President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby separate_wayz » Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:33 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:As I previously provided, here is the link to a peer-reviewed academic paper that analyzes the content of various news outlets and concludes that Fox News news programs are indeed "fair and balanced". And I'll anticipate your one objection: it analyzes news programs on Fox and other networks, not commentary programs.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/facu ... Bias.8.htm

If you need any help with the big words, I'll volunteer my efforts.

Actually, the study looked at all of ONE, yes, just one, Fox News program.
The admittedly pretty fair "Special Report", formerly with Brett Hume.
If your goal was to imply that Fox airs only one bias-free hour in a 24-hr news cycle, I commend you. Job well done.
More important, the study defined bias by looking at what think tanks were cited per news show and newspaper.
That’s certainly a valid indicator of bias, but by itself, doesn’t conclusively add up to anything.
A fact that the study even acknowledged by saying:
“Before proceeding, it is useful to clarify our definition of bias. Most important, the definition has nothing to do with the honesty or accuracy of the news outlet.”
In other words, this study did not count lies vs. facts, or the number of right wing guests vs. liberal guests, or break down the ideological content of stories.
By the study’s own very narrow bias test, the conservative Wall Street Journal ranked as “the most liberal of all 20 news outlets.” :shock:
Just for comparison, imagine if I posted a media study that ranked the New York Times as the most conservative media outlet, what would you think?
Even taking into consideration that editorials weren’t included in the study’s sample, this doesn’t add up.
Revealingly, in trying to explain it away, the study resorts to using “anecdotal” information, (not exactly scientific method there), claiming that, apparently, conservatives have managed to infiltrate the Journal’s editorial board room, while dope smoking Marxists are still running the news department.
Yeah, ok. :roll:
More likely, this is a classic example of a narrow data sample leading to skewed results (the ACLU being ranked as Conservative further confirms this).
Evidently, the Wall Street Journal thought so too - http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10808

One would hope, after being caught lying your red monkey neocon ass off about "protcol" and now this, you will actually stop and research your claims from here out.


I'm going to claim a new disease: The_Ignoble_Causism. Symptoms include: sitting around in your jammies or sweatpants and posting intentionally misleading comments on current events, backed-up by cut-and-pasted references from left-leaning websites; cherry-picking details that serve one's cause (while ignoring those that don't); whining when one's argument is shredded; and repeatedly making false claims, as if saying them over and over again makes them true. [See hemorroid.]

You obviously didn't read much of the study. The authors defined bias as "slant", as a sort of preference or taste. They affirm that they're not counting intentional inaccuracies or falsehoods, mainly for the reason that there's arguably not a lot of overt intentional lying in the media. As the authors say, the media's sins are more ones of omission more than commission -- slant, in other words, not outright and intentional factual inaccuracies (although there are those too).

I applaud any news outlets when they do their job -- which is report, and ask critical questions, no matter who's on the receiving end. I applaud CNN, for example, for actually presenting an extended report on the criticisms of the climate science (anthropogenic global warming) following the release of hundreds of emails suggesting malfeasance in the research process. Only CNN sent a reporter to the the University of East Anglia, where the apparent nonsense occurred. They devoted time to it, asked questions, and went on-site, like a news organization should. So they deserve kudos for doing their job.

Back to the study.

The study may be narrow, but is in no way necessarily misrepresentative (unlike your quoting of it). You mention the study's citation of the Wall Street Journal as liberal as evidence that it's obviously reaching wrong conclusions. But the study only looked at the news pages, not editorial pages. It may surprise some people, but the Wall Street Journal's news pages are not particularly conservative at all. (And WSJ insiders have said this too.) If you need an example: Al Hunt, of CNN's 'Crossfire' fame (and other programs). Al Hunt was hired as a news reporter for the WSJ and worked his way up to editor (and also directed the paper's polling and other initiatives). Al Hunt himself has said the only thing conservative about the WSJ is its editorial page. Would you consider him conservative? Didn't think so.

As far as lying goes: I think we all know that you're the King of Obfuscation and Misdirection. In other words, you misrepresent other people's quotes and arguments on here more than just about anybody else. I don't think many on here put much stock in your posts. Congrats, for a very ignoble recognition.

Concerning the protocol debate, you intentionally misrepresented the main point (as usual, of course) -- that countries' leaders (and the countries themselves) are considered sovereigns are never obligated to bow or exhibit any behavior that suggests subservience to one another. (That's why counties are arranged alphabetically at international gatherings and other forums.) You also ignored the point I raised that nobody would countenance an American president bowing to a Hitler or a South African president under apartheid, for the obvious reason that it would turn every American's stomach to see it. Regardless, your commentary was a transparent attempt to misdirect attention from the fact that Obama's bowing (totally not necessary and not gaining him anything) has become the stuff of late-night comedy (along with his Nobel Prize).

Anyway, I could accuse you of lying, but then I'd be exhibiting a chronic case of The_Ignoble_Causism.
User avatar
separate_wayz
LP
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:14 am
Location: USA

Postby Monker » Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:41 am

separate_wayz wrote:
Monker wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:It is a Rasmussen poll. Fox News's data presentation was confusing, but not incorrect. Nothing was modified (or "modifiid").


What a completely STOOPID comment! You are telling that a 'poll' adding up to %120 is 'confusing, but not incorrect'. It was WRONG. They added the two together, and removed the wrong one. An OBVIOUS mistake...indefinsible.


See previous comment on remedial reading programs.

Spelling indefensible 'indefinsible' ..... "an OBVIOUS mistake".


Yes, it is...so what? At least I can admit it! I don't go about calling it 'confusing, but not incorrect.'
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:24 pm

NOTHING TNC posted is factually erroneous, bonehead.

You're done. Game over. Deal with it.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby Lula » Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:21 pm

separate_wayz wrote:Concerning the protocol debate, you intentionally misrepresented the main point (as usual, of course) -- that countries' leaders (and the countries themselves) are considered sovereigns are never obligated to bow or exhibit any behavior that suggests subservience to one another. (That's why counties are arranged alphabetically at international gatherings and other forums.) You also ignored the point I raised that nobody would countenance an American president bowing to a Hitler or a South African president under apartheid, for the obvious reason that it would turn every American's stomach to see it. Regardless, your commentary was a transparent attempt to misdirect attention from the fact that Obama's bowing (totally not necessary and not gaining him anything) has become the stuff of late-night comedy (along with his Nobel Prize).

I believe all that TNC said was that bowing is not against official protocol. After reading the copy of the state department protcol you posted, TNC turned out to be correct. It says nothing on bowing.
TNC is also correct in pointing out that your media study only looks at one Fox News show, not multiple progams, as you claimed. Not sure how you could miss that if you really read it.
Seems pretty suspicious if you ask me...
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Monker » Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:01 pm

separate_wayz wrote:I applaud any news outlets when they do their job -- which is report, and ask critical questions, no matter who's on the receiving end. I applaud CNN, for example, for actually presenting an extended report on the criticisms of the climate science (anthropogenic global warming) following the release of hundreds of emails suggesting malfeasance in the research process. Only CNN sent a reporter to the the University of East Anglia, where the apparent nonsense occurred. They devoted time to it, asked questions, and went on-site, like a news organization should. So they deserve kudos for doing their job.


And, FOX reports on the Tea party march and questions why other networks are not covering it, and that the tens of thousands of people should get their attention. But, when tens of thousands of gay rights activists are protesting in Washington, FOX barely covers it at all and instead of sending a film out of their WASHINGTON BUREAU front door, they rely on OTHER network feeds.

In addition to that, The Daily Show caught FOX in an OBVIOUS lie when they reported on another right wing protest but showed film of the tea part instead - because there were OBVIOUSLY a lot more people at that event compared to the newer one they were reporting.

The first part of the above is hypocritical and obvious bias. The second is, at the VERY LEAST, misleading...and, IMO, is actualy lying to the public about what happened.

If you can't see the Republican and Conservative bias of FOX, then you are not paying attention. I don't need a poll to prove it...The proof is there everytime I turn it on.

