Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
With car insurance, you have the option to choose what deductible you have. A lower deductible mean higher monthly payments. Insurance is a risk management industry.
You can have the same option with health insurance. You choose what risk level that you can afford.
:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Out of all that the best you could do was point out that I used the wrong derogatory term. Forgive me I've only been up for 96 hours straight and posted that at 2:30 in the morning.
Nut Job? Nope sorry. I've been told I'm an asshole.
Redneck? Nope sorry wrong again. Lived in 3 different countries 4 states while my Dad served this country honorably for 10 years as an officer in the United States Army.
White bread? Yes I'm white. What of it?
Bible Thumper?:lmfao::lmfao:. I think organized religion has lost its meaning. Haven't stepped foot in a church since a friend of mines Dad died.
Nazi? Wrong again. Grandfather was a member of the RAF.
Teabagger? Now that I will admit to. Can't say I don't have my balls sucked and licked on every once in awhile.:goodjob:
I don't know you from Adam. To me you're just some guy on the internet, which as we all know, is serious business.Quote:
Originally Posted by redGT
As far as taking more than 20 minutes to "watch" more than one news organization... you summed it up right there. The people of the right are too dependent/expectant on cable news (as a format, not just any one particular network). You can only criticize the left based on what you hear/see from CNN and MSNBC. How many of you even read a print newspaper at least once a week? How many of you use the Library of Congress website to actually read legislation? Its rare that you guys post info from anywhere besides Fox...
Theres much, much more, to being informed than just watching cable news.
You don't know me from Adam yet you had no problem throwing out all those terms to describe me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
I actually have the WSJ and the AJC delivered to the house on the weekends:goodjob:
theres no need for print newspaper anymore, more information can be found online IMO
Perhaps not a print newspaper, but theres always a need for the local, independent, and de-centralized news and op-ed content that only newspaper can provide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
If you use Fox online you're getting the same Murdoch-approved crap they broadcast on TV. The WSJ is also part of the Murdoch empire, as is the New York Post and HarperCollins publishing (publishers of Going Rogue).
Blender, the same can be said of the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe and dozens of other papers. They are all heavily slanted towards the liberal agenda and most of those papers are are dem donors.
The simple fact is that there isn't a single major media outlet in this country that doesn't show a bias. Some are obviously worse than others and show a definite bias in both their commentary and news, the most obvious is MSNBC. Fox is obviously leaning right in its commentary but their actual news shows are far closer to centric than you will find in any newspaper or other cable news channel.
BBC, and PBS News tend to minimize the bias.
I get a lot of general info from BBC and Reuters. I havent found them to get much into specifics though on political issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
if you dont hate BOTH parties by now, your an idiot.
Well the BBC doesn't go in depth because they are covering the news for Great Britain. Operated by the British gov't, in fact. Socialism at its finest. :goodjob:Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Reuters is more of a world-wide news source. They are good, but they are not necessarily covering events from an American prespective.
Thats why I prefer the AP, you get the news from an American/national perspective. Even though the AP is also a worldwide service, their coverage of American politics is written from an American perspective for an American audience.
Do you have proof that says the specific papers are Dem donors? As I understand it, newspapers themselves do not make political contributions, but some newspapers allow their employees to make political contributions.
AP is considered a balanced news source IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
As for the request, not contributions, but bias:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...UCLA-6664.aspx
"Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post."
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...5/202224.shtml
From Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...828309,00.html
"At this point, denying that the press has a liberal tilt, particularly on social issues, is like denying that the universities have one. Surveys of reporters show that they have more liberal views than the public; surveys of the public show that readers and viewers pick up on it."
The study in your articles is from 2005. Back when the media was busy criticizing George W. Bush and his blunders. Had they taken the survey between the fall of 2001 and the summer of 2002 it would show the media slanted Right because they were all supporting Bush and the war.
You failed to read and understand the article. They went back 10 years - so that would cover your "conservative reporting period" that you have referenced without corresponding evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
"Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.
Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score."
"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."
This is the most accurate study on record. Show me one that is more accurate. The fact is, the media has a definite liberal bias.
A study that went back 10 years from 2005 to 1995 would have began right in the middle of Bill Clinton's presidency. It could just be that Democrats and liberal issues were in the news more. Also, it seems like the study only concerns the frequency with which left groups were mentioned over right groups. It doesn't concern whether the actual content of what was broadcast about the groups was left or right.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
If I can find the specific study I'll give it a closer read, but I don't think I'll be that surprised by it.
The study had the 5 most optimistic years of the Clinton presidency, and the 5 most optimisitic years of the Bush presidency. Can you think of a more balanced time period? Surely you don't think that the last 7 years of the Bush presidency, and 1 yr of Obama is a more balanced time period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
I will agree that Obama did get more attention in the campaign coverage, but McCain has received a lot of good press in elections past. After 8 years of George W., McCain and the GOP just couldn't create the excitement that the Dems could. McCain running for president might have been big news in 1992 or 1996, but by 2008 it was been there/done that.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
no instead we will be required to buy some form of insurance or be fined or go to jail for not having it. it's insurance reform is all it is and that was what was gonna happen from the beggining. 46 million times say $100/mo = huge profits for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Should have been mor specific. I didnt mean the actual company donated, but the staff, including editors, are heavily slated towards liberal ideologies.
How about this for unbiased reporting, NY Times openly endorses Obama. I wonder how their reporting is going to be slanted.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE49N0FP20081024
Newspapers do print editorial opinions in addition to news reporting, you know. Mayor McCheese received many newspaper endorsements as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspap...rimaries,_2008
Did you forget the Feb 2008 report in the NY Times? It was found later to be a blatant smear on McCain - during their quest to ramp up coverage of Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/...dia/index.html
Or what about their piece on Cindy McCain that was later proven to be fabrication:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us...s/18cindy.html
Only link that I have with her lawyer's response: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/t...f-cindy-mccain
The NY Times is definitely liberal. You cannot think that Fox is right wing, and the NY Times is balanced unless you are a extremist liberal.
Your reply from her "lawyer" comes from a right wing blog and I can't find anywhere that the NYT has responded to it. Theres so much baiting partisan rhetoric I seriously doubt it is actually from her attorney.
If they were in the wrong they would have been called out and forced to print a retraction. I am not aware of such a retraction ever being released. Also, if the letter were legit and actually from her attorney, wouldn't it be accompanied by an order to cease and desist, signed by a judge? Although there is a vague threat that they will give an "appropriate response" there is no distinct claim that the allegations in the actual article were libelous or that they intend to prosecute on the grounds of libel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
The fact is that it was a part of a smear campaign by the liberal agenda of the NY Times.
Where was their investigation on Obam's drug dealer or the Marxist professors that he accounted as influences? Where were their interviews of his Kenyan family? Where was their digging into Michelle Obama - especially her college papers? They did not want to follow that path, as it did not fit their agenda. That is fine to report with bias, but don't say they are balanced.
The NY Times refused to redact, as they have refused many times on article concerning the Republican party. That is not uncommon among news agencies that have a political bias - the same happens with Fox.
The NY Times definitely has a liberal bias. This is well-known (as it is well-known that Fox leans right).
You consistantly ignore the obvious point that most of the media leans left.
I don't see any evidence of a "smear campaign" at work. There was a clear conflict of interest between McCain and a lobbyist, and they reported on it. If it were untrue, they would have been legally liable to print a retraction.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
If the McCains are right and that weak response letter and its results (nothing happening) are the best lawyer-ing that McCain's money can buy, I should open up a practice of my own.
Marxist professors? I see you are on that "liberal bias in education" nonsense again. Marx is valuable to the study of social science, as his theories on material culture are the backbone for the procedures of analysis used by modern scholars. One can write Marxist critiques (using Marx's procedural framework for an essay or study of criticism) without being a political communist, a political socialist, or any of the other baggage attributed to Marx by those who are unfamiliar with his work. Whether you agree with Marx or not, a cursory understanding of his concepts and terminology like sign-exchange value and use-value are essential to participate in the discourse of social science.
The Kenyan family have little to do with Obama's job as president, and from what I have read he didn't even meet then until the mid '80's. And as far as his drug dealers go, Obama has been forthcoming about his drug use so I don't see why the stories of guys who sold Obama nickle bags a couple of times 30 years ago would be necessary. The press hasn't interviewed Rush Limbaugh's drug suppliers, or George W. Bush's, or Glenn Beck's....
This! :goodjob:Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
CNN saw it as a smear campaign. If you took your head out of the sand, you might see it as well. No organization has to print a retraction, and what presidential candidate is going to file a lawsuit during a campaign? That is political suicide. Use some common sense.
