2012.02.15
The wacky Wednesday OPEN thread
TampAGS | Wikimedia Commons
“He’s a snake in the grass, I’ll tell you guys
He may look dumb, but that’s just a disguise
He’s a mastermind in the ways of espionage.”
Charlie Daniels
« Of sonograms and healthcare and HPV on the Post of the Day! | Santorum’s ‘Rombo’ ad goes after paintball-shooting Romney »
I posted this on yesterday’s thread because today’s didn’t show up until just now… anyway…
Made it to Starbucks at Valley View yesterday to participate in the Brady Bunch protest.
http://s9.postimage.org/vir7p7gxb/431610_3360337127900_1253215066_33266555_2144147.jpg
Did anyone else make it to Starbucks?
Comment by Jack — February 15, 2012 @ 1:06 pm
Just a note about truly decent people (right, left and middle) leaving the blog: This blog is entirely what we make of it. While Dan can mod to a certain degree, part of the appeal is wide openess of it or at least that is my opinion. We seem to be forgetting lately that it is entirely within our control to engage, disengage or simply not engage with posters or issues that create annoyance for us personally.
The constant attacks coming from all directions has gotten childish lately and I think we could all be reminded to tone it down so that we don’t lose the most interesting people that post here because it will truly be the most mature among us that will cut their losses first and go do something better. Does that make sense? Police yourselves better or lose a nice community. Just my two cents.
Comment by Miriam — February 15, 2012 @ 1:21 pm
@1 And I posted on the other thread that the picture just cracks me up.
Comment by Miriam — February 15, 2012 @ 1:29 pm
Finally a legislative leader who shows some level of intelligence.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120214/NEWS05/202140366?odyssey=mod|mostcom
Comment by Ron — February 15, 2012 @ 3:57 pm
Here’s my favorite passage in the story about the creationism bill Ron cites:
“The bill approved by the [Indiana] state Senate would have permitted local school districts to teach creationism as long as the curriculum also incorporated origin-of-life theories from multiple religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology. “
Because here’s the chief origin-of-life theory from Scientology: 75 million years ago, an evil galactic warlord named Xenu brought billions of his subjects to earth in spacecraft that bore a curious resemblance to DC8s. He stacked them in volcanoes, then exploded hydrogen bombs on the volcanoes, sealing their souls inside. Over time, they have leaked out, and get in our heads and cause us harm that Scientology processing can effectively treat.
I’m not making this up but Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard may indeed have been when he came up with this stuff in 1966.
“In a letter of the time to his wife Mary Sue, Hubbard said that, in order to assist his research, he was drinking alcohol and taking stimulants and depressants (“I’m drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys”). His assistant at the time, Virginia Downsborough, said that she had to wean him off the diet of drugs to which he had become accustomed.”
Comment by Dan Casey — February 15, 2012 @ 4:10 pm
A gift I received from my sons at Christmas was a record player that permits me to transfer music from old LP records from the 1950s, 60s & 70s. Since Christmas I’ve been transferring songs from my old LPs to CDs and an MP3 player. It’s been a real trip down memory lane. Last night I was transferring songs from an LP by the Rascals (originally the Little Rascals) when I was taken back to my first year in Grad School by one song. The song is “People Just Want to be Free.” Below is a youtube version. While listening to this particular LP I was transported back to the 1960s and all the memories of that time in our country’s history. The song linked below was released after the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy. Also going on that spring and summer was something called the Prague Spring. That’s when the people of Czechoslovakia rose up against the communist government in place at the time and the Soviets who really controlled the country. A grad school classmate was a native Czech and his mother and brother still lived there. He had hoped during the uprising to get them out and to the U.S. I will never forget the night when we came back to the grad student house where we were living at the time. My classmate watched as his hopes to get his family to the U.S. were crushed. He never saw his family again.
Anyway, those of you who are old enough will remember the conflict our country was going through in the 1960s. It’s my view that we were more divided then than we are today. The song linked below was a response to the conflict going on then. Listen to it and listen especially to the lyrics. I think there’s a suggestion or two in it that might advise us how to get through this current time in our country’s history.
Today I called each of my sons and thanked them once again for my Christmas present. I’m enjoying all the old music and glad to get it all on new technology for today. Enjoy my fellow bloggers!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsg4vPlSfAo
Comment by Ron — February 15, 2012 @ 6:09 pm
Scientologists do not believe in Psychiatry and certain brain related illnesses like Autism, so will not seek treatment for them. I guess they wouldn’t provide coverage for these ailments to non-scientology employees.
Comment by Hillary — February 15, 2012 @ 6:17 pm
Ron, coincidentally, the blogger known here as Elena also got one of those whizbangs for Christmas. She loves hers, too.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 15, 2012 @ 7:24 pm
Miriam:
“Police yourselves better or lose a nice community.”
I completely agree. While I’ve only posted here since fall and it was like that when I got here, at least I’ve made a point of honoring Dan’s request on every thread of “keeping the language civil.” The facetious and sarcastic comments designed to make a point are one thing, but the grenade throwings and name callings are another. Thanks for reminding us to act like the professionals that we are.
Comment by John Wilburn — February 15, 2012 @ 8:00 pm
Today, Rep Scott Garrett R-NJ basically sunk 0bamacare. Garrett got 0bama’s budget director Jeffrey Zients to say the penalty for not paying the fine for not buying insurance under 0bamacare did not amount to a tax. This is huge because the administration’s entire case before the Supreme Court depends upon the fine being called a tax. Constitutionally, the federal government is allowed to levy a taxes, but is not allowed to mandate an activity then punish or fine non-compliance.
0bama has been trying to play it as a non-tax in order to keep his pledge to not raise taxes for those making less than $250,000. He’s trying to have it both ways.
This admission is HUGE, as it may well unravel the administration’s case and get 0bamacare declared unconstitutional.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5KuTNQIDQ8
GARRETT: “You did just say that there are no tax increases for those folks making under $250,000. Now, if I am part of a family who does not buy health insurance, in violation of the president’s health care program, and I’ve gotta pay a fine because of that, that is not a tax on me?”
ZIENTS: The Affordable Care Act saves money.
GARRETT: I understand that, but is that a tax on me then if I do not pay that, or is that not a tax?
ZIENTS: I’m not sure I’m following the question.
GARRETT: You said there are no tax increases on people making under $250,000. If I make under $250,000, and I do not buy health insurance as I’m required to, is that a tax on me or is that not a tax on me?
ZIENTS: Well –
GARRETT: A moment ago you said there’s no tax in it. So that’s not a tax?
ZIENTS: No.
GARRETT: That’s not a tax. Okay, I just want to be clear on that because that’s not the argument that the administration’s making before the Supreme Court.
Checkmate, Mr. Zients. Caught like a rat in a trap. Beautifully done.
Comment by Suzie — February 15, 2012 @ 8:10 pm
Ron, I agree…best gift ever! Makes you feel young again, doesn’t it? Can’t put a price on that
Comment by Elena — February 15, 2012 @ 9:34 pm
“Gas prices soaring back to painful levels”
your marxist dictator says this is because the economy is growing….man this guy has no brain, just an empty sad pathetic space…no brain would want to move in there
Comment by pammala — February 16, 2012 @ 6:14 am
I think I’m going in the opposite direction… I’ve all but stopped paying for digital music, and started buying vinyl again. It just sounds so much better, especially with the advances in manufacturing technique. They put records on this super thick 180g audiophile virgin vinyl and it just sounds awesome.
I found a bunch of old records from my parents days and have been going through them all. I have little desire to see the songs digitized (and compressed).
I remember as a kid playing records and cassettes and doing nothing but listening to the music. Since the MP3 Generation began, Music has just been background noise while I complete some other task. Going back to Vinyl has let me feel that same joy with music again.
Comment by scott — February 16, 2012 @ 8:38 am
Just a note about truly decent people (right, left and middle) leaving the blog:
What decent leftwinger has left the blog?
Comment by Suzie — February 16, 2012 @ 9:16 am
Pammala, will you at least read up a little on topics before you post about them? You’re consistently embarrassing yourself.
Gas prices are soaring — despite dropping gasoline demand and no supply interruptions — because speculators have injected billions into futures-market bets that prices are going to rise. The same thing happened in 2008.
Maybe some a trying to hedge against an attack by Israel on Iran, but the others are just putting their roulette chips on the table.
This is the free market you love at work with a vengeance, honey.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 16, 2012 @ 9:22 am
“Gas prices soaring back to painful levels”
your marxist dictator says this is because the economy is growing….man this guy has no brain, just an empty sad pathetic space…no brain would want to move in there
That’s incredible, Pammala. And the Obamamedia lets him get away with it. With Bush when gas prices weren’t even this high, he was “enriching his oil buddies”.
You have to wonder if Obama is stupid enough to believe high oil means a growing economy. I actually think he’s in on the con. He’s now unillaterally disarming our nukes. I’ve said it before, if a president’s goal was to systematically dismantle the United States, how would his methods differ from what Obama is doing?
Comment by Suzie — February 16, 2012 @ 9:23 am
“Gas prices are soaring — despite dropping gasoline demand and no supply interruptions — because speculators have injected billions into futures-market bets that prices are going to rise. The same thing happened in 2008.” aka manipulation
Comment by Ken — February 16, 2012 @ 9:25 am
12.“Gas prices soaring back to painful levels”
Don’t worry, they’ll come down a little before the election. They always do… for a short time, anyway.
Comment by John Wilburn — February 16, 2012 @ 9:27 am
This is the free market you love at work with a vengeance, honey
No, in a free market, American oil companies wouldn’t be prevented from drilling for the plentiful oil in and around their own country by a socialist administration.
Comment by Suzie — February 16, 2012 @ 9:29 am
12 and 13. Pammala and Dan – As Dan has stated, the rise in price in crude oil has to do with speculators anticipating war with Iran and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz and the Worldwide boycott of Iranian Oil as dictated by Congress. The President cannot control either of these without declaring a National Security emergency and releasing oil from our reserves. However, the price of crude does not explain the majority of the increase as shown if you compare the crude oil increase to the increase in gas at the pumps.
The majority of the increase has been caused by the shutdown of an east coast refinery by its oil company owner. According to the oil company, they have shut the refinery down because it is unable to process the cheaper heavy crude oil now on the market and can only process light crude that is more expensive and form the Middle East. Accordingly it is not making as much money from this refinery. Two more east coast refineries are slated to be shut down as well for the same reasons. The loss of the refined product is increasing the price of gasoline.
The second factor in refined product cost is we are now exporting refined gasoline to the World in greater quantities.
Unless Obama declares a National Emergency and steps in to control our oil and gasoline supplies, we are at the mercy of Big Energy and the market. Obviously, that would have the TP screaming about socialism and government takeover, however, if the oil companies persist in destroying the economy with their pricing, it may become necessary.
Comment by Richard J Beason, CPA — February 16, 2012 @ 9:39 am
The ironic things is, if Obama declared a national emergency, pammala would rush to her keyboard and declare him a dictator for that act.
She would do the same if he was somehow able to lower the price of gas to $1.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 16, 2012 @ 9:44 am
#10 most ill-informed you aren’t suppose to lift entire written “talking points” without giving the source… it makes it seem like you can put a thought together. Plagiarism anyone?
Here is where some of the exact wording for the comments were lifted,[hint: not from you tube]:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/15/budget_director_undercuts_regime_s_obamacare_supreme_court_argument
Comment by Hillary — February 16, 2012 @ 9:47 am
and to prove the above point…Ahhhh and just as we suspected:
RIGHT-WINGERS TEND TO BE LESS INTELLIGENT THAN LEFT-WINGERS, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.
Conservative politics work almost as a ‘gateway’ into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.
The paper analyzed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.
The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.
Crucially, people’s educational level is not what determines whether they are racist or not – it’s innate intelligence, according to the academics.
Social status also appears to play no part.
The study, published in “Psychological Science”, claims that right-wing ideology forms a ‘pathway’ for people with low reasoning ability to become prejudiced against groups such as other races and gay people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study–conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html
Comment by Hillary — February 16, 2012 @ 9:49 am
“The majority of the increase has been caused by the shutdown of an east coast refinery by its oil company owner.”
That was mentioned on the news the other evening …. again, someone chose to close the refinery, even though we are exporting fuel.
aka …. manipulation of the market
Comment by Ken — February 16, 2012 @ 9:49 am
@21 Ack, Hillary, I was actually going to compliment Suzie on making a post that stated her point of view without going over the edge. I actually appreciated it even though I disagreed with everything it said (of course). Now you are ruining that moment for me. HUG
Comment by Miriam — February 16, 2012 @ 9:51 am
@ Scott … the other nice thing with vinyl records was the art on the album covers – I think in those days the art was often better and of course it was large enough to see well too
Comment by Ken — February 16, 2012 @ 9:53 am
Ken,
We get that quite a bit here in the midwest. Demand drops and prices drop so BP or one of the other companies with refineries in the midwest “suddenly & unexpectedly” has a problem with a part of the refinery and it has to be partially or totally shut down for several weeks or months. Of course that is announced with great fanfare and the speculators jump on like a hungry dog on a bone. Prices jump. But it’s all the fault of someone else besides the oil company manipulating the market to begin with.
Sort of like all the hullabaloo over the Keystone Pipeline that TransCanada is paying certain congressional members to get through. Of course the story is that building the pipeline will enable the U.S. to cut its dependance on foreign oil. The oil is from Canada which the last time I checked was a foreign country. Second, a pipeline to midwest refineries already exists so if the Canadian oil was intended for the U.S. we wouldn’t need a pipeline to Louisiana ports. Third, the intent has always been to ship the oil overseas so it really isn’t going to help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. But I digress.
Comment by Ron — February 16, 2012 @ 10:04 am
#19 You mean socialists like George Bush, who stopped drilling off of Florida because Jeb was afraid tourism might be ruined?
Comment by gdad — February 16, 2012 @ 10:57 am
#10 most ill-informed you aren’t suppose to lift entire written “talking points” without giving the source… it makes it seem like you can put a thought together. Plagiarism anyone?
Here is where some of the exact wording for the comments were lifted,[hint: not from you tube]:
What the hell are you talking about? Youtube was the linked source and the dialogue is contained in the video. Dialogue is not property of Rush Limbaugh just because he may have included it.
Losing it, ain’t ya, honey?
Comment by Suzie — February 16, 2012 @ 11:21 am
23
Hillary continues her string of links from extremist leftwing nutball sources.
All you have to do is listen to arguments from the two sides to realize which side has the intellect. Because liberal ideas never work and always fail, proponents of them are, by definition, idiots. It’s very similar to calling someone who quotes a book on ‘winning at casino roulette’ smart. You can’t be smart if you only believe dumb things.
Comment by Suzie — February 16, 2012 @ 11:27 am
@30 However, you also can’t be smart if you believe your answers to life’s difficult question are the only valid ones.
“A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation.” Moliere
“Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.” Plato
Comment by Miriam — February 16, 2012 @ 12:12 pm
if the oil companies persist in destroying the economy with their pricing, it may become necessary.
“CPA” Richard Beason continues to demonstrate his ignorance of the financial markets. Oil companies are as responsible for gasoline prices as the snack delivery driver is for the price of Doritos.
Comment by Suzie — February 16, 2012 @ 12:15 pm
“Oil companies are as responsible for gasoline prices as the snack delivery driver is for the price of Doritos.”
There’s a long history in this nation of oil companies conspiring with each other regarding price and supply for the purpose of an economic advantage.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 16, 2012 @ 1:19 pm
#26, yep, Ken. that’s exactly why I love listening to the records and handling the sleeves. Some of the art/pictures are downright funny too. I found this record by Graham Central Station called “Ain’t No Bout A Doubt It” and it is a prime example of this.
That and it has a song on it called “The Jam” which is the largest chunk of funk I’ve heard in a long time.
Comment by scott — February 16, 2012 @ 2:03 pm
#29 you obviously used Rush Limbaugh’s comments as if they were yours, as they did not appear in quotation marks nor credit given to him – now if you don’t understand that it explains soooo much.
For example, you posted, “Today, Rep Scott Garrett R-NJ basically sunk 0bamacare. Garrett got 0bama’s budget director Jeffrey Zients to say the penalty for not paying the fine for not buying insurance under 0bamacare did not amount to a tax. This is huge because the administration’s entire case before the Supreme Court depends upon the fine being called a tax. Constitutionally, the federal government is allowed to levy a taxes, but is not allowed to mandate an activity then punish or fine non-compliance.”
Those were not from the interview by Garrett et al. Those were Rush Limbaugh’s take on that interview posted @10. You did not give credit to Limbaugh but posted it as if it was you “thinking this up”. If you were going to use his remarks they should have been like this: “blah blah” – not without quotation marks. The reason I found out it wasn’t “your” words because they were written in a fairly coherent way – I knew it couldn’t be you thinking this up – and as you adore Limbaugh, all I had to do is cross reference Garrett and Limbaugh – and there were “your” words – right there credited to Limbaugh – you were easily exposed.
Now, be a good little plagiarist and go away.
Comment by Hillary — February 16, 2012 @ 3:40 pm
#32 Wow are you a dolt, troll suzie. Or a troll. Or both.
Comment by gdad — February 17, 2012 @ 12:09 pm
For example, you posted, “Today, Rep Scott Garrett R-NJ basically sunk 0bamacare. Garrett got 0bama’s budget director Jeffrey Zients to say the penalty for not paying the fine for not buying insurance under 0bamacare did not amount to a tax. This is huge because the administration’s entire case before the Supreme Court depends upon the fine being called a tax. Constitutionally, the federal government is allowed to levy a taxes, but is not allowed to mandate an activity then punish or fine non-compliance.”
Those were not from the interview by Garrett et al. Those were Rush Limbaugh’s take on that posted @10. You did not give credit to Limbaugh but posted it as if it was you “thinking this up”. If you were going to use his remarks they should have been like this: “blah blah” – not without quotation marks.
You’re crazy as hell, honey. These aren’t even close to the words Rush used. They may express the same sentiment as Rush, and I heard it on Rush first, but these aren’t Rush’s words; They’re mine.
Here is the transcript from Rush. Show us where the plagiarism is:
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Obama’s budget director. What’s this guy’s name? (interruption) What? No, no, no. That’s the chief of staff. This guy’s name is Zients, Z-i-e-n-t-s. Anyway, he was being questioned by a Republican congressman from New Jersey today Scott Garrett, on C-SPAN3 and he’s being asked questions about Obama’s budget. And, for example, Scott Garrett says (paraphrased exchange): “Will there be a tax increase on those making under $200,000 in Obama’s budget?” The budget director says, “No.” Then Scott Garrett says, “Well, if it’s a tax when a family doesn’t buy a health insurance policy as mandated by Obamacare and they have to pay the government for making that decision, is it a tax?”
And Zients says, “No, it’s not a tax.” But yet the regime is arguing before the Supreme Court that it is a tax and that’s what makes it constitutional! The regime is arguing before the Supreme Court on this mandate business that the fine that you pay for not buying insurance mandated by Obamacare is a tax. In questioning today on the budget on Capitol Hill Obama’s budget director says, “No, it’s not a tax,” because if it’s a tax then Obama is lying about the fact that nobody under 200 grand will see a tax increase. Then Garrett asks, “If the president’s budget passes tomorrow, when will the budget come into balance?” There are no answers!
The problem is that this poor budget director sent up there to defend a campaign document, not a budget.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is big. It has, or could have, let me put it that way, could have major consequences for Obama’s lawsuit at the Supreme Court where they are defending the individual mandate as constitutional at the US Supreme Court. The administration, the regime is defending Obamacare in court on the ground that the fines, the money Americans have to pay under the mandate, if they don’t buy insurance, is a tax. They are saying it is a tax, therefore, and they have the power to levy taxes. It’s not a fine. It’s not a mandate. It’s a tax, and therefore they have the ability to do this, and therefore Obamacare’s constitutional.
The only problem is that the Obama budget director is up on Capitol Hill today, and he’s being peppered with questions about Obama’s latest campaign document, the budget. Let’s go to the audio sound bites. I mentioned this a moment ago. Representative Scott Garrett, Republican, New Jersey. “You did just say that there are no tax increases for those folks making under $250,000. Now, if I am part of a family who does not buy health insurance, in violation of the president’s health care program, and I’ve gotta pay a fine because of that, that is not a tax on me?”
And now the whole room sees that Hillary is nothing but another crazy leftwinger who makes crap up.
Comment by Suzie — February 17, 2012 @ 3:10 pm
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/15/budget_director_undercuts_regime_s_obamacare_supreme_court_argument
Link for Rush’s transcript above
Comment by Suzie — February 17, 2012 @ 3:11 pm
And we also notice neither Hillary nor any other leftwinger has much to say about 0bama’s two-step on the issue of whether 0bamacare amounts to a tax. He’s either lying about tax hikes or admitting 0bamacare is unconstitutional.
No lefty wants to weight in? That’s understandable.
Comment by Suzie — February 17, 2012 @ 3:14 pm
32. Troll – your knowledge of economics is special to say the least.
Comment by Richard J Beason, CPA — February 17, 2012 @ 7:05 pm
“Your knowledge of economics is special to say the least.”
Yeah, she read The Wealth of Nations” in an econ class that started with the number 0 as “extra credit,” and she used to love it until she learned on this blog that Adam Smith favored labor unions and prescribed tort lawsuits as the remedy of corporate abuses.
Now, of course, she thinks the the book is a leftist plot.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 17, 2012 @ 10:02 pm
#39 most ill-informed. I don’t answer the volumes of stupid and right wing propaganda that you spew on a daily, if not minute by minute, basis, but so you can catch up with the truth, I will attempt to enlighten the dimmest bulb I have ever known. You really need to do your own research…
Why you with the talking points of the RWer media keep repeating the ignorance of Affordable Health Care Act being a tax, is because the state challenges to it by the Republican states being heard in State, Federal and ultimately the Supreme Court are on the grounds that it is a “new tax”. The Republican Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law as written by the Administration includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity [Commerce Clause] important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority. The Obama Administration, planned to defend the AHCA under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. However, Republicans framed the challenge as a “new tax”, which would then be under the “General Welfare Clause” [which was the same clause used for the Social Security Act challenge.] The Republican’s have challenged the mandate in separate state and Federal Courts under their premise of a new tax – General Welfare Clause which brings the challenges to a tax battlefield. To fight the mandate ‘s challenge, the Administration has to fight the Republican challenge on it being a “new tax” – so that is the terminology RWers repeat so dolts like you can pick up that phrase…a new tax!
The transcript of the President’s own words on this bogus Republican spin, during an interview with George Stephanopoulos:
“The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.
People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UcxU8PtzRs&feature=player_embedded
Comment by Hillary — February 18, 2012 @ 11:37 am