Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 301 To 310 Of 657 Comments
IT'S PAST TIME TO INOCULATE CONSERVATISM AGAINST THE BIRTHERS
@ Freedoms Truth:
"If you assert he was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu like the official bio says, the published COLB from state of Hawaii says, newspaper announcements say, etc., you have a set of facts and evidence to be referenced or refuted."
Agreed.
Look through this thread. Poster makes claim no birth cert produced. As you said, pretty compelling evidence supporting his birth is presented. The next step is to either discredit or adopt that evidence. YES! Discussion is good, so here comes the discussion.
24Ahead at least to attack ther veracity of the evidence (comment #16), so I argued that the attack on credibility was not sufficient to reject the evidence (#21).
EarlT afterwards declares that no birth cert has been produced (#26). Not "the evidence is not credible" but rather "there is no evidence at all". Discussion stops dead. Evidence is re-referenced (#31 and #32), so again we're at the "what's wrong with these pictures of the birth certificate?" Again, the call goes "where is the proof" and the other side again says "here is proof".
buckblog notes in #36 there's something that's being hid. There's something hidden, hiding a discrepancy in the proof. AGAIN, the argument is "there is no evidence".Where is the discussion? The Birthers request proof. Credible evidence is produced. The next step is to examine the evidence, weigh it, test it, judge it. The Birther argument seems pretty sparce after you PRODUCE THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE and instead of saying "that's fake" or "the lighting is questionable" they argue "there is no birth certificate". That's not a discussion, that's denial.
I apologize for the caps hissy fit above. I respect your opinion enough that I'm not trying to just rant while trying to talk to you. I'm just mystified at the "flow" of the debate and discussion. I'm both fascinated and horrified at the same time. I'm getting a very Twilight Zone vibe:
"There is no Birth Certificate"
"Here you go. Your Welcome."
" . . . There is no birth Certificate. Why can't I see it?"
"Sorry? . . . uh, I don't know why you can't see it . . . it's right here . . . you're touching it now. Can you feel it? It's right here."
" . . . why won't you show me the Birth Certificate?"
"Can you hear me? IT'S RIGHT HERE!!! Hello? Bueller? . . . Bueller . . ."Am I missing the debate and discussion? Like I said, the only person I saw that even tried to address the evidense was #16. Do you think his argument is credible? I'm often wrong. If I'm missing something educate my ass. My ideas get more of a workout (and often walk away with a black eye) in here than on any other site I visit. I honestly like finding out I was wrong about something. His argument to me seems logical but far too weak to cast the pictures into doubt. That seems pretty clear, but I'm clearly biased. Should I be giving his critique any credence?
If I shouldn't, is anybody actually questioning the evidence presented?
If nobody is questioning the evidence . . . are we done? Have we resolved any questions? If somebody else posts with "there is no Birth Certificate -- I've never seen one", what more can happen for the discussion than re-presenting the same evidence . . . again. If one team won't get on the field and play, then at some point we have to call the game a forfeit? How long do we keep going "its right here. its right here. its right here."?
I wasn't joking when I said I respect your thoughts. I think you're wrong about just every word you tipe, but you have statements and opinions that are explained and credibly justified. Wrong . . . but justified. Honest question: what more can be done to have a legitimate discussion?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.07.2009 @ 19:22
Earl:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.07.2009 @ 16:44
you DID go to the FactCheck page and look at the photos, right? You want to know why you haven't seen them? Because whenever they are placed directly in front of your eyes you close them.
. . . and 24ahead proves the point.
For those of you that didn't link to his comment attacking the credibility of FactCheck, his argument claims to discredit Factcheck. the factcheck link above has an article and pictures, and in that article, in an update, it says:
"Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu."
He quotes Factcheck summarizing that the director confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu. His take on the statement (and therefore on the entire article and pictures):
"I say they're lying, and doing it outrageously."
A serious charge. How does he draw that conclusion? he links to the Director's statement that they have "personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
So where's the lie? The Director did NOT state that the birth took place in Honolulu, as Factcheck claims they confirmed. Therefore, Factcheck is lying. About everything. Implicitly, this proves how phony the birth cert is.
