OCinBuffalo

....but since we believe in government control of everything anyway, we might as well go ahead and begin a gradual process of nationalizing health care, since Big Insurance is the same as Big Government anyway. Yes. Literally. Yes. Oh, and don't forget, we will "create" even more government jobs this way. Didn't you see the recent VA commercials? They're hiring. Hell, if we keep this up we'll really take a bite out of unemployment! We'll just keep hiring more and more government workers! Then we'll tax all the rich people at 70%, and corporations at 90%, so we can pay our new employees....this is a perfect plan, and it's gonna work out great! Just wait until phase 2, when we can finally start imposing the wage and price controls!! Now we will finally get back to what we were trying to do before we were so rudely interrupted in 1979.

ahh but 59 votes is not enough for cloture...so, no, 59-41 = fail. Epic fail if you are Obama. From the political perspective? They lose either way, but, they have a choice of taking the much lesser evil here. If they pass this, the political consequences are deadly. OTOH, time heals all wounds. If they were to back off, now, and try again, they have enough time to limit the losses they will take in November. The smart political play is to start over, and then do a series of one liner, gotcha bills like "no pre-existing conditons, yes or no", and then kill all those who vote yes. Rinse and Repeat. From the real world perspective? So far none, exactly 0 of the health care bills/presentations/websites I have read have any hope of cutting cost. Medicare fraud? Really? Do people understand that the main reason for the "fraud" is bad regulations in the first place? Consider: you have 3 nursing home residents, with the exact same health history in the same place. One is private pay, one is on Medicaid, one is on Medicare. You run the home, and you have to pay all the bills/your people/yourself. You get ON AVERAGE $80-120 per day for the private resident(low end). You get $65 a day for the Medicare resident, and $28 a day for the Medicaid resident. Your cost for each bed is $40 per day. Not cost to run the home on the whole(no indirect costs), just to run that bed. What's obvious here? Don't take Medicaid residents, right? Or, if you do, replace them with private pay people as soon as they become available. Ahh, but that's where the dopey government regs come in. IF you have an empty bed, you lose money. So, you take medicare patients to fill those beds. BUT, Medicare patients are only entitled to 6 months of nursing home care per year. And, if you take Medicare residents, then you HAVE to take Medicaid residents. GOTCHA! Also, for fun, once you take a resident? You can't get rid of them unless: they die, they choose to leave, or they do something bad...and that requires a big long legal process = $. What else? Medicare patients that have a medical reason to stay turn into: Medicaid patients, if they can't pay. Most elderly are "poor"(because they give all their money away to their kids, voluntarily or not), so they automatically turn into Medicaid patients. BTW, Medicaid was intended to provide health care for young workers who got severely hurt or were severely disabled. 90% of it is being spent on the elderly who are neither young or working, and you wonder why I talk about liberal-generated unintended consequences so much? Now you just got yourself into losing money all over the place in your home, because filling a few open beds seemed like a good idea...5 years ago. So what do you do? You charge your private pay people MORE! You cover your losses. And, I haven't even gotten into how reimbursement really works. We have just been using averages. However, you can't keep raising your private pay rates...you will eventually have no private pay people. And, btw, you have to GIVE THE SAME CARE to private play people as everybody else, and fines/loss of licenses will occur if you don't. So, you have to provide services that cost the same, for people who are paying differently. Yeah, that makes sense. Finally, you have to squeeze out money from each resident as best you can, so, you have your nurses constantly check for anything, however small, that can upgrade reimbursement. But, they rely on $6 an hour employees to tell them what they are doing at 3am on a Saturday, and, these nurses have most of their time chewed up filling out mountains of absolutely useless government regulated forms/care plans and a host of other crap. So, they spend more time of government enforced paper pushing than the do with the residents. And, the government has gone out of its way to make a reimbursement "instrument" that makes the simple complex, the complex arbitrary, and ignores all reason. For example, you get more money for passing a food tray to an independent diabetic amputee(5 min task), than you do for dressing/helping an otherwise healthy dementia resident(may take as much as an hour, could take much longer). Meanwhile, the state regulators, who are private companies that get paid by how much they "getcha" run around fining people for untied shoe laces and "dirty sneakers", and telling everybody that "there's tons of fraud out there!" Jackasses hear that and say: AH HA! That's where we will save money! It's the FRAUD! You want a debate? HA! That's the current medicare system, pal. It's bad enough we subject our elderly and everybody else involved to Medicaid/Medicare. Now you want to extend that to everybody? Not much of a debate now is there?

Not really. Actually, I am not taking much pleasure in this at all. This if far too important, and dangerous to our economy if it is allowed to proceed. The "base everything on DRGs" financial allocation crap is the worst. Most people don't understand the severe consequences, both intended and unintended, that this idea brings with it. I do, and it's not pretty. Imagine if: you can't get a kidney transplant because...everybody else isn't...but, you can get dentures, because everybody else is. That's a simplification, but it's fairly accurate. Essentially this "cost savings" is not about actually going after real cost...as we would in cost accounting. Instead, its about averaging health care allocation, and then giving out "averaged" health care. Why would we want to go from getting good health care...to average, and have it cost more, because we STILL didn't do anything REAL to cut cost? Anybody who has ever worked at the executive level of any business understands this. I would venture to guess that many low level workers do as well. Hmmm. Have Obama and the rest of the supporters of this bill largely ever done this kind of work, at any level? No. It's simple really: they are ignorant. But yeah, I can't wait for what they come up with next... Yes, they do. And, we had one, in Massachusetts, recently, that gave the Republicans in the Senate 41 votes. Perhaps you were away? The rules are the rules, elections matter, and Scott Brown ran as Vote #41 against this health care bill, and won, in Mass. of all places. That should have been enough right then and there, because, Elections Matter. But, instead, we are talking about cute ways to circumvent the rules. You want an up or down vote? OK. 59-41 against, bill fails. Why hasn't that happened, if, Elections Matter?

In another sense? I think it's laughable that the "poor Obama" articles have already started. They did the same thing with Carter: "Boy, you know? He really tried, he really wanted to do a good job, but, he just got overcome by circumstances. Carter's chief of staff was a great political man, and he really knew how to run campaigns, but he had a tough time governing." They never say: let's take a hard look at the ideas, which have been proven over and over to our unending consternation to blatantly suck. Also, please explain how "Obama is four clicks to my left on most issues" and "Obama as a president trying to define a modern brand of moderate progressivism" belong in the same article? So...he is a leftist moderate? Or, if Obama is 4 clicks to the left of this guy, and, Obama is a moderate, does that make this guy Republican? How about: this guy is a supposed Republican, who started out as a liberal, who works for the NY times. It suffices to say: this guy is confused at best. Or better, this guy is catching hell from the people he works with to put a Republican face on the "poor Obama" story they have to write in a lame attempt to stop the bleeding. Ask yourself: how many things has he done that he campaigned on? Never mind, ask yourself: he talked a ton about the way he would do things, name one example of how the way he is doing things is different than a DC insider Democrat. The reason he has found a way to piss off both sides of the house is: 1. he promised things he had no intention of doing(ending the wars, closing Gitmo, etc.), or worse, he simply wasn't aware of the real situation while a candidate, and, didn't understand that he simply COULD NOT do those things until confronted with the truth and the consequences of such actions, once they became his responsibilities, not merely BushBad abstractions 2. he promised delivering policy that would be debated in the light of day and that had been worked on by both sides. Apparently he actually believed that his personality alone would command enough fear or respect to demand compliance. I really think that his own ego is the problem here: he honestly thought that his "greatness"(unearned) would simply scare the Republicans away, and bend the laws of economics, finance, management, accounting, hell physics for that matter. As I have said so many times, logic is logic, truth is truth, and nobody's ego, no matter how large, changes that.