[quoteConcerning the protocol debate, you intentionally misrepresented the main point (as usual, of course) -- that countries' leaders (and the countries themselves) are considered sovereigns are never obligated to bow or exhibit any behavior that suggests subservience to one another. (That's why counties are arranged alphabetically at international gatherings and other forums.) You also ignored the point I raised that nobody would countenance an American president bowing to a Hitler or a South African president under apartheid, for the obvious reason that it would turn every American's stomach to see it. Regardless, your commentary was a transparent attempt to misdirect attention from the fact that Obama's bowing (totally not necessary and not gaining him anything) has become the stuff of late-night comedy (along with his Nobel Prize).[/quote]

Oh, please, no reasonable person cares about crap like this. When Bush puked in Japan, I'm sure that was some violation of protocal...did you make a big deal about that? All of this is good humor for a few weeks or so and then blows over....because it is trivial to most people and just isn't worthy of much attention.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby Rick » Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:04 pm

No possible way any of these emails could have been fabricated by the "right", to further vilify the "left", is there? It would be absolutely simple to do.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby squirt1 » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:33 pm

All I can say is -I have never seen anything like this. BOTH parties ,over the years, are spending your future. This President will sign anything and proposes MUCH MORE ! Government debt used to be the National Debt which was the amount presidents and Congress overspent for years. It used to be 11 trillion. Since then we found 56 trillion U S IOU"S in SS since the time of Lyndon Johnson . There was that Great Society & Vietnam war funding and they could not predict abortion(future tax payers ) and people living so much longer with medical advances. Our credit card has been China . Congress no longer has the power to BUY VOTES except to print money which devalues the $$$ with what we can buy around the world and WILL cause inflation. It was 20% under Jimmy Carter and really hell on the younger workers & households. Goverment BUYS votes to get re-elected . They represent their own greedy asses. I told my mom in the early 70's " If they are not rich when they get there,they are when they leave . Get lawyers out of Congress and the health care game. WE PAY FOR THEM TO PARK AT THE FEED BIN.
squirt1
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:47 am

Postby conversationpc » Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:46 pm

That Fox News leans conservative shouldn't surprise anyone just as it shouldn't surprise anyone that MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC leans the other way. Why anyone ever bothers to argue about this anymore is beyond me.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby strangegrey » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:12 am

conversationpc wrote:That Fox News leans conservative shouldn't surprise anyone just as it shouldn't surprise anyone that MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC leans the other way. Why anyone ever bothers to argue about this anymore is beyond me.



CNN has claimed and *tried* to tow a middle-of-the-ground political line...but with their ousting of Lou Dobbs, that shit went out the window. Dobbs was a strong balance to the other leftie shitbags on that network....now that commie-ballsack Cafferty pulls CNN into pMSNBC's extreme politically left teritory.



However...there's an issue here that lefties all over the world refuse to acknowledge. For over 40 years (prior to the start of Fox News), the left OWNED the fucking networks. They had a monopoly on leftie disinformation. CNN was the culmination of over 30 years of leftie strong handing of the Big 3 networks. When news started going cable, NBC spawned off MSNBC to compete with CNN (and maintain what they viewed as a stranglehold on American news disinformation).


So the stupid people of this country, relying on Big 3 news for over 30-40 years....finds it a culture shock when a newcomer like Fox comes to the news business with middle of the road politics. Sorry, that's the way I see it. While Fox has slightly more right leaning anchors and comentators....the fact remains that they truly present a more middle of the road and balanced view on news. You people that argue otherwise are just products of 30-40 years of leftie news brainwashing. I guess some people are easily fooled.


I really find it laughable that Fox is regarded by some as the rightie network....because really. The rest of the networks are just fucking way leftie...
User avatar
strangegrey
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3622
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:31 am
Location: Tortuga

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:33 am

strangegrey wrote:CNN has claimed and *tried* to tow a middle-of-the-ground political line...but with their ousting of Lou Dobbs, that shit went out the window. Dobbs was a strong balance to the other leftie shitbags on that network....now that commie-ballsack Cafferty pulls CNN into pMSNBC's extreme politically left teritory.

