The GOP deserves a lot of criticism, but not for what this guy is whining about. The GOP needs to step up and start standing for fiscal conservatism. Conservatives want limited government, reduced spending, and balanced budgets. Sadly - that generally ISN'T what the GOP wants. The GOP wants huge government, tons of spending, and big debts. They just want to be the ones in charge of it.

Birthers? A tiny fringe group who align themselves with the GOP on a single issue, or pre-existing GOP members who are content with this particular issue as a vehicle for their opposition.

Baggers? The Tea Partiers represent huge numbers of fiscal conservatives and independants who are alarmed at government debt spending & over-spending. Democrats and liberals grossly misunderstand the Tea Party movement, and they do so at their own peril. The left is ignoring a massive swelling of citizen anger in the same way that the right ignored Iraq war protests. The contempt and disdain the libs show to this movement only serves to alienate them, and this issue alone will hand the House or Senate to the GOP in 2010 unless the Democrat party wises up quickly.

Blowhards? That's just what they call anyone who opposes them. Pot - meet kettle.

I have no love for the GOP - but I hope they win the house or senate in 2010 so as to put the brakes on Obama's agenda. My fond hope is for complete and utter government gridlock. Democrats gridlocked Reagan & Bush 1 and the country was served well. Republicans gridlocked Clinton and the country was served well. Bush2 had a Republican Congress and American got rogered. Obama has a Democrat Congress and he's screwing the pooch. We need that check and balance badly. I think it should be a national law that the House of Representatives should be handed to the control of whatever party opposes the President automatically on election day.

http://www.myextralife.com/comic/comic-perils-of-progress/

>> ^NordlichReiter:
A firearm is a tool used by trained individuals to stop a situation getting worse. It is not a tool meant to be used for personal power or material gain. Nothing is gained in the slaughter of anyone, even if they are a criminal. Regardless of what people say the idea is to save lives, even the criminal's.
I've upvoted your comment, and I'd like to agree with this sentiment, but I can't.


In any conflict (and I'm talking on the large scale here), the objective is to eliminate your opponent's ability or will to fight. It is arguably more advantageous for all parties involved to do this through diplomatic or psychological means, or the use of non-lethal force. However, it's also possible to eliminate your opponent's ability to fight by killing him, and unfortunately history has taught us this method is more efficient, or at least simpler (though not necessarily easier) to pursue. The irony is that history also continues to teach us the folly of this approach.

On the small scale, a defensive firearm is designed to save the life of the carrier (and those he chooses to defend) by killing an aggressor. While it's possible to use a firearm for deterrence, I believe it's a dangerous proposition. If someone has threatened you to the point where you feel the use of lethal force is warranted, pulling a firearm to threaten (or discharging it with the intent to wound rather than kill) may only incite them to more desperate acts - as their life is now in direct peril. The use of a defensive firearm is an absolute last resort, when all other practical avenues of resolution (escape, barricade, etc) have been exhausted and there is no remaining option.

Usually, I'd respond to "Guns are for killing people" with "but what about target shooting," but we all know that's more of a technicality. Cars are for transporting people and goods, and the fact that they can also be used (and some specifically designed) for racing doesn't change the core intent of the device.
Guns, by their nature, are simply an evolution of thrown stones. They are designed to maim or kill, regardless of the fact that the vast majority will never be used for that purpose.

That said, and this is an important distinction, an appreciation for firearms does not necessarily celebrate that aspect. I am a firearms enthusiast and target shooter. I'm not a hunter, and I do not harbor fantasies of vigilantism, but I enjoy the act of shooting. I enjoy the processes of firearm maintenance and modification.
I enjoy shooting and maintaining the defensive pistol at by bedside, but I do not relish the thought of having to use it on a person, and chances are I will thankfully never have to make that decision.

Hmmm, it's slightly different, but you're coming perilously close to duping... yourself, MikesHL: http://www.videosift.com/video/Louis-CK-Masterbation

There are other causes of death out there than what a simple visit to an ER can cure.

Yes - which is precisely why it is propoganda for Mr. Doofus to say they 'died of not having coverage' or to imply anything of the sort. All the people he's listing lived in the US - and had access to health care. To say they died for any reason except the simple vicissitudes of life is preposterious on its face. People die. It happens. He's trying to say "Pass Obamacare, and these deaths won't happen." Bull feathers.

How did you get to a point that when someone states the fact that people die due to lack of medical care

Because they didn't. His claim they 'died of lack of medical care' is a complete falsehood. It is leftist bilge that is being used to sucker the simple and stupid into giving government obsence amounts of money and power.

but when a company denies health coverage due to absurd preexisting conditions, they're considered model businessmen?

Let's not mince about it. Insurance tries to control costs. Human need is a bottomless, gaping maw that by definition cannot be filled no matter how generous and munificent the resource pool. Someone somewhere at some point has to say "No". There isn't an infinite pool of money, and medical care is not free (nor should it be). People need to be paid. Research needs to take place. Drugs need to be manufactured. Supplies have to be shipped. Facilities have to be built, maintained, and updated. It costs $$$$.

Government is right now in the process of slinging a huge lie that it will somehow be able to control these costs more efficiently than the private sector. It's total crap. They've never succeeded in this goal once with ANYTHING - especially not medical programs. Why should we believe they can now?

Social medicine costs are not proportionally less then private. Nor is coverage more generally widespread. Government run health care controls costs by denying services, lowering quality, not 'covering' standard tests, completely denying specialized tests, and on and on and on. SOcial medicine controls costs by denying and delaying care just as much (or more) than private coverage. At its very best, social medicine is a wash compared to private in terms of 'care'.

But it comes as an immense price in freedom, and accrued power to government. Such a path is historically fraught with peril. It isn't worth it. We're better off with freedom in a private system (however flawed) than with a public one. No doubts. No question. It's just a fact. Government can play a regulatory role and be helpful. But that's not what they want to do, so I'm not going to pretend. They're trying to become a provider. Blech.

The screenwriter eloquently creates a poetic portrayal of circa 1994 white middle class American children and brings vivid authenticity to their plight. Instead of sounding forced and contrived like so many other stories written by adults for kids; here, the dialog tends to blend effortlessly within the complex tapestry of their perilous passage into the vast and complicated world of online "internet" surfing.

94% on rottentomatoes.com

>> ^quantumushroom:
But liberals are not peace-loving, they're surrender-loving in the hopes surrender will bring peace. Oops, the jihadists hate Obama and Iran continues to build nukes, so I guess the liberal appeasement plan aint' working (again). (1) Rush Limbaugh? You've never heard him for more than 3 minutes, and then only heavily filtered through who knows what "unbiased" media sources. (2) There was no Obama landslide, and running an asshole RINO like McCain only proves that fakeservatives don't win elections. The Republigoons ignore conservative principles at their own peril. (3)As for "hatred", for a liberal to accuse anyone... (4) The MSM now play up the kooks threatening Obama just like they played down the kooks threatening Bush. (5) The economy will only recover in spite of Obamarx, who is encouraging this recession. (6) See, he is a bitter, angry leftist radical, but you can only see this by the company he keeps (and hires). (6) He NEEDS chaos to thrive, just like Scum Emmanuel said: never let a crisis go to waste. (7)
Hyperinflation is inevitable. Obama? He doesn't give a damn. (8) I salute the people who oppose degrading America into a socialist swamp akin to the dying nations of Europe. (9)


1. Prove any of this with facts or I say it all exists only in your paranoid fantasies.

2. True, I can't stand Rush Limbaugh. But you know, sometimes it doesn't matter how much context you give a hateful comment. Sometimes, it's just unforgivable and that's it.

3. Firstly, Obama won the popular vote with a 7.2% split and 67.8% of the electoral votes, including several states Democrats hadn't won for a very long time and 1 vote out of Nebraska's 5 votes. I don't care what you call that, call it No Landslide or call it a rainbow unicorn, but the message there is pretty crystal clear and if you're denying it, you're nutty. Secondly, why did you ignore McCain's incompetence in campaigning and Bush's incompetence in governing? We all know Obama won mostly because everyone wanted hope of getting out of the nightmare the Republicans left us. Not because your candidate was too moderate. You know the crazies voted for him hoping he would die soon and Palin would ascend. Stop lying to yourself.

4. I'm a libertarian-leaning moderate. You think anyone who doesn't agree with you is a liberal because you're suffering from dementia.

5. Proof or stfu. Oh, and by the way, Fox News is mainstream media, too.

6. You just proved my point. You will never give the man credit for a recovery even if Jesus comes back and whispers it in your ear. I'm not even going to ask for your proof on this one, because unlike you, I am smart enough to know it's a little too early to know enough about this.

7. First, Raum Emmanuel is not the President, and he's probably in there precisely because he's a bit more aggressive than Obama. If you think he's anything like Obama, it just goes to show how little you know about the kind of person Obama is. You want to know what Obama wants and how he wants to get it done? Read the transcript of his health care speech to congress. He wants CIVILITY, he thinks everyone has good ideas worthy of listening to, and he think we all need to compromise. If you want to understand the truth about Obama's thoughts and ideas, there are books out there that he has written. Two of them. I recommend The Audacity of Hope. You will find in that book the exact opposite of the person you describe.

8. Again, read anything the man has said or written, and you find that you are not describing the man. If you insist on contradicting his own words and thoughts, then you should prove it or give it up.

9. Here's a listing of the UN Human Development report's Quality of Life rankings up to and including United States.

01. Norway*
02. Australia
03. Iceland*
04. Canada
05. Ireland*
06. Netherlands*
07. Sweden*
08. France*
09. Switzerland*
10. Japan
11. Luxembourg*
12. Finland*
13. United States

* Europe.

10 of those countries are in Europe. Now you will invent a reason why this information isn't true and provide no contradictory proof or cite some source that provides no contradictory factual proof.

ps. It amuses me how you told me you would open a trapdoor beneath my feet. I'm going to guess you haven't pulled the lever yet. Also, I asked you to bring some proof. Why did I have to ask you again? Does proof not exist?

People as stupid as you are why this problem exists.

Wow. How can I compete with such powerful logic? I'll humor you even as I pull the lever for the trapdoor under your feet.

That Rush Limbaugh can spew hatred all day long and then claim that the empathetic, tree-hugging, peace-loving liberals are the evil party and there are sheep that hear this abortion of logic and actually BELIEVE it, that's what's causing the problem.

But liberals are not peace-loving, they're surrender-loving in the hopes surrender will bring peace. Oops, the jihadists hate Obama and Iran continues to build nukes, so I guess the liberal appeasement plan aint' working (again).

Rush Limbaugh? You've never heard him for more than 3 minutes, and then only heavily filtered through who knows what "unbiased" media sources.

These extremists and their brainwashed followers are an extremely small minority. You are consistently delusional, so it's no surprise you've decided that you're some how a great driving force in national politics. You lost that election. You got raped in that election. RAPED. The national climate hasn't changed THAT much, even despite your never-ending draw of the victim card and spewing of baseless hatred and lies.

There was no Obama landslide, and running an asshole RINO like McCain only proves that fakeservatives don't win elections. The Republigoons ignore conservative principles at their own peril. Liberals run 95% of the media, including hollywood and teacher-democrat-unionized government schools, and still solidly HALF the country remains conservative. Message FAIL?

As for "hatred", for a liberal to accuse anyone of such a thing has been played out for 4 decades now. Any disagreement with the lefty Party Line earns the dissenter the "hatred" label. It's tiresome, and liberals look especially stupid when accusing someone like Limbaugh of "hatred" while bending over backwards to give terrorists American legal rights.

There are kooks threatening every President. The MSM now play up the kooks threatening Obama just like they played down the kooks threatening Bush.


We all know that if the economy recovers under Obama that you're going to credit Dubya. We already know that, because that's the pattern with absolutists who don't give a shit about reality, and you're obviously brainwashed by a couple of them. Never mind that you're judging the man on policies that have barely had any time to make an effect. And who even knows what social policies you're talking about, since practically nothing has really changed on that front.

The economy will only recover in spite of Obamarx, who is encouraging this recession. See, he is a bitter, angry leftist radical, but you can only see this by the company he keeps (and hires). He keeps the Kool Menthol head and lets his goons, tax cheats and maoists do the dirty work of undermining the Constitution and taxing the people into poverty.

Obummer thinks this high unemployment is punishing those evil capitalists who took more than their fair share. He NEEDS chaos to thrive, just like Scum Emmanuel said: never let a crisis go to waste.

The Treasury is printing Monopoly money and the high price of gold proves confidence in the dollar is shitting the kiddie pool. Hyperinflation is inevitable. Obama? He doesn't give a damn. I salute the people who oppose degrading America into a socialist swamp akin to the dying nations of Europe.

"If there -were- any justice in this country, those folks would be heading into prison about now...but no, we haven't even managed to put some basic common-sense regulation back in place."

^ I second that.

I'm reminded of Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" and maybe this is a part of that.

Many of our problems would be allayed in the USA if we would reinstate commensurate taxes on the VERY wealthy.

Obama and the Dems aren't mean enough. Our country is hurting, our world by extension is hurting, these are truly perilous times, and to reach out our hands to a school of piranhas is nothing short of folly.

This is not a recession.

Is it anger management? What's the common thread in these police assault cases?

I think most of us have had one of those situations where we wished we could just fly off the handle and deck some asshat - teenagers especially have an attitude that they're "cool" for ignoring or rebelling against authority. But we don't, because we're civilized and we realize, even over our irritation and frustration, that there are consequences. (Even if we're convinced internally that the smart-ass attitude would settle down considerably if someone just knocked some sense into the jerk.)

Obviously, some people have problems maintaining that rational connection when they're provoked, and some of those people are police officers. How much time and training would it take, and how much would it cost, to implement additional anger management training, or to identify individuals with a predisposition to these disconnects?

Thoughts?

(Also...24 times? How many times do you have to reload before it's obvious you're no longer in mortal peril? It's good to see some semblance of justice might be at hand, but it's disappointing how many people have had to suffer.)

Most textbooks today already ARE whitewashed versions of actual history. Historical figures are presented and mythical hero's who either surpassed incredible odds at great peril, or were practical saints. Here's just a couple bits you will almost certainly never learn in a high school classroom.

a) Helen Keller - Blind and Deaf, everyone has probably seen the scene where she learns finally how to sign under the water from a pump. What you don't know was that after graduating from college she joined the Socialist Party and hailed the coming of Socialism. (She had good reasons for this, look her up if your interested)

b) Woodrow Wilson - Despite receiving a large black vote into office, the man created many policies that were as he was in fact, extremely racist. This cause at least in part, the large resurgence of white supremacist racism during the late part of his term and afterwards.

I could go on about the atrocities that Columbus committed as well. The plain fact is that US History as taught in high school today centers EVERYTHING on Europe having "accomplished" everything first. And this crazy overprotective moron wants to whitewash it even further.

Dad's lucky he didn't end up with a bloody, screaming kid. Or maybe not...perhaps a lesson in the perils of animal abuse would save some future pain. Who knows?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Obama and the Democrats ignore these protests at thier own peril


You're right, they should be sure to include these people in their healthcare bill by adding mental health provisions so these poor souls can get the care they so desperately need!

If you look at the crowd here, you'll see something that you don't see at any other capitol event, ground space. I don't care if there were people out to 17th street or not, the only density to the crowd is between their ears. I'll be amazed if there were more than 100,000 people there at most. And that includes all the other groups in the Mall, not just the tea-party folk.

Hmm - well let's see... The only estimate that I have found online was in the UK telegraph's article that said a million people were at this rally. All other articles say "no official estimate" or "tens of thousands". All I know from the news footage is that Washington DC was packed from the capitol and the crowd went out 17 full city blocks, filling up the entire street and spilling out in a lot of directions. Police reports said they were turning back people by the busload because they were 'already full'...

Now - say what you like - but those kinds of numbers are not attainable if it is nothing but a few isolated kooks. This is a broad swath of the American people which represents a true groundswell against large government.

To me it is similar to the Iraq War protests. Bush's Iraq War was not popular. The American people didn't want it. And so when they held protests, they were able to get tens to hundreds of thousands of people to show up. Why? Well - that's what happens when the MAJORITY of the American people are 'against' what Washington is doing.

It was also VERY easy to pick out kooks, freaks, lunatics, blowhards, and jackhats at the Iraq War protests. That's because the kooks want to look like they are representative of larger crowd (when actually they aren't). People like Cindy Sheehan. However, just because a few kooks have attatched themselves like leeches to a saner majority did not mean that the sentiment against the Iraq war wasn't genuine. Nor did it mean the Iraq protesters were just a bunch of lunatics.

Same thing with the 9/12 protest. Yeah, there are some oddballs in the crowd. But you don't get hundreds of thousands of protestors when it is nothing but kooks and oddballs. Obama and the Democrats ignore these protests at thier own peril - just like Bush. Bush ignored them, and his numbers plummeted because he was swimming against the majority. Obama is ignoring the majority too, and look at his numbers... If Obama wants to be "Bush2" then that's his affair...

"... And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." -Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince"