Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 211 To 220 Of 657 Comments
YOUNG, STUPID THINK PROGRESS RESEARCHER LOSES SANITY IN PUBLIC
Wow . . . nothing really makes the point about liberals making up hysterical nonsense like conservatives making up hysterical nonsense. Really drives the point home.
"to make that poor girl decide that at age 22, she was indestructible and didn’t need health insurance - a waste of money, that."
And that's exactly what the article you linked to said:
"Young became ill about two weeks ago, but didn’t seek care initially because she didn’t have health insurance and was worried about the cost, according to Brent Mowery, her friend and former roommate."
Well okay, it's not even remotely like what the article said. But then . . . you knew that, didn't you?
There is a bit of a difference between "I feel that the likelyhood of medical necessity is so remote I can use my extra money for that trip to Cancun rather than invest in health insurance" and "I'd really like health insurance, but since I absolutely need to eat and pay rent, and I can only afford to do two of the three, I guess I'll just have to pray I don't get sick." Since the article doesn't make clear which of these two wildly overblown scenarios the facts fit, I guess you can just make up whatever you want, right?
Please jump to the hysterical unsupported extreme to make your rational point. And then mock the author for doing the same thing. Its the irony of the scenario that really makes it funny, in an "I'm embarassed to be witnessing this" sort of way.
What is it about the healthcare debate that makes you freak the hell out? With you sometimes its literally Jekyll and Hyde. Just because you oppose national healthcare doesn't mean every aspect of the the issue is lies/poisonous/seditious/evil.
What does Boehner have to do with this young woman's death? Absolutely nothing - zero, nada, zilch. This young woman died tragically - a needless death - not because she didn't have health insurance but because she was not aware that help was available at a free clinic.
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/leftists-gleefully-exploit-college.html
The attempt to connect Boehner to this tragedy is beyond belief. That's why I went over the top with it. And I also think it high time that the Center for American Progress - an honorable intellectual institution - change their relationship with this guttersnipe of a blog. The sewer rats who run Think Progress are doing nothing but sliming their parent with the stench of their hyper partisan smears. And it's time for CAP to put an end to their filth.
I do not believe in mandates. I think they are inimical to personal liberty. One of the positive items in the Baucus plan is to allow insurance companies to offer packages to the "young invincibles" like this 22 year old woman that fall short of the kind of comprehensive coverage demanded by the current plans for mandates and are much cheaper. I would support such coverage. But liberals in Congress and on the internet oppose this plan so before they go blaming Boehner, maybe they should look in a mirror.
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.09.2009 @ 15:52
CONSPIRACY MONGERING, PARANOID TV HOST IS NO CONSERVATIVE
@Rick:
Thanks for the links. I disagree with alot of the conclusions drawn from the facts provided (and I'm not sure "bending over backwards to be fair" means the same thing to you as it does to me), but at least these are facts that a rational person could use to come to a negative impression of ACORN in a reasonable manner. This, at least, makes sense.
One comment you made confused me though:
"As is their voter registration fraud where they work hand in hand with unions. It has never been proven that the tens of thousands of fake voter registrations - well beyond “Mickey Mouse” and Dick Tracy - have been used by unions to stuff ballot boxes."
Are you talking about stuffing ballot boxes at union elections, or general elections? If it was union elections, why would the union be dealing with ACORN in the first place? If it is the general elections . . . what voter registration fraud? Did anybody vote under a fraudulent name? If so, did they give fraudulent name to the clipbord pusher, or are you dsaying that ACORN intentionally registered tens of thousands of fraudulent names and then co-ordinated with tens of thousands of people to frudulently vote under them? If its the latter . . . that sounds pretty paranoid without any kind of evidence. Like Truther paranoid.
Regardless, again an honest thanks for the articles.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.09.2009 @ 22:44
Serious question:
What exactly is the problem with ACORN?
I've tried to find out what they do that makes them such a deadly plague to many on the Right . . . but all I find are hysterical rants and hyperbole.