FactCheck cites two sources for their "claim". Here's a link to the AP story:
http://www.kxma.com/News/Politics/291624.aspThey made the same "lie" as well.
Of course, they did confirm that the birth cert is legit. The birth cert says Honolulu. Did she "confirm" Honolulu? 100% literally? arguably not. Seems like it's a bit of an assumption on the AP's part (a reasonable assumption), and that FactCheck included it. Neither source claimed that the word "Honolulu" was a direct quote. Both sources make clear that's a summation of the exact quote.Also, regardless of whether or not that statement is in fact a deliberate lie (*see below) doesn't change the photos. Doesn't change the contemporaneous birth announcement in the newspaper (pretty sneaky a plot that plants evidence 4 decades in advance -- them's some smart terrorists). Doesn't change the issue that the overwhelming evidence , both legal and "common sense", says he was born in the US.
Birthers don't care. No evidence will suffice. Any evidence that supports Obama is doctored and/or a lie. That is insanity. Don't like his policies? Fine. It's the apocalypse? You need serious psychotherapy.
*"pssst! Let's lie and say the Director said Hololulu!" -- why? As long as it is a State, debate's over, right? if they didn't say the word that doesn't change the point that if the Director verified a legit birth certificate, that makes him a citizen, which settles the "can he be president" question . . . unless you now shift to "is he really old enough" which proves the real issue isn't determining where he was born, its trying to remove that specific person. You know, the black one? the "magic negro"? "curious george"?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.07.2009 @ 14:50
This (combined with the MooslimFascistCommunistAntichristEnemyspyTerroristArab paranoia) doesn't make it easy for people to come to any conclusion other than its about race. Repubs hated Clinton. He was called a murderer. Repubs practically gave him a reach-around when compared to the personal hatred against Obama.
The question of the birth cert can certainly be raised without the spectre of racism. But when it gets advances alongside and co-mingled with ". . .he's an Arab (no, he's a good person)" and other such gems , how can resonable people not think the speaker (and therefore the argument) is tinged with racism?
@Gayle Miller:
"Why do you consider the people who doubt Zero’s fitness and legal ability to hold the office as nutcases?"
Because the Certificate has been available for years, and the fact that ell evidence clearly proves his birth are ignored. It's like saying "why do you think the flat-earthers are crazy?"
Here's a link to the second release of the birth certificate -- Hi-res, obvious raised seal, cert. number visible, the whole enchilada:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.htmlNotice that this has been posted since August 2008 . . . since before the election.
Birthers for the most part jumped on the first release (explained in the article linked above) for what could be suspicious matters (like the cert number being blacked out). Nothing made the cert bogus, but if you're convinced its bogus then ambiguous things can be seen as "supporting" the paranoia. The Obama team addressed all those issues, new photos have been provided . . . and the birthers ignore the new facts. That's one literal definition of crazy.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.07.2009 @ 12:22
HOW MUCH IS A HUMAN BEING WORTH?
Do you honestly believe that the Republican delay is to work out a working healthcare reform plan? Not -should- it be, but -is- that the purpose?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.07.2009 @ 20:41
What is the Republican plan? Where is it? "This plan sucks" isn't deliberating, its chanting.
Everyone WANTS to reform health care. But most people want it like they want a Mars landing: It would be all neat and stuff, but I'm sure as hell not going to pay for it, and it better not interfere with my vacation, and build the launch pad somewhere else, etc. You know the health care system needs reforminhg. All Republicans do. Then what is your plan to fix it? Aside from "cut taxes" and "fight Socialism"? That doesn't reform the system . . . that insures that there won't be reform.
You want to deliberate? Amen. Make a suggestion. Let's debate. Offer a plan. Offer a goal for the delay. "Let's get it right" is to me woefully transparent.
Because if it needs to get done, then not doing it doesn't resolve the issue.
