A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[megaloman]

Originally posted by Anntila the Hun


I had dinner with Tucker Carlson the other night,

Well, assuming this is true, one thing is certain, given that Tuck is a grown up version of the kid who didn't play any high school sports but rather hung with his favorite English teacher after school debating the merits of Keats versus Yeats, which prepped him well for college nerdom and a later career as a milquetoast RiNO with no more knowledge of the issues than our own dearly beloved (but mostly laughed at) Hank, i.e. he is boring, I’m sure to make more than your jaw drop. Unless of course you go Commando.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Do you have a cite? Because the only one I can find is from the San Francisco Medical Society in 2003 that says that because of MICRA, California obstetricians pay about $45,000 a year. I haven't practiced in the Bay Area in California in about three years, so maybe things have changed drastically. When I practiced there, the malpractice insurance companies loved to set reserves for claims that weren't going anywhere and matters that never became claims, and then they'd charge ridiculous surcharges based on non-existent claims history.

See also, http://www.sfms.org/m_brief.htm though I can't find a publication date on this article, though it looks like it was before Proposition 12 passed here in Texas.

No - I should know better, but I was repeating hearsay. I sit on the Republican Central Committee for Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley) and the chairman is a doctor. He was once the president of the AMA. Anyway, most of the leadership of the Republican party here in the Bay Area is pissed off doctors. He is constantly telling me medical malpractice nightmares. If you want me to get you sources from him I can. If it is really important.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by megaloman
In honor of President Bush's historic visit to Europe this week, I have penned a letter to all the Pierres and Dieters over there.

Dear Europe:

Listen up you socialist a-hole pussies, I have a story for you.

"Once upon time there was a diseased rotten continent filled with self-absorbed effete elitist fucks who were a century past their sell-by date. Despite a shared universal ignorance of the common ideals of capitalist economic principles, freedom, liberty and any sense of morality, these little girlie-men couldn’t get along with each other and play nice in their burgeoning cesspool and a savior known as Uncle Sam had to come in and reset the geo-political order to save the cesspool from its turdish inhabitants twice in a 30 year period.

Then, on the one occasion when good old Uncle Sam could use a little support and cooperation, these imbittered shitpuffs turned their generally useless backs on him. But in the end he was fine. He was wealthy and packing some big heat and had God on his side, so he could go it alone. Keeping the spoils of victory for himself. Meanwhile, the little pissants on the rotten continent, while united, remained in a steady downward spiral, much as poo poo circles the drain before disappearing forever. Like yesterday’s news. And Uncle Sam laughed while he waived bye bye.

The end."

Yours truly,

America

I used to work in Asia and in Europe with a great many European attorneys. We all keep in contact on line. I just sent them all this letter. I can hardly wait for the responses. I will let you know when I get anything.

[Spanky]

I have a question for the board:

I consider myself a moderate Republican. I am sure Mr. Megaloman would consider me a Rino. However, I don't understand why people consider George W. Bush such a conservative. He is a little more conservative than me on the social issue. But on those he mostly just talks a lot and does nothing (e.g. not really pushing for the marriage amendment etc.). On foreign policy we see eye to eye, although I consider the whole neocon thing as following in the Wilson and Kennedy tradition. Aggresively pushing for democracy around the world is not a traditional conservative foreign policy position. Usually the conservatives only do stuff that is in the national interest. On Fiscal issues I don't think Bush is conservative at all. He has not cut domestic spending significantly - he passed a rather small tax cut - and I would be pushing for much more drastic changes to social security. I would have never pushed the Medicare drug prescription thing. So if I am not a conservative Republican, and Bush is to the left of me on many issues, why do so many people see him as this right wing fanatic?

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
I have a question for the board:

I consider myself a moderate Republican. I am sure Mr. Megaloman would consider me a Rino. However, I don't understand why people consider George W. Bush such a conservative. He is a little more conservative than me on the social issue. But on those he mostly just talks a lot and does nothing (e.g. not really pushing for the marriage amendment etc.). On foreign policy we see eye to eye, although I consider the whole neocon thing as following in the Wilson and Kennedy tradition. Aggresively pushing for democracy around the world is not a traditional conservative foreign policy position. Usually the conservatives only do stuff that is in the national interest. On Fiscal issues I don't think Bush is conservative at all. He has not cut domestic spending significantly - he passed a rather small tax cut - and I would be pushing for much more drastic changes to social security. I would have never pushed the Medicare drug prescription thing. So if I am not a conservative Republican, and Bush is to the left of me on many issues, why do so many people see him as this right wing fanatic?

Because they're idiots.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have a question for the board:

I consider myself a moderate Republican. I am sure Mr. Megaloman would consider me a Rino. However, I don't understand why people consider George W. Bush such a conservative. He is a little more conservative than me on the social issue. But on those he mostly just talks a lot and does nothing (e.g. not really pushing for the marriage amendment etc.). On foreign policy we see eye to eye, although I consider the whole neocon thing as following in the Wilson and Kennedy tradition. Aggresively pushing for democracy around the world is not a traditional conservative foreign policy position. Usually the conservatives only do stuff that is in the national interest. On Fiscal issues I don't think Bush is conservative at all. He has not cut domestic spending significantly - he passed a rather small tax cut - and I would be pushing for much more drastic changes to social security. I would have never pushed the Medicare drug prescription thing. So if I am not a conservative Republican, and Bush is to the left of me on many issues, why do so many people see him as this right wing fanatic?

The tax changes that have been made since he took office (I am trying to avoid making it all him -- Congress was of course also involved) is not small if they are all made permanent. The costs just balloon after 2009. It was an underhanded thing -- it looks not that expensive on the surface, in the 5-year and (at the time) 10-year projections, but he knows (or his people know) that once a tax change is passed, no one wants it to sunset (which is the only way those tax changes could be presented as having a relatively small effect on revenue) so they extend it.

And he panders to the religious right, which I don't like. I think he oversees a pretty socially conservative administration -- most notably the FCC guy (yes, I know, now out) and Ashcroft (yes, I know, now also out). It will be interesting to see how this goes in his second term. By appointing people like this, he effectively pushes the country in a more socially conservative direction without having to take any direct action. Also kind of sneaky.

While his foreign policy may not be in the traditional conservative camp, I find his jingoism and cowboy attitude offensive and annoying.

I wouldn't say I see him as a right-wing fanatic, though, so I may not be the audience you are looking for answers from. I just don't like the direction he's taking the country in a fiscal sense (with the sneaky tax cuts and the expansion/addition of a (?) new entitlement program) or a social sense (Ashcroft, FCC, judges he's appointed or tried to appoint, stuff he says -- just by yapping about it, he's making some of the wacky social stuff seem more mainstream).

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
No - I should know better, but I was repeating hearsay. I sit on the Republican Central Committee for Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley) and the chairman is a doctor. He was once the president of the AMA. Anyway, most of the leadership of the Republican party here in the Bay Area is pissed off doctors. He is constantly telling me medical malpractice nightmares. If you want me to get you sources from him I can. If it is really important.

Oh, I believe that doctors in California have a lot to bitch about.

Bitching about managed care nightmares and the failure of capitation, I can understand. Wanting to leave the state because reimbursement is so low, I can understand. Being frustrated at trying and failing to get on some of the panels (especially Hill Physicians in the Bay Area) and being effectively cut out of an entire market, I can understand. Being pissed off as hell over idiotic surcharges on malpractice insurance premiums because of "claims history" that has nothing to do with claims, I can understand. I regularly tell residents in Texas not to relocate to California unless absolutely necessary because physicians are treated so poorly there (go look at the San Diego Medical Society's report from about four years ago for details on how much it sucks to be a physician in California). But, because of MICRA frivilous malpractice claims should be very low on a physician's bitch list in California. I used to work very closely with CMA, and the malpractice crisis wasn't what kept them up at night (insert sleep apnea joke here).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Oh, I believe that doctors in California have a lot to bitch about.

Bitching about managed care nightmares and the failure of capitation, I can understand. Wanting to leave the state because reimbursement is so low, I can understand. Being frustrated at trying and failing to get on some of the panels (especially Hill Physicians in the Bay Area) and being effectively cut out of an entire market, I can understand. Being pissed off as hell over idiotic surcharges on malpractice insurance premiums because of "claims history" that has nothing to do with claims, I can understand. I regularly tell residents in Texas not to relocate to California unless absolutely necessary because physicians are treated so poorly there (go look at the San Diego Medical Society's report from about four years ago for details on how much it sucks to be a physician in California). But, because of MICRA frivilous malpractice claims should be very low on a physician's bitch list in California. I used to work very closely with CMA, and the malpractice crisis wasn't what kept them up at night (insert sleep apnea joke here).

For the doctors on the Republican Central Committee, their biggest complaint is malpractice insurance and trial lawyers. They all see that as the biggest problem. I am just reporting what they say. But even if $45,000 is what Obtraticians pay for insurance, that is still absurd.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The tax changes that have been made since he took office (I am trying to avoid making it all him -- Congress was of course also involved) is not small if they are all made permanent. The costs just balloon after 2009. It was an underhanded thing -- it looks not that expensive on the surface, in the 5-year and (at the time) 10-year projections, but he knows (or his people know) that once a tax change is passed, no one wants it to sunset (which is the only way those tax changes could be presented as having a relatively small effect on revenue) so they extend it.

And he panders to the religious right, which I don't like. I think he oversees a pretty socially conservative administration -- most notably the FCC guy (yes, I know, now out) and Ashcroft (yes, I know, now also out). It will be interesting to see how this goes in his second term. By appointing people like this, he effectively pushes the country in a more socially conservative direction without having to take any direct action. Also kind of sneaky.

While his foreign policy may not be in the traditional conservative camp, I find his jingoism and cowboy attitude offensive and annoying.

I wouldn't say I see him as a right-wing fanatic, though, so I may not be the audience you are looking for answers from. I just don't like the direction he's taking the country in a fiscal sense (with the sneaky tax cuts and the expansion/addition of a (?) new entitlement program) or a social sense (Ashcroft, FCC, judges he's appointed or tried to appoint, stuff he says -- just by yapping about it, he's making some of the wacky social stuff seem more mainstream).

I think your main objective is not based on ideology, but rather, party affiliation.

This is sure to get a fun response, but on the whole Bush may be more liberal than Clinton. Think about it:

1. Under Clinton we had surpluses; under Bush we have deficits.

2. Under Clinton, we had a reduction in an entitlement program (i.e., welfare). Under Bush we have an extremely expensive new entitlement program.

3. Under Clinton we had NAFTA and other free trade initiatives. Under Bush we have new tariffs.

4. Both Clinton and Bush subscribe to the "mend it don't end it" line on affirmative action.

5. Both Clinton and Bush were against gay marriage.

6. Bush has increased gross spending for, and has essentially federalized, education.

7. Under Bush we have extensive new regulation of the securities markets.

I could go on, but that should be enough to trigger the wave.

[sgtclub]

• BRUSSELS (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said on Tuesday the idea that he was preparing to bomb Iran was "ridiculous" but he failed to satisfy European calls to offer Tehran incentives to curtail its nuclear program.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think your main objective is not based on ideology, but rather, party affiliation.

This is sure to get a fun response, but on the whole Bush may be more liberal than Clinton. Think about it:

1. Under Clinton we had surpluses; under Bush we have deficits.

2. Under Clinton, we had a reduction in an entitlement program (i.e., welfare). Under Bush we have an extremely expensive new entitlement program.

3. Under Clinton we had NAFTA and other free trade initiatives. Under Bush we have new tariffs.

4. Both Clinton and Bush subscribe to the "mend it don't end it" line on affirmative action.

5. Both Clinton and Bush were against gay marriage.

6. Bush has increased gross spending for, and has essentially federalized, education.

7. Under Bush we have extensive new regulation of the securities markets.

I could go on, but that should be enough to trigger the wave.

Is this using the liberal test that you posted a few weeks ago?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think your main objective is not based on ideology, but rather, party affiliation.

This is sure to get a fun response, but on the whole Bush may be more liberal than Clinton. Think about it:

1. Under Clinton we had surpluses; under Bush we have deficits.

2. Under Clinton, we had a reduction in an entitlement program (i.e., welfare). Under Bush we have an extremely expensive new entitlement program.

3. Under Clinton we had NAFTA and other free trade initiatives. Under Bush we have new tariffs.

4. Both Clinton and Bush subscribe to the "mend it don't end it" line on affirmative action.

5. Both Clinton and Bush were against gay marriage.

6. Bush has increased gross spending for, and has essentially federalized, education.

7. Under Bush we have extensive new regulation of the securities markets.

I could go on, but that should be enough to trigger the wave.

That was great.......

Let us not forget that Clinton took us into nation building programs in Somalia and Haiti, pretty much took us to war against Serbia, launched missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan and repeatedly bombed Iraq.

Afghanistan attacked us during the Bush administration, and Iraq blatently violated the peace treaty ending gulf war one. None of Clintons actions were supported by international law. The international community may have supported them, but they were not supported by international law - big difference.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
For the doctors on the Republican Central Committee, their biggest complaint is malpractice insurance and trial lawyers. They all see that as the biggest problem. I am just reporting what they say. But even if $45,000 is what Obtraticians pay for insurance, that is still absurd.

It's a hell of a lot better than $350,000. And I'm not convinced that honest to goodness malpractice claims have much to do with the premiums.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think your main objective is not based on ideology, but rather, party affiliation.

This is sure to get a fun response, but on the whole Bush may be more liberal than Clinton. Think about it:

1. Under Clinton we had surpluses; under Bush we have deficits.

2. Under Clinton, we had a reduction in an entitlement program (i.e., welfare). Under Bush we have an extremely expensive new entitlement program.

3. Under Clinton we had NAFTA and other free trade initiatives. Under Bush we have new tariffs.

4. Both Clinton and Bush subscribe to the "mend it don't end it" line on affirmative action.

5. Both Clinton and Bush were against gay marriage.

6. Bush has increased gross spending for, and has essentially federalized, education.

7. Under Bush we have extensive new regulation of the securities markets.

I could go on, but that should be enough to trigger the wave.

I'm not sure why you bring up all the Clinton crap. I think EGTRAA was bad, bad tax policy, and I would have thought it under Clinton. I don't like the social conservatism. I'm not sure why you are bringing this all up as a reply to me, other than that you don't like me. I was pretty clear on what I don't like about Bush. I don't think he was the one pushing for SOX.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
That was great.......

You should get a link to whatever site he got that list from. It's always reassuring to read reiterations of what you already believe.