Another Billboard in the Heartland Links President Obama to Hitler

You know…
The billboard is ridiculous and wrong-headed. However, it’s nothing compared to the hundreds of death threats Sarah Palin receives on a daily basis, and even death wishes from Democratic representatives from New Hampshire.
It’s clear that the political dialog has sunk to a new low in this country. And steadily sinks further every day.
So much for Obama bringing the country together. The nation has never been more divided and willing to smear the other side with lies and distortion. If you believe in God, pray for the country. If you don not, hope for and strive for a better future.
We miss you Sunday, Jake…
Your presence on that platform in the media helped this current condition due to your fairness. Hopefully ABC will find another major role for you to play.

That’s a pretty valid comparison, considering Obama’s agenda and behaviors.

Bobmac – unlike far higher-profile Republicans who have said far worse things, Keith Halloran was immediately denounced and will probably resign. You fail.

Keith Halloran was immediately denounced and will probably resign. You fail.
Posted by: evan |
Hold on there cowboy. Where’s your apology for calling pelosi on red’s statement?

Hitler was a genius and madman.
After WW1 he brought Germany together
and put everyone to work, his nation was
solidly behind him. Old pictures show
how Germany looked before WW2, a
very elegant country that was prospering.
Obama is a divisive figure whose policies
are not backed by the majority of this
country. And these policies have cost
trillions to this country and are failing.
Good luck Barry Sorento you need it.

If Obama is not a Manchurian President we would be hard pressed to find any solid proof to the contrary.
Amazingly some defend his leadership into debt. If we but applied the credit card minimum payment rule to the debt payments would currently be 520 billion dollars per year. Instead the interest only payment appears to be between 164 and 184 billion dollars.
If we incurred no further debt 520 billion dollar per year payments would resolve the debt in 50 some years. But there seems to be no such plan, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triad is still spending and shoveling us out of the pit. Somehow they don’t seem to notice the pit is growing deeper.
The CBO when analyzing projected deficit increases due to Obamacare direly predict that interest payments alone on the national debt will be 900 billion dollars by year 2020. The CBO also thinks the debt to already bey beyond fixing it by minor tinkering. IOW we are in for a world of hurt by the foolish action of this president.

At least the guys that put this up have a job…

One can also go directly to the union;s website…
Posted by: Ryan C |
Are you an Originalist now?

This i9s all understandable why all this is happening. We now have one of the worst Presidents in HISTORY. Think about it .

“We now have one of the worst Presidents in HISTORY.”
I agree!! And … Off topic: I hate the new This Week show and have taken it off my DVR list. Jake, if ABC puts you back on, I’ll watch again. The new host is just not right for the show.

Hitler: Time magazine’s man of the year.. a favorite of Henry Ford.. I believe FDR invested in Post WWI German ventures.. endorsed or tolerated by the Vatican.. a favorite of German manufacturing corporations (that do very well in the USA to this day).

“LIAR” since the “V.A.T. raises taxes on EVERYONE!!!”
He doesn’t know Charlie Rangel.

Ok who else is disturbed by Michael Jordan rocking a Hitler stache in his latest series of Hanes commericils?

Good…let the right wing extremists “dig the hole AND bury themselves” in it. This type of “dumbed down extremism” is easily identifiable and will NEVER ever receive any type of mainstream support. They will just slide into the role of “shrill minority status”… where they belong. Oh yeah…and at the same time they will destroy the Republican Right. That is absolutely the best part of this story.

Did ABC get upset when there were thousands of bush signs with bush as hitler? they use to actually highlight it,so as to say,see what a tyrant he is. Grow some thick skin.

Im from missouri about 95% of it is white trash so this dosen’t surprise me.

Republicans and Tea Party people seem very happy when government does something for them – they call it “Social Progress”. When it’s something they don’t like it becomes “Socialism”. I lived through McCarthyism and I can honestly say without a doubt our President is being assaulted like none before. We don’t always have someone in the White House we vote for – but we do have someone in the White House deserving of the respect of office. I think most of the nation – including these obnoxious organizations – need to focus on a much, much larger threat to our Democracy [rather than a President who is doing a mighty good job considering the mess he was handed] and that is this nation is fast becoming a Plutocracy – and those desireous of such are funding the ignorant to spew the venom. Lies and deceit are powerful forces when backed by financial reward.

It’s so amazing that the people who denounce the President have forgotten how things were BEFORE he was ELECTED to office. The WAR, DEFICIT, UNEMPLOYENT, HOUSING CRISIS,etc.. didn’t all start when he got elected. Now I don’t know about you, but I see the President working hard to accomplish the things he campaigned on, but is facing obscence amounts of resistance in doing so. And while I may not agree with everything that happens in Washington, I have RESPECT for the office of PRESIDENT. And unless you’re an ILLEGAL immigrant, he is YOUR President also. So…like him or not (that’s your perogative) but at least show him the same RESPECT every other President has. OH…and maybe when ALL the elected officials start working TOGETHER and stop playing the “blame game” and stop giving breaks to the WEALTHY….maybe we can start to see real progress. Just in case you didn’t know it, the wealthy aren’t trying to share their money with the government, middle class, or those in poverty…

Chap,I’m sure today’s job report is due to McCarthyism.And I’m sure that poor Obama is worried about a TV program documenting his assasination.And I’m sure that he is upset about people equating him with terrible figures from history.I certainly don’t think that 9.5% unemployment 18 months into his Presidency on the eve of a double-dip recession caused by his policies is doing a “mighty good job”Of course,if you really did live during the McCarthy era you would be retired by now and not have to worry about a job or the future economic disaster caused by this mediocrity.

President Obama starts pulling troops out of Iraq …the right complains.
—
You left out the closure of Gitmo.

tiredofpoliticaldrama ———- That was a long post when you simply could have said “it’s Bush’s fault”. That’s the Dems motto.

“”"”"”President Bush turned a surplus into a huge deficit…”"”"”
Posted by: al
I stopped reading right there. Clinton never had a surplus. According to the US Treasury there was an $18.9 billion deficit in 2000, never did he actually have a surplus. So, while he did good, no surplus. Don’t worry, Obama assault on the deficit continues unabated and he will undoubtedly be the biggest spender in history.

Francis Marion folks: How does it feel to shoot yourselves in your collective feet? Any thinking person can see that such actions ultimately only hurt your cause. The fact that you willingly carry out such acts and disregard the consequences says much about the intelligence (or lack thereof) behind your strategy.

Its his skin color not his paperwork that so anger the right wing birthers.
Posted by: Ryan C | Aug 12, 2010 3:55:40 PM
I dislike his “white half” every bit as much as I dislike his “black half”.
Call me a “bi-racist” if you wish…
Implying that those who oppose Obama’s policies as racists is dishonest and cheapens a very serious charge. Does this imply that the 50%+ of Americans who disapprove of The One’s performance are all racists? It’s time to move on…

-It’s time to move on-
Yea, verily.

I can’t tell you how many times I saw protest signs, blog entries, t-shirts, etc that linked Bush to Hitler and worse….just saying. Just google “hitler bush”

Now, all we liberals need to do is post a picture of the SS and say, “they wanted their country back, too!”
Fight fire with fire.
That’s why I wish Alan Grayson was President! He fires back @ these people with the same rhetorical Bullcrap they like to use….AND THEY HATE IT when it’s used on them!

“I stopped reading right there. Clinton never had a surplus. According to the US Treasury there was an $18.9 billion deficit in 2000, never did he actually have a surplus”
Geee that kind of kills the Bush argument for tax cuts doesn’t it.
Its funny how this argument cropped up after the Bush admin started running massive deficits in addition to getting us into wars based on lies.
And when I say after I mean way after.

I think Obama,Biden,Pelosi,Reid, Dodd,Frank and that other nitwit from Vermont should be tried for treason against the United States and thrown in jail until their ultimate fate is decided.

“Obama/Dems are well on their way to destroying the middle class. There will be two classes–rhe very rich and the poor.”
That’s just the way things work.

“He didn’t pass health care reform, he passed insurance regulation doing nothing to health care at all.” Posted by: lfrichar
Hey Mr. Know-it-all (aka lfrichar)… The healthcare industry is run by insurance companies. To put it simply, they determine what care you get, when, and where. They determine how long you need to stay in the hospital. They determine what medications you can have. If you have no insurance, there’s a better than good chance that you won’t get quality care, or any care at all for that matter.
Changing insurance does change healthcare. Those outside of the industry really have a hard time seeing this… it’s a very complicated industry.

“Ryan C —— Sorry f facts slap you in the face”
What facts?
You quoted debt as we discuss budget surpluses.
“Or don’t you remember all the Dems a few years ago wantinig to get out and saying we lost? Tantamount to treason.”
So according to the right wing….
Lying about circumstances, playing on the fears of the populace and proceeding with a war that cost us thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Americans maimed so the Bush admin could look tough after dropping the ball on security and having 3000 Americans killed by terrorists is good.
Saying we should leave that war was tantamount to treason.

Jenny —- Wow, I didn’t disrespect you, no reason for names (a typical attack by the left), I was simply pointing out we didn’t get health care reform, now did we. As a matter of fact, Obama’s own web site called it insurance regulation, not health care reform. Now I don’t need to point out to you that we spend 2 times per person than any other country and this law did nothing to change that. It will actually cost us more. BTW, I am no know-it-all, but I can come up with the actual data to back my claims up.

Leaving office like that reminds me of the same kind of people who don’t flush toilets when they’re done, just leave it up to the next guy to smell.
Posted by: insidiator |
Someone from the gov’t will be there soon to flush it for you. Hang in there.

“As a matter of fact, Obama’s own web site called it insurance regulation, not health care reform.”
Insurance reform is a big part of healthcare reform and the bill certainly reflected that.
It also dealt with various MediCare funding.

Jenny —- Wow, I didn’t disrespect you, no reason for names (a typical attack by the left), I was simply pointing out we didn’t get health care reform, now did we. As a matter of fact, Obama’s own web site called it insurance regulation, not health care reform. Now I don’t need to point out to you that we spend 2 times per person than any other country and this law did nothing to change that. It will actually cost us more. BTW, I am no know-it-all, but I can come up with the actual data to back my claims up.
—
And then there’s the Excise Tax…

“If we are at war, regardless of the reason, we are there and ongoing, our politicians should never mention what they said and you know it.”
Yeah they should land on aircraft carrier instead with a Mission accomplished banner 3 months into a war now entering its 7th year.
It was a war based on lies and fear.
One that we should have never engaged in.

“”"”"Insurance reform is a big part of healthcare reform and the bill certainly reflected that.”"”"”"
Posted by: Ryan C
You’re certainly right, it reflected to the tune of $1.2 trillion dollars. Can you imagine what actual health care reform is going to cost?

“I would suggest you look up how many doctors are no longer accepting Medicare funding.”
We can thank the Republicans in their infinite wisdom for creating a law cutting MediCare payments then every year seeking a short term fix ignoring that law.
The doc fix was passed via reconciliation.
I thought reconciliation was a bad thing?

“”"”Wrong. Why do the Republicans care so little about integrity or truth in their posts?”"”"”
Posted by: David
I don’t know, I am an Independent. I will ask an easy question: Please point out in my post where I lied and I will correct it. Oh, BTW, just because people don’t agree with you, it doesn’t automatically make them a Republican.

Is it any wonder why the world seldom takes America seriously except for the terrorists?

Really, what a shame. Hitler was an evil murderer! These people have no idea the evil that man perpetrated upon the world. This comparison shows the lack of real understanding of Hitler and cheapens the suffering endured by all involved in the Holocaust and WW2. I didn’t like Bush and didn’t approve of comparing him with Hitler either! Free speech it maybe. However, Francis Marion Group, I call you out for what you are, Abhorrent to my eyes!

“Fringe”……. owwwwwwwww auuuuuhhhh, the lame stream media way of belittling people (only on the right) lefties are never called “fringe”… The way I see… ABC is NO different…. they consistently post BO’s propaganda….

There are only 2 people in America who will benefit from the failed Obama presidency…Hillary and Bill Clinton. Bill has no Presidential legacy unless Hillary helps him to get one. Now, riddle me this…who is in a better position to build international relationships? A golf playing, basketball bouncing sitting president or a globe trotting, check writing Sect.of State? Read the news. Bill and Hillary are on the move for 2012. And as is evidence,Obama has no clue.

David– Nice try and have a great day.

I”m guessing the Hitler/Obama comparison deals with the fact that both gave up on their respective churches and that both men had hair.

“In his speeches, Hitler offered the Germans what they needed most, encouragement. He gave them heaps of vague promises while avoiding the details. He used simple catchphrases, repeated over and over.” Which party does this sound like?
“They had no intention of cooperating with the democratic government, knowing it was to their advantage to let things get worse in Germany, thus increasing the appeal of Hitler to an ever more miserable people.” Which party does this sound like?
“On November 21, Hitler saw Hindenburg again and tried a different approach. He read a prepared statement claiming that parliamentary government had failed and that only the Nazis could be counted on to stop the spread of Communism.” Which party does this sound like?
“Meanwhile, a group of the country’s most influential industrialists, bankers, and business leaders sent a petition to Hindenburg asking him to appoint Hitler as chancellor. They believed Hitler would be good for business.” Which party does this sound like?
“Adding to the problem, there were now over a hundred elected Nazis in the Reichstag. Under the leadership of Hermann Göring, they regularly disrupted proceedings with vulgar, rowdy behavior to help undermine democracy in Germany.” Which party does this sound like?

Did we have this pained HitlerWatch when W was in office? Of course not. Whatever. I’m not much for burning effigies but if I saw one for O I would find marshmallows somewhere. The populace has come to its conclusions; of course Obama is a socialist, obviously so. The only question now is whether he is a national socialist or an international socialist and yes, on that question the jury is still out.

Apparently not. Integrity seems sadly lacking – and the willingness to repeat lies, way too easy accommodated.
Posted by: David |
“If you like your plan you can keep your plan.” – Barry
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Aug 12, 2010 6:13:45 PM
Exactly. Except the President’s name is Barack.
Posted by: David |
It was always a lie when he said it and you are still accommodating it.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Aug 12, 2010 6:29:03 PM
That is your opinion. Opinions are not a matter of truth or lies.
Posted by: David
I’m not particularly interested in why you rationalize that it is not a lie.

“My employer dropped 2 of the 3 providers in direct response to this law. We now have only 1 choice. So as for delivery, I am not able to keep my same doctors, which I was told we would be able to”
So your employer looking to save money and pay you less compensation changed your health insurance to make it cheaper for them.
Healthcare reform didn’t change.
Your employer’s choices did.
Besides who in their right mind would ever believe an anecdote from a right wing liar.

Your employer was apparently free to do whatever they wanted with your health care, with whatever excuse they wanted to provide.
—
Great, now Uncle Sam will be. And you’d better buy it too, or it is going to cost you…

“Now, you can say it was my employer all you want, but it was no coincidence and they did it because of this law.”
Note you’re the same person that claims relatively little known Barack Obama, in 2007, running in 3rd in the Dem primary, proposed healthcare reform as part of his campaign and that was the cause of doctors not accepting MediCare patients even though doctors specifically cite the GOP doctor fix as their primary reason for doing so.
Now in the face of ever rising healthcare costs and companies looking to maximize profits sometimes by cutting employee compensation you blame Obama’s healthcare bill for changes your employer made to your companies healthcare.
Conspiratorial paranoia seems to be quite in vogue today.

“Mao on an ornament on the White House Christmas tree = just a sign of how smart all the intellectuals in this administration are.”
Amazing that right wingers can remember right wing lies so well yet have no idea what legislation passed in the last 20 years.
The WH sent out 800 ornaments to be decorated and one came back with a rendition of Andy Warhol’s Mao. Cue the tin foil hat ted and the gullible.
And what a shock that the lie was brought to you by Andrew Breitbart.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha
There is actually a shill in this thread promoting the health care abortion.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
How come we didn’t get a breathless article every time some left wing kook called Bush Hitler?

Ryan C. you are absolutely telling it like it is. Bush actually believes that war helps the economy…he said it recently and it is in his book. That should tell you something about the two wars (unpaid for) he created and now we are having to pay for them as he squandered the surplus he was given with nothing to show for it.He can’t even claim the war because he did not pay for it just cause it to happen and run away.

How sad is it that Jake has to write about a stupid billboard. Hopefully, he was forced and did not come up with this idea himself. I think we should have Jake some up with some real news items to write about.
I will start with the increase in first time applicants for unemployment that was released today, next idea………

As for health care, I work for an extremely large corporation and the question of how the new health care law would affect us came up in an employee meeting. The VP of HR responded that the change will have absolutely no effect on our current health plan. If your company is blaming a rise in your costs for your health care on the new law, they are simply not being honest with you and are using the new health care law to shift more costs to you.

Posted by: whatsgoingonhere? | Aug 12, 2010 8:25:27 PM
Guess you didn’t read the thread, before chest-thumping about lefties.
For example, see the comment @ Posted by: hrybfyblnd | Aug 12, 2010 6:03:28 PM
I agree with a slight caveat. I never disliked Bush as a person– father, son, etc. –and I agree with a quote I read today by Andrew Sullivan, I think, comparing Bush with the Cheneys, the ground zero mosque craziness, etc. :
“A sign of how radical and extremist the GOP now is: on the question of the war on terror (and immigration), some of us are beginning to see the relative moderation and sophistication of George W. Bush.”
Crazy, right? But in comparison…
Anyway, as I’ve said before, a few times, if I thought the Bush comparisons to Hitler were insane and thoughtless and demeaning to those who remember Hitler and know what he did (and I did think just that to the point that I called out and argued with people I typically agree with in regards to policy including disliking many of Bush’s policies and missteps and wrote a rather scathing blog or two), I certainly think the Obama comparisons are insane and thoughtless and beyond the pale.
Were you outraged then and not so much now? If so would you look in the mirror and maybe say, “hypocrite much?”
Or would that be too honest?

Bill Ayers and his wife, Both Weather Underground leaders who admitted to blowing up bombs at several federal buildings, including the US Capital.
Posted by: Dave C |
The weather underground advocated and sought the violent overthrow of the government, bombed numerous facilities and broke Timothy Leary out of prison. Sadly, the FBI completely botched the cases against them and they avoided living the rest of there miserable, punk ass lives in prison where they belong.
btw, what do you do when you are spared life in prison due to a technicality? Why you become unrepentant activists, organizers, advocates and progressive activists.

re: Posted by: Ryan C | Aug 12, 2010 6:45:35 PM “…even though doctors specifically cite the GOP doctor fix as their primary reason for doing so…”
:::::::::::::::::::::
I’d love to see your source for that. The Doc Fix isn’t GOP, and it INCREASES payments to docs. There was controversy for a bit with the GOP wanting to fix the formula that calculates medicare reimbursements such that an annual doc fix wasn’t necessary – and doctors were in favor of that.
Dems killed it, and went with the annual doc fix instead. Payments, even with the fix, are so low that docs continue dropping out of medicare or refusing to take new patients.

Which president took us into an unjust war and which president has bankrupted our country….BUSH

“Look at any other government run health care system – they are far worse than private insurance in terms of fraud, waste, and the bottom line”
Then why did the private insurance industry claim a government run health care system would run them out of business? Because they know it’s not profitable to cover people once they become ill. It’s a conflict of interest.

Ah the fearful and the naive.
Obama’s base.
He’s at 45% approval.
I’m guessing 20% fearful/naive.
Unions, lobbyist, Big Phrama, Big oil, Wall St
fatcats, and Hollywood elites make up the other
25%. Posted by: kyle | **************************
Gee kyle, at this time in Reagans term, he had
a 43% approval rating (gallup poll), 30 % of the
arrogant/idiots were cut from the same group
and only 13% from hollywood. They knew how he
acted.

Obama has succeeded at two things. Taking the taxpayers money and giving it to the unions and others who backed his campaign (all the while ruining the economy) and, he has succeeded at playing various groups against each other. He is laying the dry tinder waiting for a spark. Americans must not fall for this. We must avoid violence at all costs, even when provoked. Martin Luther King is the example to follow…

So who here DOESN’T think Obama is a socialist!?!?!?! — Seems pretty obvious to me… you surround yourself with like-minded people, and he is certainly surrounded by socialists, Marxists, “spread-the-wealth-ers”!!

Socialist – yes. But nationalist – never. He isn’t remotely pro-American.

My church had an ice cream social the other day. Guess that makes them Marxists, eh?
calling our President a “socialist” and comparing him to murderers and megalomaniacs shows clearly that some people failed life, not just high school. in troubled times, the naive and easily led fall prey to vultures like Sarah Palin, the Tea Partiers, and the white supremacy movement, and facts are replaced with lies. when this country starts into violent anarchism, I hope Sarah Palin is hanged for treason.

What’s bred in the bone….
Posted by: David |
This is so much fun. Can we do the Kennedy’s next?

It’s quite striking to see how much anger, hate and a sense of grievance characterize American conservatism today. The degree to which conservatives hold only contempt for those who disagree, view non-Christians and non-conservatives as inferior, and threaten violence or secession to achieve their ends increases daily. People can murder doctors, defend racism, torture prisoners, advocate treason, ignore orders of the Commander in Chief, and disobey the law of the land while be hailed as heroes and attracting legions of supporters – as long as they claim to support conservative beliefs.

But that’s the catch isn’t it? It’s only an open market if you’re completely healthy, once you have anything at all that can be identified as a pre-existing condition the market slams shut, and the public was becoming aware that in dealing with claims insurance companies were protecting their profits unscrupulously. If the market cannot efficiently handle offering any services to protect the ill it is perfectly reasonable for the government to do so.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 12, 2010 11:29:55 PM
::::::::::::::::
Not really. Long ago law was passed requiring corporations that provide insurance to cover even those with pre-existing conditions, after IIRC a 6 month waiting period. This could easily be extended to insurance purchased privately. I don’t know what the law requires in this regard for small business, but if they’re not required to, it could also be easily extended to them. Simple fix to that problem.
Meanwhile, why in the world wasn’t portability across state lines opened up? And how about giving those who purchase privately the same tax breaks those who get insurance through their company get?
There are some VERY short and simple things that could hugely improve the situation for the majority of us, and almost certainly wind up reducing premiums also – and zero need for a gov. takeover of insurance and a 2300 page monstrosity that causes far more problems than it could ever begin to fix.

If the market cannot efficiently handle offering any services to protect the ill it is perfectly reasonable for the government to do so.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 12, 2010 11:29:55 PM
:::::::::::::::::::
Like the British NHS protects the health of its ill citizens? Or Canada? Save me from those fates, please!! Our current system protects the ill FAR FAR better on average than the single payer government controlled systems in those countries.

You mistake your opinion for fact.
Posted by: David | Aug 12, 2010 11:50:49 PM
:::::::::::::::::::::
No, David, I base my opinion on multiple research studies, and various factual reports. Do your homework, if you are able – its pretty clear cut if you bother to go beyond the spin and bias of various articles that aren’t reflecting the facts accurately or have an agenda.

“ONE in ten patients admitted to NHS hospitals will fall victim to medical errors, which have now become Britain’s fourth-biggest killer.
Medical accidents and errors contribute to the deaths of 72,000 people a year, and they are directly blamed for 40,000. They also cost the NHS £2 billion in increased hospital stays alone.
However, fewer than a third of an estimated 900,000 annual mistakes are properly reported, an independent audit reveals today….. ”
The serious, even deadly medical error rates are vastly higher than here in the USA.

The insurance industry didn’t say it would be easy. They claimed they needed mandated coverage in order to afford it to prevent healthy people from putting off getting insurance until they actually became ill, so the Democrats gave it to them in the bill. Now their dumb droids are trying to whip up opposition to it by claiming it’s unconstitutional.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 12, 2010 11:54:07 PM
::::::::::::::::::
And you omit the crucial part. The Dems were trying to require them to give full coverage to anyone, IMMEDIATELY, with NO WAITING PERIOD. That meant that everyone could wait to purchase insurance until AFTER they were already very ill or needing extensive surgery or cancer treatment or what have you. Then they would also be able to immediately drop coverage as soon as the problem was fixed, only to buy again the next time they became seriously ill. If the Dems would have allowed some reasonable waiting period, say 6 months (as there currently is with companies), it would have totally eliminated that problem. Dems didn’t want to do it, god knows why. The individual mandate wasn’t the fault of the insurance companies, nor was the possibility of allowing a reasonable waiting period to avoid people only paying for insurance when they are sick seriously considered. That’s where the individual mandate came in.

“There would be nothing stopping each state from still having its own requirements”
Baloney there would be nothing…there might be Republicans running your state.

“If the Dems would have allowed some reasonable waiting period, say 6 months (as there currently is with companies), it would have totally eliminated that problem”
So you’re saying you would have an incentive to buy insurance and not wait till you get sick because otherwise you might die before you make it through the waiting period? What if somebody becomes legitimately ill during the waiting period? It’s creating cracks for people to fall through.

If it walks like a duck . . . . . .

Can’t wait until November.

So you’re saying you would have an incentive to buy insurance and not wait till you get sick because otherwise you might die before you make it through the waiting period? What if somebody becomes legitimately ill during the waiting period? It’s creating cracks for people to fall through.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 13, 2010 12:20:59 AM
:::::::::::::::::::::
There would be huge incentive to purchase insurance before you became ill – and a ‘crack’ for the first 6 months after the program was initiated. Also, a ‘crack’ for those who are still too rebellious or lack the self responsibility to purchase, which would be a small number. For those, that ‘crack’ isn’t anything like death and I think you know that full well. Any in that situation would go to the ER for treatment.
People do not lack for health care in this nation if they really need it. Some do have problems getting it now because of pre-existing conditions, however, and this would eliminate that problem, without the need for a government takeover or an individual mandate which probably isn’t even constitutional.

“Republicans were effectively shut out”
This was all the Republicans offered, right from their website:
* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
* Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
* Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
* Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it’s good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
It’s a joke. #’s 1 and 4 are Trojan horse sellouts to the insurance industry. #3 give states tools? -a nice metaphor for dumping the problem off on the states. #2 sounds sensible but I’m not aware that the Democrats ever opposed this idea.

So, ABC News, can you explain to me why you didn’t make news of Bush getting compared to Hitler on Time Magazine’s cover, or George Soros comparing president Bush to Nazis, or YouTube videos of Bush compared to Hitler, or Bush compared to Hitler on the website Democrats.com, or on MoveOn.org?
ABC, it seems to me that you are more appalled that Obama, your personal favorite president getting compared to Hitler than you are your most reviled opponent. But I guess when the liberal media blatantly chooses sides we shouldn’t expect anything different.

Actually the cover of Canada’s MacLean’s Magazine not Time. The point still the same – no outrage over the former president compared to Hitler, while feigned shock and phony outrage over Obama compared to Hitler. Liberals, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

Which is a load of bull. I guess Bush’s medicare drug coverage was ‘nothing’ as far as you’re concerned? Plus, ObamaCare was a compromise between Democrats and special interests with a pot load of back room deals and favors for those special interests – Republicans were effectively shut out.
To top it off, the majority of Americans opposed it, still do, and 50% or more want it repealed.
Posted by: Who Wants to Know | Aug 13, 2010 1:29:34 AM
______________________________________
Talk to the people who fall in the donut hole and lets hear how good that medicare bill was.

Talk to the people who fall in the donut hole and lets hear how good that medicare bill was.
Posted by: dk | Aug 13, 2010 2:48:28 AM
::::::::::::::::::::::::
And prior to there even being a donut hole to fall in, those people had to pay for their medications out of pocket in what now would be the ‘before and after’ the donut hole also. You REALLY think they’d prefer to go back to paying for it all out of pocket?
Besides, your post is one more attempt to change the subject rather than deal honestly. The claim was that republicans had never offered anything for health care. I noted the medicare drug program, which is massive and even with its flaws provides significant benefits to anyone on medicare.

Because I said “this is all the Republicans offered”. An exaggeration yes but these four points were the only self-described emphasized items of their plan as presented by the House Republican Leader. Boehner didn’t have to keep the address short. If all these amendments were so significant why didn’t we hear Republicans talking more about them?
Posted by: Skip | Aug 13, 2010 2:50:12 AM
::::::::::::::::::
Skip, quite clearly its not all Boehner offered, and I’d say claiming it was was a good bit more than an ‘exaggeration.’ I have no idea what speech you are referring to – or what time limits he may have been under or other context that affected the speech. However, google:
Keeping a Bad Bill Bad: Democratic Leaders Block 31 Common-Sense Changes to Health Care Bill
and that’s a list from Boehner, not of all but of examples of 31 different amendments offered by Republicans that were never allowed in for a vote.
Cripes, we’d get far better results at far less cost if they HAD just passed the four you noted rather than the abomination they did pass.

Breitish peole love the NHS and fear and american style for profit insurance…
British Conservative party Prime Minister David Cameron and Liberal Democrat Party leader Nick Clegg have formed a coalition govt following the lack of party majority 2010 general election and are now planning sweeping changes in the way single payer medical coverage is delivered by removing tiers of burearocracy and making doctors more accountable for the delivery of health care….
Posted by: steve | Aug 13, 2010 3:56:12 AM
:::::::::::::::::
If British subjects love the NHS and fear our system, its because they’re not getting accurate information and they know nothing else. Its awfully hard to choose between two systems when you only have experience in one and you’re fed garbage about the other. People in the USSR thought they were under the best government system and that America (or the free west) was utterly horrible – they had no way to know better other than what their gov & pravada fed them.
And you’re right your gov is doing sweeping overhauls to the NHS. I mentioned exactly that in my earlier post – they’re decentralizing and moving towards a system more like ours, where the doctors still have some say. Why? Because your system as it is has major problems and is hurting and killing a lot of people unnecessarily – with costs that are still too high for the gov to cover without seriously limiting benefits.
Our system is far from perfect, but its still about the best in the world, and that’s why leaders and others from around the world routinely come HERE to get major medical care that they’re unable to get at home or have to wait far too long to get at home. So they come here, and pay out of pocket no less, because its that much better and at least here they can get top notch care.

I don’t know what sets me off more!!! Is it the Republican propoganda, with their death squads, socialism scares, and birther stories, about Obama being born in Kenya. The Fox News bunch doing all their rhetoric, or the PUPPETS who listen, and actually believe this stuff, or else just don’t like a black president. The death squad bunch, like Palin, scares the hell out of the old people, while the insurance, and medical community have their own death squads. The socialism, ploy is the wealthy fighting more even distribution of wealth, while saying “Don’t tax our billions” (of middle class dollars). The birthers appeal to anyone dumb enough to listen, and I won’t even say how STUPID IT SOUNDS TO COMPARE OBAMA WITH HITLER. —–GET A LIFE!!!

He is the most dangerous man in America. He’s paying Pakistan to support our enemies; refuses to stop illegal immigration; will force health care down our throats; has paid off the rich with bailout money to shut them up; he’s the number one enemy of the state! His mother did NOT live in the US for the required five years before he was born, he is NOT A LEGAL PRESIDENT!

RyanC,
The Mao ornament happened. It was on the tree. There’s a freakin’ picture of it.
It’s not a “lie” by any definition of the word.
You’re so delusional that you can’t even admit reality. This administration loves Mao (“we believe, like Mao, that power comes at the point of a gun”). Deal with it.

Obama’s a socialist, and he’s radical, and he’s charasmatic, so what’s wrong with showing him alongside other leaders with the same traits. The billboard doesn’t say or imply that Obama has performed mass killings like his socialist comrades, it only displays three people that have similar views and traits. The reader is left to interpret the rest. I don’t see anything wrong with billboard.

It’s not worth mentioning the name of the company that sells ad space on these billboards? Curious. If a controversial or offensive ad ran on, say, ABC, I would certainly expect that information to be included in the coverage, as opposed to simply stating that the ad ran on “television”.

“Russia’s nuclear agency says that it will fuel Iran’s first nuclear power plant, the Bushehr Plant, next weekend, defying U.S. calls to hold off until the Ahmadinejad regime proves it’s not developing nuclear weapons — at the same time the Obama administration plans to buy 21 Russian-made choppers for use in Afghanistan, rather than buy American-made.” – Fox News
Thanks for NOTHING Obama!!!!!

I worked & lived under the British National Health System…..It is the God awful worst system man ever thought up! You better not get seriously ill if you’re a individual living under this system because you will die! Terrible system. Oh by the way, did I mention I am a doctor?

For the rest of us, it is easy to go on-line to factcheck for a look at Barack Obama’s birth certificate in multiple high resolution images, including the raised seal and signature. They have seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate – and they conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.
Posted by: green.goddess | Aug 13, 2010 2:26:40 PM
:::::::::::::::::::::::
I’m not a ‘birther’ but I do prefer to keep facts straight. That is NOT the original birth certificate. It’s what’s called the ‘short form’ BC, and in Hawaii at the time those could be issued to babies that were not born in Hawaii. Furthermore, simple US citizenship is not sufficient to qualify to run for President of the USA. One has to be a NATURAL BORN citizen, which is quite a different thing. Meanwhile, Obama has spent over $2 Million in court, fighting to keep from being forced to show his LONG FORM BC, which IS the original BC, and supporting documents such as from the hospital or doctor who attended his birth. It boggles the mind that he would do so if there was nothing to hide. Its also grossly inappropriate for him to allow this controversy to continue when he could so easily put it to rest. He is supposed to represent the entire population of the USA, all LEGAL citizens that is. So, why is he allowing this to fester, and spending ungodly amounts of money in the process? Its inexcusable.

It isn’t just small minds who pay for billboards like this, but those with money who were profiting more under Bush’s policies, so don’t want those policies changed.

Who wants to know, that is plain and pure b.s. that anyone here can get good health care without insurance.
I worked in a big city hospital and the difference in treatment for those with and without insurance was like day and night.
Everyone should carry their i.d. and insurance card at all times, as in an emergency, those with insurance will get better treatment. It could make the difference between life and death.
And for those with cancer or other serious health issues, having good insurance is a necessity for the expensive treatments necessary.
The healthcare bill was a huge step in the right direction for our fellow citizens.

How sad and these people have nothing better to do with their time. How about volunteering to work with the sick or helping at clinics for those who are out of work. The money you spent for this sign could be used for something better, like cancer research or providing free clinic care for those out of work. Little people with little minds….

green goddess, johnk, cara, answer me this, why has Obama spent several million dollars to avoid having to release his long form BC and hospital/doctor records?

It isn’t just small minds who pay for billboards like this, but those with money who were profiting more under Bush’s policies, so don’t want those policies changed.
Posted by: Lydia | Aug 13, 2010 4:55:35 PM
:::::::::::::::::::
EVERYBODY was profiting more under Bush policies than they have been under Obama’s so far.

You need to learn how to do proper research and pay attention to current affairs.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
“The St. Louis Federal Reserve reports corporate profits hit $1.37 trillion in the first quarter of 2010 — an all-time high.”
Posted by: JohnK | Aug 13, 2010 6:31:47 PM
::::::::::::::::
Right back atcha. You think all those unemployed people are profiting more now than they were with historically low unemployment under Bush?

According to WHAT SOURCE has Obama “spent millions” to avoid release of his birth certificate?
Hawaii switched to electronic records in 1991. What happened to those “Long Form” paper records? You think Hawaii decided to keep them hidden in a vault or a huge pile in a warehouse? No. The reason there is no way to request a “Long Form” birth certificate from Hawaii is because there are NONE.
The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, according to Okubo.
Posted by: green.goddess | Aug 13, 2010 6:32:55 PM
::::::::::::::::::::::
Costs? Court records, Dearie – those lawyers on record for Obama in each of the cases don’t work for free.
Switching to electronic records doesn’t necessarily mean that the originals no longer exist. In cases where originals are distroyed, they are first photocopied or microfiched or scanned into record. You don’t just wily nilly create magical electronic records without legally preserving the originals. Clearly you’ve never been involved in a project converting legally relevant documents to electronic records.
Besides which, if they have no way to present the original or some facsimile of it, why have they repeateedly stated that they are able to do so if, and only if, Obama requests the record be sent to him or released?
What the state department typically issues to a typical request for a BC has zero bearing on this issue. Its one thing for someone to write in with a commonplace request of the nature that they get thousands of times, and another when it deals with verifying the original record AND DATA ON THAT ORIGINAL RECORD that is NOT on the commonly issued version.
You people need to read things a little more literally, and with a little more skepticism, rather than just falling for whatever you prefer to believe because it happens to meet your personal preferences.

Posted by: Who Wants to Know | Aug 13, 2010 7:06:47 PM
for someone who claims they’re not a birther, you sure do spend a lot of time imitating one.
And why does it not surprise me that a birther would be advising others to be more literal?
Yowza.

You clearly prefer to just believe whatever you prefer, regardless of what the facts of the situation might be, or the laws involved.
–
Do I? How is that clear to you?
I’d prefer to believe we didn’t start an unnecessary war of aggression on borrowed money, but we did.
I’d prefer to believe the WH didn’t negotiate behind closed doors with PHARMA, but they did.
Look up some quote from birthers and compare them to your posts.
For someone who claims not to be a birther, you do a good imitation. You know all the details and talking points. Clearly, you think the conspiracy theory has some merit.
While U.S. District Court Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth dismissed Orly Taitz’s petition, and said “The Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her, ” you’re tilting at windmills full throttle.
That’s your right, of course. Tilt a way. If you’re one of those that believe reptilian aliens rule the world, I’d enjoy some “facts” related to that as well.

dk
Cite the conservatives that you claim “whined” about the comparison of Bush to Hitler because I certainly didn’t hear a single one. And that’s probably because the noise of liberals whining about Bush drowned out the rest of the country. All we heard for 8 years were crybaby liberals like yourself crying like little girls. Go cry home to mama.

“In troubled times, the fearful and naive are always drawn to charismatic radicals.”
True, so historically true.
—-
Yes, I agree with this much. Jeff Gates, a designer has designed all these fantastic posters and started a Chamomile Tea Party with the goal to end the partisan hostility. Shrug to the latter, as you partisan hostility is what it is, but the posters are pretty cool, evoking the WWII era.
Anyway, one that I like has a picture of a woman reading a newspaper with a headline that says ” Radical leaders prey on the fearful and naive” and the message below is “look to your right.”
love it. The right has always come across to be as very vulnerable to fearmongering.

Posted by: progressive mama | Aug 13, 2010 8:21:35 PM
:::::::::::::::::::
Gee, PM, a lot of guilt by association and spin there, yet you don’t bother to address the facts or provide any of your own to counter them. Whats up with that?

“The left just loves making this unsubstantiated and totally subjective claim”
What? -that Fear and Greed are the cornerstones of the Republican party? Since nearly every line of argument they take on the issues can be traced back to one of these two motives it’s a natural claim to make.

Whats up with that?
Posted by: Who Wants to Know | Aug 13, 2010 8:43:18 PM
I encourage others– and you– to read quotes from birthers and your posts and do a side by side to see if I’m off the mark or not.
As for the whats up with that, I post as I see fit, but, hmmmm… let’s see… how did you start– and end — your post @7:55:42 PM to me? With overgeneralizations, labeling, and stupid questions phrased to imply two false premises are true. (Overgeneralization seems to be a fave as you did the same thing with “EVERYBODY was profiting more under Bush policies than they have been under Obama’s so far.” What’s ironic is that you call others out for engaging in the cognitive distortions apparent in your posts.And given your obsession with “projection” its likely you’re the one projecting, yeah?
green goddess offered you reasonable responses and you offered back gobbledy gook (conjecture, possibilites, no sources or evidence)
Example: “Switching to electronic records doesn’t necessarily mean that the originals no longer exist.”
Okay, produce one from the year Obama was born and the same hospital, stored in the same place. Make your case. Prove that originals absolutely exist.

The left just loves making this unsubstantiated and totally subjective claim. A bit of projection there perhaps?
Posted by: Who Wants to Know | Aug 13, 2010 8:53:45 PM
Unsubstantiated? And “totally” subjective? (there’s that overgeneralizing again.)
Suppose that’s in the eye of the beholder.
See Wired Science: Conservatives Scare More Easily Than Liberals, Say Scientists; Discover Magazine, “Conservatives have more fear”; Gawker, “Scientists Explain Why People Vote For Republicans”; Jonathan Haidt “WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?” (“conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death”)
The naive thing is being generous, I suppose.

Yes it does ring a bell, didn’t somebody leave some papers at a motel or something?

The strange thing that I find is that Mr. Obama’s blind supporters are more offended when Mr. Obama is being compared to Mr. Bush than Hitler.

green goddess offered you reasonable responses and you offered back gobbledy gook (conjecture, possibilites, no sources or evidence)
Example: “Switching to electronic records doesn’t necessarily mean that the originals no longer exist.”
Okay, produce one from the year Obama was born and the same hospital, stored in the same place. Make your case. Prove that originals absolutely exist.
Posted by: progressive mama | Aug 13, 2010 9:29:49 PM
:::::::::::::::::
Oh please. How about you show that they don’t exist, with proof in the form of records for how that office went about transferring to electronic records?
You want to make more clearly unreasonable demands?
Look up the general process that organization have to go thru to convert documents that might have legal repercussions to electronic records. Its as I described. Its also simple logic – you can’t just destroy legal documents like birth certificates and go over to an electronic version that doesn’t contain as much information and cannot be verified. It wouldn’t hold up in a court of law and you have to be able to withstand legal challenges. Sure, a small percentage of groups make that very mistake, because they are human after all – but a state department? Possible but very unlikely.
Furthermore, its directly contrary to statements made by that very office. They’ve said repeatedly that the only reason they haven’t released the long form original BC is because it would require authorization from Obama, and he hasn’t given them authorization.
Where is your authoritative, non gobbledy gook reasonable response to that?

What about letting tax cuts for the wealthy expire? Right-wingers claim the wealthy can make better use of the money instead of helping pay down debt. It’s just plain greed. Why do we keep hearing exaggerated accounts of crime by illegal immigrants?…Fear. and it goes on and on. I’ll be happy to point it out to you from now on.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 13, 2010 9:40:40 PM
::::::::::::::::::::
ROFL!!! Just plain greed, hum? Ya, I’m sure all repubs who oppose taxing those top brackets are in those top brackets. Tell me, Skip, how does greed possibly enter into it for all those repubs who oppose it, when they aren’t in those top brackets (which is the vast majority of them)?
Tell me also, for all the liberals who are intent on forcibly taking money from those top two brackets, just how is that NOT greed? How is stealing someone else’s money to pay down your debt, and it is in part everyone’s debt of course, how is that somehow magically NOT greed?

The strange thing that I find is that Mr. Obama’s blind supporters are more offended when Mr. Obama is being compared to Mr. Bush than Hitler.
Posted by: young_voter | Aug 14, 2010 4:51:14 AM
What’s wrong with pointing out how history repeats itself?
Oh, that’s right…progressives don’t promote learning history. It would foil their plan of taking over IF a person knows anything about history.
Posted by: Teddy | Aug 14, 2010 2:18:20 AM
::::::::::::::::
True, on both counts!

Personality traits associated with liberalism (self-reliant, resilient, dominating and energetic) and ones attributed to conservatism (easily offended, indecisive, fearful and rigid) appear when we are little children, according to a 20-year study in the Journal of Research in Personality.
However, political leanings are also shaped by social relation¬ships and other environmental factors. In a recent Scientific American article, Psychologist David Amodio of New York University says, “There are a lot of steps be¬tween conflict monitoring and political ideology – the whole brain is very malleable.”
Even so, it appears some have trouble getting past the fear factor and feed into it with billboards and Birther nonsense.

“Fear plain and simple? Try caution”
So you’re telling us that behind the sensational apparently blatant mischaracterizations portrayed on this stupid billboard lies a cautionary tale? I’m confident that the concerns [fears] of those who believe Obama’s policies are anything like Hitler’s or Mao’s can be safely dismissed. But it’s still surprising to me that anybody would feel compelled to defend low-brow propaganda like this.

There has been alot of speculation as to why many Republicans in the middle class seem to vote against their own interests. It’s not greed, that’s where the Fear dept comes in. Middle class right-wingers perceive a payoff in adopting a strategy of voting Republican expecting them to allay a whole host of petty fears the right-wing propaganda machine plays off of.[even though in many cases they don't] Meanwhile ka-ching the greedy Republicans are perfectly happy to shovel money upstairs in exchange.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 14, 2010 1:34:27 PM
:::::::::::::::::
Uh, huh. And that explains why conservatives donate more to charities than liberals how?
Talk about a perverse attempt at rationalizing.
Perhaps, Skip, it might occur to you that middle class and the poor who are repubs/conservatives aren’t acting as you portray at all, and they ARE voting in their own best interests along with the best interests of our nation.
That’s a much simpler and more reasonable explanation – it just takes actually considering their reasons with an open mind rather than assuming up front that they’re stupid and voting against their own self interests.
Liberals just don’t like to consider that possibility, because it doesn’t bode well for liberalism. Far more satisfying to bash conservatives as knuckle draggers instead.

“Oh please. How about you show that they don’t exist…”

So you’re telling us that behind the sensational apparently blatant mischaracterizations portrayed on this stupid billboard lies a cautionary tale? …But it’s still surprising to me that anybody would feel compelled to defend low-brow propaganda like this.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 14, 2010 1:07:38 PM
:::::::::::::::::::::
Of course its a cautionary tale. What else could it possibly be characterized as?
Let me ask you this, Skip, were Hitler, Mao, and Stalin reviled before the slaughtering began? Or were they very popular? Did their early policies have any similarities to Obama’s? Is that not exactly what the sign is saying — or do you think that people, including the sign makers, actually believe that Obama has slaughtered millions as the other two did?
It also seems that you don’t believe in the first amendment. I may not agree with flag burning, but I would still defend someone’s right to do it, just as I defend free speech. Even if I disagree with what they did, I might still find some merit in some of the reasons behind it, in their motivations – that’s entirely possible even if I disagree with the majority of their case.
The billboard, no matter how much its in poor taste can pretty much be summed up by the old adage “those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.”

which group is it that wants everyone to be more reliant on government…
The Republicans and conservatives, and to the benefit of a few and detriment of the many. See Dean Baker’s “The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer”

It also seems that you don’t believe in the first amendment.
Posted by: Who Wants to Know | Aug 14, 2010 2:38:23 PM
More overgeneralization and jumping to conclusions. Whoo. Just can’t beat it, I guess.
Both defending and dissing the billboard is free speech as well, as is wondering aloud why anyone would be compelled to defend the content of such a fear-oriented and crazy billboard.

Hmmmm… guess actually considering the reasons liberals think as they do with an open mind rather than assuming up front is a bridge too far.
lol.
Posted by: progressive mama | Aug 14, 2010 2:58:10 PM
:::::::::::::::::
Hardly pm. I’m talking about assumptions of why each votes as they do, and assuming good motives and sound logic from either side rather than just assuming idiocy or nasty motives.
You’re trying to equate that with being “open minded” to agreeing with an opinion that is nothing more than unsupported name calling.

Because the onus is on you as you’re the one tilting at windmills. I’m not worried about it. I think its an issue that occupies certifiable nutcases.
I do like how one minute you don’t want to take the word of the Hawaii Health Department, and the next minute you do, to feed your own frenzy on the issue.
lol, lol, lol.
Posted by: progressive mama | Aug 14, 2010 2:31:40 PM
:::::::::::::::::::::
No, the onus is on OBAMA, who, when he ran for public office, is automatically required to provide such proof if it is asked for.
Furthermore, my point was that you were asking for something impossible – you can’t even get someone’s bc without their express authorization.
I was also pointing out that if you ARE going to believe the State dept, when you must believe when they’ve repeatedly stated that they can release it with Obama’s signature. I believe that is called being hoist on your own petard – and trying to turn it around on me just doesn’t fly.
I love also how you say you’re not worried about it. For someone not worried about it, you’re sure posting a lot about it, but you’re failing pretty dismally when it comes to addressing the facts involved, although you’re pretty good at the invective and personal attacks.

you’re pretty good at the invective and personal attacks.
Posted by: Who Wants to Know | Aug 14, 2010 3:18:39 PM
Thanks, though I haven’t gone there yet. I find its useful to be able to sling it right back at those who use the usual tactics (while calling out others for doing the same, as if they’re horse is somehow higher. Always cracks me up.)
But you’re right, I’ve spent too much time on the birther crap. I’m still hoping you’ll move on to reptilian aliens. Another day, perhaps?

Posted by: Who Wants to Know | Aug 14, 2010 3:26:12 PM
Well, I suggest people read both and decide themselves, both the article by Haidt (as well as the other studies that have found conservatives tend to be more fearful and susceptible to fearmongering, mentioned in my post at Aug 13, 2010 9:40:53 PM, which is in keeping with most people’s casual observations) and the article about the RNC.
Or are you afraid of the conclusions people will draw without you spinnning it for them?
(yeah, yeah, I used afraid on purpose, lol. How horrible of me.)

which group is it that wants everyone to be more reliant on government…
The Republicans and conservatives, and to the benefit of a few and detriment of the many.
Posted by: progressive mama | Aug 14, 2010 2:45:31 PM
::::::::::::::::::::::
This is getting to be downright Orwellian. Its not conservatives who are calling for more government, larger government, and more government intervention. Quite the contrary. History is pretty clear on that aspect of this discussion, as are the policies being called for by each side. For you to claim otherwise is jaw dropping and not worth further discussion.

pm wrote: “Well, I suggest people read both and decide themselves, both the article by Haidt”
Gee, we agree on something, as I’d already recommended this some time ago, after you posted nothing but grossly misleading spin about it.
pm wrote: (as well as the other studies that have found conservatives tend to be more fearful and susceptible to fearmongering… which is in keeping with most people’s casual observations)
I just LOVE this tidbit. Most people, right. As self professed conservatives outnumber liberals in this nation, I just bet your observation of ‘most’ here is accurate (NOT). Try to be a little more self serving, why don’t you? (/sarc) We’ve also already addressed the known bias in research on this issue.
pm wrote: “Or are you afraid of the conclusions people will draw without you spinnning it for them?”
Clearly if I were I wouldn’t have made that recommendation myself, before you did. Further, all I’ve been doing is replying to your gross misrepresentations of the article. You were foolish to post it to begin with, as its conclusions are quite contrary to what you’ve repeatedly tried to make them to be. I’m sure you’d love to be able to keep on lying about it, and have me shut up – but you sure didn’t after *I* suggested that people read the full article, now did you?

“ok, so they don’t vote against their own best interests, only they really do, and if its not based on fear its based on greed”
Intentionally or not I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying since this doesn’t seem to me to be a very accurate paraphrasing of what I just said.

As self professed conservatives outnumber liberals in this nation, I just bet your observation of ‘most’ here is accurate…
—
You’d likely win money on that bet as liberals plus moderates outweigh the number of conservatives… and as I posted earlier there is a moderate designer named Jeff Gates, who has designed all these fantastic posters evoking the color and imagery of evoking the WWII era for his Chamomile Tea Party– its goal is to end the partisan hostility. One poster’s message is to Vote Moderate.
But he observed enough to make a poster that I like that has a picture of a woman reading a newspaper with a headline that says ” Radical leaders prey on the fearful and naive” and the message below is “look to your right.”
love it. The right has always come across to me and I’d estimate many normal others as very vulnerable to fearmongering (and authoritarianism and propaganda.)
The studies and article on the RNC tactics which include exploiting fear, that we both agree everyone should read for themselves outside our respective worldviews and “spins” seem to back me up on that.
Ever notice how often the conservatives talk about their fear? Of societal collapse, communism, terrorism, and so on… many are fearful to the point of unreasonableness.

Because if you don’t count religious donations as charity the alleged disparity largely disappears.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 14, 2010 4:12:31 PM
::::::::::::::::::::
And why would religious donations not be counted as charity, when those funds are primarily used to help the poor or those in dire need? They’re not talking about donations to religious organizations to maintain those organizations, but to religious charities that are charities, used to help the poor.

You’d likely win money on that bet as liberals plus moderates outweigh the number of conservatives…
Posted by: progressive mama | Aug 14, 2010 4:31:08 PM
::::::::::::::::::
ROFLMAO!!!
Gee, and conservatives plus moderates REALLY outweigh the number of liberals!

…” rather than letting people go read them themselves and decide.”
—
I’m certainly not preventing them from reading them themselves, I’ve mentioned the titles and referred to them several times.
In regards to your question, no. I’ve noticed that liberals and progressives and independents usually don’t frame their concerns in the language of “fear”, but more in terms of justice and equality and what’s right (“its not right! versus “I’m so frightened for myself!”)

the largest increases in government size, regulation, and nanny state intrusiveness have come under democratic party controlled congresses.
—-
The largest increases in government size have come under Republican presidencies, sometimes with a Democratic Congress, but more recently with a Republican Congress. And I notice you ignore deficit numbers as well as real wage and job creation numbers.
In regards to regulation against big business that big business doesn’t like , yes, you’re right about Democrats… but that’s why conservatives aren’t really conservatives unless by conservative you mean conserving relations of inequality. They ignore the tyranny of those that have grown fat on the state, and applaud breaks tilted in favor of those potentially coercive hierarchies.
In regards to “nanny state intrusiveness”, depends on whether you consider invading right to privacy, civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights nanny state intrusiveness. I do, in which case, your claim is inaccurate.

independents are presently leaning heavily towards repubs. I guess in your mind that must mean most independents are fraidy cats too.
—
I’m an independent, so no. Independent is a completely different thing than a moderate.
And Republicans aren’t typically “conservative” in regards to actually standing for small government, fiscal responsibility, etc. They are conservative if you mean conserving as much of the inequality gap as possible, but they tend more toward the neocon and neoliberal. Some do mouth the “conservative” rhetoric, and conservatives tend to fall for it. And they forget all about their disappointment with Republicans when a Dem is in power. Over and over again… lol.

Some liberals just love to try redefining everything colored by their own blatant biases.
Posted by: Who Wants to Know | Aug 14, 2010 5:14:33 PM
And some conservatives love to try redefining everything colored by their own blatant biases.
So what?
You’re claiming its one-sided?
You seem really hung up on whether someone is self-serving when the truth is that presenting one’s observations and worldview and arguing on behalf of what one sees as truth, arguing on behalf of the principles one believes in, the country one believes in and the policies that best serve it, arguing for policies that benefit one’s own pocketbook, one’s neighbor’s pocketbook, one’s children’s future, the environment’s future and arguing against those you think are dead wrong, duped, fear-based and guilty of quite a few cognitive distortions themselve and nearly unforgiveable sins against this great nation of ours is exactly what politics is about.
I don’t give two hoots if I’m rude to conservatives, or self-serving. I call conservatives them cons because I think most of them nowadays are actually confederates or conspiracy theorists. And they have voted in people who have nearly destroyed this country and now are doing everything they can do to obstruct cleaning up the mess. They have proven they aren’t serious people who have a clue.
They are clueless tunas. I could be nice about it, but you all aren’t nice, and I believe in a firm kick to the head when a bully turns into a real pain in the behind.
Am I self-serving? You bet, but part of my self, my very core, is this country and what I think is best for it, and saving it from people I think are morons, susceptible to fearmongering by the billionaires of hate who don’t give a darn about my children’s children, or the Black Hills or water quality or public health or liberty and equality.
The truth has a liberal bias.

Posted by: Who Wants to Know | Aug 14, 2010 5:21:23 PM
I mentioned Congress. you just skimmed over it, I guess, for perhaps, for those self-serving reasons you seem to object to.

Posted by: Who Wants to Know | Aug 14, 2010 5:21:23 PM
oh, btw, in modern usage, the word “tyranny” means oppressive or authoritarian and carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, to govern or control — the ruler can exist in any hierarchy with coercive power.
Some may view the bailouts that started with Bush and continued with Obama that way. Some might say that action was necessary to prevent a depression and save the auto industry, for the good of the country’s citizens, even if not a perfect solution.
And a quick edit to previous post: I mentioned Congress. you just skimmed over it, I guess, perhaps, for those self-serving reasons you seem to object to. (grrrrr…. its a drag being fluent in typo.)

“And why would religious donations not be counted as charity”
Because the coercive effect religion has on people’s behavior shouldn’t be underestimated.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 14, 2010 5:56:41 PM
::::::::::::::::::
Sorry Skip, but if part of a person’s core beliefs are that they ought to be generous, even if that’s because it is part of their religious beliefs, then its what they believe. No religion forces one to donate to charity. You always have the option to just donate less, or change churches, or even change religions. This very much sounds to me like saying “because those who are in these belief systems are more generous and it makes liberals look bad, they’ve got to be excluded.”

progressive mama | Aug 14, 2010 6:04:13 PM
That’s right, tyranny is when the government begins taking over large segments of the private industry. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste (h/t Rham Emanual). This has gone well beyond just TARP and GM and Chrysler – in the process shafting legal credit holders in favor of the very unions that caused GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt, and politicizing our judicial system in the process. Add to it multiple stimulus bills, ObamaCare, the financial ‘reform’ that is skewed heavily to dem/liberal special interests and omits the big problems, Fanny and Freddie and ‘too big to fail’ – unless, of course, you count more government power to take over those businesses at whim and pick winners and losers while evading our legal system.
At what point does our government stop taking over the private sector before it will bother you? When they’ve got 100% of it?

This was in direct response to your statement.
Posted by: Who Wants to Know | Aug 14, 2010 10:18:33 PM
Because I mentioned inequality, you assumed that relates to equal outcome?
Silly rabbit. But that’s okay, its pretty clear you’re deeply embedded in far right talking points. (Your response to Bob Inglis is very telling; but there are reasons the Republican party is extremely unpopular. )
Business Insider has a series of graphs accompanying “15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America”
The first is that the gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn’t been this bad since the Roaring Twenties (and we’ve been building toward this for two decades.)Related to our difference of opinion in regard to equal opportunity versus equal outcome is that despite the myth of social mobility, poor Americans have a SLIM CHANCE of rising to the upper middle class.
Republican tax cuts have increased the wealth gap.

and, pm, I’ll repeat: At what point does our government stop taking over the private sector before it will bother you?

To borrow from an article by Jonah Goldberg:
“We are constantly told that the American working man is so much worse off than he used to be. And if you measure income one way, you can make that case….[but] The wealth of nations, according to Adam Smith, the founding father of the market economy, is not measured in GDP or cash reserves. Rather, it “consists in the cheapness of provision and all other necessaries and conveniences of life.”
By that standard, American wealth in general, and the wealth of poor Americans, has skyrocketed in the last half-century”
How can this be judged? He points out: “Head to the local big-box electronics store and buy yourself: a Panasonic home theater system ($500), an Insignia 50-inch plasma HDTV ($700), an Apple 8GB iPod Touch ($175), a Sony 3-D Blu-ray disc player ($219), a Sony 300-CD changer ($209), a Garmin portable GPS ($139), a Sony 14.1-megapixel digital camera ($200), a Dell Inspiron laptop computer ($450) and a TiVo high-definition digital video recorder ($300).
This is not an endorsement of any of these products. I don’t own any of them …. But you can fill your shopping cart with these items for less than $3,000. The average American worker needs to work 152 hours to earn that much money.
In 1964, however, the average American worker could buy one pricey stereo from Radio Shack after working 152 hours.”
Its really an amazing difference.

The First Amendment is certainly a wonderful thing. Even moreso if it can rid us of Borak Hussein Obama.

Posted by: Who Wants to Know | Aug 15, 2010 1:49:23 AM
You can see all the charts at The Nation, and read the series Inequality in America. Good series, and its more current than 2004.

You can see all the charts at The Nation, and read the series Inequality in America. Good series, and its more current than 2004.
Posted by: progressive mama | Aug 15, 2010 12:18:57 PM
:::::::::
Already noted, and which you ignore, those charts are from an organazation whose sole purpose is to make things look as uneven and unjust as possible. Not a reputable source.
As to the series at the Nation – a bunch of opinion with no facts sourced or referenced. In other words, no way to check or verify. Again, worthless. One of the ‘authors’ is a blogger who just tweeted that its appropriate to lie about whatever it is you want people to believe. Worse than worthless.

Posted by: progressive mama | Aug 15, 2010 12:42:24 PM
::::::::::::::::::
Sure seems to me that those three conditions clearly are being met. You posted nothing showing its not – wealth inequality wasn’t one of the conditions. As to that change over time, clearly its quite debatable.
Google:
Hans Rosling shows the best stats you’ve ever seen
and watch that presentation. This guy is a noted doctor and researcher, specializing in social and economic development. The presentation is not about this issue, but about presenting statistics in a much more meaningful way – its got fascinating information throughout, however, and you’ll never look at health and wealth distribution issues in various nations the same after you watch it.
The point is, however, in it he presents as examples the wealth distribution of nations and how it has changed over time. You will see that in America we don’t have nearly the disparity you are trying to portray, and it hasn’t gotten worse over time either – on the contrary, its gotten better. He covers from 1970 forward. If you don’t want to watch the whole thing, go to about 17:35 and watch from there, its very brief but you can literally see how the income distribution in the US has changed over time – more people have moved into the upper middle class, making the distribution a more even curve. There is no large income gap as you are trying to portray – nor was there in the other excellent article I referenced, and it is clearly referenced to all census and US gov. data.

pm, you are the one who brought up the ‘three conditions’ and then claimed that they’re not being met. The onus is on you to support your claim, not on me to disprove it.

p.s. Supreme Court upholds ‘birther’ sanction:The judge said Taitz attempted to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.

p.s. Supreme Court upholds ‘birther’ sanction:The judge said Taitz attempted to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.
Posted by: progressive mama | Aug 16, 2010 11:24:05 AM
:::::::::::::::::::
Uh, huh. And Obama refuses to authorize release of his original bc just why again? His justification is? The burden of proof is his, not anyone else’s – he’s the one who chose to run for office, he’s the one who by law is supposed to represent ALL Americans. For him to allow this to fester, including all the OTHER cases that are still in court, is inexcusable when a single paragraph and his signature could put it to rest. Yet he chooses to continue spending big $$ fighting to avoid that simple signature. Why would that be, what possible reason could there be?

From WND: A retired major general who is a decorated combat veteran and ran an abbreviated campaign for the presidency in 2008 says Congress should deliver an ultimatum to President Obama: Prove your eligibility or quit.
The comments come from Maj. Gen. Jerry Curry, who served in Vietnam and commanded the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground during his long military career.
He was answering questions on Stan Solomon’s “Talk to Solomon” show:
“Action should be taken by the Senate and should be taken by the House,” he said. “They should serve notice on him and say, ‘Mr. President, we love you but we want to tell you something. You’re under a cloud of suspicion. We can’t continue running this country with you in charge under this cloud. Now either you clear it up or you resign from office.’”
The issue arose when a caller asked about Curry’s opinion of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, an active-duty doctor who is challenging Obama’s eligibility to be commander-in-chief in the military courts.
“I think he’s a very brave man,” Curry said. “I hope he’s got good counselors. They are going to try to destroy him personally in this process. I just hope he’s prepared to stay for the long term.”
In an report in the Greeley Gazette, Curry expanded on his comments.
He said the military should not be in the position even of trying to get such answers.
“It shouldn’t be the lieutenant colonels, sergeants and generals in the Army. It should be the congressman and senators on both sides of the issue asking this man to step up to the plate” to provide proof, Curry said.
He said in his video interview, it really shouldn’t even be necessary for Congress to do anything.
“If he [Obama] has anything going for him in term of decency and honesty and the kind of whatever it takes to be a good American and be a good public servant, if he has any of that stuff, he would throw it all out of the window and say, ‘Look folks. I’m an American citizen. I am native born. Tell me what you want to prove it and I will give it to you,” Curry said.

Just how ‘fringe’ or ‘radical’ is it to question Obama’s status? Recent CNN poll, only 42 percent are certain Obama was born in Hawaii – meaning 58 percent are NOT certain. That’s both dems and repubs. Hardly fringe or radical with numbers like that, no matter what the likes of ‘progressive mamma’ would have you believe.

Just how ‘fringe’ or ‘radical’ is it to question Obama’s status?
—
“tilting at windmills”, “political agenda” — the courts seem to think its pretty fringe and radical and trivial.

“Uh, huh. And Obama refuses to authorize release of his original bc just why again? His justification is? The burden of proof is his, not anyone else’s”
It is a very deeply held belief in this country that the accuser is responsible for proving his accusation not the accused of proving their innocence.
But its not like the birther actually care about this country.
They are insane people perverting history to fit their narrow worldview.

“Just how ‘fringe’ or ‘radical’ is it to question Obama’s status? Recent CNN poll, only 42 percent are certain Obama was born in Hawaii – meaning 58 percent are NOT certain”
ROFLMAO!
So 42% think Obama was def born in Hawaii.
And 29% think Obama was probably born in the Hawaii.
Republicans are by far the most gullible with quite a few swallowing the birther lie.
PPP ran a birther poll in which they found 5& of GOPers did not think Hawaii is a state so you can see the mentality that you are dealing with.

a 2008 study, PEW charitable trust initiative, cited multiple times: UPWARD INTERGENERATIONAL ECONOMIC MOBILITY IN THE UNITED STATES
BY BHASHKAR MAZUMDER
“The vast majority of individuals, 71 percent, whose parents were in the
bottom half of the income distribution actually improved their rankings
relative to their parents.” About 45% of those starting in the bottom half moved up more than 20 percentiles relative to their parents. About 38% who started i the bottom half of the income distribution moved to the top half as adults. 41% percent of women who start in the bottom income quintile
remain there, just 27 percent of men do (early pregnancies, I’d bet). The vast majority of blacks who start in the bottom half will exceed their parents’ place, tho the extent of their climb is significantly less than whites.
They go on to state:
Measures of human capital during adolescence, particularly tests scores,
could explain the entire black-white upward economic mobility gap.
• Individuals, both black and white, with higher academic test scores are more likely to move up and out of the bottom quintile. Both black and white children born in the bottom quintile with median academic test scores are twice as likely to move up and out of the bottom quintile than if they had scores in the lowest percentile of the test score distribution.
• Some other factors, such as self-esteem and health, also appear to be important in determining upward economic mobility, but they account
for little of the racial gap in economic mobility.
So, gee, working hard and studying makes a difference.

Here’s a major study, cited by 58 other peer reviewed papers. It finds that there has been little or no decrease in upward mobility in recent years compared to the past half century.
Review of Economics and Statistics
November 2009, Vol. 91, No. 4, Pages 766-772
Posted Online 21 October 2009.
Copyright by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Trends in Intergenerational Income Mobility
Chul-In Lee Seoul National University
Gary Solon Michigan State University
Abstract
Previous studies of recent U.S. trends in intergenerational income mobility have produced widely varying results, partly because of large sampling errors. By making more efficient use of the available information in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, we generate more reliable estimates of the recent time series variation in intergenerational mobility. Our results, which pertain to the cohorts born between 1952 and 1975, do not reveal major changes in intergenerational mobility.

This article about intergenerational mobility in Britian, basically says upward mobility was greater there in the mid-1900′s, and has become stagnant since then. Makes it a little hard to believe they’re gaining on us, when our studies, at least many of them, show that we have increasing upward mobility, even if the rate has slowed as education levels have become higher across a wider segment of our population.
Intergenerational class mobility in contemporary Britain: political concerns and empirical findings
The British Journal of Sociology
December 2007
Goldthorpe, J. H. and Jackson, M. (2007), Nuffield College, Oxford
We conclude that under present day structural conditions there can be no return to the generally rising rates of upward mobility that characterized the middle decades of the twentieth century – unless this is achieved through changing relative rates in the direction of greater equality or, that is, of greater fluidity. But this would then produce rising rates of downward mobility to exactly the same extent – an outcome apparently unappreciated by, and unlikely to be congenial to, politicians preoccupied with winning the electoral ‘middle ground’.

PPP ran a birther poll in which they found 5& of GOPers did not think Hawaii is a state so you can see the mentality that you are dealing with.
Posted by: Ryan C | Aug 16, 2010 11:13:16 PM
::::::::::::::::::::
As opposed to your darling Obama, who, on not one but several occassions, referred to all 57 states – except when he decided there were actually 61 or so.
And what was the one best post polling question that predicted who voted for Obama? They incorrectly thought that the repubs had been in control of congress for the last two years of Bush’s presidency.
Meanwhile, Ryan C didn’t even have a clue that the Constitution and election law requires that a president prove he’s a natural born citizen.
People who live in glass houses ought to be careful about throwing stones, as you’ve just proven quite nicely.

In regards to inequality in America and social mobility studies, I’d suggest people read the one I mentioned themselves with an open mind to see if it falls in with what they would’ve expected and the myth of the American dream,or not– and I’d suggest reading it all the way through rather than being snookered by clips and snips as many were by Breitbart both in regards to Shirley Sherrod and doctored ACORN tapes. A great Pew site called Economic Mobility Project has several links to other articles and studies. If interested, check out the newsroom, too.
don’t take my word for it, and don’t take the word of those who shill for right wing conspiracy theorists; look into it.
Higher levels of inequality preceded both the Great Depression and Great Recession, hence even if you’re a Randianesque and not compassionate, it affects you.

you might have tried reading the simple article that I gave reference to…
—
If there was a worthwhile reference in there that I didn’t read, I likely missed it because it was sandwiched between a lot of spin, whining and nonsense. If you can repeat it without all the other noise, I’d be glad to look at it.