Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This sort of thing is why I usually don't respond to your posts. Carry on.

No loss. I only respond to your posts to expose how partisan you are. I have succeeded yet again!

[Shape Shifter]

Oh. He was talking about power windows. Who knew? Who, bilmore?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
2

I would like to note that in the last 24 hours, Sgt. Club and Ty have both 2'd Not_Me's posts.

The end is near?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I would like to note that in the last 24 hours, Sgt. Club and Ty have both 2'd Not_Me's posts.

The end is near?

Possibly, although Club's 2 included a NotMe attempted kick to Atticus' groin area, so it's not conclusive if he agreed with NM on policy.

So, while the oceans will probably boil, we'll have to wait and see about the rains of fire.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Hey, I'm reading this today and nobody else has nuthin to say?

OK, I just read the coolest thing of all year. Oprah gave everyone in her audience a brand new car today. Got that? More than 200 new cars. It was all people whose family members had written in (presumably after prompting by the show) to express the audience member's particular need for a new car. The show picket the people they figured were most in need. The chicagotribune.com site has it on the front page.

Yay Oprah!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Oklahoma's Republican candidate for Senate has a problem:

• According to records obtained by Salon, Coburn filed an apparently fraudulent Medicaid claim in 1990, which he admitted in his own testimony in a civil malpractice suit brought against him 14 years ago by a former female patient. The suit alleged that Coburn had sterilized her without her consent. It eventually was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to appear for the trial. In his sworn testimony, Coburn admitted he sterilized the then 20-year-old woman without securing her written consent as required by law. He blamed the omission on a clerical error, but maintained that he had her oral consent for the procedure. (Salon has been unable to contact the woman and is withholding her name out of respect for her privacy.) Coburn also revealed under oath that he had charged the procedure to Medicaid -- despite knowing that Medicaid, also known as Title 19, does not cover the cost of sterilization for anyone under age 21.
  
  This previously unpublicized episode from his medical practice cuts to the heart of Coburn's political identity. He has built his congressional career on extreme gestures against government programs, exceeded in virulence only by his pronouncements on social issues, including advocating the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions under any circumstances other than those threatening the life of the mother. (And yet, as a doctor, he has performed abortions.)
  
  * * * * *
  
  In his deposition, Coburn also explained how he had gotten around Medicaid's restriction against coverage of the costs of elective sterilization for a woman under 21: He did not report the ligation of the right tube on his discharge summary. "The reason that it was not dictated as both [procedures] is because she was under 21 and was being paid for by Title 19, and to have a tubal ligation under 21, Title 19 would not have covered that," he said. He noted that under the law, sterilization even as an incidental operation accompanying a covered procedure -- i.e., removing the left fallopian tube to deal with an ectopic pregnancy -- would have nullified eligibility for federal reimbursement.
  
  "I did not dictate [the second procedure] because of her Title 19 status," he testified. "If I had dictated both, it would have been a sterilization procedure and she wouldn't have had it covered."
  
  After the operation Coburn admonished both the woman and her mother not to discuss it. "She asked me, since she was under 21, how did I tie her tubes -- since I told her I wouldn't and Title 19 wouldn't pay for it," Coburn said in the deposition. "I said I did it anyway and that she shouldn't talk about it because ... I did a procedure that was not recognized under Title 19 reimbursement." Thus Coburn admitted he had tried to silence his patient because he knew he was billing Medicaid illegally.

Salon (you'll have to watch an infomercial for the Blue card)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Possibly, although Club's 2 included a NotMe attempted kick to Atticus' groin area, so it's not conclusive if he agreed with NM on policy.

So, while the oceans will probably boil, we'll have to wait and see about the rains of fire.

I agree on policy.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I agree on policy.

Shit.

Outlook Today for Rain of Fire, 80%. Predicted 1" - 2" of ash. Remember to wear those fire-retardant galoshes!

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
But - your supposition is that someone else's problems are rightfully considered mine - that I have a "share" of the problem myself, and that failing to pay "my share" for someone else's support is an unpaid debt of mine.

I respectfully don't buy that.

Cool. Don't worry, you have no obligation to do anything for anyone else. That's what makes America great!

The very idea that we should try to construct a social policy (whether on housing, health care, etc.) that involves some limited amount of sacrifice or expenditure by the wealthier individuals or communities in order to ameliorate broader social problems is pure nonsense.

That kind of thinking should have gone the way of the dodo bird, but those damn Democrats and touchy-feely socialists like Hello can't let go of the past. For God's Sakes people, just go somewhere else to sing the Internationale and leave me to drink my latte in peace!

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

http://rathergate.com/

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
Yeah, that is how to solve the problem of poverty and crime. Get the government more involved. The track record of that approach has been great, right?

As compared to the track record _before_ the government got involved? I'd take it.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

My critics in the national media are working overtime trying to paint me as an angry nut who got the facts all wrong in my speech to the Republican National Convention. Since there's not enough time to challenge all of these critics to a duel, let me set the record straight here and now.

. . .

My critics tripped over themselves to point out that Dick Cheney opposed some of the same weapons systems when he was defense secretary. But, like with so many things in life, timing is everything. Mr. Kerry was proposing the cancellation of many of these weapons systems at the height of the Cold War--the worst possible time to weaken our military strength. It would be comparable to a senator in 1943 proposing to scrap the B-29 Bomber or Sherman tank or Higgins landing craft. By contrast, Mr. Cheney waited until after we had won the Cold War to propose modernizing our forces and replacing older weapons systems. There's a huge difference. Whether it's the Cold War of yesterday or the war on terror today, Mr. Kerry has sought time and time again to weaken our military at the exact moment we need to show our strength.

. . .

So, they can call me names and ridicule my angry demeanor all day long. But facts are facts. And the fact is, John Kerry has a long record of proposals to weaken our national security in a time of war. And I would never put my family's safety in those hands.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005614

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Cool. Don't worry, you have no obligation to do anything for anyone else. That's what makes America great!

The very idea that we should try to construct a social policy (whether on housing, health care, etc.) that involves some limited amount of sacrifice or expenditure by the wealthier individuals or communities in order to ameliorate broader social problems is pure nonsense.

That kind of thinking should have gone the way of the dodo bird, but those damn Democrats and touchy-feely socialists like Hello can't let go of the past. For God's Sakes people, just go somewhere else to sing the Internationale and leave me to drink my latte in peace!

S_A_M

Read more carefully.

As I said, I participate in, and buy into, such policy, supporting those programs, as well as charitable stuff. My beef was with the philosophy that holds it to be, not a mark of my social conscience, but my moral obligation to do so. Remember, I was objecting to the phrase "my share of the burden". I think it's fair to call it charity. It's not my burden.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005614

I can't tell you how many people, in the days following his superb speech, told me how awful, how hateful, how petulant it was.

When I asked them if they actually heard it, they said no, there was no need to hear "such hate", they had read about it instead.

Not even "read it". "Read about it".

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
I can't tell you how many people, in the days following his superb speech, told me how awful, how hateful, how petulant it was.

When I asked them if they actually heard it, they said no, there was no need to hear "such hate", they had read about it instead.

Not even "read it". "Read about it".

Sort of like the Wellstone tribute.