tjntn's Comments (66)

“I just looked at Sowers' site. His "Issues" page http://www.sowersforcongress.com/issuess) is sadly lacking. It lists "Duty, Responsibility, and Accountability" and that's all. Evidently the economy and health care aren't issues in Missouri's 8th District. Of course, that may be the only strategy that will work to get a Dem elected in such a red district. But frankly, it isn't enough to get me to donate money. Some hint at his actual position on real issues would be nice.”

“Good grief! Stating that abortion is not a health care issue is mind-boggling. You do realize that women are going to have abortions; whether they are legal, or whether they have insurance, they are still going to have them. The problem is that it creates a huge health care issue if they don't get proper medical care.

But you argue that they consented to have the baby when they chose to have sex. Of course you completely ignore the cases of rape. I guess you think those women "asked for it". But let me see, by your line of reasoning, that guy in the car wreck was consenting to those injuries when he stepped into the car, right? That was his choice. And you know what? I knew my daughter had the flu and I took care of her anyway.... so I was choosing to expose myself. No health care for me!

If you think the government shouldn't pay for abortions, you are in agreement with the way the law stood before the Stupak/Pitts amendment. With Stupak/Pitts, it will be almost impossible for a woman to get abortion insurance even if the insurance company wants to provide it and she is willing to pay for it. Whatever happened to not wanting the government between you and your health care provider?”

“As a resident of Tennessee, I would like to thank the Supreme Court of Alabama for proving that we are NOT the most backward state in the Republic (though we do seem to vie for that distinction at times).”

“I'm in the same boat johnnyybgood. I donated to Obama. I even canvassed for him in the NC primary (no sense in working for any democrat for POTUS in TN). I'm in a quandary about to do. I can't vote for Obama again if he supports this Bauchus Bill.”

“Sometime a vote for your second choice prevents your third choice from getting elected. A modicum of realism by the Nader voters would have prevented Bush from ever becoming President.”

“There is one thing worse than being in Congress and having all those pesky votes on record, that's spending all your time on national television talking about your positions on just about everything. He had a very conservative voting record but has been tacking to center lately, probably just enough to irritate the wingnut base. And lets not forget he bailed on his Congressional seat with several months left in his term. Hmmm a Scarborough/Palin ticket - they could have a theme - "when the going gets tough, we bail".”

“gino, Medicare and Social Security are indeed underfunded but that doesn't take away from the fact that Medicare operates at significantly lower overhead rates than private insurance companies.

The cost effectiveness for preventive care is not a myth but it is often over-stated. Studies have concluded that preventing illness saves money in some cases but increases costs in others http://www.nchc.org/nchc_report.pdff.) As pointed out by Chris Fey in Huffpo, the CBO analysis focuses on secondary prevention with subsequent medical interventions. It does not address primary and tertiary prevention, which represent a significant portion of health care cost savings. But even the CBO report acknowledged that most preventive care is cost effective.

Your admonition to research facts is interesting. I see nothing that is not factually correct in wombaticus' statements. Just like your statements, he is picking the facts that justify his conclusion. Your statement that the Post Office is going broke, while overstated, is sort of true. But you imply this is due to massive government inefficiency. You ignore the main cause, the recession, and lets not forget that email isn't helping. Also, the Post Office is NOT subsidized by the tax payer.

So we all pick our facts. Here is a simple fact. The present health care system is just not working. It is too expensive for the results obtained. Other countries spend far less and beat the US in many healthcare categories.”

“The point isn't whether the program would have been supported. It is whether the CIA, possibly under the direction of Cheney, hid information. Neither you, middleoftheroad, nor I know how far they got with implementation. It has been called “sporadic” and “embryonic” but that doesn't mean it wasn't implemented. That is why the whole thing needs to be investigated.

And as far as Gorelick causing the "wall" between agencies and thus making 9/11 impossible to stop, you have been listening too much to Ashcroft trying to defend himself. That "wall" was created over decades. Gorelick certainly didn't help to remove it, but your calling her out indicates you are not living up to the moniker you have chosen for yourself.”

“Lorelei, you point out something I have long said of the Republicans. They defend their own mistakes and shortcomings by accusing the the left of exactly what they, the right, have done. When there is a concerted effort to flood the media with right wing propaganda (take a look sometime at whose funding most of the "think tanks" that are quoted in the press or who is giving grants to produce absurd books such as those by Ann Coulter), they scream "liberal media bias" at every piece of news that shows their position is wrong. The scary thing is, they are very good at it.

So I'm wondering if that irony gene you mention is missing not only in the Cheney household, but in every person that listens to the right's inane accusations without once questioning their authenticity.”

“The fact is Fox did a pretty good job of covering Iran but did their usual hatchet job when it came to commentary. It was actually amusing when Fox did a "man-on-the-street" interview with protesters somewhere in the US (I caught this in the middle) and tried to get one young Iranian man to bash Obama for not speaking out more for the protesters. The young man said that Obama was handling the situation well and no one should listen to McCain who says "bomb, bomb Iran" and then proclaims to be on the side of the Iranian people. This obviously was NOT what the program director wanted - shortly thereafter they went to an interview with Ann Coulter who can always be depended upon to spew mindless hate for Obama.”

“If Obama is to get any effective health care passed, he has to be "out there" talking to the American public. There are a number of powerful lobbies that don't want changes in the health care system because they make a great deal of money on the present system. To overcome their influence on our legislators, the people have to make it clear that we demand a new system. Even then, we will not get a single-payer system - the country isn't ready for that yet and the Obama administration knows it. I like Bill Maher but occasionally he gets it wrong and this is one of those times. If Anne Dunev and others want Obama to get health care reform passed, they should be glad Obama is out talking to the public and they should be helping to get his message across instead of criticizing him.

Before anyone accuses me of Obama worship, you should realize I have actively criticized Obama for his FISA vote and, in fact, I disagree with a number of his policies. But I am practical enough to know that any health care legislation will be extremely difficult and require the support of the people. Let the man get out there and talk without interference from the people that should be helping him.”

“It is so disappointing to hear Limbaugh's idiocy repeated here. When I heard Limbaugh say exactly what Hemihead is parroting, I thought "Rush has gone too far. Not even his listeners can believe anything so obviously wrong". But I overestimated Limbaugh's listeners (again). Rush is, of course, simply trying to deflect the criticism that he and the other right-wing entertainers have some responsibility for this apparent increase in ultra right-wing violence. Please note the word "ultra" in that last sentence; the huge majority of conservatives don't get close to von Brunn's lunacy. But von Brunn certainly has to be considered ultra right by any objective analysis, just as the KKK and other white supremacists are considered ultra right. In some respects, it is an unfair label (like most labels), but the label doesn't matter anyway and simply deflects from the real question, which is - are scare tactics used by the right-wing talking heads feeding the warped notions of these deranged people and inciting them to put their psychotic thought to action.”

“The reason that a lot of people and practically all the reputable scientists in the field still believe in global warming is that the data still agrees with global warming. Please see the US Army's Corps of Engineer's Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory data http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/change.htmm), which shows a trend of declining September Arctic ice extent from 1998 to 2008. The trend is a very convincing 15% per decade decline since 1998 (before that, there was about a 3% per decade decline). Data that I have seen that argues for a cooling is only one or two years worth of data. Please recognize that short term comparisons are essentially meaningless because the yearly swings can be large in either direction. It is the trend that is important. One person commenting on this post used Arctic surface ice area at the end of the winter to make an argument for cooling. It is rather easy to show that surface Arctic ice area at the end of winter is totally meaningless - you need to look at the area at the end of summer.

But please, if you have scientific data from reputable sources that show cooling over the last several years, give us a reference instead of spouting ideology.”

“Good grief. You are looking at winter surface numbers. The effect of global warming shows up after the summer melt. Thats why I referenced September numbers. You either didn't read the article that you referenced, or you chose to ignore it, because the authors point out "the melt season has begun with a substantial amount of thin first-year ice, which is vulnerable to summer melt."

I don't mean to be condescending, but let me try to explain in a simple way. Let's put a glass of water in a temperature controlled box. Now lets cycle the temperature so that it is above freezing for only a short time. Eventually the water is frozen solid and it never completely melts during the thaw cycle. Now raise the average temperature so it is only below freezing for a short time. After the freeze cycle, the surface is frozen but the ice is much thinner. That is what the data shows in your reference. Obviously, the surface area at the end of the "freeze cycle" says almost nothing about where the average temperature is higher.”

“Richard2, your comment about sea levels rising from Arctic ice melt is just amazingly wrong. Arctic ice floats. Only ice supported by land (Greenland, Antarctica) will produce a rise in sea level.

The following is a repeat of my reply to a similar comment on another blog.
---------------
I don't know where you are getting your data but the US Army's Corps of Engineer's Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory data http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/change.htmm) show a trend of declining September Arctic ice extent from 1998 to 2008. Yes there was an increase in 2008 but there were also small increases in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2006. But the decreases in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2007 dominated these small increases. The trend is a very convincing 15% per decade decline since 1998. You (and the others that use this tactic) need to realize that a single datum does not disprove a trend. To attempt to do so just reveals your lack of scientific competence. If you really insist upon using that one 2008 datum, at least recognize that comparing it to the 2007 ice coverage is essentially meaningless because the yearly swings can be large in either direction. A more proper comparison would be to see where it falls on the 15% per decade trend line starting in 1998. You will find it is about 5% BELOW that trend line!

If you have scientific data that disagrees with what I have referenced, please post it.”

“Joe, when you are right, you are right (only a minor pun on your political leanings). The fact is, the people that comment here are often - let's just be nice and call it vitriolic. Eight years of Bush's ideology-driven administration have left many of us liberals with a frustration that sometimes finds inappropriate outlets. And let's face it, some people just like to shout and scream obscenities.

So we should argue about policies instead of personalities. Let's do that. Your conviction that the present economic disaster has been caused by government intervention, a conviction you promote with passion on your morning TV show, simply ignores the other root causes. Deregulation of financial institutions has hurt us before, and clearly (contrary to the huge number of right-wing publications on the topic) is a source of our current woes. Most economists recognize that the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act in 1982 paved the way for the later collapse of the savings and loan industry. But we didn't learn from that lesson. So in 1988, the Basel Accord gave banks the opportunity to shift from originating and holding mortgages (which required the lender to hold substantial reserves) to packaging them and holding mortgage assets in a securitized form (which did not require the reserves). There is much more, like Wendy Gramm's exemption of swaps and derivative from regulation, that led to this mess. But I am running out of room for a post.”

“Let me toss in my two cents worth as a non-religious straight person (those characteristics may establish that I should keep my opinions to my self but that's never stopped me before). Marriage was originally a religious institution but it has somehow been woven in to the laws and public policies of this country. IF marriage were just a religious institution, I would say let the anti-gay religious right have their definition, but it has gone way beyond that. The terms, "wife", "husband", and "spouse" appear in all sorts of legal documents and in the laws of this land. Under this situation, any attempt to restrict marriage beyond two people of a certain age should be illegal. The 60's showed that "separate but equal" doesn't really work so lets drop any nonsense of a separate status for gay couples with all the legal rights. So toss out all reference to marriage in every law, legal document, and public policy, or give gays the right to marry.

It seems to me that the Pastor Ricks of this world are cherry picking the bible to justify their own prejudices. But does Obama deserve all the flak he's getting for selecting Warren? I don't know. If he hadn't, I'm sure Warren would still be openly supporting those anti-gay words on his website that he was forced to remove. So maybe some good has come from it. But it is understandable that the gay and lesbian community feels outrage.”

“While having other views is never a bad thing, I certainly don't think entrepreneurs are the answer to our present problems. I think we can all agree entrepreneurs are willing to take risks. They see an opportunity and they go for it, willing to lose it all in some cases for that opportunity to hit it big. Is that the best mindset to advise on macroeconomic issues?

According to the SBA, less than 1/2 of new business startups makes it four years and fewer still make it to 10. Hmmm, I would rather have better odds that the US economy will survive for four more years. So sure, get an entrepreneur's opinion and give it the weight it deserves. Small businesses provide the innovation we need to keep the economy thriving in the future but frankly, when it comes to government's role in small business, most entrepreneurs (not all) will say removing government regulations and taxes is the answer to everything. That clearly is NOT the answer in this case.”

“Obama has already sat down with O'Reilly and shown that he can answer ideologues. No need to do it again with Hannity. What is needed is to have someone that actually wants to discover the candidates stand on issues and how they decide on issues. Moyers would be an excellent questioner.”

“We can agree that we should focus on issues. But which candidate is telling the truth IS an issue. If the press lets clearly false statements go unquestioned, then they serve no use to the public at all. Palin is repeatedly lying about being being against the "bridge to nowhere". You can argue that she was against it after Congress made it clear the funds would not be appropriated for the bridge, but her implication is clear and false. Yet she and McCain repeat this lie over and over knowing full well that some people that either can't think or use only Fox News as a source (sorry, that's redundant) will believe it. Republicans do this well because they know it works with their base.”

“Thanks David. That needed to be said and you did it well. The Clintons need to decide which they want more: their own aggrandizement or a strong, unified Democratic party with the Democratic candidate taking up residence in the White House.”

“So is the point of this post to recommend we get a VP candidate that (1) has a perfect voting record with respect to all our progressive goals and (2) will help Obama win over the independents we need to win the election? Unfortunately those two objectives are contradictory. Yes, Biden was way on the wrong side of the credit issue. And Obama was way on the wrong side of the FISA issue. The point really is that McCain is way on the wrong side of almost every issue. Lets let the circular firing squad that is the Democratic party put down their rifles for a while. Better yet, actually aim those allegorical rifles at the Republicans.”

“Good idea manicallday. Go vote for Nader or some other 3rd party candidate with no hope of winning and get us another 4 years of Bush policy. There are exactly 2 candidates that have a chance to be POTUS next January. A vote for anyone but one of those two candidates is a flight from reality.”

“Lolasmon, I agree with a lot that you say (definitely not the part about HRC). Obama is a politician - you don't get to be the candidate of either of the two major parties without being one. Having said that, he is also orders of magnitude more likely to put this country on the right course than McCain. I too was sorely disappoint in Obama's FISA vote and in fact, I sent my donation in July to Russ Feingold instead of Obama because of that vote. But its time to be practical now - we need to make sure McCain is NOT elected.”

“ROTFLMAO - I mean yeah, Obama has reversed himself on some issues but McCain has reversed himself on almost every issue. Does anyone who followed McCain in 2000 even recognize the guy running today? If reversing your position keeps you from getting elected, we won't elect either of these two guys.

That was good MidSection. Thanks, I needed a laugh.”