't buy health insurance their ER bill is passed on in the form of higher fees from the hospitals and doctors and ultimately to you and I in the form of higher premiums on our policies.
To keep those, who choose not to insure themselves from freeloading and playing the system, they are charged a tax so that at least they have paid something into the system when they inevitably use the ER. To be equitable everyone is charged that same tax. When the rest of us buy insurance or qualify for a policy through subsidies we get an exemption from paying that "emergency room tax" because we are a responsible part of the system and our policies will pay the ER fees.
I believe that from that perspective that provision is whole lot easier to swallow.
The language in the law does not use the terms "penalty" or "fine", nor does it use "tax" or "exemption". It is written in legalese that could be viewed either way.
The irony is that, this part of the law that is being challenged on constitutional grounds by republicon AGs across the country was originally a republican idea.
8 2010-03-25 10:30:51
Re: John McCain = Six-Year-Old (3 replies, posted in United States)
Perhaps what the big baby needs to do is resign.
A "no" voting automaton could do his job as he has defined it.
9 2010-03-25 10:07:48
Re: 10 Groups of People not covered by Obamacare (25 replies, posted in Health and Education)
What Obama just signed was a very wishy washy bill that gave all kinds of compromises to the republicons and received zero support from them. However the bill did progress the ideal of universal coverage of all Americans way beyond anything that has ever been advanced before.
The cynicism expressed here demonstrates that there is still a long way to go.
Pragmatically speaking truly progressive reform will be a process not an event. We have really only just begun.
10 2010-03-23 11:52:47
Re: Say What Obama? (6 replies, posted in United States)
It clearly is not supported by the majority of Americans....
No it is not at all clear Tot...Polls like to present division in as simple a fashion as is possible. The poll that needs to be explained to be accurate, is a poll that is not used or looked at
As far as the clarity of polling results are concerned. The way in which the questions are asked can be quite telling . Many who oppose the bill don't like it because it is too conservative and is not progressive enough. Poling questions seldom ask the follow up ...why do you oppose it. On top of that when the bill was broken down into its component parts the numbers paint a very different picture of what the American people want and desire. Americans want a public option, Americans want to stop pre-existing condition and yearly caps causing coverage termination, Americans favor taxing very wealthy to pay for the subsidies of insurance for the poor. Americans favor a large employer mandate etc. etc.
It is only when the question is phrased about the bill as a total entity that the numbers begin to go negative. This is a result of the way this bill has been attacked and the advertising campaign conducted by the republicon party on behalf of their sponsors...the insurance industry, has poisoned public opinion against it with lies, half truths and misrepresentations.
The result of this multi billion dollar campaign of negativity is that the people have been swayed to fear the total bill although they favor the policies within it.
This is a demonstration of the fact that the American people are smart about tangible details, but their opinion can be swayed on abstract collectives when the smartest marketing minds in the world are given a year and an unlimited budget to do so.
11 2010-03-22 20:30:09
Re: OK Movie quote thread time (23 replies, posted in The Lobbyist (Off Topic))
On the nose TOT and welcome back...the activity at this place has been pretty sparse lately. Maybe you can breath some life back into it...good luck.
12 2010-03-09 11:53:40
Re: OK Movie quote thread time (23 replies, posted in The Lobbyist (Off Topic))
"Get away from that lever. You'll blow us all to atoms."
...
13 2010-03-02 08:24:51
Re: The New Definition of "Nuclear Option" (GOP Version) (8 replies, posted in United States)
From Wiki:
In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) first called the option "nuclear" in March 2003;[1][2] proponents later attempted to rebrand it as the constitutional option.[3][4] Other names have included the ExLax option, the Turnip-truck option, and the Byrd option.[5]
They mislead ...they misinform....they lie.... they have little else to use. Nuclear option sounds so radical and outside of the rules, they choose this term to confuse the issue. This is a purposeful attemt to confuse the American people by mixing up their own terminology.
Being that the republicans are SO full of shit...I much prefer the "Exlax option".
14 2010-02-28 18:21:07
Re: OK Movie quote thread time (23 replies, posted in The Lobbyist (Off Topic))
cybert wrote:
My sig is a movie quote...
"Hell is a place where there is no reason"
Could that have been Charlie Sheen in Platoon?
15 2010-02-28 13:55:00
Re: OK Movie quote thread time (23 replies, posted in The Lobbyist (Off Topic))
" when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice. "
16 2010-02-28 13:02:27
Re: OK Movie quote thread time (23 replies, posted in The Lobbyist (Off Topic))
allpoints wrote:
"As I slooshied, I knew such lovely pictures!"
" It was gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh."
I was in art school in 1972 when it came out...We used to quote from it all the time.
One of Kubrick's best ... A Clockwork Orange.
17 2010-02-26 22:33:22
Re: OK Movie quote thread time (23 replies, posted in The Lobbyist (Off Topic))
" Do you like apples?...I got her phone number. How do you like them apples?"
18 2010-02-16 08:13:38
Re: Do Republicans Really Want to Balance the Budget and Not Raise Taxes? (13 replies, posted in United States)
"No new taxes" is a right wing mantra repeated over and over that persuades people to vote against their best interests in the name of greed. It has worked for the republicans for so long, that now they can't bring themselves to let it go, no matter how unrealistic and misleading they know it is. It's all they have.
19 2010-02-15 21:43:11
Re: Is a Political Economic Union with Canda Reasonable (44 replies, posted in United States)
If you spell it CAN DA that leaves an "A" hole right in the middle of it...
....Whoops ...did I say that outloud??
20 2010-02-15 00:12:09
Re: Is a Political Economic Union with Canda Reasonable (44 replies, posted in United States)
It's C eh? N eh? D eh? It's Canada eh?
21 2010-02-12 03:00:49
Re: sarah (25 replies, posted in Political Humor)
Hows that Iquitarody, baracudary, roguey, mavericky thing workin' out fer ya there caribou Barbie?
I'll get back to ya on that...you bettcha!
according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll. A full 71% of voters—including a majority of Republicans—feel that Palin is unqualified to be president. Only 37% have favorable views of Palin, the poll found.
22 2010-02-11 08:45:12
Re: "Righties"...Please Defend Snowstorm Disproves Global Warming Argument (13 replies, posted in The Environment)
It's rather like trying to explain impending doom from an approching typhoon to a monkey. As long as they have a banana in their hand right now ...all is well... and your just trying to spoil their day
23 2010-02-08 22:36:52
Re: Any sailors in the crowd? (31 replies, posted in The Lobbyist (Off Topic))
Welcome back JPN ...I believe that would be "steaming" over the equator but then if you are "sailors" then sailing could be appropiate as well...
I'm interested to get your opinion on my thread I started only days into the new forum "Is health care a human right? I would like to read your views on that.
http://www.itsallpolitics.com/topic12-i … right.html
24 2010-02-07 22:10:56
Re: Did God Create Homosexuality? (12 replies, posted in Philosophy and Religion)
Although homosexuality is without a doubt an aberration in regards to procreativity it does happen ...so what? It never put our species in any danger of extinction. The incidence has always been too low.
As far as this question about the intention of magical beings...man created that notion. The question was worded backwards and a little inside out. We should be asking instead, why did homo sapians feel the need to create God?
25 2010-02-04 14:17:08
Topic: Beck edits Obama to look like he broke promise Fux lies again (1 replies, posted in Media Coverage)
Those lying rascals are at it again at Fux Snooze. This time Beck's show uses dishonest editing to make Barry appear to be breaking a promise about keeping insurance under the health insurance bill.
This seems to be bussiness as usual for the lying right wing agenda smeer machine.
I guess "opinion " now really means LIE!
Here is the total explination from the daily kos:
On today's program Beck was generous enough to provide another example of his compulsive dishonesty. And it was packaged in a familiar form for Beck: the old out-of-context video clip gambit. On this occasion Beck presented this segment of President Obama discussing health care:
Obama: [W]e said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.
After playing the clip, Beck went into outrage overdrive, complaining first about the sentence fragment "...consistent in saying to people..." implying that Obama was only "saying" these things and that he didn't mean them. Only an idiot would interpret these extemporaneous remarks in context that way. And that, of course, is Beck's built-in excuse.
But the larger corruption of the truth was Beck's reaction to the news that some provisions were "snuck" into the bill that violated the pledge that no one would get between you and your doctor. Beck was aghast that the President would tolerate such legislative misbehavior. He castigated the President for not immediately putting a halt to Congress's covert attempt to countermand his promise and tarnish his honor. Beck went on to declare that if the President had spoken up about this, that he (Beck) would heartily approve:
Beck: Well let me tell you something. Not only would that be the right thing for any president to do, his approval ratings would go through the roof. People would actually say "Well OK now, wait a minute. If he's gonna do that I might actually listen to him."
Apparently Beck wasn't listening because Obama did precisely what Beck was accusing him of not doing. Obama expressly stated that he had caught the errant provisions and set about eliminating them. And this information was in the very segment that Beck had just played on the air. Except that Beck cut out the parts where Obama talked about scrubbing the problem provisions. Here's the quote again in full. Note that the bold section in the middle is the only part that Beck played:
Obama: If you look at the package that we've presented -- and there's some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example...
...we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.
And so we are in the process of scrubbing them and making sure that it's tight.
The complete clip shows unequivocally that Obama is keeping his pledge regarding the doctor/patient relationship. But Beck's audience won't know that because Beck unscrupulously edited it out. Then he portrayed the President as negligent for not doing something that in reality he did. And he even went so far as to admit that the American people would reward the President for doing the things that Beck left on the cutting room floor. And, of course, that's reason Beck did it.
Beck certainly knew the content of the whole speech. So it is inescapable that he deliberately misrepresented it to advance his deceit. He purposefully truncated it to prevent his audience from seeing anything about Obama that they might regard as positive. And in the process he hammered Obama for not doing what he actually did do.
It's too bad that most of Beck's disciples will never hear about this fraud. Although many are so thoroughly bewitched that they might not even grasp it if they did hear about it. But it is important to continue to document it. Open minded people who haven't formed opinions about Beck need to have this kind of information to keep from being duped by him.