Dobbs was fired precisely because he broke CNN's no-demogogue house rules.
Since getting his own Limbaugh-style AM radio syndication deal, Dobb's TV show has flown off the rails.
It's pretty hard to market yourself as the objective counterpart to MSNBC and Fox, when you have a host demanding to see the President's birth certificate.

As for Cafferty...just like the Crossfire segments involving other partisan blowhards, he does NOT have his own show.
So that's a false comparison.
To their own ratings failure, all the CNN program hosts have tried to report straight down the middle.
And don't tell me Wolf Blitzer is somehow a radical leftist agent.
The guy is a monotone AP-wire reciting drone.
The guy is so ineffectual, he couldn't even bring himself to call out the balloon boy parents after their kid let slip "we did it for the show" and personally handed Wolf one of the biggest stories of the year.

Also, I’m not sure how you can say MSNBC is EXTREMELY left, while Fox is only “slightly right.”
Since the election, Fox has become a 24/7 anti-Obama infomercial.
Hell, Beck’s show might as well be titled the John Birch Christian militia hour
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16057
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:00 am

conversationpc wrote:That Fox News leans conservative shouldn't surprise anyone just as it shouldn't surprise anyone that MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC leans the other way. Why anyone ever bothers to argue about this anymore is beyond me.


I'll grant you MSNBC, which actually used to be swarming with Cons, before becoming the Keith Olbermann network.
But show me the liberal O'Reilly, Beck, or Hannity equivalent on any of those other networks?
Doesn't exist.
Even MSNBC still gives Joe Scarborough a 3-hour platform.
Does Fox even give Alan Colmes 30 minutes, much less a full hour?

Of course, even back when MSNBC was chock-a-block with Michael Savage, Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley etc etc, you guys still bitched and griped about their liberal bias.
It's all a big game.
The right wing plays the refs so when they're called on their bullshit (or more recently, war crimes) they don't have to take responsibility.
If you undermine the cops on the beat, you can rape and despoil the country any way you choose.
Last edited by The_Noble_Cause on Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16057
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby Lula » Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:05 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Also, I’m not sure how you can say MSNBC is EXTREMELY left, while Fox is only “slightly right.”
Since the election, Fox has become a 24/7 anti-Obama infomercial.
Hell, Beck’s show might as well be titled the John Birch Christian militia hour


Exactly! I know MSNBC is on the left while FOX serves the right. As for the non cable news I see it more a run of the mill, middle of the road. There may be individuals with a bent in a certain direction, but middle of the road nonetheless- they play it safe for the most part.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby 7 Wishes » Sun Dec 13, 2009 3:29 pm

Keep 'em coming, Fart Finder. You're so over-the-top brainwashed you can't see straight.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby Monker » Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:41 pm

Fact Finder wrote:A true liberal will not see the difference a real conservatives sees in the media since Foxs arrival on the scene. Before, we didn't have a voice other than an odd Brit Hume at ABC, or Trapper. Yeah there was Buckey and Novak and a few others that we only found on PBS, but they were always greatly outnumbered by the libs. Foxs has given the right a news source that they belive in. I don't see anything wrong with that like others seem to do. How one network can garner such hatred in such a short time frame is indicative of the libs not wanting that message to get out. That's what it is. They don't want those viewpoints to be heard loud and clear.. There can be no other reason than to want to try and denigrate Fox and their hosts.


You and others saying FOX 'leans to the right' or that they are the voice for conservatives is one thing. FOX *LYING* about it and propping themselves as being 'fair and balanced' is another. They are NOT fair and balanced. They lie, mislead, spin, and have politicised their network as a voice for the Republican party. That is why *I* 'denigrade' FOX.

Go ahead, get out your conservative message...but don't do it under the disguise of being 'fair and balanced'.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby Lula » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:01 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Go ahead, get out your conservative message...but don't do it under the disguise of being 'fair and balanced'.




I can say the exact thing about the other channels. Fact is you guys have 5 or 6 TV outlets and countless Newspapers, not to mention the taxpayer funded NPR and PBS. Don't pretend they are not skewed to the left, we ain't buying it.


