I'm not so sure it's equal, but assigning blame isn't the most productive outcome here. Hopefully this event will moderate the rhetoric on all sides going forward.

I've seen both sides, and yes it is equal. There is a ton of left-wing hate speech that is never focused on by the media. The media CHOOSES not to focus on it, but it is still there - consistent and constant. Media tends to ignore sleaze which they are ideologically sympathetic towards, but they're hypersensitive to sleaze they oppose. The media decided that "right wing hate" was to blame before the smoke even cleared and so that's how they're going to discuss the story despite the evidence piling up that the lunatic was a neolib nut.

I do not believe this event will moderate jack-diddly-squat-doodle in terms of political rhetoric because the blame game being played is not taking place with a neutral "let's all step back" attitude. The blame game is ideologically motivated, biased, slanted, one-sided, and taking place 100% from the perspective of "left is fine; right is evil..."

That sort of biased slant is not going to calm people down. It is make people who are conservative even more upset. Bill Clinton pulled the same stunt in 1995. The right mostly ignored it. But they piled on, and conservatives became associated with compounds and crazies as a media default. The right learned a lesson that they can't just ignore it when the political left in concert with a left-biased media manufactures a lie.

So when overnight there are literally dozens of hit peices blaming this tragedy on Palin, the Tea Party, and conservative talk radio? Well, naturally the right is going to respond. I very much doubt the two-way "yes you did - no we didn't" discourse is going to soften the rhetoric.

What WOULD calm people down is if the media and politicians stopped trying to cast this story in such a way as to blame only their opponents. I put the odds of that happening at just about 0%. The political world is addicted to slash and burn hostility, and the media can't stop itself from slanting the news to save its own life because that's just what they've done for decades and they don't even know how to just report without editorializing anymore.

No Bill, you are not racist, as Islam is not a race, but you ARE prejudiced. While there is every reason to defend and uphold the democratic principles you list against the reactionary and patriarchal elements of all religions including islam, there is no reason to believe that small arbitration courts in parts of London is a threat to the well established and well founded liberal legal systems of the Western world.

And to say that Mohammed is the most popular name for babies is at best bending the truth. In that count is also included Mohamad, Muhammed, Mohammad, Muhammad and similar variations of the name. To be fair you would also have to count names like Jake, Jack and Jacob in the same bin. Five minutes of googling would also have told you that there is a tradition for muslim parents of all denominations to name one of their children after the prophet, while no such tradition exists among other brits. This fact alone can explain the name statistics, without saying diddly-squat about the rise of radical islam in Great Britain.

"scientology smile", "father diddly-hands", this guy is full of WIN!!!

>> ^Lawdeedaw:


Well, three parties would not amount to any real change. That is hardly effective. When the corporations put out money to the "new" party, then that party is brought to you by Tampex, BP and Oxyclean. Also, think of this. Two parties cannot get anything done, you think three can?
The Tea Party is an example of this. They are a serious threat to the GOP and the GOP is masterfully (I hate it) re-absorbing them like flies to shit. The Tea Party came about because of perceived failures in the GOP and are much more libertarian than the GOP will ever be. Yet, the Tea Party members are flunkies to GOP now... Sad… That, and they became as extreme as the GOP overnight--and are going beyond them...


It'll be damn more effective than the democrats being unable to do diddly squat because the "far" left and conservative wing keep blowing each other out of the water. Right now ever Democrat can say "We have the majority, the voter wants what I have to offer, screw the weirdos in my party. Now imagine you'd have a coalition gouvernment with a say 25/35 percent split between the parties involved. A lot clearer who is junior partner and who isn't.

Is the whole process aggrevating? Yes. But there is this thing called "compromise" that can help in some situations. Some people in DC should look it up at some point.

And the Tea Party is... well, just because something is called a party doesn't mean that it's either fun or political. The "Tea Party" as it currently stands is a front for corporate interests, trying to pull wool over the eyes of the politically less educated and politicians. It may have started differently, but it certainly devolved into a corporatist machine over the last 12 months.

If you're really fed up, try starting your own movement. It'll be hard work, and it will take a few years, but you've got the net, and it can be done (see the Pirate Party). Just remain reasonable, don't start screaming and hollering and wailing "I want my country back", because that way you'll just attract the cooks (and you'll get enough of those in the beginning). You'll want to attract the reasonable people, who can get things done.

Yes, this is a fucked up situation (and not just in the US, a lot of other western "democracies" are starting to look like the US), and nobody is saying the solution is easy, fast or that in fact a good or even ideal solution can be had. But I'd rather have a semi-good solution ASAP and refine it to a good solution than wait for a good solution 30 years down the line while our entire world falls apart around us.

As I said, I really don't give a fuck what you want to call it. Reason.tv produced a spin piece, to excuse and support AT&T's and other corporate ISP's extortion.

That's hardly a libertarian stance. I'm truly surprised you think it is. Wake up and smell the coffee...what they -say- they stand for means diddly-squat. What they -do- says corporate apologists.

There is science that supports the notion that CO2 emissions are to blame for a global temperature increase since 1850. You might not like it, because it doesn't fit into your magical worldview, but the science is there.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/08_1.shtml
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Should readers believe NASA, or random internet dude with a cowboy hat who claims to be a statistician?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
It's hard to debate science. Either it is or it isn't. Most of the debate lies in theory, and climate change being affected by human actions isn't a theory.
It depends on what you mean when you say that. There is no arguement that human being can affect localized climates. But the premise of the Warmers is that the C02 generated by man since the industrial revolution is the cause of temperature increases. Furthermore, they also argue that human beings MUST reduce C02 emissions to 1840 levels in order to stop temperature increases. And they ALSO argue that the political manifestation of this must take place in the form of immense transfers of money from private ownership to governments.
Baloney. There is no science proving human C02 emissions have caused any warming. Nor is there any evidence that reducing human C02 output to 1840 levels would do jack-diddly to cool the planet. There CERTAINLY is no scientific evidence that the methodology of massive private-to-public wealth transfers would accomplish anything.
So - again - you need to clarify what you mean when you say 'isn't a theory'. If you are talking about localized things like a power plant polluting a specific river or something then sure. But I would stridently argue that "AGW" as defined by the Warmers very much IS a theory. A crappy theory.

It's hard to debate science. Either it is or it isn't. Most of the debate lies in theory, and climate change being affected by human actions isn't a theory.

It depends on what you mean when you say that. There is no arguement that human being can affect localized climates. But the premise of the Warmers is that the C02 generated by man since the industrial revolution is the cause of temperature increases. Furthermore, they also argue that human beings MUST reduce C02 emissions to 1840 levels in order to stop temperature increases. And they ALSO argue that the political manifestation of this must take place in the form of immense transfers of money from private ownership to governments.

Baloney. There is no science proving human C02 emissions have caused any warming. Nor is there any evidence that reducing human C02 output to 1840 levels would do jack-diddly to cool the planet. There CERTAINLY is no scientific evidence that the methodology of massive private-to-public wealth transfers would accomplish anything.

So - again - you need to clarify what you mean when you say 'isn't a theory'. If you are talking about localized things like a power plant polluting a specific river or something then sure. But I would stridently argue that "AGW" as defined by the Warmers very much IS a theory. A crappy theory.

Why do you reject government interference in the marketplace yet accept the market distorting charter of preferential protections to corporations, particularly with regard to political influence?

Companies are not elected officials and have no moral imperative to behave as stewards of the public good. Politicians are elected by constituents with the specific charge to be responsible for protecting the public and therefore they bear the greater onus. There is also a thing called the First Ammendment which allows everyone (paupers to bazillionaires) the right to petition. You do not make a compelling case to regulate company lobbyists. However, you DO make a good case for putting unbreakable, strangling limits on what GOVERNMENT is and isn't allowed to do.

They control you at every turn, through lobbying, wages, and market manipulation. Don't kid yourself.

No - they don't. I'm an individual who is in charge of my own destiny. Going around life with the attitude that happiness/future/destiny is not in your own direct control is to live in fetters of your own forging. Such an attitude is one of the most poisonous products of left-wing ideology. It blames all your problems on someone else and never even tries to grasp at human potential. It is loathesome.

You'd be able to afford it if you weren't getting gouged on the interest payments for the debt you needed to accumulate during hard times.

There is never a time you 'need' credit card debt. If the terms of a loan are unacceptable then do not borrow the money. Credit statistics in the US prove conclusively that the vast majority of debt purchases in the US are on luxuries (cars, major appliances, entertainment, fast food). it is not "needed debt during the hard times". It is "excess debt during the GOOD times". Stupid debt spending inevitably results in bringing the 'hard times' on yourself eventually.

The FDIC should hire her to enforce the Truth in Lending laws.

I've discussed this above. The law could force all loan officers to wear Devil costumes and talk in "Mr. Burns" voices... Laws could make loan papers have Biohazard, Nuclear, Viral, and Poison symbols in huge flashing neon on every page.... Laws could force you to sign with a pen covered with used hypordermic needles, wasps, scorpions, and flaming dog poo. Laws could require the Lost In Space robot to dash into the room, scratching a chalkboard, blasting a hockey horn, yelling "Warning! Warning! Debt is dangerous! Do not do it! Think of the children!"

It wouldn't matter diddly-squat. This is not a question of ignorance. No one goes into debt 'not knowing' they will have interest or that they will have fees & charges if they fall arrears.

He's the one putting words in people's mouths and saying that he knows what they're thinking. I'm just calling him out on his BS. "If he's using your definitions what are you upset about?" That doesn't make any sense. He's not using my definitions. He's using HIS definitions. He's the one saying that the mass of protesters are 'right wing' when they aren't. He's the one saying they are 'tolerating' the racists, and he can't possibly know diddly-squat-doodle about what the general mass of protesters are thinking & feeling. He's created a bunch of definitions that he is using to frame the events, and he is the only person who accepts them. By pure basic common sense he isn't using my definitions, the general publics defintions, or anyone else's definitions except his own idiomatic ones. That's why his entire line of commentary is complete sophistry.

Sociologically speaking, humans seek to minimize fear - not prolong it. What she defines as 'people being comfortable with fear', is no more complicated than human beings naturally gravitating into groups of shared cultural background. It has very little to do with fear.

For the past 20-odd years, Mobama spent her sundays is an all-black church. She was living in Hyde Park in South Chicago (a well-to-do white area) and chose to go to SE Chicago to attend this specific place. Shouldn't she be moving 'out of her comfort zone', according to her own logic and attending a white church? To do otherwise is to hold on to preconception, justify ignorance, and show comfort in fear - right?

Poppycock. She chooses to attend church with a group of people with which she shares a cultural background. There's nothing wrong with that. What IS wrong is for her to stare down her nose & assume the worst at people about whom she knows jack-diddly-squat.

To accuse students of 'living in fear' simply because they are "sittin' at different tables" and "livin' in different dorms" is stupid. There is no evidence that sitting at tables and living in dorms are examples of people "holding on to misconceptions & stereotypes" or "justifying ignorance". She is making snap judgements about large groups of people and assigning them attitudes & motivations based on absolutely no data.

Therefore - her comments are not about the students. They are about HER. She is displaying her own insecurity - not describing the insecurity of others.

Dear lord smooman, don't give them any *more* bright ideas! The right already accuses everyone who follows Obama as thinking he's some sort of messiah, now they have a name for it!

On the video - it's a known fact prayer does diddly squat. Anyone who does make the claim has obviously never paid much attention to the things that prayer does nothing for. Most people only bother to pray for things they know can happen, or at least has a chance of happening. They say "Prayer is the most powerful tool we have! Prayer can help anything!" and yet they shake their heads and tut tut at so called Christian Scientists who use prayer and only prayer to heal sickness.

Or for an even more fitting example - http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/. Prayer is powerful eh? God can do anything right? Bring back an arm where everyone can see it, and maybe we can start a discussion.

Sorry, which statement are we supposed to believe? Is a public option not essential, or has nothing changed? Still sounds like they're preparing to abandon it to me.

Sixty frikkin progressives aren't going to count for diddly, when the opposition doesn't want -any- reform anyway.

Calling this bill 1000+ pages is absurd...have you -seen- the actual pages? There's generally two or three small paragraphs per page, that's it. If it were printed in normal fashion, it would be maybe 250-300 pages.

With that out of the way, let's start taking a look at these claims...

• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!

No it doesn't. It's defining the requirements for a "grandfathered in" healthcare benefit. IOW, it's trying to make sure that companies who currently offer crappy health insurance aren't required to upgrade it, while at the same time preventing those who -do- offer decent insurance from downgrading it below the new minimum coverage standards. It has -nothing- to do with your choice of insurance.

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

Nope, wrong again. It orders a study of the differences and similarities between typical insured and self-insured plans. That's all. A "study" is not even close to the same as "audits of all employers..."

• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

Three for three. This page talks about setting out-of-pocket maximums on copays and other cost-sharing mechanisms. Has absolutely -nothing- to do with rationing care.

• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

This one's at least -close- to the topic on the page, albeit with some serious deficiencies in accuracy. Let's call it 3.5 wrong out of 4. There will be a committee. The committee -recommends- the covered benefits for the various coverage types (there are three). The committee must allow for public input into these recommendations, which is one hell of a lot more than an insurance company allows. Personally, I'd rather have input up front, than try to get the coverage changed when I'm in the middle of dying without treatment (which is the insurance company's standard operating procedure).

• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

4.5 out of 5 wrong now. This is just a flat-out lie. Nothing on that page has anything to do with who is choosing your benefits.

• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

5.5 wrong for 6. Another flat-out lie. Nothing about this is free, and nothing here says diddly-squat about illegal aliens. It does say that it doesn't change the rules established by "title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act" or state law. So, I suppose that if one of those says we have to provide free healthcare to non-citizens, then we would still need to do so. However, this document just flat does not make that statement.

I mean really...do I need to go on? Every one of the issues on the first 50 pages is bullshit. Where did you find this? Rather obviously, it was on WorldNetDaily or some such wingnut site. Frankly, it took all of 15 minutes to figure out that it was all wrong, too. I can see where that might be too difficult for a conservative, though...thinking is hard, isn't it?

Done diddly done done.

Unbelievable. There's just no other word for it.

The arrogance and outright denial on display here are just... beyond belief. I honestly think the guy hit Rush so hard between the eyes that he couldn't even process what he said. The caller is the only one offering up facts in the exchange and yet Limbaugh calls him ignorant, claims he "doesn't know diddly" and puts forth only ad hominum attacks.

Can you say irony?

Rush can't...