EvilMonkey

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 10:33 PM) I am so proud of myself. Some tree hugging green dude on a bike was riding right next to a puddle, I hit the water just right and sent a big old shower of muddy water all over his spandex. Tex, you helped him take his weekly shower without having to waste any of mother earth's preciouos resources! And the mud just helps his skin!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 10:11 PM) That cuts both ways, kap, with the horror stories of ZOMG! SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! in Europe and Canada. Why haven't countries with actual single-payer systems seen the disappearance of private health care? Don't you think there's a big enough political opposition that there will always be a market for private insurance in this country? And yeah, surprise, Obama isn't cramming a super Marxism policy down our throats like conservatives b****ed about for months now. The democrats aren't nearly as cohesive as the republicans and they love kowtowing to the mythical middle and cowering at the first signs of opposition. These health care proposals without a government option or co-op are not liberal in any way, yet its still portrayed as ZOMG! SOCIALISM! And just who is it in these countries that can AFFORD to get private insurance? certainly not everyone. Sure, they have the same opportunity to purchase it, but then private insurance becomes a perk of the wealthy.

Oops? NY office also 'busted'. "Honesty is not gonna get you the house!"

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 01:19 PM) Oh god... all the righteous indignation on here. He flipped em the bird... big flippin' deal. I thought the criticism here (so far) has been pretty tame. The only ginned up indignation seems to have just come from you.

I know she is a columnist, and here writing an op-ed piece, but why is it that liberals and thier supports inthe msm (and by that I mean almost all the msm) are always the first ones to interject race into everything? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=1 You know, when Obama said in his speech "It's a lie, plain and simple", maybe I heard a few unspoken words too, like "It's a lie, plain and simple, you honkey mo-fo!"

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 09:14 AM) AMEN!! (oh good Lord, we agreed on something!) In non-White Sox things, it happens once in a great while. I just accept it as inevitable and don't let it shake me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 08:47 AM) Definitely worse than booing, yes, IMO. But not as bad as shouting down the President and calling him a liar. The booing thing, and the stupid one-sided uber appluase thing, are both annoying and very prevalent on both sides. I agree with the applause after every damn line, whoever is speaking. Stop that and the speech be over in 15 minutes.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 07:58 AM) Turns out Illinois Republican House Rep John Shimkus walked out of the speech early. Not as bad as the shout-out, but still inappropriate and unprofessional. This isn't a baseball game, jackass. I'm now going to go find out where his district is, and see who his likely opponent will be in 2010. So walking out is worse than booing? Democrats LOUDLy bood and jeered Bush when he told them social security needed major fixing a few years back. Don't recall much condemnation there.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 07:22 AM) Like showing up at a President's speech with an AK-47 hanging over your shoulder? I believe it was an AR-15. Big difference. You can actually hit what you are aiming at with an AR-15, not so easy with an AK-47.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 01:58 PM) I covered this a few pages ago also, but here's another summary. The bill specifically says that illegal immigrants are excluded from that program. But...at some point, we're going to have a comprehensive immigration solution created, and that solution is not going to involve sending them all back home, whether the anti-immigrant forces like it or not. There is going to be some mechanism to bring them in to the country and put them on a path to citizenship, because otherwise it's indentured servitude. Thus, at some point, they are going to be eligible for any program that is set up. If you try to deliberately exclude them, then there's a catch-22 because suddenly you've given a huge advantage to an employer to hire a former illegal immigrant compared to a naturalized worker, because if you can hire a former immigrant, you don't have to pay the fines if you don't provide them health care. You can't keep them illegal forever, but you also can't exclude them from the system once you find a way to legalize them. Either method hurts the American worker. I can't get to my copy, but I believe that hr3200 only specificly exempts illegals from receiving health credits or some such thing as that, not from having to get insurance or be covered by it. So it just says that they won't be subsidized. That won't last long.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) What's the point of posting a biased blog entry commenting on the speech? For every one of those there's another blog claiming it was an amazing speech. Chill dude, I got the AP link from that site, it copied it as a redirect. I fixed it.

Ap's take on Obama's speech. They actually dare to say somethign sort of bad against dear leader. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_...care_fact_check Sorry.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) Hey, you just described private health insurance! With insurance you have upfront caps and restrictions, you know what you are getting and not getting from the start. With the powers granted the insurance czar and commissioner, they can change on a whim.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 12:42 PM) LOL at the bolded. I've lined out my ideas for overhaul in this very forum, and it is a lot closer to the right than the left. Back to the topic, counseling does not mean dictating. If it did, why have the sessions? Its a chance for them to explore their options. To me, that is an improvement over the insurance companies deciding for you, as they do now in cooperation with your Doctor - would you not agree? QUIT FOCUSING ON JUST THE COUNCELING. In case you missed it twice, I also said "but there will still be a panel of bureaucrats somewhere deciding just what kind of care and how much of it you get. And if they deny you something that could have saved your life, you have a defacto death panel". No matter how you want to try and spin it, there will be a groupof people somewhere in this system looking at all the healthcare you get, and deciding if you should still get it. There will be limits on the amount of drugs you can get because they cost too damn much, or you are too damn old. And while you can say "but it isn't in the bill" you also can't say there are any mechanisms to prevent it. Once the system becomes overburdened, rationing will occur, decisions will be made, and lives will be effected. At least in hr3200, there are sections that give the health czar and insurance commissioner very wide latitude as to what they can impose,without having to go thru congress and make actual laws for people to vote on. Too much room for potential abuse, regrdless of who is there.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 12:38 PM) Alpha...hyperbole is very dangerous for a politician. I will quote 41..."Read my lips, no new taxes." That absolutely killed him in 1992. And using the term "death squad" is even more dangerous. I see what you are saying, but at the same time, changing numbers is much different than getting close to calling your President (and sorry Mrs. Palin, Obama IS YOUR President) and the Democrats, a death squadron. What it is is irresponsible. I didn't say it was good hyperbole, but the soundbyte sure stuck around, so I guess it did it's job.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) If they did, then you could at least make the hyperbolic leap. But as they don't - they are counseling sessions - her statements are fully detached from reality. The end of life counselling sessions are just that, as you say. but there will still be a panel of bureaucrats somewhere deciding just what kind of care and how much of it you get. And if they deny you something that could have saved your life, you have a defacto death panel. Again, you are not focusing on the overall picture, and her true meaning and intent. Must be that R in her party affiliation that prevents that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) Not even remotely comparable. Palin is saying something that is just clearly false. The number of uninsured Americans seems to vary, depending on what source and what definition you use, from 20M to 50M or even higher. Both Obama's numbers are within that realm. Palin's comments are not within the realm of reality, since no such thing exists. Its not that she uses the phrase "death panels", its that she is perpetuating the myth that some bureaucrat will now have the power to decide your death. If they have the power to determine whether or not you get a specific treatment or drug, do they not have that power, in a round about way? hence the hyperbole. hy⋅per⋅bo⋅le  /haɪˈpɜrbəli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hahy-pur-buh-lee] –noun Rhetoric. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

So, on one hand it's no big deal what number Obama throws out for the uninsured, 20 mil, 50 mil, 100 mil, whatever. it is the general point that counts, the exact words don't matter. Yet, when palin comes out and metions 'death squads' in a speech, which was pure political hyperbole as can be, you all take those EXACT words and run as if it were gospel. The general point she was trying to get across was about the end of life counseling and rationing of care, but you guys seem to have blinderrs to that, the hyperbole makes a better headline for you all to scream. So, for Democrats, it is the true underlying meaning of what you intended to say, not the exact words that matter. With Republicans, if the word is in print, you can't acquit. GMAFB. As a side note, why is Obama so concerned with Palin? He seems to like referencing her alot.

Not sure if this was brought up or not yet. Seems when Obama tried to tell us all that a woman had her insurance cancelled because of acne, he didn't tell us the whole truth. It was acne and a rapid heartbeat which she knowlingly concealed from her insurance company. But hey acne, rapid heartbeat, all the same, right? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...ft=1&f=1001

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 12:35 AM) I lost my health insurance in 2004 when I decided it was more important for me to move to a state where I didn't have to live in fear of losing my job. I found a job that enabled me to regain some form of affordable health insurance in 2005. I lost that four months later when I left my job about three weeks before I was going to be laid off. I wasn't able to find affordable healthcare at my new job, and picked up my own insurance in 2007 when after a year of looking I was able to find a decent plan that cost less than 200 dollars a month out of pocket. (And when you buy your own plan, its post-tax and not deductible.) Then I moved to a different state. And lost coverage because that kind of plan isn't allowed to exist in New York State. Replacement plans in my new state cost double. This year, I got coverage again because I got a new job. I lost it, with my job in July. In September, I'll be covered again. I have had to argue with insurance companies for months that a pulled groin was not a 6 month old preexisting condition. I had to worry about being dropped from my health insurance company because of the nature of a diagnostic blood test I had to have in 2007. In college, an ER visit was not paid by my insurance company until after the bill was sent to collections, damaging my credit report. I have more bad stories about health insurance than I have good. And I've had no major health problems in my life. I won't pretend that a government option will solve all my issues with health insurance coverage. It won't. I won't pretend that I would even necessarily take that government option for health insurance coverage. Depending on what's covered, I probably won't. But what it will do is force private insurers to offer comparable or better health care options for less. Why? Because the biggest competitor in all of this will be a government plan whose primary mission is to provide health care services, not make a profit. Will this narrow profit margins in the insurance industry? Probably. Will that be a bad thing for the industry? Probably not, smart worthwhile companies will find a way to survive and thrive. And it will happen in an environment that might actually favor the health care consumer for the first time in generations. Looks like at one point you had a good policy, but because of the maze of insurance laws that hurt their competitiveness, when you got to NY, you couldn't keep that one. Maybe fixing a few laws about insurance portabilioty and ability to compete across state lines would have saved you alot of grief.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 5, 2009 -> 10:42 PM) Even better than the Friday newsdump, is the Saturday newsdump. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...id=ESPNheadline Because it's always different for the Dems.

I listen to alot of the other team's announcers on my XM, and you can hate of chicago guys all you want, most of the other teams radio guys blow chunks. And the lady for the Yankmees makes me want to pull my haor out. She may know baseball, but her voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard. And they are ALL homers.

Hell, if Stuary Smalley can go to the Senate, why not Mr. Bloody Sock?

Post there, if interested, so i don't miss on seeing it.

I am on a conference call about health care reform with Debbie Halvorson right now, been listening for the last 80 minutes so far. Mostly softball questions being lobbed at her, but a few tougher ones got thru. When asked about the section where the house bill says it will cover all aspects of reproductive services and would that cover abortions, her reply was "There is no mention of abortions in this bill, so it won't be covered". When the guy tried to follow up with "According to Democrats, abortion is considered reproductive services", he was cut off in the middle of the word 'services' and the question ignored. Then a few callers later, someone confronted her with the exact wording where it says "you shall" and she flat out denied that the words existed, even tho I pulled it up and looked as she was denying it. When someone called and said that it seemed to her that some want to 'give' healthcare to others for free even tho her and her husband have saved and sacraficed to pay for their own, she insisted that nobody was gonna get anything for free, but that there would be 'credits' available for those that couldn't afford it. Follow up question was "well, isn't that GIVING them stuff for free?", totally ignored. A few good questions, a few stupid questions, alot of double talk.