Comments Posted By sota
Displaying 51 To 60 Of 66 Comments
NO DOUBTING TED KENNEDY'S IMPACT ON HISTORY
"How many Iraqi death were George Bush responsible for, under the guise of the war on terror?"
That's some bizarre moral equivalence you're drawing there...regardless, it's impossible to answer your question directly. Instead, I'd say that George Bush was responsible for liberating and saving hundreds fold more Iraqi lives than deaths you likely claim he was responsible for.
Rest in peace, Teddy.
Comment Posted By sota On 26.08.2009 @ 19:33
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Comment Posted By sota On 24.08.2009 @ 05:57
"Now, let me go get on the phone for three hours with these insurance company bureaucrats and explain to them that their excellent private system seems to be having a bit of a problem in regards to not giving a shit about my kid."
Your implication is that a federally run government medical coverage plan would decrease the amount of time you had to waste on the phone? It's comical to think a government run system on that scale would perform better or even come close in terms of customer satisfaction.
I battled the bureaucracy with both Medicare and a private insurance company during my mother's hospital stay before she died. Neither was as responsive as I'd want.
Comment Posted By sota On 17.08.2009 @ 17:05
THE LOGICAL FALLACY OF SOME SLIPPERY SLOPE REFORM ARGUMENTS
Can anyone tell me what the ratio is of people contributing Medicare and Medicaid vs. the people that utilize it? I've had a hard time coming up with actual numbers of enrolled and contributors. Or tax dollars going toward Medicare/Medicaid vs. its expenses on a yearly basis?
I wonder if the difference between Medicare/Medicaid and a nationalized health plan that would attempt to cover everyone is that the ratio of contributors to enrollees would render it unsustainable almost instantly.
Comment Posted By sota On 11.08.2009 @ 18:10
VIOLENCE AT TOWN HALLS PREDICTABLE AND DISTURBING
"We aren’t shouting GOP Congressmen down. We aren’t waving swastikas. We aren’t trying to so deligitimize your party that we end up rationalizing violence. That’s on your side, Rick."
You aren't shouting down GOP Congressmen? You aren't waving swastikas? You aren't trying to delegitimize the GOP to such a degree that you end up rationalizing violence?
*blink*, *blink*
If you mean right now at this very moment, I guess that may be true. If you mean in the very recent past, then I can only assume you're being deliberately argumentative or blindly biased.
It's surprising to see the "mobs" on the right side of the spectrum get riled up and protest, but it's more surprising to see the "mobs" on the left side of the spectrum feign outrage at those "mobs".
Comment Posted By sota On 8.08.2009 @ 07:31
SHOUTING DOWN THE OPPOSITION AT HEALTH CARE MEETINGS IS NOT THE ANSWER
"Complaining that a inherently socialist concept like insurance - the collection of funds by many to redistribute to the needy - will somehow be more socialist if the government gets involved is laughable."
By that logic, McDonald's is also a socialist concept because my grilled chicken subsidizes their Dollar Menu items. I guess at one level, that's true...and also meaningless.
Whether or not having the government run health care for the country is "more socialist" isn't the concern for me. What concerns me is idea that the federal government could take responsibility for running such a behemoth of a system and expect to do it efficiently, fairly, and under budget. Talk about laughable...
Comment Posted By sota On 5.08.2009 @ 05:31
BIRTHERS vs. TRUTHERS: WAR OF THE LOONS
"Did Bush Know About the 9/11 Attacks in Advance?"
Is that the text of the 22% question? If so, it's simply disingenuous to imply the question can be read to mean "any" advanced knowledge of Al Qaeda or that attacks "could" happen. You're parsing the question well beyond what a typical respondent would.
If that's the text of the question, it's clearly asking specifically about THE attack on 9/11...not any attack in a general case. If that's not the actual text, can someone help me find it?
In any case, both the birthers and the truthers are fringe given too much exposure and credit.
The internet is tailor-made for conspiracy buffs: anonymous voices with a large eager audience.
Comment Posted By sota On 3.08.2009 @ 20:02
"If President Obama were not a black man, much of the recent outrage displayed by the right would not exist."
Poppycock.
Agreed. There is no difference - none - between the birthers and those who believed Diebold stole the election in Ohio. Both conspiracy theories are idiotic on their face.
The kind of unhinged criticism and dire predictions of loss of freedom exactly mirrors - exactly - the unhinged nature of the criticism and fears directed aginst Bush. How many people passed around the idea of Bush orchestrating another terrorist attack so that he could cancel the 08 election?
Many more than Michael, or Shawn, or any of my left of center friends would care to admit. The racial element to this is very small. If I had to hazard a guess I would put it at 10% - about the same number of Americans who are still trapped in a racist past. The real paranoia is from people needing drama in their lives. It's just some people need to feel scared or bad in order to feel good. We saw it on the left with Bush and now on the right with Obama - in probably percentages that are very close.
ed.
Comment Posted By sota On 30.07.2009 @ 16:56
I've always been fascinated by the perfect game in baseball. It's an accomplishment so rare that I can't think of another feat in any sport that even approaches it in terms of difficulty.
I'd disagree with your recipe for the perfect game (it's way more than 2-to-1 luck-to-skill), but the sentiment is dead on. The marriage of a game dripping with so many statistic-mongers and a challenge this difficult is brilliant.
I still don't quite understand how Joss did it in only 74 pitches. Incredible.
Comment Posted By sota On 23.07.2009 @ 18:36
NOT A MISPRINT: OBAMA SEEKS CUTS OF 100 <em>MILLION</em> TO CURB DEFICIT
"President Obama has announced an additional $37 per month will be sliced from the budget through bulk purchases of dog food!"
Sure, there's nothing wrong in principal with cutting $100 million from a bloated budget, but to claim it as some kind of grand victory is ridiculous given the scale of the budget. If he were truly interested in cutting "waste" from the budget, there'd be a LOT bigger price tag associated with the cuts. That seems to be the point of this piece and what many of you appear to be missing.
Comment Posted By sota On 20.04.2009 @ 19:25