I may have been less than clear, so let me re-phrase what I said above. I don't believe, for one second, that Republicans want to delay the issue to "fix" it. I believe they want to delay it so that it slowly dies, and the healthcare system does not get reformed. I agree that extended, thoughtful debate would be the best course of action. I don't see that as an option. I see either try to fix the system now, while there is possibly enough momentum to get something done, or do absolutely nothing at all. If those are my 2 choices, I pick door #1. If you want the system to be reformed, but don't want anything to happen until the proposal is 100% perfect to everybody concerned . . . then you don't want the system fixed.
You don't trust the government. Neither do I. I specifically think the Leglislative Dems are wear-helmets-inside dumb. If that's a reason not to support healthcare, aren't you saying the government should do nothing at all? I don't trust them to manage the military well with their budgets. Guess they shouldn't pass a military budget. They're incompetent at maintining ifrastructure. So no more road reapairs or bridge upgrades until we're sure they won't muck something up.No doubt that you got promised (a) and then got (b) with the VA. If you think that relying on the private sector (and specifically private, for-profit insurance companies) is going to avoid that problem, I respectfully disagree. They promise one thing, then deliver another. And they have an incentive (higher profits) to do it, as opposed to just stupidity.
Let me re-phrase the question: Should health care be provided for the uninsured? you can agree or disagree. But if you agree, then "Why the rush?" is answered with "because it won't happen otherwise", and you know it.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.07.2009 @ 15:09
*apologies for the multiple posts*
Bad cite listed in comment #18. The relevant part is on page 16:
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered healthinsurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.07.2009 @ 11:44
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first
day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf
(page 16, lines 3-20)
@anonymous:
"If this is so important, if this is so vital, why is this proposal having such a difficult problem keeping their own party support intact."
I thought you didn't believe the government was competent. Now you think they only act in the best interests of their constituents? I'm going to guess that one of the reasons they are having trouble keeping votes begins with the letter"L" and ends with "obbyists".
"Do you think a proposal thrown together in four months, which could change the way health care is approached in this country forever, which no one has even read, that has only partisan support is in your best interest?"
If I thought that the legislature was truly focused on nothing more than my personal good . . . no. If I think one party refuses to support anything that a president does, across the board . . . then it looks like they are just playing a game, and "in my best interest" seems to be utterly irrevelant to the debate.
"We're going to break Obama" in no way equals "please think of the children".
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.07.2009 @ 11:39
@Anonymous:
"Because, very simply, I do like my own insurance."
THEN KEEP IT. Your insurance is specifically grandfathered out of most of the effects of the plan most likely (off the top of my head, pages approx 167-175 of the plan -- if that's not it, do a word search on the text for "grandfather".
All the people that tell you your insurance is being destroyed . . . have any of them refered you to the plan and where it makes those claims?Doe your opinion of the plan change if you believe that your insurance isn't being touched?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.07.2009 @ 11:29
@ Rick:
What did the Erik Erikson article have to do with your article? Yours actually raised a valid point (I disagree, but a valid point), but RedState's was pure Male Cow Manure.
DNRs, Living Wills, and DPOAHCs have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Euthanasia. The text of the bill he cites in no way whatsoever supports his claims. At all. I assume he has reading comprehension skills on at least the 3rd grade level, so I am only left with the assumption that he knows what he is saying is completely incorrect -- what us simple people call "a big fat lie".
There are legitimate issues in this topic that need to be debated. But parroting outright lies (like your "ignore the plain text of the language, Obama is outlawing private insurance" baloney last week) makes any legitimate issues you raise suspect by association.
I come here because the thinking person's views from "the Red Side" are rare. I can get paranoid nonsense from a dozen different sources easier. Don't sink down to their level.
btw -- as I said, you raised a legit question. Of course, if you have private insurance now that will cover unlimited treatment regardless of the cost/benefit ratio, then keeping it sounds pretty good. If you don't have any insurance . . . well, then even assuming that the "new" insurance would only cover half of your Chemo (a purely hypothetical example), that's half more than you're going to get covered now. How is that worse?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.07.2009 @ 01:38
Your issue only comes up in the scenario where somebody currently has super coverage, then changes to limited coverage. Since the bill DOES NOT MAKE ANYBODY SWITCH, wouldn't the consequences of such a switch fall under the heading of "personal responsibility for your personal decisions"?
