Languish.org

If you want to, otherwise don't.

Will the grading be adjusted for affirmative action reasons? :ph34r:

Obama Obama!

A-

Would have given him an A+, but he's not Bill Clinton.

Grades aren't for the first week of classes. It's far, far too soon... like assigning grades to Roosevel in August 1933, or to Truman in October 1945.

Truman gets an F for not finishing the Japs off.

Quote from: Jaron on August 05, 2009, 07:06:25 AM
Truman gets an F for not finishing the Japs off.

Well, once the Russians overran Manchuria, the A bombs worked and the Japanese threw the towel, it would have been a bit troublesome to refuse their surrender and invade, and specially so for an ex-vicepresident with barely three or four months of experience in the White House, don't you think?

The Soviets would have done most of the heavy lifting, I bet.

In this alternate history we'd today have a North Japan and a South Japan.  :)

C veering to D. Waxman-Markley was bloated and may not make it through the Senate; his health core refrm is turning into a clusterfuck, and the talk of a second stimulus plan doesn't look viable. And he loses points for continuing the worst aspects of the war on terror.

He has not turned in any work yet, but then again the assignment dates haven't been reached.  Ask again in a year and a half at midterms when I have to submit my first report.

Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2009, 07:39:16 AM
The Soviets would have done most of the heavy lifting, I bet.

In this alternate history we'd today have a North Japan and a South Japan.  :)

Which part would produce anime?

Both.  North Japanese anime would be black and white, quite angular, and tell the story of a band of giant-eyed kid heroes out to stop an evil corporation from destroying the world.

South Japanese anime would be color, more curvy, and tell the story of a band of giant-eyed kid heroes out to stop an evil corporation from destroying the world.

Why is A+ not one of the choices?

I gave him a C. He hasn't done much. I was leaning towards a D because he is becoming less a leader that is bringing change and more a waffler.

I think of Obama as an actor playing the role of "President".  So he's kinda like a black Bill Pullman or maybe Richard Dreyfus.

B. he plays very well in foreign countries who happen to be your next door neighbours. his election has changed our government's atmosphere policy, which is a plus, but his bailout of the auto sector has compelled us to follow a similar path for similar reasons. looks like we will be adapting Californian fuel efficiency standards as well.

he needs to do more about food and food systems. I wonder how's his wife's garden is doing? we just had a recall of 100,000 hot dogs so he should step up the USDA inspections of Canadian meat plants. happily our new Organic Standards are now harmonised with the NOP

a good photo op with Ovechkin and Crosby would do wonders.

for Canadians, his influence is palpable. he's been a good President for us, though the escalation of the Afghan adventure is a commitment we cannot meet as we are out by 2011.

Quote from: saskganesh on August 05, 2009, 09:03:32 AM
he needs to do more about food and food systems.

On a related note, he needs to do more about implants and implantation systems.

Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2009, 09:06:16 AM

Quote from: saskganesh on August 05, 2009, 09:03:32 AM
he needs to do more about food and food systems.

On a related note, he needs to do more about implants and implantation systems.

leak- free cohesive gel boobies?

Quote from: saskganesh on August 05, 2009, 09:03:32 AM
a good photo op with Ovechkin and Crosby would do wonders.

Wouldn't Donald Brashear and Georges Laraque give him more street cred?

Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2009, 08:51:23 AM
I think of Obama as an actor playing the role of "President".  So he's kinda like a black Bill Pullman or maybe Richard Dreyfus.

Or Ronald Reagan?

I give him an I and expect him to turn in some complete work sometime before the end of the term.  His 'Health Care' project is way past due.

To early to grade.  He hasnt really handed in any work yet but expectations are high and so he will likely be marked harder then others.

B, so far.  I think he's doing the right thing in Afghanistan and the legislation he's got passed is pretty impressive this early in a term (benefits of being a President in a crisis).  On foreign policy so far I think he's been excellent, I can't think of a serious misstep so far. 

He needs to pass a healthcare package, I don't mind what but I think that it's something America desperately needs, I'm always amazed at how much the US government spends on health compared to how little it gets.  It's simply mind-boggling.

I also think he'll face a crisis in Iraq.  The Sunnis are still unhappy, things seem to be sliding in relations between the Kurds and the Arabs.  I think there'll be a lot of pressure to stay once there's more violence, he should resist that.  It's not something the US or any outside force can solve as the Iraqis reminded Biden when they told him off for 'meddling' in their 'internal affairs'.  All he'd done was suggest that the Iraqi government might want to follow through on their promise of paying the Sunnis and bringing them into the state.  The surge worked as a security solution as I thought it would, but what mattered was that it would create a space for political reconciliation.  I still can't think of anything that suggests this has happened.  I think it's difficult to expect a country that came within an inch of full-blown sectarian civil war to build a relatively non-sectarian state, and I believe that most countries that experience a civil war relapse within five years.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 05, 2009, 09:26:45 AM
I'm always amazed at how much the US government spends on health compared to how little it gets.  It's simply mind-boggling.

We don't 'do' efficiency here, son.  :mad:

I give an 'F' to counterbalance the 'A' homos.

I'll give him a 'C' so far, I guess.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 05, 2009, 09:26:45 AM


He needs to pass a healthcare package, I don't mind what

Funny, it would seem that is just what they are thinking as well.

Quote from: Strix on August 05, 2009, 09:11:53 AM

Quote from: saskganesh on August 05, 2009, 09:03:32 AM
a good photo op with Ovechkin and Crosby would do wonders.

Wouldn't Donald Brashear and Georges Laraque give him more street cred?

maybe among Haitians and Jamaicans. but not the ROC.

Marking period has not arrived, but so far he was recruited to this elite school on the strength of a very powerful reputation and high expectations, but he has done very poorly on several quizzes, his thesis is a muddled disaster, and his term project is behind schedule and it looks like he is going to just throw something together and call it victory.

The one subject he is doing well on, it turns out he plagiarized from another student.

Average score so far: roughly 78.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 05, 2009, 09:26:45 AM
B, so far.  I think he's doing the right thing in Afghanistan and the legislation he's got passed is pretty impressive this early in a term (benefits of being a President in a crisis).  On foreign policy so far I think he's been excellent, I can't think of a serious misstep so far. 

I'd actually disagree about the legislation; the stimulus plan was a watered down compromise to get GOP support, which it failed to do; but more telling, at least to me, is that when he entered office he really seemed to have no clue how to handle the recession.

Quote from: Faeelin on August 05, 2009, 09:35:58 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 05, 2009, 09:26:45 AM
B, so far.  I think he's doing the right thing in Afghanistan and the legislation he's got passed is pretty impressive this early in a term (benefits of being a President in a crisis).  On foreign policy so far I think he's been excellent, I can't think of a serious misstep so far. 

I'd actually disagree about the legislation; the stimulus plan was a watered down compromise to get GOP support, which it failed to do; but more telling, at least to me, is that when he entered office he really seemed to have no clue how to handle the recession well, anything.

Fixed that for you.

I cannot really think of a single thing he has done so far that made me think "Wow, he really has a firm grasp of that problem and how to fix it...".

C-.

Voted D though since "poor" is my evaluation.

Quote from: Berkut on August 05, 2009, 09:42:59 AM
I cannot really think of a single thing he has done so far that made me think "Wow, he really has a firm grasp of that problem and how to fix it...".

Eh, I thought the health care proposal was... Actually, I take that back. Obama never really explained what his proposal was, and you would never guess that it was basically Romney's + a public option.

Quote from: Berkut on August 05, 2009, 09:31:13 AM
Funny, it would seem that is just what they are thinking as well.

:lol:  I don't mind what because it doesn't matter to me.  US healthcare policy debates seem to me to be mind-numbingly dull.  I just can't read anything about it so I've literally no opinions.  But I think the US does need root and branch healthcare reform.  I think it's a really serious problem that the US government spends almost double what the British does on healthcare and it covers the elderly, veterans and the ultra-poor.  Meanwhile I believe healthcare costs outpace wages and inflations and grew by almost 7% between 2004 and now.  I've said before that the cost to US companies of healthcare is the equivalent as the cost to French companies of all their paid holidays or a shorter working week (though not both).  I just don't get the US system.  But it would seem to me that if you're planning to deal with deficits in the long-run you need systemic healthcare reform, as well as a debate about defence spending and again root-and-branch reform of social security.

QuoteI'd actually disagree about the legislation; the stimulus plan was a watered down compromise to get GOP support, which it failed to do; but more telling, at least to me, is that when he entered office he really seemed to have no clue how to handle the recession.

Not many people did, to be fair.  When he entered office the economy was still in crisis-mode not stabilised as it has been over the last few months and Paulson, Bush, Obama and Geithner deserve credit for taking the unpopular but necessary steps that stabilised the economy, even at a time when everyone hated bankers.  Though, I think every government would have to do the same.  The only candidate who I could see not bailing out the banks is Ron Paul.

Having said that the stimulus probably was too small, as many Democrats said at the time, but it is doing what it was set out to do at this point: it's preventing huge cuts/tax rises in state budgets and I believe it's cut taxes.  I think cutting taxes should have been put off and the stimulus should have just been money to stimulate new growth, while another bill should have been passed to help states.  But I understand the political rationale behind doing it all in one giant bill.

What I mean, though, is that Bush and Clinton hadn't even proposed any major legislation until I believe June and April respectively.  For all the problems with his appointments I think the crisis he had to deal with made it wise that he filled the White House first and seemed to focus on that because there would be legislation very early on in his term, which is odd. 

Quote from: Faeelin on August 05, 2009, 09:50:17 AM
Eh, I thought the health care proposal was... Actually, I take that back. Obama never really explained what his proposal was, and you would never guess that it was basically Romney's + a public option.

This isn't true.  He published a policy paper before Iowa that was as detailed as Edwards and Clinton's.  The leftist writers I read were worried that Edwards was the best - but he wouldn't win.  Of the Clinton and Obama plans they overwhelmingly preferred Clinton's because Obama's was more incremental a reform.

Gave him a D. I would have gone a C but lately the trend has been pretty worrying in his push for any kind of health care, the attitude of get it done fast, now, no matter what. Same as with the TARP and Economic Stimulus, and we're paying the prices for it, literally with massive govt budget deficits. Same push was for Cap and Trade; what is it with this admin and Congress anyway? Pass sweeping change, don't bother to read the bills, nor debate them much, nor take into consideration the impact of such sweeping changes.

He's losing points on saying things people don't believe, or going back on what he had said before. For instance, he has in the past said he would push for a single payer health coverage plan. Now he's saying that isn't the case. Who knows with him now on half of what he says? That's having an impact with people/voters, I think.

He loses points for the baggage of the extreme left, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, and others, who he is caving into at times. That doesn't sit well with people.

I'm also as disgusted with the Repubs since they're part of the political process that needs the hope and change! So my annoyance with Obama isn't an endorsement of the Repubs.

Appointment of so many Czars, many or most outside of Congressional over sight, is  a worry. Some of those Czars pretty radical types from their past history.

He's doing ok on foreign affairs, but some of his ideas are continuations from Bush. I applaud his strong push for Afghanistan. I just hope he doesn't toss in the towel too soon, or that he doesn't get so much pressure from the extreme left, or the Repubs for that matter. He may be looking weak dealing with Russia, Iran, N Korea, but it's early yet, plus they're testing him. So we'll see.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 05, 2009, 09:53:59 AMThis isn't true.  He published a policy paper before Iowa that was as detailed as Edwards and Clinton's.  The leftist writers I read were worried that Edwards was the best - but he wouldn't win.  Of the Clinton and Obama plans they overwhelmingly preferred Clinton's because Obama's was more incremental a reform.

I do not think most Americans have been reading a policy paper Obama published before Iowa over the last few months.

Quote from: KRonn on August 05, 2009, 09:56:01 AM
Same push was for Cap and Trade

I don't get the cap and trade objection; heck, even McCain supported this on the campaign trail.

Quote from: Faeelin on August 05, 2009, 09:59:02 AM
I do not think most Americans have been reading a policy paper Obama published before Iowa over the last few months.

No.  But that doesn't make the idea that he never articulated a plan any more true.  I read an article recently which attacked him for not governing as he campaigned and cited healthcare as an example.  That's equally preposterous; healthcare was a thing he mentioned in probably every speech and debate during the campaign.  The idea that it's a surprise or that no-one had any idea what his policy preference was is just wrong.

QuoteHe's losing points on saying things people don't believe, or going back on what he had said before. For instance, he has in the past said he would push for a single payer health coverage plan. Now he's saying that isn't the case. Who knows with him now on half of what he says? That's having an impact with people/voters, I think.

Sorry to take this from Obama specific but I think this actually raises something I've been thinking about for ages.  To use another Tony Benn line there are two types of politicians the signposts and the weathervanes.  The signposts always point in the same direction, you know exactly what they stand for and where they're going (Maggie, Ron Paul, Tony Benn, in his later career), the weathervanes switch and cut and hem with the prevailing winds (early Tony Benn, Arlen Specter).  Benn said what you want is the signposts but I'm not so sure.

Basically I always think I like politicians who stand for something and you know that about them and they won't change ('you turn if you want to.  The Lady's not for turning.') but at the same time I have this romanticised ideal of a non-partisan Commons in which no-one truly has their mind made up, party is but a loose affiliation, votes can switch on the quality of debate and so on.  There are very few ideological centrists.  Evan Bayh for example has an incredibly liberal voting record in 2007 and 2008, the years when he was considering a run for the White House or a VP pick.

In practice for all I like the values politicians I wonder whether they more often than not just stand in the way of really needed change, at the same time I think the free-wheeling Commons would always be up for sale.  So I don't know whether I'd rather the ideologues who cause trouble or the 'non-partisan', the 'moderate' who are, in all honest, willing to shift votes if they can stuff the bill with pork (or what have you).  Who do I wish politics was more like, Ron Paul or Arlen Specter?

...I think I'd probably rather the moderates for sale, but I'm not sure.

The GOP doesn't make much effort to support Obama's initiatives despite the deplorable state of the Union.  On the other hand, and since the american system is riddled with clientelism, the Democrats don't support their leader much either.   Considering this, I'd say he's not doing so bad.

It amuses me to see people so keen on proving Obama wrong.  You should count your blessings...  After all you could be saddled with a senile old man and a fanatic ignoramus instead of this inexperienced but brilliant man.

But beyond the personalities involved the present state of affairs should tell you something about the nature of your political system: it's become ungovernable.




G.

McCain isn't senile. :rolleyes:

Then again, your rampant ageism is well known to all of us.  :hug:

Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2009, 11:07:39 AM
Then again, your rampant ageism is well known to all of us.  :hug:

Which is really nothing more than misdirected fear and self-loathing.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 05, 2009, 09:26:45 AM
He needs to pass a healthcare package, I don't mind what but I think that it's something America desperately needs, I'm always amazed at how much the US government spends on health compared to how little it gets.  It's simply mind-boggling.

There are a lot of things wrong with health care in the US, but getting little is not one of those. The costs are out of proportion to what we get, but it's excellent quality and readily available.

B/C- He's president? I didn't notice. He's not done anything yet. He's kept the country ticking over just fine though without breaking anything so he passes.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 05, 2009, 11:11:29 AM
There are a lot of things wrong with health care in the US, but getting little is not one of those. The costs are out of proportion to what we get, but it's excellent quality and readily available.

The US government, as a percentage of GDP spends about as much as many other developed countries like Canada or the UK (just behind us I think), or Japan.  In all of those countries the quality is at the very least very good and it's readily available - healthcare in the rest of the developed world isn't dreadful by any stretch of the imagination.  What I find difficult though is that the US can spend the much as Canada, the UK or Japan and only get enough to cover the very poor, the elderly and veterans.  So you're literally getting very little care for the amount you spend.

Incidentally I think this piece is pretty admirably fair on the benefits and difficulties of the US and UK systems.  I think the situation, especially with hygiene and beds has got better since then in this country.  And much as we love the NHS as an institution I don't think anyone would suggest that it's a model to follow, which is why I believe it's unique.  I don't think any other country has followed our nationalising solution.  We live in admiration of France, Germany and Canada which have a social insurance system, which would probably be the system I'd choose if starting from scratch:

QuoteFrom the WSJ Opinion Archives
ACROSS THE POND
There's No Place Like Home
What I learned from my wife's month in the British medical system.

by DAVID ASMAN
Wednesday, June 8, 2005 12:00 A.M. EDT

"Mr. Asman, could you come down to the gym? Your wife appears to be having a small problem." In typical British understatement, this was the first word I received of my wife's stroke.

We had arrived in London the night before for a two-week vacation. We spent the day sightseeing and were planning to go to the theater. I decided to take a nap, but my wife wanted to get in a workout in the hotel's gym before theater. Little did either of us know that a tiny blood clot had developed in her leg on the flight to London and was quietly working its way up to her heart. Her workout on the Stairmaster pumped the clot right through a too-porous wall in the heart on a direct path to the right side of her brain.

Hurrying down to the gym, I suspected that whatever the "small" problem was, we might still have time to make the play. Instead, our lives were about to change fundamentally, and we were both about to experience firsthand the inner workings of British health care.

We spent almost a full month in a British public hospital. We also arranged for a complex medical procedure to be done in one of the few remaining private hospitals in Britain. My wife then spent about three weeks recuperating in a New York City hospital as an inpatient and has since used another city hospital for physical therapy as an outpatient. We thus have had a chance to sample the health diet available under two very different systems of health care. Neither system is without its faults and advantages. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, there are no solutions to modern health care problems, only trade-offs. What follows is a sampling of those tradeoffs as we viewed them firsthand.

As I saw my wife collapsed on the hotel's gym floor, my concern about making the curtain was replaced by a bone-chilling recognition that she was in mortal danger. Despite her protestations that everything was fine, her left side was paralyzed and her eyes were rolling around unfocused. She was making sense, but her words were slurred. Right away I suspected a stroke, even though she is a young, healthy nonsmoker. Over her continuing protests, I knew we had to get her to a hospital right away.

The emergency workers who came within five minutes were wonderful. The two young East Enders looked and sounded for all the world like a couple of skinhead soccer fans, cockney accents and all. But their professionalism in immediately stabilizing my wife and taking her vitals was matched with exceptional kindness. I was moved to tears to see how comforting they were both to my wife and to me. As I was to discover time and again in the British health system, despite the often deplorable conditions of a bankrupt infrastructure, British caregivers--whether nurses, doctors, or ambulance drivers--are extraordinarily kind and hardworking. Since there's no real money to be made in the system, those who get into public medicine do so as a pure vocation. And they show it. In the case of these EMTs, I kick myself for not having noticed their names to later thank them, for almost as soon as they dropped us off at the emergency room of the University College of London Hospital, they disappeared.

Suddenly we were in the hands of British Health Service, and after a battery of tests we were being pressured into officially admitting my wife to UCL. As we discovered later, emergency care is free for everyone in Britain; it's only when one is officially admitted to a hospital that a foreigner begins to pay. I didn't know that. But I did know that I was not about to admit my wife to a hospital that could not diagnose an obviously life-threatening affliction. And even after having given her an MRI, the doctors could not tell if she had a stroke.

Now, the smartest thing I did before we left the hotel was to delay the ambulance driver long enough to run back to my room and grab my wife's cell phone. With that phone I began making about a thousand dollars worth of trans-Atlantic calls, the first of which was to the world-renowned cardiologist Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld, who I'm lucky enough to have as my GP. As it turned out, not only did Izzy diagnose the problem correctly, he even suggested a cause for the stroke, which later turned out to be correct. "There's no reason for her to have a stroke except if it's a PFO." I didn't know what Izzy meant, but I wrote down the initials and later found out that a PFO (a patent foramen ovale) is a flap-like opening in the heart through which we get our oxygen in utero. For most of us, the opening closes shortly after birth. But in as many as 30% of us, the flap doesn't seal tight, and that can allow a blood clot to travel through the heart up to the brain. Izzy agreed that I should not admit my wife to UCL but hold out for a hospital that specialized in neurology.

As it happened, the best such hospital in England, Queen's Square Hospital for Neurology, was a short distance away, but it had no beds available. That's when I started dialing furiously again, tracking down contacts and calling in chits with any influential contact around the world for whom I'd ever done a favor. I also got my employer, News Corp., involved, and a team of extremely helpful folks I'd never met worked overtime helping me out.

Suddenly, a bed was found in Queen's Square, and by 2 a.m. my wife was officially admitted to a British public hospital. The neurologist on call that night looked at the same MRI where the emergency doctors had seen nothing and immediately saw that my wife had suffered a severe stroke. It was awful news, but I realized we were finally in the right place.

That first night (or what was left of it) my wife was sent off to intensive care, and the nurses convinced me that I should get a few hours sleep. We found a supply closet, in which there was a small examination table, and the nurses helped me fashion fake pillows and blankets from old supplies. The loving attention of these nurses was touching. But the conditions of the hospital were rather shockingly apparent even then.

The acute brain injury ward to which my wife was assigned the next day consisted of four sections, each having six beds. Whether it was dumb luck or some unseen connection, we ended up with a bed next to a window, through which we could catch a glimpse of the sky. Better yet, the window actually opened, which was also a blessing since the smells wafting through the ward were often overwhelming.

When I covered Latin America for The Wall Street Journal, I'd visit hospitals, prisons and schools as barometers of public services in the country. Based on my Latin American scale, Queen's Square would rate somewhere in the middle. It certainly wasn't as bad as public hospitals in El Salvador, where patients often share beds. But it wasn't as nice as some of the hospitals I've seen in Buenos Aires or southern Brazil. And compared with virtually any hospital ward in the U.S., Queen's Square would fall short by a mile.

The equipment wasn't ancient, but it was often quite old. On occasion my wife and I would giggle at heart and blood-pressure monitors that were literally taped together and would come apart as they were being moved into place. The nurses and hospital technicians had become expert at jerry-rigging temporary fixes for a lot of the damaged equipment. I pitched in as best as I could with simple things, like fixing the wiring for the one TV in the ward. And I'd make frequent trips to the local pharmacies to buy extra tissues and cleaning wipes, which were always in short supply.

In fact, cleaning was my main occupation for the month we were at Queen's Square. Infections in hospitals are, of course, a problem everywhere. But in Britain, hospital-borne infections are getting out of control. At least 100,000 British patients a year are hit by hospital-acquired infections, including the penicillin-resistant "superbug" MRSA. A new study carried out by the British Health Protection Agency says that MRSA plays a part in the deaths of up to 32,000 patients every year. But even at lower numbers, Britain has the worst MRSA infection rates in Europe. It's not hard to see why.

As far as we could tell in our month at Queen's Square, the only method of keeping the floors clean was an industrious worker from the Philippines named Marcello, equipped with a mop and pail. Marcello did the best that he could. But there's only so much a single worker can do with a mop and pail against a ward full of germ-laden filth. Only a constant cleaning by me kept our little corner of the ward relatively germ-free. When my wife and I walked into Cornell University Hospital in New York after a month in England, the first thing we noticed was the floors. They were not only clean. They were shining! We were giddy with the prospect of not constantly engaging in germ warfare.

As for the caliber of medicine practiced at Queen's Square, we were quite impressed at the collegiality of the doctors and the tendency to make medical judgments based on group consultations. There is much better teamwork among doctors, nurses and physical therapists in Britain. In fact, once a week at Queen's Square, all the hospital's health workers--from high to low--would assemble for an open forum on each patient in the ward. That way each level knows what the other level is up to, something glaringly absent from U.S. hospital management. Also, British nurses have far more direct managerial control over how the hospital wards are run. This may somewhat compensate for their meager wages--which averaged about £20,000 ($36,000) a year (in a city where almost everything costs twice as much as it does in Manhattan!).

There is also much less of a tendency in British medicine to make decisions on the basis of whether one will be sued for that decision. This can lead to a much healthier period of recuperation. For example, as soon as my wife was ambulatory, I was determined to get her out of the hospital as much as possible. Since a stroke is all about the brain, I wanted to clear her head of as much sickness as I could. We'd take off in a wheelchair for two-hour lunches in the lovely little park outside, and three-hour dinners at a nice Japanese restaurant located at a hotel down the street. I swear those long, leisurely dinners, after which we'd sit in the lobby where I'd smoke a cigar and we'd talk for another hour or so, actually helped in my wife's recovery. It made both of us feel, well, normal. It also helped restore a bit of fun in our relationship, which too often slips away when you just see your loved one in a hospital setting.

Now try leaving a hospital as an inpatient in the U.S. In fact, we did try and were frustrated at every step. You'd have better luck breaking out of prison. Forms, permission slips and guards at the gate all conspire to keep you in bounds. It was clear that what prevented us from getting out was the pressing fear on everyone's part of getting sued. Anything happens on the outside and folks naturally sue the hospital for not doing their job as the patient's nanny.

Why are the Brits so less concerned about being sued? I can only guess that Britain's practice of forcing losers in civil cases to pay for court costs has lessened the number of lawsuits, and thus the paranoia about lawsuits from which American medical services suffer.

British doctors, nurses and physical therapists also seem to put much more stock in the spiritual side of healing. Not to say that they bring religion into the ward. (In fact, they passed right over my wife's insistence that prayer played a part in what they had to admit was a miraculously quick return of movement to her left side.) Put simply, they invest a lot of effort at keeping one's spirits up. Sometimes it's a bit over the top, such as when the physical or occupational therapists compliment any tiny achievement with a "Brilliant!" or "Fantastic!" But better that than taking a chance of planting a negative suggestion that can grow quickly and dampen spirits for a long time.

Since we returned, we've actually had two American physical therapists who did just that--one who told my wife that she'd never use her hand again and another who said she'd never bend her ankle again. Both of these therapists were wrong, but they succeeded in depressing my wife's spirits and delaying her recovery for a considerable period. For the life of me, I can't understand how they could have been so insensitive, unless this again was an attempt to forestall a lawsuit: I never claimed you would walk again.

Having praised the caregivers, I'm forced to return to the inefficiencies of a health system devoid of incentives. One can tell that the edge has disappeared in treatment in Britain. For example, when we returned to the U.S. we discovered that treatment exists for thwarting the effects of blood clots in the brain if administered shortly after a stroke. Such treatment was never mentioned, even after we were admitted to the neurology hospital. Indeed, the only medication my wife was given for a severe stroke was a daily dose of aspirin. Now, treating stroke victims is tricky business. My wife had a low hemoglobin count, so with all the medications in the world, she still might have been better off with just aspirin. But consultations with doctors never brought up the possibilities of alternative drug therapies. (Of course, U.S. doctors tend to be pill pushers, but that's a different discussion.)

Then there was the condition of Queen's Square compared with the physical plant of the New York hospitals. As I mentioned, the cleanliness of U.S. hospitals is immediately apparent to all the senses. But Cornell and New York University hospitals (both of which my wife has been using since we returned) have ready access to technical equipment that is either hard to find or nonexistent in Britain. This includes both diagnostic equipment and state-of-the-art equipment used for physical therapy.

We did have one brief encounter with a more comprehensive type of British medical treatment--a day trip to one of the few remaining private hospitals in London.

Before she could travel back home, my wife needed to have the weak wall in her heart fortified with a metal clamp. The procedure is minimally invasive (a catheter is passed up to the heart from a small incision made in the groin), but it requires enormous skill. The cardiologist responsible for the procedure, Seamus Cullen, worked in both the public system and as a private clinician. He informed us that the waiting line to perform the procedure in a public hospital would take days if not weeks, but we could have the procedure done in a private hospital almost immediately. Since we'd already been separated from our 12-year-old daughter for almost a month, we opted to have the procedure done (with enormous assistance from my employer) at a private hospital.

Checking into the private hospital was like going from a rickety Third World hovel into a five-star hotel. There was clean carpeting, more than enough help, a private room (and a private bath!) in which to recover from the procedure, even a choice of wines offered with a wide variety of entrees. As we were feasting on our fancy new digs, Dr. Cullen came by, took my wife's hand, and quietly told us in detail about the procedure. He actually paused to ask us whether we understood him completely and had any questions. Only one, we both thought to ask: Is this a dream?

It wasn't long before the dream was over and we were back at Queen's Square. But on our return, one of the ever-accommodating nurses had found us a single room in the back of the ward where they usually throw rowdy patients. For the last five days, my wife and I prayed for well-behaved patients, and we managed to last out our days at Queen's Square basking in a private room.

But what of the bottom line? When I received the bill for my wife's one-month stay at Queen's Square, I thought there was a mistake. The bill included all doctors' costs, two MRI scans, more than a dozen physical therapy sessions, numerous blood and pathology tests, and of course room and board in the hospital for a month. And perhaps most important, it included the loving care of the finest nurses we'd encountered anywhere. The total cost: $25,752. That ain't chump change. But to put this in context, the cost of just 10 physical therapy sessions at New York's Cornell University Hospital came to $27,000--greater than the entire bill from British Health Service!

There is something seriously out of whack about 10 therapy sessions that cost more than a month's worth of hospital bills in England. Still, while costs in U.S. hospitals might well have become exorbitant because of too few incentives to keep costs down, the British system has simply lost sight of costs and incentives altogether. (The exception would appear to be the few remaining private clinics in Britain. The heart procedure done in the private clinic in London cost about $20,000.)

"Free health care" is a mantra that one hears all the time from advocates of the British system. But British health care is not "free." I mentioned the cost of living in London, which is twice as high for almost any good or service as prices in Manhattan. Folks like to blame an overvalued pound (or undervalued dollar). But that only explains about 30% of the extra cost. A far larger part of those extra costs come in the hidden value-added taxes--which can add up to 40% when you combine costs to consumers and producers. And with salaries tending to be about 20% lower in England than they are here, the purchasing power of Brits must be close to what we would define as the poverty level. The enormous costs of socialized medicine explain at least some of this disparity in the standard of living.

As for the quality of British health care, advocates of socialized medicine point out that while the British system may not be as rich as U.S. heath care, no patient is turned away. To which I would respond that my wife's one roommate at Cornell University Hospital in New York was an uninsured homeless woman, who shared the same spectacular view of the East River and was receiving about the same quality of health care as my wife. Uninsured Americans are not left on the street to die.

Something is clearly wrong with medical pricing over here. Ten therapy sessions aren't worth $27,000, no matter how shiny the floors are. On the other hand my wife was wheeled into Cornell and managed to partially walk out after a relatively pleasant stay in a relatively clean environment. Can one really put a price on that?

Mr. Asman is an anchor at the Fox News Channel and host of "Forbes on Fox." This article appears in the May issue of The American Spectator.

about a "B"

C - I know little about what he has actually done, which in itself may or may not say a bit about him.

C - He just seems to muddle through so far.

I am rather surprised by the poll results.  :huh:

Average is basically a solid C.

Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2009, 02:33:09 PM
I am rather surprised by the poll results.  :huh:

What did you expect?

A B average or so.

Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2009, 02:36:54 PM
A B average or so.

LOL he's American, remember?

 :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

Nice one.

Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2009, 02:36:54 PM
A B average or so.

I expected the same.  Surprised by the numbers of Yuros piling on.

Quote from: Zanza on August 05, 2009, 02:30:36 PM
C - He just seems to muddle through so far.

That would be about the grade, and the reason, for me.  He seem to expend too much energy on trying to reason with Republicans, when they're clearly not in the mood to cooperate.  For somebody supposedly enjoying super-majority, he sure comes off looking impotent right now, and not getting much done.  Maybe that will change soon.

So far it's obvious that he'll be a weak president; he has trouble working with his own party and is unable to work with the opposition.  That doesn't necessarily mean he'll be a bad president; Truman, Bush 41 and Clinton all had difficulty dealing with congress and, in my opinion, they were all decent president.  A more worrisome aspect is his economic stimulus package was ineffective and beholden to Democrat supporting special interest.  That may be an indication of how his next major agenda item, health care, will go.

I gave him a gentleman's B, but it is too soon to grade him.

I don't think that inability to work with opposition should be held against him.  I don't think Republicans would be willing to work even with Jesus, if he were a Democratic president.

Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2009, 08:19:17 AM
I don't think that inability to work with opposition should be held against him.  I don't think Republicans would be willing to work even with Jesus, if he were a Democratic president.

The Repubs have ideas that they try to bring forth, try to work with Dems where they can or want to. On the various bills passed the Repubs proposed new ideas and amendments. Also though, the Dems are drunk on power and are doing what they can to push their weight around. Reoubs may very much dislike some of the ideas being slammed through by the Dems, so at some points they may try to block things. Frankly, I can't always blame the Repubs if they do try to slow the process. I think many of us are a bit annoyed and concerned over some of the Congressional processes lately.

I keep saying he's gonna be a black version of Carter.

Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2009, 08:19:17 AM
I don't think that inability to work with opposition should be held against him.  I don't think Republicans would be willing to work even with Jesus, if he were a Democratic president.

I think it's a sign of his ineptness; even with the partisan rancor at the beginning of their terms Bill Clinton and Bush 43 were able to build bi-partisan support on NAFTA and NCLB respectively.

Quote from: KRonn on August 06, 2009, 08:27:38 AM

Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2009, 08:19:17 AM
I don't think that inability to work with opposition should be held against him.  I don't think Republicans would be willing to work even with Jesus, if he were a Democratic president.

The Repubs have ideas that they try to bring forth, try to work with Dems where they can or want to. On the various bills passed the Repubs proposed new ideas and amendments. Also though, the Dems are drunk on power and are doing what they can to push their weight around. Reoubs may very much dislike some of the ideas being slammed through by the Dems, so at some points they may try to block things. Frankly, I can't always blame the Repubs if they do try to slow the process. I think many of us are a bit annoyed and concerned over some of the Congressional processes lately.

Sure, if you count on insisting on the traditional and discredited Republican dogma, then I guess they are trying to work with the Democrats.  I for one don't count it, because their efforts are not going to be acceptable to anyone who's not a hardcore Republican.  Willingness to compromise implies the actual willingness to reach actual compromise.

Quote from: Savonarola on August 06, 2009, 08:36:24 AM
I think it's a sign of his ineptness; even with the partisan rancor at the beginning of their terms Bill Clinton and Bush 43 were able to build bi-partisan support on NAFTA and NCLB respectively.

He is much too busy with important things like appearing at photo ops, having his ass kissed by Katie Couric, and staging Beer Summits.  Get your priorities straight, mister  :mad:

Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2009, 08:36:51 AM

Quote from: KRonn on August 06, 2009, 08:27:38 AM

Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2009, 08:19:17 AM
I don't think that inability to work with opposition should be held against him.  I don't think Republicans would be willing to work even with Jesus, if he were a Democratic president.

The Repubs have ideas that they try to bring forth, try to work with Dems where they can or want to. On the various bills passed the Repubs proposed new ideas and amendments. Also though, the Dems are drunk on power and are doing what they can to push their weight around. Reoubs may very much dislike some of the ideas being slammed through by the Dems, so at some points they may try to block things. Frankly, I can't always blame the Repubs if they do try to slow the process. I think many of us are a bit annoyed and concerned over some of the Congressional processes lately.

Sure, if you count on insisting on the traditional and discredited Republican dogma, then I guess they are trying to work with the Democrats.  I for one don't count it, because their efforts are not going to be acceptable to anyone who's not a hardcore Republican.  Willingness to compromise implies the actual willingness to reach actual compromise.

Sounds like the Democratic party talking points. Sheesh... I've become pretty wary of both of these parties by now, haven't you? Repubs have come up with ideas also, and I'm not going to try and praise the Repubs either. But the Dems have kept trying to get points saying that it's either doing things the Dem way or nothing at all, like no else has proposed ideas.

Getting tired of the rancor and deception by both parties doing business as usual. But I'm beginning to become a lot more wary and concerned at the Dems massive spending and programs, demanding they get rushed through. We had Arlen Spector saying at  town hall meeting that they couldn't take the time to read and absorb the ideas in a health care bill, the stuff had to be passed right away. John Conyers scoffed at the notion of reading a bill, saying he'd need a week and a couple lawyers to do so. Nice huh? These guys are trying to pass massive, sweeping legislation!! Even the Dems are now fighting among themselves over health care, cap and trade, and becoming quite nervous about the new spending.

Yes, I know, all the cool kids wish pox on both houses, fairly and equally.  They do not allow themselves to excercize judgment in any way, that just biases them and makes them less moderate.  :rolleyes: :zzz:

Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2009, 08:19:17 AM
I don't think that inability to work with opposition should be held against him.  I don't think Republicans would be willing to work even with Jesus, if he were a Democratic president.

I doubt the "Give all your worldly possessions to the poor and devote yourself to following me" message would be well received by the RNC.

Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2009, 09:18:33 AM
Yes, I know, all the cool kids wish pox on both houses, fairly and equally.  They do not allow themselves to excercize judgment in any way, that just biases them and makes them less moderate.  :rolleyes: :zzz:

Incorrect.  All the cool kids are Republicans who haven't sold out to the Jesusoid lobby.  Thus, in a strange way, Nixon is the coolest one of all.

Quote from: KRonn on August 06, 2009, 08:27:38 AM
The Repubs have ideas that they try to bring forth, try to work with Dems where they can or want to. On the various bills passed the Repubs proposed new ideas and amendments. Also though, the Dems are drunk on power and are doing what they can to push their weight around. Reoubs may very much dislike some of the ideas being slammed through by the Dems, so at some points they may try to block things. Frankly, I can't always blame the Repubs if they do try to slow the process. I think many of us are a bit annoyed and concerned over some of the Congressional processes lately.

Yea you said this before, but then you based your concerns off of Bachmann's talking points.

Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2009, 09:18:33 AM
Yes, I know, all the cool kids wish pox on both houses, fairly and equally.  They do not allow themselves to excercize judgment in any way, that just biases them and makes them less moderate.  :rolleyes: :zzz:

Yeah, right. I'm trying to be so cool. While you're, I guess, joined at the hip of the Dems? And that's so much better?

Quote from: Faeelin on August 06, 2009, 09:58:28 AM

Quote from: KRonn on August 06, 2009, 08:27:38 AM
The Repubs have ideas that they try to bring forth, try to work with Dems where they can or want to. On the various bills passed the Repubs proposed new ideas and amendments. Also though, the Dems are drunk on power and are doing what they can to push their weight around. Reoubs may very much dislike some of the ideas being slammed through by the Dems, so at some points they may try to block things. Frankly, I can't always blame the Repubs if they do try to slow the process. I think many of us are a bit annoyed and concerned over some of the Congressional processes lately.

Yea you said this before, but then you based your concerns off of Bachmann's talking points.

Wow... so I'm using talking points here? To say that the Dems are drunk with power? All I need do is look at all the massive stuff they're trying to rush through Congress! So much so that the more centrist Dems are calling a time out, seeing the reactions of their constituents. Those aren't talking points, but are the realities of what I'm seeing.

Quote from: KRonn on August 06, 2009, 10:07:43 AM
Yeah, right. I'm trying to be so cool. While you're, I guess, joined at the hip of the Dems? And that's so much better?

No, Berkut.  I'm merely someone who has a particular set of values and views that are not necesserily cool or moderate, and that set happens to coincide much more strongly with what Dems are trying to accomplish.

Quote from: Alatriste on August 05, 2009, 07:33:21 AM

Quote from: Jaron on August 05, 2009, 07:06:25 AM
Truman gets an F for not finishing the Japs off.

Well, once the Russians overran Manchuria, the A bombs worked and the Japanese threw the towel, it would have been a bit troublesome to refuse their surrender and invade, and specially so for an ex-vicepresident with barely three or four months of experience in the White House, don't you think?

Japs: We surrender unconditionally!!!!!! don't hurt us plz!!!!
Truman: I fear the wrath of Jaron, U must all die!!!!!

Quote from: KRonn on August 06, 2009, 08:27:38 AM
The Repubs have ideas that they try to bring forth, try to work with Dems where they can or want to. On the various bills passed the Repubs proposed new ideas and amendments. Also though, the Dems are drunk on power and are doing what they can to push their weight around. Reoubs may very much dislike some of the ideas being slammed through by the Dems, so at some points they may try to block things. Frankly, I can't always blame the Repubs if they do try to slow the process. I think many of us are a bit annoyed and concerned over some of the Congressional processes lately.

As I say, I've not followed the health care debate.  I did, however, follow the stimulus one pretty closely.  There was an idea that every centre-right economist agreed would work as stimulus and would be basically conservative/centre-right.  They wanted a payroll tax holiday for some length of time, I can't remember what, followed by the tax being at half the rate.  This was the closest to a right-wing version of stimulus.  I would respect the Republicans ideas more if that was the sort of thing they proposed.  It wasn't.  Their ideas for a stimulus package was considered incredibly weak by even centre-right economists and as far as I can tell was proposed just so they could say 'we had ideas and the Democrats didn't want them'.  Their ideas were, for the situation, ridiculous and that's all the sadder when there was an ideologically coherent and conservative alternative. 

Here's the thing with what you say about Republicans vs Democrats.  Democrats have conservative districts and states.  Ben Nelson can't vote like Schumer or he'd lose his seat.  So they need to have an internal debate.  The Republicans are currently a bit of a rump party and their seats seem, overwhelmingly, in the Republican base.  So while moderate Democrats have an incentive to work with Republicans and safer Democrats have an incentive to support them (better have 20 moderates and a majority than a totally united party) I don't know that at the minute the Republicans have an incentive to negotiate in good faith.  Which is, perhaps, why their stimulus alternative was so half-arsed.  Of course I blame it all on the gerrymandering of house seats which I think is a horrible thing that is harmful to the political process.

I'd broadly agree with DGuller.  I don't think supporting a political party means you can't judge them, I've hardly been stinting in my criticism of the Labour party over the past 2 years.  In the American context I think it probably matters more that you have an ideology rather than a party, but I think it's better than the 'pox on both your houses' style cynicism which I think is corrosive and anti-politics.  It reminds me of a critique of realist foreign policy wags, which basically said realists and idealists (whether liberal, neo-con or whatever else) don't really know the impact their policies will have, no one does.  The difference is that if it's bad the realists can sit back, with a French cigarette and say 'at least I didn't get my hopes up'.  I think it can also be very juvenile (though you're not of course :blush:).

Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2009, 10:54:38 AM

Quote from: KRonn on August 06, 2009, 10:07:43 AM
Yeah, right. I'm trying to be so cool. While you're, I guess, joined at the hip of the Dems? And that's so much better?

No, Berkut.  I'm merely someone who has a particular set of values and views that are not necesserily cool or moderate, and that set happens to coincide much more strongly with what Dems are trying to accomplish.

I don't agree with the big government ideas of the more left leaning Dems, so I guess we will disagree on the overall approach of the Dems. Given that, I will support the more centrist Dems/Repubs, who want to address the issues without the huge govt increase that the more left and big government types have been pushing. I want things resolved, as you do of course, but I don't necessarily agree with the large increases in government to get there. That's pretty much my over all attitude. 

You may not want the large increase of govt either, don't know but I don't think you do. I can understand that you want issues resolved, and I also understand your frustration when you feel the Repubs are just being obstructionist. That annoys me as well - I want solutions,not obstructionism. Then, given the way our legislators have been playing for too long now, I feel we need (have needed) to be much more aware and more critical of what those solutions are.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 06, 2009, 12:37:06 PM
I'd broadly agree with DGuller.  I don't think supporting a political party means you can't judge them, I've hardly been stinting in my criticism of the Labour party over the past 2 years.  In the American context I think it probably matters more that you have an ideology rather than a party, but I think it's better than the 'pox on both your houses' style cynicism which I think is corrosive and anti-politics.  It reminds me of a critique of realist foreign policy wags, which basically said realists and idealists (whether liberal, neo-con or whatever else) don't really know the impact their policies will have, no one does.  The difference is that if it's bad the realists can sit back, with a French cigarette and say 'at least I didn't get my hopes up'.  I think it can also be very juvenile (though you're not of course :blush:).

Yes, I'm annoyed with both parties, perhaps getting more cynical which is unlike me generally, but I feel we need to realize that both parties doing business as usual over the past many years got us into some of the problems we have today. One or the other party is going to have to work a lot harder now to earn my support. I feel that by staunch support, or demonizing, of one party over the other is the wrong idea. Both parties are part and parcel of where we are today, and if we don't like where we are then we need to look quite critically at both parties.

KRonn I've just read a couple of things I'd link to because they sort-of relate to what I'm saying.

The stuff about the healthcare bill allowing euthanasia was first raised by a woman who was instrumental in stopping the Clinton healthcare bill.  She earlier came up with a worry about this government funded research project to look at the things doctors were doing.  She suggested this meant that everything your doctor wanted to would have to go through Washington first.  Like what she said about Clinton's bill and about euthanasia that was just a lie.  The research office was first established by George W. Bush and the US government's supported research in taht sort of thing for decades, there's no plan for euthanasia or a panel of bureaucrats judging every medical decision (the suggestions remind me of the British Medical Association accusing Nye Bevan of wanting to be a 'Medical Fuhrer').

So what I think the Republicans are doing now is simply trying to kill the bill with lies and exageration.  I don't think that's a good thing for the reasons David Frum suggests here:
http://www.newmajority.com/what-if-we-win-the-healthcare-fight
Having said that I'm used to a parliamentary system.  So that's fine with me, I've no issue with the opposition trying to oppose and stop a bill, even if they exagerate to do it (though lying outright might not work here because it's such a big issue, there was a huge storm because Cameron said Brown's premiership had a 'vein of dishonesty' running through it, lying is the big taboo of our political system, though everyone sort-of does it).

However I think at that point you can't say that the Republicans, as a party, have been making good faith suggestions or trying to work out a real compromise or get a bipartisan deal.  If they were arguing over things like the issues David Frum suggests here:
http://www.newmajority.com/reforms-conservatives-can-favor
Then, I think you could say that perhaps Democrats deserve the blame for a breakdown in bipartisan cooperation, or you could more equally spread the blame.  While so much of the right's anger seems focused on lowering Medicare care and euthanasia I think it's fair to say they're not of a mind to seek a bipartisan compromise.

If you're looking for a 'on the one hand, on the other' equivalence I'd say the best would be the Democrats and Social Security.  If you can kill a bill and hurt the President and opposing party with dissimulation and lies, why wouldn't you?  Which isn't to say that Democrats didn't then oppose the general ideological thrust of what Bush was doing, or Republicans of this plan.  It's a combination of genuine opposition and political opportunism.

But who knows maybe the Senate Finance Committee will emerge with a bipartisan compromise.  Although I think bipartisanship's a bit over-rated myself.

Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2009, 10:54:38 AM

Quote from: KRonn on August 06, 2009, 10:07:43 AM
Yeah, right. I'm trying to be so cool. While you're, I guess, joined at the hip of the Dems? And that's so much better?

No, Berkut.  I'm merely someone who has a particular set of values and views that are not necesserily cool or moderate, and that set happens to coincide much more strongly with what Dems are trying to accomplish.

Which isn't your problem - your problem is that you are incapable of thinking about an issue on its own merits.

Even this discussion shows it. Your "rating"of Obama, to the extent you are capable of saying anything negative, is based on his "willingness to deal with Republicans". You are just another tribe member. Whether you consider that "cool" or not is not all that interesting though. I suspect in your circles it is very, very cool though.

I am both worried and intrigued by Sheilbh's newfound interest in David Frum.

Obama kept Palin out of the White House. A++  :)

Quote from: Berkut on August 08, 2009, 03:17:07 PM
Which isn't your problem - your problem is that you are incapable of thinking about an issue on its own merits.

That's a completely false statement, and you know it.  You're just making it because you expect me to just let you smear me unchallenged.

Quote from: DGuller on August 09, 2009, 05:20:16 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 08, 2009, 03:17:07 PM
Which isn't your problem - your problem is that you are incapable of thinking about an issue on its own merits.

That's a completely false statement, and you know it.  You're just making it because you expect me to just let you smear me unchallenged.

No, it is because it is true, and you decided to drag me into the conversation because you expected me to let you talk your normal personal bullshit unchallenged.

You don't need any help from me to come across as a partisan hack - you manage that all by yourself.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 09, 2009, 02:40:23 AM
I am both worried and intrigued by Sheilbh's newfound interest in David Frum.

Oh it's nothing new.  I've been a fan for a while.  He was the only sane right-wing commentator the BBC had on election night and I'd read his National Review stuff before that.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 08, 2009, 01:43:56 PM
So what I think the Republicans are doing now is simply trying to kill the bill with lies and exageration. 

I'm shocked you came to that conclusion :D

Quote from: derspiess on August 09, 2009, 12:31:08 PM
I'm shocked you came to that conclusion :D

You think they aren't trying to kill the bill?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 09, 2009, 12:37:34 PM
You think they aren't trying to kill the bill?

I haven't seen much to support the allegation that Republicans are trying to kill the bill.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 09, 2009, 12:37:34 PM
You think they aren't trying to kill the bill?

Obama's version of it?  I would certainly hope so; I'd be tempted to leave the party if not.  My comment was about Shielbh's "lies & deception" claim.

Quote from: Savonarola on August 06, 2009, 08:36:24 AM

Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2009, 08:19:17 AM
I don't think that inability to work with opposition should be held against him.  I don't think Republicans would be willing to work even with Jesus, if he were a Democratic president.

I think it's a sign of his ineptness; even with the partisan rancor at the beginning of their terms Bill Clinton and Bush 43 were able to build bi-partisan support on NAFTA and NCLB respectively.

Well, Obama outsourced his policy to Nancy Pelosi, who wouldn't even allow the Republicans to participate in the discussion (nor most of the Dems), going as far as locking them out.  Obama and his fellow Democrats have on the Stimulus, Cap-and-trade, and Health care completely frozen out the GOP so they have no basis to complain about Republican "obstructionism".  Obama has proven to be as extremely partisan in the WH as he was in the Senate.

Quote from: Berkut on August 08, 2009, 03:17:07 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 06, 2009, 10:54:38 AM

Quote from: KRonn on August 06, 2009, 10:07:43 AM
Yeah, right. I'm trying to be so cool. While you're, I guess, joined at the hip of the Dems? And that's so much better?

No, Berkut.  I'm merely someone who has a particular set of values and views that are not necesserily cool or moderate, and that set happens to coincide much more strongly with what Dems are trying to accomplish.

Which isn't your problem - your problem is that you are incapable of thinking about an issue on its own merits.

Even this discussion shows it. Your "rating"of Obama, to the extent you are capable of saying anything negative, is based on his "willingness to deal with Republicans". You are just another tribe member. Whether you consider that "cool" or not is not all that interesting though. I suspect in your circles it is very, very cool though.

The funny thing is that you project all this on everyone.  IT's you who can't be objective.  You never have been, never will be.  You engage in tribalism more then most.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 09, 2009, 02:14:43 PM
The funny thing is that you project all this on everyone.  IT's you who can't be objective.  You never have been, never will be.  You engage in tribalism more then most.

What's even funnier is that *you* apparently seem to think you're objective in some way.

Let's face it:  I'm the only one on Languish who can be absolutely objective.

Quote from: derspiess on August 09, 2009, 01:12:03 PM
My comment was about Shielbh's "lies & deception" claim.

How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.  ;)

Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2009, 09:25:14 AM
No, it is because it is true, and you decided to drag me into the conversation because you expected me to let you talk your normal personal bullshit unchallenged.

You don't need any help from me to come across as a partisan hack - you manage that all by yourself.

I just brought up your name because your name is a very succinct shorthand for someone who's using presumed non-partisanship and "maverickness" as a stick to beat other posters so that their arguments wouldn't need to be a addressed.  KRonn really pissed me off when he did it, so I mentioned your name just to let him know how low I thought it was.  There are two things I'm very proud of:  my integrity, and my ability and willingness to think originally.  I get really pissed off when people question those just to score a point in debate.

Quote from: derspiess on August 09, 2009, 02:18:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 09, 2009, 02:14:43 PM
The funny thing is that you project all this on everyone.  IT's you who can't be objective.  You never have been, never will be.  You engage in tribalism more then most.

What's even funnier is that *you* apparently seem to think you're objective in some way.

Not really.  I know I'm not particularly objective.  Most of us aren't.  I don't pretend to be something I'm not.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 09, 2009, 01:05:34 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 09, 2009, 12:37:34 PM
You think they aren't trying to kill the bill?

I haven't seen much to support the allegation that Republicans are trying to kill the bill.

What do you think they're doing and the goal is?

QuoteMy comment was about Shielbh's "lies & deception" claim.

I'm a lefty but I don't think I'm unfair.  It's patently untrue that the Democrat bill has anything to do with a 'death panel'.

I think the 'death panel' thing isn't just untrue but a pretty unpleasant thing to suggest as well.

Quote from: DGuller on August 09, 2009, 10:23:30 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 09, 2009, 09:25:14 AM
No, it is because it is true, and you decided to drag me into the conversation because you expected me to let you talk your normal personal bullshit unchallenged.

You don't need any help from me to come across as a partisan hack - you manage that all by yourself.

I just brought up your name because your name is a very succinct shorthand for someone who's using presumed non-partisanship and "maverickness" as a stick to beat other posters so that their arguments wouldn't need to be a addressed. 

No, my name, for you, is very succint shorthand for someone who you cannot intimidate, so you pretend not to read my posts while slavishly doing so in emorage constantly. It isn't really the same at all.

Your constant and almost immediate retreat to ad hom anytime you muster the courage to respond is rather clear evidence of that.

QuoteKRonn really pissed me off when he did it, so I mentioned your name just to let him know how low I thought it was.

Yes, I can see how this is excellent evidence of your objective and "original" thinking.

Berkut == bad, so slandering kronn must be a fine example of your "integrity".

Quote
There are two things I'm very proud of:  my integrity,

You think "integrity" is defined by slandering others and engaging in personal attacks on posters you pretend to refuse to acknowledge? You have a rather odd definition of the term, I suspect.

Quote
and my ability and willingness to think originally.  I get really pissed off when people question those just to score a point in debate.

Nobody questions those to score any points - they question them because you have rarely, if ever, evidence that they exist.

"Integrity" is not about drive by slandering of other people, or lying about their views DG. "Original" thinking is not evidenced by regurgitating the party line and engaging in incessant and petulant partisan politics. In fact, that is exactly the opposite of original thinking.

If your "thinking" involves reactionary "Republicans are all evil!" responses to nearly all topics, even those that have nothing to do with them, it isn't really "thinking" at all, much less original thinking.

For someone who spends so much time worrying about other peoples integrity and such, you could do a lot more to improve the overall level of discourse by reforming your own posting and thinking habits, rather than anyone elses - much less kronns.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2009, 02:43:39 AM

Quote from: derspiess on August 09, 2009, 02:18:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 09, 2009, 02:14:43 PM
The funny thing is that you project all this on everyone.  IT's you who can't be objective.  You never have been, never will be.  You engage in tribalism more then most.

What's even funnier is that *you* apparently seem to think you're objective in some way.

Not really.  I know I'm not particularly objective.  Most of us aren't.  I don't pretend to be something I'm not.

It is funny how people make objectivity into some kind of impossible to achieve ideal so they can excuse their lack of it.

It really isn't that hard, nor is it any kind of binary condition wherby if you are not perfectly objective, then you might as well just be a partisan hack unwilling to think for oneself.

What is really sad is when people go so far as to embrace their own intolerance and narrow mindedness and hold onto it as though it were something valuable and cherished, and actually use others attempt at rational and objective thinking as some kind of stigma to be mocked.

It is so very emo.

ON a more general note, it is interesting that once again DG and Co. have managed to turn a thread that has any hint of criticism of Obama into yet another of their personal flame wars.

Well played!

I'm about to grade everybody. Many notes are going to be sent home to parents.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 08:14:39 AM
Nobody questions those to score any points - they question them because you have rarely, if ever, evidence that they exist.

That's your interpretation of it.  Then again, before you were calling me partisan Democrat, you were calling me a Jesus freak who lied about being an atheist, back when I was into abortion debates.  Needless to say, your ability to classify posters accurately doesn't have an enviable track record.

QuoteNo, my name, for you, is very succint shorthand for someone who you cannot intimidate, so you pretend not to read my posts while slavishly doing so in emorage constantly.

See, what's even more annoying about you than being verbally abusive is being very dense, and reading what you want them to write rather than what other people actually wrote, even when there is no room for subjectivity.  After a while it gets tiring just trying to establish what I'm actually typing, because somewhere between your screen and your brain words get jumbled. 

In this particular case, I never said that I would not be reading your posts.  What I said is that I would not be responding to your posts, which is different from not reading them.  I've done that very successfully, with only a handful of exceptions, and I'll continue doing that after this brief intermission to rebutt made up attacks on me.  The downside of debating you far outstrips the rather limited upside.

Quote from: DWhinerThe downside of debating you far outstrips the rather limited upside.

Of course it does - for you, "winning" is what this is all about, so the downside of "debating" me (which you do not do, btw - getting all emo and stomping away in a rage because someone challenges your revealed Pravda isn't really debate, you know), is certainly very high, since you consistently fail to defend your position and resort instead to personal attacks and whining.

And I would love to see the post where I called you a "jesus freak". Please cite. Or is this another example of you "getting the words jumbled" and a "made up attack on me"?

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 10:24:02 AM
And I would love to see the post where I called you a "jesus freak". Please cite. Or is this another example of you "getting the words jumbled" and a "made up attack on me"?

I certainly remember you questioning his atheism, though not what words were used. Obviously, he can't search for posts from the old board.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 10:24:02 AM
Of course it does - for you, "winning" is what this is all about,

LOL, holy projection!!!  :lmfao: You're not being an original thinker even when attacking someone, you're just copying verbatim my own stated problem with you and grumbler.

QuoteAnd I would love to see the post where I called you a "jesus freak". Please cite. Or is this another example of you "getting the words jumbled" and a "made up attack on me"?

Can't quote something from 2004-2005, duh.  However, I'm sure plenty of posters remember you not merely doubting my atheism, but actually even going further and calling me a liar about it.

Oh, Berkut.  This is really silly.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 10, 2009, 10:36:36 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 10:24:02 AM
And I would love to see the post where I called you a "jesus freak". Please cite. Or is this another example of you "getting the words jumbled" and a "made up attack on me"?

I certainly remember you questioning his atheism, though not what words were used. Obviously, he can't search for posts from the old board.

I may very well have - it certainly would come as no surprise if I did - I rather doubt I called him a "jesus freak though".

And of course he cannot search for posts from the old board - if he did, he would never make such a claim to begin with.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 10:53:53 AM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 10:24:02 AM
Of course it does - for you, "winning" is what this is all about,

LOL, holy projection!!!  :lmfao: You're not being an original thinker even when attacking someone, you're just copying verbatim my own stated problem with you and grumbler.

Ahh, so this has gone right to your height of "debate", I see - are you going to start chanting about rubber and glue soon? We can always count on you for such "original" thinking and deep appreciation of "integrity".

Quote

QuoteAnd I would love to see the post where I called you a "jesus freak". Please cite. Or is this another example of you "getting the words jumbled" and a "made up attack on me"?

Can't quote something from 2004-2005, duh.

I know, which is why you made such a claim, of course. You can do so with impunity, since you know you cannot be called on it. This is what you mean by your deep integrity, amirite?

Quote
  However, I'm sure plenty of posters remember you not merely doubting my atheism, but actually even going further and calling me a liar about it.

[/quote]

Well, that you are willing to play rather fast and loose with the facts has been rather thoroughly established, so it would come as no great surprise if in fact you were not entirely honest about your atheism.

Whether you are a "jesus freak" or not I have no idea - I certainly have not called you any such thing that I can recall, so you will just have to own that label on your own, if you are so attached to it that you are willing to make up other people calling you one.

lets get back to how Obama's only problem is his rampant desire to coddle Republicans, and other such fine examples of "original thinking" though.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2009, 11:40:58 AM
Oh, Berkut.  This is really silly.

I know, but he doesn't really seem capable of anything more, which is a pity. He is blinded by his emorage, I guess.

DG, just give it up. The ad hom is to Berk what the strawman is to grumbler; it's a catchall, and if you wait long enough, your words will be twisted for the sake of the complaint.

Berk, it's not "criticism of Obama" when you start attacking everyone who isn't ragging on him with you. You're not God or Neil, so people can have different opinions than you.

Hmmm Berkut vs. D4Gully, Raz, and Shame...:lol:

Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2009, 11:59:18 AM
DG, just give it up. The ad hom is to Berk what the strawman is to grumbler; it's a catchall, and if you wait long enough, your words will be twisted for the sake of the complaint.

So when DG states that he is using my name as a generic insult in an argument I am not even a part of, I have to "twist his words" in order to turn that into an ad hominen? And this is some kind of problem with me?

I don't have to twist his words, just quote them, like I have done. Notice he cannot do the same, and instead quotes words I never actually said?

Quote
Berk, it's not "criticism of Obama" when you start attacking everyone who isn't ragging on him with you.

When was I "ragging on him"? I think I graded him rather average in this thread. What does your sentence even mean?

And I am not attacking anyone, much less everyone - it is your buddy DG who decided to turn the thread into yet another of his little personal vendetta's - I was not even part of the discussion until he decided to emorage about me for no apparent reason.

Quote
You're not God or Neil, so people can have different opinions than you.

Lots of people do, and if I decide to discuss it, I simply provide my own, unlike some who think that randomly insulting people constitutes "integrity" and "original thinking". I debate and discuss things with lots of different people - have I ever claimed that someone was not allowed to have a different opinion than myself, or are you following the DG example of honest, objective, and rational debate?

You're not God or Neil, so people can have different opinions than you.[/quote]

Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2009, 12:04:12 PM
Hmmm Berkut vs. D4Gully, Raz, and Shame...:lol:

Meh. I'm jumping in the ring for the entertainment value, since I'm in the "way too early to tell" cluster. Some of the changes Obama's crew has made to OMB are going to be rippling for quite a while, but don't make for as catchy headlines.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 11:53:35 AM
I know, which is why you made such a claim, of course. You can do so with impunity, since you know you cannot be called on it. This is what you mean by your deep integrity, amirite?

No, I made a claim because you did repeatedly call me a liar, and claimed that I was a religious fundamentalist lying about being an atheist.  I remember that well because I remember being called a liar.  The fact that old Languish disappeared and can't support my statement is not a mark against my integrity;  that's just a bizarre and illogical statement.  The fact that you don't remember calling me a liar is a mark against you integrity, because it's a sign that you take calling people liars so lightly that you don't even remember doing it.

QuoteWell, that you are willing to play rather fast and loose with the facts has been rather thoroughly established,

Oh, really?  I don't think it's been established at all.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2009, 12:08:23 PM

Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2009, 12:04:12 PM
Hmmm Berkut vs. D4Gully, Raz, and Shame...:lol:

Meh. I'm jumping in the ring for the entertainment value, since I'm in the "way too early to tell" cluster.

Don't be ripping on Obama!

Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2009, 12:08:23 PM
Meh. I'm jumping in the ring for the entertainment value, since I'm in the "way too early to tell" cluster. Some of the changes Obama's crew has made to OMB are going to be rippling for quite a while, but don't make for as catchy headlines.

So when does the entertainment arrive?

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 12:09:12 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 11:53:35 AM
I know, which is why you made such a claim, of course. You can do so with impunity, since you know you cannot be called on it. This is what you mean by your deep integrity, amirite?

No, I made a claim because you did repeatedly call me a liar, and claimed that I was a religious fundamentalist lying about being an atheist.  I remember that well because I remember being called a liar.  The fact that old Languish disappeared and can't support my statement is not a mark against my integrity;  that's just a bizarre and illogical statement.  The fact that you don't remember calling me a liar is a mark against you integrity, because it's a sign that you take calling people liars so lightly that you don't even remember doing it.

This is a fine example of your "integrity". Right in this thread I made it clear that I do not think I have ever called you a "Jesus freak", and now you are claiming I said something else entirely. Thanks for proving my point about your willingness to play fast and loose with the facts to "win" your little flame wars you so delight in starting.

Bored much?

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 12:12:35 PM
This is a fine example of your "integrity". Right in this thread I made it clear that I do not think I have ever called you a "Jesus freak", and now you are claiming I said something else entirely. Thanks for proving my point about your willingness to play fast and loose with the facts to "win" your little flame wars you so delight in starting.

Bored much?

You said materially the same thing in many different ways over time.  Bringing up different examples, paraphrasing, or not being able to quote verbatim from memory is again not a mark against integrity.  Once again, your logic is bizarre.

I'm not bored, I just take being called a liar seriously, especially from people who are in no position to make such a claim.

Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2009, 12:04:12 PM
Hmmm Berkut vs. D4Gully, Raz, and Shame...:lol:

Disdain from the least interesting person on the forum.  Can't get really worked up about that.  Berkut is at least interesting.  You, your just kinda meh.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2009, 12:25:40 PM
Disdain from the least interesting person on the forum.  Can't get really worked up about that.  Berkut is at least interesting.  You, your just kinda meh.

:hug:

Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2009, 12:10:39 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2009, 12:08:23 PM
Meh. I'm jumping in the ring for the entertainment value, since I'm in the "way too early to tell" cluster. Some of the changes Obama's crew has made to OMB are going to be rippling for quite a while, but don't make for as catchy headlines.

So when does the entertainment arrive?

When Berk pops a vein.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2009, 12:27:51 PM
When Berk pops a vein.

Over this? :yeahright:

Prepare for epic disappointment.

DG recycling his emowar against me? Going to take a bit more than that.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2009, 12:27:51 PM
When Berk pops a vein.

No chance for that, unfortunately, I'm the one who got sucked in.  Berkut claiming that I'm incapable of thinking about issues on their own terms was a genius troll on his part, and really hooked me on the bait.  He managed to make a totally false statement about the one of the two aspects of my personality I really cherish.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 12:38:58 PM
the one aspect of my personality I really cherish.

We often want what we can't have. :(

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 12:30:40 PM
Prepare for epic disappointment.

DG recycling his emowar against me? Going to take a bit more than that.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.imageshack.us%2Fimg3%2F2002%2Feumigp8m.jpg&hash=ab156a0b43c2b8e62485976d26d0df15659c47ab) (http://img3.imageshack.us/i/eumigp8m.jpg/)

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 12:38:58 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2009, 12:27:51 PM
When Berk pops a vein.

No chance for that, unfortunately, I'm the one who got sucked in.  Berkut claiming that I'm incapable of thinking about issues on their own terms was a genius troll on his part, and really hooked me on the bait.  He managed to make a totally false statement about the one aspect of my personality I really cherish.

:lmfao:

You should find something else about yourself to cherish.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2009, 12:39:55 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 12:30:40 PM
Prepare for epic disappointment.

DG recycling his emowar against me? Going to take a bit more than that.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.imageshack.us%2Fimg3%2F2002%2Feumigp8m.jpg&hash=ab156a0b43c2b8e62485976d26d0df15659c47ab) (http://img3.imageshack.us/i/eumigp8m.jpg/)

:lol:

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 12:41:31 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 12:38:58 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2009, 12:27:51 PM
When Berk pops a vein.

No chance for that, unfortunately, I'm the one who got sucked in.  Berkut claiming that I'm incapable of thinking about issues on their own terms was a genius troll on his part, and really hooked me on the bait.  He managed to make a totally false statement about the one aspect of my personality I really cherish.

:lmfao:

You should find something else about yourself to cherish.

Like his Russian heritage.

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2009, 12:45:36 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 12:41:31 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 12:38:58 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2009, 12:27:51 PM
When Berk pops a vein.

No chance for that, unfortunately, I'm the one who got sucked in.  Berkut claiming that I'm incapable of thinking about issues on their own terms was a genius troll on his part, and really hooked me on the bait.  He managed to make a totally false statement about the one aspect of my personality I really cherish.

:lmfao:

You should find something else about yourself to cherish.

Like his Russian heritage.

But is he *really* a Russian?

I have my doubts.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 12:41:31 PM
:lmfao:

You should find something else about yourself to cherish.

I'm proud of my record of being able to analyze things originally and on my own.  One example is the economic prediction thread I started four years ago about the impending crisis, which I not only correctly called, but also described how it would unfold with very good accuracy.  Most people disagreed with me at the time.  I certainly didn't come to conclusions that I came to in that thread by being a drone reciting what other people thought.  So, when you can come up with something as insightful as that thread I started, then you may be in position to blab about me being unable to think about issues on their own merits.  Until then, coming from you, it's just an empty insult, albeit a very effective empty insult.

You are right, nobody else thought there was any kind of impending problem 4 years ago. You were the only one.

Oh wait, lots of people were concerned about the ridiculous rise in housing prices, including myself. Gee, how disappointing. Well, almost anyway.

Your ability to originally and objectively determine that it is all Reagan's fault surely sets you apart as a creative thinker. I've never heard that one before.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 12:52:08 PM
You are right, nobody else thought there was any kind of impending problem 4 years ago. You were the only one.

Oh wait, lots of people were concerned about the ridiculous rise in housing prices, including myself. Gee, how disappointing. Well, almost anyway.

It was about much more than the housing bubble.  It was about how the housing bubble would burst and not just flatten out, and how the burst would lead to a severe financial crisis and economic trouble.  That part was not common thinking at all back in 2005, on Languish or anywhere else.  I was largely correct in predicting the whole chain of events.

QuoteYour ability to originally and objectively determine that it is all Reagan's fault surely sets you apart as a creative thinker. I've never heard that one before.

Yes, in that thread where I made the accurate predictions, I also cited excessive deregulation in the finance industry as the main reason.  In a later thread to which you're referring to, I did not blame Reagan for the financial disaster, I merely stated that Reagan started the process of reckless financial deregulation.  The rest is your imagination, as usual.

So far you're batting zero.

Right, that must be why your so pissed off, because I cannot hit these softballs, oh genius one.

Funny, I seem to recall reading about people, even people as dim as politicians, way back in the early 2000s expressing concerns about the housing bubble, and what it could lead to. I guess I must have just been better read than you. Of course, I am not nearly as genius like as you, so perhaps I am forced to read and stuff, rather than just figure everything out on my own using my ultra objective reasoning. That same objectivity that you regularly deride and claim is just an attempt to "be cool".

*I* certainly make no such claim to such grandiose prescience. Perhaps that is why I am not so invested in defending myself from the imagined slight of someone (*gasp*!) having the audacity of disagreeing with me, and have to continually manufacture flame wars as my high integrity debate tactic.

So do we know yet, why DGul called KRonn Berkut?

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 04:45:10 AM
What do you think they're doing and the goal is?

I think they want to get re-elected and they're avoiding making sweeping pronouncements until they see which way the wind is blowing.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 12:46:15 PM
But is he *really* a Russian?

I have my doubts.

He's a Jewish EMT turned lawyer who argues with you by day and fights crime by night.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 10, 2009, 01:19:30 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 12:46:15 PM
But is he *really* a Russian?

I have my doubts.

He's a Jewish EMT turned lawyer actuarywho argues with you by day and fights crime by night.

Come on, Teach.  We're counting on you to keep track of everybody.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 01:10:15 PM
Right, that must be why your so pissed off, because I cannot hit these softballs, oh genius one.

No, I already explained why I was pissed off. 

As for my prediction, was I the only one to come up with such an accurate prediction?  Probably not, although I haven't read anyone else making such a prediction back then.  Did I connect the dots myself?  Yes, I did, and I proved that I had the understanding to do it by being able to debate with people who strongly disagreed with me. 

Luckily for me, I actually saved that thread in the PDF file, because I thought it would be a shame to lose it in case Languish went down.  If I knew how likely that was, and I foresaw this thread, I would've saved dozens of threads where you accused me of being a fundamentalist in atheist's disguise as well.

Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2009, 01:12:14 PM
So do we know yet, why DGul called KRonn Berkut?

I did it to let KRonn know that his reply about me sounding a party operative was Berkut-like in nature, and unbecoming of him.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 10, 2009, 01:30:51 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 10, 2009, 01:19:30 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 12:46:15 PM
But is he *really* a Russian?

I have my doubts.

He's a Jewish EMT turned lawyer actuarywho argues with you by day and fights crime by night.

Come on, Teach.  We're counting on you to keep track of everybody.

I was never an EMT. :unsure:

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 10, 2009, 01:30:51 PM
Come on, Teach.  We're counting on you to keep track of everybody.

I decided to throw in a bit of Ideologue/Faeelin. I realize that Guller says he's an actuary(and Dorsey said he was going into accounting).

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 10, 2009, 01:36:34 PM

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 10, 2009, 01:30:51 PM
Come on, Teach.  We're counting on you to keep track of everybody.

I decided to throw in a bit of Ideologue/Faeelin. I realize that Guller says he's an actuary(and Dorsey said he was going into accounting).

Ah, that's a little bit... conceptual.   :huh:

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 01:32:53 PM
If I knew how likely that was, and I foresaw this thread, I would've saved dozens of threads where you accused me of being a fundamentalist in atheist's disguise as well.

Did you save the thread where I called you a "jesus freak", Mr. Genius Integrity?

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 01:46:44 PM
Did you save the thread where I called you a "jesus freak", Mr. Genius Integrity?

No, you did not call me a Jesus freak in that economic prediction thread that I saved.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 01:32:53 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 01:10:15 PM
Right, that must be why your so pissed off, because I cannot hit these softballs, oh genius one.

No, I already explained why I was pissed off. 

Yeah, but we know that isn't the real explanation. You are pissed off because you hate it when people challenge your Pravda, and react in these infantile ways, like your sigs where you announce in every single post you make how much you are NOT responding to berkut and grumbler, while you spend most of your time responding to us, or get all defensive when someone points out that nearly every single one of your political and economic views can be summed up with "Republicans are TEH EVOL!!!".

Quote

As for my prediction, was I the only one to come up with such an accurate prediction?  Probably not, although I haven't read anyone else making such a prediction back then.  Did I connect the dots myself?  Yes, I did, and I proved that I had the understanding to do it by being able to debate with people who strongly disagreed with me. 

Congratulations, you are ever so very wise. Did you save all the threads where you predicted things and were wrong, or was this your only prediction, so you are a solid 1-0, all time in the Nostradmus role?

Quote

Luckily for me, I actually saved that thread in the PDF file, because I thought it would be a shame to lose it in case Languish went down. 

Lucky for all of us, I am sure. And by all of us, I of course mean all of humanity. Quit wasting your time posting on Languish please, and go save the world, since you are clearly the only one with the brilliance to figure everything out in advance.

Just be careful who you talk to - someone might not agree that it is all that other tribes fault, and then you will get all distracted raging about them rather than focusing on your own brilliance. And that would certainly be a shame, Raz.

I saved all of crunchy's threads on punch cards.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 01:52:52 PM
Yeah, but we know that isn't the real explanation.

No, I'm pretty sure that's the real explanation.  If you *know* that it isn't, then you're displaying an inability to separate speculation from fact.  It's a rather common failure on your part.

Quote
Congratulations, you are ever so very wise. Did you save all the threads where you predicted things and were wrong, or was this your only prediction, so you are a solid 1-0, all time in the Nostradmus role?

I didn't make that many predictions, and the successful prediction that I did make was very detailed, which cuts the odds of me being right just by luck considerably.

Quote
Lucky for all of us, I am sure. And by all of us, I of course mean all of humanity. Quit wasting your time posting on Languish please, and go save the world, since you are clearly the only one with the brilliance to figure everything out in advance.

Just be careful who you talk to - someone might not agree that it is all that other tribes fault, and then you will get all distracted raging about them rather than focusing on your own brilliance. And that would certainly be a shame, Raz.

Now you're just being silly.  All I was doing was comparing my original thinking contributions to Languish to lack of your own.  I wasn't claiming to be the most insightful man in the world, I was just claiming to display much more insight on Languish than you did.

I post on Languish a lot, and engage in a variety of discussions with a variety of people on a variety of topics. What I don't do is "save threads" where I made predictions, right or wrong, so that later on I can wave my dick about in the latest and most banal of my never ending jihad against some poster I don't like because he tends to crush me in any actual debate.

I suppose people find my contributions more or less valuable than others - but why would I care about such things beyond a cursory amount? I say what I feel like saying, when I feel like saying it, and if someone likes it great, and if it makes them go around raging and sulking, I can live with that as well, since it says much more about them than it does me.

If you think that is the evidence of your vast integrity and original thinking lies in the fact that you save and print off your ever most brilliant threads on Languish for posterity, than I guess bully for you. I certainly don't acknowledge any such thing, nor do I particularly care to "prove" how valuable I am to Languish. That these things are ever so important to you is really rather funny.

Now I am wondering if comparing you to Raz might have been a disservice to him. You really are incredibly full of yourself, aren't you?

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 01:52:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 01:46:44 PM
Did you save the thread where I called you a "jesus freak", Mr. Genius Integrity?

No, you did not call me a Jesus freak in that economic prediction thread that I saved.

I'm pretty sure I called you a Jesus freak in your 4Heismann days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbB0QrBIs9k&feature=fvst (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbB0QrBIs9k&feature=fvst)

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 02:24:51 PM
I post on Languish a lot, and engage in a variety of discussions with a variety of people on a variety of topics. What I don't do is "save threads" where I made predictions, right or wrong, so that later on I can wave my dick about in the latest and most banal of my never ending jihad against some poster I don't like because he tends to crush me in any actual debate.

I suppose people find my contributions more or less valuable than others - but why would I care about such things beyond a cursory amount? I say what I feel like saying, when I feel like saying it, and if someone likes it great, and if it makes them go around raging and sulking, I can live with that as well, since it says much more about them than it does me.

If you think that is the evidence of your vast integrity and original thinking lies in the fact that you save and print off your ever most brilliant threads on Languish for posterity, than I guess bully for you. I certainly don't acknowledge any such thing, nor do I particularly care to "prove" how valuable I am to Languish. That these things are ever so important to you is really rather funny.

Now I am wondering if comparing you to Raz might have been a disservice to him. You really are incredibly full of yourself, aren't you?

It all started with you claiming that I'm totally unable to analyze issues on their own merit.  The only way to disprove that is to bring up past examples of successful analysis of issues by myself.  It's kind of hard to do that without sounding full of yourself.  Your baseless attack is what opened the door to this.

Again, to summarize, I only brought up my 4 year old thread to show how idiotic it was for you to claim that I was in effect a partisan hack without an ability to think for myself.

I saved some of Hansmeister's kooky stuff.  And the one where Berkut claimed to be "Mr. Republican" and took welfare money.

Unfortunately I lost them due to a computer crash. :(

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 02:47:23 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 02:24:51 PM
I post on Languish a lot, and engage in a variety of discussions with a variety of people on a variety of topics. What I don't do is "save threads" where I made predictions, right or wrong, so that later on I can wave my dick about in the latest and most banal of my never ending jihad against some poster I don't like because he tends to crush me in any actual debate.

I suppose people find my contributions more or less valuable than others - but why would I care about such things beyond a cursory amount? I say what I feel like saying, when I feel like saying it, and if someone likes it great, and if it makes them go around raging and sulking, I can live with that as well, since it says much more about them than it does me.

If you think that is the evidence of your vast integrity and original thinking lies in the fact that you save and print off your ever most brilliant threads on Languish for posterity, than I guess bully for you. I certainly don't acknowledge any such thing, nor do I particularly care to "prove" how valuable I am to Languish. That these things are ever so important to you is really rather funny.

Now I am wondering if comparing you to Raz might have been a disservice to him. You really are incredibly full of yourself, aren't you?

It all started with you claiming that I'm totally unable to analyze issues on their own merit.  The only way to disprove that is to bring up past examples of successful analysis of issues by myself.  It's kind of hard to do that without sounding full of yourself.  Your baseless attack is what opened the door to this.

Again, to summarize, I only brought up my 4 year old thread to show how idiotic it was for you to claim that I was in effect a partisan hack without an ability to think for myself.

So your example of not being a partisan hack is some thread where you make predictions about teh economy, followed by blaming it all on Reagan/Bush/Republicans?

Brilliant show there.

You know, you could be entirely right about predicting the meltdown and STILL be a partisan hack. They don't really have much to do with one another.

And really, don't try to pin the start of this latest temper tantrum from you on me - you are the one who decided to drag me into a conversation with your trolling. Again.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2009, 02:51:37 PM
And the one where Berkut claimed to be "Mr. Republican" and took welfare money.

You are truly a despicable little creature.

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2009, 02:00:12 PM
I saved all of crunchy's threads on punch cards.

GOTO INCAN_TORPEDO_BOAT.SAV

What's wrong with taking welfare money? If you want it and they've got it, simple transaction.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 02:57:20 PM
So your example of not being a partisan hack is some thread where you make predictions about teh economy, followed by blaming it all on Reagan/Bush/Republicans?

I didn't blame it on anyone other than maybe Greenspan in that thread, that's just your imagination.  And it's not partisan to put most of the blame on the party that advocates exactly the things that brought about the financial crisis.

QuoteYou know, you could be entirely right about predicting the meltdown and STILL be a partisan hack. They don't really have much to do with one another.

No, being a partisan hack implies inability to think for oneself.  Most certainly being "incapable to analyse issues on their own merits" implies that.  You just happened to make an empty insult, because as usual you were talking about the caricature rather than the actual poster.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 03:17:35 PM
you were talking about the caricature rather than the actual poster.

In this case, the actual poster is a caricature. :smarty:

No caricature in Berkut land can ever resemble any real person that ever lived.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 03:25:04 PM
No caricature in Berkut land can ever resemble any real person that ever lived.

However, they can match the online persona that a person creates.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 03:17:35 PM
No, being a partisan hack implies inability to think for oneself.

Not necessarily.  One could combine the ability to reason with a belief in "the greater good" and the end result is self-censorship.

I've developed a Grand Unified Theory of the financial meltdown.

The increase in leverage limits played a part, as did soft money.  But the key ingredient was the pricing models developed by quantitative finance eggheads which risk managers simply didn't understand.  Risk managers got baffled by bullshit.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 03:17:35 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 02:57:20 PM
So your example of not being a partisan hack is some thread where you make predictions about teh economy, followed by blaming it all on Reagan/Bush/Republicans?

I didn't blame it on anyone other than maybe Greenspan in that thread, that's just your imagination.

My prediction (since bourne out by your own posting) years ago that you were a partisan hack is not based solely on the contents of the thread you curl up with and sleep with every night.

Sadly, the thread was lost when languish went down, and my predictive powers are not as extensive as your own, so I didn't convert it to a pDF to save for posterity.

Lucky for me, you re-affirm said diagnosis regularly.

QuoteAnd it's not partisan to put most of the blame on the party that advocates exactly the things that brought about the financial crisis.

Of course it isn't.

An inability to recognize the complexities of issues and having a nearly 100% hit rate on finding the Republicans to blame for any and all problems with completely partisan thinking is in fact rather partisan. Pretty much by definition.

Just because you truly do believe that your tribe is right and the other tribe is always wrong doesn't mean you are not a partisan hack. It just makes you a very committed, faithful partisan hack.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 03:25:04 PM
No caricature in Berkut land can ever resemble any real person that ever lived.

I bet you don't even recognize the basic hypocrisy in this post. not surprising, since inability to self-critique is a primary trait of the Partisan Hack.

This is the part where you rail against people who try to remain objective, btw. Go ahead.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 03:27:38 PM
An inability to recognize the complexities of issues and having a nearly 100% hit rate on finding the Republicans to blame for any and all problems with completely partisan thinking is in fact rather partisan. Pretty much by definition.

I think being able to make an accurate detailed prediction sort of implies be able to recognize complexities of issues.  As for 100% hit rate, that's again just your imagination.

QuoteJust because you truly do believe that your tribe is right and the other tribe is always wrong doesn't mean you are not a partisan hack. It just makes you a very committed, faithful partisan hack.

Yes, a pro-life, anti-union, faithful Democratic hack.  Sure.

I will note that the Guller = partisan hack and Guller = Dorsey hypotheses rule each other out unless you assume either a radical and sudden philosophical change or that one persona was meant to discredit its side in arguments.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 10, 2009, 03:33:48 PM
I will note that the Guller = partisan hack and Guller = Dorsey hypotheses rule each other out unless you assume either a radical and sudden philosophical change or that one persona was meant to discredit its side in arguments.

The only thing consistent about labels attached to me on Languish is the inconsistency.  I started out as a fundie, then I was a Democratic hack, then I was a contrarian, then I was Dorsey, and now I'm back to being a Democratic party hack.  The contrarian is the only one that was somewhere in the zip code of the bullseye.

I think you've been pretty consistently associated with Dorsey. :contract:

Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2009, 03:44:16 PM
I think you've been pretty consistently been associate with Dorsey. :contract:

Doing drugs much?

Quote from: The Brain on August 10, 2009, 03:45:17 PM
Doing drugs much?

English is not my first language. :(

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 03:31:31 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 03:27:38 PM
An inability to recognize the complexities of issues and having a nearly 100% hit rate on finding the Republicans to blame for any and all problems with completely partisan thinking is in fact rather partisan. Pretty much by definition.

I think being able to make an accurate detailed prediction sort of implies be able to recognize complexities of issues. 

really?

I can make an accurate and detailed prediction of when the sun is going to rise tomorrow, I guess that means I must be able to "recognize the complexity of issues".

If you make an accurate and detialed prediction that the economy is in dire straits and we may have a financial meltdown, then follow that up with "...and it is all the republicans/Reagans/Bushs fault" without ever acknowledging the myriad of rather non-political factors in favor of trite and partisan soundbites....well, you are probably a partisan hack.

If you do this on any number of different political issues, you almost certainly are. I know this is really hard to see from way over there on the luny fringe - I am sure you seem perfectly rational amongst all the other similarly luny faithful. Such is the power of tribal thinking. Abd the actualy moderates look all nutty and crazy.

What is really fascinating about this is that you actually have less of a problem with other nutty whackjobs who inhabit the other end of the spectrum, but fly into your emo-rage over the moderates. I suspect it is because you really do know that you are a hack, and in fact commiserate with the other hacks, even if they are diametrically opposed hacks, like Hansy. What is *really* offensive to you are the actually rational, objective people who are capable of seeing things outside the prism of your little opposing tribes.

It is just like how religious fundies hold a special disdain for the non-religious, as opposed to there fundy counter-parts from other religions. And it has the same basic genesis I suspect.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 03:42:36 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 10, 2009, 03:33:48 PM
I will note that the Guller = partisan hack and Guller = Dorsey hypotheses rule each other out unless you assume either a radical and sudden philosophical change or that one persona was meant to discredit its side in arguments.

The only thing consistent about labels attached to me on Languish is the inconsistency.  I started out as a fundie, then I was a Democratic hack, then I was a contrarian, then I was Dorsey, and now I'm back to being a Democratic party hack.  The contrarian is the only one that was somewhere in the zip code of the bullseye.

No, you've been a consistent hack all along.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 03:47:41 PM
What is really fascinating about this is that you actually have less of a problem with other nutty whackjobs who inhabit the other end of the spectrum, but fly into your emo-rage over the moderates. I suspect it is because you really do know that you are a hack, and in fact commiserate with the other hacks, even if they are diametrically opposed hacks, like Hansy.

What's really fascinating is how easily you can just completely make some random shit up about a person to fit in with the label you attached to him.  I commiserate with Hansy, really?  Wow, I can't really think of any clever put down for this, nothing can top that comment itself.  That is just so off the wall and divorced from reality that I'm starting to question your sanity.

Oh no, the partisan hack is questioning my sanity. Whatever shall I do now? Soon he might stop reading my posts!

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 04:02:11 PM
Oh no, the partisan hack is questioning my sanity. Whatever shall I do now? Soon he might stop reading my posts!

How can anyone not question your sanity when you claim out of the blue that I commiserate with Hansy?  That's not even idiotic, that's just bizarre and inexplicable, because there is nothing at all to even point a rational person in the direction of that conclusion.  Wow.  :blink:

Guller might not, but I feel bad for Hans, even if most of the grief he gets is his own damn fault.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 04:08:01 PM

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 04:02:11 PM
Oh no, the partisan hack is questioning my sanity. Whatever shall I do now? Soon he might stop reading my posts!

How can anyone not question your sanity when you claim out of the blue that I commiserate with Hansy?  That's not even idiotic, that's just bizarre and inexplicable, because there is nothing at all to even point a rational person in the direction of that conclusion.  Wow.  :blink:

You go to great lengths to miss the point. I suspect because it hits so closely to its mark.

I guess I was pessimistic about my ability to make Berkut pop his vein.  I think I made him pop a whole freaking artery, right in the middle of his brain.  In hindsight, I feel silly that I felt so insulted by a comment that it turns out was made by a poster thinking that I commiserate with Hansy.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 04:13:26 PM
You go to great lengths to miss the point. I suspect because it hits so closely to its mark.

That point was based on and supported by an example that was not from this universe.  How valid could that point be?

Anyway, on that amusing note, I'll end this pleasant exchange.  Back to by default mode of operation with that keen observer of forum members.

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 04:26:02 PM
Anyway, on that amusing note, I'll end this pleasant exchange.  Back to by default mode of operation with that keen observer of forum members.

Meaning random drive by trolling while pretending not to read people posts who disagree with you but actually reading everything they post and around building up your emorage until you can't hold it in any longer?

Good luck with that. See you in a couple more months.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 10, 2009, 01:15:18 PM
I think they want to get re-elected and they're avoiding making sweeping pronouncements until they see which way the wind is blowing.

I agree with the first part.  Do you not think that they've been making an argument consistently to oppose it and to turn opinion against it?  By avoiding making statements don't you also think they're to some extent trying to kill it by slowing it down.  That was LBJ's strategy, when he was in Majority Leader, for killing something he didn't want to be seen to be killing but did want to die.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 10, 2009, 03:26:47 PM
Not necessarily.  One could combine the ability to reason with a belief in "the greater good" and the end result is self-censorship.

Out of general interest where am I on the scale of partisan hackery? :mellow:

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 04:50:29 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 10, 2009, 03:26:47 PM
Not necessarily.  One could combine the ability to reason with a belief in "the greater good" and the end result is self-censorship.

Out of general interest where am I on the scale of partisan hackery? :mellow:

Partisan - Moderate.

Hackery - Low.

Although to be fair, I am not familiar enough with brit politics to judge it in that context. I cannot really remember which party is which.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 04:57:03 PM


Although to be fair, I am not familiar enough with brit politics to judge it in that context. I cannot really remember which party is which.

Labour - Centrist-left fruits

Tories -Centrist-Right fruits

Lib Dems- Flaming fruits and nuts

And a bunch of small fruity parties.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 04:48:39 PM
I agree with the first part.  Do you not think that they've been making an argument consistently to oppose it and to turn opinion against it?  By avoiding making statements don't you also think they're to some extent trying to kill it by slowing it down.  That was LBJ's strategy, when he was in Majority Leader, for killing something he didn't want to be seen to be killing but did want to die.

I don't think the Republicans have been particularly vocal on the issue.  As I mentioned a while back, the kinds of things I've heard them say have been: a public option would hurt insurance companies (who cares) and it's a big chunck of GDP, we shouldn't rush into this.

The legislative battle is being fought between ObamaPelosiReid and the Blue Dogs.  Republicans are spectators.

There's a significant volume of issues ads on health care reform, but that's being financed and driven by special interest groups.

I can't guarantee there isn't at least GOP Congressman or Senator on record as opposing any kind of health care bill, but the elected officials and the RNC are bit players overall.

Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 04:50:29 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 10, 2009, 03:26:47 PM
Not necessarily.  One could combine the ability to reason with a belief in "the greater good" and the end result is self-censorship.

Out of general interest where am I on the scale of partisan hackery? :mellow:

10 being Fireblade, you're probably a 3.5.

The GOP pols may be keeping mum but their affiliated pundits are doing their best to sink the bill.

Quote from: Berkut on August 10, 2009, 04:28:23 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 10, 2009, 04:26:02 PM
Anyway, on that amusing note, I'll end this pleasant exchange.  Back to by default mode of operation with that keen observer of forum members.

Meaning random drive by trolling while pretending not to read people posts who disagree with you but actually reading everything they post and around building up your emorage until you can't hold it in any longer?

Good luck with that. See you in a couple more months.

Okay just a question, but how are you able to read his mind like that?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rasmussenreports.com%2Fvar%2Fplain%2Fstorage%2Fimages%2Fmedia%2Fobama_total_approval_graphics%2Faugust_2009%2Fobama_total_approval_august_11_2009%2F239503-1-eng-US%2Fobama_total_approval_august_11_2009.jpg&hash=db2237eef6e26a649c2202f21e77f2b5d61aa5a6)

:)

Black Carter.  :)

Quote from: Caliga on August 11, 2009, 11:46:21 AM
Black Carter.  :)

My dad always reminded me of a white Bill Cosby.

Zow-ie.  That was quite the speech Obama just gave on health care.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2009, 12:29:11 PM
Zow-ie.  That was quite the speech Obama just gave on health care.

Yes, it was very powerful and moving.  Do you know what he said?

Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2009, 12:33:02 PM
Yes, it was very powerful and moving.  Do you know what he said?

Some.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2009, 12:35:59 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2009, 12:33:02 PM
Yes, it was very powerful and moving.  Do you know what he said?

Some.

Transcript and/or source for self-research?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2009, 12:29:11 PM
Zow-ie.  That was quite the speech Obama just gave on health care.

Was the things he said actually connected to his health care proposal?

I've heard a lot of Dems complain that what he says sounds very far reaching and reformist, while what he proposes has no actual relationship to such things, and are mostly reactionary and lack any real vision.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 11, 2009, 12:36:48 PM
Transcript and/or source for self-research?

It's a live event.  CNN doesn't have a transcript up yet.

New line seems to be that insurance companies are the source of all evil.  Insurance companies will not be allowed to put a cap on benefits (i.e. unlimited catastrophic insurance for everyone).  Pre-existing conditions and the sick cannot be charged higher premiums.

"If we don't pass reform health costs will continue to skyrocket."  This part was the single dishonest part of the speech IMO.  If you provide coverage to 40 million uninsured and require that all coverage be gold-plated then health care spending will go up, not down.

And the new brand name is "health insurance reform."

Quote from: Berkut on August 11, 2009, 12:40:03 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2009, 12:29:11 PM
Zow-ie.  That was quite the speech Obama just gave on health care.

Was the things he said actually connected to his health care proposal?

I've heard a lot of Dems complain that what he says sounds very far reaching and reformist, while what he proposes has no actual relationship to such things, and are mostly reactionary and lack any real vision.

Obama doesn't have a health care proposal.  At least he hasn't unveiled one to date.  The House has a health care proposal, which doesn't share much in common with what Obama claims about his non-existing proposal.  the Senate has at least two proposals in the works, which share nothing in common with the vague promises by Obama either.  basically, it's all just bullshit trying to placate the masses to accept whatever crazy scheme Nancy cooks up.

Reminds me of the Stimulus debate, when Obama's claims also bore no relationship to the bill.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2009, 12:48:08 PM
Insurance companies will not be allowed to put a cap on benefits (i.e. unlimited catastrophic insurance for everyone).  Pre-existing conditions and the sick cannot be charged higher premiums.

Would there be mandates?

Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2009, 12:56:29 PM
Would there be mandates?

He didn't mention mandates or revenue sources in his prepared remarks.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2009, 12:57:32 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2009, 12:56:29 PM
Would there be mandates?

He didn't mention mandates or revenue sources in his prepared remarks.

Lack of mandates and lack of underwriting is not good.  In fact, it's very, very, very bad.  The fact that he doesn't mention them is not a good sign.

Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2009, 01:00:03 PM
Lack of mandates and lack of underwriting is not good.  In fact, it's very, very, very bad.  The fact that he doesn't mention them is not a good sign.

What does lack of underwriting mean?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2009, 01:15:08 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2009, 01:00:03 PM
Lack of mandates and lack of underwriting is not good.  In fact, it's very, very, very bad.  The fact that he doesn't mention them is not a good sign.

What does lack of underwriting mean?

It means not screening sick people out, or charging them more.  By itself underwriting in health insurance is very socially undesirable.  However, with no mandates and no underwriting, there would be no health insurance market at all, which is even more socially undesirable.

I love when he claims to never have supported a single-payer health care system, when he of course argued for years, frequently on camera, precisely for a single-payer system.  It's amazing how Obama has absolutely no shame when it comes to lying, he makes Bill Clinton look honest by comparison.

It's like when he in a bald-faced lie claimed there were no earmarks in the stimulus, when the entire bill was a massive collection of earmarks, and how the money was going to be spent immediately on shovel-ready projects, when of course none of that existed.

It's almost comical listening him tout a nonexisting health care plan.  Does he even mean a single word he says?

Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2009, 01:20:06 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 11, 2009, 01:15:08 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2009, 01:00:03 PM
Lack of mandates and lack of underwriting is not good.  In fact, it's very, very, very bad.  The fact that he doesn't mention them is not a good sign.

What does lack of underwriting mean?

It means not screening sick people out, or charging them more.  By itself underwriting in health insurance is very socially undesirable.  However, with no mandates and no underwriting, there would be no health insurance market at all, which is even more socially undesirable.

Except, of course, the "public option", which the dems in the house leadership have made clear that this bill is designed to make the only viable option.

Quote from: Hansmeister on August 11, 2009, 01:23:58 PM
I love when he claims to never have supported a single-payer health care system, when he of course argued for years, frequently on camera, precisely for a single-payer system.  It's amazing how Obama has absolutely no shame when it comes to lying, he makes Bill Clinton look honest by comparison.

It's like when he in a bald-faced lie claimed there were no earmarks in the stimulus, when the entire bill was a massive collection of earmarks, and how the money was going to be spent immediately on shovel-ready projects, when of course none of that existed.

It's almost comical listening him tout a nonexisting health care plan.  Does he even mean a single word he says?

You can take the Community Organizer out of Chicago, but...

Quote from: Hansmeister on August 11, 2009, 01:25:35 PM
Except, of course, the "public option", which the dems in the house leadership have made clear that this bill is designed to make the only viable option.

You may well be right, although I'm very sure that you don't really know why.

Quote from: derspiess on August 11, 2009, 11:45:39 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rasmussenreports.com%2Fvar%2Fplain%2Fstorage%2Fimages%2Fmedia%2Fobama_total_approval_graphics%2Faugust_2009%2Fobama_total_approval_august_11_2009%2F239503-1-eng-US%2Fobama_total_approval_august_11_2009.jpg&hash=db2237eef6e26a649c2202f21e77f2b5d61aa5a6)

:)

Derspiess is always happy to see a black man down.

I know I am. Maybe the fucker will stay off TV for a while now. Bastard keeps interrupting my TV shows.