They looked to me to be a relatively non-threatening and socially useful group (as useful as any other), but the creep of ACORN-hate from the hinterlands of Whack-a-doodlevania into mainstream Conservative conciousness suggests that I've missed something very serious and very obvious.
I've no problem being wrong in my opinions, but I'd like to know why I'm wrong for not viewing them more critically.
Seriously, somebody let me have it with both barrels. Why are they bad?
This is a good primer:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=
Kurtz bends over backwards to be fair to ACORN here.
It's not only their agenda which is avowedly socialist in nature (banks owned "by the people" as well as "means of production" in the hands of "workers.") it is far and away their tactics that should bring them in disrepute with anyone who values democracy. And not just isolated chapters who engage in physical intimidation of their targets, threats, and actual violence on occasion. It is systemic.
As is their voter registration fraud where they work hand in hand with unions. It has never been proven that the tens of thousands of fake voter registrations - well beyond "Mickey Mouse" and Dick Tracy - have been used by unions to stuff ballot boxes. But given their extremely close relationship with unions and the history of union shenanigans at the ballot box, you can put two and two together and be at the very least suspicious.
Their role in intimidating banks to give loans to people so incredibly unqualified to own houses that they were set up to default played a role in the financial crisis last year. I am not convinced that it was a decisive role, but tens of thousands of sub prime loans would not have been let without ACORN. (This piece by AmSpec writer Matthew Vadum gives some background on that.)
You can go on and on. But make up your own mind. The fact that these folks were going to help with the Census is laughable. And Obama owes them a debt because most of his volunteers during his first state senate run as well as subsequent campaigns were ACORN staffers.
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.09.2009 @ 02:25
MY BELOVEDS FACE THEIR URLACHERLESS FUTURE
I don't know how I missed it, but I didn't realize B.U. was gone.
My condolences. Since I'm not a Bears fan I'm not unhappy to see him go, but I'd have been more pleased to see him poached over to my boys. Truly a legend (or a monster, depending on which side you're sitting on).
Your prediction sounds very likely, but without Troy P. I don't know if I can emotionally deal with watching the game. He reminds me of a Greg Lloyd, but with more "joi de vive" and less "Intent to Permanently Cripple". Guess I'll just catch the highlights later.
semi-off topic: I never noticed your opinion on the update to Soldier Field (the "spaceship"), although I'm sure you commented on it. Now that the initial jarring impact has probably worn off, do you like the addition?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 20.09.2009 @ 11:27
THE GOOD AND THE BAD OF OBAMA'S EURO-MISSILE DEFENSE PLAN
@obamathered:
Thanks for the apology . . . although it did give me a warm feeling to think I'm haunting someone's thoughts.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 20.09.2009 @ 00:38
MARS ROVER <em>SPIRIT</em> IN TROUBLE
*raises glass*
To the Spirit. Here's hoping NASA can figure out how to cheat fate one more time.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.09.2009 @ 22:31
RUSH AND RACE: THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY
Rick's response to comment #8:
"I don’t think Limbaugh is a hater - or I lack the ability to read his mind. Rather, in the same vein as Al Sharpton, he is a calculating race agitator - stirring the pot for his own aggrandizement.
Racially insensitive? Perhaps. Racist - don’t think so. I think its time for thoughtful people to reclaim the strict meaning of that word and apply it where it is truly deserved. The way it is being tossed about today cheapens it and causes it to lose its sting."
. . .
That's a pretty damn clear, careful and fair delineation. Touche.
p.s.: and I agree that Sharpton is, as you define it, a "race agitator".
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.09.2009 @ 02:43
NO WONDER BUSH WAS A FAILURE AS PRESIDENT
"Your verdict on Bush was reached looking through the prism of partisanship just as mine was. Just because the left was right about some of Bush’s shortcomings does not mean they had - or have today - a corner on truth when it comes to criticizing him. I would also add that their hate of the man - as virulent a hate directed against another politician I had not seen before, even against Clinton - disqualifies most on the left from making any rational judgment on Bush that a reasonable person could agree with."
The fact that someone on the Left blindly hated Bush is your cover that THE Left was overwhelmingly blinded by hatred. Anyone that said "but look . . . he's an embarassment to your club and a crappy President" was shouted down with "partisan zealot!"
There are certainly easy pickings when it comes to finding Righties that "blindly hate" Obama . . . can I mock and discount all Right criticism of the man as a result? Your rules.
What about those on the Left (and the Center) that blindly hated him because he was an incompetent fu@kwad who nevertheless managed to get seemingly otherwise intelligent people to blindingly defend him . . . not on the basis of his talent and ability, but apparently for no other reason than he was a club member and the other club was the source of the critique?
You don't want an "I told you so"? Fine. But unless every person that spoke out against him was a rabid party mouthpiece you owe quite a few people an apology for sneering and mocking what you now admit were valid criticisms.
"But an honest appraisal of my former support for the man must include the fact that I was fooling myself more than anything. The writing was on the wall all along regarding the man’s faux conservatism - not to mention his many screw ups including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prosecutors fiasco, justification for torture, and his curious habit of promoting and appointing incompetents for important jobs in government who also happened to be big campaign contributors or other cronies."
So the writing was on the wall . . . but anybody that saw it was not worth considering.
Let me ask you this . . . WHY did you decieve yourself? Was it because shucks darn you really liked him? Was it because he was a Red? Was it because "Teh Left" was saying what "the writing on the wall" said and that was something you just couldn't accept? Was it for some other reason?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.09.2009 @ 03:09
THE GREAT COMMUNICATOR OR THE GREAT PREVARICATOR?
"But President Obama says that if anyone makes that argument, the White House will 'call them out'” for their lies."
He didn't say anything of the sort.
He said he would call out lies, and you give as an example of "lies" disagreements about the future evolution and consequences of provisions in the bill, then you leap to the conclusion that those are categorized as lies.
Death panels . . . that's a lie.
Mandatory Abortions and/or Sex change operations . . . that's a lie.
Euthanizing the elderly . . . that's a lie.
Banning private insurance . . . that's a lie.Those are lies because there's nothing in the bills that suggests, hints, implies, or potentially could evolve into any of those things. What you call "lies" aren't remotely in the same ballpark. Hell, they're not even in the same town as the ballpark.
With all of the utter nonsense that has been spouted over the last 6 weeks or so (much of which you yourself have called out as lies), what on Earth made you think that he was talking about your examples? That was the first thought that came to your mind? I frankly have trouble believing that . . . meaning that your ignoring all the blatant "lies" to offer up your examples is a deliberate attempt to twist what he said into something it isn't.
It's a weak showing. Try harder.
Get your eyeglass prescription changed or your hearing aid power boosted:
If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out.
That seems pretty certain and final. "What's in the plan" is definitive. How you can read it any other way than how I see it is beyond me - unless you are blinded by partisanship. No slippery slope arguments allowed. None. If the bill doesn't say this will lead to single payer, it's a lie and we will call you out.
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 10.09.2009 @ 13:32
BAUCUS REFORM PLAN HAS SOME MERIT
@Gayle Miller:
"I would remind everyone - and our president - that he is not our ruler, he is our EMPLOYEE and as such, he’s to do what WE think is best for us, not what HE thinks is best for us."
That's right. He has to do what WE think is best, not what YOU think is best.
The majority of Americans support a public option:
http://digitaljournal.com/article/278585
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/analysis-public-option-is-likely.html
http://washingtonindependent.com/48140/gop-poll-yes-people-want-a-public-option
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/26/AARP-poll-shows-divide-over-public-option/UPI-42171251305003/So you want the President to do what we the people want, right? No? Then that's just fluff to make your bitter hatred sound patriotic, which is shameful.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 9.09.2009 @ 21:16
