RSS

Bills I Wish Would Become Law

01 Nov

So in the middle of September, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed into law Medicaid expansion for his state–the third state to expand Medicaid per the Affordable Care Act that is led by by both a Republican governor and legislature. It is estimated that the expansion will cover up to 470,000 Michiganders, providing them with access to primary care instead of depending on emergency room visits.

“This is about the health of fellow Michiganders,” Snyder said at the time. “The right answer is not to talk about politics, but to talk about our family of 10 million people.”

But that didn’t stop Republicans in the Michigan senate from getting petty and forcing a delay in the implementation such their nearly half a million fellow Michiganders will have to wait until April for the measure to go into effect.

This week, a couple of Democrats introduced House Bill 5114. It reads in full:

A bill to amend 2011 PA 152, entitled “Publicly funded health insurance contribution act,” (MCL 15.561 to 15.569) by adding section 7a.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 7a. Until medicaid benefits in this state are extended as provided in section 105d of the social welfare act, 1939 PA 280, MCL 400.105d, state funds shall not be expended to provide health benefits to members of this state’s legislature, the governor, or the lieutenant governor.

Gotta love it. As Electablog reports,

I can’t find one thing wrong with this other than it penalizes the good lawmakers who voted FOR immediate effect on Medicaid expansion. The rest of them can suffer right along with all the working poor who they are forcing to wait for six months before they could obtain health coverage. It would serve them right.

Not that it’ll ever see the light of day, of course.

Advertisements
 
68 Comments

Posted by on November 1, 2013 in Current Events, Health Care, Politics

 

Tags: , , , , ,

68 responses to “Bills I Wish Would Become Law

  1. Cluster

    November 2, 2013 at 5:43 am

    What could go wrong??

    Though the federal government provides some Medicaid funds via matching rates, this welfare program has been taking up a larger and larger share of state budgets in recent years. In fact, Medicaid is the largest category of state spending, accounting for 23.6 percent of state budget expenditures according to the National Association of State Budget Officers. That percentage is likely to increase over time. Like other welfare programs, this has a dual effect on state budgets during economic downturns because states face an increasing demand for Medicaid services while their revenues to pay for those services decline.

    Read more: http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/issues/detail/medicaid#ixzz2jUURcRKJ

    Following the expiration of temporary increases in the Federal matching rate, the States’ share of Medicaid expenditures have grown rapidly over the last 2 years—nearly 40 percent—and the States have acted to reduce provider payment rates and/or optional benefits.

    http://medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Financing-and-Reimbursement/Downloads/medicaid-actuarial-report-2012.pdf

    Reduce reimbursement rates and optional services. Have you ever heard of the expression – you get what you pay for?

    And Watson, your New Republic “opinion” piece on the evolution of the ACA was pretty funny. A summary would read: “While all-knowing Democrats know that a single payer system is far superior, they were shackled by the greed and selfishness of Republicans who only look out after corporate interests, and had to find other healthcare alternatives to realize their benevolent aspirations of fully protecting the unwitting American public from evil insurance companies”

    Sound about right?

     
    • watsonthethird

      November 2, 2013 at 9:07 am

      Cluster, are you sure you read the New Republic piece? Wikipedia also has a good history of the ACA came about.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

      You probably don’t trust Wikipedia, either. It does have lots and lots of footnotes–the gold standard of conservative proof–so you could comb through those as well. You have an axe you wish to continue to grind. It’s never pretty.

       
      • Cluster

        November 2, 2013 at 11:03 am

        I did read the New Republic piece and my summary was accurate. The hermetically sealed bubble liberals occupy makes it nearly impossible to conduct any kind of productive debate. No one disagrees that government can and should play a role in healthcare for the chronic, low income and pre existing needs patients. In fact I have pointed out on several occasions that all states already have these programs that work pretty well. What liberals refuse to hear is that people like me, don’t want government mandated insurance, don’t mind that private insurance companies make profits, and prefer instead to have a robust free market competition for our business. I think many doctors would prefer that too:

        http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/health/obamacare-doctors-limited/

        Believe it nor Watson, liberals are not all that smart, and a lot of people just want you to stay the hell away from us.

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 2, 2013 at 11:27 am

        Oh, Cluster is in one of his angry moods again. Maybe it’s time to dust off those brochures about living abroad, ya think?

        Cluster, in the previous thread you asked why the Democrats didn’t just go for single payer instead of what we got with the ACA. The short answer is that it wasn’t politically feasible and didn’t enjoy the widespread, universal support that you seem to think it did. The New Republic article, like it or not, does explain some of the history behind the ideas, as well as the political machinations, that led to the ACA.

        But since you think that having the presidency and a majority of both houses makes politics simple, why is it that President Bush’s proposal to privatize Social Security didn’t pass? After all, he made it a centerpiece of the first year of his second term, when he had a Republican-controlled House and Senate.

         
      • Cluster

        November 2, 2013 at 12:12 pm

        Strange how single payer doesn’t enjoy wide spread support? Are people just too stupid to understand that it is a far superior system? What gives?

         
  2. Cluster

    November 2, 2013 at 11:22 am

    This is a staggering finding:

    At the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a July survey found 81 percent of the people who bought their own insurance were white, with more than 60 percent married and living with their spouse. Forty-five percent said they had two children living in the household. Nearly half were between the ages of 18 and 44.

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2212AF8A-99F6-4115-BDA6-FA38F5D060DF

    What probable conclusion could be derived from that finding?

     
    • watsonthethird

      November 2, 2013 at 11:46 am

      That it’s all a plot against white people, Cluster, the most persecuted people on the planet. lol. Geez, go to Australia already. You’ll be much happier.

       
      • Cluster

        November 2, 2013 at 12:13 pm

        I think it shows that the Democrats are very successful in keeping minorities on the plantation.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        November 3, 2013 at 6:30 am

        Cluster can’t go to Australia – it has single payer and it’s causing the continent to sink into the ocean. Cluster should prefer a libertarian paradise like Somalia:

        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7QDv4sYwjO0

         
      • Cluster

        November 3, 2013 at 10:53 am

        As I have noted on many occasion, the five countries with SP are all going through major reforms to shore up financial losses due to aging populations and increased demand. You would think that the all-knowing liberals would learn from that. Here’s Australia’s:

        http://www.healthreform.org.au

        In addition, doctors in Australia are paid on average less than half of what American doctors earn, leading me back to the adage – you get what you pay for:

        http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Fellowships/Australian-American-Health-Policy-Fellowships/Recent-Australian-Health-Reforms.aspx

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 3, 2013 at 12:21 pm

        In addition, doctors in Australia are paid on average less than half of what American doctors earn, leading me back to the adage – you get what you pay for.

        And yet, Australians live on average three years longer than Americans. Those Australian hacks…

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 5:42 am

        Three years longer!!!! Wow. Now that’s impressive.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        November 3, 2013 at 6:36 pm

        Cluster,

        Big deal. Gee, countries with SP are going through “major reforms” to shore up their systems to aging populations? I think you’re talking about reality – (what should be) the completely understandable challenges a nation faces in trying to secure good health care for all her citizens.

        At least, unlike us, they are able to cover their ENTIRE population at a fraction of the cost and achieve similar health index results. Their problems should be looking pretty good to us. Hey, you know what? They should be able to solve their financial problems by kicking 17% of their population out of the program – then they’ll be just like us.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 5:39 am

        By everyone’s estimations, including the CBO, after full implementation of the ACA, over 20 million people will still be without insurance. And if SP is struggling financially in more homogenous population that is less than half of our population, how do you the prospects here will be?

        One thing liberal are never good at – thinking things through.

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 3, 2013 at 6:44 pm

        That’s not a bad idea, Rusty, what with the shortage of doctors and all. But thinking about it, wouldn’t that be a form of rationing?!

         
      • rustybrown2012

        November 3, 2013 at 6:51 pm

        It’s the Republican American way Watson – somebody’s gotta lose, then pretend everything’s fine, as long as those losers are far away from you.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        November 4, 2013 at 6:14 am

        Cluster,

        I thought we were talking about SP, not the ACA. You’re right, 20 million is too many to leave uninsured; single payer would fix that.

        Other nations with SP are not struggling nearly as much as we are. Single Payer works better than our fucked-up system virtually everywhere it is implemented – including in the U.S. with Medicare.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 7:21 am

        Well again, if it is so superior, why didn’t Obama even try???? Is he that inept? Or is this country too stupid? It has to be one or the other. I will note that Bush believed privatization was the best option and went for it. Obama hasn’t even tried.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 6:23 pm

        Actually, Obama is on record of supporting single payer.

         
  3. watsonthethird

    November 2, 2013 at 11:44 am

    Cluster said, No one disagrees that government can and should play a role in healthcare for the chronic, low income and pre existing needs patients. In fact I have pointed out on several occasions that all states already have these programs that work pretty well.

    Sorry, Cluster, but I think what you meant is that it was working pretty well for you. That’s a typically conservative position to take. If health care was already working “pretty well,” then why were so many people without health care? Why does the United States spend so much more on health care than any other country in the world? Do you really think that relying on the emergency room for non-emergency treatment is a system working “pretty well”? By the way, the law requiring that hospitals see all patients, regardless of their ability to pay, was Ronald Reagan’s doing, that commie socialist.

    And as far as “no one disagrees,” sorry, but your Republican buddies disagree. You remember the federal budget proposed by Paul Ryan, don’t you? It calls for huge cuts in Medicaid funding. Projections show that between 14 and 20 million current Medicaid recipients would lose their health care, never mind the Americans who quality for Medicaid under the ACA expansion. Yeah, government can and should play a role…

     
    • Cluster

      November 2, 2013 at 12:10 pm

      Boy, that’s a contradiction. I point out that some of the government administered programs are working fairly well, and you say no. Isn’t that the reason why you want everyone to have government mandated insurance? Don’t liberals always tout the virtues of Medicare and Medicaid? What gives?

      And Ryan’s budget didn’t cut Medicaid – it slowed down the rate of growth. See this is what I mean by the hermetically sealed bubble you live in. Come join us here in the real world won’t you? Ryan’s budget also block granted the program to the states to stream line efficiencies and would have served the Medicaid community much better. See that is a real belief in Medicaid – reforming the system to make sure it is there for people. They way you approach it is to assure it’s bankruptcy.

      No comment on the doctors opting out of Obamacare? Or the explosive cost trajectory of medicaid? Having an expensive health care system is not all bad. I prefer champaign to cheap wine – but you can have what you want. If you prefer cheap then go for it.

       
      • watsonthethird

        November 2, 2013 at 4:07 pm

        Boy, that’s a contradiction. I point out that some of the government administered programs are working fairly well, and you say no.

        Actually, you didn’t point out any specific programs at all. You just asserted that there were programs and they were working well. So what programs, specifically, are you talking about?

        As your comments about expensive health care being better than cheap health care… well, duh! It has always been and will always be true that the more money you have, the better health care you can afford. The ACA doesn’t change that. I have very good health insurance via my employer. No one is threatening to change it. But a nice thing about the ACA is that when I leave employment, I can get pretty good health care regardless of my or my wife’s medical history. That’s pretty huge, and frankly, something even you should appreciate. It means more people in the their 40s and 50s can quit their day jobs and start there own businesses without fear of being unable to obtain health care coverage.

        As for doctors opting out of Obamacare, no, I don’t have a comment. The article you cited seems to rely on anecdotal data and conjecture. We’ll have to see what happens. Meanwhile, the Tea Party Governor of Mississippi attempted a state takeover of health care because insurance companies were pulling out of many of the state’s hospitals. You see, conservatives go on and on with their ideology until they actually get hurt. Then they become commie socialists.

        So, no comment about why GWB couldn’t pass Social Security reform with a Republican House and Senate?

         
      • Cluster

        November 2, 2013 at 4:58 pm

        Privatizing social security and single payer are completely different issues. Nearly every democrat from Obama to Reid to Pelosi, to nearly all off the media and all of you here, always tout the virtues of single payer. But they didn’t even go for it.

        Bush at least tried.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        November 3, 2013 at 6:44 am

        “Bush at least tried.”

        Yes, but by your previous logic he should have been able to do it. Why didn’t Obama and the Dems go for SP? Because they are not nearly as liberal as conservatives make them out to be.

         
      • Cluster

        November 3, 2013 at 10:46 am

        No. My previous “logic”, actually assertion, was that Obama didn’t even try. And if SP is such a superior, inexpensive, cost efficient, and widely accessible system then why would that be a liberal/conservative thing?

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 3, 2013 at 12:26 pm

        Well, your entire question the previous thread–which is what I responded to–was:

        You know I keep hearing liberals and democrats saying that they would have preferred single payer to the ACA. My question is – why didn’t they go for it then? They had the votes in both chambers and the White House. They did not need one single republican vote, so why didn’t the do it?

        Just substitute conservative for liberal, republican for democrat, privatization for single payer, Social Security for the ACA. Voila.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 5:41 am

        Watson,

        You need to learn the first rule of holes. Bush actually did try privatization and it didn’t pass. Obama NEVER even tried. That’s the difference. Care to argue that?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        November 3, 2013 at 6:01 pm

        Watson,

        I’m afraid Cluster doesn’t understand his own logic, or his original point. Oh, well!

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 4, 2013 at 9:05 am

        You need to learn the first rule of holes. Bush actually did try privatization and it didn’t pass. Obama NEVER even tried. That’s the difference. Care to argue that?

        Cluster, seriously? No, I don’t want to bother with this anymore. It’s silly.

         
      • meursault1942

        November 4, 2013 at 10:57 am

        “And if SP is such a superior, inexpensive, cost efficient, and widely accessible system then why would that be a liberal/conservative thing?”

        Because that’s how conservatives view it; I certainly don’t view it that way at all, but opposition to single-payer has become an essential part of contemporary conservative doctrine. Hell, why should science be a liberal/conservative thing? It shouldn’t, but conservatives have made it that way because they don’t like a lot of what science has to say. And the pattern of conservatives valuing ideology over efficacy holds with regard to single-payer.

        And as bad as conservatives have been at policy, they are very good at messaging: Look at how many people hate “Obamacare,” but like this thing called the Affordable Care Act. That’s tremendous messaging power–it’s like they’ve gotten people to say, “I hate Wednesdays, but I like the day after Tuesday.” And so it has been with years of ridiculous scare stories about “rationed care” (as if we don’t have that already) and long waits (as if we don’t have that already) and “arglebargleblargSOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!” regarding single-payer.

        Single-payer would be superior, but due to the diligent work of conservatives, it’s not politically feasible. So it goes.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 11:42 am

        but conservatives have made it that way because they don’t like a lot of what science has to say.

        I disagree. Conservatives just don’t want to shut the science and the debate down, at least in terms of global warming. Liberals want to end all debate, effectively shutting down the science, which then becomes non science. In terms of Creation, conservatives simply want to add this theory to the scientific theory, since the scientific theory still doesn’t answer all the questions.

        I also think most people are aware that the ACA is Obamacare and are not liking any of it.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/165548/approval-affordable-care-act-inches.aspx

        And the way things are progressing with the stellar roll out and millions of cancellations, I don’t think things will get better.

         
      • meursault1942

        November 4, 2013 at 11:51 am

        “In terms of Creation, conservatives simply want to add this theory to the scientific theory, since the scientific theory still doesn’t answer all the questions.”

        I don’t want to go down this rabbit hole again, but I will say that you can’t simply “add this theory to the scientific theory”–that is in direct opposition to how science works. If you want your theory to be accepted, you have to prove it. With actual scientific evidence. Creationists have to provide evidence for their claims, and they never, never do because there isn’t any (“because the bible” is not scientific evidence). They provide no science, yet they want to be considered the same as science. And when they get told, “Prove your claims,” the politicization follows: “Those damn LIBERAL scientists are PERSECUTING YOU and SHUTTING DOWN DEBATE!”

        Wrong. Those damn scientists are demanding that creationists follow the same standards as scientists if they want to be considered scientists.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 12:34 pm

        Well the belief of Creation dates back to the beginning of man, and our modern concept of time is based on the life of Jesus Christ. So it really is a widely accepted theory by hundreds of millions of people and certainly deserves a place in the public discourse. If not only because science can not answer questions of origin. At least that is what curious minds think.

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 4, 2013 at 12:08 pm

        In terms of Creation, conservatives simply want to add this theory to the scientific theory, since the scientific theory still doesn’t answer all the questions.

        Bingo. You just demonstrated that conservatives truly know nothing about the scientific process.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 12:30 pm

        Well enlighten me then. What is the definitive, provable scientific answer to the origin of the universe?

         
      • meursault1942

        November 4, 2013 at 12:38 pm

        “So it really is a widely accepted theory by hundreds of millions of people and certainly deserves a place in the public discourse.”

        Sure; just not as science because it is not science.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 12:55 pm

        I don’t think anyone ever said it was science. It’s a theory commonly known as Faith. A lot of science is theory too, which people put faith in.

         
      • mitchethekid

        November 4, 2013 at 2:00 pm

        Faith is not a theory. It is a willful suspension of critical thinking. I suppose an argument can be made that people have “faith” in science, but the difference is that one can observe the results of a hypothesis and things taken on faith are, well more like hope and wishful thinking. All cultures have creation myths. Read Joseph Campbells The Power of Myth. Or better yet, watch the video.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 3:56 pm

        Would you consider Einstein to have a “willful suspension of critical thinking”?

         
      • mitchethekid

        November 4, 2013 at 5:48 pm

        No, but he didn’t confuse the two nor did he equate one with another. As you know, he said “god doesn’t play dice with the universe”. The laws of physics are immutable. They exist with or without observation or any faith based belief system. Religion and science serve the same purpose. Religion is rooted in magic, superstition and an assumption of a transcendent deity who has human like qualities. Although it’s understandable, its presumptuous. Religion is a rationalization for death.
        I am not attacking religion or mocking people who have faith or are spiritual. What I am talking about is those who are so absolutist in their beliefs that they are compelled to force their beliefs and their morality on everyone else. Reality is a threat to them. In many ways, there is no difference between any extremist religious beliefs be it Christianists or The Taliban. They both are equally deranged.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 6:33 pm

        Religion is rooted in magic, superstition and an assumption of a transcendent deity who has human like qualities. Although it’s understandable, its presumptuous. Religion is a rationalization for death.

        A rudimentary understanding of religion and the elementary observation of fanatics may lead one to think that, but Faith is much, much deeper than that. Science is the nuts and bolts of life, Faith is the richness, or the “arts” of life.

        And allow me to remind you that it was men of deep Christian Faith who established this country and wrote the bill of rights including the freedom of speech and the freedom of worship in addition to saying that all men are created equal. That hardly is equal to the Taliban. I also don’t see any current Christian imposing their doctrine, or killing infidels.

         
      • mitchethekid

        November 4, 2013 at 7:19 pm

        I whole heartedly agree with 2 caveats. Most of the framers were deists and aside from being murderous, surely you jest about Christians not imposing their doctrine: or at least trying to by letting it be known that they are biblical literalists. Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum,The Family Research Council, creationism elevating itself in order to masquerade as science, Ken Cuccinelli etc etc etc.

         
      • meursault1942

        November 4, 2013 at 1:01 pm

        “I don’t think anyone ever said it was science.”

        Then why are creationists so insistent upon having it taught as science in science class?

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 1:28 pm

        The theory of Creation should be mentioned along side the teaching of the theory of the Big Bang. That’s all.

         
      • mitchethekid

        November 4, 2013 at 1:55 pm

        Short answer is because science is based on observations and measurements and religion is based on faith. There is no “alternative” to science, period. Just like there is no alternative to gravity, the speed of light, etc.

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 4, 2013 at 1:22 pm

        Well enlighten me then. What is the definitive, provable scientific answer to the origin of the universe?

        My point was there is a rigor to science and the postulation of scientific theories. You don’t just add your own suppositions or religious beliefs as additional theories. Did no one teach you the scientific method in school? Do you not have access to libraries? The Internet? Learning?

        It also doesn’t matter whether the extant scientific theories are able to explain all aspects of the natural world. Even though they can’t, it doesn’t mean that you simply insert your pet religious belief as a theory absent scientific rigor.

        Well the belief of Creation dates back to the beginning of man, and our modern concept of time is based on the life of Jesus Christ. So it really is a widely accepted theory by hundreds of millions of people and certainly deserves a place in the public discourse.

        Yes, but it is not a scientific theory. Some creation myths state that humans come out of holes in the ground, but those are scientific, either.

        Anyway, this truly is a rabbit hole. I’m kind of surprised Cluster wants to play this game.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 1:26 pm

        I am kind of surprised you’re arguing. Look, evolution is proven (with the exception of the missing link), and Creation is not intended to explain “all aspects of the natural world”. But when teaching the theories on the origin of the universe, I think it would be educational mal practice to only teach the Big Bang Theory. That’s all I am saying.

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 4, 2013 at 1:40 pm

        But when teaching the theories on the origin of the universe, I think it would be educational mal practice to only teach the Big Bang Theory.

        I don’t know that that is all that is taught in a science classroom. It’s perfectly fine to teach scientific theories, including their limitations, as well as pointing out unanswered questions. Heck, that’s how science advances. Even gravitational theory cannot explain all observable phenomena.

        But creation stories are basically myths. They belong in a different classroom, not the science classroom. I have no problem with a class that presents and studies creation stories/myths because it is largely a study of different cultures. In fact, I think it would be beneficial for students to be exposed to creation stories/myths of different cultures, and how those beliefs have evolved over time. I’d even like to take that class. But somehow, I don’t think that’s what the Creationists have in mind.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 1:55 pm

        I am just really surprised at the lack of spiritual curiosity on all your behalves. Even Einstein embraced Faith:

        – “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

        – “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

        There is so much more to life than fear of “Creationists”, and acceptance of matters of the soul.

        http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

         
      • watsonthethird

        November 4, 2013 at 2:10 pm

        I am just really surprised at the lack of spiritual curiosity on all your behalves.

        Then you take away the wrong conclusion. Stating that scientific theory is subject to different rigor than creation stories/myths does not lead to a lack of spiritual curiosity. In fact, I would argue that you have a pre-determined agenda that led you to think that. 🙂

        It is perhaps pointing out the obvious, but the quote you provided–“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”–assumes that science and religion are not the same. It seems obvious. I’m done.

         
  4. Cluster

    November 2, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    Off Topic – but it looks like it’s time for another Obama “red line”. One that’s movable of course, just like the last one.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4448511,00.html

     
  5. rustybrown2012

    November 3, 2013 at 7:08 pm

    Off topic, but I just had to comment on Marks recent turd:

    “Obama just wants generals and admirals who will obey his liberal stupidity…some generals and admirals were unwilling, and so they got the boot. The main thing to remember about this is that our senior military ranks are ever more populated with officers who will agree to any stupid, old thing in order to get another star on their shoulder. Should we win in 2017, we’ll have to ensure that the new President clears out this careerist deadwood which is taking over the military.

    …wow. After disparaging the majority of Americans as retrograde moochers and clueless LIV, after desperately trying to deny basic human decency to gays, after routinely attacking women’s rights, after excoriating immigrants, they are now are demeaning the personnel in our armed forces. One has to wonder what America these brave patriots are fighting for – they seem to have excluded everybody actually living here.

     
    • kmgtwo

      November 3, 2013 at 7:38 pm

      Mark believes his single four year term in the Navy thirty years ago gives him an incredible insight into the minds of all senior military officers. His keen military analysis tells him the flag officers are being replaced, not because they are retiring or have been caught engaging in illegal or unethical behaviors, but because Obama intends to replace them with his own sycophants. Obama has apparently been planning this for over thirty years by planting his followers in the service academies so they could work their way up to being senior officers by the time he got elected President. Diabolical, but brilliant. I wish I had that kind of foresight. I would have just said screw it and bought Microsoft and Apple stock.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        November 3, 2013 at 7:41 pm

        The man’s a raving lunatic.

         
    • mitchethekid

      November 4, 2013 at 7:46 am

      Funny how during the Bush yrs, the military was the incarnation of the wrath of god. What a miserable hypocrite.

       
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 8:11 am

        Me a hypocrite? I actually like what Obama is doing with drones. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of many in the liberal media though.

         
      • kmgtwo

        November 4, 2013 at 8:19 am

        Uh, no you’re not. You haven’t provided any evidence of a liberal opposing drone strikes under Bush, then supporting them under Obama. Until you do, you’re just making shit up.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 8:36 am

        Bush didn’t really use drone strikes. The bubble you occupy is sealed very tight my friend.

         
      • kmgtwo

        November 4, 2013 at 9:06 am

        Bush started using drone strikes in 2004, killing over 200 people in Pakistan and Yemen. Obama has used them more, but saying that Bush didn’t really use them is flat out false.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 9:42 am

        Since 2011 is not yet over, it’s not possible to know whether this year will set a record for drone attacks, as Fleming suggested. However, it’s clear that the Obama Administration has used them aggressively and far more than Bush did. According to statistics compiled by the centrist New America Foundation, the U.S. made nine drone strikes in Pakistan between 2004 and 2007, 33 in 2008, 53 in 2009 — Obama’s first year in office — and 118 in 2010.

        NINE drone strikes from 2004 – 2007. Like I said – he didn’t really use drone strikes.

         
      • kmgtwo

        November 4, 2013 at 9:48 am

        You left out the Bush strikes in 2008. Your article cites 33, but I found another source that puts it at 40. Regardless, in 2008, Bush either tripled or quadrupled the number of drone strikes than in his previous 7 years combined and you say he didn’t really use them?

         
      • kmgtwo

        November 4, 2013 at 9:50 am

        At any rate, no one is arguing that Obama didn’t increase the use of drone strikes. That has nothing to do with your original claim that liberals opposed them during Bush and support them now under Obama. Did you find any evidence yet?

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 9:57 am

        I never claimed that liberals support them now – I claimed that they are not nearly as vocally opposed to them now.

         
      • kmgtwo

        November 4, 2013 at 10:01 am

        Still without evidence. Just assertion.

         
      • Cluster

        November 4, 2013 at 10:04 am

        Yup. And an astute assertion at that – for the politically aware anyway.

         
      • meursault1942

        November 4, 2013 at 11:01 am

        “I claimed that they are not nearly as vocally opposed to them now.”

        Then you haven’t been paying attention to actual liberals. Google “liberal protest drone strikes” and you’ll find pages of articles about liberals protesting Obama’s use of drones (and, humorously, a smattering of conservative articles saying, “Where are the liberal protests over drones?”). Liberals have been quite vocal about it.

         
  6. rustybrown2012

    November 3, 2013 at 7:23 pm

    Then there’s this:

    “Anyone argue with a liberal lately? I got in to a Twitter argument and it came out that the liberal really, honestly felt he was helping the poor by paying his taxes. This came out when I made the Tweet: “want to help the poor? Ok, there’s a Catholic Charities near you”, and then provided a link for Catholic Charities USA. The guy got a bit miffed with me – he pays his taxes and that helps the poor plenty so he doesn’t have to go and help the poor. It is a very weird mindset – but it does explain a lot. All you have to do is pay your taxes and you’ve discharged your duty to your brothers and sisters…”

    …So we should all stop paying taxes and give our charitable donations to unregulated, UNAUDITED institutions that promote superstition and have a fondness for ostentatious surroundings, silken robes, wine and golden statues. Why, let’s give them trust over our children, too – what could go wrong?

     
 
%d bloggers like this: