Atman wrote: 

alt,
As of now, it's mostly Democrat v. Democrat. There has been some movement, but to suggest Republicans stand in the way of heath care reform is both a canard and a denial of reality. If you look at headlines of the past two weeks, it's clear who is pitched against whom: D v D. A few weeks back, how many had heard of Bluedog Democrats? Pretty much an inside baseball term there.
Where have I stated any objection or offered resistance to efficient health care delivery? As a student of US History, I have a difficult time recalling any Congress or President who found the savings they sought, either to reduce a deficit, or pay for a program other than going the tax route. I would also be hard pressed to find any area where The Government defines efficiency. They do the opposite, they redefine maximum inefficiencies. The Government does a terrible job of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, it's overloaded with redundancies and programs that simply do not work as designed. Programs morph beyond their original scope and purpose, never really hitting targets as called for, never really solving problems and never, ever, staying within assumed costs. Never. Not even close on that count. Not...even...close. Since President Johnson declared war on poverty in 1965, we have poured in excess of 20 TRILLION DOLLARS into that effort. 20 TRILLION DOLLARS, a staggering sum *it's fun to break such a figure down so it is easier to grasp....20,000 BILLION DOLLARS* And yet, we still have poverty. It's not that a country does not make an effort to raise all its people, it's that its people must understand they are grabbing at false Utopias promoted by Governments eager to ladle largesse. Despite all efforts, the poor will always be among us. I think too many are hanging too much hope on health care reform, not keeping in mind that Government has a terrible and predictable record of underachieving on over promised programs, under scoring considerably, their costs and never failing to correct errors at the most fundamental levels. What has been fundamentally changed in Social Security since it came to be in 1935? Nothing.  While Social Security and Medicare race towards economic insolvency, we should now rush to add a program that will dwarf them? Add to them, a program given short work, little debate, no readings, no public review *as promised*? There is a finite amount of money to be raised from the people. I think we're moving swiftly towards that limit. Then what? What is it that the Government does well that instills notions of health care efficienies in the minds of some? The Government does a terrible job of running Medicare with any degree of acceptable efficiency. Keep rolling over in your mind the price tag for that program and how it is racing towards an economic implosion long about 2019 and how that will jolt this Nation. Follow that with Social Security imploding a few years later and now trust that after health care reform is on the books, the price tag shown will be what the consumer actually pays. And do not forget, the first ten years will be somewhere near 1 TRILLION. Any bets that number is on the low side? Who can hazard a guess at costs in the out years? Yipes!
I am not opposed to health care reform. I am opposed to this country going bankrupt and I take that possibility in a serious vein. Extrapolating current trend lines, somewhere around 2012-2013, the National Debt will push past 60% of GDP, an unsustainable point. Sen. Bayh, D-IN, today reiterated that point: unsustainable. Well, 2012-2013 is right over the horizon.
mk

 islander wrote: 

isl,
Well stated.
Of the many failures of President Bush, I thought his most colossal, most inexplicable, was the failure to secure our borders. BorderS. North and South and all Ports of Entry. We have 75,000 Troops in Europe. They should come home. How long much such a presence exist post-WWII? We have 35,000 in S. Korea. Should N. Korea send its Million Man Army South, US Troops would be a minor speed bump. Bring 'em home. If it had been my call to make, on Sept. 12, 2001, I would have instructed The SeaBees to get cracking on the logistics necessary to support US Troops on BOTH borders. Those troops would have come from Europe and SE Asia, for starters.
Of course, Mr. Bush was not the only President to leave our borders open like sieves. They remain so today, as they were 20+ years ago and before that. When the next 9/11 takes place and we trace the culprits back to our loose borders, perhaps then, we will act? I doubt it.
Different folks have different reasons for not supporting President Obama. I happen to support him, but can not agree with a single approach he has taken. For me, he's far more Liberal than he was portrayed *there was no mistake that he might be Conservative, but some thought him a moderate...hardly*. For the birthers, they are as insane as the 9/11 kooks or the kooks who attach to anything from which a conspiracy can be hatched. If for some, racism colors their opinions, pray for them. *and I think it's ok to curse them under your breath*
mk

 islander wrote: 
I can dig it

 musik_knut wrote: 
If you have followed any of my posting history, you'll know that I'm pretty conservative on defending our border(S-all of them), and think we are missing a perfect opportunity to redeploy our military in this particular mission. I'm re-stating this to emphasize that I don't see this as a left/right view, but as an American need. Lou Dobbs and his border crusade are pretty limited in scope, and the people he's trying to keep at bay are not the blonde haired, fair skinned people of Ontario. To give him a bit of credit, I don't think he has a very high opinion of poor people either, but he definately comes across as a person who is not comfortable around people who are 'different' than himself.

The fact that the whole Obama / Birth certificate thing has been asked and answered repeatedly, and that it takes hold precicely in line with places where racism is still fairly common, makes most of us think it's based on race. Several of the comments I've heard, (including a lady shouting at the back of some town hall meeting) include people using a highly emphasized 'Kenyan'. The way it is used and the slur sound put with it sound very much like tems I heard in my youth when I played with black kids in the south - "you don't really want to hang with 'them' do you? they're different than 'us'". 

I agree with you - racism is ugly.  That's why we should call it out when we see it. And these people still 'caterwauling' about 'citizenship' should be asked point blank - "the docmuntation has been provided, what's your real problem with Obama as president?". I'm fine with people not liking him. I'm not very fond of several of his initiatives so far. But I have no doubt that he is as much a citizen as John McCain, Bush1&2, Clinton, Reagan,Carter.... and the rest of the clan that held that in the last couple centuries.  I think it's cool that a bunch of white people got enough grip of their own uneasiness to vote for him so that he could win, and I hope that the rest of the people can be open enough about their fear of his race to realize that it is misplaced and their energy would be better focused on valid reasons to like or dislike him.

 musik_knut wrote: 
Not racism on my part; this is what the Republican Party does. "Obama is president, we need a black man!" "Hillary running for president, we need a woman!" then they parade out their tokens, which, to the more educated, recognize that this is a ruse.

And I agree with you, Atman.

 musik_knut wrote: 
This shouldn't be a Republican v Democrat battle, which is how the votes are mostly lined up right now.

Because it is a human v Health Care Industry battle. Why should any human be spouting the Industry view? Because they have figured out how to manipulate the fears and insecurities to make some of us into zombies. For the life of me, I cannot imagine how you can be against evidence of efficient proven health care delivery. Cheaper better. Every other industrial nation and many non-industrial nations have a far better system. What's the problem understanding that?

I'm sorry, I'm getting confused with these two threads.

 hippiechick wrote: 

hc,
That is a racist statement about Mr. Steele. And Republicans. Call off the dogs. Y'all won. Or is it real good sport to stomp those when they are down?
We could discuss nutjobs affixed to all things Democrat. Daily kos, anyone? Moveon.org, anyone? Speaker Pelosi, anyone? There are as many grenade throwers on your side as mine. At least I admit to mine. Try recognizing yours. It's healthy to do so.

mk

 Atman wrote: 

Alt,
Selective memory or omission? 15 years ago...Democrats, in control, said no to Hillary Care.
Let me say it one more time and you don't have to agree, but Medicare, riddled with mistakes and many, many, many false assumptions, was debated for 1 1/2 years. Now, in the span of less than 6 months, much of which was spent trying to cobble together health care reform in a final package readied for vote, we have to vote? A deadline certain is drawn, erased, moved, drawn again. Medicare cost 65 MILLION in its first year. It now costs over 400 BILLION, yet we were told it would cost 13 BILLION by 2000. What a fine track record on another medically related Government run program. Shall we proceed in a hasty manner and repeat many of the same mistakes? Make many of the same false assumptions? We are told half, perhaps more, of the as yet determined price tag for health care reform, will come from savings squeezed from Medicare. With The Federal Government's track record on recognized savings, would you bank the farm on it? And if that proves to be a false assumption, what recourse is left? Taxes and not just on the rich. Already Speaker Pelosi recognizes a revenue shortfall when she raised the surtax bar from about 380K to 1 MILLION. On that, taxes on all, I would bank the farm. The program we are discussing we before long, dwarf all others. When we add Social Security and Medicare today, we're at over 40% of our budget. Now add a bigger and what will be a fast growing program. What little of our budget will remain for defense, interior, commerce and all other considerations? Damn little. We are fiscally bleeding to death. Oh sure, President Bush and Republicans spent too much Treasury. Today, we're eclipsing the maddening pace they set. But for many on the other side, that's ok. We simply have to spend the money. Oh, really? Debt is debt. Already China is making noise about our fiscal ways. And what went with little note or fanfare just last Tuesday, Treasury sales were, and this is being kind, were flat. Our debt is attracting fewer takers. But lets forge ahead, have a quick vote, not wonder what is written, what T is not crossed or I dotted. Just do it. Just spend, baby, spend.
Rush? Yes, that is exactly what we are doing. Rushing to see a take over of 1/6th of our economy. That's a sobering undertaking that should not be rushed. And damn it, read the dam final bill for all to hear, Elected and Electors alike. That's not too much to ask on such a monumental undertaking. Perhaps as did the ever odious Rep. Waxman, we could further mock WE THE PEOPLE by employing a speed reader? It's a joke to some, Rep. Waxman, Rep. Conyers. It's not a joke when close to or over a TRILLION  BUCKS is the opening ante. Keep in mind, whatever final figure we hear, is good for just the first ten years. And that assumes no false assumptions.
mk

 Atman wrote: 
So many less people are willing to admit that they are Republicans, because the Party is being attached to the nuts, so that the moderate Repubs are being turned off to the Republican Party. Eve n Michael Steele comes off as a nut, not to mention a token black man in the party of old white men.

 musik_knut wrote: 
Only 42 percent of Republican respondents in a Research 2000 survey, conducted for the liberal website Daily Kos, said they thought Obama was a natural born citizen.