I don't think anyone is denying the leanings of any program, but rather taking issue with claiming a falsehood. The "fair and balanced" tag line can not be applied to FOX news, not in the least. FOX is the network of the republican party- plain and simple.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Lula » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:29 am

The quality of health care in the U.S. is top notch. Our advances in technology are tremendous. To make access attainable is key.

Wealth should not be the deciding factor in who receives care/treatment.

No worries, the U.S. is not going to go universal care, the insurance and pharmaceutical companies won't allow it :roll:
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Lula » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:36 am

Wait, republicans disapprove of Obama's job as president, now we're in trouble :lol:

The progressives are not happy because of the lack of a public option in the bill as well as staying in Afghanistan.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Ehwmatt » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:38 am

Lula wrote:The quality of health care in the U.S. is top notch. Our advances in technology are tremendous. To make access attainable is key.

Wealth should not be the deciding factor in who receives care/treatment.

No worries, the U.S. is not going to go universal care, the insurance and pharmaceutical companies won't allow it :roll:


So you admit the quality of the care itself is top notch, yet you think our advances in technology and quality came about by magic and not by making people pay for it? Hmm... Simple logic tells me that quality will go down if every one pays less, but hey...
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Ehwmatt » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:46 am

Fact Finder wrote:
From an income perspective, the President’s ratings are weakest among those who earn $40,000 to $100,000 annually.


Well, once you break the $60K barrier with a family of four, you're a dirty rich Republican scumbag, so why put stock into any of those assholes opinions?
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Lula » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:49 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Lula wrote:The quality of health care in the U.S. is top notch. Our advances in technology are tremendous. To make access attainable is key.

Wealth should not be the deciding factor in who receives care/treatment.

No worries, the U.S. is not going to go universal care, the insurance and pharmaceutical companies won't allow it :roll:


So you admit the quality of the care itself is top notch, yet you think our advances in technology and quality came about by magic and not by making people pay for it? Hmm... Simple logic tells me that quality will go down if every one pays less, but hey...




Logic not allowed....EMOTION EMOTION EMOTION!


yeah I think there is a medical magicians club and they poop out all the cool stuff. A person who works their whole adult life and pays taxes should not lose everything because of a catastrophic illness. You can call that emotional, illogical, whatever fits your little brains.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Ehwmatt » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:57 am

Lula wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Lula wrote:The quality of health care in the U.S. is top notch. Our advances in technology are tremendous. To make access attainable is key.

Wealth should not be the deciding factor in who receives care/treatment.

No worries, the U.S. is not going to go universal care, the insurance and pharmaceutical companies won't allow it :roll:


So you admit the quality of the care itself is top notch, yet you think our advances in technology and quality came about by magic and not by making people pay for it? Hmm... Simple logic tells me that quality will go down if every one pays less, but hey...




Logic not allowed....EMOTION EMOTION EMOTION!


yeah I think there is a medical magicians club and they poop out all the cool stuff. A person who works their whole adult life and pays taxes should not lose everything because of a catastrophic illness. You can call that emotional, illogical, whatever fits your little brains.


Point still stands: You conveniently ignore the fact that having a system where people pay for better treatment has lead to better advances/treatments. If it weren't for a market-based healthcare system, people wouldn't even be able to bitch about not being able to afford a certain treatment for a "catastrophic illness" because many of them wouldn't have been developed! A system paying the bare minimum will happily maintain a status quo (well, at least a status quo after the current system regresses several steps in quality, if not quantity as well) and nothing more...

You get a consolation prize for at least admitting the quality itself is top notch, most libs won't even admit that glaring truth.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Ehwmatt » Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:58 am

Fact Finder wrote:
A person who works their whole adult life and pays taxes should not lose everything because of a catastrophic illness.



Should a person who works his whole life and pays taxes lose 45% of whatever is left over after death, or should his heirs get it?


Isn't it up to 55% now or soon to be?

Yes, let's punish the guy who was responsible and saved assets for his heirs instead of the guy who blew all his money or didn't save anything. Right.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Ehwmatt » Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:15 am

Fact Finder wrote:It's 45% this year.

0% next year, unless Congress and TOTUS changes it.

Returns to 55% in 2011 assuming the law stays as is.


I just don't understand the rationale of the estate tax? What do proponents assert the reasoning behind it is to justify basically robbing someone's well-managed financial grave?
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Ehwmatt » Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:28 am

Seriously though, what is the purported rationale behind it?
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Ehwmatt » Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:52 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:Seriously though, what is the purported rationale behind it?


I am serious. Dude, they can't get this kind of money from the poor now can they? Why, the poor don't pay taxes remotely even close to what the so called rich do.


I mean, I know the reality of it, which is what you stated, but I just want to know what the "objective" rationale for it is...

BTW, I'm coming to Cincinnati the day after Christmas barring a winter storm... you gonna be in town?
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Monker » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:12 am

Ehwmatt wrote:
Lula wrote:The quality of health care in the U.S. is top notch. Our advances in technology are tremendous. To make access attainable is key.

Wealth should not be the deciding factor in who receives care/treatment.

No worries, the U.S. is not going to go universal care, the insurance and pharmaceutical companies won't allow it :roll:


So you admit the quality of the care itself is top notch, yet you think our advances in technology and quality came about by magic and not by making people pay for it? Hmm... Simple logic tells me that quality will go down if every one pays less, but hey...


I think we captured an alien spacecraft and reversed enginered all of our technology from that. Hey, it's no less of a fantasy then saying that our technology is suddenly going to change.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby Ehwmatt » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:19 am

Monker wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Lula wrote:The quality of health care in the U.S. is top notch. Our advances in technology are tremendous. To make access attainable is key.

Wealth should not be the deciding factor in who receives care/treatment.

No worries, the U.S. is not going to go universal care, the insurance and pharmaceutical companies won't allow it :roll:


So you admit the quality of the care itself is top notch, yet you think our advances in technology and quality came about by magic and not by making people pay for it? Hmm... Simple logic tells me that quality will go down if every one pays less, but hey...


I think we captured an alien spacecraft and reversed enginered all of our technology from that. Hey, it's no less of a fantasy then saying that our technology is suddenly going to change.


Right :roll: . The point is, without the investment of dollars pouring into the system in an incentive-driven, market-based system, new innovations will be much harder to come by. Not to mention the government can't just invest the bare minimum amount of money to allow hospitals/practices to retain/maintain the capital goods that are so important to high-quality care, like testing machines and surgical equipment, and expect (a) every one to have access to them or (b) even as many people who have access to them now to continue having it.

Christ, you guys are the same people who buy a cheap suit or a piece of shit Insignia TV to save a few bucks, and then bitch when said suit starts coming unthreaded after one trip to the dry cleaner or said TV blows out after 6 months. You get what you pay for.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Monker » Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:28 am

Ehwmatt wrote:
Monker wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Lula wrote:The quality of health care in the U.S. is top notch. Our advances in technology are tremendous. To make access attainable is key.

Wealth should not be the deciding factor in who receives care/treatment.

No worries, the U.S. is not going to go universal care, the insurance and pharmaceutical companies won't allow it :roll:


So you admit the quality of the care itself is top notch, yet you think our advances in technology and quality came about by magic and not by making people pay for it? Hmm... Simple logic tells me that quality will go down if every one pays less, but hey...


I think we captured an alien spacecraft and reversed enginered all of our technology from that. Hey, it's no less of a fantasy then saying that our technology is suddenly going to change.


Right :roll: . The point is, without the investment of dollars pouring into the system in an incentive-driven, market-based system, new innovations will be much harder to come by. Not to mention the government can't just invest the bare minimum amount of money to allow hospitals/practices to retain/maintain the capital goods that are so important to high-quality care, like testing machines and surgical equipment, and expect (a) every one to have access to them or (b) even as many people who have access to them now to continue having it.


Blah, blah, blah, blah...

Technology advances for many, many different reasons. Saying that people paying more for health care causes advances in medicine is such a bullshit argument.

Christ, you guys are the same people who buy a cheap suit or a piece of shit Insignia TV to save a few bucks, and then bitch when said suit starts coming unthreaded after one trip to the dry cleaner or said TV blows out after 6 months. You get what you pay for.


Another bullshit argument.

You are the people who are hypocrits who critique science with some grand conspiracy theory, such as global warming and climate change. But, when it fits your needs you go on about how YOU believe science is advanced. But, at least you are consistent in your bullshit arguments because they are all so far off and fit your political views.

As I said, backwards enginering an alien spacecraft is about as reasonable as you are arguing here.

As you conspiracy theorists know, millions of dollars every year are spent by our governemnt in all areas of science to further our technology Even something like sending a man to Mars takes HUGE leaps in medical technology to accomplish. Paying your doctor bill isn't going to pay for that. Everything feeds everything else...and a HUGE chunk of it paid for by grants by the government. Research at universities advances science...not your family doctor.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby Ehwmatt » Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:40 am

Monker wrote:
You are the people who are hypocrits who critique science with some grand conspiracy theory, such as global warming and climate change. But, when it fits your needs you go on about how YOU believe science is advanced. But, at least you are consistent in your bullshit arguments because they are all so far off and fit your political views.

As I said, backwards enginering an alien spacecraft is about as reasonable as you are arguing here.

As you conspiracy theorists know, millions of dollars every year are spent by our governemnt in all areas of science to further our technology Even something like sending a man to Mars takes HUGE leaps in medical technology to accomplish. Paying your doctor bill isn't going to pay for that. Everything feeds everything else...and a HUGE chunk of it paid for by grants by the government. Research at universities advances science...not your family doctor.


You aren't understanding a word I'm saying. Of course grants at universities and hospitals advance research. When the fuck did I say government/grants etc. have nothing to do with advancing science? I implore you to point to one time I've ever written that.

If you don't have a market-based health care system, the care isn't as good. I don't care what you or any other bleeding heart wants to say about that. Someone needs to fund the human capital and the capital goods that make our health care quality so good - the government alone won't and can't do that. If it could, every doctor would accept Medicaid and Medicare and everything would be copacetic.

We have a market-based system and that is why the best surgeons, specialists, and facilities are here in the US. That is why sheikhs, kings, politicians, and foreign celebrities and tycoons come over here to get their care. That is why you don't hear about any American politicians (even the ones who constantly malign our system) and celebrities flying over to Germany or wherever else for treatment, barring some special experimental procedure not offered here ala Farrah Fawcett.

Trade the market system in for entitlements and single-payer and whatever else and guess what? You get what you pay for. Sub-standard human capital and sub-standard facilities/machines. Anyone who's taken Economics in high school oughta be able to understand that.

EDIT: And admittedly, the market-based model isn't perfect. There aren't a lot of incentives in the current form of the system to drive people becoming doctors to go into primary care, which is what we really need to get healthier. But, the market-based system alone isn't to blame. Tort reform needs to happen and medical education costs need to be driven down to incentivize more med students to go into primary care. But, we Americans need to take charge of our own health and do our part to stay healthy too, which most of us do not do.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:15 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Hillary Clinton appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning, where she discussed sexism with co-host Gretchen Carlson and took the opportunity to say that she "appreciated" Fox News' balanced coverage of her campaign. ...

"We did call them on it at Fox, in fact I think you went on record saying that Fox was the most fair and balanced place during the time when you were running," Carlson said.

"There were a lot of times when I appreciated the commentators and reporters on Fox who did step up and make that clear," Clinton responded.


Clinton said that her staff had sent her "some independent study" "which seemed to suggest that" "in terms of the fairness of the coverage," Fox News Channel has treated her campaign more fairly than MSNBC.

"I really am troubled by this pattern of behavior and comments that you hear" on MSNBC, said Clinton.




hmmmm...did Hillary turn Republican and someone didn't tell me? :lol:


Well, Hillary used to be a Repub ...what's really going on here, however, is that Fox News was the only network that continued to treat Clinton as a frontrunner long after it became statistically impossible for her to win the nomination.
It got the point where her campaign was just a Nader or LaRouche-style vanity campaign.
She became such a attention starved media whore, she even granted a fawning interview with Richard Mellon Scaife – the same right wing mogul who just a decade earlier had accused her and her husband of murder.
Now, you tell me, was Hillary dispassionately grading the media, or just currying favor with anyone who’d give her a microphone?
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16057
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests