The Democrat Thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

He didn't used to be, and I used to like him on CNN, but that's pretty much what he is now.

Ever since he went to Fox News and was allowed to go ape s*** crazy, he's slowly gotten worse and worse.

[HuskyCaucasian]

OOPS!!! GOP Website features pornography and anti-Semitic literature.

 

It's not very often the boys at AMERICAblog get to type the word "clitoris" in a political blog post, but thanks to Michael Steele and the headquarters of the Republican party, today is that special day.

 

It all started when earlier this week the GOP started promoting it's new Web site, http://www.gop.com/obamacard/. The site is supposed to showcase how much money President Obama is supposedly spending by letting you, the visitor, spend money too on your new "Obama credit card."

 

Just what products does the RNC propose you buy with your new Obama credit card? Anti-semitic, anti-Latino, and overtly pornographic literature - with pictures to boot.

 

Basically, the RNC site is set up as a faux online business, like Amazon.com, where you can buy goods by doing word searches. Search for the word "car," for instance, and you get pictures of various cars and how much you can pay for them with your ObamaCard.

 

Type in "Latino" and get "The Latino Threat."

 

But the real fun starts when you type in the word "gay."

 

Gay, you see, is banned by the RNC (at least they haven't lost their sense of irony). "Homosexual," however, is a product you can buy at the RNC site, and oh what they showcase with that word (note the two men in the upper left corner - perhaps they're just very close friends, like Lindsey Graham and Aaron Schock).

 

A few other fun words you can search for on the RNC Web site...

 

Bondage.... Escorts.... And anal.

 

And if you have the time, try "boob" and "clitoris" too - you won't be sorry. But don't try "vagina" - Republicans ban vaginas. But you already knew that.

 

Click the link at the top of this post to see the pics. Many are NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

 

This all on the GOP WEBSITE!!!

 

This is my fav pic (NSFW)

 

[bmags]

ahh, it's always funny when old people underestimate the immaturity of the American male.

Edited July 17, 2009 by bmags

[HuskyCaucasian]

Stay Classy Pat Bucannan...

my favorite part of this wondrous dialogue came after Maddow asked Buchanan why he thought that 108 of the 110 Supreme Court Justices had been white. He replied:

"White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Con

s

titution, 100% of the people that

s

igned the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Getty

s

burg and Vic

k

s

burg, probably clo

s

e to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. Thi

s

ha

s

been a country built ba

s

ically by white fol

k

s

, who were 90% of the nation in 1960 when I wa

s

growing up and the other 10% were African-American

s

who had been di

s

criminated again

s

t. That'

s

why."

Damn straight! And what were all those black people doing at the time when heroic white people were setting about the important business of founding this great nation of ours? You guessed it! Hanging around fields, picking cotton, like bone idle jerks! None of that ever contributed anything to the common weal, of course! I mean, what is "cotton?" Not exactly THE FABRIC OF OUR LIVES, right?

.......

Did you know that only twenty-percent of the people killed in 1770's Boston Massacre were black? It's true! One guy, named Crispus Attucks, who was obviously an affirmative action slaying!

 

How many blacks fought in the Union Army during the Civil War? A paltry 163 units! And it's not like any of them had to risk life and limb, fleeing bondage to join up and fight to preserve the Union? No, no! Black people had it totally easy! And don't get me started on their teensy contributions in defense of the civilized world in World War Two. The Tuskegee Whats Exactly?

Edited July 17, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[BigSqwert]

Stay Classy Pat Bucannan...

He's one of the reasons I stopped watching MSNBC.

[lostfan]

That's par for the course for Buchanan. He's pretty much an overt racist. I read white supremacist literature sometimes and whatever is in it sticks with me, then separately I hear Buchanan speak on Morning Joe or Rachel Maddow and what he says is awfully similar, just in a more friendly tone. I don't know how the guy's gotten such a free pass all this time.

[bmags]

affirmative action for racist white males

[GoSox05]

This is awesome.

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

This is painful to watch. He really needs to see a shrink...

[Heads22]

Looks like Iowa is starting down the road towards legalization of medical marijuana.

 

Buncha hippies we are.

[Balta1701]

Yay! The Senate rejected the forced-building of F-22's!

[HuskyCaucasian]

Yay! The Senate rejected the forced-building of F-22's!

Obama is weak on national security.

When do i get to see the RNC ad about this?

[lostfan]

Bachmann opposes a public option because it's cheaper.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/39874/bach...use-its-cheaper

 

lol. Um... no s***? If private insurance costs weren't spinning out of control we wouldn't even be talking about this.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Bachmann opposes a public option because it's cheaper.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/39874/bach...use-its-cheaper

 

lol. Um... no s***? If private insurance costs weren't spinning out of control we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Approximately 114 million Americans are expected to leave private health insurance. Why? Their employers will drop the insurance because the taxpayer-subsidized plan will be 30 to 40 percent cheaper. This action will collapse the private health insurance market, and then the Federal Government will own the health provider game.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt the "nationalized" plan being put forward basically the government group buying from the current private companies?

If so, that means those companies are still getting the business.

[lostfan]

Part of the idea is that the government option will force private insurers to lower costs to stay competitive. If they insist on inflating costs, they lose business to people that want to look for a better deal. That's the way the rest of the free market works, the healthcare market shouldn't be any different.

 

Although without cost controls/incentivizing efficiency, the whole idea is useless.

Edited July 22, 2009 by lostfan

[Balta1701]

Replace the word "Healthcare" with the word "Energy" and this suddenly sounds really familiar.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.

 

The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the "presidential communications privilege."

 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics said it would file suit against the Obama administration as early as today. The group already has sued the administration over its failure to release details about visits from coal industry executives.

 

A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said, "We are reviewing our policy on access to visitor logs and related litigation."

 

As a candidate, President Obama vowed that in devising a healthcare bill he would invite in TV cameras -- specifically C-SPAN -- so that Americans could have a window into negotiations that normally play out behind closed doors.

 

Having promised transparency, the administration should be willing to disclose who it is consulting in shaping healthcare policy, said an attorney for the citizens' group. In its letter requesting the records, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics asked about visits from Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans; William Weldon, chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson; and J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Assn., among others.

 

"It's extremely disappointing," said Anne Weismann, the group's chief counsel. Obama is relying on a legal argument that "continues one of the bad, anti-transparency, pro-secrecy approaches that the Bush administration had taken. And it seems completely at odds with the president's commitment . . . to bring a new level of transparency to his government."

[StrangeSox]

Change.

[lostfan]

Yeah Obama straight up broke all of his "transparency" promises. No other way to put it. They're probably promises he never should've made and he realized that once he got into office.

[kapkomet]

Part of the idea is that the government option will force private insurers to lower costs to stay competitive. If they insist on inflating costs, they lose business to people that want to look for a better deal. That's the way the rest of the free market works, the healthcare market shouldn't be any different.

 

Although without cost controls/incentivizing efficiency, the whole idea is useless.

Since the government will be offering "lower cost" insurance, the "market" will have to match, right? Now, since the government policies will HAVE to be done at a loss, therefore making ALL "private" insurance at a loss, that basically puts them out of business.

 

Wait for it... wait for it... "this should be (non-profit)"... "costs are so far out of control... yet Obama will CUT costs..." - yea, tell me a time when the government has CUT costs again?

 

Nevermind. Now I'll just get leftist blog after leftist blog politburo bulls*** telling me the "realities" of how this is the greatest thing ever. I hope you like your grandparents and parents because they will be dead quicker now (on average) if this thing passes. OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOO, STRAW MAN ARGUEMENT!!!!!!!! Wrong. Obama admits it, freely. The elderly will be where the cost cuts have to happen. What a GREAT system we're embarking on here! It's WAY better then what we have now!

 

Power to the people! Woot!

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Actually, the straw-man there is that you act like you've somehow eliminated all the other options for cost controls.

[kapkomet]

Actually, the straw-man there is that you act like you've somehow eliminated all the other options for cost controls.

I've had this arguement with you guys too many times to count now and I just get dismissed. "Government HAS to be the way to go." Kill the elderly - "give 'em a painkiller".

[Balta1701]

I've had this arguement with you guys too many times to count now and I just get dismissed. Government HAS to be the way to go. Kill the elderly - "give 'em a painkiller".

The elderly of course is a wonderful argument. Oh what will happen if the elderly are covered by a government based system? The horror, the horror. I can't imagine how much the U.S. would suck if that happened.

[kapkomet]

The elderly of course is a wonderful argument. Oh what will happen if the elderly are covered by a government based system? The horror, the horror. I can't imagine how much the U.S. would suck if that happened.

Then ask your buddy Democrats why they are cutting the piss out of it to fund the general health care?

[lostfan]

Since the government will be offering "lower cost" insurance, the "market" will have to match, right? Now, since the government policies will HAVE to be done at a loss, therefore making ALL "private" insurance at a loss, that basically puts them out of business.

 

Wait for it... wait for it... "this should be (non-profit)"... "costs are so far out of control... yet Obama will CUT costs..." - yea, tell me a time when the government has CUT costs again?

 

Nevermind. Now I'll just get leftist blog after leftist blog politburo bulls*** telling me the "realities" of how this is the greatest thing ever. I hope you like your grandparents and parents because they will be dead quicker now (on average) if this thing passes. OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOO, STRAW MAN ARGUEMENT!!!!!!!! Wrong. Obama admits it, freely. The elderly will be where the cost cuts have to happen. What a GREAT system we're embarking on here! It's WAY better then what we have now!

 

Power to the people! Woot!

lol are you on autopilot or something? You haven't figured out that I basically want the same thing you do yet?

[Balta1701]

Then ask your buddy Democrats why they are cutting the piss out of it to fund the general health care?

Because when its costs grow at the same rate as health care costs in the rest of the economy, and health care costs are growing at 2x the rate of inflation, it doesn't take long for Medicare costs to go to infinity either.

 

There's an awful lot of efficiency that could be squeezed out of Medicare through comparative effectiveness research and taking away Congress's power to set reimbursement rates (thus getting them out of the hands of lobbyists). Not as much as could be saved by cleaning up the disaster of inefficiency that is the private health care market, but still, certainly significant.