"Our opposition.." You are the voice of the liberal board?
Posted By: Observer on 2007-10-19
In Reply to: just bidin' our time . . . - reveille
Guffaw.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I don't see where she said "our opposition"
or where she said she spoke for the liberal board. Can you cite your source for this information?
I took her post to mean she was speaking for other like-minded folks, whether on this board or not. I should think you would have guessed that but perhaps you were too busy laughing hysterically. You seem to enjoy laughing at other people.
The MSM has been a liberal political voice for years
what's the beef about. What does freedom of the press have to do with foreign countries? That argument withstanding the military has published articles for years in foreign newspapers. It happened after WWII and wars previous and subsequent to that, but just because this administration is doing it it's all of the sudden a problem.
the conservative board is a liberal board now
you all aren't happy until you infect everyone out there with your hatred. It's not something I'd very proud of.
get off the liberal board
Why must you conservatives continue to post here? We dont want you or your ideology posted here..Bush is to fault, for gosh sakes, he even admitted it..in his pea brain he kind of realizes he was wrong in his response..
get off the liberal board
Can you not read English? Get off the liberal board, fool..bye bye..get out of here..
thought this was the liberal board
you know, the stench of all stenches! you don't have to read anything here, especially if it gugs ya! Sorry. But I don't feel about "shrub" the same as you. So what does that make you? Better than everybody else? Okay then you put up with him, but I'm not gonna take his lies, his rude remarks as in "Oh, we didn't find WMDs, did we?" as he laughs at a fund-raising during the time that our troops are dying for him...Put that in your pipe...Them's is facts!
It's not your right to bash her - this is the liberal board
As I said, if you have a problem with liberal ideology being expressed on this board, you need to contact the administrator as she is the one that helped toward having the two boards and requested many times to not bash. Can you understand that?
Go over to the conservative board, and look for *you must be a liberal if* sm
and I'm sure there are some other pieces over there that you might find comical. Then let us know if you still think this is the most stereotypical thing you have EVER read.
It's meant to humor liberals. That's why it's on a liberal board. :):):)
Why a liberal and a conservative board?
I don't get this. Why is there a board for liberals and a board for conservatives? It's not like no one comes to the liberal board who isn't, and what fun would that be, anyway? And is everyone comfortable with the labels? I consider myself a liberal on many issues, but there are some issues on which I would agree with conservatives. For instance, I want less government (which Bush supposedly wants, ha!). I think people ought to be able to bears arms and it's a real good thing for Iraq that Saddam Hussein didn't keep them from having them, so now they can try to repel the foreign invaders. Just a couple of issues for which no label really works....
Excuse me, but this is the liberal board.
The only person who isn't respecting it is you.
This is the liberal board and I'll do as I please. (NT)
Is this the liberal board anymore?
I give you Democrats and/or liberals credit for even being able to respond to the right wing who for some reason, I just cannot understand why, constantly come over to the liberal board and post more than the liberals do and every post is a disagreement or outright attack towards the liberal poster who posted on the liberal board..I frankly have had it with the Republicans. They have messed up America with their backward way of thinking and they still dont get it. Their party is falling apart and they are looking at more Democrats being voted in yet they still spew their hate, bias, closed mindedness..From Limbaugh to Coulter to Falwell to Robertson, Dobson, Hannity, etc., etc., they show the world how uninformed and racist and backward they are..and the Republican masses follow blindly. I just about choked on the latest idiotic comment by Coulter concerning Christians and Jews. Someone needs to set that broad straight real fast. The comments she made that Jews need to be perfected is a mind set right out of Hitlers Germany. Oh and all you Republicans who will wander over to the liberal board and real this, dont waste the energy, I will not respond to your posts nor read them. This is a post to my fellow Democrats/liberals.
What's brining you over here to the LIBERAL board is the question????
Do some self evaluation before you try to check me chick!
Please remember this is the liberal board and try to respect that.
It's the liberal board and it's for liberal discussion topics. If you want to change that you need to contact the administrator. Please don't bash.
Your permission is not necessary for her to "spout" on the LIBERAL board.
Apparently you had forgotten.
Since when are you the judge of what is more stimulating on a LIBERAL board?
I don't find anything you write to be stimulating, intelligent, educational or worthy of debate. And as far as patting people on the back, that's what you do on the Conservative board. You bash liberals, ALL liberals, EVERY LIBERAL IN THE WORLD, and then the people with the crudest, rudest insults against liberals are patted on the back and high-fived by the rest of you.
Liberals don't discuss things like Repuglicants do. We would rather be civil with people and find you incredibly distasteful human beings. They obviously call you neoCONS for a reason. Your posts are nothing but litter...trash...garbage, and I for one, can't relate to and don't want to communicate with people who do nothing but prove how ignorant, childish, hateful, nasty, untruthful and uncouth they are. Is this really the image you want to portray of your party? Because that's what you're doing.
Why can't you just be happy on your own board and stay away from people who have asked you repeatedly to stay away because we're not interested in your rhetoric and your attacks? Or, like your president, aren't you happy unless you're destroying things?
This is the liberal board. She can scream all she wants. If you don't like it, LEAVE.
Thank you for your valuable contribution to the Liberal Board.
This is the liberal board. Please do not bash the posters here. Thank you. nm
\\
Wow....an aspiring Ann Coulter right here on the liberal board...
what a hateful, bigoted rant, vrt...are there any Jewish people in my neck of the woods? Christians get a sensivity chip in their brains? Wow...you sound a lot like the person you are slamming. Pot, kettle, BIG TIME.
Okay...Al Franken made a terribly offensive remark toward gays. Yet the left blew that off. Media totally did not report it. Some said he was *joking.* Do you think gays found that funny?
Your protests ring hollow when you accept it on your side and criticize on the other...I don't see where you have any high moral ground to speak from.
Your post speaks to it.
When I said she was an entertainer, I said that is what she does. And it is what she does. I never said I liked it and in fact said it WAS offensive and wrong. Yet you want to attack me personally because of semantics. AL Franken is also an entertainer. He has made terrible, offensive, nasty comments. I don't watch him. I don't listen to Coulter either.
As to your "freaking ignorant" comment...perhaps people in glass houses should not throw stones.
Yeah....liberal compassion. I see a LOT of that on this board....
laughable. But again, skirted entirely around the issue.
What liberal board did you copy this smut
__
I see that no liberal on this board was outraged by your post...sm
Did you also see in the news about the walls outside of congressional offices, new furniture being thrown out, as well as files and files of personal info?
Where is the outrage about this? I could only find it on Fox, so obviously the liberal media could care less.
I guess this has been going on for some time, but still....it really makes me mad....
....just like the fact that they voted themselves raises and are hoping no one would notice........
Why are you starting these dumb @$$ threads on the liberal board?
x
Looking back on the liberal conservative board shows you for what you are.
Liar.
This board is for liberal posters. Do not bash their posts. sm
Thank you.
Now, now, GT, that is precisely the kind of post that belongs on the Liberal Board!
Do you know where we can find one? 
That's interesting, coming from one of the most judgment neocons on the liberal board.
But lately, you;ve contributed daily to the toxic liberal posts on this board.
As much as that "our God should beat their god(s)"
Plenty of pastor shame to go around. Why do you suppose McCain has put Rev. Wright on his "off limits" list?
I see the liberal left on this board...save one "sm" could care less for your post....sm
Dems everywhere want total control, and obviously could care less what happens once that is obtained.
So you brook no opposition. I see. sm
Although I was totally respectful in my post, you viciously attacked me. I see that is a pattern for you no matter what. Rest assured, this is a board I will not visit again.
If you would be as honest in your postings to opposition..
as you are in postings to those who agree with you, and post in a civil manner the same way you post to Lurker...i.e., you state above (I know we TRY to take care of our poor)...but you certainly did not say that to me. You made it sound like we do nothing to take care of our poor. I personally think it should the be responsibility of individual Americans through private donations to take care of our poor, not the responsibility of the government through taxation. The reason that does not work is that while many pay lip service to the poor, they are not willing unless forced to do just that. And that happens on both sides of the aisle. It is not a political party thing. It is a human nature thing. In a perfect world, if you could trust exactly what people say is what they would do, then the Democrats in this country alone could take care of the poor through personal donations. I do not mean they should do it alone...I am trying to make a point here. It should not be necessary to tax people in order to take care of the less fortunate. We should also not put in place, in my opinion, a welfare system that keeps people impoverished and beholden to the government for everything. I believe every program ought to have a job and responsibility attached to it...in other words, no freebies. If there is no incentive to better yourself, why should you? That is in full obvious view to anyone in this country who cares to actually go visit the poor neighborhoods and actually talk to those involved. If you want some real enlightenment, you should work in the welfare offices for awhile. You would get a much better picture of the real story out there.
I do not say this to be hateful, but I think it would behoove you to, along with reading your books and doing your research, that you try to talk to someone other than me, because obviously you think I am a demon from the nether world, but perhaps someone without a political agenda who has worked for years in welfare (as I have) and get a real picture of how it works. To use your words, it is a great disservice to people to keep them in poverty through programs instead of trying to help them to a better life off a check. The problem is Teddy...there are thousands if not millions who prefer the life on the check. And that is no one's fault but yours and mine and everyone else's who has not sought to really help them...to provide the checks and balances you described.
The opposition is going to fight the other side...
no matter who it is. George Washington was the only president that did not face opposition to his being the president - at least for the first term. Mind you, he was not elected to his first term and after his first four years when he was asked to serve another four, he was beaten down from both sides so much so that he swore he would never enter into politics again. This is the father of our country - the man who helped win our freedom from England! If he can't escape from being shot down at every turn, what makes anyone else who runs for president think they can? It's the nature of the beast and comes with the job.
What's the old saying? You can make some of the people happy some of the time, but you can't make all of the people happy all of the time.
Yeah, right. Hamas squelches any opposition, so you can't
really call their elections democracy in action.
Yeah, right. Hamas squelches any opposition, so you can't
really call their elections democracy in action.
I found several opposition articles and will post the high points....
and actually I was surprised to see that there were some common concerns and actually very little concerning *a move toward socialized medicine.* This is what I found:
Proposals to expand coverage to children from families earning three or four times the federal poverty limit ($61,940 and $82,600, respectively, for a family of four) also highlights the question of just how many should be subsidized, necessarily at others' expense. The $61,940 eligibility limit would cover median-income families in 14 states, and the $82,600 limit would do so in 42 states. Parents earning such incomes do not need additional subsidies for their children to get health care.
************************
Baucus, Grassley Comment
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the committee's ranking Republican Chuck Grassley (Iowa) jointly requested the CBO study but "had divergent views of its findings," according to CQ Today.
Baucus, who supports spending $50 billion over five years to expand SCHIP, said the report validates the program. CQ Today reports that Baucus "expressed little concern" that people would leave private insurance plans to enroll in SCHIP, saying that every public health insurance program provides coverage to some people who might be able to obtain private health insurance (CQ Today, 5/10). Baucus said, "The fact that uninsurance for children in higher-income families has stayed about the same means that SCHIP is helping the lower-income families it's meant to serve."
Grassley said the report supports his argument that SCHIP eligibility should not be expanded beyond 200% of the poverty level. He said, "This report tells us that Congress needs to make sure that whatever it does, it should actually result in more kids having health insurance, rather than simply shifting children from private to public health insurance" (CongressDaily, 5/10).
****************************
SCHIP is a joint state-federal program that provides health coverage to 6.6 million children from families that live above the poverty line but have difficulty paying for private insurance. Already, the program is generous. A family of four with an income of more than $72,000 (350% of the federal poverty level) is eligible for SCHIP's subsidized insurance. Now, Congress wants to expand coverage even further, to families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($82,600 for a family of four). But, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 89% of families earning between 300% and 400% of the federal poverty level already have coverage. The CBO estimates that some 2 million kids already covered under private insurance would be switched over to government insurance. The only purpose of all of this seems to be to turn children's health insurance into an outright entitlement — part of the Democrat's broader push to move all of America's health-care industry under government control.
Along with expanding SCHIP coverage to include people higher and higher up in the middle class, the Democrats' bill would also give states incentives to sign up aggressively new "clients," by loosening requirements to join the program and encouraging states to market the program (anyone who rides the New York City subway knows how active the Empire State is already being on this front). How is all of this to be funded? Well, the bill would impose a 61-cent increase in the 39-cent a pack federal cigarette tax, bringing it up to an even dollar. We've written before on how corrupt is the government's interest in the cigarette business. It turns out that the government needs to keep people smoking; the Heritage Foundation estimates the government would need to sign up some 22 million more Americans to take up smoking by 2017 to fund this increase in SCHIP. To add to the irony, most smokers are low-income Americans, meaning that the poor essentially will be funding the health insurance of the middle class. Mr. Bush would be right to veto it while working to increase access to private insurance through tax breaks and deregulation.
****************************
So, it would appear to me that the major problems some have against it are: it will shift children who are now covered by private insurance onto a program unncessarily; it will allow for more adults on the program, something that was never intended; that paying for it with a tobacco tax targets the very people who need the assistance, the lower income families as statistically that is where the most smokers are...essentially shifting the burden for adding middle class families to the lower income families...and I think we can all agree that is not a good thing.
In my research I also found something VERY interesting...
I am sorry to say I did not know the particulars of the President's proposal regarding insuring children...only his proposal extends to everyone, not just children...sure have not seen the media report it....
Opposing view: President's plan is better
Extend SCHIP program without spending billions to expand it.
By Mike Leavitt
We all want to see every American insured, and President Bush has proposed a plan to see that everyone is. Congress, instead, is pushing a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that grows government without helping nearly as many children.
The president's plan, announced last January, would fix our discriminatory tax policy so that every American family received a $15,000 tax break for purchasing health insurance. If Congress acted on the president's plan, nearly 20 million more Americans would have health insurance, according to the independent Lewin Group.
In contrast, Democrats in Congress would more than double government spending on SCHIP and extend the program to families earning as much as $83,000 a year. But their plan would add fewer than 3 million children to SCHIP, and many of the newly eligible children already have private insurance. So instead of insuring nearly 20 million more Americans privately, Congress would spend billions of dollars to move middle-income Americans off private insurance and onto public assistance.
The Democrats' plan has other problems. It would fund SCHIP's expansion with a gimmick that hides its true cost. It would allocate billions of dollars more than is needed to cover eligible kids. And it would allow states to continue diverting SCHIP money from children to adults. This is a boon for the states but costs the federal government more.
Ideology is really behind the Democrats' plan. They trust government more than the free choices of American consumers. Some in Congress want the federal government to pay for everyone's health care, and expanding SCHIP is a step in that direction.
SCHIP is part of the fix for low-income children, and Congress should put politics aside and send the president a clean, temporary extension of the current program. Expanding SCHIP is not the only way or the best way to insure the uninsured. The president's plan is better. It would benefit many more Americans. It would focus SCHIP on the children who need help most. And it would move us more sensibly toward our common goal of every American insured.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think a $15,000 tax break would help more American families afford health insurance, thereby covering more kids AND adults, which is the goal, right? And no raising of taxes or targeting the lower income families with a tobacco tax...sounds like a win-win. I don't care if it is Bush's idea or the Democratic Congress' idea...it is a good idea. This time it happened to be Bush's.
Just my take on it.
If you want to find the articles, just put *expanding SCHIP* in a Google search. I read several articles in support of both sides. I did not see much about the income leveling, except in one article, which did mention that New York had a "sliding scale." It did not define it, but I am thinking it is at the purview of the states, and if New York did it others probably could too?
The so called liberal media is not so liberal anymore...sm
Case and point Fox News is the #1 media outlet via ratings and hardhitting conservative anchors, pundits, and journalists. Other than Hardball, I don't know of another mainstream show that puts the liberal point of view out there and checks this administration and their policies.
liberal hit piece by a liberal deep thinker....
x
Jon, our voice
Isn't it amazing the length that people that have such closed minds will go to, a matter of loss of control.
another voice from
the "you are on your own party" that the next prez, Barack, talked about in his wonderful acceptance speech.
In the voice of........
Rodney King "why can't we all just get along." Name-calling serves no purpose. Can't we just refer to ourselves as Americans. Can we agree to disagree? I see a bright future. I am sorry your future is so dark and meaningless.
So because you don't like her voice and demeanor? (sm)
You aren't voting for your high school class president, or best personality for your year book. You need to base your decision on facts.
that voice is like a needle in the eye!...
Aw, the voice of wisdom.
x
Thank you - the voice of reason (nm)
x
no, it's not about Voice recognition, it's about
using medical computerized charts and "check boxes" if you will... cutting out the work of the MT by using generic charts and filling in information... at least where i come from
I am all for EMR, just not voice recognition -
EMR is just a way of keeping up with your records and not having all the paper at a bunch of different doctor's office.
Voice recognition on the other hand is what is killing our profession. Of course, the hospital I just left implemented voice recognition the week I left and the feedback from my ex-coworkers so far is that the Transcriptionist hate the system, the doctors hate the system, and they are already thinking about having to change it --- and they actually only bought the initial license for 10 of the 200 doctors to use the voice (and they put the good American doctors in that 10, of course).
I don't think that transcription will totally be replaced by computers in my lifetime at least, but I do think as technology advances, transcription will face even more changes.
We all have to keep in mind that typing these reports is based on an antiquated concept and that as the doctors are getting younger and younger, it means they have grown up using all this new technology that our older doctors did not have and are resistant to.
Like it or not, Obama or not, times are achangin'!
Thanks Dem for the lone sane voice here
Thanks for affirming that the *genocide* comment was was WAYYY off base. There is a difference between you and the far leftists here, and the gap widens between the two on a daily basis.
Ann Coulter is a very vocal (sometimes over vocal) conservative. Many of us don't always agree with her approach or tactics. However, Ann says what she feels, and her free speech is as protected as anyone elses. Now, when Michael Moore says the same things in the same way and in the same style he's lauded here. So, to say that people like Ann are uniquely on the right is completely untruthful.
Ann is out to make money, of course! So is Michael Moore, and to a large extent so are the 9/11 widows. I don't minimize their loss, but I think exploiting their husband's memory for money politics, and 15 minutes of fame is pretty low.
Jewish Voice For Peace
It is Jewish Voice For Peace.Org, not Jewish Voices For Peace as I previously posted. Sorry.
Another voice in Utah last week.
This is quite long but if you just read the the last lines, the no mores, it will move you. While our **leaders** were out there borrowing rhetoric from WWII and not from the good guys either, the mayor of Salt Lake City had some words of his own to share.
I have not been on the boards much lately because I just don't know what to say. There is so much that is so wrong that I am completely overwhelmed, so much death, so much torture, so much pain, so much greed, so much **depraved indifference***, so much deceit and on and on and on. I am grateful there are still those who can put words together and produce a piece of coherent outrage. The mayor of Salt Lake is one of them.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0902-03.htm
|
