home

Tuesday Open Thread

It's a busy work day for me today. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

BTD - For me too.

< 9/11 Detainees Indicted Under Seal in 2009 | Obama Pushes Congress to Avoid Shutdown >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Looks like the next few days are the most (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 09:55:44 AM EST
    important yet for Obama.
    I predict he will cave in the biggest possible way to Republicans, because that's his nature.
    It's hard to deny that his weak, vacillating, accomodating stance on EVERYTHING has led the Republicans to push things to the brink.


    Well, things just keep getting (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:24:02 AM EST
    better and better on the health "care" front...

    The Senate is probably going to repeal the 1099 provisions of the ACA, but they are not going to do it under the Democratic bill of Debbie Stabenow - which would have paid for it with federal funds and exempt Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid funds from being used - but via the Mike Johann's bill, which would look to pay for it by forcing families receiving subsidies through the exchanges to pay back a larger percentage of those subsidies should their income situation unexpectedly change.

    What does this mean, in real terms?

    Well, Ezra Klein explains:

    Under their proposed policy, a family with income at 225 percent of the poverty line who needed subsidies for the first half of the year but canceled them mid-year when the husband got a better job could get a bill for more than $4,500 at the end of the year.

    A more worrying example goes the other way: Imagine a family where the breadwinner makes much more than 400 percent of poverty, but loses his job late in the year. He tries to apply for subsidies so the family can keep getting health insurance but is told that he shouldn't bother -- because his total income that year will still be above 400 percent of poverty, he'll get a bill at the end of the year forcing him to pay back the money.

    The Affordable Care Act, unfortunately, already includes a "payback" policy along these lines -- the House Republicans are just proposing to make it much, much worse. This will do two things: make people hate the Affordable Care Act for bait-and-switching them, and keep people from entering the exchanges because they've heard horror stories of huge bills. It's clear why the GOP wouldn't mind that outcome, but there's no reason for Democrats to accept it.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't: genius!


    Most popular and most progressive (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:43:10 AM EST
    legislation evah. :-(

    Can't wait to see poll numbers sky rocket if this information actually gets out and understood by the general public.

    Parent

    It's okay (none / 0) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:33:34 AM EST
    because I doubt that someone who loses their job is going to be able to afford to pay out ~9% of their AGI for health insurance premiums before subsidies kick in.

    Parent
    PLUS (none / 0) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:34:09 AM EST
    pay the high deductible before their hi-copay insurance kicks in...

    Parent
    With the mandates they will have to (none / 0) (#198)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:11:03 PM EST
    either pay that or a fine, correct?

    Yeah, people are going to love this oh so progressive plan!

    Parent

    There's not a dime's worth of difference (none / 0) (#90)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:13:45 PM EST
    between Obama and the Republicans on this issue, at the end of the day, if the new changes pass.

    Parent
    Well, it passed and Obama's going to (none / 0) (#113)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:58:15 PM EST
    sign it.  It is the bill that is paid for by clawing back benefits if the recipients' income situation changes at any point during the year (and would prevent someone whose income goes down unexpectedly from obtaining subsidies if the person's total income for the year exceeds the elibigle income level).

    This was the statement issued by the WH:

    "As the President said during the State of the Union, we are open to working with Republicans and Democrats to improve the health reform law and we are pleased Congress has acted to correct a flaw that placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses. Small businesses are the engine of our economy and eliminating the 1099 reporting requirement is the right thing to do. As we move forward, we look forward to improving the tax credit policy in this legislation to ensure we protect small businesses and middle-class families. And the Administration remains eager to work with anyone with ideas about how we can make health care better or more affordable for all Americans."

    I would amend that last sentence to read, "...remains eager to work with anyone with ideas about how we can make health care better or more affordable for all Americans, unless they want to talk any kind of single-payer plan, because we just aren't interested in real reform that puts insurance companies at risk.

    I wonder if the day will ever come when this president does anything because it's the right policy or the right thing, without first having to check with Republicans to see if it's a good idea.

    I guess I've come to the point where I believe he masks his true affinity for Republlican, conservative policies with all this bi-partisan, can't-we-all-just-get-along kabuki; it allows him to make the policy he really wants.

    Ugh.

    Parent

    He's so completely a republican (none / 0) (#124)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:11:50 PM EST
    Not a progressive bone in his body and if it is progressive, that bone is weak and flimsy and filled with holes like swiss cheese.

    Parent
    'bout time you figured it out . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    Not a progressive bone is his body (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:26:24 PM EST
    and if it is progressive, that bone is weak and flimsy and filled with holes like swiss cheese.

    Yes, can't find too much fault with your opinion on there.

    Parent

    He's a Rockefeller Republican, (none / 0) (#145)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    or a Reagan Democrat, take your pick.

    He is most definitely not a progressive; he may not like looking back to hold anyone accountable for their actions, but he loves looking back to implement bad policy that hasn't worked before, and isn't working now.

    Where I come from, that's miles more regressive than progressive.

    Parent

    Why not? (none / 0) (#205)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 06:51:16 PM EST
    .
    Why should someone not pay more if they have a very modest income the first half year, but knocks down seven figures in the second half?  No special discounts for millionaires!!!

    .

    Parent

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:40:19 AM EST
    I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.  If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by
    inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until
    their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

    Thomas  Jefferson

    smart man.

    just got this in an email from a wing nut relative.  along with a loooooong list of his wondrous achievements.  I emailed back that he also slept with and had children with this teen aged black slave.
    no response yet.

    I second that belief... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    it's not even close...Osama Bin ladin can't hold Osama Bin Blankfein's jock.

    I assume you've all already closed your accounts and 401k's, cut up your plastic, etc. and are onto new business...right?  Right?  

    Or am I the only patriot up in here? :)

    Parent

    e-mail compromised (none / 0) (#65)
    by sj on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:16:25 PM EST
    Apparently my email address may have been exposed due to unauthorized access to email service provider Epsilon.  I have so far received notice from three different sources of this potential problem.  

    One of them is my bank.  ugh.

    Parent

    great! (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:44:08 PM EST
    It's just money... (none / 0) (#105)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:46:59 PM EST
    and identity. Fugheddaboudit.

    Parent
    Don't worry... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    some hacker in a former Soviet state is much less of a threat to you than your bank.

    I love ya sj, but why on earth did you ever give your email address to your bank?  Sh*t why did you give them your money?  

    Don't mind old knuckleheaded me...all kidding aside, good luck and hoping for no hassles due to the breach.  

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#150)
    by sj on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:29:04 PM EST
    Good question.  But honestly there was a good reason for it way back when on-line banking first became available and I didn't know that you could have a "real" and a public email address...

    Yeah.  I'll be keeping a close eye.  According the warnings, only email addresses were compromised and not account information.  

    If that's true, "whew!"  but I'm not accepting that at face value.

    But apparently I should be looking out for even better deals on viagra and claritin and ... cupcakes.

    Parent

    Me too (none / 0) (#191)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:56:50 PM EST
    Just about anyone I have an online account with seems to have been using Epsilon. I haven't received an onslaught of spam yet though.

    Parent
    Sooooooooooo, you agree with the quote (none / 0) (#114)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:59:26 PM EST
    but are just messing with the relative on the sleeping with slave issue? Or because the relative is a "wingnut"?

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:03:11 PM EST
    Fair enough :) (none / 0) (#130)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:16:28 PM EST
    A History Lesson is Clearly in Order (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    "Asked about his greatest regret as a legislator, Ted Kennedy would usually cite his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon on health care.

    . . . [in 1971], Nixon asked Congress to require for the first time that all companies provide a health plan for their employees, with federal subsidies for low-income workers. Nixon was particularly intrigued by a new idea called health maintenance organizations, which held the promise of providing high-quality care at lower prices by relying on salaried physicians to manage and coordinate patient care.

    At first, Kennedy rejected Nixon's proposal as nothing more than a bonanza for the insurance industry that would create a two-class system of health care in America. But after Nixon won reelection, Kennedy began a series of secret negotiations with the White House that almost led to a public agreement. In the end, Nixon backed out after receiving pressure from small-business owners and the American Medical Association. And Kennedy himself decided to back off after receiving heavy pressure from labor leaders, who urged him to hold out for a single-payer system once Democrats recaptured the White House in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

    Thirty-five year later, the single-payer dream of Democratic liberals still remains politically out of reach . . .

    The simple lesson from this story -- and certainly the one Kennedy himself drew -- is that when it comes to historic breakthroughs in social policy, make the best deal you can get, leaving it to subsequent generations to perfect."

    Link

    A few things (none / 0) (#77)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:56:59 PM EST
    one, the bill is signed into law, and I doubt a majority of Democrats want to repeal it.  I don't.  We just have to deal with it, I guess.

    Two, the fact that it is remarkably similar to what Dole wanted passed is the reason why many Democrats and lefties dislike it - because it is conservative.  People expected more.

    Three, how will we improve the bill?  By expanding Medicaid?  By adding a public option?  By enabling a Medicare buy-in?  Or through more free market measures?  How long will we have to wait to improve the bill?  

    I guess the question now is, do you want the ACA repealed, or do you want to fix it?  I say this while still feeling that adding a PO to the ACA was possible.


    Parent

    You do realize that the actions by (none / 0) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:37:43 PM EST
    Obama and the Democrats since passage have adopted Republican fixes that made a POS legislation even worse for people needing health care and not better. See Anne's comment on the offset to the repeal of the 1099 provisions in the health insurance legislation.

    Parent
    I do (none / 0) (#175)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:55:34 PM EST
    I don't think the current crop of Dems are going to come up with any new ideas that don't weaken the bill.  At least until it is finally implemented.

    Hell, it might eve get overturned by the SC I guess.  I don't know.  

    Parent

    What Kennedy said about Nixon's (none / 0) (#202)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    Health care plan in 1971.

    "It's really a partnership between the administration and insurance companies," Kennedy says of the Nixon health plan. "It's not a partnership between patients and doctors of this nation." But Kennedy's efforts on health insurance were pushed to the backburner by public concerns about the Vietnam War and later the Watergate scandal. h/t to vocndabx for link

    Nixon's proposed plan was more progressive than Obama's insurance legislation even before Kennedy negotiated any changes.  

    Parent
    400 billion in new annual revenue, here you go (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 09:54:25 AM EST
    From article (none / 0) (#190)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:55:30 PM EST
    Sure, some politicians would rather cut services for children and the mentally ill before they dare to propose tax hikes on millionaires and tax-dodging corporations. But that doesn't mean we're broke. It just means we need to get our priorities straight.


    Parent
    Yup - every article on the FL budget (none / 0) (#200)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:14:34 PM EST
    starts out with a variation on 'We all know tough choices have to be made - where to cut?' Raising taxes or closing loopholes is never even discussed as an option. The Dems have thoroughly lost the conversation.

    Parent
    Budget Strategy (none / 0) (#2)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 09:55:00 AM EST
    We'll see how it plays out but Obama's strategy of letting the republicans tell the world how little they care for the middle/lower class seems to be working.

    Ryan's plan simultaneously places burdens on the lower classes, cuts taxes for the richest and does so in a way that places additional burdens on the states.  It's ridiculous.

    If, as many had suggested, Obama had set forth his proposal, he'd have been attacked by the left and the right and been negotiating on GOP terms.  Now the GOP is going to be divided at a time when seniors and others are up in arms.

    That's not a bad position for Obama and the dems to be in.

    Given: Obama and the dems are going to agree to cuts that tick people off. No doubt. There will be those here angry at what he cuts.  But I think that was a given because there will be hard cuts that have to be made.  But I think the current bargaining position is a good one.  Obama and the dems will look reasonable and the GOP is going to look extreme.

    That's what we want.

    In other words, you agree with me that (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 09:56:51 AM EST
    Obama will cave in massive fashion to the demands of the Bolsheviks.
    We have a Kerensky when we need a man of steel.


    Parent
    "Cave" (none / 0) (#10)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:22:31 AM EST
    Dems will have to compromise somewhere on something they believe is important to get a deal done.

    If that is caving, yes, he will most certainly cave, and he is right for doing so.

    Parent

    heaven forbid O put forth... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:11:40 AM EST
    ...a bold, imaginative, fact-laden plan.  Corporations, the organizations (well, the individuals if you believe the Supreme Court) with the biggest leg up in the economic game, who benefit the most and the easiest, are asked to pay nothing.  It is akin to giving a few people millions of extra lottery tickets, and then giving them a tax holiday when they win.  How phucking hard is it to preach this injustice and its obvious remedy to an already overburdened and decimated working class???

    I.  Don't.  Get.  It.  

    Then again, I kind of do, since the head of Obama's junta on jobs and competitiveness is none other than the biggest tax-evading CEO scumbag of the moment.  And Obama "stands by" him. How exactly?  Hmm?


    Obama and the dems will look reasonable and the GOP is going to look extreme.

    Sigh.  What matters, what will make the difference, both in people's lives and then at the polls, is GOOD POLICY, not the appearance of slightly less bad policy.

    You do not make a strategy of always letting the other side dictate the terms of the debate, no matter how nutty they are.  In fact, the nuttier they are, logic tells me the EASIER it is to kick their rhetorical aces and frame the debate as YOU believe it needs to be framed.

    Parent

    That's ignorant of the political reality (none / 0) (#12)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:24:38 AM EST
    If O puts forth a bold audacious plan, O's bold audacious plan gets ripped to shreds (think "death panels" and "you won't be able to choose your doctor").

    In this environment, you have to be more strategic.  Watch how the week plays out.  The GOP will spend the entire week convincing the world that they don't hate seniors and the poor, which is the losing fight we want them engaged in.  When they are defending, they aren't attacking and our leverage is better.

    Parent

    Death panels and "you won't be (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:57:27 AM EST
    able to choose your doctor" came as the result of Obama backing a warmed over Republican plan of the 1900's. Bold and audacious, no. A massive gift to the insurance and medical industries, yes.

    Had Obama put forth a bold plan based on an existing programs that everyone knows and likes, those attacks would have met deaf ears.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#39)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:06:03 AM EST
    It actually came from the fact that Sarah Palin and a bunch of people on Fox lie a lot.

    Parent
    Obama's promotional campaign (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:35:35 AM EST
    contained a few lies. The one that stands out is his continual claim "That if you like the insurance you have now, you can keep it." That was not a true statement.

    The excise tax which Obama supported that was included in the health insurance legislation was designed to insure that people who currently have great insurance coverage will lose it and the legislation also contains provisions that will change Medicare Advantage Plans. So no, many people who like the insurance they have now, will not be able to keep it because of this legislation.

    Now you may say that the changes to the Medicare Advantage Plans are a good thing, and I would agree but they will force people to into losing coverage that they have now. The excise tax to eliminate good health care coverage and bring everyone's coverage down to the lowest common denominator is horrible policy IMO but regardless definitely is designed to force people to lose the coverage they not only liked but often gave up wages to get.  

    Parent

    The deal is (none / 0) (#73)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    that you can keep your coverage but if you want all of the benefits of lower prices and such that we have to have in order to drive down the cost curve and give coverage to millions of others who don't have coverage, you are going to have to pay a tax on cadillac and other out of the ordinary plans.

    But the reality is that the premiums under those plans are going up anyway, many times as much as the excise.

    By most reasonable standards, his statement wasn't false.

    Parent

    Yes they were false by all (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:46:25 PM EST
    reasonable standards.

    The entire rational for the excise tax on good health care coverage as stated by the Democrats and their supporters was to eliminate the good coverage and theoretically the reduction in benefits would result in higher wages (false premise IMO) which would be subjected to federal tax.  

    Parent

    BTW, the House had methods to (none / 0) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    pay for this legislation that would not have imposed an excise tax on good coverage (i.e. people could have kept the coverage they had) but Obama liked the idea of forcing people into plans with less coverage and higher out of pocket expenses. In fact, it was touted as one of the major cost controls of the legislation. Make actual health care less affordable by increasing the amount they have to pay and they would use less health care services.

    So even the implied premise that this excise was necessary to give other people health insurance (not health care) is a false premise.

    Parent

    Barack Obama wouldn't know a (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    "bold, audacious plan" if it jumped up, sunk its teeth in his a$$ and refused to let go.

    Obama knows oatmeal, Cream of Wheat, wallpaper paste, beige, off-white, mushy, creamed corn, can't-we-all-be-right? plans.  That is, when he even has a plan.  Jobs, anyone?

    And, hell to the no, the ACA wasn't bold or audacious; the only audacity there was in presenting it as if it was going to solve more problems than it is already proving to create, and selling the answer to a "crisis" on a sorry-you'll-just-have-to-wait basis.

    The fight I want them engaged in is the one where they - and he - show some actual leadership, some belief in what Democrats used to stand for, instead of what we're going to get: Deficit Commission proposals, many of which are supported by and were proposed by Obama's much-admired friend, Paul Ryan.

    Sure, the Dems may score some political points, but how the hell does that help me?  Or anyone else who doesn't have Wall Street on speed dial?

    Parent

    ACA (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:06:37 AM EST
    was, by all historical standards, bold and audacious.

    Sorry.

    Parent

    Would you have said the same (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by dk on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:22:53 AM EST
    if it has been passed in its 1994 incarnation as supported by Bob Dole?  

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#60)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:08:27 PM EST
    the Dole plan, with its elimination of pre-existing conditions and coverage of about 95% of the population was pretty darn bold. This is a plan that is different in a number of ways, but if you think you are going to invoke some kind of "gotcha" by somehow demonizing the Dole/Chafee plan, you should try someone else.

    The Dole plan, while imperfect, would have represented a massive step forward.  The fact that republicans, as opposed to democrats, proposed the plan is irrelevant.

    Both Hillary, Obama and Dole's plans all borrowed heavily from the plan Nixon and Ted Kennedy agreed to in principle before Watergate derailed it.

    Parent

    I'm not demonizing the Dole/Chafee plan, (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by dk on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:47:00 PM EST
    I'm just pointing out that it (and the Obama plan) is a plan based upon Republican philisophy.  I commend that you are honest enough to declare your support for Republican philosophy and for Republican health care policy on a blog that tends to draw people who believe in policies that are to the left of your point of view.  I think we all should advocate for the policies we believe in.  I personally believe in different policies than you do.

    Parent
    You know repeating that as fact (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    will not make it true. That only works for Republicans. It doesn't work just because you support Republican health insurance policies. Sorry.

    Parent
    Well, it was bold and audacious ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:59:27 AM EST
    for Obama and the Dems to conveniently ignore the fact that in poll after poll for more than a decade, a majority of Americans had supported a Medicare for all plan.

    And it was bold and audacious to then propose a plan that was almost the polar opposite of a Medicare for all plan.

    So, yes, it was bold and audacious.  But not in the way Mr. Angry means.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#61)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:09:56 PM EST
    The policy passed was fairly similar to the policy Kennedy endorsed in the 60's.

    And we all know how little he cared about this issue.

    I am repeating my point because it is right and demonstrably so. I'd be happy to back up my opinions.

    Parent

    To date you have not backed up (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:35:15 PM EST
    your opinions. You have just stated them as fact. No link to a document that contains the complete Kennedy's 1960 plan for comparison. Just a statement that the health insurance legislation that Obama passed was similar to his.

    I know links to the Republican plans that are the basis of Obama's health insurance have been provided throughout this debate.

    Parent

    Ted Kennedy: (none / 0) (#177)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:57:37 PM EST
    Via McClatchy here's Newsweek

    I eventually came to believe that we'd have to give up on the ideal of a government-run, single-payer system if we wanted to get universal care. Some of my allies called me a sellout because I was willing to compromise. Even so, we almost had a plan that President Richard Nixon was willing to sign in 1974--but that chance was lost as the Watergate storm swept Washington and the country, and swept Nixon out of the White House.


    Parent
    That was not a 1960 Kennedy plan (none / 0) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:21:39 PM EST
    That was a 1974 Nixon, Republican plan. It provided universal coverage and was much, much more progressive than Obama's health insurance legislation not to mention that it would have been fully implemented in less than 2 years.  

    Parent
    Correction (none / 0) (#181)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:23:14 PM EST
    via Kaiser Health

    Detailed timeline of Ted Kennedy and healthcare

    Parent

    Thank for the correction (none / 0) (#203)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:21:06 PM EST
    The 1960's Kennedy plan:

    --1966: After a trip to the Columbia Point Health Center in Boston, which provided health care to low-income residents, the first-term senator introduces and helps pass legislation that adds $51 million to the Economic Opportunity Act for a national system of community health centers.
    ...
    --1971: Kennedy offers his national health-insurance plan. The "Health Security Act" calls for a universal single-payer plan financed through payroll taxes.
    ...
    President Richard M. Nixon, concerned about Democrats gaining advantages from the issue and a possible Kennedy campaign for president, later offers his own version of a bill, the National Health Insurance Partnership Act. It preserves private insurance but requires businesses to provide coverage to employees or make payments to a government-run fund. It also endorses the concept of health maintenance organizations.

    "It's really a partnership between the administration and insurance companies," Kennedy says of the Nixon health plan. "It's not a partnership between patients and doctors of this nation." But Kennedy's efforts on health insurance were pushed to the backburner by public concerns about the Vietnam War and later the Watergate scandal.



    Parent
    Guhh (none / 0) (#131)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:16:56 PM EST
    we've been treated to this over and over again.

    It's all part of a GRAND plan, eh.  Eleven dimensional chess.

    GEEZUZ.

    Look!  The minute Rubin's kid was chosen to pick the White House staff it was over.  People with delusions about hope and change should have known it was empty nonsense; the status quo was to prevail.

    Parent

    You're buying into ... (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:14:03 AM EST
    "the cuts need to me made" fallacy.  The supposed shortfalls will close if and when the economy rebounds.  This is why stimulus was and is more important than cuts.

    Certain forces are using this "cuts need to be made" fallacy to slash programs.  Programs that once slashed will never be restored.  

    The same game is being played out in the UK.  At least the Brits are willing to demonstrate, and even riot, against it.

    Parent

    I don't think it is fallacy (none / 0) (#13)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:27:46 AM EST
    Krugman and others on the left who know all concede that cuts/changes will be required at some point.  The deficit danger is real and we can close our eyes and hope that increased revenue from natural growth saves us.

    Something needs to be done, but we have to be fair and compassionate, while making sure that defense cuts and tax increases for the wealthy are also a part of the mix.

    The debt is a burden of all americans. I have no problem with us all sharing the burden so long as it is fair and those that can't afford to assist are protected.

    If you believe that there is a future in which entitlements aren't altered, you aren't going to be very happy with the future.

    Parent

    Yeah but I don't think you'll see Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:33:54 AM EST
    or the NYT op-ed page, conceding that cuts are required now.  And we are talking about now.

    Parent
    You DONT cut budgets (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by PatHat on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:35:08 AM EST
    when in a recession. How can anyone who signed the legislation to extend the Bush tax cuts say we NEED to cut spending now?


    Parent
    You cut budgets in a recession (none / 0) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:37:33 AM EST
    if you have to get something passed to keep government running and the opposition will not negotiate a deal with no cuts.

    Really that simple.  There will have to be some cuts or the GOP will not agree to it.  There are no circumstances in this version of planet earth in which there is a bill passed that has no reduction at all in any entitlements.

    Parent

    Yes, those are the Administration ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:45:00 AM EST
    talking points.  They have nothing to do with real economics or real politics.

    It's just the current cover story.

    Parent

    Many very fine economists would (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    strongly disagree with you assertion that you cut the federal budget during a recession. In fact there is a whole economic theory that disputes your POV that the government cuts spending during a recession.

    Of course, this is the first time in history that the government has not raised taxes during war time. But hey, poor people have little political power so taking away their means of survival is necessary so the rich get an even bigger share of the pie and Obama can raise $1 billion dollar from corporations and the very rich.  

    Parent

    If someone has to give in (none / 0) (#24)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    why can't it be them this time?

    Parent
    There ya go (none / 0) (#36)
    by PatHat on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:02:18 AM EST
    compromise is meant to meet in the middle. Not always right of center.

    Besides, some things shouldnt be compromised. Cutting jobs and budgets in a recession is just plain wrong and the Dems should not agree to it. Let the GOP shut down the govt.

    Parent

    The $4 trillion in proposed cuts (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:04:51 AM EST
    only offset the $4 trillion loss of revenue as the result of the Obama tax cuts.

    I hope you are aware of the fact that additional tax cuts for corporations and for the wealthy are also included in the so called deficit reduction packages.

    BTW, the "shared sacrifice" meme is so much B.S. that you would need boots up to your neck to survive standing in it. The only sacrifices that are going to be made will be primarily by those least able to give them and by the middle class. Corporations and the top 2% will not sacrifice anything. In fact, they will be given a bigger share of the pie.  

    Parent

    I need for you to explain to me (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    how the deficit dangers are real.  I think we should have a full conversation on it before we make blanket statements.  Let's get to the bones of the problems and take a look at the real solutions.

    Parent
    Hey now... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:29:52 AM EST
    cuts need to be made allright...cuts to the CIA, cuts to the DOD...TSA ICE ATF FBI DOC...and a dozen acronyms that escape me at the moment.

    The DEA needs to be cut right out of existence.

    Parent

    Agree on that in principle (none / 0) (#18)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:34:22 AM EST
    Especially the DEA.  But given that legalization of all drugs is not something on the horizon (we couldn't get a pro drug bill passed in California . . .  IN CALIFORNIA), I think we have to be a bit more realistic in how we address the problem.

    Plus, if we can get tougher gun control laws, I kind of want the ATF to be around to enforce them.

    Parent

    The first sign that Dems were not and (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:48:49 AM EST
    are not going to stand up for the people - separate from Obama's great admiration for Reagan - is that they never put up any argument against the hysteria over the debt and the deficit; they assumed a submissive, belly-up position, and have only been arguing over how much to cut and what to cut.  There has been nary an argument about the negative effect on the economy that cutting spending will have, or any advocacy for increased, targeted spending to help increase demand, spur job creation and increase revenues.

    Obama and the Dems have been steadily marching to where the GOP already is; this was evident in the creation of the Deficit Commission, the unconscionable Deal that was struck that give a huge gift to the wealthy, the talk of cutting corporate tax rates, the "need" to "fix" entitlements.  

    The position that should be of most concern to people is the one that millions of people will be in as a result of the economic policies being espoused by both parties, which leaves your Average Joe and Jane, Granny and Pop-Pop, with no one to turn to.

    These cuts DO NOT have to be made; they just don't.  The government is in no danger of default - is, in fact, constitutionally prevented from doing so - so if you care about the welfare of anyone but Obama and the Corporatists Democrat and their political fortunes, you will stop going along with this garbage they are feeding you.

    Really, this is just "good cop-bad cop" strategy; one may seem like your friend, but the truth is they both want the same thing - and it isn't protecting your interests or preserving your ability to function in this economy.


    Parent

    I think a shut down may be coming (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:20:00 AM EST
    and I dont think it is necessarily a bad thing for democrats.  

    when the wifes of soldiers start coming on cable news saying how they cant afford to by food for their children, then we will see how hungry the republicans are to eliminate funding for the EPA

    Parent

    Capt, don't think so ... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:52:22 AM EST
    There will be a lot of false drama and hand wringing about it.  Then "at the last moment" a deal with be worked out.

    It will of course be crap on a stick.  In fact, it will include things Dems said were "deal-breakers" only days, even hours, before.  But there will be smiles and glad-handing.  And applause from the press corps.

    Parent

    dont think they will (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    defund planned parenthood or the EPA.  

    Parent
    Yeah, but the GOP ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:04:18 AM EST
    doesn't want those defunded.  Railing against stuff like that is too important to their fundraising efforts.

    Parent
    true (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:09:51 AM EST
    but the problem the republicans have is the one they created.  the tea party.  who will never be satisfied with anything short of shutting down the government permanently.  

    Parent
    The Republicans have it great ... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:26:55 AM EST
    they actually have the presidency without being accountable for it.

    They also get to pretend they have this outlandish fringe (the tea party), so in 2016 when they have to run a real candidate for president, it will look like they've moderated and reformed.

    Parent

    This (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    only works if Obama pulls a WJC and stands before the country and says what he will accept and won't accept. So far Obama has been trying to go under the radar and give the GOP what they want.

    What happens if this time it's Obama that caves instead of the GOP like in '94?

    Parent

    I think so too (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:57:04 PM EST
    And then some Republican was on this morning up in arms about soldiers not getting their paychecks during the shutdown, and they will have to work something else out on that one.  I just shake my head.  Our paycheck is not any more important than anyone else's but damned the military is the poster child of possibly everything that is the most horrible thing that could happen to an American.  You have to have a family member serving to be this special though, if you are paying taxes so that others can serve you are nothing greater than something scraped off the bottom of a shoe :)  It is bizarre!

    Parent
    If I recall, Obama (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    did set down his proposal a couple of months ago. I believe it called for 10 Billion in cuts, and yes, it did get screams from the left, which he should have been able to use to bolster his bargaining position with the right.

    I think the problem is that he does his 'bargaining' with the left internally before he announces his own plan. That makes his plan look like the left-most possible on the spectrum, and the bargaining with the GOP starts there.

    I thought Ryan's plan was for the 2012 budget, not for the negotiations this week. He is doing the  smart thing of making the right-most options public so Boehner's hand is strengthened this week. They are just better at this stuff than the Dems. Now we are going to end up with the 70 billion in cuts cuz it will look like Boehner is compromising with his own right wing.

    Parent

    Paul Ryan's plan to kill (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:04:20 AM EST
    Medicare and Medicaid has been greeted as a great way to save money, and it is bipartisan too (Alice Rivlin is a cohort).  David Brooks has tied his pom poms onto his shoes and is walking the Pages of the NYT with them.   President Obama and the Democratic leadership need to get out early on this and state unequivocally that this is a harebrained idea that will actually cost more and cover less.  If they wait, the policy will be framed for them and it will be a lost cause.   Of course, they may just love this bipartisan plan. We do know that the president views Ryan has a great thinker.

    Nah, IMO the WH plan is to let the (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:33:51 AM EST
    Ryan plan gather steam, then Obama will come in to save the day with his compromise plan which is ... wait for it now ... any guesses? ... The Obama Cat Food Commission Plan which BTW has cuts to "entitlement programs", tax cuts for corporations and lower tax brackets for the obscenely wealthy to be offset by eliminating such tax loopholes as the Earned Income Credit.

    Once implemented, this plan will be heralded as a great political achievement by President Obama.

