Fox News is on it:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/11/director-explicit-viral-video-featuring-boy-6-reportedly-dismisses-it-as-joke/

@bobknight33

So you're conceding? You're admitting that health insurance provided by the Government CAN BE and IS less costly that Private firms?

Because you haven't made a valid argument, just Ad Homs and Red Herrings.

So what if Krugman wrote the article. The CBO's report still shows facts. That Admin cost are less than 2%.

To measure the administrative costs for Medicare, we first turned to the 2011 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds -- the document prepared by Medicare’s fiscal overseers.

The trustees’ summary listed total Medicare expenditures of $522.8 billion for 2010, of which $7 billion was characterized as "administrative expenses." That works out to 1.3 percent

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/


Dude, take off your FoxNews glasses.

You're being pretty immature, heropsycho. You specifically called up this old thread so you could gloat over the Obamacare decision, mistakenly believing that it was what I was referring to when I mentioned that the unconstitutional contraceptive mandate will be thrown out in court. In actuality, if you look back to this comment:

http://videosift.com/video/What-More-Do-We-Want-This-Man-To-Do-For-Us?loadcomm=1#comment-1459002

You will see that I said:

"There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/24/7-states-sue-to-block-contraception-mandate/"

You had conflated the two things in your mind, yet you had the temerity to say that I didn't know what I was talking about. Now, instead of doing the grown-up thing and admitting you screwed up, you are still on the attack, now saying that they aren't going to hear another case on Obamacare. Based on what? It's not a challenge a direct challenge to Obamacare in any case, it is challenge to a specific piece of Obamacare. I will also note that 6 of the justices are catholics, and this has primarily been a catholic issue.

>> ^heropsycho

Government is the last group you want to run healthcare or anything else.

They can't even make a hammer for less that $700 bucks and you believe that government controlled healthcare is a good idea. Stop watching MSNBC and the rest of that lean forward ilk. Only fools believe that socialized government programs are good.

Our healthcare system, thought not perfect, is better than any other Country.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bobknight33
The U.S. is the center of capitalism. We have mostly privately run health care.
And 16% of all the money we spend, more than all those eviiiil socialist! country, goes to healthcare.
You don't know what you're talking about.
You're just stringing together words you hear on Foxnews.

@bobknight33

The U.S. is the center of capitalism. We have mostly privately run health care.

And 16% of all the money we spend, more than all those eviiiil socialist! country, goes to healthcare.

You don't know what you're talking about.
You're just stringing together words you hear on Foxnews.

You're a trolling shit head. Trayvon never had a criminal record.

What you read in a FoxNews.com article about Trayvon's school suspensions DO NOT count as a "mile-long [sic]wrap sheet".

Skipping class, having an EMPTY baggie on him, and carrying jewelry that wasn't reported stolen DO NOT make Trayvon a thug, criminal or a "bad person"

Trayvon was a person, flesh and blood. Just like you, you asshat.

Even if he engaged in criminal acts in the past, like George Zimmerman who assaulted a police officer..

Trayvon was minding his own business that night. Then was hunted down and murdered.

Step outside your little hateful, willfully ignorant bubble, @shang

Keep linking to videos of hard right extremists. You're really not making an honest case. You're making a partisan case.

? The video was congressional hearing where Kathleen Selibus gave testimony concerning the contraceptive mandate. How is that "hard right extremists?" Did someone program her answers for her?

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.

Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.

Imagine a religion that believes you should not attempt to prevent someone from accidentally dying because you're interfering with God's will. Therefore, seat belts are against their religion. The Church then goes out to buy vehicles. Of course, the federal gov't regulates the automobile industry, and requires every vehicle to have seat belts. So federal regulations requiring seat belts are against the 1st Amendment?!

That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.

Um, no. According to the Constitution, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Since the constitution says the purpose of gov't, among other reasons, is to promote the general welfare, it has passed laws to provide minimum quality guidelines for meat in the Meat Inspection Act, food and medicine with the Pure Food and Drug Act, cars, building codes, I could go on and on. This provision in Obamacare is intended to mandate minimum socially acceptable health insurance coverage for various things. You can't get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, etc. Included in this is to say medical insurance must provide coverage for these kinds of contraception. This has nothing to do with favoring certain religions over others. In fact, the use of these types of birth control can be for reasons that haven't a thing to do with preventing pregnancy, and therefore can have absolutely zero religious implications. Everyone can still practice their religions as they want. This isn't the portion of Obamacare that will get declared unconstitutional, or else the legal precedent it would establish would imply that much of the transformational and positive laws we've passed over the last 100 years would also be unconstitutional.

There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/24/7-states-sue-to-block-contraception-mandate/

There are provisions of the bill that there is honest debate about the constitutionality of the law. The individual mandate is an interesting constitutional question. But this? Please. And this isn't far left by any stretch of the imagination. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe prescription birth control is amoral, and most believe that it's a basic drug that should be covered by health insurance. Not far left by any stretch of the imagination.

Strike 1...

Not according to this poll:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/poll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/

Repeal of DOMA? Not far left. All DOMA does is say that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, and the federal government does not consider a gay couple married. Obama's stance is states should decide if gay marriage is illegal.

Let's look at what the Obama administration has a problem with in DOMA. It's Section 3, which is what states the US gov't won't recognize a gay marriage, legal in the state where those people live and in which it was performed, as legal for the purposes of federal taxes, insurance benefits, and the like. IE, Obama wants it to be that if a state says it's legal, the federal gov't will recognize it the same. If it's considered illegal by the state, the US gov't will not supercede it either.

That's far left?! NO! Far left would be supporting legalization of gay marriage via federal legislation or otherwise against states' wills if necessary. That is NOT what Obama has proposed in any shape or form.

Strike 2...

Repealing DOMA has been on the far left agenda since it was enacted. Whatever Obama says his position is, which has switched three times, is irrelevant to the point.

Supporting FOCA is far left? FOCA attempts to codify Roe v. Wade. It declares a woman has the right to get an abortion up to the point the fetus is deemed viable, or in the case that the fetus is a threat to the health of the mother.

That's far left?! Dude, it's what's already pretty much the law!!! Far left would be unrestricted abortions for any reason all the way up to birth. That's not what FOCA is.

In other words, anyone who thinks abortions should be protected even in limited cases, you consider extreme. I submit FOCA isn't extreme; clearly, you are.

Strike 3, thanks for playing.

Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.

That's just scratching the surface.

So, you pretty much said it yourself. Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe Obama is someone apparently from the hard left, and you have nothing to base this on other than your warped ideology. This is a guy who is criticized by the very far left of his party for not being to the left enough.

I'm sorry, but your views are absurd.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.

>> ^heropsycho:

http://www.foxnews.com/

>> ^longde:

Reading about this case a little more, I now see that Zimmerman's pop is a (retired) judge. Things are starting to make a little more sense. It appears the race factors is overshadowed by a cronyism factor in this case, and his slap on the wrist for assaulting cops in the past.


Was his dad a former judge in Florida? Cause I really don't understand if he isn't...it just seems completely stupid not to arrest him, even if you're GREAT BUDDIES with his dad. Surely you'd have to know that this is a really stupid career risk (not mentioning how fucking wrong it is).

Also I hope this video shuts up the bunches of people talking about self defense and all of that bullshit. They have very little to stand on before and now it just got fucking obliterated. It's gonna take a very inept lawyer to fail to convict Zimmerman.

EDIT: By the way just for the sake of google...I googled George Zimmerman after typing that and look what comes up first.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/29/george-zimmermans-father-claims-trayvon-martin-beat-his-son-threatened-his-life/

"Robert Zimmerman detailed his son's account of the night, claiming Martin beat his son for over a minute and told him something along the lines of, "You're going to die tonight."

Does George look like a man who was brutally beaten that night? Neeeeyyyyyoope!

Did you know that Ford has also received HUGE help from the federal government? Why is it wrong for the government to help domestic industry. It's not like it's a new practice in the US, and it's not like other countries don't give their industries a similar advantage.>> ^quantumushroom:

I'd like to have a domestic auto industry IF it deserves to stay in business and meets expenses with profits from building cars consumers--not Chicago Jesus--want, not 50K rolling fireplaces like the chevy volt.
Ford didn't take any bailout money and they're doing fine. Plus how 'bout all those foreign car companies with domestic plants, sans greedy unions, building cars un-rich people can actually afford...

>> ^longde:
QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Karen Handel on Fox News:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1439109002001/

The polarizing movement has many critics but also equally strong and diverse support, including most major media companies as well as businesses like 3M, Adidas, Burberry, CVS and more. News Corp., the parent company of FoxNews.com, also supports the law.

"SOPA targets foreign websites that sell counterfeit drugs and stolen copies of Hollywood movies -- not such American Web sites as YouTube or your favorite blog," wrote Richard Bennett, senior research fellow at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, in an editorial in the New York Post.

The opposition to SOPA preys on ignorance and fear. Most Internet users don’t understand the details of DNS or the methods used by Internet search engines. It’s easy for the apologists for the Internet status quo to convince the less well informed that the Internet is too big and complicated to improve. But they’re wrong. It’s hard for our slow-moving Congress to stay abreast of all the changes that take place on the Internet at breakneck speed.
More: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/protecting_americans_from_web_scams_lvOOEKJEqzpjGIAW43mIXP

In the growing battle for the future of the Web, some of the biggest sites online -- Google, Facebook, and other tech stalwarts -- are considering a coordinated blackout of their sites, some of the web’s most popular destinations.

No Google searches. No Facebook updates. No Tweets. No Amazon.com shopping. Nothing.

On November 15, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, eBay, Mozilla, Yahoo, AOL, and LinkedIn wrote a letter to Washington warning of SOPA's dangers. "We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry's continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation's cybersecurity," the letter argued

Google co-founder Sergey Brin himself has loudly denounced the bill. “While I support their goal of reducing copyright infringement (which I don't believe these acts would accomplish), I am shocked that our lawmakers would contemplate such measures that would put us on a par with the most oppressive nations in the world,” Brin wrote on Google+ social networking site earlier this month.

More: Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/#ixzz1jNPe7gdV

>> ^shinyblurry:

I wouldn't vote for perry, but I agree with the message. Sin should never be normalized or legislated in society. Just recently they repealed the sodomy laws in the miltary for homosexuals, and it also repealed laws against bestiality:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics
/2011/12/08/senate-defense-bill-repeals-military-law-on-sodomy-sex-with-animals/
I feel sorry for our troops that they have to serve with this kind of thing going on, which is now approved by the powers that be. America is fading fast, and judgement cannot be far behind.


Ok you've just gone from mildly aggravating to downright disgusting in one comment. Congratulations, bigot

Somebody hasn't been reading Leviticus all the way through.
>> ^shinyblurry:

I wouldn't vote for perry, but I agree with the message. Sin should never be normalized or legislated in society. Just recently they repealed the sodomy laws in the miltary for homosexuals, and it also repealed laws against bestiality:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics
/2011/12/08/senate-defense-bill-repeals-military-law-on-sodomy-sex-with-animals/
I feel sorry for our troops that they have to serve with this kind of thing going on, which is now approved by the powers that be. America is fading fast, and judgement cannot be far behind.