In one sense? I agree about the cocoon thing. Just look at most of the threads started by the usual suspects: if its on the home page of Media Matters/Daily Kos/MoveOn.org there is a 95% chance it will end up as a thread here. The funny part is: the thread starters don't seem to understand why, and I think that in most cases they are surprised, when they leave their cocoon with their little tidbit, and post it here, that many of us who subscribe to logic/truth first, excoriate it/them. For example: logic dictates that we read and understand a document before we agree to it. The current health care bill has not been read or understood by anybody...because, in truth, there is no current health care bill. Obama's Bill amounts to a power point presentation. So, it doesn't exist. Nobody should be voting for something they haven't read/don't understand, doubly so if it doesn't exist. Supporting a concept is not the same as supporting a law. Again, logically, the first is theory, the second is reality. Yet, given this, because we can't support the health care law until we have read and understood it, we are being told by the cocoon people that we don't support health care reform, we hate poor people, we are only interested in Republicans taking over, and ultimately that we are all stupid. The point is: these so-called conclusions are not those of the cocoon people, they are the conclusions of the people who run the cocoon. It remains to be seen when, if ever, the cocoon people will realize that the reason we call them idiots is because they keep coming here with their cocoon buffoonery.

Well, I wasn't wrong: I told hedd to continue because it was amusing me. I continue to be amused. This thread is the best example of straw grasping, or, "any port in the storm", or, flailing about in a sea of nonsense. I am sure I can find other metaphors but the point has been made In the face of the factual certainty that Glenn Beck is not going anywhere, given his immense ratings, the far-left is reduced to attacking advertisers. They can't defeat the message, so it's time to try attacking the messenger. It doesn't end there. Just wait, since that won't work either, they will be attacking the people who receive the message next. So, everybody get ready to be called idiots on November 3rd, just like in 1994, all over again. This thread is not about SEEDS. This thread is about Hedd's lame attempt at veiling his parroting of Keith Olbermann. The funny part is: no rational person cares enough about what Olbermann/MSNBC/CNN is saying to even bother looking into who is advertising on their shows. They simply aren't that relevant. All they do is provide ridiculous commentary that is either ignored or mocked. What relevance they do have is derived in the same way as the Washington Generals derive their relevance from the Harlem Globetrotters: they happen to be in the same game as Fox. The only way anybody even knows they exist is that O'Reilly, etc. keeps dunking on them. They are literally the other guy in the highlight reel. Kind of like Bishop Hedd here. Look on the bright side Hedd: at least you are a metaphorical player, and not merely a cone, like Conner/Molson/Bad Lieutenant.

Glenn Beck's rating since he took over at 5pm A picture really is worth 1k words, huh? To borrow from one of the comments in the link: your "futile efforts" at wishing your way into marginalizing Beck are laughable. This is just like health care...you can't wish your way into getting what you want. I'm no big fan, but, come on. As was said above: You must be confusing Beck/Murdoch with Al Franken/George Soros. Soros was the one who was dumping cash by the bucketload into Fanken...not Murdoch into Beck. Soros accounted for 80% of Air America's budget for 2 years, and then gave up. Beck's ratings alone means he will have no problem getting advertisers for the foreseeable future. You and Keith Olbermann need to get a grip. Business is based on reality, not on your wishes. But go ahead and continue please, you and Olbermann's self-delusions are amusing me.

This is an excellent post. Too bad that not enough here will read it...since it isn't a one liner...and even less will understand it. The problem, just like with environmentalism, is that the REAL issues get crowded out by a political horsecrap. Make no mistake, there are REAL examples of racist policies in both the private and public sectors. Anybody who has ever seen the modern day chain gangs in the South, and knows about the drug-related entrapment that goes on regularly in order to provide the "resources" for those gangs, will tell you this. That's a real racism problem, and it knows no political party. Essentially, they have found a way to re-legalize slavery. Except this time? It's the government doing it, not some rich land owner, and the slave labor they have created means they don't have to raise taxes to pay for public works projects. But instead, we are distracted by people playing politics crying "racist" amongst the Tea Party people? WTF? Some dude holding a poster sitting in a lawn chair is not oppressing anybody. Real people who are really concerned about real racism have to stand up and tell these people to stop crying wolf and keeping us from focusing on the real problems. Unfortunately, for far too many...it's simply easier to go along with the idiot MSNBC haters.

