With the insults and the low blow
Olby still respects Tony Snow?
That's total bullshit
Lying hypocrite
Krazy Keith has reached a new low

I knew when I heard about the death of the mine rescuers that KO would be happy to use their deaths to attack Bush..frankly I've was waiting for him to blame the earthquake in Peru on Bush too..but theres still the Hurricane heading to Texas I'm sure if it causes enough damage or hopefully for KO some more deaths then he can have an report on how Bush's failure to sign the Kyoto treaty is directly responsible for the Hurricane.

if Billo had made the comment about why they are trying to rescue those miners, kieth would have attack him. "You got a lot damn nerve sir!"

clucker says i haven't watched hardball in months.

And says Matthews spent most of the last year praising Bush.

mmmm?

And as for that last comment, What fucking show are you watching? Falling over himself to praise Bush?

What? Unless someone devotes every second of their show to deriding Bush in every aspect of his life, they must be a right winger huh? Matthews is a little annoying and over the top, but at least he calls it as he sees it, and doesn't spin the shit out of everything he touches. And he's generally pretty moderate there clucks.

This was European schedule day at the office so I was home early

Posted by: philby at August 17, 2007 11:19 PM

Since when do school teachers have "european schedule" days at their "office?"

"Paranoia suits you well."

You don't watch KO much do you?...or you would know that it's not Paranoia to suggest KO would do what I said...because he has already done it before.

clucks, mlong is dead on. Kieth is a tool.

butt clucker,

you is so old and gay. And love the commies in Vietnam.

horse clucker,

you smells like dead taint.

monkey clucker,

your chin and my balls must use the same cologne.

Bush is responsible for the Peruvian Earthquake and the Hurricean Dean!

Despite Olbermann's routine, abysmal third place finishes, does genius David Bauder of the Associated (with terrorists) Press, continue to "think" that 8 p.m. is "dominated" by "Keith Olbermann" and Bill O'Reilly.

Ed Murrow would be very sick
The "news" from some jock-sniffing prick?
Ed Murrow was standing
Where bombs were landing
But Jon Stewart would call Ed a "dick"

Another example of the compassionate schinophrenic leftist.....

John Edwards:

"We know these people. We know their game plan. They're going to attack us personally," Edwards said. "They attacked Elizabeth personally, because she stood up to that she-devil Ann Coulter. … I should not have name-called. But the truth is -- forget the names -- people like Ann Coulter, they engage in hateful language."

###
"these people" check
"she-devil" check
"I should not have name-called" oops check
"they engage in hateful language" check

Mmmm, what a clear think and communicator.....His campaign must need money........

Go and help poor impoverished John Edwards:

www.johnedwards.com

Hurry, before Ann Coulter decides to start attacking Hillary!

So what do you people make of the two Cheney interviews? Do they not matter?

Of course Olbermann is going easy on Tony Snow. You see, Olbermann has stated that they are friends and have traded emails back and forth. Olby is eagerly awaiting Snow's death so he can climb atop his corpse and claim that he too was a big fan of Countdown. Keith should think about going into the funeral business.

And the Democrat websites are all in a Tizzy about the potential for Hurricane Dean to hit the U.S. and do substantial damage so they can blame it all on Bush. Classy group of people aren't they? Actively WISHING that a catastrophic hurricane hits their own country?

Bush is responsible for all that is bad on olbyplanet.

Great recap. It was Friday, so tried to take off from the deplorable one, but I saw some of his usual crap.

Priase to Tony Snow? Olby obviously has amnesia.

Hurricane Dean?

"Not only are we going to Puerto Rico, and we're going to Hispaniola … And we're going to Jamaica and then we're going to Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, to take back the Caribbean! HHooooyaayyyyyyy."

Olbyworld Summer Recap...

Bridge collapse- Bush's fault
Mine collapse- Bush's fault
Hurricane Dean- Bush's fault
No Terrorist attack on the US- Not cause of Bush

Oh, and MM, "she-devil" is not hateful language?

You have difficulty reading my posts.....I never discussed the "Domino Theory"....a strawman argument put forth by you.

I simply see facts as they are and you see facts as some leftist prof told you they were.

Try thinking independently, MM....it may help your closed mind.

Anti-Name,

Cambodia. One third of the population was executed by Pol Pot's commie hordes.

I wonder what Melanie Morgan's mother (who watches KO) thinks of the attention her daughter is receiving.

as for the vid of cheny, he was right about it not worth going into Iraq. (Altough i know some shites in the south who may feel differently).

But shit changed. And lets not forget, he had to harp the administrations line (Bush I), he couldn't exactly say, WHY THE FUCK DIDN"T WE INVADE IRAQ!!! BUSH IS A RETARD!!!! But he still might have felt that way. Heavy lies the crown. Deaths on your mind for 12 years might change an opinion or two. Like even if Iraq is gonna be a quagmire for a long time, maybe its still worth it long term to get rid of saddam, and set up a democracy in the middle east, which right or wrong, was a major part of this administrations policy post 9/11.

Why would they lie about it being easy then, cause to be truthful, they see themselves as doing the right thing, and dont much give a fuck about public opinion. This isn't a defense of cheney, its just my assessment.

Not until damage is caused in the territorial US or a US possession, Brandon. There is still a chance, perhaps a good chance, Dean will hit Mexico, in which case the damage will be the fault of PAN
________________________________________

words cannot even describe this pot cluckstain. Are you for real?

Not until damage is caused in the territorial US or a US possession, Brandon. There is still a chance, perhaps a good chance, Dean will hit Mexico, in which case the damage will be the fault of PAN
________________________________________

words cannot even describe this post cluckstain. Are you for real?

Edwards Caught With Hand In Cookie Jar, Again

DES MOINES, Iowa — Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who has called homeownership "the foundation of the American dream," said Friday he will get rid of personal assets tied to lenders who have foreclosed on Hurricane Katrina victims.