I said nothing about education. You are an idiot if you think that. Read Obama's book - The Audacity of Hope. Barack Obama talks of his time at Occidental College in California. Here's a quote from pages 100 and 101:
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.At night,in the dorms,we discussed neocolonialism,Franz Fanon,Eurocentrism,and patriarchy.When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints.We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure.We were alienated.Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is the juniorUnited States Senator from Vermont, elected on November 7, 2006. Before becoming Senator, Sanders represented Vermont's at-large district in the United States House of Representatives for 16 years.
Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist, but because he does not belong to a formal political party, he appears as an independent on the ballot. He is the first person elected to the U.S. Senate to identify as a socialist.
On Kenya - If Obama won't choose to help his own family, why would he care about you?
Dig into Cindy McCain's past for dirt, but not follow up on the man running from President, do you think that it is logical?
And for the record - I am not against Obama, nor do I believe that all journalism has to be without bias. But I do believe that you are choosing to ignore the blatant slant of the news - that the majority of American can recognize.
There are people in my own family I don't care about. People who have stolen from me, my parents, my grandparents, etc. People who are whacked out on drugs, etc. Every family has them. I see them only at Thanksgiving and X-mas and I don't even talk to them then.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Also, maybe they haven't asked for his help. According to Wikipedia most of them aren't doing too bad... owning businesses, working for the gov't, etc. Obama's brother George in Kenya said he's happy living in the slum. :dunno:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...obama.brother/
If the NY Times was responsible for libel toward the McCains then the McCains would have a Tort of Defamation against them, and could sue for millions. For such a lawsuit to happen, the McCains would have to prove that:
A.) The claims against them were false.
or
B.) That the claims were published with "actual malice," which means a reckless intent to defamation whether the claims were true or false.
The McCains didn't sue because they couldn't prove it. They could have sued after the campaign. Most states have a statute of limitations of 1 year for libel claims, some have as many as 3 years.
But if anything, the fact that CNN stuck up for the McCains goes against your theory of the "liberal media". If there really was a liberal conspiracy, wouldn't CNN be in on it too? :lmfao:
Obama's family in Kenya hasn't had the opportunity to have him dislike them though. That's a difference between your family her and his there. Your argument on that is extremely weak at best. Bottom line is that Obama doesn't care about them enough to take any action on their situation, and that is fine with me. But make no mistake, he is not worried about your family either. Our current Presidents have not appeared to have the same ideals as our founding fathers for quite a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
McCain is a sitting Senator. It would be political suicide to take it to a lawsuit. They don't need the money, and they are pretty used to the media publishing articles both for and against them. But again, common sense seems to escape you. The McCain's didn't sue because even if they proved it 100% that it was malicious (which is very difficult to prove in court in this situation), it still would have sidetracked his presidential campaign, and would have sunk his capabilty to control future Senate campaigns.
You do realize that CNN and all media outlets are in competition with each other, right? Interestingly, the story was condemned by the majority of the media. Additionally, have I not mentioned it multiple times that CNN is far more balanced in my opinion than a lot of other media outlets?
Your choice to not see or believe the truth does not change that there is political media bias. Fox will still be biased, as will the NY Times - both in opposite directions. The majority just happens to be with a liberal slant - for now. In 30 years, it might be the complete opposite.
Interestingly enough, you did not address Obama's choice to associate specifically with Marxist professors. Nothign wrong with him being friends with them, but don't think for a minute that he was not influenced by socialism. Again, that is not necessarily a bad thing, depending upon how one acts when in the position of President.
I wasn't aware that he needed to take any "action" about his Kenyan family. Again, according to Wikipedia several of them now live in the US, and some of the ones who remain in Kenya own businesses or work for the Kenyan government. It doesn't seem like they are living in squalor, other than Obama's half brother George, who seems happy where he's at and hasn't asked for Obama's help according to the information published about him. And if Obama were to help them publicly, it would be fodder for Orly Taints and the Birthers. If he is helping them he would probably not publicize it. For all we know he might be sending them crates of Hungry Man dinners right now. :screwy:Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
I hear a lot about the "founding fathers" like they all agreed and they all had a cohesive vision for the country... which couldn't be farther from the truth, as they had disagreements so strong they had brawls and fought duels over them. Some of them had only wanted representatives from the colonies in British Parliament, or for the colonies to have their own parliament but still remain under British protectorate. Others wanted the US to be an independent monarchy with its own king. Also, don't forget that the country was about evenly split at the time of the revolution. There were plenty of citizens and politicians who had been loyal to the British who were forced to integrate into the new independent America.
Obama and the "Marxist professors," sounds a lot like my experience in college. I have friends on all sides of the political spectrum, but my best friends are those of the Marxist sort. With my conservative friends, discussion of Marx is more of a debate (which is fine), but with my friends who are also students of Marx the discussion is more topical and analytical.
Anyone who studies Marx probably studies socialism, the two are not one-in-the-same, but the application of Marxist logic is a driving principle behind socialism. I'm sure Obama is familiar with socialism and no-doubt does show some socialist influences. But I would not describe him as a "Socialist," given the current record of his administration. If he is a "Socialist" he is foremost a corporate socialist as the bailouts of the auto industry and the banks, and the proposed mandates to buy private insurance attest.
True, we cannot see everything he does. You continue to want to go off on tangents though, rather tha answer the original issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
The leadership of this country had disagreements of course; however they came to agreements that they documented - you might have read them in civics class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
No one was compelled to stay here. Those who did not want to integrate had the option to go back to England. I sure that some decided it was not worth it, and stayed, others probably decided it was better to go back. Again, this is a tangent.
You choose to associtate closely with your friends. These people do exert influence on you. Obama chose to be around people who's main focus is to discuss Marxism and socialism. He chose to be influenced by these people. Since one cannot accurately predict the future, one has to look at the past, and see how the person behaved in the past. This is not a guarantee of how they will act in the future, of course, but it is better than nothing. In these cases, both you and Obama have a past that includes stronger socialist tendancies than the average American - and this increases the probability that both will promote socialism in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Obama is currently pushing a healthcare plan with socialist tendancies. While it is possible that you could become the next Rush Limbaugh, it is not likely in my opinion. :D
I don't see how a mandate to buy insurance from a private system could be interpreted as "socialist". Its a gimme to private insurance companies. Myself I don't see whats wrong with starting a public pool to compete with the private companies for those of us who can't access the private system. That would be more "socialist" than what is being proposed currently.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
I understand and partially agree. Socialism is not completely wrong, as you may be used to constantly hearing. It may be beneficial in some instances, like healthcare. The problem is once you legislate it, you have to manage it - which the government is notoriously poor at doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
do you realize how much campaign $$ the private insurance companies gave to the big O. those companies are also ties into many other companies"banks, oil, etc" and alot of the same people own them. did you also know that medicare and medicaid are already "managed" and "underwritten" by most major insurance companies. i learned this because i did hospital billing and collections and i learned a whole lot about the system and it sucks really. basically a public pool will still be ran by the private companies. now what are the people going to do like me who cannot afford any type of insurance at all atm. i'll get fined or go to jail, atleast that was in the proposed bill. it was going to be insurance reform from the beginning and obama, and all the companies knew it, they just had to put on a show for the people so we felt like we won and still make a difference. remember the big meeting they all had over a year ago, they do have agenda's they follow you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
That "gimmie" to private insurance companies comes with a VERY hefty price tag for everyone. Remember all of those people that have existing conditions? Under any of the proposed plans, insurance companies will be forced to cover them for the same price that they cover healthy people, not at a level proportionate with the risk involved. This is no different than a mandate for everyone making more than 30k a year to purchase a home so that those people that make less could use available apartments. This would prop up the housing market wouldnt it? Thats a good thing isnt it? We will just ignore people's right to choose for the greater good.
Simple yes or no questions, no rhetoric be honestQuote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
1)do you believe the federal govt can operate without making a "profit"
2)do you think any private entity can compete with the federal govt?
3)do you think it is fair to collect taxes for 4 years before giving out any benefits?
4) do you think it is honest to have 10 year projections on cost of healthcare with only 6 years of benefits being given out?
5) do you think introducing 30 million people to the system will cause costs to go up?
After the yes or no answers on that you may answer the followng:
1) how does a private business operate in competition with the govt? Do you think they can? Give an example. My example would be the usps vs fedex/ups. Usps is sometimes cheaper but their service and reliability sucks, and they are almost bankrupt. Who runs a better business? Private sector.
2) how will one keep their current insurance if the goal of the govt option is to be cheaper? If this is simply about cost, doesn't it make sense that a person/business would drop te private carrier to use the govt option?