I did as well. You know when somebody says something dopey in a meeting...that awkward silence right after? That's what it felt like. Then, the idiot insult to the idiot injury were those supposedly grown men and women in the cabinet acting like they were hazing a Dolphin fan at a bar. Immature. Classless. But honestly, given how they have been acting since Bush won in 2000? Not that surprising.

I heard somebody(think it was Krauthammer) say something interesting the other day: Essentially, Republican Vs. Democrat is over....we are going to have a "war" in this country between private sector people that create wealth and public sector people that have been voting themselves the ability to take that wealth. Its interesting because I think that is the best way to look at NYS government's issues, and, per the OP, NJ's issues as well. My money's on the private sector people, and not just because I am one.

Hehe ....So I guess we can chalk this thread up as one more "irrational/classless attack" on Palin huh? Looks like they are going to have to learn the hard way. Can't wait until they start blaming everybody else but themselves as she gains even more support.

Clearly you don't understand: 1. Politics 2. The old media 3. The new media 4. My point 5. The Oprah-fied, "everybody is a victim" culture that many are trying to force on us. and therefore, I am done with you on this topic. The second you get a clue about 1-5, will be the same second you understand what I am saying. Although, I am glad that you don't understand #5. If only more people didn't understand/rejected it as well.

Please do. I am going to enjoy laughing at you and your attempts at proving that Democrats are smarter than everybody else, by attacking Palin. An immunized Palin is your worst nightmare...no Democrat could possibly win against that, because, every time they disagreed, it could easily be spun into "they are attacking Paling again". Essentially its a no win situation. Every legitimate argument would be impossible to separate from the nonsense ones, and frankly people simply get sick of hearing the same thing all the time. Even if it's not the same thing, if it sounds like it, it will get flushed down the same toilet. I am not convinced that Palin is the right person, now or later, to be an American President. I am convinced however, that continuing to attack her, no matter what she says/does, is just as "f'ing retarded" as continuing to push the public option.

Another shining example of Democrat tactics serving to get them the EXACT OPPOSITE of their intended purpose. I think it's hysterical....and there seems to be no end in sight...so we can count on many laughs for years to come And these are the people who have convinced themselves they are smarter than we are? Ads that resurrect the public option? That give the Republicans the "See, they are still trying to have the government take over health care" talking point on a silver platter? All over again? The best part: this stays funny, because there is no way in hell it will be successful. Just remember it was Rahm Emmanuel, not me, who first called these people "f'ing retarded" for continuing to push the public option. That makes one(1) thing we agree on

Right...that's why there aren't multiple replies to my posts in this thread. That's why there aren't 3 pages of replies to my tax thread. Got anymore nonsense you are trying to sell? Of course you do.. You really don't understand the dynamic here do you? She's not gaining support from dumb-ass people that support her. Last time I explain this: Every time she gets irrationally/unfairly attacked she gains additional supporters/or derives even more support from people that like her. The cause is idiots like you talking about what she wrote on her hand, the effect is she gains more support. Get it? Finally? Dumbed down version: Stop attacking Palin over every little stupid thing, or, you will get the exact opposite of what you want: giving Palin more power. Keep attacking Palin over every little stupid thing? Do it enough times? And you may achieve the ultimate idiot goal: President Palin. How much laughing are you going to be doing then? It is really that hard to understand? This board is a form of media and many many people consume it. So, yeah, by definition, you are part of the, albeit NEW, media. More nonsense... Then stop attacking Palin for every stupid thing...or you will get the exact opposite of what you would rather see. Let's see.... Because I am neither irrational, or, obsessed with Palin, guess what? I don't give a flying f what she says. That's right, I couldn't care less. But, who started this thread? Who can't stop talking about Palin? Who keeps attacking her for every stupid thing? Not me. You want to talk about mirrors? IF Palin gets elected, you might as well wear a mirror helmet, this way you will be able to see who caused that to happen 24/7. Reading comprehension is apparently not your strongest suit huh? Where did I say anything about who is a good, or bad, President? That is IRRELEVANT to my point. If you want to have a discussion about that, perhaps you should start a "President Reagan, Good/Bad thread"...or, maybe you should start another Palin thread. Whether Palin is a tool, or not, has no bearing whatsoever on this. If it did, then your 24/7 attacks, "start 8k threads about how stupid she is" plan would be working. She is gaining support, not losing it, so clearly, your plan is stupid. Keep running it though...I think its hysterical, and highly entertaining... More nonsense.... Well, you could have fooled me. I have a 5 year old cousin who I am certain can understand the point I am making. You haven't, and I have explained it 5 times...all you have done is babble, bring up the irrelevant, put words in my mouth, and whine...5 years old? Suddenly that doesn't seem like such a stretch. I am just kidding, but, come on, is this really that hard to get? Calling her out? You guys attack her over jewelry, and you think that = calling her out? Again, I am CERTAINLY not telling you to stop. Why spoil my fun? I am merely explaining the consequences of not stopping this foolishness. Right now, it appears that every time this bad behavior occurs, Palin gains more support...just like Reagan did. It's your choice, and I am not telling you what to do, but you might want to re-think the bad behavior.

Perhaps....but, if this silliness continues? It won't matter. Look, a large part of the culture lives in a "everybody is a victim" delusional state. And, the more that Palin is "victimized" by irrational criticism(as you say, choice of jewelry, etc.) the more support she gains. Whether she is material or not, the idiots keep feeding her support with their irrational criticism. I'm not talking about whether she would be a good President or not. I am talking about: Democrats have been extremely consistent in choosing poor tactics that tend to bring about the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they intend. As in, How's that Gay Marriage thing working out fellas? 45 states now with Anti-Gay marriage laws?....great work Democrats...the sum of your efforts have taken us from a legal question that most people had an open mind about....to "kick in the nuts, no f'ing way" gay marriage bans. I am sure all the gay people that wanted to get married appreciate your efforts...idiots. Ultimately, I am describing a simple process based on cause(idiocy) and effect(creating support for a presumed idiot in Palin). Oh, and while the presumed idiot is amusing....she is nowhere near as fun to laugh at as the idiots causing major problems for themselves with their own bad behavior, and are apparently too stupid to see its effect....while at the same time, telling us that they are smarter than we are? Now that is just funny, I don't care who you are I cannot think of a better case for applying the words "f'ing retarded".

I don't want to say I told you so....but.... Looks like Obama is willing to raise taxes on people making LESS than $250k also Many of us here are not shocked. Some of us here are WRONG, once again. Man, it must get old being WRONG 80% of the time. You guys should form a club, this way you can comfort yourselves, after you spend 16 months shooting your mouths off and then Obama turns on you/makes you a liar, again. I am not saying that he will definitely raise taxes on the middle class, but, he really doesn't have a choice given his propensity to spend. The bottom line is: he definitively said he would NOT do this, now, at the very least he is considering it....so, add that to one long list of disingenuous statements those of you in the WRONG club told us were reasons why we should elect Obama. God help him if he actually goes the whole way and actually breaks the promise....in the middle of a recession....killing jobs/growth.....doing exactly what I said he would do.....and renewing the membership cards of the WRONG club once again

Yeah, way to cower away, candyass. The real answer here is you can't respond to what I said, so you head for the the escape hatch. One more time: Every time you irrationally attack Palin, every time you attack her for every single thing big, small, infinitesimal, every time you take out the giant broad brush and paint her, and inadvertently contradict yourself, facts, reason....you are doing the same thing that was done to Reagan. In his case, Democrats "cried wolf" so many times, people started to ignore them. And, they REALLY ignored them when Reagan's "crazy" policies started to work(of all things). The net result of this is: Reagan could do whatever he wanted, right/wrong/indifferent, could make whatever gaffe, could actually screw up important things....and it was always the same "yeah, yeah, Democrats we have heard it all before", even when there were legit issues = Iran/Contra, etc. You keep this Palin nonsense up, and you are going to put her in the exact same position, and then guess what? It doesn't matter if she is an idiot, because every time we hear you bitching about her, it will be about you bitching(again )...and not her. So, you are forcing the comparison...because of your bad behavior. Stop the bad behavior, and no magic involved, the comparison will go away as well.

Nothing so far.... Somehow I think this isn't going to be the same as listening to WGR on the first night/day of FA.

You REEEAAALLLLYYYY aren't getting it are you? Let's try again: every single sorry-assed argument you are making about Palin was made, if not doubly so, about Reagan. You are forcing the comparison, because I know I have heard this all before...from the people who constantly criticized Reagan. That's right....stop doing the same exact thing to Palin that you did to Reagan, and the comparison goes away. This should be a relatively simple concept to grasp. An objective observer should be able to see what is happening here. Are you looking at this objectively? Look, I am not the one who can't keep myself from starting Palin threads. You do realize that this obsession you have will only serve to immunize her, just like it did Reagan, and, make Democrats look even more impotent, just like Carter, right? Fair enough, I am betting at least 50% of Democrats feel the same way. But, that doesn't mean that they didn't use the far-left ridiculousness to gain power.....4 years ago, not 1. I notice you conveniently left out the fact that Democrats have had control of Congress for 4 years. I guarantee that has as much to do with this, if not more, than Obama's consistent screw-ups. I know plenty about it, and certainly I know more about it than you do. I think the most FAIR way to look at it is: Bush was given a no-win situation. Either he chooses war, and is wrong, or, chooses no war, looks weak, empowers Saddam and the rest of the tin-horn dictators out there, and sets an unhealthy precedent that Europe, and not us, controls what we do with our military. If anything, I blame Bush's NSC for Iraq...they put him in that situation, and, rather than cowering in the corner, or, leaving it to Congress(ahem, Obama), Bush stepped up and made the call. It was the wrong call, and Bush paid for it, sort of. But, even as a supposed "blatant idiot, and a great liar" , at the same time, he beat the Democrats and got re-elected. By and large Americans understood that he did what he thought was right, given the information he had. Making decisions, even bad ones, is always better than making no decisions. Yes, I honestly believe that it would be different...because...McCain would be promising and delivering things that work and that he could actually do, based on the real world and based on his experience. Again, you are missing the point: it's not so much the person as it is the policies and/or the ideological blinders. Look at Obama, and look at Bush: both refuse to remove their blinders. In contrast, McCain has been criticized by Republicans for years. Why? Because he doesn't wear the same blinders that people like Bush/Obama wear. And, the fact is that Obama's "spend your way out of the recession" policies simply don't work. We know this, because Jimmy Carter already tried them once, and failed. Obama, and the rest of the far-left doesn't seem to want to learn from history. Instead, they want to drive their agenda for as long as they can...and are therefore doomed. Again. Fair enough. I thought this thread was about Palin....and now we are talking about Bush/the Republican Congress? Well, yeah, there's no way we can afford the Medicare prescription drug program. In fact, we had an opportunity to save all of the LBJ/FDR programs, but that window is all but closed. We should have raised taxes to pay for the Iraq war, and done it with a REAL occupying Army that could secure captured territory, protect its communication lines, and secure the borders of the country. In all cases, there is little doubt that we have seen a lot of screw ups from the Republicans...but none of that justifies even more screw ups from Democrats, especially ones that are based on ideology, and not common sense: one-sided health care reform with exactly 0 real, cost-cutting provisions, Global Horseschit, closing GITMO, or treating terrorist like criminals. People aren't pissed at Obama because of who he is, or his earnest commitment to do as well as he can, and we all know he got dealt a schitty hand. People are pissed because instead of putting aside the nonsense ideology, denying himself, and especially his team, the ability to make excuses by blaming Bush, and getting real problems really solved, he is flailing around in a sea of nonsense and most importantly ignoring 80% of the American people in favor of his little 20% crew of ball-washers. EDIT: and no, that 20% is nowhere near "smarter" than the rest of us.

Yawn! When oh when will they ever get it? Do you think the reason Reagan ended up being so very effective, and Jimmy Carter so very ineffective, was due to their "momentum" and the rest of the BS you wrote, or their policies? Sarah Palin could spend her entire Presidency wearing nothing but a thong and a sandwich board...but, if that sandwich board read: Cut spending, Cut taxes, Cut Bureaucracy, Win Wars...she'd have 10 times the chance of the being a better President than ole' Barry....because those policies will haul our asses out of this mess, and Barry's, just like Jimmy's before him, will haul them further in. Ahh....it's nice when when a far-left person details in techincolor the entire playbook of the supposedly "anti-war" crowd. Right, so, based on this: it's fair to say that Micheal Moore, Cindy Sheehan, the dopey Europeans and some here....who added very little to that conversation except "BushBad", "SurgeBad", "GitmoBad", but have either been wrong about, or, have provided not one single idea/solution that is superior to the existing policy, are also most likely out for their own political agenda = the Democrats taking Congress in 2006. Glad to see that we have all that cleared up now: yes, opposition to the Iraq war was 90% political, 10% lack of understanding, and 0% based on some sort of moral superiority. Come again? John McCain, who has spent every minute he has been on TV that I have ever seen talking about cutting spending.....would have what now? Ron Paul? ARUFKME? ' You don't seem to get it: Obama's IDEOLOGY demands that he spend and spend like a drunken sailor....and that's why he won't stop: he's not a Clinton-esque pragmatist. He seems to me, right now anyway, to still be the naive campaign worker who honestly believes what is written on the bumper stickers he is handing out. He doesn't want to deal with the reality and even if he did, he really doesn't know how. Unfortunately for him, a world that doesn't function according to his ideology has never existed, even though it really does. Unfortunately for us, he is finding out much too late that most college professor culture/thinking is spawned in an totally unrealistic setting: um, college.

Cripes! I spend a few weeks away from here....and what a shocker! Yet another Sarah Palin thread.... "Alex, I'll take 'Maniacal Obsession for $200' please".... "In 2010 the Democrats failed to live up to even one of their lofty promises, didn't even try to govern, and instead chose to focus all of their attention this political pundit and her cable news employer." "Who is Sarah Palin?" "Correct!" Ding! Go ahead....say Palin/Bush...one more time.

Technically, it's wepwesentative Fudd.

I have a 2 part question: 1. We are constantly being told that we need to accept, or at least tolerate, other cultures, ideas, etc. In fact, it is often stated, if not implied, that NOT being tolerant = you are immoral. Michale Vick saw his first dog fight at 7 yrs old. Dog Fighting was indeed a part of his culture. This presents a dilemma: if we are supposed to be tolerant of "alternative culture", shouldn't we therefore be tolerant of dog fighting? Let's also remember there is a long history of rooster fighting in Latin American culture as well, shouldn't we be tolerant of that? 2. If your answer to #1 is no, or better no f'ing way, then what are you basing that on? How do you define what is tolerable? Let's say its some standard like: we don't tolerate cultures/the parts of a culutre that support destructive behavior. How does that square with things like: most rap lyrics? or, glorification of "keeping it real" rather than going to school and getting an eduction? The continued risky behavior of not using condoms/sharing of needles re: spreading HIV? All of that is also destructive behavior. So, what do you base your "tolerance standard" on?

Every day for a year straight? Crazy Train at 5 in the morning. And no, it wasn't my idea.