Apparently, you are in the 42%.

However you question the 'science' of these things, you gotta admit that 'a lot' (doesn't stretch it to guess ~58%) of republicans, the more religious and irrational/ignorant ones especially, buy into the insanely ridiculous thoughtspeak drummed out for them. I know a couple of them, and I am always astounded at what they appear to think, til I read it on one of those wingnut sites.

Like now, with health care, I hear the drumbeat of 'Obama is rushing the legislation through without due deliberation. Wow, all of a sudden, that line is everywhere. Somewhere they got a zombie lab where they try this bullshitake out til they get some kind of spike in affect. Ok, that's the line start the morse code beat: rushing the legislation. 15 years after it should have passed, btw.

 musik_knut wrote: 
I believe that this is 21st Century racism. They can't believe that a black man could be elected as president, and this is they way they present it.

 islander wrote: 

islander,
I would disagree on the racist view. As much as I detest racism, deeply detest with every fiber of my being, I hold a considerable disdain for the charge of racism without proof. We, a loosely used 'we', tend to hurl charges without regard to fact. I would also take exception to Mr. Dobbs hating brown people. He's a real tiger on border security. On that, I join him. The statement that Mr. Dobbs hates brown people was born on The Left. Of course, no proof was forthcoming. Just make a personal charge.
Maybe some are now beginning to appreciate, even understand, how unsettling many found it when all manner of comments without the foundation of fact, let alone provided proof, were plastered against Mr. Bush and ALL Republicans. Now that President Obama's ox is being gored, it's just not fun anymore.
The folks, birthers and others, caterwauling about Mr. Obama's citizenship, have problems. Let them be. They'll be yesterday's news before long. Some will persist. We can lump them with the 9/11 conspiracy kooks.
mk

 musik_knut wrote: 
I agree on the daily kos flag, but Lou "I hate brown people" Dobbs has repeated this on CNN, and several people in fairly high positions (Roy Blunt) are reluctant to disown this position. I do honestly believe that this is just a front for a thinly veiled racist view of "Obama can't be qualified because he is black", but even they know it's too stupid a position to hold openly.

 hippiechick wrote: 
hc,
First, anything 'daily kos' raises my antennae. They are agenda driven all day long, everyday. Second, not responding to an inquiry as to how many individuals were surveyed, raises a few questions. Third, how were the questions worded?
For myself, I'm satisfied that President Obama is a US Citizen. Not all Republicans are nutjobs. LOL

mk

New Poll: Less Than Half Of Republicans Believe Obama Was Born In U.S.

Less than half of Republicans believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America, a new public opinion poll finds.

Only 42 percent of Republican respondents in a Research 2000 survey, conducted for the liberal website Daily Kos, said they thought Obama was a natural born citizen; 28 percent said they did not believe Obama was born in the United States; 30 percent said they were not sure.

The responses, which were gathered after several prominent conservative media personalities fed suspicion that Obama was unconstitutionally holding office, show the extent to which the conspiracy has taken hold in the GOP.

That only a plurality of Republicans were willing to acknowledge the president was born in America is nothing short of astounding, considering the preponderance of evidence that confirms his Hawaiian birth.

The conspiracy has a regional flavor. Overall, even including Democrats and independents, only 47 percent of respondents in the South said they believed Obama was born in America, with 23 percent saying he was not and 30 percent saying they were unsure. In the Northeast and Midwest, the percentage of respondents who believe Obama was born in the U.S. was over 90 percent.

Ninety-three percent of Democrats say the president was born in the United States, as do 83 percent of independents.

An email to the survey's authors, asking for the number of individuals surveyed in the Research 2000 poll, was not immediately returned.

 hippiechick wrote:  When is he going to go away? Poor devil got thrust into the spotlight, and doesn't have the good sense to step back out of it.

Joe The Plumber: I Would Never Let "Queers" Near My Children

Joe the Plumber, aka Samuel Wurzelbacher, sat down for an lengthy interview with Christianity Today to discuss his views on the future of the Republican party. Wurzelbacher took the opportunity to speak out against gay marriage, which he says is wrong. The unlikely conservative spokesman went so far as to say he doesn't allow openly gay people "anywhere near" his children.

The word "queer," Wurzelbacher noted, "means strange and unusual."

Christianity Today: In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?

Wurzelbacher: At a state level, it's up to them. I don't want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it's wrong. People don't understand the dictionary—it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing.

In the vein of George W. Bush and Michael Steele, Joe the Plumber also indicated that he wouldn't run for public office until the Lord had given him a cue. "God hasn't said, 'Joe, I want you to run.' I feel more important to just encourage people to get involved, one way or another. If I can inspire some leaders, that would be great." Joe added: "I don't know if I want to be a leader."

 pdhski wrote: 
Thank you, Peter.

 Beaker wrote: 
How come when I try out this line, it never works? 

 Beaker wrote: 
Let me guess, you got your "proof" from the same guy who emailed that tip about the staged troop meeting, right?