"I will not have my family's money involved in these firms that are foreclosing on people in New Orleans," the former North Carolina senator told The Associated Press.

Edwards has reported $29.5 million in assets, more than half of which are invested in the hedge fund Fortress Investment Group., a company that paid him nearly half a million dollars last year for consulting advice.

Fortress has investments in lenders that offer subprime mortgages, higher priced loans for borrowers considered greater risks. The Wall Street Journal on Friday identified 34 New Orleans homeowners who face foreclosure actions from lenders connected to Fortress.

"My reaction is I'm going to help these people," Edwards said in a telephone interview. "I just learned about this. I don't know the details, I will find out and I will find a way to help them."

wdyc,

south vietnam, cambodia and laos.

the reason it did not extend further is the fortunate self destruction of the Indonessian communist party.

Also communism did spread throughout the 70's, with commie or psuedo commie govs popping up in Benin,Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua.

And while wrong regionally, it wasn't a bad theory. In 1910, there were no communists. By 1960, half the world's population was Communist. Can you blame people for seeing a pattern?

The left loves Castro and Chavez. Those folks never met a communist they didn't love and adore. Just so long as he bashes Bush they adore him.

wdyc, well lets see.

the world poulation in 1953 was about 2.6 billion.

The chinese censes of that same year put their numbers around 650,000,000. The soviets add another 200,000,000 from that time. North Korea gives us 14,000,000. North Vietnam gives us another 16,000,000.
Cuba donates 6,000,000.

that alone gives us near 900,000,000. (and that doesn't include smaller nations or members of communist parties in non commie nations.) So the final number would probably be around 40%.

Which anyway wasn't my point, which was that communisim grew by about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000% in 50 years.

Clucker, you and slob have made countless posts slobbering all over puko chavez. WTF does that loser penn have to do with anything? You are queen of the diverters, for sure.

Glad to see Snow going, much as I was glad to see Scott leave.

Posted by: Clucker at August 17, 2007 11:19 PM

O ye old cluckomutt. I've went no where. It's nice to know that demonmutt's, such as yourself, put me in the league of a man with Tony's stature. But really, you need to get out of mommy's basement and then you will get a little fresh air your brain cells will be able to use. Find the misspelled words dr. mikey phduh.

Glad to see Snow going, much as I was glad to see Scott leave.

Posted by: Clucker at August 17, 2007 11:19 PM

O ye old cluckomutt. I've went no where. It's nice to know that demonmutt's, such as yourself, put me in the league of a man with Tony's stature. But really, you need to get out of mommy's basement and then you will get a little fresh air your brain cells will be able to use. Find the misspelled words dr. mikey phduh.

J$, you are right on the money with your recap. I thought I would fall off the sofa when Olby tried to blame the mine catastrophe and resulting rescue (which he opposed) on the Republicans. What a tool.

And a great thanks to Johnny for flat-out calling Olby what he is - a liar.

Sure hear the cricket's chirping from the libonutts about Edwards being involved in a hedge fund foreclosing on Katrina viticm's home's. Clucker, dr. mikey,phduh, any libby want to defend a rich man involved in taking people's home's? Oh, a rich demonnutt running for "mr" or "ms" at that!

start at the WSJ and WP.

You never tire of being wrong or of prevarication do you, Pea Brain?

Posted by: Mrs. Philby/clucker/rudy at August 18, 2007 4:54 PM

Before I go back and find your posts, are you denying you have defended chavez?

butt clucker,

no one wants to read you as you thnk aloud. You're very impressive btw. And I'm sure John Edwards is incredibly interested in your financial advice.

motherclucker,

do your balls naturally retract? i bet you make an excellent t-bagger.

just think if a 'water carrier' like oreily or rush had suggested not trying to rescue the mine workers what have olby's response had been to that suggestion? it nodoubt would have garnered a special comment and at least a demand that they RESIGN or at the very least it would have been a 'tipping point' for the right wing water carriers and te public would finally tune them ut...right keiffy?

Every single day I see pro-Chavez and/or pro-Castro posts at DU, Daily Kos, and the like. I guess next Clucker will deny those websites even exist.

cluckstain,

you forgot the article where they ridicule Fred Thompson, citing Fox News as a source. I guess they ARE reliable when their views mirror your own.

p.s. Are you squeezing your tits together right now? or do they always look like that?

oh and cluckstain, about your beutiful article about paranoia among right wingers. No one actually thinks muslims will ever pull off taking over or destroying this country,

but, and see if this gets inside your mind, they believe there actually ARE muslims out their who'd like to give it a shot. And kill a whole hell of a lot of people in the process. Thats the difference.

It aint paranoia on our side, its denial on yours.

P.S. Do you really shave your balls, or did your Uncle lie to me?

Fred Thompson is Arthur Branch, or Arthur Branch is Fred Thompson.
_________________________________________

hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahha.

wait. clustercluck. that wasnt funny. Is that a Daily Kos joke. How do you guys even see anything over there? That place is so dense, light actually bends around it.

cluckhead,

I'm just waiting for you to start calling McCain "the guy from Wedding Crashers"

Is this the new Daily Kos strategy?

Hurrican dean id Bush's fault. If it destroys Jamaica Bush will not send FEMA.
He doesn't care about hurricans and persoanlly controls them!

Yes I do monitor the liberal websites and I know what I see there and I see pretty much on a daily basis. Here are just two examples from Democratic Underground TODAY, this one praises socialized medicine and Chavez: www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3452848&mesg_id=3452848

and this one just praises Chavez period.

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3457778&mesg_id=3457778

I guess Anonymous is the one who seems to have a problem with reality as they continue to deny that the left never met a dictator they didn't love.

Brando,

What is your problem with socialized medicine, son?...

I have a problem with communism "Rat" and the praising of communists, something you radical leftists have no problem with whatsoever and want to turn this country into a system like that of Chavez and Castro have in their own countries.

Brando,

i didn't ask what political system you hated, child. i asked what your problem was with socialized medicine. Do any of you neocons know what you think without Rush telling you?...

And do you have the ability to comprehend what you read there "Rat"? Of course not, you just believe the drivel you are spoon-fed by the radical leftist websites and your own beloved Keith Olbermann.

Read the posts I've linked to. The posters there clearly believe that a communist style government which includes socialized medicine is the model on which this country's government should be based upon. If you can't see the problem in that, well, congratulations, you're the Queen/King of Olbyloons.

Hillary,

Are you now, or have you ever been a communist?

Give 'em half a chance and the Dems would turn this country into a communistic/socialized "democracy" in about 5 minutes flat.

Gee Bob what right-wing propaganda do I read that I don't know about but you do? I seldom watch Fox, don't listen to Rush, etc. Yet you have decided that without one iota of fact you can announce that I'm somehow spewing talking points I've heard. Well you're right about one thing, I am repeating talking points--but they come straight from the liberal websites. Confuse the issue all you want but the truth is that the leftists support communist dictators. Perhaps it's time you admit the truth there "Bob" about your own party.

Jesus Christ is the son of God, the Almighty. He is the one true Savior sent to absolve us of our sins and lead us to eternal life beyond this one.

I didn't realize that was a) opinion (it's fact) or b) espousing a "3rd Century heretical" view, but I guess to an atheist, any talk of religion is forbidden.

I'll add you to my prayer list.

Before I go back and find your posts, are you denying you have defended chavez?

They are liars through and through your Royal Highness. Clucker has tried to claim this morning that he can find no praise of Chavez & Castro on Daily Kos. Funny, I had problem whatsoever finding many posts and "diaries" full of praise for these communist leaders, made in just the last few days. Ditto for Democratic Underground. No wonder they worship Olbermann, they lie as often as he does.

clucker/rudy/philby won't deny making "pro chavez" posts. She just dances all around while playing the divert card. Good little spolbyloon.

Here's one for starters.

And another. Click on my name in the post and it will take you to the link.

And yet another.

And another.

And what the heck--one more. That's five--enough for you? You were saying????????

Ah---selective editing at its finest. I was asked to provide links I did. I guess know you'll ask me to weed through and find every single pro-Chavez and Castro post. Do you people ask others to wipe your butts for you too? Are you really this lazy and this intellectually dishonest???

Of course you are. You're Olbyloons and just like Olbermann you are proven liars, lazy, and use selective sourcing to justify your warped world views.

But thanks for again illustrating the full extent of your stupidity here for the world to see.

Ah--the Olbyloons are angry. My work here is done.

And I think "Justina" is probably either Keith Olbermann in drag or Chavez himself. Both probably get off dressing like girls. We know that Olbermann gets off in dating little girls.

hey def, cause the rest of the world is pretty interested in bettering their lives too. And they might be willing to exceed the great dream that is the 35 hour work week. Hows France's economy by the way?

and as for bettering your life, there was time when people tried to do that on their own. But now we can get Barrack to do it for us. WIN WIN!

DT, why stop at a 35 hour workweek?

If a 35 hour week will allow workers to 'better their lives' a 20 hour workweek would allow more improvement, wouldn't it?

And if that 35 hour week will make inroads into unemployment a 20 hour week should eradicate it.

The only snag I see is that with all that extra time for improvement they may not earn enough with the short work week to maintain life, much less improve themselves.

I can't believe I didn't see the answer to this immediately. A new law to double every wage in the country. That should do it.

The perfect plan. Cut productivity in half while simultaneously doubling wages. That should solve the problem.

I wonder how pricing themselves out of the export market and being too impoverished to pay for imports help them?

They will quickly become a third world socialist hell on earth.

Grammie

janet hawkins, dont you understand. In the mind of a liberal, There is no such thing as creating more money. There is the exact same amount of wealth in the world at any given time. (and most of that is in a vault that the government controls, and refuses to give to the poor)

Grammie pulls this hypothesis out of her wrinkly ass and then pontificates how it won't work.

Maybe a 2 hour work week won't work either, eh Janet?

Your imagination is stellar. The execution and logic of your points, not so much.
_________________________________________

and yet you dont address the issue. But you almost make it look like you did. Nice going.

DT, I simply extended your point further along the scale.

If I read you correctly a 40+ hour work week is worst, a 40 hour week is bad, a 35 hour week is good than a 20 hour work week must be best.

An arbitrary imposition of a nation wide reduction in the labor force hours with no regard to productivity or individual needs/desires is a good path to economic ruin for many.

I consider Chavez a radical socialist (actually a communist already but taking it slow ). He is following in the path of Cuba and the USSR, those worker's paradise.

If they continue on this path I believe they will go the route that all communist societies have gone, deprivation, misery and the loss of their human rights.

Grammie

PS Could you have been banned from NB for comments such as "Grammie pulls this hypothesis out of her wrinkly ass" or for your opposing views?

CB, they never do. I think that they truly believe that the economy can be manipulated by fiat into an economic paradise for man.

Europe is starting to feel the pain from their long love affair with socialism that they could afford only because we Americans, the most productive economy the world has ever seen, removed the bulk of the burden for their defense. More conservatives are being elected in many European countries lately.

And at home we seem to be breeding more and more who want to bring us down that same mine filled path.

Grammie

Well, boy and girls, we have learned a great deal today:

Brandon blows and goes about nothing. He is like the slow child in a spelling bee. The teacher says spell "dingbat," and the kid gets nowhere. The teacher starts giving clues, "d". Nothing. "i". Nothing. "n". And, the kid blurts our, "d-i-n-o-p-q-r-s" and smiles broadly. Here's today's word: "Brandon". And, here's the correct spelling, "d-i-n-g-b-a-t." Well, dingbat, you got bupkes, about Venezuela, Liberals, politics or theology.

Then, we have the nation's greatest coward, the ultimate chickenhawk, the one the only Pea Brain, picking up his own turds (Remember last week's query about what Pea Brain was picking? Now we know.) to hurl, but so uncoordinated he hurls them back upon himself. Give it up, Pea Brain. You don't have the wits or the cajones to play with the big boys. All you can do is slander-slander-slander, then run and hide. Don't you ever get tired of living in fear? I guess a brighter coward would not slander bigger boys, and a courageous ignoramus wouldn't bother calling brighter boys names. You're a dangerous combination, Pea Brain. A real nudnik. Have you ever thought of getting a job in the White House Communications office? True, you wouldn't be as competent as most of your colleagues, but you would be just as nasty.

Mrs. Hawkins, you get a pass tonight. I guess I feel some sympathy for you, having such dimwitted progeny. Besides, you're bright and articulate, just disagreeable. A real balabusta.

And, although I owe you nothing, consider this: "Castro bought revolution to a nation that needed a revolution. Castro's problem is that as soon as he won the revolution, he snatched it from the people and has never returned it. Batista and Castro are brothers in pain and misery. They both illustrate what happens when the middle does not hold, when the extremists define the dialogue."

For Brandon and Pea Brain, since I am sure you don't know this, Fulgencio Batista was Castro's predecessor, a far right wing despot who was supported by US corporate interests and generally protected by the US government.

Who said the words in quotations?

Would me mind telling me when were you active there and your user name?

Grammie

Whatizname, I had no idea that I thought that.

I am so lucky to have kind people like you pointing out my own thoughts to me.

So I can do a better job knowing what I think in the future exactly how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Grammie

Whatizname, I had no idea that I thought that.

I am so lucky to have kind people like you pointing out my own thoughts to me.

So I can do a better job knowing what I think in the future exactly how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Grammie

cluckstain, what can be said about you that hasn't already been said about my aunt edna's yeast infection.

and wdyc,
There are poor in this country. they have my sympathy, and i believe if they keep at it, in time, they can turn it around. but there are also a lot more fuck ups, who will never turn it around. I laugh at them. Dont confuse poor and fuck ups. As for your wage crying, i always thought it would be interesting if one day a major corperation said, ya know what, we're going on strike. They already are in a way, leaving the country in droves.

But in your mind, someday we can be America, highest minimum wage in the world, but without a corporation in fucking sight.

Whatizname, I had no idea that I thought that.

I am so lucky to have kind people like you pointing out my own thoughts to me.

So I can do a better job knowing what I think in the future exactly how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Grammie

Sorry for all the posts. I kept getting error messages to try again later.

Grammie

From your tin foil hat to me, no doubt.

Grammie

Don't go overboard on your "Europe turns conservative" analysis, Mrs. Hawkins.

First: You analysis is based upon the faulty assumption that Europe is socialistic. It is not. Germany may be more rabidly capitalistic than the US, and the world business center is now considered to be London and not New York. Even France is a nation of privately-owned toll roads and entrepreneurs. You are confusing worker and citizen rights and protections with socialism. That is a common misperception of the Commie Under Every Bed crowd. That rather went out the window when the Medical Examiner had to pull the cocktail dress off Jedgar to conduct his autopsy, but in still resurfaces from time-to-time in the RRWR's.

Second: What is conservative in the US is not necessarily conservative in Europe, and what is conservative in Italy is not necessarily conservative in Ireland. Again, some of the RRWR apologists, Barnes and Kristol, in particular, tout this, but without much conviction. Certainly, without support. It tends to be a self-serving proclamation rather than an analysis. I do tend to see parts of European moving in a conservative direction, but that is happening largely in the former East and in very disturbing, non-democratic ways.

Third: And, this related to the second point, I don't think a trend is evident. What might well be perceived as a rightward jolt in Denmark and the Netherlands, was driven entirely by xenophobia (Brandon and Pea Brain, that means people who hate people from other countries, like you do.). When the new leaders began to tinker with the safety network, they pulled back quickly. Angela Merkel in Germany is conservative only in the sense she felt it would be good for business in Germany to develop stronger ties with Washington. She did som and her popularity has plummeted. Sarkozy won a mighty victory on his anti-Islamic platform, but in the electoral run-offs, when the focus became his economic platform, voters fled left in droves, and he is without a working mandate. In the UK, Blair was essentially a reformist, but a reformer of the existing structures, not the creator of a great leap right. And, Brown is most assuredly more dedicated to the social safety net than Bush's lapdog ever was.

If your basic premise is of any value, it is little value, indeed.

Who said the words in quotations?

Posted by: Clucker at August 19, 2007 5:43 PM

What? It wasn't a display of originality?... From you?....

Mind including some small fraction of the worry among those presidents (including our currently popular "military-industrial complex" president/ icon) about what would happen if Baptiste were outsted.

I know those are the concerns of unhinged anti-communists paranoiacs who refused to walk in the blinding light of the fact that the USSR was a papertiger of our own making, hence a concern of no consequence unless we're talking about dictators in Iraq....

However... don't you think you could have included that notion if only to flesh things out a bit and make it less like something The Daily Worker would have scoffed at printing?...

Another example of how the "Cares" of this world along with her/his communist-loving ilk would just love to see corporations in this country nationalized and money taken away from the "very rich" so they could replicate their own little socialist states in this country.

need I go on?

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 19, 2007 6:55 PM

No don't. Since you are unable to cast the subject in any light other than peasants vs robber barons, it's meaningless.

yep wdyc, that aquafina one is scandalous. And hey, do you think all corporations and businesses sell cigarettes? and why are meds high in this country? Because we demand more meds. WHy because of third party pay systems. Which includes insurance companies and your glorious national health care.

Just once, i'd like someone from your point of view to admit how this country got wealthy in the first place. It was business. Business is the business of america. BIg business, small business, out of home business, all are far more valuable to our society than you would ever admit.

Business made us rich. The end.

"Who said the words in quotations?
Posted by: Clucker at August 19, 2007 5:43 PM"

"Brandon blows and goes about nothing. He is like the slow child in a spelling bee. The teacher says spell "dingbat," and the kid gets nowhere. The teacher starts giving clues, "d". Nothing. "i". Nothing. "n". And, the kid blurts our, "d-i-n-o-p-q-r-s" and smiles broadly. Here's today's word: "Brandon". And, here's the correct spelling, "d-i-n-g-b-a-t." Well, dingbat, you got bupkes, about Venezuela, Liberals, politics or theology."

Grammie

Grammie

I don't want corporations" nationalized", I want stronger oversight on them so they don't take advantage of the common people.
I'm not even saying that the democrats can and will do this, but we stand a better chance with them in control then the republicans. We've seen that the last 7 years.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 19, 2007 7:26 PM

WDYC, you don't like being mischaracterized.... huh?

Well, since you are not an extremist and only want reasonable goverment oversite, do you think you could find it within yourself, to consider that some of the folks objecting to some of your characterizations aren't advocating complete laissez faire capitalism either? Or would THAT action be tanamount to pouring cold water into the pot you so enjoying stewing in?

Anyone else with examples of atrocities that the corporations have committed?
I bet even Cecilia and Brandy would join in .
But they are probably aware that it would make them look foolish, based on the stupid comments they have already made.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 19, 2007 8:10 PM

Dark Star, maybe you can give WDYC some pointers in governmental curruption and the risks of placing much power in the hands of pols, as well as the history of unintended consequences from govt policies. He strangely seems to be drawing a blank on that right now...

These tales can go along with WDYC's profound and shocking information that there's been heinous corruption within the history of free enterprise, as well...

After that you can draw me a map to your planet. We all wish to live in a world where all the swords have been beaten into plowshares.

I am convinced that we could have already found a cure for cancer if we didn't have the powers to be,,,yes the fucking corporations, preventing it from happening.
_________________________________________

The coperations being all corperationy, and coperating everything.

SOmetimes businesses rip people off? stop the presses!! The answer? Stop fucking buying from them.

I'm not being apologetic, im being a realist.
One day, this country will be begging for business to come back.

It’s good to know that if I ever need brain surgery, I’ll be able to cover the surgeon’s fee by writing him up a few personal movie reviews, or maybe rake his leaves or take his dogs for a walk. I could also re-tile the roof of his mansion if he promised to do an extra special job.
_________________________________________

or you could just let yourself die. Just throwin that out there for consideration.

or you could just let yourself die. Just throwin that out there for consideration.
Posted by: at August 19, 2007 11:55 PM

The Republican Health Care Solution

Thank you so much for your contribution !

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 19, 2007 11:59 PM

Or you could nationalize health care, place it into the hands of politicians so it can become the same sort of political football that social security has become.

Raise taxes to pay for it. Ration the number of people allowed to become health care workers the amount of money they are allowed to make, and the availability treatment and procedures, as well as who can have the treatment in order to keep govt costs down.

Delay the availability of new drugs onto the market in order to cut expenses. Price control all drug as a means of cutting costs and make it less appealing for investors to invest in research and development of new drugs.

Or...

you can work to make the current health care system more consumer driven by allowing individuals the same tax deductions on their health care premiums that businesses receive to insure their workers. This allows individuals to own their insurance policies rather than their employers owning them and forces insurance companies to market policies to individuals thus causing more variety in the types of policies (different policies for healthy 24 year olds than for 55 year olds) and allowing groups of people to form insurance co-opts making it less likely that corporations that market ten dollar apiece plastic urine specimen containers are able to so to individual consumers (see- posts about the pentagon and expensive nuts and bolts)....

I really like your healthcare solution Cecelia....A VERY Republican 'solution' that solves nothing, ignors the real problems, and defends the status quo.

I saw nothing in your critique to help those who cannot afford coverage, castastrophic, or chronic care because of their age, medical history, or financial means.

The simple truth is that a free market solution cannot work in a system in which the individuals who need the product the most are systematically locked out of the system in pursuit of the bottom line. Tax or incentive based solutions will rarely help such individuals.

By all means, lets also keep and protect the parasitic insurance industry whose ability to enrich themselves depends on their ability to deny life itself!

Yes, how VERY Republican!

"Yes, Cecelia is a republican, and proud of devising a plan that will not help those people."

We are also well aware that the only reason republicans are devising there own 'plans' at all is because they have too. They would have preferred to simply continue to ignor the problem as if it didn't exist.

So....the next best 'solution' is to offer their own 'plan' that solves nothing, but successfully muddies the water just enough to allow them to allow them to preserve the same sorry state of affairs.

Well, what have we here, patsy/why is on his drunken cut and paste rage and mike is back telling everyone (except spolbyloons) they are wrong with not a shred of evidence.

And Jeff, here YOU are back making inane little comments without a shred of cleverness.

Thats why you are nothing but a troll.

The Anonloons are so proud of their posts they won't even use a name when they do post. I'd be ashamed too if all I could do was cut and paste off-topic articles like they do.

I saw nothing in your critique to help those who cannot afford coverage, castastrophic, or chronic care because of their age, medical history, or financial means.

The simple truth is that a free market solution cannot work in a system in which the individuals who need the product the most are systematically locked out of the system in pursuit of the bottom line. Tax or incentive based solutions will rarely help such individuals.

By all means, lets also keep and protect the parasitic insurance industry whose ability to enrich themselves depends on their ability to deny life itself!

Yes, how VERY Republican!

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 1:16 AM

Well, I hate to break your heart here by saying that this is not a plan to do away with either Medicare or Medicaid. Receiving a tax deduction on premiums most certainly helps low wage working people pay for insurance coverage, allows folks to ban together for group rates and both Medicaid and and Medicare can be strengthened to support those who are out of work-- a condition that is generally temporary.

The best plan encompasses both a consumer driven system along side federal programs when it comes to curtailing the sort of runaway inflation in costs that we see in the industry, while not endangering the quality.

Will everyone always be insured-- no, but if you know anything about the Canadian model for nationalized healthcare, you understand that there is rationing there as well.

You're going to have to get over your juvenile partisan namecalling bugaboos and compromise, my friend. There's not going to be a complete dismantling of the current system in this country even if HRC won the presidency tomorrow and there was a large Dem majority in the House and Senate.

We are also well aware that the only reason republicans are devising there own 'plans' at all is because they have too. They would have preferred to simply continue to ignor the problem as if it didn't exist.

So....the next best 'solution' is to offer their own 'plan' that solves nothing, but successfully muddies the water just enough to allow them to allow them to preserve the same sorry state of affairs.

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 1:35 AM

Actually, Republicans have been talking about health care "plans" --that encompass tax deductions, medical savings accounts, insurance co-opts since the 80's. Newt Gingrich has been making speeches on this stuff for several decades. It's not covered much in the media, but then there's not much coverage of nationalized programs either.

If you bothered to care about ideas rather than the most adolescent form of "my team" politics, and went to both conservative as well as liberal thinktank sites, you'd know this.

Mike says it, so, it must be true. His wife must be back to work, oh boy!

The simple truth is that a free market solution cannot work in a system in which the individuals who need the product the most are systematically locked out of the system in pursuit of the bottom line.

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 1:16 AM

Any evidence for this? Maybe one of your "conservative evangelical" sisters can confirm.

Cecelia: "If you bothered to care about ideas rather than the most adolescent form of "my team" politics", and went to both conservatives as well as liberal thinktank sites, you'd know this."

Actually, contrary to your silly assertion, I am well aware of Gingrich's 'plan', as well as others some various republican's have proposed, just as the definition of rhetorical questions is nothing new to me either. I just don't believe any of them effectively address the actual problems.

Maybe YOU think tax deductions and and medical savings accounts would be helpful in paying for a $100,00 + medical castastrophy, but I don't. I think they are nothing but patchwork 'solutions' designed to avoid scraping the current system, which is only the way it is because it happened to evolve that way. As long as hordes of parasitic insurance companies are involved in the process, the problem will never be solved.

Sadly, the one thing I agree with you about is that there probably won't be a wholesale dismantling of the current system in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean I won't keep advocating it, ....Because it is the right thing to do, and it is the only way to solve the real problems. I would certainly have no problem paying higher taxes to support a fairer and more humane system.

Has it ever occured to you that the current system prevents many, many Americans from pursuing their dreams as an entrepeneur? So many people feel trapped in a job they feel they cannot leave because they would then loose there coveted insurance coverage. I have one former friend with heart problems who was trapped on that treadmill in leau of retirement. Ironically, he ended up dying of a heart attack while waiting on an appeal to his insurance company for approval of what was then an "experimental" procedure that may well have saved his life.

Finally Cecelia, if you think my core belief that hard core Republicans really do not give a damn about about these kind of issues constitutes "partisan name calling", then so be it. The TRUTH is that I am only a 'partisan' because in my view, the democrats are currently the party that MOST OFTEN (not always) holds the best interests of ordinary Americans as a core value, and the depublicans most often take the side of the 'haves'....Therefore it seems very much like they really DO hold personal selfishness up as some sort of a virtue, .....rather than a vice it actually is.

Let's be fair. No one cares that much about things that don't affect them. Republicans, by and large, don't care about changing the health care system because it works for them just fine. If you have a family income over 70k, you are more likely to be able to afford good health insurance, and more likely to be Republican. Likewise if you have a family income less than 70k, you are more likely to be a Democrat, and to have a harder time affording health insurance, and have more of an incentive to raise taxes to pay for it because you will spend proportionally less.

The health care debate is plainly and simply defined in economic terms. Everyone in this game is simply trying to get better health care for themselves at a lower total cost to themselves. It's an old story. Of course, the demographics of the parties are not "pure," and so there are a lot of poorer and more religious Republicans that enter in on the side of health care reform, as well as a lot of atheist Democratic doctors who don't want anything to do with it.

"Receiving a tax deduction on premiums most certainly helps low wage working people pay for insurance coverage"

It helps wealthier people more, quite obviously. It's a regressive benefit.

I've lived in Canada as a poor person, and in the United States pretty comfortably set for the most part. I wouldn't want to do it any other way, on either end. I would vote to raise taxes for expanded access for people at the lower end, because it does seem like this is both morally wrong and a sap on productivity.

1:57: "Lets be fair. No one cares much about things that don't affect them."

&

"Everyone in this game is simply trying to get better health care for themselves at a lower total cost for themselves."

I STRONGLY DISAGREE!!!!

Yes, It IS true that MANY don't care much about things that don't affect them, but there are also MANY others who do. Those with true empathy are then often criticized by those devoid of empathy themselves because those without empathy seem incapable of believing that everyone is not like them, therefore there just HAS to be an ulterior motive!

Mike,

That your friend must work in order to have health insurance is very much what I'm addressing. Aside from preventing him from starting his own business, a chief problem for him (and everyone in that situation) is that he doesn't own his policy, his employer owns it and the interests of the employer and employee may be very different, indeed. This also sets up the dynamic where the insurance company works to please their patron-- the employer rather than the individual being insured.

If your friend could deduct his own health insurance premiums from his own income taxes, the way his employer does, he most certainly woud not be trapped into working for someone else due to insurance issues. If he could ban together with other people who have the same particular policy needs or who work in the same industry--- say...eh..... insurance salespeople....small insurance business owners...... and could ban together into co-opts where insurance companies must formulate policies (their product) and offer rates that appeal to a particular and varied clientele.

As to you proclamation of Democratic Party fealty..., I have no problem whatsoever with your believing that Democrats "care" about helping the little guy more than Republicans care. However, you made a false statement that Republicans are Johnny-come-latelys' to the issue because they were forced. Again, if you really kept up with things from all sides, you'd have never made that remark.

Within your conviction that your party is best for the country, you certainly can consider that what is "best" is a subjective. There are many people who don't feel that it's realistic or in the best interest of anyone (including small entrepeneurs) to demonize an entire industry or to operate in the mode where the word "big" is applied to all industries in order to make them sound omnious.

Perhaps you can find it in yourself to consider that folks who have different ideas of what's good for the coutry aren't all villians. Though they differ with you, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that they are as well-intended.

So Mike, Dems control both the House and the Senate. Where's their plan to improve health care in this country? How's that coming for you Libs exactly?

Answer: The Dems are just as much in the pockets of the big insurance and drug companies as are the Republicans on this. They don't want reform or they would have enacted it when they had the chance. Again, they are good at talking a good game, as in Edwards saying he "cares for the poor of this country" while at the same time profiting off of their foreclosures. Typical. That attitude is true of BOTH parties.

Let's deal in realities here. Really, you should try reality sometime instead of doing your best to promote socialized medicine here in the U.S. You think the system is screwed up now? Wait til you try socialized medicine.

Cecelia" "Perhaps you can find it in yourself to consider that folks who have different ideas of what's good for the coutry aren't all villians."

No, I don't believe most on the right are 'villians' at all. I believe many, if not most on the right are good people, just as those on the left are mostly good people.

If my posts give a different impression, that isn't my intention at all.

devoid of empathy themselves because those without empathy seem incapable of believing that everyone is not like them, therefore there just HAS to be an ulterior motive!

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 2:17 PM

"I CARE!"... We know already that you're a deeply empathetic beautiful human being. How? You've implied as much many times and your desire to use the public dollar towards those policies you think will help, is somehow all that's necessary for proving it among those who share your views. We get that...

However, you statement I quote above is a bit contradictory for a guy who just expressed the notion that a whole group of people cares only about themselves and are positively riddled with "ulterior motives".

If my posts give a different impression, that isn't my intention at all.

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 2:41 PM

I'm please to hear that's the case. Thanks for clearing that up.

The simple truth is that a free market solution cannot work in a system in which the individuals who need the product the most are systematically locked out of the system in pursuit of the bottom line.

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 1:16 AM

Nope, no proof.

Sure Jeff, like I really need to post "proof" that:

1) - People with serious pre-existing conditions either cannot buy insurance period, or it is priced completely out of their reach.

2) - The same with older folks without pre-existing conditions.

3) - Insurance companies routinely look for reasons to deny valid claims because of omissions on applications (often very innocent omissions).

4) - Insurance companies are in business for one purpose - to make money, and please shareholders, and every time they pay a claim, their profit margin decreases.

5) - Insurance premiums for older people and people with chronic conditions are way beyond the reach of most such folks.

6) - Routine exclusion of those with the most need produces the healthiest profits.

7) - Even Companies employing such high risk individuals are routinely priced out of the market by insurers, therebye tempting them to discriminate against those same individuals who need the insurance the most.

Jeff, only YOU would demand 'proof' for such universal truths that even most who defend the current system understand.

And yet you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

And yet you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 3:14 PM

Really? Are you, clucker/philby/rudy and patsy/why/anon/and 20 other names "no one?" Remember what happened all of the other times you made feeble attempts to speak for anyone ,but, yourself? You failed, miserably.

You actually think I take you seriously Jeff?

Do you REALLY think Clucker takes you seriously?

Are you so brain dead you can't see that all these people reserve their serious posts for others and they are only playing with you when they address you?

How many people does Clucker refer to as "Pea Brain"? How many other people do I call a "moron"? How many others does AAP refer to as "DUMBS**T"?

There is a reason for all of this Jeff, ....and parisand "name calling" is NOT that reason.

Can you read? I will simplify it, for you. I was saying that you, philby and patsy aren't everyone, dope. The reason for your childish name calling is simple, you are all disgruntled spolbyloons. Plain and simple.

Jeff, only YOU would demand 'proof' for such universal truths that even most who defend the current system understand.

And yet you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 3:14 PM

Insurance companies are in the business to make money? Wow...those rats!

Actually, "old people" have Medicare, if you'll remember.

People would pre-existing could be covered with high risk pools mandates on insurance providers at the state level.

Remember this isn't a one size fits all plan. It's a plan where employers still offer coverage for tax breaks, individuals get tax breaks for buying their own coverage, there is still Medicare and Medicaid.

Insurance companies would have to cater to a variety of folks and groups. Any entity, church groups, professional clubs, unions, etc could pool together and buy group coverage with the same mandates on insurace companies via COBRA and other laws that are in place now.

i think mindset that comes from ownership of your healthcare policy will also extend to ownership of your health in general. We're a hell of a lot more careful about things if we have to pay the cost of fixing them. I think everyone, including Medicaid recepients should be accountable to paying some sort of out-of-pocket cost even if it's based on a sliding scale income level that includes welfare benefits.

Jeff: "Can you read, I will simplify it for you."

Jeff, you already think and write at a third grade.....you can't possibly simplify it any more than it already is.......LOL

aap, coming from someone who actually responded to the fraud, rudy ramirez, all I can do is laugh.

There should be a way where Jeff's posts can be redirected to a more appropriate site.
Here's one on his level:

http://www.kidsites.com/

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 20, 2007 7:42 PM

coming from someone who actually responded to the fraud, rudy ramirez, all I can do is laugh.

AAP on Jeff: "Don't stop now, you must be trying to set a record for stupidity and paranoia. Do go on."

All he can do is break his old record. Don't forget how many times Jeff lied about me posting as other posters.

The closest he has come to admitting it was with his condescending remark a week or so ago angrily claiming that my calling him on his recent anti-troop remarks was SO much worse than his cute little "name game".

calling him on his recent anti-troop remarks

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 9:14 PM

Which remarks were those, prick? I will donate $1000 to olbermannwatch if you can post one "anti-troop" remark I made, asshole. Since you have claimed Sharon to be the most level headed poster here, she will decide if the post you dig up is actually "anti-troop." Come on prick, dig it up.

The post I am referring to has a different name under it (still you) so I am sure you will deny it. I reposted it the other day, I'm sure you saw it. One of the reasons why you loons post under multi names is just for that reason, no accountability. Deny making it under a different name, olbyloon tactic.

"One of the reasons why you loons post under multi nameS is just for that reason, no accountability."

LOL!

Where is YOUR accountability Jeff....you lying hypocrite? You have repeatedly LIED by accusing me and others of posting under other names.....and YOU have the nerve to talk about 'accountability'?

You are beyond belief....you pathological LIAR!

LOL........Jeff: "Which remarks were those prick?"

Sure, sure Jeff! We'll discuss your disrespect for our troops as you own up to your multiple LIES that went on for months accusing me of posting as others.

Sure, sure Jeff! We'll discuss your disrespect for our troops as you own up to your multiple LIES that went on for months accusing me of posting as others.

Posted by: Mike at August 20, 2007 10:28 PM

In other words, there weren't any, liar.

Jeff: "In other words, there weren't any, liar."

Heeere's Jeff again! calling me a "liar", even as he once again refuses to confront his own multiple lies....which effectively PROVES he is a serial liar.

No, prick, what it proves is I never made any "anti-troop" or have any "disrespect" for our troops, as you back pedaled your slanderous lies too. If I did, you would have posted them, you didn't, therefore, you're a fatass liar. I'm sure everyone sees that.

"I'm leaving and never coming back!" said mike.
"I don't defend Olbermahn!" said mike.
"I was driven to defend him by you guys!" said mike, a short time later.

Here I am, LMAO at Jeff again...cuz he sez: "No, prick, what it proves is I never made any "anti-troop" or have and "disrespect" for our troops, as you backpedaled your slanderous lies to. If I did, you would have posted them, you didn't, therefore, you're a fatass liar. I'm sure everyone sees that."


Now lets break down Jeff's illogical logic a little:

1) "No, prick, what it proves is I never made any "anti-troop" or have any "disrespect" for our troops": Sure Jeff, anything you say Jeff.....But, by using your OWN twisted logic, it ALSO means that your three month long binge of slanderous LIES about me posting
as others PROVES you are a slanderous serial liar! ....Because you've yet to prove or back any of them with up with facts!

2) - "as you back pedaled your slanderous lies too.": You can't prove I've ever "back pedaled" on anything I've said, because I haven't.

3) - "If I did, you would have posted them,": In case you have failed to notice Jeff, I don't ever cut, paste, and re-post anything from previous threads (the quotes shown in this post are retyped by hand from the same thread - I work on a lap top with a touch pad, and that makes copying and pasting from other sources or threads very difficult if not impossible). Also, you read into anything whatever you please, so posting 'proof' means nothing to you anyway.

4) - "you didn't, therefore you're a fatass liar: Not only am I not a liar, but my ass isn't fat either.

5) - "I'm sure everyone sees that": Now Jeff, you hypocrite, how many times have you lectured ME for speaking for 'everyone'?

Can you read? I will simplify it, for you. I was saying that you, philby and patsy aren't everyone, dope. The reason for your childish name calling is simple, you are all disgruntled spolbyloons. Plain and simple.

Posted by: royalking at August 20, 2007 4:25 PM

______

So you did lie.

You owe me an apology.

Can you read? I will simplify it, for you. I was saying that you, philby and patsy aren't everyone, dope. The reason for your childish name calling is simple, you are all disgruntled spolbyloons. Plain and simple.

Posted by: royalking at August 20, 2007 4:25 PM

______

So you did lie.

You owe me an apology.

Can you read? I will simplify it, for you. I was saying that you, philby and patsy aren't everyone, dope. The reason for your childish name calling is simple, you are all disgruntled spolbyloons. Plain and simple.

Posted by: royalking at August 20, 2007 4:25 PM

______

So you did lie.

You owe me an apology.

Can you read? I will simplify it, for you. I was saying that you, philby and patsy aren't everyone, dope. The reason for your childish name calling is simple, you are all disgruntled spolbyloons. Plain and simple.

Posted by: royalking at August 20, 2007 4:25 PM

______

So you did lie.

You owe me an apology.

philby, your quadruple post, is it supposed to mean or say something? Been drinking already, today?

8:24 makes about as much sense as 1:38 does, zero.

Correction, for you olbyloons. I meant 8:24 makes about as much sense as 1:00 does, zero.

As in Rudy, dressing as a Queen is dragging his Republican credibility while the moron, I mean Mormon, takes pot shots at him.

______________

Are you talking about Rudy Guiliani or the Rudy Ramirez Pea Brain obsesses about?

patsy, you better explain for "drivel" to philby. You've got her scratching behind her ear with her foot. This outta be a doozie......olbyloons explaining their delusional rants to one another!