3) tell me why costs are high and how the govt plan will keep them down. Cite examples
I don't want links to other pages I want your opinions.
1)do you believe the federal govt can operate without making a "profit"Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
"Profit" for who? The way you use profit in quotes seems to indicate that you are implying corruption or something. Restate your question more clearly and I'll answer it.
2)do you think any private entity can compete with the federal govt?
UPS and Fed-Ex do it every day. So, yes.
3)do you think it is fair to collect taxes for 4 years before giving out any benefits?
Happens all the time with other gov't programs. Yes
4) do you think it is honest to have 10 year projections on cost of healthcare with only 6 years of benefits being given out?
I think its pretty obvious to anyone who looks at the facts that with a 10 year projection starting in 2010 you're only getting 6 years of benefits. I don't see how that is dishonest as they are not hiding anything. So, no.
5) do you think introducing 30 million people to the system will cause costs to go up?
That depends on the plan that is passed. Adding 30 or 40 million more people to the private pools will put a hell of a lot more money into the system though. So for the current proposal, no.
As for the essay questions...
1.) You just answered #2 of the above questions here. Yes, UPS and FEd-EX are able to compete by offering more expedient service to the customer at a slightly greater expense. I don't see why private insurance wouldn't be able to compete in the same way.
2.) As I understand it there will be tax incentives for companies that provide insurance to their employees. So theres that.
3.) I think costs are so high because of the army of lawyers the insurance companies have trying to deny claims, and the army of lobbyists they have jockeying for political patronage. Also, the inconsistencies and loopholes in the way services are billed and reimbursed. And theres the rising cost of prescription drugs... Big Pharma also has an army of lawyers and lobbyists to pay and these costs are passed on to hospitals, insurance companies and ultimately, consumers.
I think tort reform would be helpful, but Republicans haven't thrown out anything that has stuck. The reality about tort reform is that a lot of congressmen on BOTH sides of the aisle are lawyers. So I don't see it getting a lot of support from either party. The republicans can use it as a talking point, but do you really think all the career lawyers in the GOP would support it?
I'm sorry he trial lawyers are in the dems back pocket
I'll respond later, good answers.
Here's a list of attorneys in Congress from Ron Paul's forum. Not the best source but it was just a quick google.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/94514
20 of 41 GOP senators
53 of 178 GOP reps
Granted, the majorities of repubs aren't lawyers, but should those lawyers vote in their own interest an already outnumbered GOP wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
I wont do the research, but a lawyer isnt just a lawyer if you know what I mean. Just like 1 doctor isnt the same as every other one. You have specialties. How many of those GOP (and dem) lawyers have never actually practiced law and just got the degree because thats what you do before going into politics? How many of them were prosecutors or defense lawyers? Then you get to how many are trial/tort lawyers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Also, do you have the numbers for the Dems?
The point I believe he was trying to make was that with only 6 years of benefits and 10 years to spread the cost, it will make the real cost look MUCH lower than it really is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
For Example.
I start the year with a 40k a year budget and I spend 1k a month for the first 6 months and because I am so far under budget I decide to buy a new, bigger house and a brand new car, pushing my spending 5k for the last half. My total spending only looks like 36k a year which is great, I am under budget. But if you actually break it down my budget, which I am trapped in for the next 6 years, is actually 60k a year.
Your arent just adding healthy people to the pools though. You are adding AIDS patients and cancer patients whose yearly medical costs could easily top 100k a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
To make things simple I will say that all 30 mil people will be charged $1000/yr for insurance. That will create about 30B in revenue for the govt. Now, we will say that 1% of those 30M people will have AIDS or cancer, or some other major ailment that costs an average of 100k a year. For just that 1%, or 300K people, you will see 100% of the total budget used up. The other 29.7M people's medical costs along with all of the overhead will have to go on someone else's dime.
Because of the govt mandates and additional taxes. It would be like the govt charging UPS an extra $1 per package per day that it was delivered quicker than USPS could do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Those tax incentives, if there are any, wont cover half of what providing insurance would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
If you really think that, you really need to do some research into it. My quick bit of research says the biggest issues are defensive medicine, patients trying to get the newest and most expensive procedures even if other tests are just as good, although not always as pleasant, and medicare/medicaid underpayments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
That would be because the dems have never let a GOP bill onto the floor for debate. Its very easy for the dems to say the GOP hasnt offered a plan when you can control what discussions hit the floor of the chamber or a committee meeting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender