[Metticus]

It's a long read but the summary of it is that this 11 year old kid,Marcelas Owens , lost his mom. She lost her job, insureance, etc.
The pundits like Glen Beck, Limba, and Hannity are verbally attacking the 11 year old on t.v. They are saying it's etiher fake, or the democrates are useing his story to get healthcare.

http://news.yahoo.co...clatchy/3455226

I'm not goin to post the whole thing. Just my favorite part of the news

Quote

"Now this is unseemly, exploitative, an 11-year-old boy being forced to tell his story all over just to benefit the Democrat Party and Barack Obama ," Limbaugh said on March 12 , according to a transcript his show. "And, I would say this to Marcelas Owens : 'Well, your mom would still have died, because Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014.'"

niiiiiice




to lighten the mood. here is a short youtube clip from invader zim

This post has been edited by Metticus: 19 March 2010 - 09:42 AM

[Kenshiro]

Drive to Mexico
Go to the Doctor
Pay what you can
???
Profit.

They aren't dickheads about treating sick foreigners like Canada is, and they don't charge like lolUSA. Granted, if you aren't in Texas, Califas, etc it might not be a realistic option. Also, you can totally get Benzos down there without a prescription. good vibes etc.

[firefeng]

Kenshiro, on 19 March 2010 - 09:50 AM, said:

Drive to Mexico
Go to the Doctor
Pay what you can
???
Profit.

They aren't dickheads about treating sick foreigners like Canada is, and they don't charge like lolUSA. Granted, if you aren't in Texas, Califas, etc it might not be a realistic option. Also, you can totally get Benzos down there without a prescription. good vibes etc.

Mexico? Fuck that. I'd get treated at a clinic for pennies on the dollar, and then shot outside in some drug-related haberdashery. Cuba's where it's at. (Not a realistic option unless you live in Florida and own a self-propelled inner tube.)

[MrReinhardt]

I've said it before. Most states have healthcare that they can provide to low income families. IDK about if they did in her state. She should've gotten help anyway even if she couldn't afford it, an ER doctor wouldnt turn her away even if she had no insurance because of the Hippocratic oath.

[firefeng]

MrReinhardt, on 19 March 2010 - 10:28 AM, said:

I've said it before. Most states have healthcare that they can provide to low income families. IDK about if they did in her state. She should've gotten help anyway even if she couldn't afford it, an ER doctor wouldnt turn her away even if she had no insurance because of the Hippocratic oath.

The problem with the "ER doctor" argument is that her condition required "consistent and constant" care, and that her condition was already diagnosed. I'm not sure if you've been in an ER lately, but the extent of their care is usually limited to taking X-rays of the area you're complaining about to make sure your organs haven't exploded. Nothing is stopping me from going into the hospital and receiving some modicum of assistance, but with the present system receiving care that can be classified as "competent and comprehensive" is questionable, at best.

Regardless, Limbaugh/Beck/etc. maintain their quite-effective roles as galvanizing positions meant to shore up their opposition more than their own positions. Quite like Ann Coulter, actually. (I always question whether they're secretly rooting for liberals, what with the retarded lengths they traverse to alienate their supposed political party of choice.)

[Kenshiro]

I was under the impression that Glen Beck was a comedian whose gimmick was playing the ignorant, paranoid, ultra conservative republican.

[pathwriter]

If Glenn Beck is trying to be Stephen Colbert, he's not coming close. What I don't get is why so-called conservatives and Tea Party members and the like have any respect for a man who bursts into tears on queue. I at least understand why they like Rush Limbaugh, but I thought it was the liberals who liked pussies who show emotion?

What do we do with this problem? Disregard the mother, because the story and the outrage are really about how the pundits are approaching this rather than about the underlying problem that everyone already knows and acknowledges (even the neo-con pundits know healthcare is broken right now, they just argue about how to fix it). If we actually acknowledge that Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity are being assholes, we're giving them the exact same negative attention that they so desperately desire, same as a little kid throwing his food across the kitchen. If we ignore them, then we (and by "we" I mean rational individuals who are disgusted by this, regardless of political ideology) seem to have no sympathy for the kid being attacked. How do you deal with it, especially when there are people cheering these idiots on? With a kid, unless mommy or daddy is an enabler, there are plenty of ways of reinforcing good behavior and demotivating bad behavior, but what do you do with middle-aged infants being enabled by millions and, more to the point, by media companies making a mint off their manufactured controversy?

I really don't know. A part of me badly just wants to stifle them, but that goes against the First Amendment, which enumerates rights I take quite seriously. Is there a way, in a country with a right to free speech, to dismantle someone's ability to broadcast their inflammatory and reprehensible opinions? The best I can think is to find a way to kill their market, but I'm not sure that's possible without literally killing their listeners. It'd probably help if we had an education system that was actually designed and intended to educate, but our present model is implicitly built to create obedience first and foremost. Obedience necessarily requires a healthy dose of ignorance.

[Sotose]

If my madre is el enfermo
but me familia es too much of a sanguijuela on society,
does that mean the gringo's still have to my impuestos?

[Fencer of Alexander]

Sotose, on 19 March 2010 - 12:04 PM, said:

If my madre is el enfermo
but me familia es too much of a sanguijuela on society,
does that mean the gringo's still have to my impuestos?

ESTAS MINTIENDO !

/CARA ENOJADA

[Varizen]

pathwriter, on 19 March 2010 - 11:55 AM, said:

If Glenn Beck is trying to be Stephen Colbert, he's not coming close. What I don't get is why so-called conservatives and Tea Party members and the like have any respect for a man who bursts into tears on queue. I at least understand why they like Rush Limbaugh, but I thought it was the liberals who liked pussies who show emotion?

Most of us self respecting conservatives hate Glenn Beck. That being said, with the evangelical take over of the party, there's not every many of those self respecting conservatives left ~_~

The fact the GOP panders to evangelicals and their "moral" agendas so badly is what's killing the party. I hope so badly a 3rd party candidate that isn't crazy makes it in 2012.

[MrReinhardt]

don't forget the nazi party supports the republicans as well!

[TresDuendes]

Varizen, on 19 March 2010 - 01:14 PM, said:

Most of us self respecting conservatives hate Glenn Beck. That being said, with the evangelical take over of the party, there's not every many of those self respecting conservatives left ~_~

The fact the GOP panders to evangelicals and their "moral" agendas so badly is what's killing the party. I hope so badly a 3rd party candidate that isn't crazy makes it in 2012.

haha, republicunts being effected by split vote and not democants? delicious

[pathwriter]

Varizen, on 19 March 2010 - 01:14 PM, said:

I hope so badly a 3rd party candidate that isn't crazy makes it in 2012.

You had your chance with McCain, chief. I was an adamant Clinton backer, I have made no attempt to hide that, but I'd have voted for McCain in a heartbeat if he hadn't decided to go batshit and start listening to the current noisemachine running his so-called party. In the entire history of the US, how many Presidents have been third party? I'm bad with history, but I seem to recall that Theodore Roosevelt pulled it off, but only for a re-election, right? And there were one or two back when people remembered that there was no difference between the opposing sides of a two-party system (reference Gulliver's Travels if you think no one recognized the failures of a two-party system centuries ago).

We need a systemic overhaul. At the end of the day, though, we could do just fine with the shysters and cheats and amoral globs of sputum we call politicians. They're the same people who have run this and every other country since someone came up with the bright idea of having a tribal chief in the first place, not that you'll get many people to willingly admit it. Our current problem is the growth of the business of media and the destruction of the business of news. The most trusted newscaster on television right now is a two-bit comedian whose "real" career peaked back when most of us didn't even have hair on our nuts and who is supposed to be broadcasting a mockery that should've gone off the air years ago. Instead, since Columbine and September 11th (and, honestly, Operation Desert Storm deserves a lot of credit, too), it's become increasingly impossible to acquire news from the people who actually list "newscaster" on their CV and we're left with people firing off baseless opinion not even disguised as fact. We'd honestly get better news reporting if we cut the power to every news radio and TV station in the country and forced people to rely exclusively on Twitter. And what worries me is that I'm pretty sure I'm not exaggerating.

So what do we do with these pundits who have the politicians wrapped around their little fingers? I honestly think the best first step would be compulsory voting. I'd feel a lot better knowing that my country is a bunch of inbred, redneck, racist moonshiners who will happily shoot their neighbor for being the wrong color or speaking the wrong language (and in many parts of the country, that means being white and speaking English nowadays) as long as I was assured of that fact by election results. I'd probably try to leave the country to find the one town in France that's heard of bath soap, mind you, but I'd be happier knowing that our politics are appropriately representative of the electorate.

[MrReinhardt]

Path I like the idea of a third party president. Unfortunately lately most of their choices are luke warm or they just don't have enough money to heavily campaign as much as dems or reps.

[Levian]

Actually Theodore Roosevelt didn't win that, he split the republican vote in half and allowed the democrats to slip Taft into office. Though admittedly I had to look that up to double check. I don't think there's ever been a third party president.

[Cruzandercerberus]

Ha, Ha, third parties...

Ron Paul is just as shitty of a choice as Ralph Nader or crackpot Lyndon Larouche. Maybe you can galvanize a few single issue voters under one or the other of them (Generally some shit that doesn't really matter like pot legalization, or some misguided monetary reform that would conveniently make their supporters filthy stinking rich), but that alone just doesn't make a political party.

pathwriter, on 20 March 2010 - 03:20 AM, said:

So what do we do with these pundits who have the politicians wrapped around their little fingers? I honestly think the best first step would be compulsory voting. I'd feel a lot better knowing that my country is a bunch of inbred, redneck, racist moonshiners who will happily shoot their neighbor for being the wrong color or speaking the wrong language (and in many parts of the country, that means being white and speaking English nowadays) as long as I was assured of that fact by election results. I'd probably try to leave the country to find the one town in France that's heard of bath soap, mind you, but I'd be happier knowing that our politics are appropriately representative of the electorate.

I know you've heard the axiom "People get the government they deserve." I don't feel that we need to force the issue. There's enough incentive for gerrymandering and creating publicly funded welfare voter factories as it is. As for what the government under compulsory voting would look like... It's pretty much what we have now under Democrat rule. The Democrats can't ever manage to stay unified as a party. Every time they rule they turn into clowns fighting over scraps and make themselves look silly. They have no ideology and their "rainbow" coalition all has different and often opposing goals. As soon as they get in power those groups start battling for the first hit off the titty and they in-fight like crazy thus bringing the GOP back to the forefront. How long this takes generally depends on the scope of their domestic agenda.

This post has been edited by Cruzandercerberus: 21 March 2010 - 05:05 PM

[pathwriter]

Cruzandercerberus, on 21 March 2010 - 04:38 PM, said:

The Democrats can't ever manage to stay unified as a party. Every time they rule they turn into clowns fighting over scraps and make themselves look silly. They have no ideology and their "rainbow" coalition all has different and often opposing goals. As soon as they get in power those groups start battling for the first hit off the titty and they in-fight like crazy thus bringing the GOP back to the forefront. How long this takes generally depends on the scope of their domestic agenda.

You say that as though the Republicans are any different. There's a clear and distinct reason why we tend to change party control of DC every decade or so. Let's not pretend that the Republicans are some unified front of exploitative racist white men determined to sell the American citizenry into slavery. For one, they can't decide what kind of slavery they most prefer and they even have a few token coloreds that they keep locked in a cupboard. Let's not pretend that the Republicans are any more about personal freedom and small government than the Democrats are about social equality and reliable governmental oversight.

[Kenshiro]

Ralph Nader is awesome, fuck you. Maybe not the best choice for president, but I think he's a pretty cool guy eh doesn't afraid of anythin etc.

[Avatarius]

Kenshiro, on 21 March 2010 - 06:03 PM, said:

Ralph Nader is awesome, fuck you. Maybe not the best choice for president, but I think he's a pretty cool guy eh doesn't afraid of anythin etc.

This post has been edited by Avatarius: 21 March 2010 - 06:29 PM

[Kenshiro]

What is this I don't even