OWS movement: We've seen this before!

No Politico, have never even visited Moveon. I do visit Huffington Post, the site is a news website that gathers articles from numerous sources, like the Washington Post, CBS, NBC etc. I have read numerous articles on HP that are critical of Obama and Democrats.

Ok. I don't feel like going back and proving you wrong at this point with Politico, but I expect we won't be seeing it in the future from you, so at least we have improved you that much. Huff Po is a left wing website that does pull articles from elsewhere, but unlike realclearpolitics, it pulls articles that are liberal in nature. It does not have anywhere near a balanced view of the world. I agree they have had articles that criticize Obama, but from a left wing view, not from a centrist view. They tend to be critical because Obama is not far enough to the left for them.

The David Frum article is not a quote. It is an op-ed where he revealed that Republicans made a collective decision to undermine health care reform. Their sole intent was to damage our President. Waterloo

It was a nonsensical rant. Period. Of course they were going to try and prevent a program they did not agree with. Obama care does NOTHING to stop the problem of rising costs. It simply creates more bureaucracy, more government consolidation of power and it shifts the costs in a wealth transfer, which is all the left seems to care about.

Ryan's plan is a disaster, not because liberals are lying about it, but because they’re describing it accurately. It will end Medicare as we know it.[/quote]

No matter WHAT change we enact to solve the problem of rising costs, it will end Medicare as we know it. Of course he is changing the system. It is unsustainable as it is. It is $60 Trillion underfunded.

Even Newt Gingrich called it "right-wing social engineering". Ryan claims applying "free-market principles" to the insurance market is the best way to control costs. BULLSHIT. The Congressional Budget Office destroys that myth.

Yes, Medicare is currently being run cheaper than the private sector. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PAYING FOR ALL OF THEIR COSTS. ONE OF THE REASONS IT IS UNDERFUNDED.

The cost to buy private insurance, plus the projected out-of-pocket spending that the 65-year-old would have to pay for medical care in 2022, would total about $20,510 per year, according to the CBO, which both Republicans and Democrats rely on to independently evaluate the effects of proposed legislation.

Which is why you address the rising COSTS of health care and find a way to fix that problem. Because YOU are asking future generations to pay for that 65 year olds medical care.

That would leave the senior to pay the difference, an estimated $12,510.

By comparison, if the current Medicare program is continued, the CBO estimated that it would cost about $14,770 to provide insurance to that same 65-year old in 2022, assuming Congress did not dramatically slash payments to doctors.

That would leave the senior to pay just $6,150 out of pocket.

And WHO pays for the $60 Trillion in unfunded liabilities? Why do you liberals always pretend that COST doesn't matter?

"A typical beneficiary would spend more for healthcare," the CBO concluded about Ryan's proposal.

A major factor in the price difference is the relative inefficiency of private health plans. Even though commercial insurers may do a better job of managing their customers' care, they are not as efficient as Medicare at controlling costs. "Both administrative costs [including profits] and payment rates to providers are higher for private plans than for Medicare," the CBO noted.

The private sector subsidizes a lot of those Medicare 'cost savings'. Or the doctors simply stop accepting medicare patients. A problem I am sure you will ignore.

That is consistent with previous research by the budget office and the independent Government Accountability Office, which found that private plans that contract with the federal government to provide Medicare Advantage plans to seniors have higher administrative costs.

Not surprising given that Medicare as it is currently simply passes the costs on to future generations.

Because Medicare covers about 48 million Americans, it is also able to use its unrivaled market clout to pay lower prices to hospitals and doctors, saving money.

LMAO.... which again is why more doctors are not accepting medicare patients. Simply saying 'we big, we no pay' doesn't address the problem of rising health care costs. The doctors will try to pass that along to the private sector or they will stop accepting medicare patients.






LMAO.... first.... the national resource defense council.... yeah... you don't post from left wing sites. A site that hypes the global warming fear mongering. Yeah... great source. See, you couldn't even go one whole post without using a left wing site. The whole 'EPA to let mining industry dump waste in waterways' shows you just how biased they are. First, it is not as you claim that anyone can dump anything they want into the water. This article is talking about DIRT and ROCK.

May 03, 2002: The Bush administration has reversed a 25-year-old Clean Water Act rule that flatly prohibited disposal of mining and other industrial solid wastes into the nation's waters. On May 3, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued new regulations making it legal for coal companies to dump "fill material" -- dirt and rock waste leftover from mountaintop removal mining -- into rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands. Mountaintop removal is a cheap and efficient form of coal mining in which soil and rock are blasted and scraped away by enormous machines, then dumped down the mountainside into adjacent valleys and the streams that run through them.

The EPA's new rule changes federal regulations that prevented waterways from being used as repositories for industrial waste. But the administration claims that it is only clarifying the differences between existing EPA and Corps regulations regarding the definition of fill material. Bush officials have justified the EPA's decision as economically necessary to save one-third of West Virginia's coal mining industry -- involving about 3,000 jobs -- from shutting down for lack of an affordable way to dispose of mining waste. They also claimed that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could minimize resulting environmental damage by taking steps to limit the size and number of valley fills that can occur in Appalachian mining operations.

"The mining industry and scores of other industrial polluters received a gift today from the Bush administration, which has declared that all waters across the country are now open to industry for waste disposal," said NRDC attorney Daniel Rosenberg. "This single act -- described by the EPA with Orwellian perfection as a 'clarification' that will 'enhance environmental protection of our wetlands and streams' -- is the most significant weakening of Clean Water Act rules since the act was passed in 1972."

Seriously, try something a bit less biased next time. They are practically screaming 'we are loons'


Name ONE industry that emits only CO2?

Tell me ONE reason I should attempt to do so? I brought up the FACT that the LEFT WING NUTS want to regulate CO2. I never said that any one industry ONLY has CO2 as a pollutant. See, this is yet another of your bullshit straw men creations. You can't address my comment, so you try to divert to a straw man. Again... and do try to answer this time.... The attempts to regulate CO2 will raise the costs of energy production. DOES this mean to you that the Dems are trying to steal from granny who is on that fixed income?

Maybe Republicans have been able to get God to heal people poisoned by carcinogens and pollution, because their attack on pollution abatement is the worst we've ever seen. The teapublicans have the distinction of being the most anti-environment House of Representatives in U.S. history. All in the name of 'job creation' ...YEA, there will be HUGE job growth for undertakers, grave diggers and chemotherapy technicians!

The GOP's Hidden Debt-Deal Agenda: Gut the EPA - Time

ROFLMAO... yeah... gee, who does Time quote for that? Oh yeah, the same left wing nut source you used above.

I have to apologize, you don't spew know nothing-isms...you clearly just know nothing..

Truly sad on your part. Getting desperate are you?
---

The original 'death panel' LIE was an attack on a major Medicare cost cutting measure: advance directives. More than 25% of Medicare costs are paid for the last year of life.

Promoting advanced directives puts decisions in proper hands

Wow, an op ed piece. Truly that backs your claims.

YOUR ignorant attack is the second wave of death panel LIES...

The Facts About the Independent Payment Advisory Board

Key to these savings is a proposal to strengthen the Independent Payment Advisory Board – IPAB, which was created by the Affordable Care Act. Here’s how IPAB works:

* 15 experts including doctors and patient advocates would be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve on IPAB.

* IPAB would recommend policies to Congress to help Medicare provide better care at lower costs. This could include ideas on coordinating care, getting rid of waste in the system, incentivizing best practices, and prioritizing primary care.

* IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare.

* Congress then has the power to accept or reject these recommendations. If Congress rejects the recommendations, and Medicare spending exceeds specific targets, Congress must either enact policies that achieve equivalent savings or let the Secretary of Health and Human Services follow IPAB’s recommendations.

So they pulled the plug on the part of the bill that would encourage people to pull the plug. Understood, thanks for the clarification.

The government is doing it's job. Protecting We, the People and placing needed regulations on insurance cartels. Unless you want REAL death panels?

Sorry sparky... that does not answer the question I asked. IS the Government MORE OR LESS involved in health care as a result of Obama care?
 
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Huffington Post's slant

chart


Politico's Slant

chart


LA Times' Slant

chart


New York Times' Slant

chart


Real Clear Politics' Slant

chart


http://www.dailyslant.com/publisher-cheatsheet
 
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Huffington Post's slant

chart


Politico's Slant

chart


LA Times' Slant

chart


New York Times' Slant

chart


Real Clear Politics' Slant

chart


http://www.dailyslant.com/publisher-cheatsheet

There was an article about the slants of websites... Huffpo is a liberal version of The Drudge Report. They pull articles from everywhere, how they present them is what brings the slant. The study in that article used words in the article that were negative, positive, and who about... Because the articles were from everywhere The Drudge Report wound up with a "left" slant, they made it clear that they spoke only about the ARTICLES on the site, not of the site itself because as I said, how it is presented can often offer a different slant.

Of course making your own little "charts" makes everybody believe you more. :rolleyes:
 
There was an article about the slants of websites... Huffpo is a liberal version of The Drudge Report. They pull articles from everywhere, how they present them is what brings the slant. The study in that article used words in the article that were negative, positive, and who about... Because the articles were from everywhere The Drudge Report wound up with a "left" slant, they made it clear that they spoke only about the ARTICLES on the site, not of the site itself because as I said, how it is presented can often offer a different slant.

Of course making your own little "charts" makes everybody believe you more. :rolleyes:

I didn't 'make' the charts...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Huffington Post's slant

chart


Politico's Slant

chart


LA Times' Slant

chart


New York Times' Slant

chart


Real Clear Politics' Slant

chart


http://www.dailyslant.com/publisher-cheatsheet

LMAO.... so your entire response is to try and defend the bias of Huff Po.

Quite odd that they list Real Clear Politics as pure Right slant given they put Huff Po, Politico, The Nation, the NY Times, The Wash Post articles on their site along with those from right leaning sources. But oh wait... your site determines the 'slant' based on readers voting their opinion.

Real high quality data you have there Captain Cut and Paste
 
LMAO.... so your entire response is to try and defend the bias of Huff Po.

Quite odd that they list Real Clear Politics as pure Right slant given they put Huff Po, Politico, The Nation, the NY Times, The Wash Post articles on their site along with those from right leaning sources. But oh wait... your site determines the 'slant' based on readers voting their opinion.

Real high quality data you have there Captain Cut and Paste

I provided charts, you continue to emote. Captain Emote...great name for you...:good4u:
 
The huffpo has a liberal slant, however since the aol merger, that is up in the air. I'm not sure how liberal it is anymore. Maybe it still is, but Arianna, IMO is nothing but a money-grubbing opportunist, so if aol tells her to right wing it up, she will. I don't go there anymore so I'm not sure. Would you believe they banned me several times for calling men the pigs that they are? But the sexist, women-hating rants were okay. IF anyone ever tells you Democratic men (I'm not going to call them libs, the commentors in my experience are by and large yellow dogs, not libs) aren't sexist the huffpo comments section is a great place to start. Try a DSK story, or Julian Assange. Anyway, they banned me for slicing and dicing a few women-haters there.

The Politico though I have to laugh on. Liberal? On what planet? They're nothing but inside-the-beltway, smarmy, stenographers. They are in no way liberals, or even Democrats.
 
I provided charts, you continue to emote. Captain Emote...great name for you...:good4u:

Did you even bother to look at how those charts were created? Nope. You just cut and pasted them hoping they would tell the story to back up your position. In reality, as I pointed out and you ignored, the 'slant' for those charts is done by readers posting their opinions on the articles that Daily Slant CHOOSES to post from those sites. Meaning they aren't even evaluating the site in general but rather the articles cherry picked by the Daily Slant for review. My guess is that you had NO idea this is how they arrived at the data for the charts. My guess is you still won't be able to figure out the problem with this method. Bottom line, you highlighted EXACTLY what I am mocking you for. You cut and paste with NO clue as to whether or not what you are cutting and pasting is valid. You just HOPE it is.
 
OK, let's say you hire a roofing company. The company offers a 10 year warranty. You have the roof replaced. The following year the roof leaks and when you try to call the company you find out the number is no longer good and further investigation shows the company went bankrupt a few months prior.

Question: Who fixes your roof?

1) Call the manufacturer and find out who the authorized dealer in your area, and contact them. If the roof is guaranteed, it is by the manufacturer, and there will be another authorized distributor in your area, and they will honor the warranty. Any problems? The Better Business Bureau.

2) If there is no authorized dealer, or you can't contact the manufacturer, find out who bonded the company and contact them. Tell them your situation and they will take your claim. It usually takes less than 30 days to get your money. Again... any problems? BBB!

3) Go online and search for others who may have had similar problems with the same company. Perhaps they have contacts you aren't aware of? Try to find out as much information as you can about the owner, and contact them if possible.

4) If all else fails, join others in a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer, or whoever bonded them. Report the installation company as well as the manufacturer to the BBB, SBA, and local Chamber of Commerce. In addition, if it has to do with your home, your local homeowners association, as well as the American Homeowners Association.

5) Contact your insurance company, most policies cover you in this scenario.
 
The huffpo has a liberal slant, however since the aol merger, that is up in the air. I'm not sure how liberal it is anymore. Maybe it still is, but Arianna, IMO is nothing but a money-grubbing opportunist, so if aol tells her to right wing it up, she will. I don't go there anymore so I'm not sure. Would you believe they banned me several times for calling men the pigs that they are? But the sexist, women-hating rants were okay. IF anyone ever tells you Democratic men (I'm not going to call them libs, the commentors in my experience are by and large yellow dogs, not libs) aren't sexist the huffpo comments section is a great place to start. Try a DSK story, or Julian Assange. Anyway, they banned me for slicing and dicing a few women-haters there.

The Politico though I have to laugh on. Liberal? On what planet? They're nothing but inside-the-beltway, smarmy, stenographers. They are in no way liberals, or even Democrats.

Typical liberal... like Bfgrn, you didn't even read how the charts were created. Sad. ;)
 
Typical liberal... like Bfgrn, you didn't even read how the charts were created. Sad. ;)

SF, I don't read charts or maps. I didn't even see any charts, I am commenting on your huffpo and politico comments. Charts make me go blind. They look a lot like maps to me. Is it sexist to say that men seem to love charts? Because maybe some women do too. But I'm not one of them.
 
SF, I don't read charts or maps. I didn't even see any charts, I am commenting on your huffpo and politico comments. Charts make me go blind. They look a lot like maps to me. Is it sexist to say that men seem to love charts? Because maybe some women do too. But I'm not one of them.

No, it is natural, not sexist. Women like to actually read, men like to look at pictures. Though some of us overly anal analytical types will actually READ what the charts are actually telling us and how the charts were created.

Then there are those like Bfgrn who go 'pretty colors' and post them thinking it helps their case.
 
No, it is natural, not sexist. Women like to actually read, men like to look at pictures. Though some of us overly anal analytical types will actually READ what the charts are actually telling us and how the charts were created.

Then there are those like Bfgrn who go 'pretty colors' and post them thinking it helps their case.

LOL You're such a jerk. But that was funny.
 
I like the chart on my depth finder in my boat. It even shows the fish. The newer models even have color.
 
OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CHART
This is official and legitimate because I said so.
========================================================
________________0-----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10

Avg. JPP Poster ___XXXXXXXXXXXX
Bfoon ___________XX
OneCell & Jughead_X
Apple____________X
Dixie_____________XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Superfreak________XXXXXXXX
Damo____________XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Darla____________XXX
=========================================================
 
Back
Top