    Parent

    If it is a better compromise than that (none / 0) (#20)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:35:41 AM EST
    will you give him credit?  I don't think so.

    Let me go out on a limb and say that the compromise will be better than that with respect to the tax issues.


    Parent

    What will be a better compromise? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:20:57 AM EST
    He only cut the emergency heating program by 9% instead of 10% to be offset by additional cuts to Food Stamps. How about he only throw a million people out of the WIC program?

    These cuts are only needed to offset the Obama $4 trillion dollars tax cuts to the wealthy.

    So unless Obama restricts cuts to cuts in defense or cuts to the president's and Congresses salary and benefits, there is no better compromise IMO. Please let me see some of the shared sacrifice from them and their savvy friends before you talk to me about cuts to programs that poor people need for survival.

    Parent

    This whole debate on heating cuts (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:23:58 AM EST
    Is really something.

    I bet if they were having this conversation in December in a blizzard, there is no way anyone would be proposing this.  But in April, when everything is looking sunny, it's easy to sit there and cut heating assistance.  You won't have any frozen people on TV until it's too late.

    Or maybe they're just hoping for some of that global warming everyone keeps talking about...

    Parent

    The last I read (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    The first Obama rational (February) for cutting funds for this program was that lower commodity prices meant less aid was necessary. But oops, we just had a very severe winter and oil-related prices have spiked..    

    Per Secretary Chu, the federal government needs to cut the LIHEAP funding, but it also wants to expand the leverage of federal dollars while extending weatherization assistance to middle-income people.. Source for info.

    If the LIHEAP funding is cut to the 2008 level, it will mean dropping 3.1 million people from the program. The working poor will have even less money for heat and other necessities since Obama was nice enough to raise their taxes to help pay for the very generous Obama tax cuts to the rich.  

    Now poor people who cannot afford heat will get weatherization assistance they cannot afford for homes they do not own. Wonder if this is a plan to use all the plastic and duct tape that was recommended by the Bush Administration in case of a terrorist attack. These people don't have a clue and just don't much care what their stupid policies do to poor people.

    Parent

    Hardball (none / 0) (#23)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:39:58 AM EST

    "WASHINGTON -- Congressional GOP leaders said on Tuesday that the Obama administration has informed them that it will oppose a last-ditch stopgap funding measure proposed by House Republicans to keep the government running for an additional week."

    Parent

    good (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    I was worried about this.  lets git in on.

    Parent
    Yeah, I like that. (none / 0) (#162)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    Get it over with.  

    Parent
    Don't forget that part of the Ryan plan (none / 0) (#160)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:42:22 PM EST
    is making the Bush tax cuts (set to expire in 2012 as part of The Deal) permanent.

    can't wait to see the,um... New Deal.

    Parent

    For those of us (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    ignoring all the important things out there, eaglit number 3 could make an appearance in Decorah today.

    BTW if you are quick, (none / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:46:13 AM EST
    this is a great time to see the two eaglets that are already hatched. Parent is completely off the nest and eaglets are in full view.

    Parent
    So fascinating (none / 0) (#57)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:54:26 AM EST
    Thanks for the tip -- I clicked over in time to watch them eat lunch.

    Parent
    The two were (none / 0) (#80)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    just fed.  Man, those huge eagle beaks are great for tearing up flesh and organs, but they do make it a bit awkward to feed the eaglets.  I guess the babies will get a bit better at getting the food from the parent's beak as they grow.

    Parent
    I thought the same thing (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:08:33 PM EST
    I kept wincing as the eagle was trying to feed the eaglet -- "Be gentle, be gentle!"

    Parent
    Yes, the little eaglets (none / 0) (#107)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:49:17 PM EST
    look so very fragile!

    Parent
    One of the eaglets is completely out of the (none / 0) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:07:10 PM EST
    nest at 2:09 CT, Not sure how long the parent will let it stay out but you can get a good look now.

    Parent
    For a little while it was attacking the food (none / 0) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:20:32 PM EST
    itself. Now it is completely focused on the parent on the nest kinda like "Here I am. Did you forget about me?" After being somewhat ignored, the little guy made it back to the nest all by itself.

    It would nice if the first born was out of the nest at the next feeding time so that its much weaker sibling could eat without being attacked. Still worried about the second born.

    Parent

    I konw this is off topic (none / 0) (#146)
    by Madeline on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:27:03 PM EST
    but how neat it that cam?  Just a little joy amid political depression.

    Parent
    Open Thread (none / 0) (#167)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:46:04 PM EST
    Not off topic at all. Very neat and a little joy amid political depression is sorely needed.

    Parent
    the eaglets (none / 0) (#43)
    by sj on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    are endlessly fascinating, aren't they?

    Parent
    Thanks for the heads up :) (none / 0) (#68)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    I keep a window open in the background so I can check in often. Love watching how they care for their young.

    Parent
    Cool article in the globe today (none / 0) (#15)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:31:03 AM EST
    about the antidote to the Terry Jones's of the world.  Unfortunately the Jones's of the world are the ones that get the press.

    Interesting side-note, she lived in the same housing project as Obama's aunt.

    Late to the party (none / 0) (#21)
    by sj on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    I thought my new favorite album came out last year, but no.  "Lungs" was released in 2009.

    Not the kind of CD I can put in the car and listen to repeatedly, though.  It hits the heart chakra dead on and I can only take that so long.

    If grandma won't get out of her house... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    thats what SWAT teams are for...to protect and serve the only citizens that matter, with special weapons and tactics to deal with grandmas confused about how we roll around here.

    Pledge allegiance to this?  You gotta be out your mind.  I pledge allegiance to humanity, which means I can't pledge any allegiance to the United States of America.

    steve martin (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:01:32 AM EST
    does he? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:12:39 AM EST
    Nonsense... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:20:46 AM EST
    no blood, just ashes...douchebaggery ashes.

    The blood O'Reilly is on about is on the hands of his brothers in douchbaggery in Afghanistan...his brothers from another mother.

    Ya can't go there without defying laws of physics...Jones killed nobody unless there is a corpse in his basement in Fla I'm not aware of.

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:21:06 AM EST
    what he did was entirely legal, and entirely stupid.

    Would I want to outlaw that action, or punish him for it?  Heck no.

    But I'll say this, if the Christians are right, and there is a God that judges you when you die - this man will get his on that day.  Until then, he's just one more dangerous idiot in a world full of dangerous idiots.

    Parent

    on the other hand (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:38:11 AM EST
    its not hard to imagine why the wingbaggers do not what this meme to catch on.

    Parent
    extremists on both sides got what they wanted (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    The ability to point at the other guy and say "look at how bad they are"

    And no, burning a book is not the same thing as killing people.  But then living in Florida is not like living in Afghanistan either.

    The meme will not catch on.  Remember Arizona?  The muslim hearings in Congress started after that.  There is always an excuse for me, but not for thee.  The same people who want to paint all Muslims with the same brush refuse to be painted.  There's nothing quite like a combination of stubborness, hypocracy and ignorance.

    Parent

    I would say he has proved his point (none / 0) (#66)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:18:09 PM EST
    He's no more wrong than a flag-burner.
    If we had killings over flag-burnings, the killers would be entirely at fault. Same goes for the killings in Afghanistan. If anyone is most to blame, it is Karzai.

    Parent
    it's more like (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:30:09 PM EST
    burning the flag of a foreign country that has nothing to do with you.

    Flag burning to protest something is different from flag burning just to p*ss someone off.

    The best analogy I can think of is this - if you were in school, how would you feel about confronting/ostrasizing:

    a) the captain of the football team/school bully
    vs
    b) the creepy kid with no friends who just might blow up the school if you push him too hard

    Sure, after he blows up the school you can say "see, I told you he was crazy".  But who really wins in that scenario?  Was it really worth it to pick on the crazy kid?

    Parent

    To be fair to the jerk... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:51:09 PM EST
    maybe he thinks the koran is something to protest...and who is to judge any of that?  

    I don't believe that of course, I think he's just a publicity whoring hater looking to increase his collection basket take, just playing a little devil's advocate for the sake of debate.

    I've previously stated spreading better ideas is certainly the way to go, not to simply sh*t on others ideas, especially by book burning, the exclusive work of arseholes...but thats really a question of style and taste.  People have said similar about flag burning, that is never justified, while I personally don't find flag burning particularly offensive at all....but book burning very much so.

    Parent

    Look, I wouldn't object to the (none / 0) (#76)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:56:38 PM EST
    burning of ANY religious text. But if someone burns a bible publicly, do you think there will be mass killings and demonstrations? I don't.
    The problem does not lie with Moran---or if it does, only in small part.

    I wonder what Salman Rushdie's opinion on this question is.

    Parent

    I understand the traditional divide (none / 0) (#78)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    A flag is a piece of cloth representing an idea.

    A book contains ideas.  So you are burning the actual idea, rather than it's representation.  Which historically was used as a practical tool to control information and prevent it from being spread, rather than as a symbolic protest.

    Obviously in this case it's more of a symbolic protest because it's not like he went out and burned all the Korans.

    That being said - he is protesting something that has nothing to do with him.  It's not like Muslims all over the world are infringing upon his rights.  He's sitting pretty in his safe little Florida abode.  And I still fall back on my crazy kid analogy.  He knew what was going to happen and did it anyway.  That's what makes him dangerous and wrong, IMO.  It's not like he did this to prevent something bad from happening.  He did it knowing.

    Parent

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    devils advocate redux...is what Jones did dangerous or is the satellite news feed the danger?  

    If Jones knew what would happen, so did every media outlet who reported on it.  Sh*t...is us here discussing it dangerous?  A muslim fanatic could be reading and take violent offense.

    At the end of the day ya can't cater your life and your actions to how the craziest people on earth will react...that is no way to live.  If I lived that way, on eggshells, I'd have to quit smoking herb because crazy people have been known to react by violently kidnapping people who smoke herb.

    Parent

    For once we are 100% in agreement. (none / 0) (#89)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:12:07 PM EST
    Maybe I should light one up, in honor of the occasion.

    Parent
    LOL... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:17:46 PM EST
    be careful O.B....not only are the people who take violent offense to that sort of thing crazy and dangerous and violent, they are the law around here:)  Our very own Taliban.

    Parent
    Well i'm afraid that if I burn a (none / 0) (#97)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:34:11 PM EST
    symbolic reefer, I might be accused of a hate crime.

    Parent
    Double lol... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:42:10 PM EST
    you're on fire like a certain islamophobe's koran observed!  Hate crime...you slay me.

    If elected I will preserve your right to burn a likeness of my proposed new national plant...you have my word on that:)

    Parent

    You two are cracking me up today... (none / 0) (#101)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:43:29 PM EST
    keep it coming!

    Parent
    It's you, me and Anne defending (none / 0) (#137)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    the sane position today. Crazy, man! Time for another puff (not saying if it's real or not).

    Parent
    Real or not... (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    quit rubbing it in...I got two more hours before cubicle parole and my daily herbal therapy.

    Parent
    People say and do a lot of stupid things, (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:23:40 PM EST
    but for me it comes down to, either you believe in the First Amendment or you don't.  

    It's not supposed to be "of course I believe in the First Amendment, but this is different;" there's almost no point to these rights if they are going to come and go at the whim of popular opinion. If they were, the speech we take from others today could just as easily be taken away from us tomorrow.

    So as awful as I think the actions were, it was his right to do what he did.  Is it terrible that people were killed over it?  Of course, but he didn't do the killing.

    Parent

    Exactly so. Jones's speech act is far (none / 0) (#96)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:32:22 PM EST
    less hateful than the court-tested, protected speech of Reverend Phelps. As far as I know, Jones did not call for any killing or violence.
    He merely said  he loathes the Koran. Is that not obviously protected speech?


    Parent
    to be clear (none / 0) (#106)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:48:22 PM EST
    I 100% agree with this, and I said as much in my first post.  That it was legal, and there is no way it should ever be illegal.

    That doesn't mean he's not an @sshole for doing it.

    Was it legal, yes.  Was it within his rights, yes.  Would I ever want to change the laws so it wasn't?  Hell no.  Was it the "right" thing to do, no.  Kind of like Phelps.

    Parent

    Fair enough, but Phelps is (none / 0) (#112)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:54:14 PM EST
    much worse, IMO.
    If Jones  and his followers went outside mosques with placards saying "Mohammed was a goat-farcker" and "Keep your prophet away from my 6 year old daughter", it would be a closer comparison.

    Parent
    worse to you (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:11:45 PM EST
    as a westerner.  But considering people in Afghanistan don't speak English, and burning their holy book is a grave offense to them, I would say they probably think this is worse.

    Actually had he gone to Afghanistan with those signs printed in arabic outside the mosques over there, I might give him serious credit for being a brave f*ck at the very least.

    Parent

    Be very, very careful what you are (none / 0) (#129)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:15:31 PM EST
    suggesting. Again, think about Rushdie.
    The problem here is definitely NOT with Jones: the problem is with the backward f***s.


    Parent
    what (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:38:53 PM EST
    exactly, do you think I'm suggesting?

    If you don't think Jones is a problem, that's fine.  But personally I think people like him, are exactly the problem with this country.  Outraged about nonsense, ignorent, and has an audience.  The man is preaching hate.  It's his right to do that.  But that doesn't make it okay.

    Parent

    not really clear (none / 0) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:42:04 PM EST
    whats being said either.  we (at least I am not) are not saying change the laws.  that doesnt make what he did right or sane.  it makes him a dangerous a-hole.  with, as you said, a following.

    Parent
    Who are you to say Islam has nothing (none / 0) (#87)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:10:31 PM EST
    to do with him??
    I don't know that, and I don't know how you do.
    I imagine that his answer might be that Islam motivated the 9/11 bombers, and that's the impact he feels. Hard to argue with that, IMO.
    And I don't want to get back some BS about how Islam (or Christianity, for that matter) is actually a "religion of peace".
    There is no general agreement on this question.
    For some people, Islam (or Christianity or Judaism) is a religion which demands bloodshed.
    When such people are thence motivated to take lives, I DO blame their religion.

    Anyway, this is beside the point. He has a right to burn a Koran on his own property, for WHATEVER reason.

    About the book/flag distinction. I would argue, on the contrary, that with modern publishing, flags are almost harder to replace than books; at any rate, it's clear that Moran's book-burning is purely symbolic,  and not an actual threat to the availability of a text.

    Parent

    I do wonder what "impact" (none / 0) (#118)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:06:03 PM EST
    9/11 had on a preacher in Florida.

    As opposed to say, the people in Afghanistan who's village we are actively bombing.

    Thus far the only "grievences" I've heard from him are that some Imam in New York wants to open a Mosque, and Islam is "of the devil".  Maybe he has some legitimate beef, but that's not the case he's been making.

    Parent

    Is Jones dropping bombs on (none / 0) (#122)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:11:12 PM EST
    Afghanistan? I may have missed something. Maybe I should have only smoked that symbolic reefer.

    Parent
    Did the Koran (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:13:47 PM EST
    fly the planes into the world trade center?

    Parent
    Muslims, driven by their beliefs in the (none / 0) (#133)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:18:09 PM EST
    Koran, flew those plans. Jones hasn't done a frucking thing to anyone, as far as I know.


    Parent
    Americans (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:26:02 PM EST
    Driven by their beliefs in the things Jones (and others) preach, drop bombs in the middle east, and vote to elect people to drop bombs in the middle east.

    Personally I would blame the Imams for inciting hate, more than I blame the book for 9/11.  Just like I blame the preachers for inciting hate, more than the bible.

    Parent

    I think thats backwards... (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:49:56 PM EST
    those who drop bombs on brown people have been preaching to Jones via their corporate media propaganda outfits, sometimes subtle sometimes not so subtle...and he has soaked it up like a sponge.

    We don't drop bombs because of the Jones', we have Jones' because we drop bombs and call it liberation.

    Parent

    what's the difference between (none / 0) (#179)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    "corporate media propaganda" and "religious propaganda".  At the end of the day it's all the same thing.

    See - megachurches.  If that's not a "corporate media propaganda outfit" I don't know what is.

    Opinion makers are opinion makers, no matter what cloth they wear.

    Parent

    I think it more likely... (none / 0) (#186)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:41:12 PM EST
    he picked up the islamophobia from the corporate media, and any homophobia from the corporate churches.


    Parent
    you really dont have (none / 0) (#188)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:42:33 PM EST
    much interaction with these people do you?

    Parent
    I do not... (none / 0) (#192)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:56:50 PM EST
    was islamaphobia a big Sunday services topic pre-9/11?  I find that hard to believe...

    Post 9/11 I could see muslims being added to the hate-service once the media and government started hittin' us with the propaganda 24/7, "they hate our way of life and Jesus and our freedoms" and all that bullsh*t...but pre 9/11?  I'd be suprised if the guy knew what a koran was in the 90's.

    Parent

    was (none / 0) (#193)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:00:40 PM EST
    islamaphobia a big media/government topic pre-9/11?

    9/11 changed everything for everybody.

    Parent

    9/11 did change everything (none / 0) (#195)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:06:35 PM EST
    for everyone but these whackjobs like Jones have been screaming about muslims for decades.  like Bush, 9/11 was just a good excuse for them.

    Parent
    I think you would be wrong. (none / 0) (#194)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:03:39 PM EST
    the guy was the pastor of a wing nut church in germany in the 80s.  trust me.  he knew all about muslims way before 9/11.  wiki the guy.  he has been around for a long time. his "church" has 50 members.  he is not one, I would think, much effected by corporate anything.  even mega churches.
    they have done joint events with Phelps.
     he know exactly what he is doing.  getting publicity.

    Parent
    I blame all the people who take those (none / 0) (#161)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:43:29 PM EST
    hoary texts as anything more than fascinating documents about ancient human living, including those who adhere to lovey-dovey, peaceful versions.
    Anyone who takes those books seriously makes it easier for a violent of nihilist preacher to gain followers.

    Parent
    It's (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:21:36 PM EST
    not the religion of Islam or Christianity per se but the fundamentalists in said religion. Fundamentalists believe in a LITERAL interpretation of each and every verse. They do not believe in taking the holy book as a "whole" so to speak.

    You can find justification for doing anything in the bible and you probably can in the Koran too.

    Parent

    Sure, but you can't arbitrarily say (none / 0) (#141)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    those fundamentalists don't represent the religion. They are definitely a face of it.


    Parent
    like they dont (none / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:28:04 PM EST
    represent the "face" of christianity?

    they do for me.

    Parent

    I agree completely. (none / 0) (#153)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    the squeaky wheel gets the grease and the fundamentalists scream the loudest of anybody.

    Parent
    How many millions of "crazy kids" (none / 0) (#75)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:54:45 PM EST
    are we talking about here? How about some assumption of responsbility by the killers, as well as their national leaders?

    Parent
    straw man.... (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    the killers are killers and they have 100% responsibility for being killers.

    This guy is an @sshole.  And he has 100% responsibility for being an @sshole.

    Parent

    And he is 100% legal in his actions (none / 0) (#82)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    My point is not a strawman when there are calls for laws against actions like his.

    Parent
    who is calling (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:09:51 PM EST
    for laws

    Parent
    read the news. (none / 0) (#88)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:11:29 PM EST
    I just googled (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    "laws against koran burning" and didnt find anything except a lot of people saying it was a bad idea.


    Parent
    Ok, People in Afghanistan have (none / 0) (#95)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:30:17 PM EST
    called for such laws here. Also, apparently Reid was talking about having Congress make a formal condemnation of Jones, but one with no force.
    I mixed the two together, but boy, Reid is nuts.

    Parent
    I actually dont think (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:04:52 PM EST
    that is such a crazy idea from Reid.  they have engaged in far more ridiculous wastes of time.  it might actually save some lives.


    Parent
    Its a bill of attainder, but without (none / 0) (#121)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    a direct penalty---still, a destetable notion, in my opinion.

    Parent
    why (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:17:51 PM EST
    if people were, if fact, killed because of what the idiot did this might mitigate that.  

    it couldnt hurt for them to know its now how we all think.


    Parent

    Noone was killed because of Jones. (none / 0) (#135)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:19:35 PM EST
    Once you understand that, everything else follows.
    In fact, it's morally otiose to condemn him for any deaths.


    Parent
    um, no (none / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:26:42 PM EST
    people were killed because of what he did.  once you understand that you might get what has been said in this thread.

    they did it because of the koran burning.  no one argues that.  the argument was if he was responsible for the deaths because he is the one who did the burning.  and its a reasonable position.

    personally I am not ready to pass laws banning koran burning because of that.


    Parent

    You might as well say that Theo (none / 0) (#155)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:38:00 PM EST
    van Gogh caused his own death, if you are going to make this argument.
    Until you put the blame where it belongs---on the narrow-minded fundamentalists who kill over ANY offense to their religion---you don't get it.


    Parent
    If the Koran (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by CST on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:44:10 PM EST
    and Muslims are responsible for the deaths caused on 9/11, who is responsible for the deaths caused by the U.S. military?

    We have our nice, shiny, six degrees of seperation from that.  We elect our politicians, who make the decisions for us, who then send others to do our dirty work for us.

    But where does that come from?  Are there no "ideas" that cause these things?  Who is to blame for all that?

    It couldn't be the Van Gogh's or Terry Jones's of the world.  They never left home, right?  They never pulled the trigger, or were responsible for making that decision.  They just teach people to hate.

    Parent

    I can't think of anything respectful (none / 0) (#168)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:47:49 PM EST
    to say to your comment.
    Have a good day.

    Parent
    looked at in historical context (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:45:44 PM EST
    it's WAY overly simplistic to make it a simple black-and-white, either/or..

    We'll see how open you become to slights from an aggressive, interventionist nation after you've seen some kids splattered against the wall of your house and your village reduced to refugee satus, O..

    Parent

    Now you're getting closer to the (none / 0) (#171)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:49:24 PM EST
    truth, but you still don't get it.
    The Afghans are actually furious at the US for the killing of civilians we engage in.
    Jones' protest is just a pretext for action.
    It could have been anything.
    Karzai bears a lot of blame here.


    Parent
    it's amazing how tolerant (none / 0) (#178)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:10:00 PM EST
    people can be when they're living in peace with food in their bellies..

    Even Muslims.

    Parent

    it seems to me (none / 0) (#157)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:40:06 PM EST
    you are ignoring the stated reason for the killing.  namely the burning of the koran.


    Parent
    It seems to me you are engaging in (none / 0) (#164)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:45:30 PM EST
    fallacious reason. Let me explain. Suppose a gay man makes a pass at someone in a bar in Texas. The recipient of the pass shoots and kills him, claiming he was made to do it.
    Do you buy that?
    If not, why do you buy the murderer's reasons in Afghanistan? I can give you LOTS more examples, if you still don't get it. However, you are smart, so I'm sure you see the point.


    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#173)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    I would say the man killed him because he came on to him.   that doesnt make it right.  it also doenst change the fact that if he had not come on to him he would be alive.

    hows that?


    Parent

    Are you assigning blame to the (none / 0) (#185)
    by observed on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:39:07 PM EST
    gay man? I would hope not. Likewise, I hope you do not assign blame to Jones for the actions of psychopaths thousands of miles away.

    Parent
    certainly not (1.00 / 0) (#187)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:41:33 PM EST
    that is what YOU dont get.  on the other hand it is idiotic to say the two events are unrelated.


    Parent
    So it is like (none / 0) (#98)
    by me only on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:35:31 PM EST
    the Palestinians celebrating on 9/11.

    Parent
    Or people building monuments (none / 0) (#170)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    to the memory of Baruch Goldstein.

    Parent
    Mild objection... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    to "dangerous"...I think he's just a simple idiot, I don't see anything he is doing that could be called dangerous, unless the books he is burning are releasing dangerous fumes or somthing like that.

    Parent
    I think I disagree (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    IMO what he is doing could be called dangerous.  for that matter what Fred Phelps does could be considered dangerous.

    that is not a reason to stop them.  

    on one hand I would love to try to get OReilly to say the same thing about the hateful rhetoric incendiary of the wingbaggers but of course he wont do that.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:15:26 PM EST
    Rev. Jones was warned last fall about what might happen and he chose to do it anyway so it was premeditated. It's not like the guy just decided on a whim to burn some Korans. I think Rev. Jones really wanted people to be killed. There's really no other conclusion that I can come to.

    Parent
    no argument (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:18:30 PM EST
    and I suspect he probably did.  freedom is not free.


    Parent
    'Kill Team' Brigade commander (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:23:52 PM EST
    This combined with his (none / 0) (#99)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:37:46 PM EST
    premature relief from command and statements from his commanders in Afghanistan that they had "lost confidence" in him pretty much end his career.

    The lower-level supervisors, platoon and/or company level officers get letters of reprimand. Considering that there are 3,000-5,000 soldiers in a brigade, his knowledge or lack thereof of this squad shouldn't be surprising.

    But he was a goner, or his career came to a screeching halt, based on his actions in Afghanistan. He's like a second division outfielder, just playing out the string.

    Parent

    Rolling Stone... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:06:51 PM EST
    arrived last night...didn't get a chance to read the article, but them pictures the government didn't want us to see are damning.  Sick sick sh&t.

    Immediately thought of Abu Gharib...but I fear our collective humanity might be too far gone for the story to have any meaningful effect on our Afghanistan occupation and policy.

    Parent

    so much for the "surgical" (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:27:24 PM EST
    "good" war - free of torture, rape, child abuse and cold-blooded murder - delusion..

    It only ever existed in the minds of the Tom Brokaws of the world, any way.

    Human smoke, with more on the horizen..

    Time to turn 90% of our overseas military into an infrastructure regenerating 21st century civilian conservation corps.

    Parent

    Another WWII veteran goes west... (none / 0) (#103)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:46:01 PM EST
    A friend's father, who served in the China-Burma-India theatre, died saturday at 93. He was ready to go, though.

    I'm sorry to hear that (none / 0) (#166)
    by sj on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:45:49 PM EST
    Krugman does not have (none / 0) (#108)
    by Buckeye on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    a lot of confidence in Obama standing up for medicare and SS.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#109)
    by Buckeye on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:51:42 PM EST
    here is link

    Parent
    Tim Kaine announces Senate run (none / 0) (#110)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    I guess (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:12:41 PM EST
    that seat will go GOP.

    Parent
    Even if the Democrat - Kaine - wins. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:22:18 PM EST
    What genius!

    Parent
    Why should the Senate seat (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:29:42 PM EST
    from Virginia be any different from the White House?    ;-)

    Parent
    He may wind up (none / 0) (#148)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    running against George "Macaca" Allen. (Of course, Allen still has to beat the Tea Partier Jamie Radtke, to get the Republican nomination.)  It depends upon how forgiving (or forgetful) voters are of Allen's so-called "slip of the tongue."

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#152)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:33:00 PM EST
    I don't know how the people of VA feel about him but it's hard for me to imagine a less exciting candidate.  He's one of those guys that makes you think, damn, Democrats SUCK.

    Parent
    My thoughts (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 02:54:24 PM EST
    exactly and he really lessens the chances of Obama's already slim chance of carrying VA.

    Parent
    Really? Tim Kaine (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by brodie on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    has already recently won statewide in VA, for gov just a few years ago.

    None of these candidates are loaded with charisma.  You think Macaca Allen is Mr Electricity?  How about the guy Kaine will replace, Jim Webb?  Or the other VA senator Mr Thunderbolt himself, Mark Warner?

    Kaine will do fine for that state and Dems' chances, thank you.

    Who else was gonna step up and beat Allen who could get some of you excited?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:16:36 PM EST
    since I'm not in VA I have no idea but Tim Kaine won mostly on Warner's record and popularity in VA.

    I just happen to think that Tim Kaine is really representative of what is wrong with the party--bland and stands for nothing and his abysmal record at the DNC does nothing to improve his standing with me. He should have been fired after November.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#197)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:10:49 PM EST
    no. 3 nationally (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    Liberty University students received approximately $445 million in federal financial aid money last fiscal year, according to U.S. Department of Education data, making LU the top recipient in Virginia.

    The rapid growth of Liberty's online program has fueled the increased reliance on federal aid dollars, said Robert Ritz, LU's executive director of financial aid.

    Last year, Liberty enrolled about 52,000 online students, plus another 12,000 through its residential programs.

    "It has ballooned," said Ritz of Liberty's financial aid volume. "In some categories, I've seen us rank no. 3 nationally, or in the top ten. It's because of our size and the growth."



    winning (none / 0) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:33:07 PM EST
    the future?

    Parent
    that was (none / 0) (#189)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    too funny (none / 0) (#184)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    I got a video posted on my FB (which I cant figure out how to extract so you will just have to take my word for it) that had this text:

    Jennifer and Jim kept getting huge water bills. They knew that the bills weren't representative of their actual usage. But no matter how they tried to conserve, the high bills continued. They had everything checked for leaks or problems: first the water meter, then underground pipes, faucets, etc. -- all to no avail!
    One day, Jim heard water running downstairs. Apparently this was happening ALL day long when they were not at home. Knowing that few would believe him, he taped the "problem" for posterity.

    Now watch attached video!

    the video is of a cat.  flushing the toilet in the basement over, and over, and over, and over, and over.
    apparently he would do it all day.  just hit the handle and stare transfixed at the water circling as it exited.

     

    Apparently, Gizmo isn't (none / 0) (#199)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:14:14 PM EST
    the only cat that ever flushed a toilet.  Link

    Parent
    Quote(s) of the year (none / 0) (#204)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 06:22:00 PM EST
    Barack Obama's mantra on Libya is that "Muammar Gaddafi must go". Pentagon supremo Robert Gates, asked about the Yemeni Gaddafi, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, answered, with a straight face, that Washington had no opinion, because it does not interfere in internal affairs of other countries.

    The evidence points otherwise. The first African-American president - a Nobel Peace Prize laureate - now also holds the dubious distinction of being the only American president to launch a war on an African nation. He has also launched his re-election campaign, which is bound to gobble up a cool US$1 billion.

    Meanwhile, Saleh kept killing his own people, and injuring hundreds - like in the southwestern city of Taizz this Monday. Obama had to do something, so he has "quietly shifted positions", in the quaint words of the New York Times; the new mantra is "Saleh must go". Contorted rhetoric suggests Washington now wants Saleh to go because it has come to the conclusion that his days in power are gone, even though for over two months, killing spree included, he enjoyed full US backing.

    -- Billion-Dollar Obama Rocks Yemen